# Roberto Duran vs Oscar De La Hoya @ Lightweight/Welter



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Just curious who people would pick here. To me Duran should be the favorite and I think it's blatantly obvious why. DLH wouldn't be able to stick and move & avoid Duran for 12 rounds. That's not his style. He can't pull a Buchanan & attempt to stick and move for 13 rounds. He doesn't have Tommy Hearns' power to KTFO Duran. If he tries to fight with Duran at either of the specified weights I would expect Duran to overwhelm him on the inside and jab with Oscar if necessary. On the outside DLH has the edge with his height and his underrated combination punching but I think Duran would be defensively responsible enough to slip that shit and move inside to decisively beat up Oscar over 12 rounds.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Hard fight to figure. Oscar cannot get into a fight with Duran, but does Oscar have the ability to see Duran's fight from the past like Benitez and Leonard, or his this the Duran prior to Ray? Duran probably wins and Oscar at lightweight was inexperienced, so I say probably Duran via 7th round KO, but if Oscar uses his speed and moved after he punches when Duran gets close he could win. Speed and getting out after he uses his speed could work with Duran, if Oscar were experienced enough to do it.


----------



## NoNeck (Jun 7, 2013)

Duran at lightweight.De la Hoya at welter.Duran doesn't really have the sort of style that exposes De La Hoya's weaknesses (i.e. Floyd, Shane, Whitaker, Forrest (?))


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

NoNeck said:


> Duran at lightweight.De la Hoya at welter.Duran doesn't really have the sort of style that exposes De La Hoya's weaknesses (i.e. Floyd, Shane, Whitaker, Forrest (?))


Does Oscar have a style that exposes Durans?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

I do think Oscar got better as he rose through the weights. His best for me was at 147, but he wasn't at the level of a Duran.

If he fights in the trenches he'll get beaten to the punch and I don't see Duran withering as a Vargas did, if anyone is gonna fade down the stretch it's Oscar imo so a gun fight is out of the window.

Oscar can fight smart on the back foot, but he wasn't able to really neutralise Tito and the pressure, footwork and shot selection brought forth by Duran is far superior. I think this is a long night for Oscar where he drops an 8-4 type decision after a promising start.

I usually say that at this sort of level there are no great shocks in these match ups, but I see Duran as a superior boxer and a superior fighter.

Fuck this Duran at 135/ Oscar at 147 bs as well. Duran had his best night at 147, he handled the jump fine. 

Duran>Oscar period.


----------



## NoNeck (Jun 7, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Does Oscar have a style that exposes Durans?


Why would I pick a quitting, fat, coke head piece of shit to beat the former pfp king at his best?


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

DLH doesn't have the defense or quality to keep Duran off but his speed would see him have some success. He just doesn't work hard for 3mins to make this too close though for my money.



NoNeck said:


> Why would I pick a quitting, fat, coke head piece of shit to beat the former pfp king at his best?


Well yes I wouldn't be picking DLH over Duran either but no need to talk about the man's demise.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> DLH doesn't have the defense or quality to keep Duran off but his speed would see him have some success. He just doesn't work hard for 3mins to make this too close though for my money.
> 
> Well yes I wouldn't be picking DLH over Duran either but no need to talk about the man's demise.


Oh, PP a great riposte!

Very true :deal


----------



## NoNeck (Jun 7, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> DLH doesn't have the defense or quality to keep Duran off but his speed would see him have some success. He just doesn't work hard for 3mins to make this too close though for my money.
> 
> Well yes I wouldn't be picking DLH over Duran either but no need to talk about the man's demise.


While that does sound like a nice response, I did see it coming when I posed so you didn't exactly blow my mind. The "fat" and "quitter" elements clearly belong to Duran. The others are up for debate, especially the "piece of shit" part.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

NoNeck said:


> While that does sound like a nice response, I did see it coming when I posed so you didn't exactly blow my mind. The "fat" and "quitter" elements clearly belong to Duran. The others are up for debate, especially the "piece of shit" part.


De La Hoya quit against Pacquiao though (yes I'm trolling)

Kudos for your foresight though.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

One arguably beat the premier mw champ.
The other got KTFO by a middleweight older than Archie Moore.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

dyna said:


> One arguably beat the premier mw champ.
> The other got KTFO by a middleweight older than Archie Moore.


No.

And B-Hop wasn't that old then.

And that looked fishy to me.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> No.
> 
> And B-Hop wasn't that old then.
> 
> And that looked fishy to me.


You're getting better at detecting sarcasm.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

ODH as well as having a speedy solid offence was good at blocking and parrying with that high guard, and he used to be good at dipping the knee to avoid shots as well. I feel he was a bit robotic and predictable in the way he moved though. Duran moved far better than Oscar. Duran would pound the body of Oscar all fight long. To bring Oscars high guard down he would employ a lot of jabs to the body and his usual array of faints. Duran would be too much for Oscar to handle but I think the speed of Oscar would bother Duran a bit early on. Speeds never really bothered prime Duran he was so good at avoiding shots but Oscar is defo good enough have some success. Oscar was a beast at lightweight but Duran was thee beast at lightweight. Duran UD.


----------



## kf3 (Jul 17, 2012)

135 - duran wears him down imo, as rossco says the bodywork important in this. maybe not to a stoppage but a clear ud
147 - closer fight, still hard to come up with a scenario for oscar beating a tip top duran, anything less and he can potentially win rounds with activity and smart movement,


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Oscar has no realistic chance at lightweight or welterweight vs Roberto Duran. 

Duran is simply on a whole different level to Delahoya and would give him a beating. The only thing I cant make my mind up about is whether Oscar survives the full 12 rounds or gets stopped, I think he survives the 12 to be honest, Oscar was a very good fighter at his best and a really tough guy, but Duran was just outright better and would beat him up.

15 rounds Duran wins by stoppage though, stamina was never Oscar`s best friend even at his peak and neither was defense compared to his other skills.

Any version of Duran pre Leonard 2 wins comfortably.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

NoNeck said:


> Duran at lightweight.De la Hoya at welter.Duran doesn't really have the sort of style that exposes De La Hoya's weaknesses (i.e. Floyd, Shane, Whitaker, Forrest (?))


There`s always one.

Have you not seen the Palomino or Leonard fights at welterweight ? It doesn't look like you have.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

I'm not that well-versed on DLH:s career, but wasn't he around 160+ lbs in the ring during his peak in the late 90's, early 00's - even as a WW? Don't really know, but it wouldn't surprise me if he gained 15 lbs after the weigh-in. Even well past his prime Duran hang in there with Hagler and beat Barkley, so god knows he could handle larger opponents, but it's a lot of size to give up to such a sharp puncher and skillful fighter as DLH.


----------



## NoNeck (Jun 7, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> There`s always one.
> 
> Have you not seen the Palomino or Leonard fights at welterweight ? It doesn't look like you have.


Have you watched Duran fight De Jesus, Leonard a second time, Kirkland Lainge, and Benitez? Or do those fights not count? One thing about Oscar is that he always performed respectably at 154 and down, Pac fight excluded. Can't say the same for No Mas.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> Oscar has no realistic chance at lightweight or welterweight vs Roberto Duran.
> 
> Duran is simply on a whole different level to Delahoya and would give him a beating. The only thing I cant make my mind up about is whether Oscar survives the full 12 rounds or gets stopped, I think he survives the 12 to be honest, Oscar was a very good fighter at his best and a really tough guy, but Duran was just outright better and would beat him up.
> 
> ...


Comfortably? It is Oscar's fight to win if he uses his speed and doesn't give Duran an easy target. At Welterweight he did struggled with certain guys, but then again Duran had trouble with guys with speed and world class jabs. Oscar has a jab which could give Duran a lot of trouble and the speed of Oscar could be big trouble. Duran is great, but how many times did he easily beat this level of fighter? Once, and now is when I get heat from other people. That one time he beat Ray, Ray fought his fight. If a guy has speed and used it to win the rounds and not let Duran set then Duran had trouble. Against a Delahoya level fighter, I am not sure it is so easy.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

I thought we banned Mag from posting in Duran threads.. when was this lifted?


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Duran was of course both the better and greater fighter p4p. But DLH would probably be some 10-15 lbs bigger in the ring at WW along with sizable advantages in reach and height. He was basically a weight class (at least) above Duran in natural size and that makes a difference. On the other hand, I think DLH still had some maturing to do at WW. I think he threw away rounds needlessly against Quartey and fought a much better fight against Mosley at 154 than at WW.

Hard to call.


----------



## Bill Jincock (Jun 19, 2012)

Mosley was a gunshy fighter that stopped throwing combinations after the Forrest fights.I think that had a large part to why DLH did better against him 2nd time out, though he did fight a smarter fight he looked insipid and unspectacular himself imo....that rematch was a dire fight and both looked several levels less impressive than in the great first bout.Everyone was thinking Forrest had ruined Shane because of how he looked in the couple of years afterward and imo they were right for 90% of his post forrest fights...he became a rather unspectacular plodding "load up the right hand" fighter after them.

Oscar definitely at his peak at 140\147 for me.maybe most dangerous h2h at 135\140 though.

DLH was definitely a weightclass bigger than Duran(and was a huge lightweight), though i wouldn't say he was a huge 140\147 fighter at all, just a typical size.Quartey and Trinidad were the huge Welters of that era.Oscar often looked undersized and quite feeble above 147, though that was probably due to being in worse shape as well, ie Sturm.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> But DLH would probably be some 10-15 lbs bigger in the ring at WW along with sizable advantages in reach and height..


DLH was 154-160, and was better lower. Duran would certainly gain weight back, how much we don't know, I'd go with at least 4-8.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

NoNeck said:


> Have you watched Duran fight De Jesus, Leonard a second time, Kirkland Lainge, and Benitez? Or do those fights not count? One thing about Oscar is that he always performed respectably at 154 and down, Pac fight excluded. Can't say the same for No Mas.


I was under the impression that in mythical fights both guys were going in on their best form vs each other rather than selecting certain versions of each man to give one (in this case Oscar) an advantage.

Of course Oscar could potentially beat Duran if you take the Duran from those fights you mentioned but 90% of the time Duran won and won impressively, same with Oscar, they never lost much in their prime... Duran on points in a non-title fight vs Dejesus (avenged twice by KO in title fights) and Oscar on points vs Mosely (avenged on points but not officially due to severe incompetence/corruption)

The point is that both were great fighters in their prime and neither would come in mentally or physically under-prepared in a big fight vs each other... and when both are on their game Duran at either weight is just too much for Oscar, too much.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Comfortably? It is Oscar's fight to win if he uses his speed and doesn't give Duran an easy target. At Welterweight he did struggled with certain guys, but then again Duran had trouble with guys with speed and world class jabs. Oscar has a jab which could give Duran a lot of trouble and the speed of Oscar could be big trouble. Duran is great, but how many times did he easily beat this level of fighter? Once, and now is when I get heat from other people. That one time he beat Ray, Ray fought his fight. If a guy has speed and used it to win the rounds and not let Duran set then Duran had trouble. Against a Delahoya level fighter, I am not sure it is so easy.


