if you're Billy Conn, which is better? an uncomfortable, sloppy decision win over middleweight Tony Zale or a brilliant display for 12 and a half rounds against at worst the 2nd best heavywight of all time? if you think the former, you are nuts
The problem is that you asked a perfectly valid question to a number of trolls and morons, so I wouldn't hold your breath... MTF
Leonard Lost to Duran and Kirkland Laing beat Duran. Dejesus beat Duran before Leonard did also. Hearns annihilated Duran. anyway...a person should not be given creadit for a loss. that's silly. Credit Leonard for winning teh rematch. Credit Leonard for beating Hearns and Hagler. Credit Leonard for beating Benitez but don't credit him for LOSING to Duran. It's not like everyone lost to Duran before or after Leonard as I've shown above by examples.
What a mess, eh? Messiness neatly circumvented by never fighting prime A class fighters in their own division.
why dont you try answering the question? Mayweather beats Carlos Hernandez by boring, unimpressive decision with a busted hand in a fight that no one remembers Mayweather shows true undeniable heart, skill, courage, greatness and lsoes a close decision in a classic fight against Manny Pacquiao which of those is BETTER for his legacy? AT THE TIME Ray Leonard fought Roberto Duran, Duran was HANDS DOWN the best fighter on the fucking planet... I dont care what happened two or 3 years later to a distracted, undisciplined VERSION of Roberto Duran... and I dont care about a decision, non-title loss to a TREMENDOUS fighter in Esteban DeJesus (which Duran TWICE avenged in dominant, jaw-dropping fashion) nearly 8 years earlier... what matters is at that time, he was DURAN, he was the one the legend is made of... to go in there for FIFTEEN ROUNDS (not ten like Esteban did that first time) and fight tooth and nail against him on his terms and emerge a loser by no more than 3 points or so is a TREMENDOUS accomplishment that only a great fighter could pull off... NO ONE had EVER been that competetive with Duran through 15 rounds, NOBODY... NOBODY had ever made Duran work harder for a win... you guys get so hung up on Kirkland Laing and Hearns, that you all seem to overlook the fact that from 1972-1980, Duran was an absolutely ASTONISHING fighter... thats an 8 year run wherein he went 44-1 (from Buchanan up to the first Leonard fight) , savagely avenged his only loss two times, made 12 defenses, 11 by KO, and absolutely dominated his competition, which was generally excellent... he moved up effortlessly to 147 and shut out a terrific, big strong, recently deposed champion in Carlos Palomino, and had some stay busy fights before challenging Leonard... he was absolutely pound for pound number one at that time and had been for a number of years, in a tremendous era when fighters like Alexis Arguello, Leonard, Benitez, Cervantes, Larry Holmes, Monzon, Pedroza, etc., etc. were all champions... Leonard wasnt facing Duran in a 10 round non-title fight where he was still a bit of unknown commodity and could conceivably sneak up on him, like DeJesus... he wasn't facing a lazy, out of shape, unmotivated slacker seemingly content to rest on the laurels of his past the way Kirkland Lang was... he wasn't facing a guy more than half a foot shorter, past his best days and a stylistic match made in heaven for him the way Hearns was... he wasnt even facing the older, careful, witty guy that gave Hagler such difficulty... he was facing the Duran that was THE MAN, the Duran that people talk about when they are talking about one of the greatest fighters ever to breathe to say that engaging in a classic, close struggle against that fighter ISN'T a noteworthy accomplishment is BEYOND idiotic
Leonard was a clear favourite if my memory serves me correctly. Boxing magazines and pundits alike said at the time of the loss...that it would probably affect Leonard's marketability and status. Years after the fact we can say that this fight looks good on his resume...but they certainly didn't think so at the time. Leonard was tempted to retire after that loss too or so I read. Duran was "Duran" as you say...but he was a lightweight and wasn't expected to beat Leonard..just be a little more than an irritation to the new superstar. Leonard's victories over Benitez etc..were the ones that gave him his reputation...the loss to Duran almost compromised that. Getting REVENGE on Duran is what helped him get back on track. If Mayweather loses to the smaller Pacquiao, even a close competitive loss...although Pacman is undoubtedly GREAT..it'll hurt his reputation somewhat. However Mayweather dominating Shane Mosley and Hatton before him..HELPED his reputation. Wins help...losses diminish (unless avenged).
