# Why does Duran seem to get a pass for his losses?



## Rockinghorseshit (Oct 4, 2013)

He comes of his best win against Leonard.. a few months later "Duran was bloated, he didn't train properly! nothing Leonard did that night made a difference as Duran wasn't interested at all" Or a reason for his No mas was "it was either keep fighting and embarrass himself on the world stage by shitting his pants or save face" Frankly that is all just speculation and takes away the shine off Leonard's revenge win.

Another one

Duran was shot when he lost to Leonard in 1989 but just came off another big win against big MW Barkley.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

It was well-documented that Duran wasn't in shape. Leonard admits that was part of his plan, and Duran looked like shit. 

To the rest, there comes a point in time when being past-prime gives you credit but not blame. That doesn't mean opponents don't get credit for beating you, but it's not the same as if you took a loss in your prime. Duran was well past-it at middleweight. He was coming off a good win and that win was a great feat. He wasn't expected to return to dominance in any meaningful way.

MAG is going to write a fucking novel, I can feel it.


----------



## Rockinghorseshit (Oct 4, 2013)

@*MAG1965




It was well-documented that Duran wasn't in shape. Leonard admits that was part of his plan, and Duran looked like shit.

Click to expand...

*
Ok fair comment but most of that was done by Lenoard who was mainly responsible for making him look "shit" by not standing in front of him and moving out before he had a chance to return fire.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

He hardly gets a pass.. It is no secret that Duran could be inconsistent, especially his post 147 career. The "No Mas" shit counts against his legacy of course.. I also highly count the Benitez loss against him because of how badly he got outboxed.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Because people want to see more white in the top 10 p4p?

But probably because of his dominant reign at lightweight. (which is top 3 all time and the other top 3 lightweights are also top 15 p4p)
Then he got arguably the greatest victory ever.
He gave Hagler a good fight, Barkley was a great win considering he was just an ex lightweight.

Skills, resume, speed, power, chin, he had it all.
I think he sort of avenged his Hearns and Leonard losses (atleast Duran probably felt that way) by the fact that he did better against Camacho than Leonard and better than Hearns against Barkley.


----------



## Rockinghorseshit (Oct 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Because people want to see more white in the top 10 p4p?
> 
> But probably because of his dominant reign at lightweight. (which is top 3 all time and the other top 3 lightweights are also top 15 p4p)
> Then he got arguably the greatest victory ever.
> ...


His fight with Hagler suffers from revisionism, it wasn't even close yet even in losing people are still desperate to give him credit. I would be surprised if you could even give him more than 4 rounds.

Yes he did better against Camacho even though Leonards best attributes being speed and reflexes were far long gone for a fighter at 41 where as Duran was not so reliant on those skills.

This takes me back to where he won a very good match against Barkley but then is written off by his fans a very short time later when he gets schooled a second time by Leonard as "shot".

You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Rockinghorseshit said:


> @*MAG1965
> 
> *
> Ok fair comment but most of that was done by Lenoard who was mainly responsible for making him look "shit" by not standing in front of him and moving out before he had a chance to return fire.


The point is that most of it seemed to have already happened before he got in the ring. And Leonard's performance was hardly masterful, it was shameful running and the fight was competitive even then.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Because people want to see more white in the top 10 p4p?
> 
> But probably because of his dominant reign at lightweight. (which is top 3 all time and the other top 3 lightweights are also top 15 p4p)
> Then he got arguably the greatest victory ever.
> ...


I guess most fighters are inconsistent in that they lose sometimes, but they do not get the excuses Duran got. And the fact is the greatest guy he beat was Leonard, who then beat him easily. I didn't want to get involved in a Duran discussion again, butit comes up. As a matter of fact someone mentioned me and I got an alert in quote about my name. I saw this thread before and decided to ignore it because it always turns out the same. 
The fact is yeah he gave Hagler a good fight but he lost. Hagler fought him the way Duran loves, tentative and punch for punch without moving back. Go back a year and a half and Benitez outboxes Duran, and that fight is never mentioned. And the fact is that was for the 154 pound belt. A win there against a legend Benitez would have had Duran back all the way. But he lost rather easily. Barkley was a great win. Moore was a great win, but it does not add much to his legacy over a top 25 ATG rating.. I don't think his losses against Ray,Benitez and Hearns should be eliminated and Barkley and Moore and a losing effort against Marvin should be focused on.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Rockinghorseshit said:


> His fight with Hagler suffers from revisionism, it wasn't even close yet even in losing people are still desperate to give him credit. I would be surprised if you could even give him more than 4 rounds.
> 
> Yes he did better against Camacho even though Leonards best attributes being speed and reflexes were far long gone for a fighter at 41 where as Duran was not so reliant on those skills.
> 
> ...


Just 4 rounds? Absolutely not. That fight was very competitive. That sounds more like desperation to _dis_credit Duran.

And yes, when you're past your prime, you can have it both ways. Nobody holds it against Morales for losing to Danny Garcia, but he gets all the praise in the world for taking Maidana to a razor thin decision. Just like nobody faults Mosley for drawing with Sergio Mora but really appreciate his win over Margarito years after people said he was past it.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

When you're old, your losses are at least somewhat forgiven, your wins elevated. That's consistently common in boxing.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Just 4 rounds? Absolutely not. That fight was very competitive. That sounds more like desperation to _dis_credit Duran.
> 
> And yes, when you're past your prime, you can have it both ways. Nobody holds it against Morales for losing to Danny Garcia, but he gets all the praise in the world for taking Maidana to a razor thin decision. Just like nobody faults Mosley for drawing with Sergio Mora but really appreciate his win over Margarito years after people said he was past it.


I didn't want to comment here and someone mentioned me. I am not sure how that worked since I had not commented her yet. Here is the problem regarding Duran. Mosley or Morales fought guys later who were lesser quality than when they were younger, so losing to them is no big deal. Duran never fought guys like Hagler,Hearns,Benitez,Leonard before. So losing to them all is more significant. Had he beaten Arguello at 135 by 5th round knockout and then Pryor at 140, then the later loses against those elites would have been equalized by the earlier wins against Pryor and Arguello. But the elites he fought he did lose to, except the first Ray fight. My whole point about Roberto is that he is not 1-10 ATG but 25 ATG. He does get passes for losing to the greats and a lot of credit for beating guys like Barkley and Moore. I think there should be a little bit of objectivity and a little recognition that his lightweight reign does not place him 1-10,,, and what he did with Ray and later does not jump him from say top 25 all the way to top 10.. yet he was great and dominant. All fighters an achilles. top 25 is pretty good ATG. And I think Arguello Duran would have been favoring Duran, but a tough fight. Pryor Duran? I go with Duran. But he didn't fight them. That would have probably given him near that 10 rating people say.


----------



## FloydPatterson (Jun 4, 2013)




----------



## Rockinghorseshit (Oct 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> The point is that most of it seemed to have already happened before he got in the ring. And Leonard's performance was hardly masterful, it was shameful running and the fight was competitive even then.


Well Duran says that, Duran manager Carlos Eleta also says he didn't quit due to stomach cramps, he just no answer for it, we'll have to disagree as it selling Leonards superior movement short by calling it shameless running. Duran just had no answers. Duran did attempt to get him against the ropes where he had the success but Leonard who committed to pivoting out more in this one had him befuddled.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> I didn't want to comment here and someone mentioned me. I am not sure how that worked since I had not commented her yet. Here is the problem regarding Duran. Mosley or Morales fought guys later who were lesser quality than when they were younger, so losing to them is no big deal. Duran never fought guys like Hagler,Hearns,Benitez,Leonard before. So losing to them all is more significant. Had he beaten Arguello at 135 by 5th round knockout and then Pryor at 140, then the later loses against those elites would have been equalized by the earlier wins against Pryor and Arguello. But the elites he fought he did lose to, except the first Ray fight. My whole point about Roberto is that he is not 1-10 ATG but 25 ATG. He does get passes for losing to the greats and a lot of credit for beating guys like Barkley and Moore. I think there should be a little bit of objectivity and a little recognition that his lightweight reign does not place him 1-10,,, and what he did with Ray and later does not jump him from say top 25 all the way to top 10..


If anything it's even _less_ significant that he lost to ATG's past his prime. Which is worse, losing to the lesser man or the better man?

And Duran did something they weren't able to accomplish in beating Leonard.

In sum you have his lightweight reign (long reign over a competitive era), a win viewed by most as the best in boxing (a prime undefeated Leonard who was not green, don't say that, you don't beat Benitez green), and then you have the icing on the cake wins past his prime against top contenders. Not to mention admirable competitive losses where he exceeded expectations.

He has single wins better than all the others, except perhaps Leonard. I'd be fine with someone having Leonard above Duran. But not the others. If Hagler and Hearns had continued to fight on, and we judged them by your criteria, who knows how many losses would drop them down the list.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Rockinghorseshit said:


> Well Duran says that, Duran manager Carlos Eleta also says he didn't quit due to stomach cramps, he just no answer for it, we'll have to disagree as it selling Leonards superior movement short by calling it shameless running. Duran just had no answers. Duran did attempt to get him against the ropes where he had the success but Leonard who committed to pivoting out more in this one had him befuddled.


Ray used his speed better in the rematch. Even when Duran did trap him Ray did those fast punches and then moved to his right and out of the way. And he used his speed to punch, but always be in position to move. And Duran fought decent in that you could tell if Ray would have fought inside in the second fight, Duran might have done well again. But Ray was not going to do that again. It is funny. I thought about it recently. Duran won the first fight mentally which then led to him winning physically. Ray in the second fight won it first physically which then got to Duran mentally which made him lose confidence. I just don't think anyone ever dazzled him and fought him like that. SRL was special.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Rockinghorseshit said:


> Well Duran says that, Duran manager Carlos Eleta also says he didn't quit due to stomach cramps, he just no answer for it, we'll have to disagree as it selling Leonards superior movement short by calling it shameless running. Duran just had no answers. Duran did attempt to get him against the ropes where he had the success but Leonard who committed to pivoting out more in this one had him befuddled.


I think you're lying to yourself if you think Leonard's movement alone made the difference. It was extremely negative showboating. And even where he did get him against the ropes, it was clear he wasn't as fluid and on point as he was in the first match. And again, even then, it was competitive. The second win cannot outshine the first. When both were at their best, Duran won. Leonard had 15 rounds to adjust, it's an insult to say he was too dumb or stubborn to adjust.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> If anything it's even _less_ significant that he lost to ATG's past his prime. Which is worse, losing to the lesser man or the better man?
> 
> And Duran did something they weren't able to accomplish in beating Leonard.
> 
> ...


It was a great win against Ray and Duran knew how to mentally get to Ray. Ray could be green and beat Benitez with his speed as he did on the inside more in that fight. Then he thought he could beat Duran again on the inside and he fought out that is Duran's mastery. Benitez and Ray were both great, but Ray was a little greater always, and they fought similarly.But to say Duran had the best win? I don't see that just because Ray fought Duran on the inside in the first fight because Duran got him mad. That is not a mature professional fighter. It taught Ray what to do in fights and to look for all advantages, which Ray took to extremes in later fights like the Lalonde fight and two titles.

And remember Hearns did continue to fight on. He beat Hill at the age of 32, the same age Duran was when he lost to Hearns and Hagler.


----------



## Rockinghorseshit (Oct 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Just 4 rounds? Absolutely not. That fight was very competitive. That sounds more like desperation to _dis_credit Duran.
> 
> And yes, when you're past your prime, you can have it both ways. Nobody holds it against Morales for losing to Danny Garcia, but he gets all the praise in the world for taking Maidana to a razor thin decision. Just like nobody faults Mosley for drawing with Sergio Mora but really appreciate his win over Margarito years after people said he was past it.


4 rounds that were clear Duran rounds, I would be easy by giving others such as the 10th for example IIRC as even but people seem to be more dazzled by the fact that former LW took Hagler the distance which don't get me wrong was still a very honorable performance.

I think with Shane though which is clear he left something in the ring that night against Vernon but he still showed he was borderline elite given he took Cotto to the brink in an arguably close match and dismantled the number one WW in Margarito which was his last Hurrah. Agreed he was past his best but he could still hang.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)




----------



## TSOL (Dec 15, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


>


that description atsch

"the gifted one upsets a prime roberto duran"

yea, still in his prime after 15 years of boxing and almost 80 fucking fights


----------



## Brnxhands (Jun 11, 2013)

He doesnt get passes An there is a thread like this every week asking why he gets passes


----------



## cachibatches (Jun 4, 2013)

The Leonard win makes him and ATG regardless of anything else. He beat a bigger, stronger, faster, younger Olympic gold medalist who went on to become a first class ATG. 

Also his longevity and general bully mystique crowd out the losses on their own.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

cachibatches said:


> The Leonard win makes him and ATG regardless of anything else. He beat a bigger, stronger, faster, younger Olympic gold medalist who went on to become a first class ATG.
> 
> Also his longevity and general bully mystique crowd out the losses on their own.


He is ATG, just not top 10. Bigger? Duran fought higher than Leonard ever did, stronger? I don't think so, not really. Duran can punch and is very strong at even 154. Younger? Duran was 29 when he fought Leonard in 1980. Just turned 29.. That is old? The against Leonard is good, but Ray did fight his fight, and it was proven by how easily he won the second fight.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> He is ATG, just not top 10. Bigger? Duran fought higher than Leonard ever did, stronger? I don't think so, not really. Duran can punch and is very strong at even 154. Younger? Duran was 29 when he fought Leonard in 1980. Just turned 29.. That is old? The against Leonard is good, but Ray did fight his fight, and it was proven by how easily he won the second fight.


Nobody around has him top 10. Top 12-15.

And no, you can't be green and beat Benitez. That's a silly proposition you constantly put forth.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Rockinghorseshit said:


> 4 rounds that were clear Duran rounds, I would be easy by giving others such as the 10th for example IIRC as even but people seem to be more dazzled by the fact that former LW took Hagler the distance which don't get me wrong was still a very honorable performance.
> 
> I think with Shane though which is clear he left something in the ring that night against Vernon but he still showed he was borderline elite given he took Cotto to the brink in an arguably close match and dismantled the number one WW in Margarito which was his last Hurrah. Agreed he was past his best but he could still hang.


A fat former lightweight making it a tough fight against the best Middleweight ever, yeah, people are right to be dazzled.


----------



## sugarshane_24 (Apr 20, 2013)

His only loss that needs forgiving is the No Mas fight, and he erased that stigma by his title wins at 154 and 160.


----------



## thehook13 (May 16, 2013)

For me Duran is a fighter whose legacy is only made more interesting by his losses. They came at a stage where he had already built a legacy. Then came, No Mas which is now boxing folk lore. His loss to Hearns elevates their Fantastic Four Symbiosis if anything


----------



## Rockinghorseshit (Oct 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> A fat former lightweight making it a tough fight against the best Middleweight ever, yeah, people are right to be dazzled.


Apart from tough I agree on that. But it's overstated how much Duran was really a "Lightweight" he was decently sized at Welter even.



Bogotazo said:


> I think you're lying to yourself if you think Leonard's movement alone made the difference. It was extremely negative showboating. And even where he did get him against the ropes, it was clear he wasn't as fluid and on point as he was in the first match. And again, even then, it was competitive. The second win cannot outshine the first. When both were at their best, Duran won. Leonard had 15 rounds to adjust, it's an insult to say he was too dumb or stubborn to adjust.


Extremely negative? That's the first I heard I've heard it being called that. He was at least returning fire instead of being as negative as someone like Corro who although had decent power, pretty much turned off from fighting a lot through rounds. It was effective nonetheless given Duran was bothered by both the left hooks to the abdomen as well as the showboating which was breaking him mentally. Negative showboating I think would be something such as Bradley vs Pac II.


----------



## thehook13 (May 16, 2013)

Rockinghorseshit said:


> Apart from tough I agree on that. But it's overstated how much Duran was really a "Lightweight" he was decently sized at Welter even.


I don't understand how you could take that away from him. Moving up comes down to diet, training and dedication more than it does natural genetics. Floyd Mayweather was once Super Featherweight. Pacquiao a Flyweight.

It's a mark of greatness to move up in weight and still dominate.


----------



## Felix (Mar 13, 2013)

Expectations are different for guys past their prime. Hearns had about three feet of height and 18 inches of reach advantage over Duran, and punched like a mule (kicks). Hagler was a career middleweight, and not just that but one of the BEST middleweights. Another thing that probably goes in Duran's favour is that while he could be inconsistent, he was, over the course of his whole career, still pretty consistent. Half of his losses (from 119 recorded bouts-no mean feat in itself) came when he was (roughly) forty or older, and against bigger men. Hell, how many lightweights go up to super middle or even light heavy, let alone at his age?

I guess stuff like the Laing loss, No Mas, Benitez, et al, are given a little slack because his career at lightweight was exceptional, and if he'd stayed there and never moved up he'd still be considered a great. Anything above was icing on the cake, and guys who move up and put on a good effort even in defeat, are given credit for having pushed themselves. Things like Oscar losing to Hopkins, Spinks-Tyson, JMM-Mayweather, Eubank-Thompson, are all in the same general grouping, at least as far as I'm concerned. They all had very good careers before moving up.


----------



## Rockinghorseshit (Oct 4, 2013)

thehook13 said:


> I don't understand how you could take that away from him. That comes down to diet, training and dedication as it does natural genetics. Floyd Mayweather was once Super Featherweight. Pacquiao a Flyweight.
> 
> It's a mark of greatness to move up in weight and still dominate.


I don't, I just think overall greatness of it can be overstated. Pac is intense weight cutter and today is a modern 140lber stretching to 147, small but not that small. Floyd on the otherhand has grown into his WW body but both Pac and Floyd stay in shape all year around which is testament to their dedication.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Rockinghorseshit said:


> Apart from tough I agree on that. But it's overstated how much Duran was really a "Lightweight" he was decently sized at Welter even.
> 
> Extremely negative? That's the first I heard I've heard it being called that. He was at least returning fire instead of being as negative as someone like Corro who although had decent power, pretty much turned off from fighting a lot through rounds. It was effective nonetheless given Duran was bothered by both the left hooks to the abdomen as well as the showboating which was breaking him mentally. Negative showboating I think would be something such as Bradley vs Pac II.


It was tough. It was competitive. That's the consensus, why deny this?

It was extremely negative in the sense that he was very unwilling to engage aside from jabbing and the occasional power punch round to round. He's entitled to fight that way but it's not really strategically sound and it was in combination with Duran's condition that allowed him to have success that way.


----------



## Rockinghorseshit (Oct 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> It was tough. It was competitive. That's the consensus, why deny this?
> 
> It was extremely negative in the sense that he was very unwilling to engage aside from jabbing and the occasional power punch round to round. He's entitled to fight that way but it's not really strategically sound and it was in combination with Duran's condition that allowed him to have success that way.


Hagler vs Duran tough? No.

I am really struck by the idea you find that strategy negative. I will add more later as I'm heading out for a short while.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Rockinghorseshit said:


> Hagler vs Duran tough? No.
> 
> I am really struck by the idea you find that strategy negative. I will add more later as I'm heading out for a short while.


It was not an easy fight for Hagler. It wasn't. Nor was it one-sided.

Negative is a word I use to describe a lack of engagement, some people don't like it. I don't mean it's necessarily bad.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Same as any legend does when they are past prime. Only guy who beat him in his prime was DeJesus and he stopped him twice for the trouble.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> It was not an easy fight for Hagler. It wasn't. Nor was it one-sided.
> 
> Negative is a word I use to describe a lack of engagement, some people don't like it. I don't mean it's necessarily bad.


Why you yellow now, can hardly read your name.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Why you yellow now, can hardly read your name.


Closest thing to Gold, for being voted best WBF poster of 2013. Just know it's me.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> Closest thing to Gold, for being voted best WBF poster of 2013. Just know it's me.


Fair enough, your gonna get this a lot though.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Also Duran may be the person who gets the most stick ever for a singular fight in Leonard II, lots of shit for Laing and some take aim for getting KO'd of Hearn.


----------



## Rockinghorseshit (Oct 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> It was not an easy fight for Hagler. It wasn't. Nor was it one-sided.
> 
> Negative is a word I use to describe a lack of engagement, some people don't like it. I don't mean it's necessarily bad.


I disagree it was clear win for Hagler but I'll say Hagler made it a workmanlike win and seemed too laid back, probably given the feeling Duran was outsized and wasn't capable of hurting him. Given that Duran was not expected to do well at all and that he suffers from the same mystic as Ali when all close rounds go to him, like if he did his trademark hiss face when dodging Hagler's punch making him look bad like Ali would do the shuffle even for a short point of time, he won the round despite being outworked for the majority of the fight by a lazy Hagler.

It's down to also Hagler looking almost unbeatable at that point of his career in the early 80's. Hagler had beaten
Jones Sr, Cyclone Hart, Bennie Briscoe, Willie Monroe twice, Kevin Finegan twice, Mike Colbert, Willie Warren and Sugar Ray Seales, to name only a few, and all but Briscoe by stopages.
Then after, the first Antuofermo set back, he beat Boby Watts by ko and Marcos Geraldo, and then won the title by ko against Alan Minter. Duran had this newfound power at JMW but was sitll seen as being undersized. He did surprise everyone with the performance he put on which I said was honorable earlier with the skills he put to use but the cards were very generous to him.

However it was very technical chess match in which he was stylistic challenge at times for Hagler but it was not close at all.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Rockinghorseshit said:


> I disagree it was clear win for Hagler but I'll say Hagler made it a workmanlike win and seemed too laid back, probably given the feeling Duran was outsized and wasn't capable of hurting him. Given that Duran was not expected to do well at all and that he suffers from the same mystic as Ali when all close rounds go to him, like if he did his trademark hiss face when dodging Hagler's punch making him look bad like Ali would do the shuffle even for a short point of time, he won the round despite being outworked for the majority of the fight by a lazy Hagler.
> 
> It's down to also Hagler looking almost unbeatable at that point of his career in the early 80's. Hagler had beaten
> Jones Sr, Cyclone Hart, Bennie Briscoe, Willie Monroe twice, Kevin Finegan twice, Mike Colbert, Willie Warren and Sugar Ray Seales, to name only a few, and all but Briscoe by stopages.
> ...


A clear win can still be competitive. 4 rounds is too little for Duran and I think most people would agree. There's no reason to minimize that performance.


----------



## knowimuch (May 9, 2014)

He was already an atg when he went to the welterweight division, avenged his loss to DeJesus twice, beat Buchanan/Marcel etc at lightweight.
Was past 30 when the real losses came but still beat Leonard, Cuevas, Barkley. Also i believe he got robbed against Penziena and Camacho.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Nobody around has him top 10. Top 12-15.
> 
> And no, you can't be green and beat Benitez. That's a silly proposition you constantly put forth.


I always thought the fact he fought Roberto on the inside was proof that he was not prime yet. When he learned you fight your style against the great fighters, that is when he would be prime. Roberto helped him get there.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> I always thought the fact he fought Roberto on the inside was proof that he was not prime yet. When he learned you fight your style against the great fighters, that is when he would be prime. Roberto helped him get there.


I don't think Leonard had much of a choice. He thought moving more would have simply given Duran more momentum on the offensive, but either way Duran was pressing him against the ropes and _making him_ fight his fight.

Your logic about his prime is a bit circular and makes it sound like anytime Leonard gets beaten and forced to fight an opponent's style, it means he's still green. Makes little sense.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I don't think Leonard had much of a choice. He thought moving more would have simply given Duran more momentum on the offensive, but either way Duran was pressing him against the ropes and _making him_ fight his fight.
> 
> Your logic about his prime is a bit circular and makes it sound like anytime Leonard gets beaten and forced to fight an opponent's style, it means he's still green. Makes little sense.


Ray was at the point in his career where he thought he could beat anyone if he fought them. and with Duran he was too good for that style. So he regrouped and moved and learned that each fighter takes a different style. Good thing he realized that, Hearns would have been another tough guy to go in there and brawl with and come out a winner. As it was he went in with Hearns and boxed a little then stayed on the outside until Tommy got inside and Ray countered. With Duran he outboxed him easily on the outside. I don't know why Ray would think moving would give Duran more momentum, Duran did not have that quick feet. He always sort of plodded a little and rocked back and forth moving forward and then counterpunched. I believe Ray when he said he wanted to beat Duran at his own game. He was too fast for Duran. Maybe he needed the first fight to realize this.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

You cant just use movement to beat duran. What a crock of shit.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I don't think Leonard had much of a choice. He thought moving more would have simply given Duran more momentum on the offensive, but either way Duran was pressing him against the ropes and _making him_ fight his fight.
> 
> Your logic about his prime is a bit circular and makes it sound like anytime Leonard gets beaten and forced to fight an opponent's style, it means he's still green. Makes little sense.


Let's take those times Duran had Ray on the ropes in the first fight. Ray would try and dig deep and land big punches and outpower Duran off of him, and it didn't work. Why would it? Duran was a master at that. Ray needed that fight to bring him down to earth. Also, that 2nd round left hook by Duran was as much a momentum changer as the left hooks of Cotto vs. Martinez a week ago in round one, but those came because Ray decided to fight him on the inside. Even the announcer commented how Ray was going to fight Duran on the inside. In the rematch Ray would fight Duran off, but with faster shorter punches, then move out to his right, reset an then get the distance in the center of the ring.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> I always thought the fact he fought Roberto on the inside was proof that he was not prime yet. When he learned you fight your style against the great fighters, that is when he would be prime. Roberto helped him get there.


Leonard fought most people the way he fought Roberto that night, watch his fight with Green the fight before, he was ultra aggressive. He just fought a guy who was better at it than him, even in the second fight he was aggressive, just moved more and that was 4-3 going into No Mas, it wasn't as if he dominated up to that point. Duran got showboated on int he 7th but Leonard was an utter clown that round - can't give him stick for it though as it had the desired effect.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> You cant just use movement to beat duran. What a crock of shit.


I don't know who said all someone needs is speed and Duran is beat. I said an elite fighter who could move and use speed beat Duran. Not many guys at all. Benitez and Leonard? Get out of Duran's range and have speed and fluidity, and make Duran lead and then counter him.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Ray was at the point in his career where he thought he could beat anyone if he fought them. and with Duran he was too good for that style. So he regrouped and moved and learned that each fighter takes a different style. Good thing he realized that, Hearns would have been another tough guy to go in there and brawl with and come out a winner. As it was he went in with Hearns and boxed a little then stayed on the outside until Tommy got inside and Ray countered. With Duran he outboxed him easily on the outside. I don't know why Ray would think moving would give Duran more momentum, Duran did not have that quick feet. He always sort of plodded a little and rocked back and forth moving forward and then counterpunched. I believe Ray when he said he wanted to beat Duran at his own game. He was too fast for Duran. Maybe he needed the first fight to realize this.


I think it's a bit naive to assume that Leonard was too dumb to understand that styles make fights and tactics change from fight to fight. Dundee and Leonard crafted a plan for Duran that didn't work, and Leonard couldn't adjust. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about Leonard's psychology at a time when he was dominant, that imply he was somehow inexperienced.










There's actual proof of their game-plan beforehand. This is far more relevant than speculation about Leonard being stubborn or stupid that after going on the run that he did and outboxing Benitez, he didn't understand the most basic thing about styles in boxing.



MAG1965 said:


> Let's take those times Duran had Ray on the ropes in the first fight. Ray would try and dig deep and land big punches and outpower Duran off of him, and it didn't work. Why would it? Duran was a master at that. Ray needed that fight to bring him down to earth. Also, that 2nd round left hook by Duran was as much a momentum changer as the left hooks of Cotto vs. Martinez a week ago in round one, but those came because Ray decided to fight him on the inside. Even the announcer commented how Ray was going to fight Duran on the inside. In the rematch Ray would fight Duran off, but with faster shorter punches, then move out to his right, reset an then get the distance in the center of the ring.


And in the rematch Duran was in poor condition, which is acknowledged by everyone including Leonard himself. You hate recognizing that fact but it's true.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Leonard fought most people the way he fought Roberto that night, watch his fight with Green the fight before, he was ultra aggressive. He just fought a guy who was better at it than him, even in the second fight he was aggressive, just moved more and that was 4-3 going into No Mas, it wasn't as if he dominated up to that point. Duran got showboated on int he 7th but Leonard was an utter clown that round - can't give him stick for it though as it had the desired effect.


that is what I mean. He was not ready for Duran yet. He thought he could beat anyone flat footed. Ray had power and he knew it, but fighting Duran like that was wrong. Ray was taking over that fight in the rematch in round 7. That is why in round 7 he started to Bolo and do the shuffle. He knew he was landing counters on Duran and was now trying to win it mentally. He graduated to an elite fighter at that point that night. Was James Toney the fighter he would become later when he fought Michael Nunn? Even Hearns, look how much more complete Tommy was when he fought Benitez to when he fought Ray a year before. If fighters do not diminish, they get better.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> that is what I mean. He was not ready for Duran yet. He thought he could beat anyone flat footed. Ray had power and he knew it, but fighting Duran like that was wrong. Ray was taking over that fight in the rematch in round 7. That is why in round 7 he started to Bolo and do the shuffle. He knew he was landing counters on Duran and was now trying to win it mentally. He graduated to an elite fighter at that point that night. Was James Toney the fighter he would become later when he fought Michael Nunn? Even Hearns, look how much more complete Tommy was when he fought Benitez to when he fought Ray a year before. If fighters do not diminish, they get better.


Yeah he improved of the Duran fight but then the question is would he have improved had he not lost to Duran, he learn't a lot in that fight.