When I said comfortable I just meant if Duran didn't stop him there would be little doubt about the decision. I`m not saying DLH wouldn't put up a fight, just that he`d get beat decisively. Duran is just too good to lose to Oscar, unless like NoNeck did, you choose certain versions of each man and put them against each other... which isn't really fair as every fighter has had his bad nights.

And Delahoya is NOT on Leonard`s level, lets just get that clear so there`s no confusion.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

..


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

These agendas are ruining this forum man, we don't need it to be like the old ESB here.

Anyway, I can't see how Oscar wins, based purely on the quality of both of these fighters. If you look at it along stylistic lines it seems even more bleak for Oscar. I don't know how he is going to deal with so much unavoidable pressure to the body, when they're trading shots and left to let the skills forge out the natural course of the fight it can only go one way. I see it the same at both weights because Duran was just effectively just as good at both weights. Oscar for me was better at 147 but we also saw his weaknesses there, and while we saw some of Duran's also, Oscar doesn't hold these cards in abundance while the analysis in the opposite direction proves otherwise. Just look at how Mosley took it from Oscar simply by moving through the gears. Mosley doesn't have the quality as Duran.


----------



## duranimal (Nov 28, 2012)

Duran's just a better boxer at any weight, different gravy, Oscar's got nothing in the tool box that's gonna faze Duran who can take Oscar down any which way. Look what he did to Palomino & Leonard at 147. If Oscar gets into the trenches with Duran he's gonna get systematically smashed up, Duran's just to slick, vicious & savvy, no bad reflection on Oscar, but just different levels here. Oscar is the perfect match up for Duran.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Only Mag can put the line "Ray fought his fight" in a de la Hoya - Duran thread.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

duranimal said:


> Duran's just a better boxer at any weight, different gravy, Oscar's got nothing in the tool box that's gonna faze Duran who can take Oscar down any which way. Look what he did to Palomino & Leonard at 147. If Oscar gets into the trenches with Duran he's gonna get systematically smashed up, Duran's just to slick, vicious & savvy, no bad reflection on Oscar, but just different levels here. Oscar is the perfect match up for Duran.


Duran was great, but he never smashed up another great fighter, and to call Carlos Palmomino great is not really truthful. And Ray outboxed him easily 2 times. Not just once.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> Only Mag can put the line "Ray fought his fight" in a de la Hoya - Duran thread.


well the thought that Duran beat Ray in June of 1980 has to be mentioned that Ray did in fact fight Duran's fight, and still Duran did not knock him down or out. The fact is out of all the legends he fought Benitez,Hearns, Duran,Hagler, Duran was the easiest for Ray to beat once he boxed. He won almost every round in my view.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> Duran was great, but he never smashed up another great fighter, and to call Carlos Palmomino great is not really truthful. And Ray outboxed him easily 2 times. Not just once.


Marcel was a great fighter.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Duran was great, but he never smashed up another great fighter, and to call Carlos Palmomino great is not really truthful. And Ray outboxed him easily 2 times. Not just once.


Duran was 38 years old in that 3rd fight, both men were way past their best but Duran much more so.

The only fight were both men came in 100% physically prepared, Duran won. Nobody can ever take that away from him as much as some would like to, that victory turned a guy that was already a boxing legend into a boxing immortal.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Duran was great, but he never smashed up another great fighter, and to call Carlos Palmomino great is not really truthful. And Ray outboxed him easily 2 times. Not just once.


Well, this is wrong. Duran fucked up Buchanan and Marcel who are great fighters.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> Duran was 38 years old in that 3rd fight, both men were way past their best but Duran much more so.
> 
> The only fight were both men came in 100% physically prepared, Duran won. Nobody can ever take that away from him as much as some would like to, that victory turned a guy that was already a boxing legend into a boxing immortal.


coming in 100 percent? Ray not fighting his fight and being sort of inexperienced as to mental games and issues like that, is not 100 percent. Not as far as being a complete fighter. 100 percent for Ray was Nov. of 1980. Duran would have never beaten Ray in Nov. of 1980. 100 percent means Ray being experienced and fighting his fight. I am not sure how Duran fans can dismiss Ray outclassing Duran and dominating the fight. Ray started to land when Duran quit in the 8th round. Ray won the series of fights between them easily. When we look at them together, the feeling is always that Ray came out much much much. better. And Duran losing to Benitez easily in Jan. of 1982. Barely a year after the last Leonard fight shows how speed is the achilles for Duran. .


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> coming in 100 percent? Ray not fighting his fight and being sort of inexperienced as to mental games and issues like that, is not 100 percent. Not as far as being a complete fighter. 100 percent for Ray was Nov. of 1980. Duran would have never beaten Ray in Nov. of 1980. 100 percent means Ray being experienced and fighting his fight. I am not sure how Duran fans can dismiss Ray outclassing Duran and dominating the fight. Ray started to land when Duran quit in the 8th round. Ray won the series of fights between them easily. When we look at them together, the feeling is always that Ray came out much much much. better. And Duran losing to Benitez easily in Jan. of 1982. Barely a year after the last Leonard fight shows how speed is the achilles for Duran. .


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> coming in 100 percent? Ray not fighting his fight and being sort of inexperienced as to mental games and issues like that, is not 100 percent. Not as far as being a complete fighter. 100 percent for Ray was Nov. of 1980. Duran would have never beaten Ray in Nov. of 1980. 100 percent means Ray being experienced and fighting his fight. I am not sure how Duran fans can dismiss Ray outclassing Duran and dominating the fight. Ray started to land when Duran quit in the 8th round. Ray won the series of fights between them easily. When we look at them together, the feeling is always that Ray came out much much much. better. And Duran losing to Benitez easily in Jan. of 1982. Barely a year after the last Leonard fight shows how speed is the achilles for Duran. .


YOu're simply too biased to have a discussion with about Duran.. It's almost bordering on trolling with you and Duran threads. Answer me this

1. Was Duran moving up from his natural weight class to face an all time great in theirs? 
2. Don't you think it matters that Duran had already been fighting for over a decade by the time Ray beat him the second time?
3. Do you think Duran was in as good a shape as he was in the first fight?
4. Why do you go on and on about Ray fighting Duran's fight and how Ray was inexperienced.... yet leave out the fact that Duran had been fighting for a very long time arleady and was MOVING UP to face an all time great at HIS BEST WEIGHT. How on God's green earth you can go on and on about a point and leave out a more relevant point. 
5. Is it not true that the all time greats that Duran lost to.. he was moving up to face them at their best division in their prime.. while Duran wasn't prime nor in his prime division. is this not true? That carries no weight with you?


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

how is this trolling? I bring up some facts. 1. everyone moves up. It is part of greatness. Hearns beat the best lightheavyweight in 1991 30 pounds above his weight class, and undefeated fighter. Manny beat a great Delahoya. Spinks beat Holmes. Duran fought as high as 154 as early as 1978 before Hearns, Leonard or Benitez ever fought there. 
2. No I don't think that matters. He was not worn out and all and fought another 21 years after fighting Ray in 1980.
3. I think Duran would have lost to Ray if Ray fought the way he did the second time everytime out. I think he would have lost badly to Ray each time. Duran could not make the moves or get to Ray when Ray used his speed and moved. It was not even close when Ray did that. And then the Benitez fight a little over a year after Duran fought Ray in the rematch.
4. Duran had never taken a beating and he was still in his 20s and fought at 154 as early as 1978, and he was old and worn out now? Come on. Ray was green just on the fact that he fought Duran's fight because Duran infuriated him. He said it himself. " I was going to beat him at his own game. and I almost did". Then Ray said "I fought that man at his own game and almost won. If I fight my style I win easily, and he did. 
5. yes he moved up, but Hearns moved up to the weight he fought Duran at also. And I don't dispute Duran's greatness, what I dispute is that he is 1-5 ATG. If he was that high a ranking, he would have beaten those greats moving up in weight. That is the challenge to being 1-5 ATG. You do the impossible. Beat the greats moving up, even though Hearns also moved up to 175 and beat Hill. Since Duran did not beat the greats. I put him near 25. Again Duran had no trouble with the weight. Didn't he beat Moore at 154 and Barkley at 160? The reason he lost to the elites was that they were elites. My response was that someone said Duran would smash Delahoya.. Ok fine, my point is ok, now where is the evidence that he ever smashed an elite fighter so easily. And don't tell me Buchanan or Dejesus were Delahoya or Mayweather level. Is Duran greater than those two? yes. why? great lightweight career and fighting elites and winning 4 titles. But that to me gives him near 25 ATG ranking, but not 1-5 ranking, and his career does not show that he would smash elite fast fighters so easily. You don't see where I am coming from? What fights against elites prove he could smash and beat easily Oscar or Floyd?


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG is right about Duran.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> how is this trolling? I bring up some facts. 1. everyone moves up. It is part of greatness. Hearns beat the best lightheavyweight in 1991 30 pounds above his weight class, and undefeated fighter. Manny beat a great Delahoya. Spinks beat Holmes. Duran fought as high as 154 as early as 1978 before Hearns, Leonard or Benitez ever fought there.
> 2. No I don't think that matters. He was not worn out and all and fought another 21 years after fighting Ray in 1980.
> 3. I think Duran would have lost to Ray if Ray fought the way he did the second time everytime out. I think he would have lost badly to Ray each time. Duran could not make the moves or get to Ray when Ray used his speed and moved. It was not even close when Ray did that. And then the Benitez fight a little over a year after Duran fought Ray in the rematch.
> 4. Duran had never taken a beating and he was still in his 20s and fought at 154 as early as 1978, and he was old and worn out now? Come on. Ray was green just on the fact that he fought Duran's fight because Duran infuriated him. He said it himself. " I was going to beat him at his own game. and I almost did". Then Ray said "I fought that man at his own game and almost won. If I fight my style I win easily, and he did.
> 5. yes he moved up, but Hearns moved up to the weight he fought Duran at also. And I don't dispute Duran's greatness, what I dispute is that he is 1-5 ATG. If he was that high a ranking, he would have beaten those greats moving up in weight. That is the challenge to being 1-5 ATG. You do the impossible. Beat the greats moving up, even though Hearns also moved up to 175 and beat Hill. Since Duran did not beat the greats. I put him near 25. Again Duran had no trouble with the weight. Didn't he beat Moore at 154 and Barkley at 160? The reason he lost to the elites was that they were elites. My response was that someone said Duran would smash Delahoya.. Ok fine, my point is ok, now where is the evidence that he ever smashed an elite fighter so easily. And don't tell me Buchanan or Dejesus were Delahoya or Mayweather level. Is Duran greater than those two? yes. why? great lightweight career and fighting elites and winning 4 titles. But that to me gives him near 25 ATG ranking, but not 1-5 ranking, and his career does not show that he would smash elite fast fighters so easily. You don't see where I am coming from? What fights against elites prove he could smash and beat easily Oscar or Floyd?


