Why is Roberto Duran usually rank higher than Ray Leonard?
Here is a comparison of Duran's and Leonard's notable opponents
Roberto Duran: 1. vs. Leonard - Fairly wins 1st fight but lose 2 rematches 2. vs. Hearns - Lost via KO 3. vs. Hagler - Lose by UD 4. vs. Wilfred Benitez - Lose by UD 5. vs. Hector Camacho - Twice lost but forgivable because he wasn't in his prime
I give him credit for fairly beating a prime Leonard, but his W-L-D record against these notable fighters is a mere 1-7-0
Sugar Ray Leonard 1. vs. Roberto Duran - Lose the first one but manage to pull a comeback in next 2 fights 2. vs. Hearns - Wins 1st fight and draws the 2nd. 3. vs. Hagler - SD win 4. vs. Wilfred Benitez - Wins TKO 5. vs. Camacho - Lose, but also acceptable because leonard is not in his prime
Leonard's W-L-D against Duran's common opponent is 5-2-1.
I must admit that Duran was unstoppable at 140 and lower. But he was totally ineffective at 147 and above, where most of his notable fights took place. I am not a Duran hater. Just want someone to justify why he should be ranked higher than Leonard.
Anonymous2010-06-13T00:15:26Z
Favorite Answer
This is a question one would ask if they only recognize those 7 names and not know much or anything about the other fighters on their records especially Duran's and that those fighters do not solely define the record of Duran like they do with Leonard.
Another couple of points:
-Leonard had a relatively short career while Duran really outlasted him.
-Leonard's win and draw with Hearns taken at face value look much better than they actually are, his first fight was a come from behind TKO which I think was early and I thought Hearns should of won a competitive but clear decision in their second fight.
-Duran's lightweight run may not be the best the division has ever seen but it definetly top three and his record at the weight was something like 60-1 against excellent competition and his one loss was a split decision against the great Esteban DeJesus.
-Duran was inconsistent at 147 and above but he could be very effective from 147 up to 168 pounds where he beat some very good fighters in their primes at those weights and everywhere in between throughout the years. Ask Davey Moore, Iran Barkley, Carlos Palomino, all excellent fighters.
Accomplishment wise Leonard just didn't do enough to be ranked above Duran even though he beat him twice (the third time is a joke of a fight anyway).
Because Duran was a natural Lightweight, and vs Leonard, Hearns, Hagler and Benitez he was fighting way above his optimum weight, and Camacho?! Duran was nearly 50 years old at the time. When it comes to evaluating Duran on the all time great list most people go on his achievements as a lightweight and at this weight he was unstoppable. He was champion for seven years and as a lightweight went 62-1 and was in many peoples opinion the greatest lightweight of all time.
Roberto Duran was best as a lightweight 135 pounds he was unbeatable. He even had some good fights at higher weights beating Leonard at 147 and Barkley at 160. However Leonard at those weights was better. Leonard was never a lightweight as a pro. In an overall career i would give the edge to Duran for longevity but only at lightweight.
Duran was the lightweight champion for over 7 years and mostly was a smaller fighter than Leonard. He also won over 100 fights with multiple titles. Leonard is great and did beat him once but you have to look at the complete record of the two. How many fights did Leonard win? Both are great fighters without a doubt but Duran has the better overall record and held a title for the longer period than Leonard. In other words, who held a title the longest is my point.
Because Duran was better than Leonard, the guy was a lightweight (135 lbs) and won titles at 140, 147, 154, 160 and 168. He beat Barkley who twice beat Hearns, beat Leonard a feat neither Hearns, Hagler, Camacho or Benitez could pull off. He was as elite as any of the other three and a much smaller man physically then any of them.