I agree Leonard was taking over the second fight and would have went on to win the latter rounds and win it anyway. In a way he was robbed because the fight is marred by the quitting. he never really did get a full on clean win over Roberto properly but did win the series so I suppose it balances out a bit.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> that is what I mean. He was not ready for Duran yet. He thought he could beat anyone flat footed. Ray had power and he knew it, but fighting Duran like that was wrong. Ray was taking over that fight in the rematch in round 7. That is why in round 7 he started to Bolo and do the shuffle. He knew he was landing counters on Duran and was now trying to win it mentally. He graduated to an elite fighter at that point that night. Was James Toney the fighter he would become later when he fought Michael Nunn? Even Hearns, look how much more complete Tommy was when he fought Benitez to when he fought Ray a year before. If fighters do not diminish, they get better.


MAG you're saying some outlandish things. How the fuck do you know what Leonard was thinking and what his mentality was? You weren't his psychologist. And look at the way he fought Benitez-he knew how to respect someone's ability and not assume he could bomb them out (which eventually happened but much later).

He was ALREADY ELITE. That was his graduation into All Time Great status on the performance alone.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I think it's a bit naive to assume that Leonard was too dumb to understand that styles make fights and tactics change from fight to fight. Dundee and Leonard crafted a plan for Duran that didn't work, and Leonard couldn't adjust. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about Leonard's psychology at a time when he was dominant, that imply he was somehow inexperienced.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that clip also states that Duran said Ray's competition was not great, although Benitez was tops. But Ray also knew Benitez was as fast as him and gutting it out was the way to win. Angelo and the heel to toe comment is mentioning the plodding style of Duran, yet Ray wanted to beat him at his own game.

Duran in poor condition? Duran was 29 years old and in his prime and being in poor shape is a poor excuse. He ever had that excuse before? Even the excessive eating. He did that prior to that and didn't lose. . Well he lost the fight regardless of that excuse. It is as much an excuse and even less of one than Martinez could have for Cotto, since we know Martinez had bad knees. All Duran has is that he didn't train? That is believable? That is why the thread starter said Duran gets a pass. He does. That excuse is not valid and should not be recognized. . Could Martinez or Cotto lose last week and say " I didn't train?" And people would say. "oh ok that explains it" That is why Duran gets a pass when other fighters do not.

I found a comment a day after the first fight. When asked why Ray didn't stick and move more Dundee said - when he added Ray will improve "the early part of the game I diagnosed that Ray wanted to fight him at his own game

I found a comment about Duran eating the same all the time. "Durán claimed that he quit because of stomach cramps, which started to bother him in the fifth round. He said the cramps occurred because he took off weight too quickly, then ate too much after the morning weigh-in, but his manager, Carlos Eleta, said Durán always ate that way before a fight. "Durán didn't quit because of stomach cramps," Eleta said. "He quit because he was embarrassed."


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> MAG you're saying some outlandish things. How the fuck do you know what Leonard was thinking and what his mentality was? You weren't his psychologist. And look at the way he fought Benitez-he knew how to respect someone's ability and not assume he could bomb them out (which eventually happened but much later).
> 
> He was ALREADY ELITE. That was his graduation into All Time Great status on the performance alone.


I have been following this fight for 34 years. I know how Ray thought. I have spent years thinking about Ray and Tommy and Roberto and Marvin.. Ray was not ATG yet. I believe that when he did the bolo in round 7 and the shuffle, that was Ray's movement into elite status. He learned how to fight his fight and to incorportate mental aspects and physical and how to beat a legendary fighter without letting ego get in the way. He was a totally different fighter after that, and I bet if you ask Ray about it and he is honest, he will admit to that.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> that clip also states that Duran said Ray's competition was not great, although Benitez was tops. But Ray also knew Benitez was as fast as him and gutting it out was the way to win. Angelo and the heel to toe comment is mentioning the plodding style of Duran, yet Ray wanted to beat him at his own game.
> 
> Duran in poor condition? Duran was 29 years old and in his prime and being in poor shape is a poor excuse. He ever had that excuse before? Even the excessive eating. He did that prior to that and didn't lose. . Well he lost the fight regardless of that excuse. It is as much an excuse and even less of one than Martinez could have for Cotto, since we know Martinez had bad knees. All Duran has is that he didn't train? That is believable? That is why the thread starter said Duran gets a pass. He does. That excuse is not valid and should not be recognized. . Could Martinez or Cotto lose last week and say " I didn't train?" And people would say. "oh ok that explains it" That is why Duran gets a pass when other fighters do not.
> 
> ...


No dude, you're misreading that completely. A heel-to-toe guy is not a fucking plodder, it's describing someone who gains momentum from advancing and stepping into their punches. Dundee said the plan was to deny him that forward momentum by fighting him at range without retreating. And when it backfired, Leonard had no answer. But the Leonard that Duran beat was still great. Great enough to beat Benitez.

On the shape thing, this was the biggest win of Duran's career after which he ballooned badly, and they had a doctor dehydrate him to make weight, and there's footage of him not having the same energy in camp. Whether it's a poor excuse or not is irrelevant to the fact that he wasn't at his best. And that diminishes Leonard's win. Leonard HIMSELF admits that this was part of his plan.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Yeah he improved of the Duran fight but then the question is would he have improved had he not lost to Duran, he learn't a lot in that fight.
> 
> I agree Leonard was taking over the second fight and would have went on to win the latter rounds and win it anyway. In a way he was robbed because the fight is marred by the quitting. he never really did get a full on clean win over Roberto properly but did win the series so I suppose it balances out a bit.


I think losses/or tough fights in a win teaches fighters more than a easy win. They learn limitations and what they can do. No Ray never got the credit because Duran and his people use excuses to explain a loss instead of realizing that Ray came out moving with shorter punches and won the fight relatively easy.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> that clip also states that Duran said Ray's competition was not great, although Benitez was tops. But Ray also knew Benitez was as fast as him and gutting it out was the way to win. Angelo and the heel to toe comment is mentioning the plodding style of Duran, yet Ray wanted to beat him at his own game.
> 
> Duran in poor condition? Duran was 29 years old and in his prime and being in poor shape is a poor excuse. He ever had that excuse before? Even the excessive eating. He did that prior to that and didn't lose. . Well he lost the fight regardless of that excuse. It is as much an excuse and even less of one than Martinez could have for Cotto, since we know Martinez had bad knees. All Duran has is that he didn't train? That is believable? That is why the thread starter said Duran gets a pass. He does. That excuse is not valid and should not be recognized. . Could Martinez or Cotto lose last week and say " I didn't train?" And people would say. "oh ok that explains it" That is why Duran gets a pass when other fighters do not.
> 
> ...


Duran and Benitez hated each other so Duran probably wanted to discount him as a nobody. Duran always talked down on opponents as well so i wouldn't really take much stock from that. Leonard had fought Benitez, Green, Price, Razany, Gant, Shields, Chiaverini and Gonzalez as well as capable fighters in Mayweather and Eklund as well as one of the Viruet bros who Duran had also fought.

Only one great fighter but he had a pretty solid resume going into the Duran fight.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> I have been following this fight for 34 years. I know how Ray thought. I have spent years thinking about Ray and Tommy and Roberto and Marvin.. Ray was not ATG yet. I believe that when he did the bolo in round 7 and the shuffle, that was Ray's movement into elite status. He learned how to fight his fight and to incorportate mental aspects and physical and how to beat a legendary fighter without letting ego get in the way. He was a totally different fighter after that, and I bet if you ask Ray about it and he is honest, he will admit to that.


I think you've spent years inventing stories in your head about Leonard's personal development and mental state. I can tell by how you aren't even familiar with Dundee's statements that your many internal thoughts may well be based more in rationalization than fact and objective observation.

Every fighter is going to be different after a defining fight. That doesn't mean they aren't already great.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> No dude, you're misreading that completely. A heel-to-toe guy is not a fucking plodder, it's describing someone who gains momentum from advancing and stepping into their punches. Dundee said the plan was to deny him that forward momentum by fighting him at range without retreating. And when it backfired, Leonard had no answer. But the Leonard that Duran beat was still great. Great enough to beat Benitez.
> 
> On the shape thing, this was the biggest win of Duran's career after which he ballooned badly, and they had a doctor dehydrate him to make weight, and there's footage of him not having the same energy in camp. Whether it's a poor excuse or not is irrelevant to the fact that he wasn't at his best. And that diminishes Leonard's win. Leonard HIMSELF admits that this was part of his plan.


Have you ever thought that Dundee knew Ray was going to fight Duran's fight, so was using that to explain how he cannot move away from him because Duran would gain momentum? The point is that if he taking two steps to get to someone, he is not taking them side to side, he is going forward, which if Ray has the proper foot movement and speed in his hands, as Duran is moving forward, Ray is moving to the right or left and countering. Duran can be in position but not be fast enought to counter, as happened. Being out of shape does not affect his speed. So you are saying Ray's movement is not going to work? It did work. Duran couldn't cut the ring off, and when he did in the rematch, Ray easily fought his way out and slipped to his right.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I think you've spent years inventing stories in your head about Leonard's personal development and mental state. I can tell by how you aren't even familiar with Dundee's statements that your many internal thoughts may well be based more in rationalization than fact and objective observation.
> 
> Every fighter is going to be different after a defining fight. That doesn't mean they aren't already great.


of course I was aware of it. I never thought much about it. I can also say.comments said after the fight mean more. Dundee can say all sorts of things. I remember Cus Damato commenting on Hearns and Leonard one and saying, Ray will win. Why? Because Tommy has an irregular punch pattern of Ta Ta Ta... He said tommy cannot throw the 3 punch combination, he has to throw two fast then a third second later, which gives Ray more countering possibilities. It is just a comment. Ray won, but it doesn't define the fight. Now on the other hand, Ray did get distance on Duran, and actually on another thread I put that double youtube site to provide evidence of it.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Duran and Benitez hated each other so Duran probably wanted to discount him as a nobody. Duran always talked down on opponents as well so i wouldn't really take much stock from that. Leonard had fought Benitez, Green, Price, Razany, Gant, Shields, Chiaverini and Gonzalez as well as capable fighters in Mayweather and Eklund as well as one of the Viruet bros who Duran had also fought.
> 
> Only one great fighter but he had a pretty solid resume going into the Duran fight.


well Duran didn't mention Benitez by name. Not in that clip Bogo showed. The ironic thing is that Ray had fought a better guy in Benitez, than Duran ever fought. It doesn't mean Ray was ready to fight Duran's fight. yeah Green, Shields, Price good fighters. But Ray had his way with them, with the exception of Geraldo, which was a tough fight.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Have you ever thought that Dundee knew Ray was going to fight Duran's fight, so was using that to explain how he cannot move away from him because Duran would gain momentum? The point is that if he taking two steps to get to someone, he is not taking them side to side, he is going forward, which if Ray has the proper foot movement and speed in his hands, as Duran is moving forward, Ray is moving to the right or left and countering. Duran can be in position but not be fast enought to counter, as happened. Being out of shape does not affect his speed. So you are saying Ray's movement is not going to work? It did work. Duran couldn't cut the ring off, and when he did in the rematch, Ray easily fought his way out and slipped to his right.


That sounds a lot more contrived to me than the plain meaning of the words.



MAG1965 said:


> of course I was aware of it. I never thought much about it. I can also say.comments said after the fight mean more. Dundee can say all sorts of things. I remember Cus Damato commenting on Hearns and Leonard one and saying, Ray will win. Why? Because Tommy has an irregular punch pattern of Ta Ta Ta... He said tommy cannot throw the 3 punch combination, he has to throw two fast then a third second later, which gives Ray more countering possibilities. It is just a comment. Ray won, but it doesn't define the fight. Now on the other hand, Ray did get distance on Duran, and actually on another thread I put that double youtube site to provide evidence of it.


Ray moved more and Duran was in shittier shape. That's just the plain truth.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> That sounds a lot more contrived to me than the plain meaning of the words.
> 
> Ray moved more and Duran was in shittier shape. That's just the plain truth.


you are taking a comment of heel to toe in that Dundee was explaining why he would not run from Duran. After the fight he said Ray tried to beat Duran at his own game. It sounds to me like Dundee was saying before the fight, they were going to fight Duran.

If Ray had stood in front of Duran like the first fight, Duran might have won that fight also. The first fight was closer than people seem to recall.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> That sounds a lot more contrived to me than the plain meaning of the words.
> 
> Ray moved more and Duran was in shittier shape. That's just the plain truth.


my Damato explantion didn't translate well. Cus said Tommy had a Ta Ta .......Ta pattern. Uneven, compared to other possible ATG guys. I remember that even years later, and that was in Sports Illustrated, and I think before Cus even met Mike Tyson


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> you are taking a comment of heel to toe in that Dundee was explaining why he would not run from Duran. After the fight he said Ray tried to beat Duran at his own game. It sounds to me like Dundee was saying before the fight, they were going to fight Duran.
> 
> If Ray had stood in front of Duran like the first fight, Duran might have won that fight also. The first fight was closer than people seem to recall.


Their gameplan was to halt Duran's momentum by not retreating. It didn't work. They failed to adjust. The Leonard that outboxed master boxer Benitez, could not adjust.

The first fight was competitive but a clear Duran win. But in any case, Ray moved more, Duran was in shitty shape. That's the story of the rematch.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Their gameplan was to halt Duran's momentum by not retreating. It didn't work. They failed to adjust. The Leonard that outboxed master boxer Benitez, could not adjust.
> 
> The first fight was competitive but a clear Duran win. But in any case, Ray moved more, Duran was in shitty shape. That's the story of the rematch.


It wasn't a matter of getting out of the way of Duran's aggression, it was about shortening his punches a little to land and get out. What does that have to do with Duran being out of shape? Ray started off moving in round one. To win the rounds opposed to overpowering Duran. How was Ray's strategy in the first fight Duran effective - how did Ray fighting on the inside make Duran less aggressive opposed to letting Duran get his two steps forward?. He was hurt in round two by that left hook fighting on the inside, so naturally that was the way Ray and Angelo decided to fight. I think it could have been a fight plan to outfight Duran. I never thought Dundee was a brilliant tactician, but he was a good cheerleader.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> well Duran didn't mention Benitez by name. Not in that clip Bogo showed. The ironic thing is that Ray had fought a better guy in Benitez, than Duran ever fought. It doesn't mean Ray was ready to fight Duran's fight. yeah Green, Shields, Price good fighters. But Ray had his way with them, with the exception of Geraldo, which was a tough fight.


yeah benitez was a great win and the best up until Duran beat Ray but I'm not sure Wilfredo would have been ranked as better than Buchanan, De Jesus or Marcel at that point in history though.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> It wasn't a matter of getting out of the way of Duran's aggression, it was about shortening his punches a little to land and get out. What does that have to do with Duran being out of shape? Ray started off moving in round one. To win the rounds opposed to overpowering Duran. How was Ray's strategy in the first fight Duran effective - how did Ray fighting on the inside make Duran less aggressive opposed to letting Duran get his two steps forward?. He was hurt in round two by that left hook fighting on the inside, so naturally that was the way Ray and Angelo decided to fight. I think it could have been a fight plan to outfight Duran. I never thought Dundee was a brilliant tactician, but he was a good cheerleader.


You mean what does Duran being fat have to do with not being able to cut the ring off on a more mobile Ray? Everything.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Their gameplan was to halt Duran's momentum by not retreating. It didn't work. They failed to adjust. The Leonard that outboxed master boxer Benitez, could not adjust.
> 
> The first fight was competitive but a clear Duran win. But in any case, Ray moved more, Duran was in shitty shape. That's the story of the rematch.


Well ok, so they are saying they were planning to overpower Duran and halt his momentum by hurting him? and that heel to toe comment was explaining how they were going to fight rather than move since moving was ineffective against Duran-something later elites found was not true. Later Ray boxed like most people anticipated Ray could do. He even did better in the rematch than anyone could have anticipated.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> yeah benitez was a great win and the best up until Duran beat Ray but I'm not sure Wilfredo would have been ranked as better than Buchanan, De Jesus or Marcel at that point in history though.


historically Benitez is ranked higher because of his involvement with Hearns,Leonard and Duran.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Well ok, so they are saying they were planning to overpower Duran and halt his momentum by hurting him? and that heel to toe comment was explaining how they were going to fight rather than move since moving was ineffective against Duran-something later elites found was not true. Later Ray boxed like most people anticipated Ray could do. He even did better in the rematch than anyone could have anticipated.


Right, Ray moved more, and Duran was in shit shape. That's the story of the second fight.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> You mean what does Duran being fat have to do with not being able to cut the ring off on a more mobile Ray? Everything.


http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=h...watch?v=x7aChC6U3Ks&start2=360&authorName=MAG


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> historically Benitez is ranked higher because of his involvement with Hearns,Leonard and Duran.


Yeah he is higher but in terms of going into Duran-Leonard I I'm not sure he would have been at that time. The other had done more but of course their careers had lasted longer at that point.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

look at that video and see how Duran couldn't have reached Ray in the second fight even if he made 4 steps. And if he did? Ray counters and moves out. What could Duran do? In shape or not? He could not deal with Ray's speed.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=h...watch?v=x7aChC6U3Ks&start2=360&authorName=MAG


Putting that tool to good use!

What I see is Leonard moving more, and Duran feinting less and looking less sharp.


----------



## MaliBua (Dec 18, 2013)

FloydPatterson said:


>


That was silly. :lol:


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Putting that tool to good use!
> 
> What I see is Leonard moving more, and Duran feinting less and looking less sharp.


yeah I really that tool. That is a great thing you found. I didn't know it existed, and the seconds thing to match it up is great. One fight I want to compare is Cotto vs. Judah to Cotto vs. Martinez. Ray moved a lot more and he knew he could not fight Duran on the inside again. It is interesting how Ray wore black shorts with black shoes in the rematch. I am not sure what the significance of that was. I never really heard much about it, but with Ray there must have been some reason for it. Maybe I am thinking too much about that.


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Duran gets credit for fighting all available great fighters of the 3 separate eras he fought in, win or lose. The guy was a master and lost to some greats. He beat some too. I'm supposed to forget about his great wins because he lost too?


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> Duran gets credit for fighting all available great fighters of the 3 separate eras he fought in, win or lose. The guy was a master and lost to some greats. He beat some too. I'm supposed to forget about his great wins because he lost too?


I have not problem with Duran until the 1-10 ATG is mentioned, and the fact that his excuses are accepted. He was a challenger to Hearns and Benitez and Leonard when he fought them. He was only 2-1 against Hearns in 1984. I don't know the odds with Benitez, but I would have think 7-5 just on how they were at the time, favoring Benitez because he was champ, and a good one at 154.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Because Duran is a darling to the boxing community. There are a few guys who just can not be detracted from. Duran, Hagler and Robinson spring to mind.


----------



## Knox Harrington (Apr 7, 2014)

Because Kirkland, DeJesus, Joppy, and Benitez were top 30 all time. He had cramps against Leonard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cachibatches (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> He is ATG, just not top 10. Bigger? Duran fought higher than Leonard ever did, stronger? I don't think so, not really. Duran can punch and is very strong at even 154. Younger? Duran was 29 when he fought Leonard in 1980. Just turned 29.. That is old? The against Leonard is good, but Ray did fight his fight, and it was proven by how easily he won the second fight.


But Duran started lower. Leonard was bigger.

And as the bigger man, and a guy who years later was still knocking out LHWs, Leonard was stronger.

Defiantly faster.

Duran was born in 51, Leoanrd in 56.

All points stand.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> I don't know who said all someone needs is speed and Duran is beat. I said an elite fighter who could move and use speed beat Duran. Not many guys at all. Benitez and Leonard? Get out of Duran's range and have speed and fluidity, and make Duran lead and then counter him.


So why didn't Buchanan do this? Buchanan had good movement, a very quick jab, and was just an elite ring general. The same with Marcel. Why didn't Duran get outpointed by them? What happened? Duran was versatile, and actually hurt Leonard on the outside which FORCED the fight on the inside. It's not just a matter of Leonard not moving that much. It was the intense pressure of Duran.


----------



## paloalto00 (Jun 7, 2013)

It's the fact that his ass moved up and fought the baddest motha fuckers in the sport


----------



## MEXAMELAC (Apr 14, 2014)

Rockinghorseshit said:


> He comes of his best win against Leonard.. a few months later "Duran was bloated, he didn't train properly! nothing Leonard did that night made a difference as Duran wasn't interested at all" Or a reason for his No mas was "it was either keep fighting and embarrass himself on the world stage by shitting his pants or save face" Frankly that is all just speculation and takes away the shine off Leonard's revenge win.
> 
> Another one
> 
> Duran was shot when he lost to Leonard in 1989 but just came off another big win against big MW Barkley.


You're confused. Nobody gives him a pass for his loses. The L's are clear and are accepted (except maybe Leonard 2, due to all the drama). The problem is that people who try to discredit Duran, usually pick out the fights he lost later in his career. They try to point out that he lost to Hearns, Hagler and Benitez but forget that he was never supposed to win those fights. That's why he gets praise for taking Hagler to 15, but not necessarily a "pass" for the L. Duran was inconsistent with his training and dedication, later in his career but every once in a while, he'd pull off a great win (ex. Barkley). But anyone who followed him knew that he was past it. So people "defend" him by bringing up these FACTS. Well documented FACTS; not opinions. That's really all it is. People who follow Duran know that haters usually want to bring up the loses post Welter and they know it isn't really fair to judge his career based on that, considering the QUALITY of opposition and the fact that he was a lightweight. So when people defend Duran and bring up these facts, the haters get upset because they know it's true. That's the reality.


----------



## MEXAMELAC (Apr 14, 2014)

Chatty said:


> Same as any legend does when they are past prime. Only guy who beat him in his prime was DeJesus and he stopped him twice for the trouble.


He wasn't even in his prime but it was a legit win for DeJesus.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MEXAMELAC said:


> You're confused. Nobody gives him a pass for his loses. The L's are clear and are accepted (except maybe Leonard 2, due to all the drama). The problem is that people who try to discredit Duran, usually pick out the fights he lost later in his career. They try to point out that he lost to Hearns, Hagler and Benitez but forget that he was never supposed to win those fights. That's why he gets praise for taking Hagler to 15, but not necessarily a "pass" for the L. Duran was inconsistent with his training and dedication, later in his career but every once in a while, he'd pull off a great win (ex. Barkley). But anyone who followed him knew that he was past it. So people "defend" him by bringing up these FACTS. Well documented FACTS; not opinions. That's really all it is. People who follow Duran know that haters usually want to bring up the loses post Welter and they know it isn't really fair to judge his career based on that, considering the QUALITY of opposition and the fact that he was a lightweight. So when people defend Duran and bring up these facts, the haters get upset because they know it's true. That's the reality.


Well said.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Sometimes Duran doesn't get credit for wins.

Davey Moore - Moore was favourite after beating the shit out of Ayab Kalule, Charlie Weir and Tadashi Mihara - three excellent wins but Duran absolutely ruined him and he was never the same again. He didn't have many fights and thus people class him as shit, he was actually a damn good fighter.

Ernesto marcel - gets overlooked all the time but Marcel was quality, went on afterwards to beat Alexis Arguello and Antonio Gomes twice, was a great fighter. Duran was 17/18.

Vinny Paziena/Hector Camacho - HE beat these guys (just not officially) in his 40s after 100 fights. It might not have been the best versions of those fighters but they were still fighting at a decent level and Duran was about 15 years past prime. 15 fucking years.

Jorge Castro - guy was a world champ a year prior to Duran beating him, Duran was 45.

Vilomar Fernandez - another solid win that never gets a mention, guy beat Arguello a year later.

Polimino - For the sake of me I dunno why this fight gets pushed through as if its an average win, this was a quality victory.

So many more, even the guy he fought in his debit went to challenge for the title against Gomez and put Olivarez on his arse.


----------



## KERRIGAN (Jul 25, 2012)

Duran achieved one of the greatest victories in the history of boxing when he defeated Leonard in 1980 and this I think sapped his hunger for boxing, as he had effectively climbed his version of Mt Everest.

If he had taken a year off after beating Leonard, perhaps he could have regained some of that hunger, but instead he partied like he had never done before because he had a victory like he had never before.

I also doubt that Duran could ever have produced the effort he did againt Leonard in that first fight, ever again.

Leonard being the bigger and younger man, was always going to win a rematch, even if Duran had taken that year off to get some hunger back.

Also, before the spin doctors got involved, Leonard said right after the first fight that he had no choice but to fight Duran's fight, because Duran was so primed, he couldn't avoid it.

When Leonard won the second fight by moving against a weight drained Duran, that enabled his camp to construct the fairy tale that if he had moved in the first fight, he would have also won that.

Leonard would have won the second fight if he had fought the same way he did in the first fight, as Duran was sub par.

After Duran let his frustration of letting himself down and calling it quits, Duran was never Duran again. 

Sure he had some bright moments against Moore & Barkely, but they just weren't great fighters.

Leonard was unlucky that Duran psyched himself into the performance of the 20th Century in a boxing ring, otherwise because of the size difference, Leonard always would beat Duran at 147.

However it is also due to their first fight that I rate Duran ahead of Leonard on a P4P basis.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Sometimes Duran doesn't get credit for wins.
> 
> Davey Moore - Moore was favourite after beating the shit out of Ayab Kalule, Charlie Weir and Tadashi Mihara - three excellent wins but Duran absolutely ruined him and he was never the same again. He didn't have many fights and thus people class him as shit, he was actually a damn good fighter.
> 
> ...


that is never a problem for Duran. He gets enough credit for his wins and then some.


----------



## Hatesrats (Jun 6, 2013)

Wasn't Duran like _*71*_-_*0*_ or some shit by the time he had his REAL last hurrah Vs. Leonard in the first match??
Anything after Montreal was simply icing on the cake.

Had Duran retired after the first Leonard fight he would be known as the GOAT hands down... Why?
Answer: Because sports fans only remember when you suck.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Hatesrats said:


> Wasn't Duran like _*71*_-_*0*_ or some shit by the time he had his REAL last hurrah Vs. Leonard in the first match??
> Anything after Montreal was simply icing on the cake.
> 
> Had Duran retired after the first Leonard fight he would be known as the GOAT hands down... Why?
> Answer: Because sports fans only remember when you suck.


his lightweight reign and beating Ray would get him GOAT? No. Ray was not close to the greatest of all time.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Sometimes Duran doesn't get credit for wins.
> 
> Davey Moore - Moore was favourite after beating the shit out of Ayab Kalule, Charlie Weir and Tadashi Mihara - three excellent wins but Duran absolutely ruined him and he was never the same again. He didn't have many fights and thus people class him as shit, he was actually a damn good fighter.
> 
> ...


AND Buchanan. A very skilled, quick technician with an ATG jab. Buchanan is top 3 in his victories.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> AND Buchanan. A very skilled, quick technician with an ATG jab. Buchanan is top 3 in his victories.


I feel he gets credit for Buchanan bit for a lot of fights people try to write him of. He is a nailed on top ten fighter, I really don't think their is an argument against it.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Anyone who loses past prime gets a pass by me.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> Anyone who loses past prime gets a pass by me.


So if a person gets a pass for losses past thier prime , should they get credit in that time. What does that do to Hopkins, who beat most of the top guys he fought past his prime. Way past it. The point I made about that is the best fighters Duran ever fought by far were when he was past his prime as people will say, so if he gets a pass for the losses, should he get credit for beating Moore and Barkley since he beat them past his prime? Why should he become greater in that time, if he gets a pass for losing to elites in that era. So if that is the case, can the only time span he gets rated for greatnesshis lightweight reign? When is he past his prime then? Duran fans want to say his prime was right before the second Leonard fight, which obviously helps his ratings.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> So if a person gets a pass for losses past thier prime , should they get credit in that time. What does that do to Hopkins, who beat most of the top guys he fought past his prime. Way past it. The point I made about that is the best fighters Duran ever fought by far were when he was past his prime as people will say, so if he gets a pass for the losses, should he get credit for beating Moore and Barkley since he beat them past his prime? Why should he become greater in that time, if he gets a pass for losing to elites in that era. So if that is the case, can the only time span he gets rated for greatnesshis lightweight reign? When is he past his prime then? Duran fans want to say his prime was right before the second Leonard fight, which obviously helps his ratings.


yes absolutely. If you win when past your prime you get even more credit than you would do otherwise.

Losing when past your best if not an issue to me. I never understand those who hold past prime losses in a negative light.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> I feel he gets credit for Buchanan bit for a lot of fights people try to write him of. He is a nailed on top ten fighter, I really don't think their is an argument against it.


Meh. @MAG1965 likes to ignore it.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> yes absolutely. If you win when past your prime you get even more credit than you would do otherwise.
> 
> Losing when past your best if not an issue to me. I never understand those who hold past prime losses in a negative light.


If that is the case, then fighters should fight better opponents when they past their prime. And even if that is the case, Duran was not past his prime when he lost to Leonard, and with Benitez,Hearns and Hagler he was 30 and 32. He fought until he was 50.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> Meh. @MAG1965 likes to ignore it.


I don't ignore it, I just don't think Buchanan is at that top level. I would have liked to see Duran fight a guy like Arguello. He would have probably won, but it would be tough.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> If that is the case, then fighters should fight better opponents when they past their prime. And even if that is the case, Duran was not past his prime when he lost to Leonard, and with Benitez,Hearns and Hagler he was 30 and 32. He fought until he was 50.


no because they are more likely to lose when past prime.

I consider Duran's prime to have ended when he left welterweight. Not so much talent wise but because he was fighting to far beyond his best weight.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> no because they are more likely to lose when past prime.
> 
> I consider Duran's prime to have ended when he left welterweight. Not so much talent wise but because he was fighting to far beyond his best weight.


With Duran you had an interesting situation. when he left his prime he also fought elite guys which were not available prior to that. although Arguello and Pryor would have been naturals for him to fight. Alexis at 135 and Pryor at 140, although I admit Pryor winning the title in August of 1980 means Leonard is put off until 1981 or so, since when Duran fought Leonard, Pryor was not champ yet. Even Cervantes vs. Duran would have been ok.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> The point is that most of it seemed to have already happened before he got in the ring. And Leonard's performance was hardly masterful, it was shameful running and the fight was competitive even then.