Virgil Hill was not great.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Virgil Hill was not great.


underrated fighter. Exceptional jab and counter left hook and good movement in his legs and quick. A man who has 23 title defenses is not bad. A HOF fighter, and Hearns was a 4-1 underdog when he fought Hill who had 10 title defenses. Hill and everyone else underestimated Hearns who could and did match Hill's jab and speed, and Tommy just had two hands to land. In someways Hill was no worse than the guys Duran beat at lightweight. I think he was better than Buchanan or DeJesus or Palomino at 147.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> underrated fighter. Exceptional jab and counter left hook and good movement in his legs and quick. A man who has 23 title defenses is not bad. A HOF fighter, and Hearns was a 4-1 underdog when he fought Hill who had 10 title defenses. Hill and everyone else underestimated Hearns who could and did match Hill's jab and speed, and Tommy just had two hands to land. In someways Hill was no worse than the guys Duran beat at lightweight. I think he was better than Buchanan or DeJesus or Palomino at 147.


Virgil Hill better than Buchanan :huh Buchanan ticked a lot of boxes. He was an outstanding boxer/fighter.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> Duran was 38 years old in that 3rd fight, both men were way past their best but Duran much more so.
> 
> The only fight were both men came in 100% physically prepared, Duran won. Nobody can ever take that away from him as much as some would like to, that victory turned a guy that was already a boxing legend into a boxing immortal.


True. But Leonard wasn't mentally 100% for the first fight, though. Don't know why, perhaps he was intimidated by Duran - but any way it's clear to see. I'm a bit sad that we never got to see a fight between them were both fought at their best.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> True. But Leonard wasn't mentally 100% for the first fight, though. Don't know why, perhaps he was intimidated by Duran - but any way it's clear to see. I'm a bit sad that we never got to see a fight between them were both fought at their best.


Its as clear as day the truly best versions of both never fought each other. I think Durans mind games got to Leonard in the first fight and he wasn't as up for it as Duran who trained to kill SRL. The second fight Duran was no where near as sharp or motivated. Leonard was completely focussed and knew Duran wasn't as sharp as the first fight. Montreal Duran beats any version of Leonard though. Too fucking good.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

rossco said:


> Its as clear as day the truly best versions of both never fought each other. I think Durans mind games got to Leonard in the first fight and he wasn't as up for it as Duran who trained to kill SRL. The second fight Duran was no where near as sharp or motivated. Leonard was completely focussed and knew Duran wasn't as sharp as the first fight.* Montreal Duran beats any version of Leonard though. Too fucking good*.


I don't think it was that much between them in the first fight, really. Duran deserved the decision, but a draw wouldn't have been an outrage imo. So I can see Leonard win it on his best night.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> I don't think it was that much between them in the first fight, really. Duran deserved the decision, but a draw wouldn't have been an outrage imo. So I can see Leonard win it on his best night.


100% it was close but I just feel Duran was too motivated to get beat by anybody that night. Any version of Leonard was getting pushed to the ropes Duran was so sharp, and Duran probably had another level in him if pushed harder. I will admit I'm a Duran fanboy and hold a bit of bias toward him as a fighter.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> underrated fighter. Exceptional jab and counter left hook and good movement in his legs and quick. A man who has 23 title defenses is not bad. A HOF fighter, and Hearns was a 4-1 underdog when he fought Hill who had 10 title defenses. Hill and everyone else underestimated Hearns who could and did match Hill's jab and speed, and Tommy just had two hands to land. In someways Hill was no worse than the guys Duran beat at lightweight. I think he was better than Buchanan or DeJesus or Palomino at 147.


It was a great win for Hearns but Hill is rated just fine.

He was not as good as Buchanan, nor Marcel.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> I don't think it was that much between them in the first fight, really. Duran deserved the decision, but a draw wouldn't have been an outrage imo. So I can see Leonard win it on his best night.


A draw? Really?


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

rossco said:


> 100% it was close but I just feel Duran was too motivated to get beat by anybody that night. Any version of Leonard was getting pushed to the ropes Duran was so sharp, and Duran probably had another level in him if pushed harder. I will admit I'm a Duran fanboy and hold a bit of bias toward him as a fighter.


I agree that Duran had more to give during the late rds in Montreal. But I'm also in a bit of disbelief about just how poor Leonard were in that fight in certain aspects. It's just not that he doesn't give him Duran any angles, just stands in front of him, but also how Duran manages to force him straight back to the ropes without Ray hardly ever sliding to the side. Not even trying to seemingly. Definitely Duran had something to do with that, but it's just such a disregard of basic boxing principles from one of the greatest boxers ever to not feel very weird.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> I agree that Duran had more to give during the late rds in Montreal. But I'm also in a bit of disbelief about just how poor Leonard were in that fight in certain aspects. It's just not that he doesn't give him Duran any angles, just stands in front of him, but also how Duran manages to force him straight back to the ropes without Ray hardly ever sliding to the side. Not even trying to seemingly. Definitely Duran had something to do with that, but it's just such a disregard of basic boxing principles from one of the greatest boxers ever to not feel very weird.


It's the second round. Duran throwing the right and then shifting into the left. And in the third Duran is creating all sorts of angles and mixing it up to head and body.

When Ray was a bit flummoxed he tended to bide his time then throw the kitchen sink at his man (Kalule, Hearns I) He couldn't do that against Duran.

Knowing he couldn't do it against Duran he came up with an ultra weird and flashy gameplan for the second fight which paid off. But he couldn't make those adjustments in the first fight because I think he was a littke shook.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> It's the second round. Duran throwing the right and then shifting into the left. And in the third Duran is creating all sorts of angles and mixing it up to head and body.
> 
> When Ray was a bit flummoxed he tended to bide his time then throw the kitchen sink at his man (Kalule, Hearns I) He couldn't do that against Duran.
> 
> Knowing he couldn't do it against Duran he came up with an ultra weird and flashy gameplan for the second fight which paid off. But he couldn't make those adjustments in the first fight because I think he was a littke shook.


He looks tense from the off, though. Not all like he did against Benitez, for example. And then just fights Duran fight. He shows bravery, chin and skill, but very little finesse. For me, it's a not a convincing performance from Ray, all things considered. A fantastic performance from Duran, though.

Don't really like the second fight and don't rate it much, except it shows how you can into someones head. Actually it's a trilogy as a whole that I'm not at all satisfied with, seeing how truly great both were.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> I agree that Duran had more to give during the late rds in Montreal. But I'm also in a bit of disbelief about just how poor Leonard were in that fight in certain aspects. It's just not that he doesn't give him Duran any angles, just stands in front of him, but also how Duran manages to force him straight back to the ropes without Ray hardly ever sliding to the side. Not even trying to seemingly. Definitely Duran had something to do with that, but it's just such a disregard of basic boxing principles from one of the greatest boxers ever to not feel very weird.


I think Leonard's lateral movement was not as good due to Duran being so sharp as well as bravado on Leonards part. Duran fainted Leonard to death in Montreal and busted him up via the body. The fact Duran turned up out of shape for the second fight puts a big question mark on who truly was the better man on their best night. Leonard is bitter because he knows this. The third fight is not worth mentioning really. Both these guy's are truly outstanding fighters and it's hard to split them. I personally think both are outstandingly great fighters who would completely dominate what's around nowadays. Duran being just that bit more complete in terms of all round skill and durability.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> He looks tense from the off, though. Not all like he did against Benitez, for example. And then just fights Duran fight. He shows bravery, chin and skill, but very little finesse. For me, it's a not a convincing performance from Ray, all things considered. A fantastic performance from Duran, though.
> 
> Don't really like the second fight and don't rate it much, except it shows how you can into someones head. Actually it's a trilogy as a whole that I'm not at all satisfied with, seeing how truly great both were.


I thought Ray looked like he wqs going to have an easy night in the first round actually and I think it was Duran who looked in over his head.

The 3rd fight is pretty dismal stuff.


----------



## Bill Jincock (Jun 19, 2012)

Leonard probably thought that being the bigger stronger man, he could wear Duran out on the inside eventually.He did seem to be turning the fight around circa 5 and 6, so maybe he even thought he was ahead fighting on the inside after ten or so.Who knows.Bravado no doubt played a big part as Rossco says.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

In the end no one knows for sure, and never will. But to my eyes Leonard looks uncomfortable and stiff from the off. I think Duran got into his head, intimidated him. My feeling will probably always be that we didn't ever see them give their best against the other, both at the same night.


----------



## Bill Jincock (Jun 19, 2012)

The rematch was the perfect scenario for that, with Leonard more experienced and with no illusion of Duran's capabilities at Welter.


Duran cheated everyone with his performance though.


----------



## Libertarian (Jun 2, 2012)

Bringing Hearns into an anti-Duran discussion is ridiculous.

There is more chance of Ivan Calderon stopping Oliver McCall than Duran beating Hearns.

Everything is all wrong in that matchup.

Taller, faster (at the weight) and technically excellent.... and a murderous puncher. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> coming in 100 percent? Ray not fighting his fight and being sort of inexperienced as to mental games and issues like that, is not 100 percent. Not as far as being a complete fighter. 100 percent for Ray was Nov. of 1980. Duran would have never beaten Ray in Nov. of 1980. 100 percent means Ray being experienced and fighting his fight. I am not sure how Duran fans can dismiss Ray outclassing Duran and dominating the fight. Ray started to land when Duran quit in the 8th round. Ray won the series of fights between them easily. When we look at them together, the feeling is always that Ray came out much much much. better. And Duran losing to Benitez easily in Jan. of 1982. Barely a year after the last Leonard fight shows how speed is the achilles for Duran. .


Both men were in their prime and 100% physically ready in Montreal, both were regarded by a lot of people as the 2 best p4p fighters in boxing. Leonard fighting the wrong fight was part his own doing and part Duran being on his game that night.

Its both Leonard and Duran`s own fault for their performances in the first 2 fights. Duran should never have choose money over being 100% fit for the rematch and Leonard should have came in with a better strategy in the first fight.

Between the 2 victories, I rank Duran`s higher because he beat a physically prepared Leonard.

Leonard flat out admitted he knew Duran couldn't get to the physical or mental state he was in for fight 1, that is not something I can respect a great deal tbh. As much as I love Leonard as a fighter in the ring his mentality outside of the ring is wrong a lot of the time, especially for such a great boxer.

Also... Leonard was nowhere near dominating that 2nd fight before Duran quit, he was slightly ahead as far as actual punches landed and rounds won but the fight was still there to be won and a long way from being over (or so it seemed)... oddly enough, Leonard wasn't even clowning in round 8 when Duran stopped.

Forget the 3rd fight, it tells us NOTHING as far as who was the better fighter in their primes between Duran and Leonard. Both men were completely different fighters by that point.

Duran of the first fight vs Leonard of the 2nd fight would answer all questions and personally I cant say for sure who would win... but anyone that thinks it would be an easy win for Leonard hasn't really got a clue what they`re talking about, it would be a close fight between the 2 best boxers of the last 40 years on their absolute best form. No welterweight, not even Robinson or Hearns beats Duran easy that night.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

rossco said:


> I think Leonard's lateral movement was not as good due to Duran being so sharp as well as bravado on Leonards part. Duran fainted Leonard to death in Montreal and busted him up via the body. The fact Duran turned up out of shape for the second fight puts a big question mark on who truly was the better man on their best night. Leonard is bitter because he knows this. The third fight is not worth mentioning really. Both these guy's are truly outstanding fighters and it's hard to split them. I personally think both are outstandingly great fighters who would completely dominate what's around nowadays. Duran being just that bit more complete in terms of all round skill and durability.


Good post.