The fight where he doesn't lose, and lose his status as an unbeaten fighter, and losing the biggest fight of his career? So yeah maybe the second one.... If your remembered by the masses as a KO victim....you really don't have much standing in the sport.
Billy Conn is universally considered one of the top five or ten LHW's of all-time --- & it's a steep division for great fighters down through history.
And yet remembered as a KO victim. Probably why you shouldn't LOSE your biggest fights. As Mayweather clearly hasn't done, and in the Corrales and Mosely fights, he dominated.
By idiots who chose to know nothing of his career. Im guessing you remember Spinks & Foster as 'KO victims' too?
Yes, idiots. We are all idiots. All of us non-elitist boxing fans who tell it like it is rather than tell it like it came out of the mouth of Bert Sugar.
Theres nothing elitist about not being a fucking idiot. If all you chose to remember about a fighter are the fights he had against superstars outside his prime division then that's idiotic. It's like judging Revolver was for shit because all you've seen on VH1 is the frog song & mull of kintyre. Actually bothering to go listen to revolver before defining it isn't 'elitist' it's just not being a fucking idiot.
:: Good question! I'd say not necessarily though they tend to be more aggravating. Remembering say Michael Spinks or Billy Conn as 'KO victims', because they lost to ATG punchers north of the divisions that defined their prime years, just because said punchers were really famous, I think qualifies as 'fucking idiocy'.
Yep, the general population is all idiots. People who have been watching boxing for longer than you've been alive remember Conn as a KO victim. Yet, you, who uses the internet to watch 3 or 4 fights of him, think you are a connoisseur of boxing and call people names because they realize that losing big fights is not a good way to be remembered. :atu:
:atu: I love when middle-aged men talk about the good old days like they have any clue what they are talking about. My grandfather(and his brothers are around the same age) is an 80 year old white man who's been watching boxing than you've been alive, and even he recognizes that Conn was a good fighter who's biggest moment was a KO loss. Of course, he's never used a computer before, so maybe if he went on Youtube and saw 3 or 4 fights of Conn like you he'd have a new perspective of things. :atu:
Bottom line: there's a difference between public perception and reality in any field. Comprende? This isn't a fucking PR or marketing board. You don't go on a music board and say The Damned were shit because all your little brother has heard is happy talk. You talk about the music, not the sales or air time. This is a BOXING forum.
again, you think its better to be remembered for, as a light heavyweight, beating a middleweight by decision in a forgettble fight where you looked awful than it is to perform brilliantly and lose by KO to one of the greatest fighetrs who ever lived, a man who was 30 pounds heavier than you?
The reality of Bert Sugar and his fellow "historians". And those who suck their word off like the Gospel. And those who talk about fighters who they've never seen, or fight fighters they've never seen. So, now. We're debating if a "legacy" is more important if viewed by the masses, or a bunch of Bert Sugar flunkies posting on message board. Well, if legacy all along, was defined by the latter, then I can see why Floyd and Roy and many other fighters never gave a damn about it.
Conn is not, "a KO victim." No matter how many scores of people choose to remember him that way. He is, was, & will be remembered by those familiar with his career as a true legend of the ring. The fact there are so many people (most of them who wouldn't know the first thing about the man) write about his fight with Louis as perhaps their only reference to him? I don't let that define him. That's a choice for everyone to make.
What is hilarious is that I myself absolutely detest Bert Sugar for spinning Bunyan-esque tales in lieu of facts Being compared to him or being labeled a fan of his is laughably off the mark