*_Coughs violently_*

What the fuck did you say? Give me a few minutes to get my HR down.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> With Duran you had an interesting situation. when he left his prime he also fought elite guys which were not available prior to that. although Arguello and Pryor would have been naturals for him to fight. Alexis at 135 and Pryor at 140, although I admit Pryor winning the title in August of 1980 means Leonard is put off until 1981 or so, since when Duran fought Leonard, Pryor was not champ yet. Even Cervantes vs. Duran would have been ok.


in his prime he beat a man I consider a top ten atg.

What's interesting is people hold losses to middleweights against him when his best years were spent fighting at lightweight. Him moving up is a big disadvantage. For Hearns and Hagler to face a prime Duran they'd have to chop an arm off.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> in his prime he beat a man I consider a top ten atg.
> 
> What's interesting is people hold losses to middleweights against him when his best years were spent fighting at lightweight. Him moving up is a big disadvantage. For Hearns and Hagler to face a prime Duran they'd have to chop an arm off.


Leonard is a top 10 ATG but not Duran. Not from beating Leonard or his lightweight reign. And Duran lost to Leonard relatively easy. And they all moved up. Hearns moved up also. Benitez did from 140. Leonard did, not as sucessful as Hearns. Hearns won a title against Hill, whom I think now is underrated. And Duran fought at 154 as early as 1978 before Hearns,Leonard or Benitez ever fought there. Duran was not this little guy, he left lightweight because he was big enough to. The man fought as high as 168 later on. Higher than Ray ever could, regardless of the Leonard/Lalonde fight.


----------



## KERRIGAN (Jul 25, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> The man fought as high as 168 later on. Higher than Ray ever could, regardless of the Leonard/Lalonde fight.


LOL Coz Duran had slabs of fat round his gut. atsch

Duran spent 12 years as a Lightweight, and moved up 12 pounds to record his win over a prime Leonard.

What are Leonard's & Hearns' greatest wins when they moved up to Middleweight?


----------



## dodong (Jun 6, 2013)

if you don't have any loses, it just means you have ducked good fighters along the way.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

KERRIGAN said:


> LOL Coz Duran had slabs of fat round his gut. atsch
> 
> Duran spent 12 years as a Lightweight, and moved up 12 pounds to record his win over a prime Leonard.
> 
> What are Leonard's & Hearns' greatest wins when they moved up to Middleweight?


Duran fought at 154 before Hearns,Leonard and Benitez did. Leonard was not prime. He was on his 2nd defense of his first title. That is not prime or experienced or seasoned, and his immature way of fighting Duran's fight because he didn't like him proved that. What standards do we go with prime? A guy wins a title for the first time and he is a prime experienced fighter? Now Hearns? Hearns was the first man to win 4 belts in 4 divisions and first man to win the welterweight title and then the light heavyweight title.. Beating undefeated Virgil Hill, who had 10 title defenses, no one like Leonard had in June of 1980. Ray won the title just monthbefore in Nov. And Ray beat Hagler after time off and Marvin had something like 12 title defenses.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

KERRIGAN said:


> LOL Coz Duran had slabs of fat round his gut. atsch
> 
> Duran spent 12 years as a Lightweight, and moved up 12 pounds to record his win over a prime Leonard.
> 
> What are Leonard's & Hearns' greatest wins when they moved up to Middleweight?


You're not seriously saying Ray doesn't have a significant win at 160 mate?
Come on!


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> If that is the case, then fighters should fight better opponents when they past their prime. And even if that is the case, Duran was not past his prime when he lost to Leonard, and with Benitez,Hearns and Hagler he was 30 and 32. He fought until he was 50.


Age is matterless really, Benitez was shot by 25, hell Pat Daly was finished by 19.

Sent from my LT30p using Tapatalk


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

dodong said:


> if you don't have any loses, it just means you have ducked good fighters along the way.


who did Rocky Marciano and Ricardo Lopez duck?


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

bballchump11 said:


> who did Rocky Marciano and Ricardo Lopez duck?


Marciano ducked no one but people will argue he avoided Valdez even though Valdez would have got the fight had he been able to beat a 358 year old Archie Moore.

Lopez main critisism is that he refused to move up and fight some of the bigger names round tye minimums. He should have but its not really ducking if he wasnt in the same division.

Sent from my LT30p using Tapatalk


----------



## KERRIGAN (Jul 25, 2012)

PityTheFool said:


> You're not seriously saying Ray doesn't have a significant win at 160 mate?
> Come on!


Ray's win was against a far from prime Hagler.

Who's win was better, Duran's against Leonard, or Leonard's against Hagler.


----------



## KERRIGAN (Jul 25, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> Duran fought at 154 before Hearns,Leonard and Benitez did.


So what? Duran's lack of dedication at that stage of his career meant that he couldn't even be bothered to get fit enough to fight at 147 anymore.

Next you will be claiming that Duran was actually taller than Leonard & Hearns.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

I'm actually going to join in this discussion tomorrow.


----------



## Boxed Ears (Jun 13, 2012)

Because he's white.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Boxed Ears said:


> Because he's white.


:nono

If your more tanned than this guy then you are now considered black.










The black population has gone up by dramatic numbers since this was put in place mind.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

KERRIGAN said:


> Ray's win was against a far from prime Hagler.
> 
> Who's win was better, Duran's against Leonard, or Leonard's against Hagler.


I'm not arguing that Duran's win wasn't magnificent,but to come back from 3 years out to fight the guy who is still top 2 P4P was equally superb.(and for anyone who feels the need to bring up the Quincy Taylor wearing headgear and smaller gloves sessions,save yourself the bother)
I don't discredit Cholo's win,in fact I embrace it,but you can't say the greatest comeback in the history of the sport is a lesser win.In fact,you can make an argument for it being a better win and have a good point.


----------



## Boxed Ears (Jun 13, 2012)

Chatty said:


> :nono
> 
> If your more tanned than this guy then you are now considered black.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I like this racist side of you, Chatty.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

PityTheFool said:


> I'm not arguing that Duran's win wasn't magnificent,but to come back from 3 years out to fight the guy who is still top 2 P4P was equally superb.(and for anyone who feels the need to bring up the Quincy Taylor wearing headgear and smaller gloves sessions,save yourself the bother)
> I don't discredit Cholo's win,in fact I embrace it,but you can't say the greatest comeback in the history of the sport is a lesser win.In fact,you can make an argument for it being a better win and have a good point.


They are both great wins. I'd class Duran-Leonard as better though as I just think he performed better in that fight than Leonard did in the Hagler one. Both quality wins though, prob both top ten of all time.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Boxed Ears said:


> I'm not sure I like this racist side of you, Chatty.


Its all the UKIP stuff in the press its got to me. That free copy of The Sun just had me seething with rage about the Bulgarians coming here and taking the jobs we don't want. Bulgarians are black as well obviously being so they weren't born in England, right?


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Age is matterless really, Benitez was shot by 25, hell Pat Daly was finished by 19.
> 
> Sent from my LT30p using Tapatalk


Benitez was not shot by 25. he was mentally diminished after Hamsho, but not physically shot. They moved him too high up and then decided to come back down to 154. He should have stayed there originally.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

KERRIGAN said:


> So what? Duran's lack of dedication at that stage of his career meant that he couldn't even be bothered to get fit enough to fight at 147 anymore.
> 
> Next you will be claiming that Duran was actually taller than Leonard & Hearns.


Anyone can say someone was out of shape. Why don't we say Martinez was out of shape for Cotto. Then he really didn't lose, he just didn't want to train. That is the explanation and it doesn't matter if Cotto trained or fought a great fight.
Or we can say Hearns or Leonard didn't bother to get in shape when they lost fights and if people accept it then they can get credit only for wins. Being out of shape cannot be an excuse for a top fighter. So Duran is fighting the best guys he ever fought in Hearns,Benitez and Leonard and he is not in shape? yet he gets in shape for Moore and Barkley? Why would he do that? Why would he train for lesser fighters and not for elite guys? Did he know he could not beat the top guys? Lack of confidence? Fact is he was not fast enough to beat Hearns and Benitez and Ray (fight 2). That is on film. I never understood that explanation from Duran fans. Either he was out of shape or he was too small. Yet he was not out of shape when he won against lesser guys, and he was not too small for Barkley and Moore, and like I said he weighed in at 154 before the legends he fought Hearns,Benitez,Leonard.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> Benitez was not shot by 25. he was mentally diminished after Hamsho, but not physically shot. They moved him too high up and then decided to come back down to 154. He should have stayed there originally.


I disagree, against Moore his movement was awful, no sharpness on his punches, he looked like he was calling it in but nothing was working as it had done, chin looked far worse (Moore could punch tbf but so could Duran, Leonard, Hearns and he done 45 rounds with them and only got stopped once) and already mentally shot looking not even half the fighter he was.

Never won a true world level fight again and was beaten by way lesser fighters that he would have schooled at his peak.

I would say that is shot.


----------



## Kid Generic Alias (Oct 29, 2013)

KERRIGAN said:


> LOL Coz Duran had slabs of fat round his gut. atsch
> 
> Duran spent 12 years as a Lightweight, and moved up 12 pounds to record his win over a prime Leonard.
> 
> What are Leonard's & Hearns' greatest wins when they moved up to Middleweight?


Of course, a post like this doesn't bother to reference the fact that that he'd been competing at that weight for a two year period, or that he'd spent the vast majority of that decade competing as a junior welterweight.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Anyone can say someone was out of shape. Why don't we say Martinez was out of shape for Cotto. Then he really didn't lose, he just didn't want to train. That is the explanation and it doesn't matter if Cotto trained or fought a great fight.
> Or we can say Hearns or Leonard didn't bother to get in shape when they lost fights and if people accept it then they can get credit only for wins. Being out of shape cannot be an excuse for a top fighter. So Duran is fighting the best guys he ever fought in Hearns,Benitez and Leonard and he is not in shape? yet he gets in shape for Moore and Barkley? Why would he do that? Why would he train for lesser fighters and not for elite guys? Did he know he could not beat the top guys? Lack of confidence? Fact is he was not fast enough to beat Hearns and Benitez and Ray (fight 2). That is on film. I never understood that explanation from Duran fans. Either he was out of shape or he was too small. Yet he was not out of shape when he won against lesser guys, and he was not too small for Barkley and Moore, and like I said he weighed in at 154 before the legends he fought Hearns,Benitez,Leonard.


The reason he could beat Barkley and Moore was that size was practically the only thing they had to offer against Duran.
The other 3 mentioned had elite skills and size advantage combined.

The only reason because he weighed 154 before the big 3 was because he was of his diet.
Hearns weighed freaking 190 in the end and it's not like he was fat or had a bodybuilder built
Is this what a man smaller than Duran looks like?





Leonard at 160 against Lalonde and Hagler had visible abs
Duran at 158 against Leonard 3 had a belly/no visible abs.
Give Leonard or Hearns the fat % of Duran and they become much heavier.
Duran with the fat % of Leonard would be 5-10% lighter.

Also he wasn't in that good shape against Barkley or Moore, but enough to win.
He was smaller but he wasn't rivaled in skill department by them.

Benitez at 17 years old was 140 lbs.
Duran at 17 years old was 122 lbs.

Benitez at 32 was 160 lbs.
Duran at 32 was 152-156 lbs.
Totally the sign of a man smaller than Duran 

Hearns is the only one of the three who would always beat Duran with certainity.

Also Hearns and Duran both got into the lmw in 1981 despite Hearns being 5 years or so younger.
He didn't weigh in at 154 before Hearns.

And before you say that Duran weighed 151 in the end of 78 against an absolute bum, Hearns already weighed in thrice over the welterweight limit months before Duran.


----------



## KERRIGAN (Jul 25, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> Anyone can say someone was out of shape. Why don't we say Martinez was out of shape for Cotto. Then he really didn't lose, he just didn't want to train. That is the explanation and it doesn't matter if Cotto trained or fought a great fight.
> Or we can say Hearns or Leonard didn't bother to get in shape when they lost fights and if people accept it then they can get credit only for wins. Being out of shape cannot be an excuse for a top fighter. So Duran is fighting the best guys he ever fought in Hearns,Benitez and Leonard and he is not in shape? yet he gets in shape for Moore and Barkley? Why would he do that? Why would he train for lesser fighters and not for elite guys? Did he know he could not beat the top guys? Lack of confidence? Fact is he was not fast enough to beat Hearns and Benitez and Ray (fight 2). That is on film. I never understood that explanation from Duran fans. Either he was out of shape or he was too small. Yet he was not out of shape when he won against lesser guys, and he was not too small for Barkley and Moore, and like I said he weighed in at 154 before the legends he fought Hearns,Benitez,Leonard.


Duran had visible flab on his body, something that couldn't be said for Martinez.

Duran beat Moore & Barkley because Moore & Barkley weren't great fighters, so it didn't matter that Duran himself was far from his best against them.

Anyone with eyes should have been able to see that Duran footspeed and handspeed never approached what they were, before the second Leonard fight.


----------



## KERRIGAN (Jul 25, 2012)

Kid Generic Alias said:


> Of course, a post like this doesn't bother to reference the fact that that he'd been competing at that weight for a two year period, or that he'd spent the vast majority of that decade competing as a junior welterweight.


My post was in reference to Duran fighting at 168.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> If that is the case, then fighters should fight better opponents when they past their prime. And even if that is the case, Duran was not past his prime when he lost to Leonard, and with Benitez,Hearns and Hagler he was 30 and 32. He fought until he was 50.


Non issue.
Mike Tyson his prime was officially over in 1990 yet he still boxed another 15 years.

Also Duran only stopped boxing because of a car accident he planned to box until his 60s or so.
Just because he kept boxing doesn't mean he wasn't past prime.
If Duran had kept boxing until his 60s (which he planned to do) would you be arguing he was still in his prime against Camacho because he boxed for another 15 years after their first fight?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> Leonard is a top 10 ATG but not Duran. Not from beating Leonard or his lightweight reign. And Duran lost to Leonard relatively easy. And they all moved up. Hearns moved up also. Benitez did from 140. Leonard did, not as sucessful as Hearns. Hearns won a title against Hill, whom I think now is underrated. And Duran fought at 154 as early as 1978 before Hearns,Leonard or Benitez ever fought there. Duran was not this little guy, he left lightweight because he was big enough to. The man fought as high as 168 later on. Higher than Ray ever could, regardless of the Leonard/Lalonde fight.


what's interesting is that Duran fough Leonard, Hearns and Hagler all at their best weight.

Yes Benitez schooled him and maybe always would, but you imagine if Leonard, Hearns and Hagler all had to fight Duran at his best weight, only one winner there.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> what's interesting is that Duran fough Leonard, Hearns and Hagler all at their best weight.
> 
> Yes Benitez schooled him and maybe always would, but you imagine if Leonard, Hearns and Hagler all had to fight Duran at his best weight, only one winner there.


they would be the best fighters he ever fought at his weight. He never fought this level at lightweight no matter what.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Non issue.
> Mike Tyson his prime was officially over in 1990 yet he still boxed another 15 years.
> 
> Also Duran only stopped boxing because of a car accident he planned to box until his 60s or so.
> ...


It is an issue. If a guy can fight to 50, that means his decline at 32 or 30 was not that much just on the decline rate. It shows he did not decline much physically at all, and he did fight at 154 as early as 1978.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> I don't ignore it, I just don't think Buchanan is at that top level. I would have liked to see Duran fight a guy like Arguello. He would have probably won, but it would be tough.


Ken Buchanan isn't a great fighter now? Seriously?


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

KERRIGAN said:


> Duran had visible flab on his body, something that couldn't be said for Martinez.
> 
> Duran beat Moore & Barkley because Moore & Barkley weren't great fighters, so it didn't matter that Duran himself was far from his best against them.
> 
> Anyone with eyes should have been able to see that Duran footspeed and handspeed never approached what they were, before the second Leonard fight.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> Ken Buchanan isn't a great fighter now? Seriously?


No, of course not Tommy...don't you know that Buchanan was a second rate fighter...no more than a glorified Dave Boy Green...........................................................like there isn't enough stupid revisionism going onatsch...Buchanan was, in my humble opinion , the best fighter below heavyweight that Britain has ever produced...and for that matter, speaking of Alexis Arguello, as much as I love him, he wouldn't have been able to withstand the punishment that The Great Scot had to soak up vs Duran....and everyone should remember that it took a flagrant foul...a deliberate low blow to bring Kenny down in '72. He was not only the most skillful, but probably the toughest man that the Brits ever fronted.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> I disagree, against Moore his movement was awful, no sharpness on his punches, he looked like he was calling it in but nothing was working as it had done, chin looked far worse (Moore could punch tbf but so could Duran, Leonard, Hearns and he done 45 rounds with them and only got stopped once) and already mentally shot looking not even half the fighter he was.
> 
> Never won a true world level fight again and was beaten by way lesser fighters that he would have schooled at his peak.
> 
> I would say that is shot.


Duran was not a shot fighter. Shot fighter can be described as mentally shot fighter, and Duran still thought he could beat anyone. He fought for the middleweight title against Joppy 12 years after the Hearns fight. 12 years and like 25 fights later. He was not a shot fighter when he fought Hearns,Benitez or Leonard or Hagler. A shot fighter does not go 12 tough rounds with Barkley an win the title in 1989.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> they would be the best fighters he ever fought at his weight. He never fought this level at lightweight no matter what.


no they wouldn't. He actually beat Leobard and if Hagler and Hearns managed to boil down to lightweight they'd lose by ko on the ring walk.

Asking them to all face Duran at LW is a ridiculous ask, yet the former lightweight was able to face them at their best weight.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> no they wouldn't. He actually beat Leobard and if Hagler and Hearns managed to boil down to lightweight they'd lose by ko on the ring walk.
> 
> Asking them to all face Duran at LW is a ridiculous ask, yet the former lightweight was able to face them at their best weight.


Duran was champion at 154 when he fought Hearns. He fought at 154 earlier than they did. As for lightweight? yeah well we will never know. He never fought that level at that weight, so his dominance was built on lesser guys. Had he fought Pernell I think Roberto gets neutralized and loses a UD over 12 rounds or 15 if you go by 1975 time. He never fought those elite levels at lightweight. 
And he lost to Leonard easily 2 times. And if Duran has excuses for losing every fight above welterweight, then he should not get credit for any wins. And where would he rank if his career is just based on his lightweight reign?


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> Duran was not a shot fighter. Shot fighter can be described as mentally shot fighter, and Duran still thought he could beat anyone. He fought for the middleweight title against Joppy 12 years after the Hearns fight. 12 years and like 25 fights later. He was not a shot fighter when he fought Hearns,Benitez or Leonard or Hagler. A shot fighter does not go 12 tough rounds with Barkley an win the title in 1989.


I was talking about benitez not Duran. I said Duran was past prime in this period, not shot - theres a difference. Benitez was shot at 25 - he had nothing left after that.


----------



## Indigo Pab (May 31, 2012)

Losses happen, they are and have been happening to great fighters since the beginning of the sport. One of the myriad things I dislike about boxing nowadays in the cynicism fighters are greeted with when they've taken a loss. I'm assuming it started with promoters and networks using that precious "0" to market fighters, and by some kind of osmosis that has affected how we as fans view fighters.

You often see prospects who look encouraging offer a valiant effort only to be defeated by a more experienced, decent in his own right fighter, and they're immediately written off regardless of the manner of defeat. There's a distinct lack of fighters these days(or at any point throughout history) who are considered to be operating at the highest level who _do not_ have losses on their record at some stage.

Everyone is fallible. It's part of the appeal.

Sugar Ray Robinson, Ezzard Charles, Henry Armstrong, Archie Moore, and, uh, Roberto Duran all have losses in double figures, their achievements and the manner in which they performed when achieving them are why they're held in the esteem they are. Defeating Leonard, De Jesus, Buchanan, Palomino, Barkley, Marcel etc and looking as amazing as he did when doing so speaks volumes. Some of his losses are, admittedly, absolute ass, but I think he more than made up for them, and the manner in which he bounced back to score massive wins after looking finished suggest some of them had a lot to do with something other than a lack of quality on his end.

He's arguably the most skilled fighter in history. His tough guy image detracts from just how much of a complete all-rounder he was, his ring IQ was second to none and he was slick defensively, to go with his obvious unrivaled ferocity and GOAT punch-picking/accuracy. All of which was displayed against the best from lightweight to middleweight. Most people far more knowledgeable than myself have him anywhere from 1 to 10 in their all-time rankings, and from what I've seen that doesn't seem to outlandish to me.

Plus he was just an unmitigated badass.

:farfetched


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> I was talking about benitez not Duran. I said Duran was past prime in this period, not shot - theres a difference. Benitez was shot at 25 - he had nothing left after that.


well Benitez made a bad decision. He fought so well at 154 against Duran and Hearns. Almost his best weight, but why move up and fight Hamsho who was a rough and wild guy in his new division. It took everything out of Benitez and he was hit clean more than he ever did. Just hurt him mentally. That one fight. Had he stayed at 154 and fought the guys there and maybe rematched Hearns or Duran he might have had a few more good fights in him.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> Duran was champion at 154 when he fought Hearns. He fought at 154 earlier than they did. As for lightweight? yeah well we will never know. He never fought that level at that weight, so his dominance was built on lesser guys. Had he fought Pernell I think Roberto gets neutralized and loses a UD over 12 rounds or 15 if you go by 1975 time. He never fought those elite levels at lightweight.
> And he lost to Leonard easily 2 times. And if Duran has excuses for losing every fight above welterweight, then he should not get credit for any wins. And where would he rank if his career is just based on his lightweight reign?


Marcel, Buchanan and DeJesus were excellent fighter. You could make an argument that three are top 25 LWs, certainly top 50.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pabby said:


> Losses happen, they are and have been happening to great fighters since the beginning of the sport. One of the myriad things I dislike about boxing nowadays in the cynicism fighters are greeted with when they've taken a loss. I'm assuming it started with promoters and networks using that precious "0" to market fighters, and by some kind of osmosis that has affected how we as fans view fighters.
> 
> You often see prospects who look encouraging offer a valiant effort only to be defeated by a more experienced, decent in his own right fighter, and they're immediately written off regardless of the manner of defeat. There's a distinct lack of fighters these days(or at any point throughout history) who are considered to be operating at the highest level who _do not_ have losses on their record at some stage.
> 
> ...


 you said Duran beat Leonard, De Jesus, Buchanan, Palomino, Barkley, yet compare that to Hearns who beat Cuevas,Benitez,Duran, Hill -we can throw in there Weston,Shields,Roldan etc etc and countless others. I think Hearns wins are comparable if not better than Durans, and the win over Hill was an incredible win which Tommy never got the credit for.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Marcel, Buchanan and DeJesus were excellent fighter. You could make an argument that three are top 25 LWs, certainly top 50.


to be quite honest, those guys are not close to Hearns,Leonard and Benitez. Not even in the same league. You know it. Anyone does. Duran's lightweight career cannot be built up more than it was.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> to be quite honest, those guys are not close to Hearns,Leonard and Benitez. Not even in the same league. You know it. Anyone does. Duran's lightweight career cannot be built up more than it was.


So, those guys were top 50 ATG's, the others were still great fighters, not Duran's fault a load of ATG's weren't around in his weight until he was 30 and past his best. He beat anyone who was a top lightweight at the time then moved up and fought the best welters to middles, he may not have faired as well but he was older, way more war torn and was giving away a size advantage to everyone.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> you said Duran beat Leonard, De Jesus, Buchanan, Palomino, Barkley, yet compare that to Hearns who beat Cuevas,Benitez,Duran, Hill -we can throw in there Weston,Shields,Roldan etc etc and countless others. I think Hearns wins are comparable if not better than Durans, and the win over Hill was an incredible win which Tommy never got the credit for.


But Hearns got beat of Uriah Grant when he was about 40 so he can't be that good.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> you said Duran beat Leonard, De Jesus, Buchanan, Palomino, Barkley, yet compare that to Hearns who beat Cuevas,Benitez,Duran, Hill -we can throw in there Weston,Shields,Roldan etc etc and countless others. I think Hearns wins are comparable if not better than Durans, and the win over Hill was an incredible win which Tommy never got the credit for.


Duran beat Cuevas too. Shields? Come on MAG. Those guys are not special.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> So, those guys were top 50 ATG's, the others were still great fighters, not Duran's fault a load of ATG's weren't around in his weight until he was 30 and past his best. He beat anyone who was a top lightweight at the time then moved up and fought the best welters to middles, he may not have faired as well but he was older, way more war torn and was giving away a size advantage to everyone.


Duran was a great fighter. But the excuses are not valid. If he didn't face and beat great fighters in his career, that should work against his ATG ranking. I put him near top 25. on his lightweight reign and the Leonard win, yet I don't give the Leonard win that much since Ray beat him so easily in the rematch, an the way Benitez and Hearns beat him. Who is prime ever? Hearns beat Virgil Hill 11 years after his first title. If Hearns were Duran, people would still be talking about how unbelievable that was. And Hearns won the 175 pound title 2 times.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Duran beat Cuevas too. Shields? Come on MAG. Those guys are not special.


If we are going to throw in Barkley with Duran, why not throw in some of Tommy's extra fights. Andries,Roldan, Shuler. Duran beat Cuevas at 154 in 1983 after the Starfford fight. Not the same as when Cuevas was champion like when Hearns beat him. Cuevas was special. People now try and make Cotto great, and Cuevas had 12 title defenses. If he were around now, the threads would be. Can anyone beat the great Pipino Cuevas.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> But Hearns got beat of Uriah Grant when he was about 40 so he can't be that good.


Hearns was not champion then. So we are comparing Hearns at 40 to Duran in his early 30s? Hearns was 41 when he hurt his ankle, but Duran was 32 when Hagler and Hearns beat him, the same age Hearns was when he beat Virgil Hill. Undefeated Virgil HIll with 10 title defenses in a weight 30 pounds above Hearns first world title at welterweight.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> If we are going to throw in Barkley with Duran, why not throw in some of Tommy's extra fights. Andries,Roldan, Shuler. Duran beat Cuevas at 154 in 1983 after the Starfford fight. Not the same as when Cuevas was champion like when Hearns beat him. Cuevas was special. People now try and make Cotto great, and Cuevas had 12 title defenses. If he were around now, the threads would be. *Can anyone beat the great Pipino Cuevas.*


:rofl Highly doubtful. Who was Cuevas' best win? Barkley is a better win than Cuevas, at least he actually beat Hearns. Cuevas was busy rematching cab drivers until he got whooped up by Hearns and Duran.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> Hearns was not champion then. So we are comparing Hearns at 40 to Duran in his early 30s? Hearns was 41 when he hurt his ankle, but Duran was 32 when Hagler and Hearns beat him, the same age Hearns was when he beat Virgil Hill. Undefeated Virgil HIll with 10 title defenses in a weight 30 pounds above Hearns first world title at welterweight.


You keep bringing up Duran fighting to 50 s if it means something so why not Hearns?


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> :rofl Highly doubtful. Who was Cuevas' best win? Barkley is a better win than Cuevas, at least he actually beat Hearns. Cuevas was busy rematching cab drivers until he got whooped up by Hearns and Duran.


Barkley's whole claim to fame was beating Hearns. I love the articles I read about Barkley now where he thinks he will be in the HOF soon. He had good wins over Hearns in a good style matchup, but he lost to Kalambay,Benn,,Nunn,Toney, etc etc. Cuevas beat Weston,Shields, Gray and Espada. Didn't have a loss in 4 years as champion. Are you kidding? 11 knockouts in 12 title defenses. Something like that. in retrospect people can knock Cuevas record, but you really think he would have lost to Dejesus? For example? Cuevas was a good fighter with a great left hook.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

and may I add, who is in the Hall of Fame now? Barkley or Cuevas? And I love Barkley. He came to fight and was a warrior, but does he belong in the HOF? As you said doubtful.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> You keep bringing up Duran fighting to 50 s if it means something so why not Hearns?


the point I mention that is that people say Hearns was washed up at 32, yet Duran fought at 50.. I never said Hearns was washed up at 32, so Hearns fighting at 41 makes sense.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> and may I add, who is in the Hall of Fame now? Barkley or Cuevas? And I love Barkley. He came to fight and was a warrior, but does he belong in the HOF? Doubtful.


Who cares about who is in the HOF? Seriously? Barkley's 2 wins over Hearns, one by ko is better than Cuevas' entire resume. Shields? Weston? Espada.....lulz.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> Duran was a great fighter. But the excuses are not valid. If he didn't face and beat great fighters in his career, that should work against his ATG ranking. I put him near top 25. on his lightweight reign and the Leonard win, yet I don't give the Leonard win that much since Ray beat him so easily in the rematch, an the way Benitez and Hearns beat him. Who is prime ever? Hearns beat Virgil Hill 11 years after his first title. If Hearns were Duran, people would still be talking about how unbelievable that was. And Hearns won the 175 pound title 2 times.


Duran beat Ray pretty much 10-5 in THE fight that mattered, that was a better victory than the return.

Valuev could probably KO Hagler had a bloated version fought him, fighting above your weight is a viable excuse for worse performances. Duran was just willing to fight the big guys cause he needed the money, the fact that he could hang with them and beat some of them showed how great he was.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Who cares about who is in the HOF? Seriously? Barkley's 2 wins over Hearns, one by ko is better than Cuevas' entire resume. Shields? Weston? Espada.....lulz.


you can laugh at names and that doesn't mean they were good fighters. Weston was a good fighter, Gray also. Solid defenses. HOF means something. Cuevas was voted in years ago. People knew he was a great champion. Cuevas is better than Barkley as far as level of fighter and wins. Barkley beating Hearns is great, but that does not make a whole career. And I like Barkley.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Duran beat Ray pretty much 10-5 in THE fight that mattered, that was a better victory than the return.
> 
> Valuev could probably KO Hagler had a bloated version fought him, fighting above your weight is a viable excuse for worse performances. Duran was just willing to fight the big guys cause he needed the money, the fact that he could hang with them and beat some of them showed how great he was.