And the part I highlighted is very true. Ray even went as far as to go to Panama to ask Duran about the second fight in that 30 for 30 documentary. I actually feel that its Duran that has accepted and is more at peace with what happened between them.

I think _both _men feel that Duran got the better victory in their series, it kills Ray that not everyone thinks Duran quit through frustration and a lot of people blame Duran`s conditioning on what happened... well all I`ve got to say is if Ray gave Duran enough time to get back to his best condition rather than deliberately getting him in the ring not 100% then there would be no questions about his victory. Its karma for Ray not doing things the warriors way. His victory is tainted because of the conscious choice he himself made, that`s all.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Bill Jincock said:


> The rematch was the perfect scenario for that, with Leonard more experienced and with no illusion of Duran's capabilities at Welter.
> 
> Duran cheated everyone with his performance though.


True, I cant argue with that, Duran let himself down but that was actually Leonard`s plan, he wanted Duran in the ring not at his best, for me that`s almost as bad both from a fighter and a fans perspective.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> True, I cant argue with that, Duran let himself down but that was actually Leonard`s plan, he wanted Duran in the ring not at his best, for me that`s almost as bad both from a fighter and a fans perspective.


How bad is that your man didn't bother to get into top shape then? You don't feel that's a pretty basic obligation to the fans?


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> It was a great win for Hearns but Hill is rated just fine.
> 
> He was not as good as Buchanan, nor Marcel.


I think Hill was rated higher than Marcel and Buchanan, yes.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

rossco said:


> I think Leonard's lateral movement was not as good due to Duran being so sharp as well as bravado on Leonards part. Duran fainted Leonard to death in Montreal and busted him up via the body. The fact Duran turned up out of shape for the second fight puts a big question mark on who truly was the better man on their best night. Leonard is bitter because he knows this. The third fight is not worth mentioning really. Both these guy's are truly outstanding fighters and it's hard to split them. I personally think both are outstandingly great fighters who would completely dominate what's around nowadays. Duran being just that bit more complete in terms of all round skill and durability.


the out of shape excuse is not really logical. He was paid to be in shape for the most important fight of his career. Fact is from the get go Ray was moving and fighting his fight. Compare June and November and see how different Ray is fighting. Just that little difference, added to the fact Ray fought Duran's fight and still went 15 shows Ray would have won. And Benitez outclassing Duran in Jan. of 1982.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> True, I cant argue with that, Duran let himself down but that was actually Leonard`s plan, he wanted Duran in the ring not at his best, for me that`s almost as bad both from a fighter and a fans perspective.


Ray did that a lot. Duran taught him to get a guy to fight his fight or out of shape. Duran actually taught him to use mental games and different tactics. It only worked with Duran and Hagler. With Hearns, Leonard waited for Hearns to get what he thought washed up and signed to fight him after Kinchen. I wonder if Ray would have fought Hearns in the rematch had Tommy knocked out Kinchen in 2 rounds.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> Good post.
> 
> And the part I highlighted is very true. Ray even went as far as to go to Panama to ask Duran about the second fight in that 30 for 30 documentary. I actually feel that its Duran that has accepted and is more at peace with what happened between them.
> 
> I think _both _men feel that Duran got the better victory in their series, it kills Ray that not everyone thinks Duran quit through frustration and a lot of people blame Duran`s conditioning on what happened... well all I`ve got to say is if Ray gave Duran enough time to get back to his best condition rather than deliberately getting him in the ring not 100% then there would be no questions about his victory. Its karma for Ray not doing things the warriors way. His victory is tainted because of the conscious choice he himself made, that`s all.


I find it strange that Leonard freely admits to deliberately getting Duran to fight on a date he knew he would struggle to be in top shape for. Duran gets a lot of stick for no mas but Ray seems to be getting a pass on the cowardly act he pulled on Duran.

Ray came across as a bitter ego maniac in the 30 for 30 doc. Durans happy with his legacy, he's living life and having fun. Ray has some serious issues and massive chip on his shoulder. Duran looked bewildered During the face off. Ray saying he forgives him and walking away with his arm around him like he's the better man. Maybe Ray thought he needed to do this because he knows Duran has a movie coming out and He's bitter and jealous Durans getting the lime light. Just a theory.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

rossco said:


> I find it strange that Leonard freely admits to deliberately getting Duran to fight on a date he knew he would struggle to be in top shape for. Duran gets a lot of stick for no mas but Ray seems to be getting a pass on the cowardly act he pulled on Duran.


I think what Duran did against Buchanan was much, much worse. Not giving him a rematch on acceptable terms. And Duran, predictably, gets absolutely no stick for that.

There's no fighter on this forum where the double standards is so staggering as they are when it comes to Duran.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> I think what Duran did against Buchanan was much, much worse. Not giving him a rematch on acceptable terms. And Duran, predictably, gets absolutely no stick for that.
> 
> There's no fighter on this forum where the double standards is so staggering as they are when it comes to Duran.


Why did Buchanan deserve a rematch? He got beaten handily with or without the low blow.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> I think Hill was rated higher than Marcel and Buchanan, yes.


:lol:


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> I think what Duran did against Buchanan was much, much worse. Not giving him a rematch on acceptable terms. And Duran, predictably, gets absolutely no stick for that.
> 
> There's no fighter on this forum where the double standards is so staggering as they are when it comes to Duran.


Duran would have no fear in rematching Buchanan. Do you honestly think it was his decision not to fight Buchanan again? He already beat prime Buchanan and knew he could just walk through him. Buchanan was a brilliant boxer/fighter but he lacked the power to even remotely hurt Duran. The guy fought monsters like Hagler and Hearns and you think he ducked Ken atsch


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> It was a great win for Hearns but Hill is rated just fine.
> 
> He was not as good as Buchanan, nor Marcel.


Hill's very much underrated, he doesn't have the marquee wins of those 2 but a decade of being a champ takes some doing and his resume is pretty good.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

rossco said:


> Duran would have no fear in rematching Buchanan. Do you honestly think it was his decision not to fight Buchanan again? He already beat prime Buchanan and knew he could just walk through him. Buchanan was a brilliant boxer/fighter but he lacked the power to even remotely hurt Duran. The guy fought monsters like Hagler and Hearns and you think he ducked Ken atsch


According Buchanan he wouldn't give the rematch, which Buchanan really wanted, on anything but humiliating terms. And I see no reason to not believe him. He's still angry about it.

What you Duran fanboys seem to refuse to realize is that Duran also looked to risk/reward. If the money was good enough he'd fight anyone, but he didn't hesitate to duck his mandatory in McCallum to take on what he thought would be an easy payday in Hearns. That backfired spectacularly of course, but Duran fans have their excuses all sorted for this as well.

If Leonard had won the title by a foul and then not given a rematch on fair terms we'd never hear the end of it. Nor if he had ducked his mandatory to instead be annihilated by someone he thought was "chicken". But Leonard doesn't have any of those blotches on his record, so instead people harp on about him "tricking" Duran and Hagler when they were the champs and in the position to set the terms.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> According Buchanan he wouldn't give the rematch, which Buchanan really wanted, on anything but humiliating terms. And I see no reason to not believe him. He's still angry about it.
> 
> What you Duran fanboys seem to refuse to realize is that Duran also looked to risk/reward. If the money was good enough he'd fight anyone, but he didn't hesitate to duck his mandatory in McCallum to take on what he thought would be an easy payday in Hearns. That backfired spectacularly of course, but Duran fans have their excuses all sorted for this as well.
> 
> If Leonard had won the title by a foul and then not given a rematch on fair terms we'd never hear the end of it. Nor if he had ducked his mandatory to instead be annihilated by someone he thought was "chicken". But Leonard doesn't have any of those blotches on his record, so instead people harp on about him "tricking" Duran and Hagler when they were the champs and in the position to set the terms.


I freely admit to holding bias towards Duran but he was that good you cant really overrate him. Buchanan Is actually my fav fighter ever so if I'm a fanboy of any fighter then its him. Do you honestly think the fight was close enough to demand a rematch? I think Ken deserved the rematch of course but he was basically out muscled and losing clearly before the low blow so Durans team probably laughed off Kens demands.

Sure Duran was champ but Leonard had the money team behind him. He was the one in position to set the terms which is proven by the fact his team offered Duran a ridiculous amount of money to take the fight at a date he would struggle to be in top shape for.


----------



## kf3 (Jul 17, 2012)

the main fault in no mas was duran's managment, they saw $$$$$ and took a fight knowing duran wasn't going to be ready for it, you can't blame ray for asking, but you can blame them for saying yes. Duran failed miserably to prepare himself, but he was more or less set up to fail.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

kf3 said:


> the main fault in no mas was duran's managment, they saw $$$$$ and took a fight knowing duran wasn't going to be ready for it, you can't blame ray for asking, but you can blame them for saying yes. Duran failed miserably to prepare himself, but he was more or less set up to fail.


Good point but Ray deserves to cop some shit for wanting to fight an out of shape Duran.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> According Buchanan he wouldn't give the rematch, which Buchanan really wanted, on anything but humiliating terms. And I see no reason to not believe him. He's still angry about it.
> 
> What you Duran fanboys seem to refuse to realize is that Duran also looked to risk/reward. If the money was good enough he'd fight anyone, but he didn't hesitate to duck his mandatory in McCallum to take on what he thought would be an easy payday in Hearns. That backfired spectacularly of course, but Duran fans have their excuses all sorted for this as well.
> 
> If Leonard had won the title by a foul and then not given a rematch on fair terms we'd never hear the end of it. Nor if he had ducked his mandatory to instead be annihilated by someone he thought was "chicken". But Leonard doesn't have any of those blotches on his record, so instead people harp on about him "tricking" Duran and Hagler when they were the champs and in the position to set the terms.


You are a McCallum fanboy. Hearns was never seen as 'easy' and it's debatable whether he's 'easier' than McCallum anyway, unless you're a butt hurt McCallum fanboy. Hearns definitely brought more money.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> Hill's very much underrated, he doesn't have the marquee wins of those 2 but a decade of being a champ takes some doing and his resume is pretty good.


He's not underrated at all, anyone who knows their shit knows he was a very good fighter with a excellent jab. How do you think he should be rated?


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

rossco said:


> I freely admit to holding bias towards Duran but he was that good you cant really overrate him. Buchanan Is actually my fav fighter ever so if I'm a fanboy of any fighter then its him. Do you honestly think the fight was close enough to demand a rematch?
> 
> Sure Duran was champ but Leonard had the money team behind him. He was the one in position to set the terms which is proven by the fact his team offered Duran a ridiculous amount of money to take the fight at a date he would struggle to be in top shape for.


I definitely think a title fight ending by a foul merits a rematch.

Yes, a rematch with Leonard meant a lot of money, but Leonard wanted and needed it more than Duran. All Duran had to tell them was to fuck off. He was a seasoned pro, a living boxing legend, sitting on the title - but he gets treated like he was the struggling unknown challenger not given any fair breaks. In short, he gets mistaken for being what McCallum was when he didn't get his mandatory shot.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> You are a McCallum fanboy. Hearns was never seen as 'easy' and it's debatable whether he's 'easier' than McCallum anyway, unless you're a butt hurt McCallum fanboy. Hearns definitely brought more money.