You cannot compare Valuev to Hagler and Leonard to Duran. Like I said, who fought at 154 first? Duran did in 1978. Did Hagler fight at 240 pounds before Valuev?


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> the point I mention that is that people say Hearns was washed up at 32, yet Duran fought at 50.. I never said Hearns was washed up at 32, so Hearns fighting at 41 makes sense.


Maguigan is in the HOF, doesn't mean Steve Cruz is better than Eddie Booker


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> It is an issue. *If a guy can fight to 50, that means his decline at 32 or 30 was not that much just on the decline rate. * It shows he did not decline much physically at all, and he did fight at 154 as early as 1978.


Or maybe he just kept fighting because that's the only thing he knew how to do.
Also he didn't really face great opposition when he was that old.

He kept boxing because that's what he was best at.
He didn't know better, he just did what he was doing since his 17th.

So you think Mike Tyson wasn't past prime in his comeback?
Also if Duran had kept boxing until his 60s (which he planned to do) would you be arguing he was still in his prime against Camacho because he boxed for another 15 years after their first fight?

"and he did fight at 154 as early as 1978."
151 pounds against a bum with a 0-3 record or something.
I think it's extremely fair to assume he wasn't inshape.

Also Hearns weighed in above 147 3 times before Duran.
And he was also at 154 at a sooner stage than Duran, he was 7 years younger yet was a 154lbs fighter in the same year.

You seriously arguing Duran is bigger than Tommy motherfucking cruiserweightchamp Hearns?

Also Buchanan was freaking good, he would absolutely bulldoze the lw division of today.
He would have also absolutely shit on Marquez, not just a Mayweather like beating but would have been destroyed.
top 3 jab, top 5 footwork, top 5 chin, top ten speed, top ten defence, top ten toughness/determination

Also late in his career, Duran stated Ken was his best opponent.

And absolute H2H monster.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> you can laugh at names and that doesn't mean they were good fighters. Weston was a good fighter, Gray also. Solid defenses. HOF means something. Cuevas was voted in years ago. People knew he was a great champion. Cuevas is better than Barkley as far as level of fighter and wins. Barkley beating Hearns is great, but that does not make a whole career. And I like Barkley.


Cuevas is probably in Hearns' top 5 wins. Not a good look. Duran beat a prime Leonard for goodness sake and was one of the most dominant lightweights ever.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> You cannot compare Valuev to Hagler and Leonard to Duran. Like I said, who fought at 154 first? Duran did in 1978. Did Hagler fight at 240 pounds before Valuev?


Of course you can, its called exagerrating to make a point. Duran went up to fight these guys so he could make the big money, money he wouldn't make fighting at the lower weights. He was happy to give up the size advantage to make a few extra million. Weight alone does not define a mans size.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Or maybe he just kept fighting because that's the only thing he knew how to do.
> Also he didn't really face great opposition when he was that old.
> 
> He kept boxing because that's what he was best at.
> ...


this whole thing about Duran being a small fighter seems like an excuse for him as is the lack of motivation. A lack of motivation he had and lack of training when he fought better fighters. My posts are about fairness. Duran was not a washed up fighter when he fought Hearns and Hagler and Benitez and Leonard 2. He was above his better weight, but not that far above. He was taking many tuneups in the higher division for a couple of years when he was at lightweight.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Of course you can, its called exagerrating to make a point. Duran went up to fight these guys so he could make the big money, money he wouldn't make fighting at the lower weights. He was happy to give up the size advantage to make a few extra million. Weight alone does not define a mans size.


Weight does not define it, but height and size and how he carried the weight does. Duran was already up in weight fighting there in 1978 at 154. He didn't go up to fight them, he gained weight naturally and was there. And they were there. Duran was not a little small fighter, and he always had a good right hand even at 168, and if you ask the fighters he fought if he was weak, I am sure they will say no. Look at the Hagler fight and see how small Duran looks compared to Hagler. Look at the staredown and before the fight. That is not a small fighter. Look at them at the staredown before the fight.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Cuevas is probably in Hearns' top 5 wins. Not a good look. Duran beat a prime Leonard for goodness sake and was one of the most dominant lightweights ever.


That is my point, Leonard was prime in his second defense of his first title? No he was not prime, he fought Duran's fight which shows he was still immature. Prime has to do with putting it all together mentally and physically. Was Lebron James prime when he went to the finals first many years ago? No, it took him years to learn the whole game. In Leonard's case he lacked the mental aspect of winning the fight inside the ring, but also outside and fighting the right style. The second fight proves Ray was the variable.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Maguigan is in the HOF, doesn't mean Steve Cruz is better than Eddie Booker


I am talking about Hearns wins. If you look at Cuevas,Benitez,Duran and Hill. He won 3 titles against elite titlists..


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> That is my point, Leonard was prime in his second defense of his first title? No he was not prime, he fought Duran's fight which shows he was still immature. Prime has to do with putting it all together mentally and physically. Was Lebron James prime when he went to the finals first many years ago? No, it took him years to learn the whole game. In Leonard's case he lacked the mental aspect of winning the fight inside the ring, but also outside and fighting the right style. The second fight proves Ray was the variable.


Ray himself admitted to making the fight because he knew Roberto was out of shape.

Youre way too caught up in this defending title nonsense. Who cares how many paper defenses a fight has? It's about beating top opposition which Duran did amongst many weights, and Cuevas once he stepped up got his ass beat.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Hearns was not champion then. So we are comparing Hearns at 40 to Duran in his early 30s? Hearns was 41 when he hurt his ankle, but Duran was 32 when Hagler and Hearns beat him, the same age Hearns was when he beat Virgil Hill. Undefeated Virgil HIll with 10 title defenses in a weight 30 pounds above Hearns first world title at welterweight.


Nobody would have given Hearns flak had he been beaten by Virgil Hill.
Also it was pretty evident that Hearns his reflexes were gone, he was faded in Hill fight.
The fight just shows how extremely good he was when he was in pure boxer mode.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> That is my point, Leonard was prime in his second defense of his first title? No he was not prime, he fought Duran's fight which shows he was still immature. Prime has to do with putting it all together mentally and physically. Was Lebron James prime when he went to the finals first many years ago? No, it took him years to learn the whole game. In Leonard's case he lacked the mental aspect of winning the fight inside the ring, but also outside and fighting the right style. The second fight proves Ray was the variable.


he fought Leonards fight caise.thats how he fought everyone then.

Sent from my LT30p using Tapatalk


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> this whole thing about Duran being a small fighter seems like an excuse for him as is the lack of motivation. A lack of motivation he had and lack of training when he fought better fighters. My posts are about fairness. Duran was not a washed up fighter when he fought Hearns and Hagler and Benitez and Leonard 2. He was above his better weight, but not that far above. He was taking many tuneups in the higher division for a couple of years when he was at lightweight.


So you think Mike Tyson wasn't past prime in his comeback?
Also if Duran had kept boxing until his 60s (which he planned to do) would you be arguing he was still in his prime against Camacho because he boxed for another 15 years after their first fight?

I'll just keep repeating it until you stop ignoring these questions.

And here you admit yourself that he was above his better weight, here you basically admit yourself that Duran was not prime anymore.
Duran had visible flab at 160, Leonard had muscle definition.
His extra weight was a big part fat.

Duran was actually in pretty good shape against Hagler but can you really expect an ex lightweight to beat fucking Hagler?
I'm a big Hagler hater but even I must admit there's not a single lightweight ever who could have a true win over him in his prime.

Hearns was stylistically a nemenis for Duran, and he was bigger.
Don't say he's smaller than Duran because weighed in at 155 at 23 in 81.
Duran in a tune up fight where he was most probably fat weighed in at 151 in 78 at 27 years old.
Hearns at 27 was already 160 and 2 years later he was be 173.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Ray himself admitted to making the fight because he knew Roberto was out of shape.
> 
> Youre way too caught up in this defending title nonsense. Who cares how many paper defenses a fight has? It's about beating top opposition which Duran did amongst many weights, and Cuevas once he stepped up got his ass beat.


Duran did not beat the top elite opposition. He never knocked out a great fighter. The best name he ever knocked out was Pipino Cuevas who was way past his prime and never won a title at that weight. Ray also admits that he fought Duran's fight the first time to beat him at his own game, and in the rematch he was going to move and win the fight his style.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Nobody would have given Hearns flak had he been beaten by Virgil Hill.
> Also it was pretty evident that Hearns his reflexes were gone, he was faded in Hill fight.
> The fight just shows how extremely good he was when he was in pure boxer mode.


Tommy was still fast and good then, yet his legs were gone, yet Hill did not make him use his legs or push him like Barkley did and others when he got older because Hill was not used to a guy with that fast and long a reach, and it got Hill out of his gameplan. Usually Hill's jab and movement was enough to beat the guys he fought up to that point like Steward and Czyz and the others., As for Hearns, his upper body and speed were still ok. Hearns is a case where his legs went before his upper body, so if a guy stood in front of him and wanted to jab, he could win even against a the best light heavyweight. Virgil is now in the HOF.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Duran did not beat the top elite opposition. He never knocked out a great fighter. The best name he ever knocked out was Pipino Cuevas who was way past his prime and never won a title at that weight. Ray also admits that he fought Duran's fight the first time to beat him at his own game, and in the rematch he was going to move and win the fight his style.


Who cares he never knocked out a great fighter :lol: Duran wasn't a knock out puncher, and was small even for a lightweight IMO Hearns didn't knock out a any prime great fighters either.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Also neither Leonard nor Hearns looked smaller than Hagler.

And Duran wasn't really thin.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Tommy was still fast and good then, yet his legs were gone, yet Hill did not make him use his legs or push him like Barkley did and others when he got older because Hill was not used to a guy with that fast and long a reach, and it got Hill out of his gameplan. Usually Hill's jab and movement was enough to beat the guys he fought up to that point like Steward and Czyz and the others., As for Hearns, his upper body and speed were still ok. Hearns is a case where his legs went before his upper body, so if a guy stood in front of him and wanted to jab, he could win even against a the best light heavyweight. Virgil is now in the HOF.


It was clear that Hearns his reflexes were gone.
He couldn't react to openings he saw with a right hand.

Still an extremely good boxer, but he was no longer the hitman.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Who cares he never knocked out a great fighter :lol: Duran wasn't a knock out puncher, and was small even for a lightweight IMO Hearns didn't knock out a any prime great fighters either.


but Hearns knocked out great fighters and HOF fighters who were champs. Cuevas and Duran.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Duran did not beat the top elite opposition. He never knocked out a great fighter. The best name he ever knocked out was Pipino Cuevas who was way past his prime and never won a title at that weight. Ray also admits that he fought Duran's fight the first time to beat him at his own game, and in the rematch he was going to move and win the fight his style.


And what great fighter did Willie Pep knock out?
Also he lost thrice to Saddler (the best man he ever faced) and yet is universally ranked higher than Saddler.

And yes he is relevant considering he's often considered a top 15 atg just like Leonard and Duran.
His resume has the same flaw that Duran's has.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> but Hearns knocked out great fighters and HOF fighters who were champs. Cuevas and Duran.


And well he should considering his vast physical advantages. Cuevas is not a great :lol:


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> but Hearns knocked out great fighters and HOF fighters who were champs. Cuevas and Duran.


Cuevas was not great though.
Absolutely terrefic power but not really special besides that.

You consider Pipino a great fighter yet Buchanan not?


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> It was clear that Hearns his reflexes were gone.
> He couldn't react to openings he saw with a right hand.
> 
> Still an extremely good boxer, but he was no longer the hitman.


he diminished a little ,but I knew if Virgil didn't make him work his legs, he could win that fight. Virgil Hill always wanted Thomas Hearns and a win on his resume like many upper weight guys did like Bobby Czyz. They thought he was finished and they could win and get that name on their resume. Hill didn't think Hearns jab would be as good as it was and he thought Tommy would be reckless and walk into a counter left. But Tommy sat back and jabbed and waited to counter Virgil, and won the fight on UD. Virgil was always good enough to box anyone, but in this case he couldn't match jabs with Tommy. So Hearns reflexes were still there I think, but his legs were not.

At times his legs looks stiff. So a top fighter who could beat everyone at that point? Probably not, but he still had his reflexes, so it was as matter of him fighting with his jab and hoping the fight did not make him move around .But Virgil didn't make him move like you make older fighters with a lot of mileage move and wear them out. You know for that fight Hearns hardly ran anymore. They figured they would preserve his legs after 1991 and run less and preserve him, and it helped him have a longer career. Although he was not in shape like he was in earlier years. That is the first time I really heard about older fighters not doing as much road work and just staying active as far as fighting.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

I actually really like @MAG1965.
Finally a reason to keep posting, brings controversy and discussion.

Discussion in a forum is always great.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> And well he should considering his vast physical advantages. Cuevas is not a great :lol:


he was HOF. If people think Calzaghe or Cotto is great, you have to think Cuevas was. Look at the fighters guys like Mayweather fights now. Guerrero and Ortiz and Maidana. Cuevas would have destroyed all these guys. Remember, these guys weighed in like Tommy. They had advantages in that they could reach the body and try to break Hearns down. Wasn't like Tommy weighed more than them. As a matter of fact he sometimes weighed in at 145 or 146 in those years.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Cuevas was not great though.
> Absolutely terrefic power but not really special besides that.
> 
> You consider Pipino a great fighter yet Buchanan not?


Cuevas had 12 title defenses. How many did Buchanan have? And Ken didn't have great power. Many of his fights went into the late rounds. By saying Cuevas is not great, then Buchanan is not great either. I know both are in the HOF, but Cuevas is underrated now because of how easily Thomas Hearns knocked him out.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> he was HOF. If people think Calzaghe or Cotto is great, you have to think Cuevas was. Look at the fighters guys like Mayweather fights now. Guerrero and Ortiz and Maidana. Cuevas would have destroyed all these guys. Remember, these guys weighed in like Tommy. They had advantages in that they could reach the body and try to break Hearns down. Wasn't like Tommy weighed more than them. As a matter of fact he sometimes weighed in at 145 or 146 in those years.


Cotto and Calzaghe had wins over great fighters. Cuevas does not.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> I actually really like @MAG1965.
> Finally a reason to keep posting, brings controversy and discussion.
> 
> Discussion in a forum is always great.


thank you. Although, I am not sure how many people like to hear my comments on Duran. I do think he is great, I just don't accept the excuses for losses but credit for wins too well. It should be balanced.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Cotto and Calzaghe had wins over great fighters. Cuevas does not.


washed up great fighters. And Cotto lost to Margarito in their first fight and Trout.. I guess that is for another thread. Cuevas had 12 title defenses and Harold Weston and Clyde Gray and to a lesser extent Shields were good fighters. Weston was considered a top fighter. underrated. Gave Hearns a good fight, yet always blamed Thomas for thumbing him which ended the fight in about round 5 or 6..


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> he diminished a little ,but I knew if Virgil didn't make him work his legs, he could win that fight. Virgil Hill always wanted Thomas Hearns and a win on his resume like many upper weight guys did like Bobby Czyz. They thought he was finished and they could win and get that name on their resume. Hill didn't think Hearns jab would be as good as it was and he thought Tommy would be reckless and walk into a counter left. But Tommy sat back and jabbed and waited to counter Virgil, and won the fight on UD. Virgil was always good enough to box anyone, but in this case he couldn't match jabs with Tommy. So Hearns reflexes were still there I think, but his legs were not.
> 
> At times his legs looks stiff. So a top fighter who could beat everyone at that point? Probably not, but he still had his reflexes, so it was as matter of him fighting with his jab and hoping the fight did not make him move around .But Virgil didn't make him move like you make older fighters with a lot of mileage move and wear them out. You know for that fight Hearns hardly ran anymore. They figured they would preserve his legs after 1991 and run less and preserve him, and it helped him have a longer career. Although he was not in shape like he was in earlier years. That is the first time I really heard about older fighters not doing as much road work and just staying active as far as fighting.


The commentators were already talking in the first round that his reflexes weren't there anymore.
He still had his jab though which was all he needed against Hill.
And because he could take on Hill on the outside and Hill was also content on the outside he barely needed his legs.
It was a battle of the jabs, not a battle of the legs or reflexes.

If you bulked up a prime 154lbs Hearns and bring Hill back in time with a timemachine it would have been a hell of a dominant fight for Hearns.
It's actually a fight Hearns always would have won but considering he actually did it at that stage is great stuff.

He should get credit for it because he did it, but had he lost it should not have been a stain on his record because he was already really past it.
Just like Duran should get credit for his higher weight wins but can't really get flak for the stains on his resume in higher weights.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> thank you. Although, I am not sure how many people like to hear my comments on Duran. I do think he is great, I just don't accept the excuses for losses but credit for wins too well. It should be balanced.


There should always be a ying and a yang, a forum where everybody agrees is a dead forum.
For every credit a fighter gets there should be someone to even it out.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> washed up great fighters. And Cotto lost to Margarito in their first fight and Trout.. I guess that is for another thread. Cuevas had 12 title defenses and Harold Weston and Clyde Gray and to a lesser extent Shields were good fighters. Weston was considered a top fighter. underrated. Gave Hearns a good fight, yet always blamed Thomas for thumbing him which ended the fight in about round 5 or 6..


Weston was probably underrated but giving him the proper rating would only see him as a good contender. It certainly doesn't turn him into a world beater.

Hopkins and Mosley were not washed up when those two beat them :lol: stop exaggerating everything


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> The commentators were already talking in the first round that his reflexes weren't there anymore.
> He still had his jab though which was all he needed against Hill.
> And because he could take on Hill on the outside and Hill was also content on the outside he barely needed his legs.
> It was a battle of the jabs, not a battle of the legs or reflexes.
> ...


Hearns by 1991 at 32 was a much more worn fighter than Duran at 32 in 1984. Duran to his credit, was only really stopped by Hearns in 1984. He had a great chin, and Tommy's was not dependable, and for some reason by 1988 he was getting hit cleaner. Hearns had been knocked out 3 times and been hurt many times and was worn out, yet he changed his style a little and became less reckless and more of an inside fighter which is probably why Barkley and Delgado (1994) broke his nose.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Weston was probably underrated but giving him the proper rating would only see him as a good contender. It certainly doesn't turn him into a world beater.
> 
> Hopkins and Mosley were not washed up when those two beat them :lol: stop exaggerating everything


you really think Cotto would beat a prime Mosley? Calzaghe over Hopkins? That is another story. I think Calzaghe could beat the same Hopkins who beat Tito. Well Weston was a contender because Cuevas was champion. Had Cuevas not been champion, Weston would have been a good title holder.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Cuevas had 12 title defenses. How many did Buchanan have? And Ken didn't have great power. Many of his fights went into the late rounds. By saying Cuevas is not great, then Buchanan is not great either. I know both are in the HOF, but Cuevas is underrated now because of how easily Thomas Hearns knocked him out.


Carlos Palomino was always better than Cuevas.
He probably fought and beat an equal number of top 10 names as Cuevas and he was actually the lineal champ.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Carlos Palomino was always better than Cuevas.
> He probably fought and beat an equal number of top 10 names as Cuevas and he was actually the lineal champ.


Carlos Palomino? No. I think he was a bit overrated.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> you really think Cotto would beat a prime Mosley? Calzaghe over Hopkins? That is another story. I think Calzaghe could beat the same Hopkins who beat Tito. Well Weston was a contender because Cuevas was champion. Had Cuevas not been champion, Weston would have been a good title holder.


Washed up fighters don't win titles later on.

Weston a title holder? Beating who? :lol: Weston isn't even Oba Carr level.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

*My first ever post in forums with my little but growing knowledge, lol so funny and cheesy too:
*
Roberto Duran has fought great opposition during his time before he moved up beyond lightweight.

He beat the great Ernesto Marcel in the featherweight division. Ernesto Marcel had a great career - defending the WBA featherweight title against the likes of the great hall of famer Alexis Arguello before retiring, the dominant Puerto Rican legend by the name of Samuel Serrano as well as solid fighters who defended their titles a few times i.e Antonio Gomez who had a great record of 43-7 and beat the likes of arguably the greatest light-welterweights of all time, Antonio Cervantes, and defended his WBA featherweight title twice.

No one can deny the sheer dominance of Hiroshi Kobayashi in super featherweight who moved up to lightweight to face Duran. Duran won himself the KO victory. The only criticism that one can pin on Duran in this fight is that Koyabashi was weakened slightly by moving up in weight. Nevertheless, against such great opposition, it's still a good win.

Duran had only just turned 21 when he beat the legendary hall of famer and Scottish pride, Ken Buchanan. We don't need to go into detail about how great Ken Buchanan was.

After a TKO loss to Duran, Guts Ishimatsu went on to win and defend the WBC lightweight title multiple times against very good opposition i.e Rodolfo Gonzalez, and great opposition including Ken Buchanan.

Other great wins were against Saoul Mamby - who although had many losses in his career, he had great wins i.e against Esteban De Jesus and Sang-Hyun Kim who defended the WBA title a few times.

Duran dismantled Hall of Famer Esteban De Jesus twice after De Jesus beat Duran.

Another Hall of Famer that Duran racks up on his resume, Carlos Palomino.

Duran could have just stopped fighting here and been regarded as one of the greatest of all time.

With a career record of 71 wins and 1 loss which he avenged twice over, his ballooning in weight after fights with due to the binge drinking, drugs and binge eating, it was only a matter of time when this was going to start catching up to him and by the time he fought Sugar Ray Leonard, you can imagine how old his 'ring age' became! Yet despite this, and having moved up to Welterweight, he proves his greatness by beating Sugar Ray Leonard in Montreal. If Duran beat Leonard in these conditions, just imagine what Duran perhaps could have done if they both fought back in Duran's lightweight days.

Sugar Ray Leonard in the rematch came back to humiliate Duran, but Duran was apparently out of shape (I need clarification on this), and had continued to balloon in weight after the Montreal win. Also, Leonard is just the better welterweight which no one can ever deny.

Duran still went on to beat the great Davey Moore who beat the likes of the two elites Wilfred Benitez and Ayub Kalule, and Thomas Hearn's nemesis, Iran Barkley.

Duran forced a close decision loss with the pretty much invincible Marvin Hagler, at middleweight! Duran was definitely no way near his prime at this point. Again, imagine if this fight happened at lightweight! After this fight, we saw a finished Duran getting completely dominated by Hearns...it was not the Duran that we knew.

Yes, Duran lost to Benitez, Hearns, Hagler and Leonard. However, now you can see that these 'losses' are not simply just 'losses'.

With a legendary career with 103 wins, 70 KO's and 16 losses, Duran is definitely in my top 10 P4P list of all time.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Fuck, it was about time you were going to post.
I read you'd join discussion early in the thread and waited for so long, now it's time to actually read your post.

Accidentally already read your last line so I already know I'll probably agree with you.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Great post Gaul


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Fuck, it was about time you were going to post.
> I read you'd join discussion early in the thread and waited for so long, now it's time to actually read your post.
> 
> Accidentally already read your last line so I already know I'll probably agree with you.





turbotime said:


> Great post Gaul


:cheers guys

I'll update it by making a new post tbh to a 2014 version and make it more related to the thread too tbh Got a lot more to say about it.

Duran is legit and doesn't give a fuck.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...s5A0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=TqUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1680,216245

"I tried to knock him out early but I couldn't."
-Hagler (on Duran)

http://www.boxinginsider.com/interviews/interview-with-roberto-duran/
BoxingInsider.com: What fights were you at your best?

Roberto Duran: "Two fights. Buchanan and Barkley. (Vs. Buchanan)&#8230;I wanted to be world champion. (Vs. Barkley - at age 37)&#8230;Everybody thought that I was no good. That I was already done."

BoxingInsider.com: And last question, any funny memory you have? Anything when you look back it makes you laugh?

Roberto Duran: "After I won the Lightweight title from Ken Buchanan, I wanted to eat every kind of ice cream, every flavor, every color. And after that I did champagne. And after that I had diarrhea. I went to the bathroom a hundred times that night [laughter]."

Fucking Duran :lol:


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> *My first ever post in forums with my little but growing knowledge, lol so funny and cheesy too:
> *
> Roberto Duran has fought great opposition during his time before he moved up beyond lightweight.
> 
> ...


Those guys make Duran one of the greatest of all time at lightweight and below? No way. Buchanan, Dejesus and Ishimatsu and Marcel is the proof Duran is top 1-10 ATG? Marcel was naturally smaller than Duran, since you guys are talking about size and Duran being so small when he was a big lightweight, who later was good at welterweight. The man fought up to 168 and almost lightheavy.

And to be honest, the win of Marcel's against Arguello was before Alexis as any good, but that is the claim about Duran/Marcel and Arguello. Duran beat Marcel who beat Arguello, but Duran didn't beat Alexis which would have been a great win. Even Cervantes at 140 would have been nice. Not saying he couldn't have but he didn't. Would have liked to have seen it near 1979. But without the later welterweight and above fights, one of the best ever on those guys? I am not sure.. Not 1-10

Now people are saying Cotto is top 100 of all time. If he fought and beat Mosley, Judah, Martinez, Margarito and Yori Foreman, then why wouldn't he be top 100 with the Duran criteria. Those guys Duran fought at lightweight are not Leonard,Hearns,Benitez,Hagler. Palomino was not a great fighter, he was a decent fighter, but a little overrated. I am not totally convinced. He was trained by Jackie McCoy who was not a great trainer, and taught his pupils inside fighting and how to gut out wins. He was good, but let's not overrate Palomino whose opponents were no better than Cuevas, who had more title defenses. And who beat Palomino for his title? Yes the man who beat Duran a few years later and whom Hearns beat Wilfred Benitez. Benitez also beat Cervantes who beat Dejesus. 
Duran was good enough in health to fight to 50-which is significant, I doubt the drinking, drugs and whatever else he did was not that bad if he could fight so long. Seems exaggerated. I don't think Duran at lightweight and welterweights matters as much, he was a good size welterweight and looked in shape. Duran was a fine weight when he fought Ray,, and like I said, Ray was not mentally a great fighter yet. He fought Duran's fight, and Duran lost the rematch and rubbermatch. Too bad Ray didn't box Duran the first time, but he was not prime yet in my mind. Compare the first and second fights and how Ray fights in them.

I think you said it, Leonard was the better welterweight. The excuses are just that. When someone says Duran was out of shape and he ballooned in weight prior to New Orleans, how can that mean much if he lost? Obviously he is not going to say he was in shape if he lost? He always made excuses. If the guy he fought boxed, he said they were a sissy. Duran is going to make an excuse no matter what. He signed the fight like he did the first one, and like you said he was 71-1 prior to that, so why didn't he lose before to ballooning in weight and not being in shape-when it would be 12 more pounds to lose from the ballooning than he would have to at 147? That would have happened several times prior to Ray, but it happens on his most important rematch as his losses happened and he made excuses on his most important fights to the elites Hearns,Benitez and Leonard.

The great Davey Moore? Come on.. You are joking with that statement. The guy had 11 fight and dental surgery right before the fight. Moore beat Benitez, who if I remember correctly hurt his ankle, and that was after Hamsho for Benitez, who took something out of him at middleweight. And Barkley? He lost to everyone at the time, Kalambay, Nunn, Benn, Toney etc etc. Had he not landed that right on Tommy when Tommy was careless, Tommy was going to get a TKO on bodypunches.

Your forgot to mention Duran losing easily to Ray in the rematch and Wilfred Benitez in January of 1982, in a fight for Wilfred's WBC superwelterweight title-and Thomas Hearns beat Wilfred for that title months later. By the way, the weight Duran had fought Benitez, he had fought at as early as 1978 in tuneups. Yeah he did well against Marvin , who was expecting an aggressive Duran, but Marvin turned it up in the last few rounds and won easily. So his claim to fame is a loss? Then Tommy and Roberto fought in a unification fight (or should have been) and Tommy knocked him out and was too fast.

Had Duran beaten Arguello and Pryor and had a Whitaker and Mayweather in his time, then the losses to Hearns,Hagler,Leonard and Benitez would mean nothing, but he has no big big name wins at lightweight to make him 1-10 ATG, so the best guys he fought he lost to and made excuses for. At weights he fought at 154 prior to all of the others guys fighting there.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...s5A0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=TqUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1680,216245
> 
> "I tried to knock him out early but I couldn't."
> -Hagler (on Duran)
> ...


so how was Duran washed up when he fought Ray 2, Hearns and Benitez years before? This speaks for itself.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> so how was Duran washed up when he fought Ray 2, Hearns and Benitez years before? This speaks for itself.


Or was just that good in his prime. :hey


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Or was just that good in his prime. :hey


well if he was still good in 1989, then when he lost to those guys he still had something left. You guys cannot have it both ways. But Duran fans want to have it that way. He can lose and have excuses, and yet have wins and they are the greatest of all time against Moore and Barkley. Lose a fight and make an excuse and the excuse is legit. Then he can beat Barkley and said that was his best. This is what I mean. You guys really don't see the how there is a discrepancy in his comments and excuses in his wins and losses?


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG I think you've been exposed a bit here as a troll. Early on the discussion was sound but now you've just descended into "my guy was better" arguments trying to hype up Cuevas on Hearns' resume compared to Duran's best wins.

And we've been through this-when you are past your prime, you *can* have it both ways. You can lose and be forgiven for not being the same but put magic into a performance that exceeds expectations, which deserves credit.