You still angry?

I'm quoting Duran's own words when he talked about taking the fight. He skipped the mandatory to instead take the money fight against someone he himself has said he considered chicken.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> You still angry?
> 
> I'm quoting Duran's own words when he talked about taking the fight. He skipped the mandatory to instead take the money fight against someone he himself has said he considered chicken.


Not angry I just see that every post you make nowadays is 'why doesn't anyone like the fighters I like?' whiny bullshit.

You've gone right down in my estimation from one of my favourite posters to someone who looks down upon everyone because he likes a certain era. The era he has lived through. Anyone who likes older fighters is 'biased' in your eyes and I think it's hogwash to assume people are swayed by old poor quality footage. It insults my intelligence.

Mike McCallum got plenty of opportunities and took them. He is an ATG in the eyes of anyone that has half a fucking clue.

I know Duran said that but fact is Hearns was the more meaningful fight anyway. Do you actually think McCallum would've been a harder fight? You think he could better what Hearns did?

Whatever Durans decision he got splattered for it. I don't think he 'ducked' McCallum as he took on an even more dangerous fighter.

For the record, I think McCallum beats Hearns and Duran.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Hill better than Buchanan and Marcel? Nah :bart


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

@*Bokaj* Yeah your right Ken deserved the rematch. I don't think it was any doing of Duran though. I honestly don't think he gave a fuck who he fought.

Of course Duran and his team should have told team Leonard to fuck off. Money talks though. Its the fact Leonard gets a pass for wanting to fight a lesser version of Montreal Duran that pisses me off. Leonard was a warrior in the ring but that is the act of a coward.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

rossco said:


> @*Bokaj* Yeah your right Ken deserved the rematch. I don't think it was any doing of Duran though. I honestly don't think he gave a fuck who he fought.
> 
> Of course Duran and his team should have told team Leonard to fuck off. Money talks though. Its the fact Leonard gets a pass on wanting to fight a lesser version of Montreal Duran that pisses me off. Leonard was a warrior in the ring but that is the act of a coward.


Leonard doesn't get a pass, though. For one thing few thinks he beat the best version of Duran, Especially now that he himself has said that Duran wasn't the same in the rematch.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> Leonard doesn't get a pass, though. For one thing few thinks he beat the best version of Duran, Especially now that he himself has said that Duran wasn't the same in the rematch.


I agree. Leonard seems to get nearly as much stick for his well-timed rematch of Duran as Duran does for quitting, which is unfair IMO.

Duran should've stayed in shape but he was a gluttonous and lazy bastard for the majority of his career. He loses marks for that.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> Leonard doesn't get a pass, though. For one thing few thinks he beat the best version of Duran, Especially now that he himself has said that Duran wasn't the same in the rematch.


He gets a pass because it was done behind the scenes not live on TV like no mass. Not many people know about it, or what Leonard has said on the subject bar hardcore boxing fans


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> Not angry I just see that every post you make nowadays is 'why doesn't anyone like the fighters I like?' whiny bullshit.


No, I got irritated because Mayweather, a fighter I don't like, got so ridiculously underrated against a fighter I do like - Leonard.

As for McCallum, I think he gets his fair due on this forum for the most part. I also think his era is fairly rated here. I do think Burley gets overrated, though.



> gone right down in my estimation from one of my favourite posters to someone who looks down upon everyone because he likes a certain era. The era he has lived through. Anyone who likes older fighters is 'biased' in your eyes and I think it's hogwash to assume people are swayed by old poor quality footage. It insults my intelligence.
> 
> Mike McCallum got plenty of opportunities and took them. He is an ATG in the eyes of anyone that has half a fucking clue.
> 
> ...


I don't think Duran feared McCallum in any way, but the fact is that he did duck him for someone who was a much better bet in terms risk/reward. Other fighters get lots of shit for such things, but with Duran it's hardly mentioned. I've seen Leonard being accused more times for "ducking" not only Hearns but also a prime Hagler, many more times than I've seen Duran being accused for this proper duck.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> No, I got irritated because Mayweather, a fighter I don't like, got so ridiculously underrated against a fighter I do like - Leonard.
> 
> As for McCallum, I think he gets his fair due on this forum for the most part. I also think his era is fairly rated here. I do think Burley gets overrated, though.
> 
> I don't think Duran feared McCallum in any way, but the fact is that he did duck him for someone who was a much better bet in terms risk/reward. Other fighters get lots of shit for such things, but with Duran it's hardly mentioned. I've seen Leonard being accused more times for "ducking" not only Hearns but also a prime Hagler, many more times than I've seen Duran being accused for this proper duck.


I don't think Floyd gets underrated. If anything I consider him massively overrated.

I think Duran should get a pass for this: two very dangerous fights, equally so, and one gives you much more money.

If he'd ducked McCallum to face someone in the 5-10 of the division and faced neither Mike nor Hearns, I think he'd get more stick. But he faced Hearns and got annihilated. There is the justice in avoiding McCallum right there.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Tbh, I don't like how Leonard went about the rematch either - outside or inside the ring. But it just riles me with this whole "poor little Duran" BS.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> I don't think Floyd gets underrated. If anything I consider him massively overrated.
> 
> I think Duran should get a pass for this: two very dangerous fights, equally so, and one gives you much more money.
> 
> If he'd ducked McCallum to face someone in the 5-10 of the division and faced neither Mike nor Hearns, I think he'd get more stick. But he faced Hearns and got annihilated. There is the justice in avoiding McCallum right there.


Actually, I don't personally have that much issue with Duran's choice, what irritates me is rather that other fighters (most notably Leonard) are held to much higher standards.

As for Mayweather, I think he gets insanely underrated on this board. Sure, I probably got a bit snotty, but I apologized for that both in the thread and to you personally, so maybe it's time to get past it?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> Actually, I don't personally have that much issue with Duran's choice, what irritates me is rather that other fighters (most notably Leonard) are held to much higher standards.
> 
> As for Mayweather, I think he gets insanely underrated on this board. Sure, I probably got a bit snotty, but I apologized for that both in the thread and to you personally, so maybe it's time to get past it?


I'm not bothered about how you approached it. I think Floyd is very, very overrated, that's nothing to do with your opinions, which you're more than entitled to.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Noone really believes Duran should have faced his mando instead of facing the other belt holder in the division. Noone.

Also Duran is wholly at fault for no mas. So what if Leonard knew he wouldn't train hard, he could have fixed that himself by, ya know, training hard. The rematch was ages after the original so Duran had loads of time to be in shape, it's his own fault.

That doesn't change that when the two met at their best, Duran won handily.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> He's not underrated at all, anyone who knows their shit knows he was a very good fighter with a excellent jab. How do you think he should be rated?


The fact you're scoffing at the fact that he couldn't rate above Buchannan or Marcel underrates him, because he has an argument to do so. He's definitely a better LHW than Maxim, most probably better than Loughran and Darius. He's probably done more at the weight than Conn.

Ofcourse he's underrated, have you ever come across a Virgil Hill fan on a boxing forum? Boxing ratings are typically based on hyperbole, yet Virgil gets no love from any quarter so doesn't benefit from any of that. Technically very sound, quick, elite jab, hard to hit, nothing exciting about him though so he's in the 'who cares bracket'. I mean not even the nerds care to rate him.

PP's top underrated across boxing forums (in no order) would include:

Hill
Ottke
Douglas
Norwood
Tubbs
Akinwande
and that's all I can think of right now


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

For some reason Leonard feels the need to believe opponents aren't 100% when he faces them, it makes him more comfortable going into a war with them. He sees it as part of his conquest. It doesn't mean he wouldn't beat them anyway. It's just part of boxing and the psychology of war. 

Duran and Hagler aren't on Leonard's level when everyone's 100% and on their game no matter how hard they train, they're too slow.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> :lol:


I don't think there is a question. A smiley face does not make them have 24 or so title defenses on 4 reigns, 2 at light heavyweight and 2 at cruiserweight. Come on, are we going to give people credit fairly, or rate them higher because Duran beat them? Fact is Duran never fought an elite fighter until Leonard. He did not fight an elite fighter until he moved up. Now the definition of elite is whatever someone wants to make it. But we know Benitez,Leonard,Hearns,Hagler are elite. Other elites? Delahoya,Mosley,Hopkins,Jones, Mayweather. We all know who they are and what it means to be elite. And no Virgil Hill was not elite, but he was consistent and a solid champion by anyone's estimation. Later on he wore out and he was not as effective, but in his prime the man could outbox and outjab anyone. His right hand was probably the worst punch I ever saw thrown, but his counter left and left jab and speed were top notch.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> No, I got irritated because Mayweather, a fighter I don't like, got so ridiculously underrated against a fighter I do like - Leonard.
> 
> As for McCallum, I think he gets his fair due on this forum for the most part. I also think his era is fairly rated here. I do think Burley gets overrated, though.
> 
> I don't think Duran feared McCallum in any way, but the fact is that he did duck him for someone who was a much better bet in terms risk/reward. Other fighters get lots of shit for such things, but with Duran it's hardly mentioned. I've seen Leonard being accused more times for "ducking" not only Hearns but also a prime Hagler, many more times than I've seen Duran being accused for this proper duck.


Mike MaCallum is a exceptional fighter, but for Duran and Hearns, fighting each other in 1984 was just a big Vegas fight with two elites. Most guys would fight the big fight rather than a smaller fight against a good opponent. I don't know what Mike wanted? Duran to pick him over Hearns and earn less money? Duran had known Hearns for years and both were in that circle of fighters Benitez,Leonard,Hagler etc. even Cuevas, whom Hearns and Duran both beat.


----------



## Yiddle (Jul 10, 2012)

Original question - Duran would inflict a beating upon de la Hoya and stop him around the 12th


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> I don't think there is a question. A smiley face does not make them have 24 or so title defenses on 4 reigns, 2 at light heavyweight and 2 at cruiserweight. Come on, are we going to give people credit fairly, or rate them higher because Duran beat them? Fact is Duran never fought an elite fighter until Leonard. He did not fight an elite fighter until he moved up. Now the definition of elite is whatever someone wants to make it. But we know Benitez,Leonard,Hearns,Hagler are elite. Other elites? Delahoya,Mosley,Hopkins,Jones, Mayweather. We all know who they are and what it means to be elite. And no Virgil Hill was not elite, but he was consistent and a solid champion by anyone's estimation. Later on he wore out and he was not as effective, but in his prime the man could outbox and outjab anyone. His right hand was probably the worst punch I ever saw thrown, but his counter left and left jab and speed were top notch.


If you think I'm rating Marcel higher than Hill just because Duran beat him you know nothing of Marcel.

I agree on Hills rght hand :lol: Brilliantly put :good


----------



## Bill Jincock (Jun 19, 2012)

Hill was a hometown splinter title guy that fought soft competition in a pretty weak light heavy era for the most part, which is why he had so many defences.

Who were the best fighters he beat in his prime? Leslie Stewart, Ramzi Hassan, a washed up blown up James Kinchen\Frank Tate, Fabrice Tiozzo, Czyz, Crawford Ashley? It's not terrible, but it's a group of fighters most light-heavies that aspire to be very good\excellent should sweep aside...and as soon as the comp went up slightly he struggled and his flaws were shown up.Not many very good light heavies would lose to an old Tommy Hearns, come out only slightly ahead against Maske, or get a beating by DM.

I don't want to be harsh on him as he was definitely a good fighter with a top-notch jab and imo would have at least a 50\50 chance of beating Moorer, Williams etc and unifying had he tried to do so in the late 80s\early 90s.But he was 90% of the time totally one-paced and one-dimensional, without being a great talent in that dimension.A minimalist jabber without a sharp enough overall technical game to ever really look like being a possible great.As a light heavy i put him on the sort of level guys were Pastrano, Finnegan, Fourie were on.A bit better than someone like Maske or Charles Williams.A good fighter, but one who if he's generally not been seen as having the talent of Dejesus, Marcel or whoever, is more likely to have arrived at that outlook due to his own shortcomings as a fighter rather than everyone having an agenda.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> The fact you're scoffing at the fact that he couldn't rate above Buchannan or Marcel underrates him, because he has an argument to do so. He's definitely a better LHW than Maxim, most probably better than Loughran and Darius. He's probably done more at the weight than Conn.
> 
> Ofcourse he's underrated, have you ever come across a Virgil Hill fan on a boxing forum? Boxing ratings are typically based on hyperbole, yet Virgil gets no love from any quarter so doesn't benefit from any of that. Technically very sound, quick, elite jab, hard to hit, nothing exciting about him though so he's in the 'who cares bracket'. I mean not even the nerds care to rate him.
> 
> ...


That's a list of good fighters who had very good nights. Some had a great night.

Don't deserve much more than that.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Oh this has devolved into the typical MAG thread. Just like the good old days.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> Oh this has devolved into the typical MAG thread. Just like the good old days.


:rofl


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Oh this has devolved into the typical MAG thread. Just like the good old days.


Yeah I tell myself not to comment on Duran, and then I do. Sometimes I cannot help myself. You and a few others like Teeto and Fleaman and Duranimal and Luf and turbotime and others are here, so that is good. Sorry if I left anyone out. Glad to see many names from ESB here. Getting used to posting here now.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bill Jincock said:


> Hill was a hometown splinter title guy that fought soft competition in a pretty weak light heavy era for the most part, which is why he had so many defences.
> 
> Who were the best fighters he beat in his prime? Leslie Stewart, Ramzi Hassan, a washed up blown up James Kinchen\Frank Tate, Fabrice Tiozzo, Czyz, Crawford Ashley? It's not terrible, but it's a group of fighters most light-heavies that aspire to be very good\excellent should sweep aside...and as soon as the comp went up slightly he struggled and his flaws were shown up.Not many very good light heavies would lose to an old Tommy Hearns, come out only slightly ahead against Maske, or get a beating by DM.
> 
> I don't want to be harsh on him as he was definitely a good fighter with a top-notch jab and imo would have at least a 50\50 chance of beating Moorer, Williams etc and unifying had he tried to do so in the late 80s\early 90s.But he was 90% of the time totally one-paced and one-dimensional, without being a great talent in that dimension.A minimalist jabber without a sharp enough overall technical game to ever really look like being a possible great.As a light heavy i put him on the sort of level guys were Pastrano, Finnegan, Fourie were on.A bit better than someone like Maske or Charles Williams.A good fighter, but one who if he's generally not been seen as having the talent of Dejesus, Marcel or whoever, is more likely to have arrived at that outlook due to his own shortcomings as a fighter rather than everyone having an agenda.


Virgil Hill was odd. A converted southpaw. His punches were actually rather robotic and stiff, even his counter left was like a cast, but his quickness was there. Sort of odd because he was so fast, yet his punches rather robotic, that when he fought Hearns, Hearns was just too varied and could match his jab and quickness with more punch variety, it took away what Virgil had over most guys which is quickness and the jab. But Virgil quickness was rare. I think he would have beaten Moore, and Williams? I give the edge to Hill by boxing Williams, but Prince Charles was good. If a guy could outjab him then it is anyone's game. Williams vs Moorer would have been a good fight.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

I forgot to added, his footwork was also fast and he had good strong legs. a good balanced body and strong. all together a solid fast fighter. Faster than most, so he could rack up so many defenses. I think he is underrated.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> Yeah I tell myself not to comment on Duran, and then I do. Sometimes I cannot help myself. You and a few others like Teeto and Fleaman and Duranimal and Luf and turbotime and others are here, so that is good. Sorry if I left anyone out. Glad to see many names from ESB here. Getting used to posting here now.


:good


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

So tell me MAG which all time great fighters in their prime did SRL fight going up? Don't say Hagler as he wasn't prime. Virgil wasn't an all time great either. So which ones did Hearns.. SRL.. fight going up in weight? You said that's what the great do.. okay then.. so who? The difference with Duran is.. he DID fight ATG IN THEIR PRIME while moving up... Hearns.. SRL.. Hagler... were all prime in their best division. That is in stark contrast to the other fab 3 people you listed. Further, upon moving up Hearns also lost... in fact lost to Barkley twice.... so what happened there Mag? Barkley wasn't an ATG and yet Hearns still lost. I don't think you realize or choose to forget how big a deal moving up is.. when you're fighting ATG in their best class.. that make a work of difference. The fact that Duran could beat a prime SRL at his best weight.. speaks volumes. When they were both at their best... Duran won and that is the best victory that ANY of the Fab 4 have.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

The only result certain in history is that Louis beats Walcott 10 out of 10


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> How bad is that your man didn't bother to get into top shape then? You don't feel that's a pretty basic obligation to the fans?


Yes I agree with you. Duran obviously accepted the fight because the amount of money was way more than any amount he`d ever had before but he should still have declined the offer for that date and given his own date that suited him better... its not like Leonard would have said `no its OK you had your chance` because at that point it was Ray that needed the rematch, not Duran. Duran could have called the shots but as soon as the offer was made he jumped in like a fool. Worst mistake of his career as it turned out.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Ray did that a lot. Duran taught him to get a guy to fight his fight or out of shape. Duran actually taught him to use mental games and different tactics. It only worked with Duran and Hagler. With Hearns, Leonard waited for Hearns to get what he thought washed up and signed to fight him after Kinchen. I wonder if Ray would have fought Hearns in the rematch had Tommy knocked out Kinchen in 2 rounds.


I don't think he would have fought Hearns in that case, and if he did I actually think he might have beat Hearns because he would have seen Tommy as the threat he turned out to be, he came back pretty well as it was, I will never knock Leonard`s heart and guts, he was a true warrior when pushed to the wall.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

rossco said:


> I find it strange that Leonard freely admits to deliberately getting Duran to fight on a date he knew he would struggle to be in top shape for. Duran gets a lot of stick for no mas but Ray seems to be getting a pass on the cowardly act he pulled on Duran.
> 
> Ray came across as a bitter ego maniac in the 30 for 30 doc. Durans happy with his legacy, he's living life and having fun. Ray has some serious issues and massive chip on his shoulder. Duran looked bewildered During the face off. Ray saying he forgives him and walking away with his arm around him like he's the better man. Maybe Ray thought he needed to do this because he knows Duran has a movie coming out and He's bitter and jealous Durans getting the lime light. Just a theory.


Yes, its kinda contradictory on Leonard`s part. On one hand he admits he knew Duran couldn't get into his best shape but on the other hand he acts baffled when Duran tells him he quit because he wasn't in the best shape and struggled to make weight, haha. He`s a complicated guy that`s for sure.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> I think what Duran did against Buchanan was much, much worse. Not giving him a rematch on acceptable terms. And Duran, predictably, gets absolutely no stick for that.
> 
> There's no fighter on this forum where the double standards is so staggering as they are when it comes to Duran.


I agree that there should probably have been a rematch because Buchanan gave Duran a shot and its nice to return the favour, plus it did end a little controversial.

Even as a Scotsman though, its clear for me to see Duran dominated the fight, the verdict was never in doubt, Ken was on his way towards a wide decision loss.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Duran and Hagler aren't on Leonard's level when everyone's 100% and on their game no matter how hard they train, they're too slow.


As a big fan of all 3 men (particularly Leonard and Duran) I cannot put into words how ridiculous this is.

All 3 men are without question on each others level, how you split them is a personal choice but they are not separated by levels, that is definite.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> Yes I agree with you. Duran obviously accepted the fight because the amount of money was way more than any amount he`d ever had before but he should still have declined the offer for that date and given his own date that suited him better... its not like Leonard would have said `no its OK you had your chance` because at that point it was Ray that needed the rematch, not Duran. Duran could have called the shots but as soon as the offer was made he jumped in like a fool. Worst mistake of his career as it turned out.


Can't say I think it's that big a deal, just think that Duran fans that hurl all manner of accusations at Leonard should hold their own man to similar standards.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> I don't think he would have fought Hearns in that case, and if he did I actually think he might have beat Hearns because he would have seen Tommy as the threat he turned out to be, he came back pretty well as it was, I will never knock Leonard`s heart and guts, he was a true warrior when pushed to the wall.


Interesting theory about Ray fighting a more dangerous Hearns and winning. I don't think he could beat Hearns much middleweight and up. And Tommy in 1989 showed a lot of experience. He had fought the whole decade and Ray only fought a few times, so by 1989 Tommy was more worn out than Ray but probably had an edge in experience.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

Wow I must say.. I'm surprised MAG didn't respond to me.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

KuRuPT said:


> Wow I must say.. I'm surprised MAG didn't respond to me.


let me go back and see what you said. I am sorry.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

KuRuPT said:


> So tell me MAG which all time great fighters in their prime did SRL fight going up? Don't say Hagler as he wasn't prime. Virgil wasn't an all time great either. So which ones did Hearns.. SRL.. fight going up in weight? You said that's what the great do.. okay then.. so who? The difference with Duran is.. he DID fight ATG IN THEIR PRIME while moving up... Hearns.. SRL.. Hagler... were all prime in their best division. That is in stark contrast to the other fab 3 people you listed. Further, upon moving up Hearns also lost... in fact lost to Barkley twice.... so what happened there Mag? Barkley wasn't an ATG and yet Hearns still lost. I don't think you realize or choose to forget how big a deal moving up is.. when you're fighting ATG in their best class.. that make a work of difference. The fact that Duran could beat a prime SRL at his best weight.. speaks volumes. When they were both at their best... Duran won and that is the best victory that ANY of the Fab 4 have.