I mean if you're going to hammer Duran for his losses, at least you can say Duran was never knocked out in his prime. By anyone, at either lightweight or welter. Then Hearns gets knocked out by the solid but not special Barkley. Who Duran then faces and beats at a weight he has no business being at past his prime. I'd rather get knocked out by Hearns past my prime at a less natural weight than Barkley in my prime at a weight I'm arguably my best at. Not to mention getting knocked out by Leonard who never had Duran hurt.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> MAG I think you've been exposed a bit here as a troll. Early on the discussion was sound but now you've just descended into "my guy was better" arguments trying to hype up Cuevas on Hearns' resume compared to Duran's best wins.
> 
> And we've been through this-when you are past your prime, you *can* have it both ways. You can lose and be forgiven for not being the same but put magic into a performance that exceeds expectations, which deserves credit.
> 
> I mean if you're going to hammer Duran for his losses, at least you can say Duran was never knocked out in his prime. By anyone, at either lightweight or welter. Then Hearns gets knocked out by the solid but not special Barkley. Who Duran then faces and beats at a weight he has no business being at past his prime. I'd rather get knocked out by Hearns past my prime at a less natural weight than Barkley in my prime at a weight I'm arguably my best at. Not to mention getting knocked out by Leonard who never had Duran hurt.


I'm warning you! If you don't stop having a go at Ray I'll start a "No Mas" thread!
I don't want to,so it's on you if it happens!


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

PityTheFool said:


> I'm warning you! If you don't stop having a go at Ray I'll start a "No Mas" thread!
> I don't want to,so it's on you if it happens!


Be easy Pity, I hold Sugar in firm esteem!


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> Duran was champion at 154 when he fought Hearns. He fought at 154 earlier than they did. As for lightweight? yeah well we will never know. He never fought that level at that weight, so his dominance was built on lesser guys. Had he fought Pernell I think Roberto gets neutralized and loses a UD over 12 rounds or 15 if you go by 1975 time. He never fought those elite levels at lightweight.
> And he lost to Leonard easily 2 times. And if Duran has excuses for losing every fight above welterweight, then he should not get credit for any wins. And where would he rank if his career is just based on his lightweight reign?


of course he didn't face them at his best weight that's the point, he moved away from his best weight to compete with the best. They didn't leave their best weight to face him. Noone came down to lightweight to challenge Duran.

Of.course he gets credit, if Hopkins beats Stevenson hr gets massive credit, of he loses it don't matter coz he's old anyways.

I only judge Duran on his best days and I have him top 5.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

dyna said:


> If Duran had kept boxing until his 60s (which he planned to do) would you be arguing he was still in his prime against Camacho because he boxed for another 15 years after their first fight?





MAG1965 said:


> Duran did not beat the top elite opposition.





MAG1965 said:


> Beating undefeated Virgil Hill, who had 10 title defenses, no one like Leonard had in June of 1980. And Ray beat Hagler after time off and Marvin had something like 12 title defenses.





MAG1965 said:


> Cuevas was special. People now try and make Cotto great, and Cuevas had 12 title defenses.





MAG1965 said:


> Undefeated Virgil HIll with 10 title defenses in a weight 30 pounds above Hearns first world title at welterweight.





MAG1965 said:


> Are you kidding? 11 knockouts in 12 title defenses.





MAG1965 said:


> That is my point, Leonard was prime in his second defense of his first title?





MAG1965 said:


> Cuevas had 12 title defenses. How many did Buchanan have?





MAG1965 said:


> Cuevas had 12 title defenses and Harold Weston and Clyde Gray.





MAG1965 said:


> Palomino? Nah I think he's a bit overrated.





turbotime said:


> You're way too caught up in this defending title nonsense. Duran beat a prime Leonard for goodness sake and was one of the most dominant lightweights ever.





Bogotazo said:


> MAG I think you've been exposed a bit here as a troll.


:rofl :rofl :rofl My little bladder can't fucking take it



dyna said:


> Carlos Palomino was always better than Cuevas.
> 
> He probably fought and beat an equal number of top 10 names as Cuevas and he was actually the lineal champ.


Even one of the biggest Cuevas supporters - and an ATG poster - @DrMo knows that's a terrible fight for Pipino... And fucking "green" Ray Leonard fought and beat an equal number of top 10 names as Cuevas including one of the five most defensively skilled fighters since Willie Pep *BEFORE* he got in the ring with Duran for the first time. "Second defense of his first title" ??? :rofl :lol:


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> :rofl :rofl :rofl My little bladder can't fucking take it
> 
> Even one of the biggest Cuevas supporters - and an ATG poster - @DrMo knows that's a terrible fight for Pipino... And fucking "green" Ray Leonard fought and beat an equal number of top 10 names as Cuevas including one of the five most defensively skilled fighters since Willie Pep *BEFORE* he got in the ring with Duran for the first time. "Second defense of his first title" ??? :rofl :lol:


Why doesn't he answer: If Duran had kept boxing until his 60s (which he planned to do) would you be arguing he was still in his prime against Camacho because he boxed for another 15 years after their first fight?

I just don't get it.
Such a simple question.

:lol:


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> :rofl :rofl :rofl My little bladder can't fucking take it
> 
> Even one of the biggest Cuevas supporters - and an ATG poster - @DrMo knows that's a terrible fight for Pipino... And fucking "green" Ray Leonard fought and beat an equal number of top 10 names as Cuevas including one of the five most defensively skilled fighters since Willie Pep *BEFORE* he got in the ring with Duran for the first time. "Second defense of his first title" ??? :rofl :lol:


:lol:

I think you'll find that it's "fucking 'green belt' Ray Leonard"


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> MAG I think you've been exposed a bit here as a troll. Early on the discussion was sound but now you've just descended into "my guy was better" arguments trying to hype up Cuevas on Hearns' resume compared to Duran's best wins.
> 
> And we've been through this-when you are past your prime, you *can* have it both ways. You can lose and be forgiven for not being the same but put magic into a performance that exceeds expectations, which deserves credit.
> 
> I mean if you're going to hammer Duran for his losses, at least you can say Duran was never knocked out in his prime. By anyone, at either lightweight or welter. Then Hearns gets knocked out by the solid but not special Barkley. Who Duran then faces and beats at a weight he has no business being at past his prime. I'd rather get knocked out by Hearns past my prime at a less natural weight than Barkley in my prime at a weight I'm arguably my best at. Not to mention getting knocked out by Leonard who never had Duran hurt.


No people are mentioning (specifically Duran fans) Barkley a lot because he stopped Hearns, because Tommy knocked out Duran as though it is equalled out. It never can be. That knockout by Hearns is seen as one of the most impressive of all time, more because it was a sustained knocked rather than one punch, as some people say. And I am going through the different fights and weights. Tommy knocked out Duran 5 years before in a lower division, and both were seen as elite. Barkley never was elite. We cannot change boxing history, as they do in world or US history which would be revisionist history. In regards to Thomas Hearns, it doesn't matter if Duran beat Barkley except to his fans. In that case Hearns practically beat Ray in June of 1989 and Duran lost easily again in Dec. of 1989. As it was, near the time of the Duran bout on Feb. 25, 1989-Barkley was beaten by most top guys at middleweight back in 1987-1990. Tommy was just defending his title against Barkley-it was not a big fight and Olajide had beaten Barkley recently, and a few days later I remember talk of Hearns fighting Barkley next.. It was expected to be easy, and had the fight gone past that 3rd round, Steele was going to stop it because of the cuts but also the body punching was hurting Barkley badly. My point mentioning Hearns is that people mention Duran's best wins, but if you look at Hearns best wins, there is an argument that regardless of anything else his wins with Benitez,Duran,Hill and Cuevas are better than Duran's best wins. And listen, Tommy should have had that win over Ray in 1989. This is what I meant by Duran's best wins are not out of this world.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> of course he didn't face them at his best weight that's the point, he moved away from his best weight to compete with the best. They didn't leave their best weight to face him. Noone came down to lightweight to challenge Duran.
> 
> Of.course he gets credit, if Hopkins beats Stevenson hr gets massive credit, of he loses it don't matter coz he's old anyways.
> 
> I only judge Duran on his best days and I have him top 5.


Tommy, Ray, Benitez all moved up and fought guys from their divisions. How did Duran do anything differently. And as I mentioned Hearns moved up and fought and won the Light Heavyweight title 2 times. That is almost 30 pounds above his Welterweight championship weight. Going back to 154 pounds, the time Thomas Hearns fought Ray Leonard in Sept. of 1981 at 147 (Tommy's weight was 145)Duran was fighting Luigi Minchillo at 154, and Minchillo was a tough guy. Duran handled him and won easily. Minchillo gave tough fights to Hearns and McCallum also. So Duran could handle a tough European fighter, however just when he lost to Benitez in Jan of 1982, again the excuses that Duran was way above his weight or not motivated or old at 30, regardless of the fact that he weighed in at 154 as early as 1978,, and he was motivated to fight 35 times after the Hearns fight.. He fought another 17 years after Hearns. Now what year was the Hearns fight in Duran's career? 17th!.. So the Hearns fight was half way between Duran's professional start in 1967 and when he ended in 2001 in his 34th year. I think you guys know deep down that my points about Duran are valid. You might argue with me, but my points are facts and they are how it happened.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> No people are mentioning (specifically Duran fans) Barkley a lot because he stopped Hearns, because Tommy knocked out Duran as though it is equalled out. It never can be. That knockout by Hearns is seen as one of the most impressive of all time, more because it was a sustained knocked rather than one punch, as some people say. And I am going through the different fights and weights. Tommy knocked out Duran 5 years before in a lower division, and both were seen as elite. Barkley never was elite. We cannot change boxing history, as they do in world or US history which would be revisionist history. In regards to Thomas Hearns, it doesn't matter if Duran beat Barkley except to his fans. In that case Hearns practically beat Ray in June of 1989 and Duran lost easily again in Dec. of 1989. As it was, near the time of the Duran bout on Feb. 25, 1989-Barkley was beaten by most top guys at middleweight back in 1987-1990. Tommy was just defending his title against Barkley-it was not a big fight and Olajide had beaten Barkley recently, and a few days later I remember talk of Hearns fighting Barkley next.. It was expected to be easy, and had the fight gone past that 3rd round, Steele was going to stop it because of the cuts but also the body punching was hurting Barkley badly. My point mentioning Hearns is that people mention Duran's best wins, but if you look at Hearns best wins, there is an argument that regardless of anything else his wins with Benitez,Duran,Hill and Cuevas are better than Duran's best wins. And listen, Tommy should have had that win over Ray in 1989. This is what I meant by Duran's best wins are not out of this world.


It doesn't equal out and make it as if Duran KO'd Tommy, but like I said, I'd rather be knocked out by Hearns in his prime past my own than Barkley in my own prime. You absolutely pummel Duran for his losses while leaving Hearns unscathed.

It's difficult to make an argument Tommy's wins are better. Tommy's wins don't amount to Duran's resume. They simply don't. After Duran and the Leonard rematch and Benitez, there's a significant gap. This seems to be what it's all about though. It has finally come to light: you can't stand that Duran ranks higher than Tommy.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Why doesn't he answer: If Duran had kept boxing until his 60s (which he planned to do) would you be arguing he was still in his prime against Camacho because he boxed for another 15 years after their first fight?
> 
> I just don't get it.
> Such a simple question.
> ...


Sorry, I didn't initially see this comment . Hector Camacho in 1997 or 2001? Look I never thought much about Hector past 1993 or so. You cannot really think it takes as much to fight a Camacho and Pazienza at 160 or 168 as it does a Thomas Hearns at 154 or 160? I think the age of Duran fighting until 50 proves that he aged very slowly, so that if you go back to 1980-1984, he was relatively prime. But he was fighting Thomas Hearns. That is the difference. The fact he could fight until 2001 does absolutely prove he was not washed up in 1984 17 years before-and the 4 years before that which is when he fought Ray,Benitez,Hagler and Hearns. That is conclusive. I never thought much about his fights with Camacho and Pazienza, but Duran was still active and could still fight and give younger guys good rounds. I remember one fight he had and just on my memory the name of the fighter was Leblanc or something like that, and Duran fought him on USA network on Tuesday night fights. I would say probably about 1995 or 1996 but I am not sure. Duran knocked him down with a great right hand and the right hand cut the man's face. Impressive timing and still good defensively and offensively against the right guys. He could still fight. This guy was an ok fighter.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> :rofl :rofl :rofl My little bladder can't fucking take it
> 
> Even one of the biggest Cuevas supporters - and an ATG poster - @DrMo knows that's a terrible fight for Pipino... And fucking "green" Ray Leonard fought and beat an equal number of top 10 names as Cuevas including one of the five most defensively skilled fighters since Willie Pep *BEFORE* he got in the ring with Duran for the first time. "Second defense of his first title" ??? :rofl :lol:


we will have to disagree on this one. I go with Cuevas as much better than Palomino.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> It doesn't equal out and make it as if Duran KO'd Tommy, but like I said, I'd rather be knocked out by Hearns in his prime past my own than Barkley in my own prime. You absolutely pummel Duran for his losses while leaving Hearns unscathed.
> 
> It's difficult to make an argument Tommy's wins are better. Tommy's wins don't amount to Duran's resume. They simply don't. After Duran and the Leonard rematch and Benitez, there's a significant gap. This seems to be what it's all about though. It has finally come to light: you can't stand that Duran ranks higher than Tommy.


This is not about Duran and Tommy and me mad that Duran gets credit for his wins when Tommy doesn't. You are wrong there, but if you think you figured it out, I am glad.

Tommy's name initially came up when people mentioned Barkley, that somehow Duran beating Barkley has something to do with him beating Hearns or getting him back for that loss in 1984 years before. But I do think that objectively Tommy's wins are against greater fighters, including Duran and Benitez and Hill. Duran does not have a Duran he knocked out-prime or not. Leonard is a good win for Duran, but I still think the loss to Ray in the rematch is very significant, and the relative ease with how Ray won. But how could I have anything against Duran when it comes to Tommy? Duran provided Hearns with his greatest knockout. I don't hold anything against Duran when it comes to Hearns, but Hearns and Duran as far as best wins, Hearns has a case that his wins are better. Leonard wins are better than both Hearns and Duran, and Hagler? Probably the 4th best wins. My facts are pretty solid, and I think you guys know it. If his greatest win is Leonard and Leonard won the rematch easily, I am not sure how big that win can be. Duran should have refused to fight Ray again probably.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> This is not about Duran and Tommy and me mad that Duran gets credit for his wins when Tommy doesn't. You are wrong there, but if you think you figured it out, I am glad.
> 
> Tommy's name initially came up when people mentioned Barkley, that somehow Duran beating Barkley has something to do with him beating Hearns or getting him back for that loss in 1984 years before. But I do think that objectively Tommy's wins are against greater fighters, including Duran and Benitez and Hill. Duran does not have a Duran he knocked out-prime or not. Leonard is a good win for Duran, but I still think the loss to Ray in the rematch is very significant, and the relative ease with how Ray won. But how could I have anything against Duran when it comes to Tommy? Duran provided Hearns with his greatest knockout. I don't hold anything against Duran when it comes to Hearns, but Hearns and Duran as far as best wins, Hearns has a case that his wins are better. Leonard wins are better than both Hearns and Duran, and Hagler? Probably the 4th best wins. My facts are pretty solid, and I think you guys know it. If his greatest win is Leonard and Leonard won the rematch easily, I am not sure how big that win can be. Duran should have refused to fight Ray again probably.


I mean, I'd rather beat Leonard in Montreal and get stopped by an ATG knockout artist in his prime past my own, than beat a past-prime Duran and then get KO'd by an unspecial fighter. It doesn't equate to Duran beating Tommy but surely you can see why Duran's win is valued higher and why his loss is more forgivable.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Tommy, Ray, Benitez all moved up and fought guys from their divisions. How did Duran do anything differently. And as I mentioned Hearns moved up and fought and won the Light Heavyweight title 2 times. That is almost 30 pounds above his Welterweight championship weight. Going back to 154 pounds, the time Thomas Hearns fought Ray Leonard in Sept. of 1981 at 147 (Tommy's weight was 145)Duran was fighting Luigi Minchillo at 154, and Minchillo was a tough guy. Duran handled him and won easily. Minchillo gave tough fights to Hearns and McCallum also. So Duran could handle a tough European fighter, however just when he lost to Benitez in Jan of 1982, again the excuses that Duran was way above his weight or not motivated or old at 30, regardless of the fact that he weighed in at 154 as early as 1978,, and he was motivated to fight 35 times after the Hearns fight.*. He fought another 17 years after Hearns. Now what year was the Hearns fight in Duran's career? 17th!.. So the Hearns fight was half way between Duran's professional start in 1967 and when he ended in 2001 in his 34th year.* I think you guys know deep down that my points about Duran are valid. You might argue with me, but my points are facts and they are how it happened.


So you think if Duran had never been in that car crash that ultimately ended Duran's boxing career and fought for another 10 years he was not washed up against Camacho?
Vinnie Pazienza was right in his planned career.

So why don't we just take a seat and watch a _prime_ Duran getting schooled by a legend?





But now my mind is derailed by something extremely not funny but rather disturbing.
Had Duran won 4 more rounds, he might have gotten a titleshot against a prime Roy Jones Jr.

Vinnie got his Roy Jones titleshot by beating Duran. :err:err:err
Roy Jones Jr vs Roberto Duran was actually not that far from being possible.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I mean, I'd rather beat Leonard in Montreal and get stopped by an ATG knockout artist in his prime past my own, than beat a past-prime Duran and then get KO'd by an unspecial fighter. It doesn't equate to Duran beating Tommy but surely you can see why Duran's win is valued higher and why his loss is more forgivable.


I don't think Duran being knocked out by Hearns hurt him much since Tommy was a big puncher, but the Benitez fights and Leonard and the fact he lost to Hearns and Hagler, means he lost to 4 of the elite guys. That is the significant thing. ignoring those 4 guys, where are the guys he beat at lightweight which matches that level to say, ok he moved up and lost to them, but he beat just as great guys at lightweight and 140. Like Arguello or Pryor. Idon't think Ernesto Marcel or Buchanan or Dejesus or Lampkin or anyone else matches that level.

As for Hearns and losing to Barkley? I think Hearns and Steward and anyone who admired him would have been much more hurt to see him knocked out by Leonard or Hill than by Barkley. The Barkley fight is seen as a fluke and stylistic problem for Hearns. Hearns was beating him easily, and all he had to do in 1988 was be cautious of the punches and keep working the body and picking the jab to Barkley body and head and the fight would have been stopped in round 4. In 1992, Hearns was a little diminished, but he almost won a decision. one round for him and he gets a draw. Now since Barkley never really matched Hearns level against other fighters, it is apparent that the style he had helped him beat Hearns those 2 times. Hearns could beat Virgil Hill relatively easy, but not Barkley. And if we match Barkley against Hill. I think Virgil probably knocks him out with a counter left hook. Styles make fights.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> I don't think Duran being knocked out by Hearns hurt him much since Tommy was a big puncher, but the Benitez fights and Leonard and the fact he lost to Hearns and Hagler, means he lost to 4 of the elite guys. That is the significant thing.


How is that more significant to losing to a _non-_elite guy in your prime?

I see you're about to get to that though.



MAG1965 said:


> As for Hearns and losing to Barkley? I think Hearns and Steward and anyone who admired him would have been much more hurt to see him knocked out by Leonard or Hill than by Barkley. The Barkley fight is seen as a fluke and stylistic problem for Hearns. Hearns was beating him easily, and all he had to do in 1988 was be cautious of the punches and keep working the body and picking the jab to Barkley body and head and the fight would have been stopped in round 4. In 1992, Hearns was a little diminished, but he almost won a decision. one round for him and he gets a draw. Now since Barkley never really matched Hearns level against other fighters, it is apparent that the style he had helped him beat Hearns those 2 times. Hearns could beat Virgil Hill relatively easy, but not Barkley. And if we match Barkley against Hill. I think Virgil probably knocks him out with a counter left hook. Styles make fights.


Right, styles make fights, so when Duran goes up against master defensive boxers and rangy knockout artists and southpaw middleweight tanks well past his best, he should be given some leeway also. Losing because you're old and historically smaller is more forgivable than because of a stylistic "fluke".


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Wtf, was not expecting a book as a response. I don't know why you guys think me and Dealt are the chief exec trolls, the trollism here from MAG is natural and alive.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> So you think if Duran had never been in that car crash that ultimately ended Duran's boxing career and fought for another 10 years he was not washed up against Camacho?
> Vinnie Pazienza was right in his planned career.
> 
> So why don't we just take a seat and watch a _prime_ Duran getting schooled by a legend?
> ...


well it would not have been pretty had Duran fought Jones, as it was not good for Vinny. I remember he didn't land one punch in the first round-as they said in punchstat, although I saw some punches land, so that punchstat thing was kind of off a little. And look Hector Camacho got to fight Oscar Delahoya, yet had Ray beaten him Ray would have fought Oscar. Tommy wanted to fight Roy Jones, and it almost happened about the time of the Lucas Jones fight in I think 1996. Hearns fought a guy named Karl Willis in Nov. 1996.. But Jones said he didn't want to hurt a legend, that would not be good for his image. But Tommy might have had a chance at the time.. Not a great one, but his style. I don't know how well Duran would have fought in the next 10 years past 2001. Eventually he would have been beaten up by a no name guy.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> How is that more significant to losing to a _non-_elite guy in your prime?
> 
> I see you're about to get to that though.
> 
> Right, styles make fights, so when Duran goes up against master defensive boxers and rangy knockout artists and southpaw middleweight tanks well past his best, he should be given some leeway also. Losing because you're old and historically smaller is more forgivable than because of a stylistic "fluke".


because fighters "get up" for the big fights, and regardless of Duran's excuses, he knew who he had in front of him when he fought them. Laing? I see that more a stylistic fight where he took him for granted, but not elite guys. Duran knew what he had, and any excuse that he was not motivated or out of shape or old is just an excuse.

You said well past his prime. 1980-1984 was well past his prime? 28-32. Not well past his prime, and he fought at 154 for awhile like I said. he was well past his prime when he fought Barkley in 1989, but not when he fought the earlier guys at lower weights.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Wtf, was not expecting a book as a response. I don't know why you guys think me and Dealt are the chief exec trolls, the trollism here from MAG is natural and alive.


you wrote a lot and it was a good post, so I wanted to respond to everything you said.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Wtf, was not expecting a book as a response. I don't know why you guys think me and Dealt are the chief exec trolls, the trollism here from MAG is natural and alive.


I have heard that term "troll" mentioned about me when it comes to Duran. I looked it up once, and that is not really what I am about. I think a troll is defined as someone trying to elicit reactions from people as a way to get attention. Not at all. I try to avoid these Duran threads. If I was a troll, I would create the threads.. I don't. I saw this one, and when it came out I didn't even respond since I know what is going to happen. Then the site said I had a mention which goes with the quotes. Someone mentioned me on the first or second entry.. So I felt I was brought into it.


----------



## Gesta (Jun 6, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> So if a person gets a pass for losses past thier prime , should they get credit in that time. What does that do to Hopkins, who beat most of the top guys he fought past his prime. Way past it. The point I made about that is the best fighters Duran ever fought by far were when he was past his prime as people will say, so if he gets a pass for the losses, should he get credit for beating Moore and Barkley since he beat them past his prime? Why should he become greater in that time, if he gets a pass for losing to elites in that era. So if that is the case, can the only time span he gets rated for greatnesshis lightweight reign? When is he past his prime then? Duran fans want to say his prime was right before the second Leonard fight, which obviously helps his ratings.


So when was Hopkins prime? , when he got out classed by Roy or when he fought and beat Allen, Ecols three time each or when he had to leave MW ,because he could not beat Jermain Taylor?


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Gesta said:


> So when was Hopkins prime? , when he got out classed by Roy or when he fought and beat Allen, Ecols three time each or when he had to leave MW ,because he could not beat Jermain Taylor?


This has to be the last response I can make tonight. I get a bit of a headache from typing. His prime? Probably when he defended against Simon Brown which was what? 1998? He is different than most guys and his style is so relaxed and slow paced that he can fight well if younger guys don't push him and make him fight. And how will the young guys make him fight if he is countering them with his experience and tricks. Young inexperienced guys get intimidated by his tricks and early counters, and once that happens, the fight is his.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> because fighters "get up" for the big fights, and regardless of Duran's excuses, he knew who he had in front of him when he fought them. Laing? I see that more a stylistic fight where he took him for granted, but not elite guys. Duran knew what he had, and any excuse that he was not motivated or out of shape or old is just an excuse.


Bro, he was OLD and fighting out of his natural weight class. Why don't you get that? Sometimes fighters can't "get up" beyond what their body won't let them.



MAG1965 said:


> You said well past his prime. 1980-1984 was well past his prime? 28-32. Not well past his prime, and he fought at 154 for awhile like I said. he was well past his prime when he fought Barkley in 1989, but not when he fought the earlier guys at lower weights.


OK, for Benitez not "well" past his prime, but still not at his best with many fights under his belt.

The thing is, when ranking Duran, the average fan seems to count his losses as much as they would against any other fighter. Ranking has always been more about who you were able to beat. What you were able to accomplish. When you fell short, you fell short, but that doesn't subtract towards what you did. They don't take away your gold medal for winning the bronze the year before or not winning anything at all. Duran has a historically amazing win, and numerous extremely quality wins. Stop trying to shit on it at every opportunity.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Seen as though Mag keep wanting to compare on age and weight I thought we would compare how well they did on accumulation of fights. Durans prime years are considered to have ended after 73 fights so lets see how the others did after that many fights:

Ray Leonard - only gt to 40 considered past prime after 33 fights.
Marvin Hagler - only got to 67 considered past prime after 65 fights.
Thomas Hearns - only got to 67 considered past prime after 48 fights.
Wilfred Benitez - only got to 62 considered past prime after 49 fights.

Roberto Duran - 119 fights considered past prime after 73 fights.

Duran may have only been 30 when he fought Leonard but he had already accumulated more fights in that time than any of the rest would accumulate in their whole career.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Seen as though Mag keep wanting to compare on age and weight I thought we would compare how well they did on accumulation of fights. Durans prime years are considered to have ended after 73 fights so lets see how the others did after that many fights:
> 
> Ray Leonard - only gt to 40 considered past prime after 33 fights.
> Marvin Hagler - only got to 67 considered past prime after 65 fights.
> ...


Boom.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> well it would not have been pretty had Duran fought Jones, as it was not good for Vinny. I remember he didn't land one punch in the first round-as they said in punchstat, although I saw some punches land, so that punchstat thing was kind of off a little. And look Hector Camacho got to fight Oscar Delahoya, yet had Ray beaten him Ray would have fought Oscar. Tommy wanted to fight Roy Jones, and it almost happened about the time of the Lucas Jones fight in I think 1996. Hearns fought a guy named Karl Willis in Nov. 1996.. But Jones said he didn't want to hurt a legend, that would not be good for his image. But Tommy might have had a chance at the time.. Not a great one, but his style. I don't know how well Duran would have fought in the next 10 years past 2001. Eventually he would have been beaten up by a no name guy.


He did get beat of Joppy in 3, in his prime he would have beaten the shit out of Joppy but he wasnt, he was near 20 years past prime and thats why he was beat up.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> Tommy, Ray, Benitez all moved up and fought guys from their divisions. How did Duran do anything differently. And as I mentioned Hearns moved up and fought and won the Light Heavyweight title 2 times. That is almost 30 pounds above his Welterweight championship weight. Going back to 154 pounds, the time Thomas Hearns fought Ray Leonard in Sept. of 1981 at 147 (Tommy's weight was 145)Duran was fighting Luigi Minchillo at 154, and Minchillo was a tough guy. Duran handled him and won easily. Minchillo gave tough fights to Hearns and McCallum also. So Duran could handle a tough European fighter, however just when he lost to Benitez in Jan of 1982, again the excuses that Duran was way above his weight or not motivated or old at 30, regardless of the fact that he weighed in at 154 as early as 1978,, and he was motivated to fight 35 times after the Hearns fight.. He fought another 17 years after Hearns. Now what year was the Hearns fight in Duran's career? 17th!.. So the Hearns fight was half way between Duran's professional start in 1967 and when he ended in 2001 in his 34th year. I think you guys know deep down that my points about Duran are valid. You might argue with me, but my points are facts and they are how it happened.


exactly and I don't hold losses those suffered past their best against them.

like I say it doesn't bother me that Duran lost when moving up because I'm quite convinced they'd have lost had they moved down.

Benitez was similar sized to Duran, that's a different issue entirely. That depends on whether or not you class his skill set as diminished as others do.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> The thing is, when ranking Duran, the average fan seems to count his losses as much as they would against any other fighter. Ranking has always been more about who you were able to beat. *What you were able to accomplish. When you fell short, you fell short, but that doesn't subtract towards what you did. They don't take away your gold medal for winning the bronze the year before or not winning anything at all. Duran has a historically amazing win, and numerous extremely quality wins.* Stop trying to shit on it at every opportunity.


Yea, that's a good way to see it.
I remember you saying practically the same in a thread how 5 fighters should be ranked (and one of them was Mosley), and that Mosley has the best win of a few boxers. (one of them was Mayweather) because he has the best win so that he atleast has a case to be ranked above him/them.
And that every quality win is like a small nugget of gold placed inside a mug and losses don't take away the gold you've gather in your career. They stay where they are.
Thought it was worded very nice so it's a bit stuck in my memory.
(mind is a bit hazy because I haven't slept in over 24 hours, so can't really remember all the fine details)

You can only be rated for what you've done, not for what you didn't do.


----------



## DrMo (Jun 6, 2012)

Hands of Iron said:


> Even one of the biggest Cuevas supporters - and an ATG poster - @DrMo knows* that's a terrible fight for Pipino... *And fucking "green" Ray Leonard fought and beat an equal number of top 10 names as Cuevas including one of the five most defensively skilled fighters since Willie Pep *BEFORE* he got in the ring with Duran for the first time. "Second defense of his first title" ??? :rofl :lol:


Aye it is; iron chinned, technically proficient, cool under fire & a great body puncher. Palomino is a bad match up for Pipino, late stoppage 9 times out of 10 imo.