I didn't see this one. I am sorry. 
Duran moving up is vague, considering he did fight at 154 as early as 1978 before Ray,Tommy and Benitez fought that high. And you are assuming Ray was prime when Duran fought him? See I do not. I think a man's prime is when he is experienced rather than green, and can apply the mental as well as physical expertise. Even against Benitez, had Ray been experienced he would have had an easier fight against Wilfred. Inexperience and prime is not prime. Seasoning and peak physical condition would equal prime. Ray had things to learn, and just by the way he fought Duran's fight, he was not prime yet. Are you telling me he did not say he was going to fight Duran's fight? He has admitted to it. Well Hearns moved up to 154 himself, and I must say after Duran did. SRL. was green in my mind, and Hagler? Prime? Well he was dominant. Hearns fought Hagler only a year and 5 months after Duran. So it isn't like a big difference was there in Hagler's age. Hill was prime, and ATG? Well Hill was HOF and at the time seen as possible great. He is underrated now. Well if you are going to say people losing to fighters who are not all time great. Hagler lost to Monroe, Duran lost to Dejesus (no I don't think he was great. HOF). If you look at the guys Hearns fought at middleweight, he did fight a whose who of middleweights in the 1980s. Singletary,Geraldo,Sutherland,Shuler,Dewitt,Kinchen,Barkley,Olajide. Fighters lose. I have said before, losing to ATG fighters is not bad, but a fighter has to beat other ATG/HOF fighters. Duran beat two. Leonard and Cuevas. That is good, but Ray was still not great in my mind, and Cuevas was at 154 and washed up. But he fought him. There is no way the best victory is Duran and Ray int he fab 4 fights, when Ray fought his fight on his second defense of his first title- and still Ray was not knocked out, and then he beats Duran easy in the rematch. Take into consideration how Duran was beaten by Benitez easily just one year and 2 months after Ray fought Duran. The best win of the fab 4? Either Leonard over Hearns or Hagler over Hearns. I would pick Leonard, because both guys were champions at that same weight. By the way, Duran was a champion at 154 when Tommy beat him.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

At lightweight its Duran all day.

At welterweight Duran's form fluctuated so its a lot harder to make a decision. If you have Oscar on his his beast day and Duran coming in under trained and not taking th fight too seriously then Oscar would probably win but if Duran decides to show up I don't think Oscar can beat him.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> I didn't see this one. I am sorry.
> Duran moving up is vague, considering he did fight at 154 as early as 1978 before Ray,Tommy and Benitez fought that high. And you are assuming Ray was prime when Duran fought him? See I do not. I think a man's prime is when he is experienced rather than green, and can apply the mental as well as physical expertise. Even against Benitez, had Ray been experienced he would have had an easier fight against Wilfred. Inexperience and prime is not prime. Seasoning and peak physical condition would equal prime. Ray had things to learn, and just by the way he fought Duran's fight, he was not prime yet. Are you telling me he did not say he was going to fight Duran's fight? He has admitted to it. Well Hearns moved up to 154 himself, and I must say after Duran did. SRL. was green in my mind, and Hagler? Prime? Well he was dominant. Hearns fought Hagler only a year and 5 months after Duran. So it isn't like a big difference was there in Hagler's age. Hill was prime, and ATG? Well Hill was HOF and at the time seen as possible great. He is underrated now. Well if you are going to say people losing to fighters who are not all time great. Hagler lost to Monroe, Duran lost to Dejesus (no I don't think he was great. HOF). If you look at the guys Hearns fought at middleweight, he did fight a whose who of middleweights in the 1980s. Singletary,Geraldo,Sutherland,Shuler,Dewitt,Kinchen,Barkley,Olajide. Fighters lose. I have said before, losing to ATG fighters is not bad, but a fighter has to beat other ATG/HOF fighters. Duran beat two. Leonard and Cuevas. That is good, but Ray was still not great in my mind, and Cuevas was at 154 and washed up. But he fought him. There is no way the best victory is Duran and Ray int he fab 4 fights, when Ray fought his fight on his second defense of his first title- and still Ray was not knocked out, and then he beats Duran easy in the rematch. Take into consideration how Duran was beaten by Benitez easily just one year and 2 months after Ray fought Duran. The best win of the fab 4? Either Leonard over Hearns or Hagler over Hearns. I would pick Leonard, because both guys were champions at that same weight. By the way, Duran was a champion at 154 when Tommy beat him.


 You didn't answer my question though.. WHICH fighters did SRL, Hearns or Hagler beat moving up... NAME Them... You said they have to beat other great fighters moving up.. SO.. which in their prime fighters did Hearns.. SRL and Hagler....moving up that were all time greats... Name them please? Duran has one by beating SRL.. Hearns really doesn't unless you count Hill as an ATG.. I don't... So who then? Who did SRL beat in his prime.. Hagler wasn't prime. That's the difference here.. you say Duran lost this fight and that fight but they were against ATG fighters IN THEIR PRIME IN THEIR PRIME DIVISION. Duran on the other hand was past his prime and best his best weight. See how that works? That is the biggest factor of all.. Not who fought when and how early.. Duran wasn't prime nor at his prime weight.. while he was fighting prime fighters at their prime weight.. this is HUGE. Shit, Hearns would lose to fighters who weren't even ATG and get KO'd and Duran even further past his best and best weight and beat that same guy. Hearns fought two fighters that were ATG's at their prime or close to it.. SRL and Hagler.. He lost both and convincingly KO'd... You might consider Wilfred an ATG... if so.. he won that won but he'd still be 1-2.. not a great record by any stretch. Difference is.. he got those losses and a win in his prime.. duran didn't get his and well past his best


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

KuRuPT said:


> You didn't answer my question though.. WHICH fighters did SRL, Hearns or Hagler beat moving up... NAME Them... You said they have to beat other great fighters moving up.. SO.. which in their prime fighters did Hearns.. SRL and Hagler....moving up that were all time greats... Name them please? Duran has one by beating SRL.. Hearns really doesn't unless you count Hill as an ATG.. I don't... So who then? Who did SRL beat in his prime.. Hagler wasn't prime. That's the difference here.. you say Duran lost this fight and that fight but they were against ATG fighters IN THEIR PRIME IN THEIR PRIME DIVISION. Duran on the other hand was past his prime and best his best weight. See how that works? That is the biggest factor of all.. Not who fought when and how early.. Duran wasn't prime nor at his prime weight.. while he was fighting prime fighters at their prime weight.. this is HUGE. Shit, Hearns would lose to fighters who weren't even ATG and get KO'd and Duran even further past his best and best weight and beat that same guy. Hearns fought two fighters that were ATG's at their prime or close to it.. SRL and Hagler.. He lost both and convincingly KO'd... You might consider Wilfred an ATG... if so.. he won that won but he'd still be 1-2.. not a great record by any stretch. Difference is.. he got those losses and a win in his prime.. duran didn't get his and well past his best


Who did Hagler beat moving up? Well obviously he was at middleweight his whole career if I remembered correctly. Hearns beat moving up Benitez,Hill and the second Ray fight he should have won in 1989, but the draw was ok considering Tommy tried for the knockout too much in that fight and should have just sat back and won a decision. Ray beat good fighter Kalule and ATG Hagler. And Duran fought at 154 before Ray and Tommy and Benitez did, so the moving up argument is not that valid.. Remember Tommy and Ray moved up also. Most greats move up. Hagler is the big exception and not the rule. That is where I differ with you, Ray was not prime when he fought Duran, and I would say Benitez was more complete a fighter in 1982 than Ray in 1980 when Ray fought Duran. The only thing Duran has in his favor fighting an ATG is the first Ray win, where he had a younger inexperienced guy fighting his fight, and he didn't stop him, and then Duran lost easily to Ray in the rematch. Yet that win is taken away from Ray, even though another guy Benitez outclassed Duran fighting a boxing style-yet less foot movement a short time later.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Interesting theory about Ray fighting a more dangerous Hearns and winning. I don't think he could beat Hearns much middleweight and up. And Tommy in 1989 showed a lot of experience. He had fought the whole decade and Ray only fought a few times, so by 1989 Tommy was more worn out than Ray but probably had an edge in experience.


Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't bet on Leonard to beat Hearns. I`d always lean towards him to win though due to him being able to absorb punishment and come back better when hurt.

I feel their fight would always end in a `tough it out` kinda battle... its whether Tommy can hold onto the lead (assuming he is in fact ahead) when the inevitable rally comes from Ray. Either man could win in all honesty and you might be right about Hearns having the advantage rom 160 upwards, hemight even have the advantage from 154 upwards, he`s the best 154lber I`ve ever seen (McCallum runs him close)... either way a Leonard-Hearns fight would always be a seesaw war, maybe just differing in style each time they fought but always close.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

Hill wasn't an ATG MAG.. we've been over this.. so he doesn't count. Wilfred is borderline ATG.. and I kinda gave you that one. That STILL make Hearns only 1-2 while moving up fighting all time greats. Wanna know one key difference there? In both of his fights with SRL and Bennitez... Hearns was prime or very close to his prime... We can't say the same for Duran when he lost to hearns or Hagler for sure... nor was he prime for Bennitez. See that HUGE difference there MAG.. that is what should be the focus.. but instead.. you bring up other stuff. I can call hearns moving up to beat bennitez moving up.. but again.. I don't really consider it so because I think he was better at that weight than he was at WW... While we can't say the same for Duran at WW or MW or SMW.. See that difference MAG. There is literally no getting around these facts. SRL.. Hearns no Hagler moved up and beat ATG like you claim they did. Duran did. Duran also faced these prime guys at their best weight in their prime at the time. We can't say the same for when Duran faced them can we MAG?


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't bet on Leonard to beat Hearns. I`d always lean towards him to win though due to him being able to absorb punishment and come back better when hurt.
> 
> I feel their fight would always end in a `tough it out` kinda battle... its whether Tommy can hold onto the lead (assuming he is in fact ahead) when the inevitable rally comes from Ray. Either man could win in all honesty and you might be right about Hearns having the advantage rom 160 upwards, hemight even have the advantage from 154 upwards, he`s the best 154lber I`ve ever seen (McCallum runs him close)... either way a Leonard-Hearns fight would always be a seesaw war, maybe just differing in style each time they fought but always close.


I love Ray as a fighter. I think in the first fight he did fight an inexperienced Hearns, but Hearns was still great. Hearns in 1981 was similar to Ray in 1980 when he first fought Duran. They had the skills of a great fighter, but not the experience. Everything was not together for them. But Ray in the rematch with Duran and Hearns with Benitez showed how one fight can help a guuy develop into a complete fighter. I am of the belief that had Tommy fought Ray in a third fight in 1989 or 1990 he would have stopped him in 3 or 4 rounds. It would have kept getting harder and harder for Ray against Hearns. And Ray knew it and didn't fight him again. Tommy would have been more calm in the third fight and I can almost see an outclassing. I am not sure why I see an outclassing. Tommy's experience took over when his skills were diminishing, but his skills diminished slower than Ray's did, solely because he fought more and kept his body in better shape than Ray did, just by the activity. Those many fights he had helped him handle Ray. He was not the great fighter he was in his prime, but he still was fast and as Virgil Hill showed he could still beat top guys.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Duran fought at 154 before Ray and Tommy and Benitez did, so the moving up argument is not that valid


You keep saying this but fail to mention Duran came in around 150ish in keep busy fights without any title on the line, he was an old school fighter that liked to fight to stay sharp. Robinson, Chavez and many others did likewise, they are never going to come in dead on their title fighting weight in a non-title fight, lets be serious.... and even without that said, Duran coming in at 150 odd lbs before SRL, Hearns and Benitez ever did doesn't mean he wasn't the naturally smaller and older man. I`m not sure what you are trying to convince us of by continually pointing this out, Duran wasn't naturally as big as those guys no matter which way you want to cut it.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Leonard and Hearns were multi weight champions... Hagler was a legendary and dominant 1 weight champion... Duran was a multi weight champion... Duran was a legendary and dominant 1 weight champion... this probably goes a little towards explaining Duran making 99% of top 10 all time lists while the rest of the fab 4 are looking in from the outside (Leonard cracking some lists)


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

KuRuPT said:


> Hill wasn't an ATG MAG.. we've been over this.. so he doesn't count. Wilfred is borderline ATG.. and I kinda gave you that one. That STILL make Hearns only 1-2 while moving up fighting all time greats. Wanna know one key difference there? In both of his fights with SRL and Bennitez... Hearns was prime or very close to his prime... We can't say the same for Duran when he lost to hearns or Hagler for sure... nor was he prime for Bennitez. See that HUGE difference there MAG.. that is what should be the focus.. but instead.. you bring up other stuff. I can call hearns moving up to beat bennitez moving up.. but again.. I don't really consider it so because I think he was better at that weight than he was at WW... While we can't say the same for Duran at WW or MW or SMW.. See that difference MAG. There is literally no getting around these facts. SRL.. Hearns no Hagler moved up and beat ATG like you claim they did. Duran did. Duran also faced these prime guys at their best weight in their prime at the time. We can't say the same for when Duran faced them can we MAG?