Mag owning this thread so far :yep


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

dyna said:


> Yea, that's a good way to see it.
> I remember you saying practically the same in a thread how 5 fighters should be ranked (and one of them was Mosley), and that Mosley has the best win of a few boxers. (one of them was Mayweather) because he has the best win so that he atleast has a case to be ranked above him/them.
> And that every quality win is like a small nugget of gold placed inside a mug and losses don't take away the gold you've gather in your career. They stay where they are.
> Thought it was worded very nice so it's a bit stuck in my memory.
> ...


Yes, that's how I see it, and thanks for remembering that example. I was talking about weighing nuggets of gold on a scale. Each win is worth a certain amount of gold. When you weigh what fighter A has done against fighter B, falling short doesn't subtract gold, it doesn't take away from wins. Just like when someone climbs mount Everest they don't conceptually factor in the failed attempts and then award some haggled midway accomplishment. Sometimes losses hurt when evaluating head to head when they indicate a clear ceiling, which Mosley's losses arguably did, but I put most of my ranking emphasis on who you beat and how you beat them.

Otherwise how many fighters' legacies would be enhanced in the eyes of fans by ducking and failing to reach farther than they had? Would Mosley be in conversations with RJJ as a lightweight/welterweight head to head monster had he retired shortly after the De La Hoya win or never gone on to try 154? Rewarding the mythical 0 that only so few have is silly for that reason IMO.


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

Listen, and understand. 

MAG is out there. 

He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. 

And he absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are convinced that Duran is overrated.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Yay I'm finally free to join in now..ok time to start reading


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Those guys make Duran one of the greatest of all time at lightweight and below? No way. Buchanan, Dejesus and Ishimatsu and Marcel is the proof Duran is top 1-10 ATG? Marcel was naturally smaller than Duran, since you guys are talking about size and Duran being so small when he was a big lightweight, who later was good at welterweight. The man fought up to 168 and almost lightheavy.
> 
> And to be honest, the win of Marcel's against Arguello was before Alexis as any good, but that is the claim about Duran/Marcel and Arguello. Duran beat Marcel who beat Arguello, but Duran didn't beat Alexis which would have been a great win. Even Cervantes at 140 would have been nice. Not saying he couldn't have but he didn't. Would have liked to have seen it near 1979. But without the later welterweight and above fights, one of the best ever on those guys? I am not sure.. Not 1-10
> 
> ...


lol First before we start, that post was from me when I was relatively new to boxing posting, so it probably has some things that I disagree with. 
I would also say that you have been making many points but I fail to see how these points hold proper relevance to the message you're trying to get across.

TBH, his lightweight reign up to say, Palomino at 140, does make him an ATG. Felix Trinidad himself is widely regarded as an ATG. The skills expressed, the H2H ability, the fact of there being some very good scalps on his resume there makes him ATG. Does it make him Top 10? No, I didn't say that.
Buchanan himself is a v.good scalp for example, someone who'd beat a dude like Ricky Hatton for example.

Marcel was smaller I can't argue with that, but I wouldn't forget it was the times of the same day weigh ins. He wasn't drastically smaller, and hey, Marcel was still having an extremely close fight with Duran. I think it's important to consider that it was only Duran's 16th pro fight, against an underrated ATG here who was coming off a win over the good and very tricky Bernardo Caraballo. Arguello did say he learned from that fight, but Marcel really did provide the 'lesson'. Nevertheless, by talking down on the Arguello performance, I think I'm right in inferring that you have the agenda to box Marcel up into how you want him to suit your own narratives; *it's important to consider how good Marcel looked on a H2H level*, against his other very good competition too. Diminishing the win against Marcel strikes me as a little too ambitious and the sum of your negative statements adds up to a noticeable 'whole'.

When you consider greatness, just to throw it out there, you have to consider the same day weigh-in factor. It makes those fighting today disadvantaged where rankings are concerned, if they're weight cutters.
Cotto isn't Top 100 for shit and it's all too easy to dismiss other wins on Duran's career where the contenders were actually impressive. 
I don't know why you're unecessarily bringing up Cuevas straight after talking Palomino. Why you're mentioning Benitez's victory over Palomino (which was a good performance from a monstrous ATG and I gave the fight by a greater margin than the judges had it, for Benitez) is puzzling, too. You're not really making a point there talking about a HOF's loss to an ATG and top 5 in his style.

You said:
*Duran was good enough in health to fight to 50-which is significant, I doubt the drinking, drugs and whatever else he did was not that bad if he could fight so long. Seems exaggerated. I don't think Duran at lightweight and welterweights matters as much, he was a good size welterweight and looked in shape. Duran was a fine weight when he fought Ray,, and like I said, Ray was not mentally a great fighter yet. He fought Duran's fight, and Duran lost the rematch and rubbermatch. Too bad Ray didn't box Duran the first time, but he was not prime yet in my mind. Compare the first and second fights and how Ray fights in them. 
*

I honestly don't know where to begin, it would take 16 pages to respond to this and from skimming through I've seen some great posts in response to this. I don't think I need to go through this, but although I hate the word, that paragraph is pure 'ignorance' on many facets.

And it's on that note that I'm not going to finish the rest of this post.

Have you ever spoken to a person who is lost beyond comprehension in regards to the way they view the world? Sometimes it's just too broken to fix. It's a shame because you have a lot of 'content' in your head, you could synthesise that and be a real titan in this area. There's no need for any agendas. Even in my Loma trolling, I don't have an agenda to completely discredit his opponents in any dimension possible.

A call to authenticity, please.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

:rofl at Mag claiming Palomino was nothing special and then trying to say Cotto Beating Yuri Foreman helps him break the top 100.

Nothing else in this thread needs saying.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> No people are mentioning (specifically Duran fans) Barkley a lot because he stopped Hearns, because Tommy knocked out Duran as though it is equalled out. It never can be. That knockout by Hearns is seen as one of the most impressive of all time, more because it was a sustained knocked rather than one punch, as some people say. And I am going through the different fights and weights. Tommy knocked out Duran 5 years before in a lower division, and both were seen as elite. Barkley never was elite. We cannot change boxing history, as they do in world or US history which would be revisionist history. *In regards to Thomas Hearns, it doesn't matter if Duran beat Barkley except to his fans.* In that case Hearns practically beat Ray in June of 1989 and Duran lost easily again in Dec. of 1989. As it was, near the time of the Duran bout on Feb. 25, 1989-Barkley was beaten by most top guys at middleweight back in 1987-1990. Tommy was just defending his title against Barkley-it was not a big fight and Olajide had beaten Barkley recently, and a few days later I remember talk of Hearns fighting Barkley next.. It was expected to be easy, and had the fight gone past that 3rd round, Steele was going to stop it because of the cuts but also the body punching was hurting Barkley badly. My point mentioning Hearns is that people mention Duran's best wins, but if you look at Hearns best wins, there is an argument that regardless of anything else his wins with Benitez,Duran,Hill and Cuevas are better than Duran's best wins. And listen, Tommy should have had that win over Ray in 1989. This is what I meant by Duran's best wins are not out of this world.


You always seem to forget that Duran actually beat Leonard. And of course the win over Barkley mattered. Why wouldn't it? A former featherweight moving up and winning a middleweight title is huge.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

I don't get how you can take away from a win just because Marcel was "smaller" Yet Mag is a huge Hearns fan who held tremendous physical advantages over everyone he fought.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Lester1583 said:


> Listen, and understand.
> 
> MAG is out there.
> 
> ...


lol :deal


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

@*dyna* for the reason Lester1583 had given and my own experience, this guy is like talking to a brick wall.
I can either just stop talking or 'flick the switch on', if ya know what I mean


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> I don't get how you can take away from a win just because Marcel was "smaller" Yet Mag is a huge Hearns fan who held tremendous physical advantages over everyone he fought.


Preachhhh


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Preachhhh


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

I honestly think people think Duran started at 135 (false)


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> @*dyna* for the reason Lester1583 had given and my own experience, this guy is like talking to a brick wall.
> I can either just stop talking or 'flick the switch on', if ya know what I mean [video]http://image.spreadshirt.com/image-server/v1/designs/11966388,width=178,height=178/If-you-know-what-I-mean-Mr-Bean-meme.png[/video]


Yea, I know.
It was still fun to type.
Even back at esb he was like that, he's always been like that.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> I honestly think people think Duran started at 135 (false)


I also don't get how he thinks Duran got into the lmw division in an earlier stage than Hearns.
Duran weighed in at 151 probably not in good shape against 0-3 bum when he was 27.
It would take another 3 years before he was actually fighting in the lmw division.

Hearns weighed in at 152 against Mike Colbert in 1979 (1 year after Duran's fight at 151), Hearns was 21.
He officially entered the lmw division the same year as Duran.

MAG claims Duran wasn't smaller because he fought in the lmw earlier than Hearns completely disregarding their age.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


>


Effortless and masterful 'preach'.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Yea, I know.
> It was still fun to type.
> Even back at esb he was like that, he's always been like that.


Fair enough, tis a great era!


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

dyna said:


> I also don't get how he thinks Duran got into the lmw division in an earlier stage than Hearns.
> Duran weighed in at 151 probably not in good shape against 0-3 bum when he was 27.
> It would take another 3 years before he was actually fighting in the lmw division.
> 
> ...


All while big upping Cuevas and Weston too :rofl Gotta love ol' MAG


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

People don't understand that Duran beating Barkley was a huge win at the time. I don't get why mag is trying to discredit that win. The way Duran did it was special.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Boom.


amount of fights do not mean much, it is how tough those fights were. Look at Evander Holyfield. He fought Qawi in his 12th fight I think, and was in a 15 round war. I thought at the time (although I was only 21) that he was leaving his career on the table fighting a war like that and he would wear out. But he didn't His record is in the 40s as far as wins, and he is as worn out as Chavez was with over 100 fights.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Bro, he was OLD and fighting out of his natural weight class. Why don't you get that? Sometimes fighters can't "get up" beyond what their body won't let them.
> 
> OK, for Benitez not "well" past his prime, but still not at his best with many fights under his belt.
> 
> The thing is, when ranking Duran, the average fan seems to count his losses as much as they would against any other fighter. Ranking has always been more about who you were able to beat. What you were able to accomplish. When you fell short, you fell short, but that doesn't subtract towards what you did. They don't take away your gold medal for winning the bronze the year before or not winning anything at all. Duran has a historically amazing win, and numerous extremely quality wins. Stop trying to shit on it at every opportunity.


Duran could get up. The problem with Duran is he worked on momentum at times. If he felt his opponent wilt, he was great a sensing that and poring it on. he had a great sense of where the fight was and who was winning and seeing the future. That is why his quitting with Ray is significant. I think he new he was going to lose and lose big, and he saw it. He was smart. I am not shitting on Duran's win over Ray, but you guys overrate it. Ray won the rematch and won it big and if you guys think that has nothing to do with Ray vs. Duran, then you guys are in denial a little. That is part of their whole story, and the movie coming out is going to probably give a pro-Duran explanation to what happened. Duran did not stop Ray in the first fight going 15 rounds. Ray learned and came back a smarter fighter. If he was not green, he wouldn't have learned as much just on a fighting style.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> :rofl at Mag claiming Palomino was nothing special and then trying to say Cotto Beating Yuri Foreman helps him break the top 100.
> 
> Nothing else in this thread needs saying.


no, I said by Duran criteria, Cotto would be a top 100. If Duran beating Marcel,Buchanan and Dejesus means he fought guys the level of Hearns,Hagler,Leonard,Benitez.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> I don't get how you can take away from a win just because Marcel was "smaller" Yet Mag is a huge Hearns fan who held tremendous physical advantages over everyone he fought.


I don't think Marcel was smaller in height, as a matter of fact what I remember about the fight is that Marcel was taller, but he was leaner than Roberto. I didn;t watch it live, I was only 5 years old, but I saw it years later and thought, wow Marcel's legs are thin. And people always mention that Marcel beat Arguello, but Alexis was not the Arguello of the future in that fight. Alexis was more refined than Roberto. Roberto was more of a natural fighter than Alexis, so Roberto could beat a guy like Marcel or Arguello earlier, yet Alexis in 1979 or 1980 would have been tough enough for Roberto. The problem is Arguello was always a division lower than Roberto, and it would have always been an advantage to Duran, who was bigger naturally, not in height, but in size. You guys all think height is the important thing, I am talking bone structure, and Roberto was big enough. Alexis might have been 5-10 and Roberto 5-7 1/2, but Roberto was bigger.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> You always seem to forget that Duran actually beat Leonard. And of course the win over Barkley mattered. Why wouldn't it? A former featherweight moving up and winning a middleweight title is huge.


you guys remember what I said on ESB and also here. If a guy starts boxing professional at 16 years old, he is going to start at a lower weight. I consider his starting weight as where he wins his first world title.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> exactly and I don't hold losses those suffered past their best against them.
> 
> like I say it doesn't bother me that Duran lost when moving up because I'm quite convinced they'd have lost had they moved down.
> 
> Benitez was similar sized to Duran, that's a different issue entirely. That depends on whether or not you class his skill set as diminished as others do.


so if Duran moved down and fought Arguello he would have won?


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Lester1583 said:


> Listen, and understand.
> 
> MAG is out there.
> 
> ...


It is about changing minds. Listen, the guys discussing this with me are as likely to change thier minds as I am.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

DrMo said:


> Aye it is; iron chinned, technically proficient, cool under fire & a great body puncher. Palomino is a bad match up for Pipino, late stoppage 9 times out of 10 imo.
> 
> Mag owning this thread so far :yep


thank you, and I think so too. I think Pipino would have stopped Palomino in a late stoppage also. Too strong.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> lol First before we start, that post was from me when I was relatively new to boxing posting, so it probably has some things that I disagree with.
> I would also say that you have been making many points but I fail to see how these points hold proper relevance to the message you're trying to get across.
> 
> TBH, his lightweight reign up to say, Palomino at 140, does make him an ATG. Felix Trinidad himself is widely regarded as an ATG. The skills expressed, the H2H ability, the fact of there being some very good scalps on his resume there makes him ATG. Does it make him Top 10? No, I didn't say that.
> ...


I actually like your post. It is put together better than any post I can put together, and yeah I have opinions on this, but I know that my points might not be put together that well on the page here, I know that they are solid in that Duran is being a little overrated always. I do think he is great, but I don't see how he can be near the greatest of all time with his wins. I agree with your same day weigh in factor, that is how it should be now without catchweights. What I said about Cotto is that when using the Duran criteria that guys like Buchanan and Marcel and Dejesus and Lampkin make him great, then that is sort of overrating those wins. They are good wins, but not to make him 1-10 ATG without his later career. Even with beating Ray by decision, how does that get him 1-10 if Ray beat him easily. And then where is Ray rated in the ATG list.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> I also don't get how he thinks Duran got into the lmw division in an earlier stage than Hearns.
> Duran weighed in at 151 probably not in good shape against 0-3 bum when he was 27.
> It would take another 3 years before he was actually fighting in the lmw division.
> 
> ...


so it is still accurate that Duran fought at 154 prior to Hearns fighting there, or Leonard or Benitez. I think it is significant when people say Duran was this little guy moving up to all the other guys weights. Hearns had not even fought at 154 yet when DUran did, and that is the weight Duran was beaten by Wilfred and Tommy at.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> People don't understand that Duran beating Barkley was a huge win at the time. I don't get why mag is trying to discredit that win. The way Duran did it was special.


honestly, I remember in late 1988 hearing that Duran was going to defend against Barkley. I didn't mind Hearns losing to Barkley much, but then I hear Duran is going to fight Barkley,and I thought stylistically he can beat Barkley and will beat him. Roberto would not have had a chance against the guys at the time like Hearns (in a rematch 5 years later) or Kalambay or Nunn or Tate or even Olajide. I knew he could beat Barkley. I love Barkley's style and heart, but his win over Hearns was his only really great win, and the Van Horn fight was a little unexpected. I didn't expect him to win that title in 2 rounds in 1992. Boxing is a thing is timing. Robbie Sims beat Duran in 1986 on the Triple hitter card with Hearns and Medal as the main event, and Robbie Sims actually beat a young Barkley in 1984 on ESPN. So why wasn't Robbie Sims in the title fight picture? Because Duran had the name and got the title fight. Actually Sims got a smaller title fight in April, he fought Doug Dewitt in a rematch, and would have won the WBO title had Dewitt not edged it. Dewitt later defending against Hilton, but losing to Benn.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> so it is still accurate that Duran fought at 154 prior to Hearns fighting there, or Leonard or Benitez. I think it is significant when people say Duran was this little guy moving up to all the other guys weights. Hearns had not even fought at 154 yet when DUran did, and that is the weight Duran was beaten by Wilfred and Tommy at.


So you think Ike Williams isn't a smaller man compared to Hearns/Leonard because he fought at 154 earlier than both of them?
Why don't you take into account that Duran was older than both of them, and that metabolism slows down with age. (People generally get heavier as they get older)


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> so it is still accurate that Duran fought at 154 prior to Hearns fighting there, or Leonard or Benitez. I think it is significant when people say Duran was this little guy moving up to all the other guys weights. Hearns had not even fought at 154 yet when DUran did, and that is the weight Duran was beaten by Wilfred and Tommy at.


You don't seem to be able to grasp age and weight do you?

Duran was 30+, he wouldn't be able to drain down like Hearns and co could at the age of 23. He wasn't naturally the same size as these guys, he just could no longer drain down. There is a difference.

I know 20 year olds who are the same height as me and they are 2-3 stone lighter and even if I got into the best shape I could I would be heavier than them but at the same time I would not be in as good a shape or naturally as big as a guy who was 23 taller, wider and more muscular despite being the same weight as them.


----------



## MEXAMELAC (Apr 14, 2014)

Chatty said:


> You don't seem to be able to grasp age and weight do you?
> 
> Duran was 30+, he wouldn't be able to drain down like Hearns and co could at the age of 23. He wasn't naturally the same size as these guys, he just could no longer drain down. There is a difference.
> 
> I know 20 year olds who are the same height as me and they are 2-3 stone lighter and even if I got into the best shape I could I would be heavier than them but at the same time I would not be in as good a shape or naturally as big as a guy who was 23 taller, wider and more muscular despite being the same weight as them.


Never understood why so many boxing fans have a hard fucking time understanding this. They put too much emphasis on weight. Weight alone doesn't tell whether you have an adv in a fight or not. Anyway this thread has turned into a mess. Why don't we just enjoy the man??


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> so if Duran moved down and fought Arguello he would have won?


if you choose to believe that, that's on you.

I personally feel those moving down in weight are more likely to lose this level.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> if you choose to believe that, that's on you.
> 
> I personally feel those moving down in weight are more likely to lose this level.


I don't know. I didn't initially mention moving down in weight. I was responding to the question about it. Not many guys move down in weight. Terry Norris almost did to fight Chavez, Hearns moved up from 154 in June of 1986 to fighting Andries at 175 the following March 1987, then to fight at 160 in October, then a year later at 168. It never is good for anyone. Some people think moving down to fight Tarver hurt Jones after Ruiz. It certainly plays tricks with the body.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> I don't know. I didn't initially mention moving down in weight. I was responding to the question about it. Not many guys move down in weight. Terry Norris almost did to fight Chavez, Hearns moved up from 154 in June of 1986 to fighting Andries at 175 the following March 1987, then to fight at 160 in October, then a year later at 168. It never is good for anyone. Some people think moving down to fight Tarver hurt Jones after Ruiz. It certainly plays tricks with the body.


basically, in a nutshell.

A fighter should never be chastised for moving up in weight to challenge one of the greatest of all time.

Duran displayed his amazing skillset when he dominated his first 70 opponents. Had he retired after beating Leonard there's no question about his greatness.

After then he was inconsistent, above his best weight, battle worn and in against a high calibre of opposition. The names that beat him from 154 and above would not have beaten him during his lightweight reign had they been the ones coming to his division.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> basically, in a nutshell.
> 
> A fighter should never be chastised for moving up in weight to challenge one of the greatest of all time.
> 
> ...


I am not arguing his greatness, I am arguing his placement in on that list, and his getting credit for beating relatively mediocre guys like Moore or Barkley at the same time- and not beating Benitez or Hearns, which would have guaranteed what the people say he deserves. But as it happened, Duran lacks in his whole career that one great knockout and domination over another great fighter. Leonard was not prime. He was a younger fighter who just won his title, and fought an inside fight to prove he was tougher than Duran. A very immature thing which led to his loss in the first fight, but he still went 15 rounds. The rematch speaks for itself.

I think a top 25 ranking is very fair. I think Leonard ranks higher on his wins over Hearns,Hagler,Benitez,Duran to about top 10. He proved his top level with various styles,regardless of a 40 fight career. 
A fighter should never be chastised for moving up, yet other fighters who did move up should not have Duran's charisma and great personality give him higher ranking, which then makes them penalized when they did more. Holyfield made a career of moving up to heavyweight and beating great fighters. Duran's fellow legends Hearns,Benitez,Leonard all moved up and won title in higher divisions. Spinks beat Holmes, which in my mind was a better win than any Duran had. yes including Leonard. Holmes was an experienced guy in 1985 and knew what he was doing. Pacman beat great fighter Delahoya as well as other greats Morales, Barrera and Marquez. That is beating fellow greats. No one at lightweight Duran fought matches Morales and Barrera, and then later Delahoya and Shane.-yes they were older, but they were still names Duran does not have in the win list.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> I consider his starting weight as where he wins his first world title.


Stupid criteria really.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> I am not arguing his greatness, I am arguing his placement in on that list, and his getting credit for beating relatively mediocre guys like Moore or Barkley at the same time- and not beating Benitez or Hearns, which would have guaranteed what the people say he deserves. But as it happened, Duran lacks in his whole career that one great knockout and domination over another great fighter. Leonard was not prime. He was a younger fighter who just won his title, and fought an inside fight to prove he was tougher than Duran. A very immature thing which led to his loss in the first fight, but he still went 15 rounds. The rematch speaks for itself.
> 
> I think a top 25 ranking is very fair. I think Leonard ranks higher on his wins over Hearns,Hagler,Benitez,Duran to about top 10. He proved his top level with various styles,regardless of a 40 fight career.
> A fighter should never be chastised for moving up, yet other fighters who did move up should not have Duran's charisma and great personality give him higher ranking, which then makes them penalized when they did more. Holyfield made a career of moving up to heavyweight and beating great fighters. Duran's fellow legends Hearns,Benitez,Leonard all moved up and won title in higher divisions. Spinks beat Holmes, which in my mind was a better win than any Duran had. yes including Leonard. Holmes was an experienced guy in 1985 and knew what he was doing. Pacman beat great fighter Delahoya as well as other greats Morales, Barrera and Marquez. That is beating fellow greats. No one at lightweight Duran fought matches Morales and Barrera, and then later Delahoya and Shane.-yes they were older, but they were still names Duran does not have in the win list.


Duran dominated Leonard, it was the greatest defeat of Leonard in his career. So when was he prime - when he beat Kalule and Hearns? cause that was a year later, its hardly as if he beat a green version of Leonard is it?

Leonard won a great fight with Hagler and due credit but his other titles were bullshit as well - he brought Lalonde down to SMW to fight for the LHW title, neither title should have really been on the line in that fight, Lalonde was a LHW and he should have fought him there, he lost to Hearns the second time in most peoples opinions and the third Duran fight should be eradicated from history in respect to both of them. Its not as if Leonard moved up and destroyed people, he has two quality wins above Welterweight.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Why are moore and barkley mediocre? Says who?


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> Why are moore and barkley mediocre? Says who?


Moore seems to get shit because his record doesn't look good at a glance being 18-5. Thing is he stepped it up quickly beating Mihara in his 9th fight and then put in some good defences against Weir, Kalule and Guiden - maybes not any great wins aside from Kalule but still thats a solid little run. Duran ruined him though even though Moore was expected to win. he was never the same after that fight.

he did manage to stop a shot to shit Benitez who looked like the mental illness was already taking hold of him at that point.

Probably similarly with Barkley in that his record is 43-19-1 but he had troubles finding his feet as a pro and then lost a lot at the end of his career. His prime years saw him go on a good run though, only losing to Kalambay (no shame at all in that one) before Duran beat him - that run was pretty solid and he beat Hearns via KO, Kinchen and Olajide (two guys hearns beat who i'm sure Mag bigged up earlier in the thread).

In hindsight trying to bounce back from Duran by fighting Nunn and then Benn was probably a bad idea but Barkley wasn't an A-Side fighter so probs took what he could get. He did win a nother title from Van Horn again and beat Hearns for a second time proving it wasn't just a fluke. His peak year losses were to Kalambay, Duran, Nunn, Benn and Toney - I think you can be forgiven for all of those. Crazy bastard went up to heavy as well, beat Coaetzee but was was to small and past it to do anything with Berbick.


----------



## MichiganWarrior (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Duran dominated Leonard, it was the greatest defeat of Leonard in his career. So when was he prime - when he beat Kalule and Hearns? cause that was a year later, its hardly as if he beat a green version of Leonard is it?
> 
> Leonard won a great fight with Hagler and due credit but his other titles were bullshit as well - he brought Lalonde down to SMW to fight for the LHW title, neither title should have really been on the line in that fight, Lalonde was a LHW and he should have fought him there, he lost to Hearns the second time in most peoples opinions and the third Duran fight should be eradicated from history in respect to both of them. Its not as if Leonard moved up and destroyed people, he has two quality wins above Welterweight.


Duran nevet dominated Leonard. It was a very close fight that some in the media had Leonard winning.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MichiganWarrior said:


> Duran nevet dominated Leonard. It was a very close fight that some in the media had Leonard winning.


It was close and competitive but Duran won most of the rounds. If it was scored 10-5 it would not be unreasonable.


----------



## MichiganWarrior (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> basically, in a nutshell.
> 
> A fighter should never be chastised for moving up in weight to challenge one of the greatest of all time.
> 
> ...


Thats a fun sentiment, but fact remains if Duran fought Hearns 70 times hed be 0-70 with 70 losses by KO










Durantards smh


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> It was close and competitive but Duran won most of the rounds. If it was scored 10-5 it would not be unreasonable.


Close and competitive doesn't equal domination mate.That performance enhances Leonard's career if anything.
If you want to see him being dominated,Norris is the guy.
Leonard then made him quit in what was one of the most notorious quit-jobs in the history of the sport.Leonard making the toughest guy in the sport quit trumps Leonard staying competitive whilst fighting the wrong fight,but history has been kinder to Duran as time has gone on.
If that 2nd fight happened on Saturday then Duran would be the biggest laughing stock in the history of the forum.

I know what you're trying to say mate,but Duran never came close to dominating Leonard,even with the most generous scorecard.
Floyd against Canelo is domination.Montreal was nothing like that.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

PityTheFool said:


> Close and competitive doesn't equal domination mate.That performance enhances Leonard's career if anything.
> If you want to see him being dominated,Norris is the guy.
> Leonard then made him quit in what was one of the most notorious quit-jobs in the history of the sport.Leonard making the toughest guy in the sport quit trumps Leonard staying competitive whilst fighting the wrong fight,but history has been kinder to Duran as time has gone on.
> If that 2nd fight happened on Saturday then Duran would be the biggest laughing stock in the history of the forum.
> ...


I felt he dominated by winning a wide decision. It wasn't a beat down or anything and Leonard was quality in the fight as well. I guess dominant has different meanings depending on how you take the context of it.

Leonard fought Leonards fight that night though, he always fought that aggressively. Just cause he learnt from it and improved doesn't take away from the fact that he was bested at his own game, he just wasn't as good as Duran that night just as the reversal of that happened a few months later.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

MichiganWarrior said:


> Thats a fun sentiment, but fact remains if Duran fought Hearns 70 times hed be 0-70 with 70 losses by KO


Is anyone really trying to say otherwise? I'm sure Hearns would always fuck Duran up. No doubt about it, it's just a style thing.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

MichiganWarrior said:


> Thats a fun sentiment, but fact remains if Duran fought Hearns 70 times hed be 0-70 with 70 losses by KO
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I prefer hearns to Duran tbh. Like his fights a lot more anyways.

Hearns is in my top 15 atg, might even be top ten if I checked.

And yes he would always beat Duran above welter, that is my point.if Duran moves up to fight hearns he is getting flattened. Same way if hearns could somehow move down to face Duran at lw he'd get flattened.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> I am not arguing his greatness, I am arguing his placement in on that list, and his getting credit for beating relatively mediocre guys like Moore or Barkley at the same time- and not beating Benitez or Hearns, which would have guaranteed what the people say he deserves. But as it happened, Duran lacks in his whole career that one great knockout and domination over another great fighter. Leonard was not prime. He was a younger fighter who just won his title, and fought an inside fight to prove he was tougher than Duran. A very immature thing which led to his loss in the first fight, but he still went 15 rounds. The rematch speaks for itself.
> 
> I think a top 25 ranking is very fair. I think Leonard ranks higher on his wins over Hearns,Hagler,Benitez,Duran to about top 10. He proved his top level with various styles,regardless of a 40 fight career.
> A fighter should never be chastised for moving up, yet other fighters who did move up should not have Duran's charisma and great personality give him higher ranking, which then makes them penalized when they did more. Holyfield made a career of moving up to heavyweight and beating great fighters. Duran's fellow legends Hearns,Benitez,Leonard all moved up and won title in higher divisions. Spinks beat Holmes, which in my mind was a better win than any Duran had. yes including Leonard. Holmes was an experienced guy in 1985 and knew what he was doing. Pacman beat great fighter Delahoya as well as other greats Morales, Barrera and Marquez. That is beating fellow greats. No one at lightweight Duran fought matches Morales and Barrera, and then later Delahoya and Shane.-yes they were older, but they were still names Duran does not have in the win list.


I dont chastise anyone for moving up and losing.