It is hard thing to say. Virgil was one of the quickest guys at 175 and yet he was robotic. And odd style, but ATG? I don't know. 24 title defenses is nothing small no matter who you fight, guys knowing they win a title when they fight him are going to fight hard, and he fought the guys they put him in with.

Like I have said before, say there are excuses for Duran when he fought Benitez and Hearns and Leonard (even though he fought until 2001 when he was 50). Who is this list of ATG fighters he beat? Wasn't at 135 or 140. And I think he made a mistake not fighting at 140, where he would have won a title. And I do think Arguello would have been much tougher for Duran than anyone thinks. As for the fab 4. Benitez lasted until I think 1990 in boxing and Duran won a title the year before, so Duran was not really older or more washed up, Benitez did fight great at 154, and Duran was still good, just heavier and maybe not as quick as a lightwieight, but he was still a top notch fighter. I cannot explain the Laing fight. Bad style ect, but Duran did not lose much in those years. He fought Ray, lost to Laing, but then beat Minchillo, Cuevas,Moore. Hagler retired 2 years before Duran won his last title. Duran won a title after Leonard did. This talk about Duran being washed up and beatable comes up after the fact. Many people picked him to beat Benitez, only later when he lost did people make excuses for Duran, who was only 30 when Benitez beat him. Ray Leonard beats Benitez,Duran,Hearns, Hagler and the argument is he did not move up and beat a great, but what was Hagler? And Hearns did move up and beat Benitez. Benitez won his title vs. Hope when Tommy was still 147 champion. So it was moving up. And the fact is I still don't think Ray was the ATG complete fighter, he later became when he knew the whole game. Duran gets credit for beating Ray, when people say he was in a division he moved up, saying look how great the win is, but during the same era he lost easily to Hearns.Benitez and Hagler. He gave Hagler a good fight, but all Hagler had to do was turn it up in the last few rounds and he wins a decision. Duran is great, but to say a fight he beat a fighter on his first title reign in his second title defense is a great great win? I am not sure. Greatest win of them all? Fab 4? Hard to say. The most oneside was Hearns over Duran. The most surprising Ray over Marvin. Probably Ray over Hearns is the best win.


----------



## Theron (May 17, 2013)

Oscar picks Duran over himself, seems pretty humble

''He probably woulda kicked my ass'' :lol:


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Oskee got this. Dejesus' hooks had Duran in La La Land atsch


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Theron said:


> Oscar picks Duran over himself, seems pretty humble
> 
> ''He probably woulda kicked my ass'' :lol:


:lol:


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Oskee got this. Dejesus' hooks had Duran in La La Land atsch


Dejesus never hurt Duran, he scored two flash knockdowns then was beaten up for the remainder of the fights, you may well be taking the piss but the smileys dont show properly on my phone so hard to tell.

Sent from my LT30p using Tapatalk


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Dejesus never hurt Duran, he scored two flash knockdowns* then was beaten up for the remainder of the fights,* you may well be taking the piss but the smileys dont show properly on my phone so hard to tell.
> 
> Sent from my LT30p using Tapatalk


Huh? Duran lost one of them.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Gotta' love Oscar!


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Huh? Duran lost one of them.


Yeah but it dont mean he was hurt, he just lost 6 rounds of it.

Sent from my LT30p using Tapatalk


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Yeah but it dont mean he was hurt, he just lost 6 rounds of it.
> 
> Sent from my LT30p using Tapatalk


yeah but how did Dejesus go and get beat up when he won :lol:


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> It is hard thing to say. Virgil was one of the quickest guys at 175 and yet he was robotic. And odd style, but ATG? I don't know. 24 title defenses is nothing small no matter who you fight, guys knowing they win a title when they fight him are going to fight hard, and he fought the guys they put him in with.
> 
> Like I have said before, say there are excuses for Duran when he fought Benitez and Hearns and Leonard (even though he fought until 2001 when he was 50). Who is this list of ATG fighters he beat? Wasn't at 135 or 140. And I think he made a mistake not fighting at 140, where he would have won a title. And I do think Arguello would have been much tougher for Duran than anyone thinks. As for the fab 4. Benitez lasted until I think 1990 in boxing and Duran won a title the year before, so Duran was not really older or more washed up, Benitez did fight great at 154, and Duran was still good, just heavier and maybe not as quick as a lightwieight, but he was still a top notch fighter. I cannot explain the Laing fight. Bad style ect, but Duran did not lose much in those years. He fought Ray, lost to Laing, but then beat Minchillo, Cuevas,Moore. Hagler retired 2 years before Duran won his last title. Duran won a title after Leonard did. This talk about Duran being washed up and beatable comes up after the fact. Many people picked him to beat Benitez, only later when he lost did people make excuses for Duran, who was only 30 when Benitez beat him. Ray Leonard beats Benitez,Duran,Hearns, Hagler and the argument is he did not move up and beat a great, but what was Hagler? And Hearns did move up and beat Benitez. Benitez won his title vs. Hope when Tommy was still 147 champion. So it was moving up. And the fact is I still don't think Ray was the ATG complete fighter, he later became when he knew the whole game. Duran gets credit for beating Ray, when people say he was in a division he moved up, saying look how great the win is, but during the same era he lost easily to Hearns.Benitez and Hagler. He gave Hagler a good fight, but all Hagler had to do was turn it up in the last few rounds and he wins a decision. Duran is great, but to say a fight he beat a fighter on his first title reign in his second title defense is a great great win? I am not sure. Greatest win of them all? Fab 4? Hard to say. The most oneside was Hearns over Duran. The most surprising Ray over Marvin. *Probably Ray over Hearns is the best win*.


There's definitely an argument. I mean, did anyone else below 160 even touch Hearns? And Leonard had to change style and come out of his comfort zone radically to do so. Montreal also has a serious argument of course, since Duran had moved up from LW and beat a Leonard that at the very least was in his physical prime. Hearns over Duran is impressive since it was such a annihilation. No one else treated Duran like that during his 30+ years pro career.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

turbotime said:


> yeah but how did Dejesus go and get beat up when he won :lol:


You know what I've mixed the fights up a bit, I was thinking Duran was knocked down in the second and third fights which he went on to dominate but it was the first and not the third when he got knocked down wasn' it.

Ah well fair do, he still didn't hurt him though.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Chatty said:


> You know what I've mixed the fights up a bit, I was thinking Duran was knocked down in the second and third fights which he went on to dominate but it was the first and not the third when he got knocked down wasn' it.
> 
> Ah well fair do, he still didn't hurt him though.


His "smiling" still lead him to getting tagged throughout the fight. It was kinda funny to see Duran get tagged constantly, then him smile, then Dejesus do it again :lol: He was pretty frustrated.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

turbotime said:


> His "smiling" still lead him to getting tagged throughout the fight. It was kinda funny to see Duran get tagged constantly, then him smile, then Dejesus do it again :lol: He was pretty frustrated.


Yeah I think that was his first foray into pissing about in training and not taking his opponent as seriously as he should have. Esteban was quality though and I gotta credit him massively for putting on a great performance, its a pretty underrated win in the scheme of boxing history.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

De Jesus was no mug. It's a pity he never fought Buchanan. Great stylistic match up.

Sent from my LT30p using Tapatalk


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> There's definitely an argument. I mean, did anyone else below 160 even touch Hearns? And Leonard had to change style and come out of his comfort zone radically to do so. Montreal also has a serious argument of course, since Duran had moved up from LW and beat a Leonard that at the very least was in his physical prime. Hearns over Duran is impressive since it was such a annihilation. No one else treated Duran like that during his 30+ years pro career.


every fight with the fab 4 had some interesting event. Each fight had some sort of significance. That is why the era was so great and hard to pick the best win. Best round of it all was Hagler/Hearns, but I don't think Hagler's win was incredible since Tommy was moving up and Hagler pretty much was the last one standing, but he took so many hard punches which could have led to the end of his skills. Some people might disagree, but he had that fight with Hearns and got hit clean, more than most times and rocked, then he took a year off from boxing, which was unheard of and came in rusty with Mugabi and had another hard fight. Contemplates retirement, but comes back after another year rusty and fights Ray.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

rossco said:


> De Jesus was no mug. It's a pity he never fought Buchanan. Great stylistic match up.
> 
> Sent from my LT30p using Tapatalk


No one is saying he was :good


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

turbotime said:


> No one is saying he was :good


I just kinda piped up there without really taking in what was being discussed. I'm bad for that :lol:

I know this is off topic but how do you think a De Jesus vs Buchanan fight would've went?


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

rossco said:


> I just kinda piped up there without really taking in what was being discussed. I'm bad for that :lol:
> 
> I know this is off topic but how do you think a De Jesus vs Buchanan fight would've went?


Nip/tuck, giving the edge to Buchanan here just based on his half wrinkle more to his game plan (footwork, consistent jabbing) in their best day.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Nip/tuck, giving the edge to Buchanan here just based on his half wrinkle more to his game plan (footwork, consistent jabbing) in their best day.


It's one of those fights that never happened that should've happened. Could've been a classic :good


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

rossco said:


> It's one of those fights that never happened that should've happened. Could've been a classic :good


It's wild. But so many fighters fought "everybody" it's very hard to fight everybody, if you know what I mean. I like Buchanan in this fight. Dejesus was kinda tiny


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Duran would destroy DLH at lightweight, and school him at welter. Inside game skillz 2 strong.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> DLH doesn't have the defense or quality to keep Duran off but his speed would see him have some success. He just doesn't work hard for 3mins to make this too close though for my money.
> 
> Well yes I wouldn't be picking DLH over Duran either but no need to talk about the man's demise.


Touche PP


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

turbotime said:


> It's wild. But so many fighters fought "everybody" it's very hard to fight everybody, if you know what I mean. I like Buchanan in this fight. Dejesus was kinda tiny


Yes, I've always had Buchanan over DeJesus....and not just because I'm a rabid Buchanan fan:smile


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> Duran would destroy DLH at lightweight, and school him at welter. Inside game skillz 2 strong.


Agreed!:deal


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

I don't know how I missed this thread but I would take Duran at both weights.


----------