Duran was dominant from 135-147. That is plenty enough of a career to call him a great. Everything beyond there is just a cherry on the top.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> I think a top 25 ranking is very fair. I think Leonard ranks higher on his wins over Hearns,Hagler,Benitez,Duran to about top 10. He proved his top level with various styles,regardless of a 40 fight career.
> A fighter should never be chastised for moving up, yet other fighters who did move up should not have Duran's charisma and great personality give him higher ranking, which then makes them penalized when they did more. Holyfield made a career of moving up to heavyweight and beating great fighters. Duran's fellow legends Hearns,Benitez,Leonard all moved up and won title in higher divisions. Spinks beat Holmes, which in my mind was a better win than any Duran had. yes including Leonard. Holmes was an experienced guy in 1985 and knew what he was doing. Pacman beat great fighter Delahoya as well as other greats Morales, Barrera and Marquez. That is beating fellow greats. No one at lightweight Duran fought matches Morales and Barrera, and then later Delahoya and Shane.-yes they were older, but they were still names Duran does not have in the win list.


Spinks beating Holmes is a great considering he was cherry picked from lhw but Holmes was also pretty old.

Pacman beat a drained Delahoya, meaningless win really.
Morales was past prime, and Pacman got beaten the first time.
And all of the Marquez fights were so close they could all have gone to Marquez really, none of the fights were truly decisive except for the 4th.

"but they were still names Duran does not have in the win list."
You think lineal champ Leonard is a worse name than a shot drained Delahoya?

"Holyfield made a career of moving up to heavyweight and beating great fighters."
Which 2 great fighters did he beat that was not past it?
A 42 year old Foreman?
A nearly 43 year old Holmes?

I give you Mike Tyson, but that's only 1 and he'd already made his career by then.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> I felt he dominated by winning a wide decision. It wasn't a beat down or anything and Leonard was quality in the fight as well. I guess dominant has different meanings depending on how you take the context of it.
> 
> Leonard fought Leonards fight that night though, he always fought that aggressively. Just cause he learnt from it and improved doesn't take away from the fact that he was bested at his own game, he just wasn't as good as Duran that night just as the reversal of that happened a few months later.


He fought his own fight,but refused to adapt and use his versatility because he wanted to prove he could stand and trade with the guy who mocked him and his wife and in a move that was deeply unsettling,was rattled psychologically.
With the benefit of seeing that he could not out-tough Duran,he totally reversed the roles and made Duran the laughing stock of the sport(and he genuinely was)
Had they fought another ten times,Leonard had the versatility to win every time.
The whole "Ray fought how he always did" has a little substance but not as much as some say when you realise that Ray had the versatility that Roberto didn't.
It can't work both ways.If Roberto getting into Ray's head and beating him on points when Ray didn't use every tool in his locker is an ATG win,then Ray making him quit should rank higher.
Fucking Holland! Between them and Brazil that's £110 I've lost in a day!:gsg


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

PityTheFool said:


> He fought his own fight,but refused to adapt and use his versatility because he wanted to prove he could stand and trade with the guy who mocked him and his wife and in a move that was deeply unsettling,was rattled psychologically.
> With the benefit of seeing that he could not out-tough Duran,he totally reversed the roles and made Duran the laughing stock of the sport(and he genuinely was)
> Had they fought another ten times,Leonard had the versatility to win every time.
> The whole "Ray fought how he always did" has a little substance but not as much as some say when you realise that Ray had the versatility that Roberto didn't.
> ...


I disagree, I don't think there was much Ray could do in the first fight, once Duran had took control Leonard just couldn't do anything to change it. He boxed better int he last three but he never stood toe to toe through choice, he started like that and couldn't get to his boxing when he realized he wasn't winning in a close range fight.

As for the second fight he set off with a better gameplan of moving more and getting a longer range. Duran did fairly well, it was a close fight up until the seventh but Duran couldn't be arsed and after Ray clowned for the full seventh round he just said fuck it. he would have likely lost tbf as Ray looked like he had taken full control by that point and Duran wasn't all that focused on closing him down and forcing him to fight at a higher pace.

If you had Duran from the first fight fighting Ray from the second fight I think they would end up at 5-5 or 6-4 - there wasn't a whole lot between them in skill levels, Duran was better at fighting close range and Ray was better than him at fighting on the outside but both could fight the other way in need be. Both were very versatile fighters.

I think its a shame Duran didn't turn up for the second in prime shape as it would have made for a real interesting fight down the distance, especially with a hole in the middle of the ring.

I rank both as ATG wins but both turned up in the best shape in th first fight so i class that as a better win. If he'd actually beat Duran into submission then it would rank higher but he didn't, he didn't once hurt Duran, have him in any form of trouble, he just embarrassed him by showboating and he took a hissy fit.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MichiganWarrior said:


> Thats a fun sentiment, but fact remains if Duran fought Hearns 70 times hed be 0-70 with 70 losses by KO
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You could say the exact same thing about Hagler and Hearns










We can all post gifs.

At least Duran was able to get up and walk out the ring on his own.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> You could say the exact same thing about Hagler and Hearns
> 
> We can all post gifs.
> 
> *At least Duran was able to get up and walk out the ring on his own.*


Duran a fucking G, he was already getting up when the ref stopped the fight.
His handlers then raised Duran and Duran was just like fuck you I can walk to the corner alone.

Meanwhile Hearns:


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> I disagree, I don't think there was much Ray could do in the first fight, once Duran had took control Leonard just couldn't do anything to change it. He boxed better int he last three but he never stood toe to toe through choice, he started like that and couldn't get to his boxing when he realized he wasn't winning in a close range fight.
> 
> As for the second fight he set off with a better gameplan of moving more and getting a longer range. Duran did fairly well, it was a close fight up until the seventh but Duran couldn't be arsed and after Ray clowned for the full seventh round he just said fuck it. he would have likely lost tbf as Ray looked like he had taken full control by that point and Duran wasn't all that focused on closing him down and forcing him to fight at a higher pace.
> 
> ...


We're never going to agree on this mate so no point in doing the circle dance,but all this "if he turned up in top shape" is the biggest cop out ever.
He signed the fight,got paid, had the same time to train and didn't,only to go on to pull a disgraceful quit job that only gets a pass by many because he was such a brilliant fighter,which isn't really fair.
It's revisionist history at it's worst.Anyone old enough to have been around at the time knows that he shamed his fans,gamblers,Ray Arcel and most of all himself,all the while robbing Leonard of a deserved victory.
He was a brilliant,versatile fighter,but he didn't have the stylistic versatility of Leonard and as I've said,if someone elite and especially Floyd pulled that on Saturday,he wouldn't get the pass Duran gets,and I have no problem with him being redeemed because I'm a big,big fan.
But not at the expense of the old "shoulda woulda never" that detracts from Leonard's win.He turned his back in the middle of one of the biggest fights ever.Can you imagine Froch doing that and getting a pass?
It was a disgraceful quit job,and Leonard was robbed.Take favouritism out of it and those are irrefutable facts.
I'm out anyway.Don't like bashing Cholo but people act like it's on a par with Frazier staying on his stool against Ali when it's far more like Liston against Ali second time.
He chose to shame the sport,because that's exactly what he did that night in the days when boxing could make the front pages,far less the back.
And he'll always be one of my top 10,but facts are facts.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

PityTheFool said:


> We're never going to agree on this mate so no point in doing the circle dance,but all this "if he turned up in top shape" is the biggest cop out ever.
> He signed the fight,got paid, had the same time to train and didn't,only to go on to pull a disgraceful quit job that only gets a pass by many because he was such a brilliant fighter,which isn't really fair.
> It's revisionist history at it's worst.Anyone old enough to have been around at the time knows that he shamed his fans,gamblers,Ray Arcel and most of all himself,all the while robbing Leonard of a deserved victory.
> He was a brilliant,versatile fighter,but he didn't have the stylistic versatility of Leonard and as I've said,if someone elite and especially Floyd pulled that on Saturday,he wouldn't get the pass Duran gets,and I have no problem with him being redeemed because I'm a big,big fan.
> ...


But its the exact same for Leonard - if he fought a different plan, if he was a better boxer at that point.

I do give full credit to both for their wins apart for the third fight which I pretend never happened because I respect them both and no one should think of those two fighters int he light they performed that night.:lol:

I don't mind people giving Leonard huge props for the second, it was deserved but Duran was versatile as fuck, he was one of the greatest defensive and offensive fighters of all time. If your saying Duran wasn't versatile because of how he dealt with the second fight you can give the same to Leonard for the first, he just happened to take it to the end.

Plus its more revisionist history that Duran didn't get flack for that, the guy was exiled from his own country - went out a hero and came back the biggest disgrace in the countries history, couldn't go down the shop without getting shit and was considered a joke for about a decade afterwards. I doubt many fighters got as much stick as Duran did for that, only person i could think of would be Johnson for basically being black.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Shame Duran didn't get the decision against Camacho and nobody was really interested in a Duran-Leonard IV so Camacho got the decision.
In 1997 Leonards legs and chin was totally gone I could see Duran getting revenge.

Though I can see why nobody wanted that fight.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

dyna said:


> Duran a fucking G, he was already getting up when the ref stopped the fight.
> His handlers then raised Duran and Duran was just like fuck you I can walk to the corner alone.
> 
> Meanwhile Hearns:


Its crazy some of the stick Duran gets for that fight. Hearns was six inch taller and and had a 12 inch reach advantage, Duran just could not get near him to hit him, when he goes on the defence he slips a few shots real well but Hearns just sticks his jab out and he's still half the way across the ring to Duran who can do fuck all but hope Hearns has poor accuracy which of course just isn't so. He actually takes a few flush power shots as well but stylistically that fight was crazy to take, he is just all wrong for him.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Its crazy some of the stick Duran gets for that fight. Hearns was six inch taller and and had a 12 inch reach advantage, Duran just could not get near him to hit him, when he goes on the defence he slips a few shots real well but Hearns just sticks his jab out and he's still half the way across the ring to Duran who can do fuck all but hope Hearns has poor accuracy which of course just isn't so. He actually takes a few flush power shots as well but stylistically that fight was crazy to take, he is just all wrong for him.


I wonder how Duran-McCallum would have gone.
Duran would probably have looked better.

Going with Hearns in the ring was just crazy for Duran.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> But its the exact same for Leonard - if he fought a different plan, if he was a better boxer at that point.
> 
> I do give full credit to both for their wins apart for the third fight which I pretend never happened because I respect them both and no one should think of those two fighters int he light they performed that night.:lol:
> 
> ...


Now you're putting words in my mouth mate.Where have I said Duran's not versatile?
I haven't said Duran didn't get flack for it,in fact I'm saying the complete opposite.What I am saying is that people who defend his actions or detract from Leonard's win regarding that fight and that fight only are revising history.
What I am saying is that in my opinion,Leonard was the more versatile of the two.The rest is all fact.
No one is giving any excuses for Leonard in the first fight,but you're coming up with all the old chestnuts regarding the second and to say that "had they both been in top shape etc" is basically saying that it's ok for a guy to sign for a fight,get paid millions,quit in the middle and blame it on Stomach cramps.
Would you do that if Mayweather turned his back on Maidana and quit?
It was every bit as bad as Tor Hamer's antics of late.
I've never said anything bad about Duran here other than the truth about that fight but you're having a go at Leonard for Lalonde.
He gets a pass where others wouldn't,and I've no problem with that but all the shit about him being out of shape and not being dominated whilst saying that he dominated Ray just simply isn't true mate.
Go back and read your last response.Then check what I've been saying all along.You're defending your guy vehemently which is fine but you can't go around saying he dominated Leonard whilst excusing his actions in the 2nd fight.
That's all I mentioned and you've got me saying Duran wasn't versatile and he didn't get flak.

As for Leonard.Everything after Hagler is pretty much irrelevant to me and I've often had the third Hearns fight thrown at me when both myself and Leonard think Tommy won.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

PityTheFool said:


> Now you're putting words in my mouth mate.Where have I said Duran's not versatile?
> I haven't said Duran didn't get flack for it,in fact I'm saying the complete opposite.What I am saying is that people who defend his actions or detract from Leonard's win regarding that fight and that fight only are revising history.
> What I am saying is that in my opinion,Leonard was the more versatile of the two.The rest is all fact.
> No one is giving any excuses for Leonard in the first fight,but you're coming up with all the old chestnuts regarding the second and to say that "had they both been in top shape etc" is basically saying that it's ok for a guy to sign for a fight,get paid millions,quit in the middle and blame it on Stomach cramps.
> ...


I dont excuse his actions in the second fight and as I said I give Leonard full credit for the victory, he beat an ATG in the last fight I consider his peak, I don't think Duran came in his best shape but then thats his fault and he paid the price.

What I was saying is I wish we got the Duran of the first fight against the Leonard of the second cause whilst both were great and the first fight was great, the second also other than it being shortened so I feel we were robbed of seeing the best of them in the ring together.

And as you say with Leonard, theres not much of note after Hagler that needs to be pulled as relevant, I agree with that similar to Duran after the first 2 Leonard fights. They wer both past prime at those points, Leonard probably so from Finch really but they were good enough to still be able to muster so good wins out afterwards. That just adds to their greatness.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> I wonder how Duran-McCallum would have gone.
> Duran would probably have looked better.
> 
> Going with Hearns in the ring was just crazy for Duran.


McCallum would have beat Duran and probably would have stopped Tommy late for me.
There's a very good reason they fought other names of similar standing but stayed away from McCallum.
You can't really blame Duran for not fighting him though and in all truth, he'd probably have given Leonard a nightmare too.
Only prime Hagler has the style to trouble prime McCallum and he's the least skilled(yet still wonderful) of the four.Tommy and Marvin are the only guys size-wise to talk about fighting McCallum at their best.And you can't really include Hagler when he was deserving of a mega fight.
That left McCallum only able to fight Duran when he became his mandatory but Manny Steward shafted Mike to get the bigger cut with Hearns.
Then you can start asking yourself why Mike called Tommy out for years to no avail.I don't think for a millisecond that Tommy wouldn't have wanted the fight,but I know who didn't.
But then,like the old "Leonard made Duran fight when he was out of shape" argument, if fights were 13 rounds then Chavez Jr would have been lineal champ at 160.
Only Tommy was a viable opponent at the right time,and Duran vacated to fight Tommy and not Mike.
It's only my opinion rather than a fact this time,but a pressure fighter with a chin and power who is all action by the middle stages and good to keep that pace up for the rest of the fifteen without even taking into account his ability to make opponents drop their hands and you have to Tommy what people here say Tommy was to Cholo.
But I stress again,the result is only my opinion.What Manny Steward did was fact.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

PityTheFool said:


> McCallum would have beat Duran and probably would have stopped Tommy late for me.
> There's a very good reason they fought other names of similar standing but stayed away from McCallum.
> You can't really blame Duran for not fighting him though and in all truth, he'd probably have given Leonard a nightmare too.
> Only prime Hagler has the style to trouble prime McCallum and he's the least skilled(yet still wonderful) of the four.Tommy and Marvin are the only guys size-wise to talk about fighting McCallum at their best.And you can't really include Hagler when he was deserving of a mega fight.
> ...


I know McCallum would have beaten Duran, but how good would he have looked doing it?
And could it have sparked enough interest in a McCallum-Hagler fight.

It probably wouldn't have been a mega fight for Hagler because Hearns was simply a bigger draw but it would have been good for Mike.

In the end Hearns-Hagler was probably the best for Hagler even though it took something out of him.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> I dont excuse his actions in the second fight and as I said I give Leonard full credit for the victory, he beat an ATG in the last fight I consider his peak, I don't think Duran came in his best shape but then thats his fault and he paid the price.
> 
> What I was saying is I wish we got the Duran of the first fight against the Leonard of the second cause whilst both were great and the first fight was great, the second also other than it being shortened so I feel we were robbed of seeing the best of them in the ring together.
> 
> And as you say with Leonard, theres not much of note after Hagler that needs to be pulled as relevant, I agree with that similar to Duran after the first 2 Leonard fights. They wer both past prime at those points, Leonard probably so from Finch really but they were good enough to still be able to muster so good wins out afterwards. That just adds to their greatness.


So can we leave it at that then mate?:lol:


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

PityTheFool said:


> So can we leave it at that then mate?:lol:


Yeah its all good, was a canny little debate. I look forward to Mag coming back and continuing to tell us all Duran was as good as Eric Crumble now.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> I know McCallum would have beaten Duran, but how good would he have looked doing it?
> And could it have sparked enough interest in a McCallum-Hagler fight.
> 
> It probably wouldn't have been a mega fight for Hagler because Hearns was simply a bigger draw but it would have been good for Mike.
> ...


He probably wouldn't have looked as impressive as Tommy did,but he'd have got it done.
Hagler was never really an option for him mate.He had to leave Kronk after Manny's sabotage,but the timing meant that Hagler was looking to cash out and Mike was high risk low reward personified.
But you have 87-91 where Tommy could have fought him.I'm sure the fact they never was down to Steward rather than Tommy.
And whilst with a few exceptions,Mike was more of lumberjack with a sharp axe than a wrecking ball,his stamina and work level in the second half of fights and an astonishingly underrated ability to roll with punches gives him the edge over Tommy at 160 for me.
But that means you're into 12 round territory which makes it far from a foregone conclusion.Tommy could scrape that with several scares near the end.

As for the Duran fight at 154,I think given the respective levels of hunger at the time means Mike pulls off what would have been considered a shock then and stopped Duran despite Duran being OK to continue but just soundly beaten.
A stoppage similar to Cotto-Margarito II for me there mate.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

At lmw Duran could beat anyone or be beaten by anyone. McCallum was quite consistent and likely would have gotten the job done.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Yeah its all good, was a canny little debate. I look forward to Mag coming back and continuing to tell us all Duran was as good as Eric Crumble now.


I knew years ago what MAG thought of this fight at 154,so I just chalk it up to a difference of opinion as he's an old-timer like me and has never been anything other than thoroughly decent to me so I usually know which way the wind is blowing and just walk with it,rather than into it.
Ya feel me?


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Stupid criteria really.


Good post Turbotime, you reached a level of excellence with this one!


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Duran dominated Leonard, it was the greatest defeat of Leonard in his career. So when was he prime - when he beat Kalule and Hearns? cause that was a year later, its hardly as if he beat a green version of Leonard is it?
> 
> Leonard won a great fight with Hagler and due credit but his other titles were bullshit as well - he brought Lalonde down to SMW to fight for the LHW title, neither title should have really been on the line in that fight, Lalonde was a LHW and he should have fought him there, he lost to Hearns the second time in most peoples opinions and the third Duran fight should be eradicated from history in respect to both of them. Its not as if Leonard moved up and destroyed people, he has two quality wins above Welterweight.


it was the best win for Leonard at that early part of his career. Taught him the mental aspect of the game. Ray was not knocked out and he went 15 with Duran fighting Duran at his own game. I think a fighter can change dramatically in one year and one fight, if they use it to learn. That third Duran fight is now seen as a nothing fight, but in 1989 Duran had just beaten Barkley and Leonard knocked down two times against Hearns. Many people picked Duran.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> At lmw Duran could beat anyone or be beaten by anyone. McCallum was quite consistent and likely would have gotten the job done.


that is an interesting fight because Mike would have fought Duran on the inside. I don't know would have happened. Mike was younger and faster, but Duran was more experience and I could even pick Duran because of his edge in experience over Mike.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> You could say the exact same thing about Hagler and Hearns
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hearns walked out of the ring on his own. He congratulated Hagler right before Hagler was interviewed by Al Bernstein in the ring. I actually would think Hearns got up before Duran would have against Hearns. I don't know what all of this means. Hearns was more exhausted by Hagler than really knocked out. Duran was more knocked out by the punch. All knockouts are different.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

PityTheFool said:


> I knew years ago what MAG thought of this fight at 154,so I just chalk it up to a difference of opinion as he's an old-timer like me and has never been anything other than thoroughly decent to me so I usually know which way the wind is blowing and just walk with it,rather than into it.
> Ya feel me?


Thank you. I remember you also. And as for people on this board, they have to realize I do think Duran is great. My point has always been not 1-10.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> Why are moore and barkley mediocre? Says who?


compared to Hearns,Leonard and Benitez and Hagler they were. Barkley is seen as a guy who struck gold with Hearns and he did. Moore had 11 fights. He was a good fighter but he really needed more rounds to compete with a Roberto Duran level guy.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Spinks beating Holmes is a great considering he was cherry picked from lhw but Holmes was also pretty old.
> 
> Pacman beat a drained Delahoya, meaningless win really.
> Morales was past prime, and Pacman got beaten the first time.
> ...


Holmes was old but undefeated. I honestly thought before that fight Holmes was going to knock Spinks out in one or two rounds. He looked so much bigger in the press conferences. In the ring it looked less dramatic. Spinks was 6-2 1/2 and Holmes I think was 6-2.. So the difference was less, although the weight was a lot. I didn't expect Spinks to fight him with those babysteps, especially with his bad knees. That was a great win against an experienced champion.

After the fact Delahoya was drained, but at the time many people thought Oscar would beat the smaller Pacman in a few rounds. Even with Marquez having a good style matchup with Pacman, I still think Manny edged him a little always. The last fight no, but all the others he came out ahead. 
Duran did not stop Leonard like Pacman stopped Oscar, and Leonard fought Duran's fight and it was a competitive fight, and then Ray won the rematch easily. That is a big difference. Duran did not knock out Leonard in the first fight or dominate him at his fight.

Well, Bowe will be HOF someday, Tyson he beat two times, Lennox he managed a draw. He beat Foreman when George was on a role, and George was still dangerous in his early 40s.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Moore seems to get shit because his record doesn't look good at a glance being 18-5. Thing is he stepped it up quickly beating Mihara in his 9th fight and then put in some good defences against Weir, Kalule and Guiden - maybes not any great wins aside from Kalule but still thats a solid little run. Duran ruined him though even though Moore was expected to win. he was never the same after that fight.
> 
> he did manage to stop a shot to shit Benitez who looked like the mental illness was already taking hold of him at that point.
> 
> ...


no doubt Barkley was good, but he was not elite. That win over Barkley cannot do as much as beating Hearns or Benitez or Hagler. Barkley was a guaranteed tough fight for anyone and if he fought guys they would have thier chin tested, even Kalambay was rocked.


----------



## Leftsmash (Oct 22, 2012)

You have to give MAG credit though.. I hate his shit on Mayweather and Hopkins but he rarely abuses other posters.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

PityTheFool said:


> He fought his own fight,but refused to adapt and use his versatility because he wanted to prove he could stand and trade with the guy who mocked him and his wife and in a move that was deeply unsettling,was rattled psychologically.
> With the benefit of seeing that he could not out-tough Duran,he totally reversed the roles and made Duran the laughing stock of the sport(and he genuinely was)
> Had they fought another ten times,Leonard had the versatility to win every time.
> The whole "Ray fought how he always did" has a little substance but not as much as some say when you realise that Ray had the versatility that Roberto didn't.
> ...


I agree. I think Ray's win was much greater because of how he changed the outcome with how he fought. it was total role reversal.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> I know McCallum would have beaten Duran, but how good would he have looked doing it?
> And could it have sparked enough interest in a McCallum-Hagler fight.
> 
> It probably wouldn't have been a mega fight for Hagler because Hearns was simply a bigger draw but it would have been good for Mike.
> ...


the problem with McCallum was that most of the noise at the time was with Hagler and Hearns and Leonard and Duran. So Mike fought at 154 and won his title right before Hagler and Hearns-actually on the Hagler/Hamsho rematch at MSG. He was busy defending at that weight when Duran took a break after Hearns and Hearns a break after Hagler. When Hearns and Duran both came back in 1986 they were interested in fighting Hagler or a Hearns rematch as Duran sometimes said. Mike had his big break by beating Donald Curry, but then lost immediately to Kalambay which took him a step back in April of 1988. By that time Hearns was going to fight Barkley and Hagler had retired, and Ray reretired, and Duran was sort of fighting lesser guys to get up for a title shot in 1989. Mike was a quiet guy and even though he was good, the public didn't know him like the fab 4, who could generate a big fight just on announcing it. And I do think prior to Hagler in 1985, Hearns at 154 outboxes Mike. The post Hagler Thomas Hearns lost a little of his balance, and with a guy like Mike, that would be more trouble. I do think Duran at 154 in 1984 could be trouble for Mike.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Good post Turbotime, you reached a level of excellence with this one!


So what was Langford's starting weight?


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> So what was Langford's starting weight?


Or Ezzard Charles.


----------



## thesandman (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Duran a fucking G, he was already getting up when the ref stopped the fight.
> His handlers then raised Duran and Duran was just like fuck you I can walk to the corner alone.
> 
> Meanwhile Hearns:


You got a picture of Hearns quitting in a title fight out of embarrassment?


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

thesandman said:


> You got a picture of Hearns quitting in a title fight out of embarrassment?


He was atleast able to walk here.

Well that picture didnt answer your question because I didn't read the last word ops.


----------



## thesandman (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> He was atleast able to walk here.


So you prefer fighters to quit after 8 rounds when there's nothing wrong with them, rather than go out fighting?

Ok. Your definition of 'a G' is an odd one then.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Leftsmash said:


> You have to give MAG credit though.. I hate his shit on Mayweather and Hopkins but he rarely abuses other posters.


:deal MAG is full of grace.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

thesandman said:


> So you prefer fighters to quit after 8 rounds when there's nothing wrong with them, rather than go out fighting?
> 
> Ok. Your definition of 'a G' is an odd one then.


I actually like Hearn's style more than Duran's.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> it was the best win for Leonard at that early part of his career. Taught him the mental aspect of the game. Ray was not knocked out and he went 15 with Duran fighting Duran at his own game. I think a fighter can change dramatically in one year and one fight, if they use it to learn. That third Duran fight is now seen as a nothing fight, but in 1989 Duran had just beaten Barkley and Leonard knocked down two times against Hearns. Many people picked Duran.


So Leonard improved from that fight, Duran regressed some, they beat each at or around the peaks of their careers. Works both ways, they probably just missed out on each other bests versions by fractions.



MAG1965 said:


> Hearns walked out of the ring on his own. He congratulated Hagler right before Hagler was interviewed by Al Bernstein in the ring. I actually would think Hearns got up before Duran would have against Hearns. I don't know what all of this means. Hearns was more exhausted by Hagler than really knocked out. Duran was more knocked out by the punch. All knockouts are different.


My point was styles sometimes have a huge effect. I dont see Duran ever beating Hearns the same way I don't see Hearns ever beating Hagler. Just all wrong for them.



MAG1965 said:


> no doubt Barkley was good, but he was not elite. That win over Barkley cannot do as much as beating Hearns or Benitez or Hagler. Barkley was a guaranteed tough fight for anyone and if he fought guys they would have thier chin tested, even Kalambay was rocked.


I don't think Barkley was near the level of the other guys but its still a great win. Not every great win has to be a great boxer, their are many factors in proclaiming a singular victory as great.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

dyna said:


> Or Ezzard Charles.


:lol: Right.

Thread was never gonna turn out well :lol:


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

I don't really think Hagler has the wrong style for Hearns.
He just knew that he would be unable to box with Hearns but he also know that Hearns liked to brawl.
So he took his only chance and that was to brawl and start fast.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

thesandman said:


> So you prefer fighters to quit after 8 rounds when there's nothing wrong with them, rather than go out fighting?
> 
> Ok. Your definition of 'a G' is an odd one then.


Also I misunderstood you and I didn't read the last word, "embarrassment"
No he never quit out of embarrassment


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG does try his best at diminishing Duran's opponents. 

I don't think you needed to go through all of that MAG, I think Duran is around 10th all time but I can bring out The Undefeated Gaul to demolish Duran, you gotta take notes, MAG...


----------



## thesandman (Jun 4, 2013)

I shouldn't really bag Duran. At the time, though I was a kid out of the so called 'Fab Four' Hearns and the Duran were my favourites. 

They always seemed to be in good fights, they went balls out virtually every time, and far more than Leonard or Hagler seemed like they would genuinely fight anyone, any time abd at any weight. 

Hearns won a light heavy title before he won one at middle. Duran fought every one under the sun into middle age. 
Both guys were just pure fighters.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

dyna said:


> I don't really think Hagler has the wrong style for Hearns.
> He just knew that he would be unable to box with Hearns but he also know that Hearns liked to brawl.
> So he took his only chance and that was to brawl and start fast.


I'm not sure Hearns could keep him off him tbh. hearns was the better boxer but I dunno if he can hold Hagler off for 15 rounds. Hagler had the better chin, could be more ferocious when needed and had a better mind set, he was also cleverer than Tommy imo and would be able to lure him into the fight he wanted, had better stamina and had the power to KO Hearns. I just think he always gets him.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> I'm not sure Hearns could keep him off him tbh. hearns was the better boxer but I dunno if he can hold Hagler off for 15 rounds. Hagler had the better chin, could be more ferocious when needed and had a better mind set, he was also cleverer than Tommy imo and would be able to lure him into the fight he wanted, had better stamina and had the power to KO Hearns. I just think he always gets him.


It was scheduled for 12 rounds.
So that was a little advantage for Hearns.

If Hagler had fought like he normally fought it would still get very close in the end, but Hearns might edge it.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

*The Undefeated Gaul's Demolition Job on Roberto Duran*
*Disclaimer: In reality I think Duran is around 10th All time
*Ernesto Marcel? You want to talk about his victory against Ernesto Marcel?? Ernesto Marcel wasn't even his most impressive, he looked most impressive against Shibata (although it says a draw, Marcel won that fight 10-5 tbh)...until then, straight after the Duran fight he had a razor close fight against a contender - Miguel Riasco...this wasn't the same Marcel that was annhilating top competition...hey guess what fuckers? Marcel was pretty damn small compared to Duran too. That's not all ya fuckwits! Marcel had an extremely close fight with Duran up until the PREMATURE STOPPAGE :lol:

You get the gist of it MAG?

Oh My God everybody! 103 wins, 70 KO's, spectacular Duran = he clearly inspired Julio Cesar Chavez to fight bums and get inflated impressions from the media!

Congratulations, Duran. You beat Koyabashi when he was past it and was dragged up yet again to a weight class that he was not comfortable in. You remember what happened to Wilfredo Gomez when he suffered the same fate? He got Alfredo Layne'd. Nuff said. No wonder why you Koyabashed Hiroshi. Again beating a popular name to give some more inflated opinions of Duran..

A shot Angel Robinson Garcia put you through a tough fight, too :lol: please Duran, Top 10 of all time?!

As for Ken Buchanan - Yeah, Duran..you have to hit him in the nutsack and injure Ken to win...wtf Roberto, Ken's balls-cup indented into him so bad that he needed surgery for it after the fight.

You showed your true colours when you lost to Esteban De Jesus. Exposed.

You then proceeded to make a name out of fighters that lose a lot like Guts Ishimatsu and really, contender level fighters like Thompson.

Here we go, Esteban De Jesus 2 - Oh, right...the fight where it was over 90 degrees fahrenheit? The sort of temperature that even caused GOAT SRR to quit whilst he was ahead? ..let's not forget that in the fight, it was a war which was not good for Esteban (granted not good for Duran either) but hey! Esteban was overrated and his position as a HOF is only as a result of a fallacious circular argument based on his first victory against Duran, the media's god.

What do you after you get lucky from the heat exhaustion of Esteban? You go and fight dudes who are 1-1 and 2-0-1 - this matches the psychological profile of someone who knows that the win against Esteban was a lucky one.

Everybody brace yourselves, Roberto demolishes a dude called Takayama...'No Chin' Takayama who was knocked out 4/6 times. You realised that didn't you, that's why you chose to fight a guy who was 0-3 next..

Roberto Duran then goes for a section in his career where he beats inconsistent fighters like Mamby and Ortiz. Oh by the way, does a win over Viruet make you one of the GOAT's or something? Is that so?

At this point, I'm getting so bored of you fighting such mediocre opposition that lose a lot..

Oh look, coming to finish off a past prime De Jesus now are we? How does that make you feel? You feel like a man now?

Ok now we're talking, a fight against Carlos Palomino...
I have some things to say about Carlos 'HOF' Palomino and there's nothing you can do about it...


Spoiler



1. Carlos Palomino made his name by defending his title against past prime fighters, fighters who weren't the same as they were. 
a. Armando Muniz got owned by 9-9-1 Joe Palacios a year earlier. 
Armando Muniz in Palomino's first fight with him was at the very end of his career and the fight was completely even going into the 15th until Muniz's ring age got the better of him. 
b. Stracey - end of his career
c. Green - shit chin + contender level 
d. All of the others were inconsistent fighters at the tail end of their careers
e. Benitez stole Palomino's soul before Duran just took whatever little was left of Palomino's soul.


Palomino was at the tail end of his career when Duran choose to cherry pick him carefully.

So Duran vs Leonard at 147lbs, not Duran's prime weight..Or shall I call him 'Montreal Durangod'..
SRL perhaps fought Duran's fight, he didn't stay on the outside, throw combos and leave, SRL just wasn't in it.

SRL looked at Duran's career and realised it represents the psychological profile of a glass heart where mockery is concerned. SRL mocked Duran, clowned him, outboxed him and guess what? NO MAS!

Duran beats pretty good dudes until the Wilfried Benitez fight&#8230;oh, shocker! Duran loses to an ATG&#8230;I swear I've seen that happen virtually all the time in his career&#8230;still a GOAT?
Duran high off roods at this point. Roiding it out.

'Upset of the Year' - Duran's loss against Laing..more like 'True Colour Exposure of the Year'.

So Duran proceeds to beat a guy who only had like 12 fights and had a questionable chin, by KO. Sure that's fine.

He then loses to an overrated guy called Marvin Hagler in a 10-5 decision, no way as near as the scorecards have you believe. No surprise that Hagler is closer to the end of his career. Hagler at that stage of his career was like 'I'm so butthurt about SRL getting fame, and I been in too many wars, I don't think I have it anymore' - consequently, it was the fight just after the win against Duran where SRL was like 'Hagler has slipped so much, I gotta take the fight against SRL' - SRL actually mentioned that on numerous occasions.

Hearns demolished Duran&#8230;as expected. One of the most brutal KO's, not surprising.

lol Duran beats Iran Barkley who is coming off a lucky punch victory against Hearns who staggered his way to defeat. Iran lost to every decent fighter. Duran took this fight seriously, made weight well before the fight.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Good post Gaul, especially on Hagler.

This is how I view Hagler:


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Good post Gaul, especially on Hagler.
> 
> This is how I view Hagler:


:rofl


----------



## Rockinghorseshit (Oct 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> *The Undefeated Gaul's Demolition Job on Roberto Duran*
> *Disclaimer: In reality I think Duran is around 10th All time
> *Ernesto Marcel? You want to talk about his victory against Ernesto Marcel?? Ernesto Marcel wasn't even his most impressive, he looked most impressive against Shibata (although it says a draw, Marcel won that fight 10-5 tbh)...until then, straight after the Duran fight he had a razor close fight against a contender - Miguel Riasco...this wasn't the same Marcel that was annhilating top competition...hey guess what fuckers? Marcel was pretty damn small compared to Duran too. That's not all ya fuckwits! Marcel had an extremely close fight with Duran up until the PREMATURE STOPPAGE :lol:
> 
> ...


Very good post.

Hagler vs Duran by no means a close fight.


----------



## TSOL (Dec 15, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> *The Undefeated Gaul's Demolition Job on Roberto Duran*
> *Disclaimer: In reality I think Duran is around 10th All time
> *Ernesto Marcel? You want to talk about his victory against Ernesto Marcel?? Ernesto Marcel wasn't even his most impressive, he looked most impressive against Shibata (although it says a draw, Marcel won that fight 10-5 tbh)...until then, straight after the Duran fight he had a razor close fight against a contender - Miguel Riasco...this wasn't the same Marcel that was annhilating top competition...hey guess what fuckers? Marcel was pretty damn small compared to Duran too. That's not all ya fuckwits! Marcel had an extremely close fight with Duran up until the PREMATURE STOPPAGE :lol:
> 
> ...


I feel like if Skip Bayless wrote a book on boxing it'd look like this


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> that is an interesting fight because Mike would have fought Duran on the inside. I don't know would have happened. Mike was younger and faster, but Duran was more experience and I could even pick Duran because of his edge in experience over Mike.


he has a better chance than he does against Hearns because he carried his weight well and was equally as skilled as the body snatcher.

I think best for best Duran is likely to win but at the time in question then McCallum beats him.


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Sorry @MAG1965 but after 5 or 6 other posters spent 20 pages destroying each and every one of your arguments... this outside observer judges you to be completely wrong.
@Rockinghorseshit that goes for you too.

I just calls em how I sees em.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> *The Undefeated Gaul's Demolition Job on Roberto Duran*
> *Disclaimer: In reality I think Duran is around 10th All time
> *Ernesto Marcel? You want to talk about his victory against Ernesto Marcel?? Ernesto Marcel wasn't even his most impressive, he looked most impressive against Shibata (although it says a draw, Marcel won that fight 10-5 tbh)...until then, straight after the Duran fight he had a razor close fight against a contender - Miguel Riasco...this wasn't the same Marcel that was annhilating top competition...hey guess what fuckers? Marcel was pretty damn small compared to Duran too. That's not all ya fuckwits! Marcel had an extremely close fight with Duran up until the PREMATURE STOPPAGE :lol:
> 
> ...


This is exactly why I used to urge you to ease up on the Loma stuff Gaul.
You've excelled at times lately and it's just a pity you're still more known to many posters for the Loma stuff when you can do this.
And be honest mate,I said that quite some time ago.

Why don't you channel more of your posting energy like this? Keep that up and support Loma by all means without the silly stuff and you'll soon be able to put the bad times behind you.Regardless of opinion on the subject matter,that's a very good post indeed.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> Sorry @MAG1965 but after 5 or 6 other posters spent 20 pages destroying each and every one of your arguments... this outside observer judges you to be completely wrong.
> @Rockinghorseshit that goes for you too.
> 
> I just calls em how I sees em.


I don't think so. I didn't see anyone post anything I have not seen in 6 years here or at ESB. Nothing warrants Duran being 1-10 ATG- not from what I have heard here. I am waiting for something which would have proven it and it never came. The same thing. He beat Buchanan and Dejesus and Leonard, then moved up and beat Moore and Barkley.

But my point was, he never beat a great at lightweight, and only beat Ray in the one fight when Ray fought his fight, and then lost to all the greats after that he ever fought. So his greatness is built on one fight where Ray fought his fight? Because other than that, he didn't come close to beating a great fighter.

I think if we had young people into boxing who objectively hear the discussion, I think they would understand exactly where I come from and my points are more valid. Because I still say, what has he done for a top ratings? For top 25, yes he should be there. This is obviously a popularity contest. He has one win against a great fighter, whom he did not knock out. And that fighter fought his fight and was younger and not yet at his prime, You cannot make someone prime in retrospect just to make Duran's win more significant. After that fight Duran lost the rematch and rubbermatch 9 years later. That is significant. How many ways can I say what I said. I said he was great, but he does not warrant top ten ATG. I will never believe that, and nothing you guys say has changed anything. You are saying the same stuff I have heard over and over for years. I stopped posting as much because I answered as much as I could, and saw no reason to keep answering the same things to everyone. My points are facts are the same ones I made for years, and they are valid and simple. So if you guys are curious what they are, they are in numerous posts here and on ESB. Simply put. He does not have great wins. His biggest win is Ray, who beat him easily in the rematch. He has a decent lightweight reign, but no big names which were really great to show he engaged with another great for superiority. He was frontrunner at lightweight. A guy who was better than everyone, because they were not that good. His later career is when he fought top fighters (regardless of the fact he has excuses he was old and out of shape) and he lost to all of them, except Ray. And he lost that fight in a rematch where he quit because he was going to lose badly . Yes, he had an exceptional career. But not top 10. Ray had a top 10 career in a 40 fight list. That is how you get top 10. Look at the guys he beat. I honestly believe I have answer point for point what you guys brought up, which is the same stuff I have heard over and over. I wanted more. I wanted you guys to bring up something which proved he was worthy of top 10, and I never heard it, which makes me think I am completely correct in thinking he is overrated if he is to in the top 10 ATG. Top 25 is more accurate.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> I don't think so. I didn't see anyone post anything I have not seen in 6 years here and at ESB. Nothing warrants Duran being 1-10 ATG. I think if we had young people into boxing who objectively hear the discussion, I think they would understand exactly where I come from and my points are more valid. Because I still say, what has he done for a top ratings? This is a popularity contest. He has one win against a great fighter, whom he did not knock out. And that fighter fought his fight and was younger and not yet at his prime, and then Duran lost the rematch and rubbermatch 9 years later. That is significant. I many ways can I say what I said. I said he was great, but he does not warrant top ten ATG. I will never believe that, and nothing you guys say has changed anything. You are saying the same stuff I have heard over and over for years. I stopped posting as much because I answered as much as I could, and saw no reason to keep answering the same things to everyone. My points are facts are the same ones I made for years, and they are valid and simple. So if you guys are curious what they are, they are in numerous posts here and on ESB. Simply put. He does not have great wins. His biggest win is Ray, who beat him easily in the rematch. He has a decent lightweight reign, but no big names which were really great to show he engaged with another great for superiority. He was frontrunner at lightweight. A guy who was better than everyone, because they were not that good. His later career is when he fought top fighters (regardless of the fact he has excuses he was old and out of shape) and he lost to all of them, except Ray. And he lost that fight in a rematch where he quit because he was going to lose badly . Yes, he had an exceptional career. But not top 10. Ray had a top 10 career in a 40 fight list. That is how you get top 10. Look at the guys he beat. I honestly believe I have answer point for point what you guys brought up, which is the same stuff I have heard over and over. I wanted more. I wanted you guys to bring up something which proved he was worthy of top 10, and I never heard it, which makes me think I am completely correct in thinking he is overrated if he is to in the top 10 ATG. Top 25 is more accurate.


I'm a young people.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Also it's not really Duran at 1-10 ATG.
It's more like 8-12 ATG

The other 2 greatest lightweights are also frequently ranked with Duran.
Joe Gans 2 spots higher on McGrains list (Gans 8, Duran 10) and Benny Leonard on 11.

Duran was never beaten in his best weight class, Leonard was.


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

dyna said:


> Also it's not really Duran at 1-10 ATG.
> It's more like 8-12 ATG
> 
> The other 2 greatest lightweights are also frequently ranked with Duran.
> ...


*Duran was beaten be DeJesus at lightweight, but avenged twice.


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> I don't think so. I didn't see anyone post anything I have not seen in 6 years here or at ESB. Nothing warrants Duran being 1-10 ATG- not from what I have heard here. I am waiting for something which would have proven it and it never came. The same thing. He beat Buchanan and Dejesus and Leonard, then moved up and beat Moore and Barkley.
> 
> But my point was, he never beat a great at lightweight, and only beat Ray in the one fight when Ray fought his fight, and then lost to all the greats after that he ever fought. So his greatness is built on one fight where Ray fought his fight? Because other than that, he didn't come close to beating a great fighter.
> 
> I think if we had young people into boxing who objectively hear the discussion, I think they would understand exactly where I come from and my points are more valid. Because I still say, what has he done for a top ratings? For top 25, yes he should be there. This is obviously a popularity contest. He has one win against a great fighter, whom he did not knock out. And that fighter fought his fight and was younger and not yet at his prime, You cannot make someone prime in retrospect just to make Duran's win more significant. After that fight Duran lost the rematch and rubbermatch 9 years later. That is significant. How many ways can I say what I said. I said he was great, but he does not warrant top ten ATG. I will never believe that, and nothing you guys say has changed anything. You are saying the same stuff I have heard over and over for years. I stopped posting as much because I answered as much as I could, and saw no reason to keep answering the same things to everyone. My points are facts are the same ones I made for years, and they are valid and simple. So if you guys are curious what they are, they are in numerous posts here and on ESB. Simply put. He does not have great wins. His biggest win is Ray, who beat him easily in the rematch. He has a decent lightweight reign, but no big names which were really great to show he engaged with another great for superiority. He was frontrunner at lightweight. A guy who was better than everyone, because they were not that good. His later career is when he fought top fighters (regardless of the fact he has excuses he was old and out of shape) and he lost to all of them, except Ray. And he lost that fight in a rematch where he quit because he was going to lose badly . Yes, he had an exceptional career. But not top 10. Ray had a top 10 career in a 40 fight list. That is how you get top 10. Look at the guys he beat. I honestly believe I have answer point for point what you guys brought up, which is the same stuff I have heard over and over. I wanted more. I wanted you guys to bring up something which proved he was worthy of top 10, and I never heard it, which makes me think I am completely correct in thinking he is overrated if he is to in the top 10 ATG. Top 25 is more accurate.


I also didn't see one person claim Duran was top 10 in this thread. Closest were suggestions that he is 8-12.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> *Duran was beaten be DeJesus at lightweight, but avenged twice.


http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Roberto_Duran_vs._Esteban_De_Jesus_(1st_meeting)

Lightwelterweight.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I'm a young people.


Yeah how old does he think we are? this forum is relatively young compared to the old whackjobs at the old place


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I'm a young people.


You are relatively young compared to me, but you obviously have been into boxing a long time. I don't know your age, but the opinions I hold on Duran I held them at your age. So once you reach even mid 20's, your mind is set more than we like to admit. I am talking about young like maybe 19 who is into boxing, and knows the sport and how it works, but has not build a solid belief in the past yet. So he is taking in both sides and formulating an opinion of who has better facts regarding Duran as either 1-10 ATG as you guys say, or top 25 as I say. My facts are not complex. They are rather simple.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> I also didn't see one person claim Duran was top 10 in this thread. Closest were suggestions that he is 8-12.


8-12 is pretty much skirting the top 10.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Also it's not really Duran at 1-10 ATG.
> It's more like 8-12 ATG
> 
> The other 2 greatest lightweights are also frequently ranked with Duran.
> ...


quality of opposition. Ray did underestimate Duran I will say that, and when he fought his fight that was part of thinking he could beat him no matter what. I remember Oba Carr. Not comparing him to Leonard. But Oba was on a win streak, and then he fights Tito. Knocks him down early like round 2 and you could see him thinking, oh I got him. Well Tito wakes up and dominates after that and stops him. Undefeated guys who are young think they can win easily whenever they want.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> You are relatively young compared to me, but you obviously have been into boxing a long time. I don't know your age, but the opinions I hold on Duran I held them at your age. So once you reach even mid 20's, your mind is set more than we like to admit. I am talking about young like maybe 19 who is into boxing, and knows the sport and how it works, but has not build a solid belief in the past yet. So he is taking in both sides and formulating an opinion of who has better facts regarding Duran as either 1-10 ATG as you guys say, or top 25 as I say. My facts are not complex. They are rather simple.


I actually didn't know much about boxing until like 4 or 5 years ago.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> quality of opposition. Ray did underestimate Duran I will say that, and when he fought his fight that was part of thinking he could beat him no matter what. I remember Oba Carr. Not comparing him to Leonard. But Oba was on a win streak, and then he fights Tito. Knocks him down early like round 2 and you could see him thinking, oh I got him. Well Tito wakes up and dominates after that and stops him. Undefeated guys who are young think they can win easily whenever they want.


Again you're making up shit Leonard "thought" instead of paying attention to what Dundee said, and also pretending like Leonard was so dumb he didn't even try to adjust.

Leonard moved more, Duran was in terrible condition. Why can't you just live with that?


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Yeah how old does he think we are? this forum is relatively young compared to the old whackjobs at the old place


That is funny. I don't know how old you guys are, but you guys know boxing. I give you all credit. Once you are into boxing, you cannot let it go. It stays in you. You guys will be my age before you know it and still talking about Duran. Believe me. I figured you guys are in your mid 20s to 30s.. Now when I was 24, I really was into boxing for years and knew the sport, so I figured you guys have been into it for a long time like I was at the same age. When I was 24, my friend who was a little younger was turning amateur so I trained him. That was complex. There was no net then. I had to buy all these books and check them out of the library and study boxing technique so I could properly train him. Sounds dumb I know. You would not believe how different books and trainers say completely different things about training and defense.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I actually didn't know much about boxing until like 4 or 5 years ago.


Yeah but when you love something like boxing, you can learn quickly. I went from not knowing much one year, to be all into it the next few years. I remember the big thing then was going to a liquor store at lunchtime and eating donuts and a soda and sitting in the parking lot for an hour reading the boxing magazine cover to cover. Nothing better than that. The guy at the store would see me and say "the magazines came in" Because he knew I kept coming in to get them. KO magazine and Ring.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Again you're making up shit Leonard "thought" instead of paying attention to what Dundee said, and also pretending like Leonard was so dumb he didn't even try to adjust.
> 
> Leonard moved more, Duran was in terrible condition. Why can't you just live with that?


terrible condition is just words since he paid to be in shape and if he wasn't I don't know what to say. I just don't buy it. Too many excuses.. I heard the steak and water one a day after the fight. We all watched that fight anticipating he would be in shape. I remember I could not see the screen clear as the fight was going on in Nov. of 1980. I was watching it on UHF where the PPV was scrambled, so I could sort of see a picture, but not clear. I could see Ray moving around but nothing more clear, but he was not fighting. I could tell he was moving, and I would hear the radio announcements between rounds. Then all of sudden I can see Ray get up on the corner post with his hands up -after Duran turned his back. I could just see him on the post but I had no sound and the picture was all distorted, so I didn't know what happened . I found out minutes later and was a little surprised, but not much. I knew Ray could turn that around if he became Sugar Ray. A day later is when the stories of Duran eating 2 steaks and drinking a gallon of water came out. Even at 15 I thought, well that is bummer. He cannot let Ray have his win.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I actually didn't know much about boxing until like 4 or 5 years ago.


Back in the 1980s, one of my good friends was not into sports at all. But he came overall the time to hang out and talk about other things and I would be talking about the the fights, and he slowly got into it, and this guy who was not into any sports got into boxing. After just a year or two we are ordering fights together and into it 100 percent. We went to fights and the Hall of Fame and everything else. He still has all the old boxing magazines, and we talk about the matches all the time. He never let it go. And the fight which got him into boxing was Leonard/Lalonde. It caught his interest. I am not sure why that fight was the one which got him into it. Most people into boxing had one main fight which sort of was their start. They were into it before, but one fight pushed them that step into it.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

My top 5 is something like:

Robinson
Whittaker
Jones 
Armstrong
Duran


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> terrible condition is just words since he paid to be in shape and if he wasn't I don't know what to say. I just don't buy it. Too many excuses.. I heard the steak and water one a day after the fight. We all watched that fight anticipating he would be in shape. I remember I could not see the screen clear as the fight was going on in Nov. of 1980. I was watching it on UHF where the PPV was scrambled, so I could sort of see a picture, but not clear. I could see Ray moving around but nothing more clear, but he was not fighting. I could tell he was moving, and I would hear the radio announcements between rounds. Then all of sudden I can see Ray get up on the corner post with his hands up -after Duran turned his back. I could just see him on the post but I had no sound and the picture was all distorted, so I didn't know what happened . I found out minutes later and was a little surprised, but not much. I knew Ray could turn that around if he became Sugar Ray. A day later is when the stories of Duran eating 2 steaks and drinking a gallon of water came out. Even at 15 I thought, well that is bummer. He cannot let Ray have his win.


What do you mean if he "became Sugar Ray?" He'd never fought so defensively before.

When someone has a bad camp it never comes out until after. 20:45, there's Leonard admitting he knew Duran's habits and wanted to exploit his fatness, and a reporter talking about Duran looking listless and uncoordinated in the final days before the fight. Duran also reveals they hired a doctor who drained him with diuretics and sleeping pills.






If you don't buy it it's more because you choose not to out of steadfast bias against Duran.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Luf said:


> My top 5 is something like:
> 
> Robinson
> Whittaker
> ...


Well you rank exclusively on your own calculation of head to head ability right?


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> What do you mean if he "became Sugar Ray?" He'd never fought so defensively before.
> 
> When someone has a bad camp it never comes out until after. 20:45, there's Leonard admitting he knew Duran's habits and wanted to exploit his fatness, and a reporter talking about Duran looking listless and uncoordinated in the final days before the fight. Duran also reveals they hired a doctor who drained him with diuretics and sleeping pills.
> 
> ...


since we are showing videos. Watch what Ray says about Benitez (18 seconds in) and experience 



 and look at 2:38 of this video. What Ray says about Duran. By the way, those are my videos on youtube. I taped them and put them on there years later. I live in Texas now, but I from California. So I put So cal boxing. I just made up that name.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> since we are showing videos. Watch what Ray says about Benitez (18 seconds in) and experience
> 
> 
> 
> and look at 2:38 of this video. What Ray says about Duran. By the way, those are my videos on youtube. I taped them and put them on there years later. I live in Texas now, but I from California. So I put So cal boxing. I just made up that name.


Leonard says that shit now after the fight. But he failed to adjust. To say he fought Duran's fight just goes against what they said before the fight and what Leonard tried to do early. He tried to deny Duran momentum by keeping him at range on the outside. To say he intentionally fought Duran's fight makes it sound like he voluntarily backed up against the ropes and made it an inside brawl. Nah. And it sounds hollow to hear "Duran 2, that was true Sugar Ray" when it wasn't Leonard's natural style at all.

Although that being said, you haven't addressed anything put forth in the video I provided. Duran looking bad in training, resorting to unhealthy weight-drain tactics, Leonard's own admission of knowing Duran would be in bad shape. Funny how you pick and choose what to believe coming out of Ray's mouth.


----------



## Pimp C (Jun 3, 2013)

Because people love his machismo and he can do no wrong in people's eyes they hype up his wins and down play all of his loses. I think Erik Morales in years will get the same treatment as Duran does now.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Pimp C said:


> Because people love his machismo and he can do no wrong in people's eyes they hype up his wins and down play all of his loses. I think Erik Morales in years will get the same treatment as Duran does now.


He does have a win over a prime Pacman..


----------



## Pimp C (Jun 3, 2013)

dyna said:


> He does have a win over a prime Pacman..


Exactly my point. He will be elevated to some God like ranking because of it and the fact that people love his personality.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

dyna said:


> He does have a win over a prime Pacman..


and prime Barrera


----------



## Knox Harrington (Apr 7, 2014)

As far as atgs go, I don't have a lot of faith in Duran when matched against really good boxers. He repeatedly showed problems dealing with good boxers and took L's that an ATG shouldn't have taken.

I see much less vulnerability in guys like Leonard, Mayweather, Spinks, Jones and others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Leonard says that shit now after the fight. But he failed to adjust. To say he fought Duran's fight just goes against what they said before the fight and what Leonard tried to do early. He tried to deny Duran momentum by keeping him at range on the outside. To say he intentionally fought Duran's fight makes it sound like he voluntarily backed up against the ropes and made it an inside brawl. Nah. And it sounds hollow to hear "Duran 2, that was true Sugar Ray" when it wasn't Leonard's natural style at all.
> 
> Although that being said, you haven't addressed anything put forth in the video I provided. Duran looking bad in training, resorting to unhealthy weight-drain tactics, Leonard's own admission of knowing Duran would be in bad shape. Funny how you pick and choose what to believe coming out of Ray's mouth.


Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.


Right, Ray moved more, Duran looked less sharp, feinted less, looked less coordinated on the ropes.

So he wasn't 230 pounds? He didn't balloon? How do you know this MAG?


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





Bogotazo said:


> What do you mean if he "became Sugar Ray?" He'd never fought so defensively before.
> 
> When someone has a bad camp it never comes out until after. 20:45, there's Leonard admitting he knew Duran's habits and wanted to exploit his fatness, and a reporter talking about Duran looking listless and uncoordinated in the final days before the fight. Duran also reveals they hired a doctor who drained him with diuretics and sleeping pills.
> 
> ...


by the way, I have not seen my video in many years. Leonard's cornerman said, that was Sugar Ray. So.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> by the way, I have not seen my video in many years. Leonard's cornerman said, that was Sugar Ray. So.


But it's an often repeated line that you allude to.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





Bogotazo said:


> Right, Ray moved more, Duran looked less sharp, feinted less, looked less coordinated on the ropes.
> 
> So he wasn't 230 pounds? He didn't balloon? How do you know this MAG?


Let me ask you or other Duran fans. Do you believe all excuses after fights? Or only Duran's excuses? And if only Duran's? Why do you give him that luxury and not other fighters? So in other words the second fight didn't happen? Should they have not paid Duran? He might have ballooned, but he did weigh 230. That right there shows how naive Duran thinks the fans are and how he knows he can put out an excuse and people buy it. That is all I can think. He gained 90 pounds in how much time?? That is just ridiculous. i will accept if he says he went up to 180 or 190.. Maybe. That is the limit.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Chatty said:


> and prime Barrera


and Barrera's original papi Junior Jones, and Chavez, Chi, Zaagoza, Ayala, Kelley etc. his resume is legit. These weren't close fights either these were hammerings.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





Bogotazo said:


> But it's an often repeated line that you allude to.


yes, well his cornerman even said it. That is Sugar Ray. That is showman. That is the boxer. Just an expression. But it symbolized Sugar Ray. The guy who bolo punches and shuffles his feet. Who hits and does not get hit. Like he said, That was the first time a guy went in the water but didn't get wet.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Let me ask you or other Duran fans. Do you believe all excuses after fights? Or only Duran's excuses? And if only Duran's? Why do you give him that luxury and not other fighters? So in other words the second fight didn't happen? Should they have not paid Duran? He might have ballooned, but he did weigh 230. That right there shows how naive Duran thinks the fans are and how he knows he can put out an excuse and people buy it. That is all I can think. He gained 90 pounds in how much time?? That is just ridiculous. i will accept if he says he went up to 180 or 190.. Maybe. That is the limit.


No, not only Duran's, and not all; ones that I can decipher during a performance. Bad camps happen. Injuries happen. Being drained is not some unique concept unknown to boxing and boxing fans. The number isn't important; what is is that numerous reports indicate he was overeating, he ballooned, had to drain, and it showed on fight night. Leonard moved well and adjusted but Leonard's movement didn't make Duran's movements sluggish and uncoordinated. It accentuated that perhaps but it's clear on tape Duran was not in the same shape. It makes no sense to try and deny the combined weight of pre-fight reports, witnesses, and the film footage.

It's not that the second fight didn't happen, it just doesn't have as much weight as the first. As much as that rips right through your perception of Duran, it's how most fight fans feel and not because they love Duran but because when both were undeniably at their best, Leonard couldn't adjust over 15 rounds. A Leonard nobody except you would call green.



MAG1965 said:


> yes, well his cornerman even said it. That is Sugar Ray. That is showman. That is the boxer. Just an expression. But it symbolized Sugar Ray. The guy who bolo punches and shuffles his feet. Who hits and does not get hit. Like he said, That was the first time a guy went in the water but didn't get wet.


And this is exactly the bullshit that apologists espouse. Sugar Ray Leonard was not a slick defensive stylist who ran around the ring. Defensively sound, yes. But he was a boxer-puncher who was a mean finisher and stood in front of his opponents at range to let off his jab and hard combinations. He was not a backfoot guy. So no, that performance does not epitomize Sugar Ray.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

That documentary on Duran does not talk about Benitez, but they talk about Moore and Barkley. It makes sense, but it would be more objective about Duran wins and losses.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





Bogotazo said:


> No, not only Duran's, and not all; ones that I can decipher during a performance. Bad camps happen. Injuries happen. Being drained is not some unique concept unknown to boxing and boxing fans. The number isn't important; what is is that numerous reports indicate he was overeating, he ballooned, had to drain, and it showed on fight night. Leonard moved well and adjusted but Leonard's movement didn't make Duran's movements sluggish and uncoordinated. It accentuated that perhaps but it's clear on tape Duran was not in the same shape. It makes no sense to try and deny the combined weight of pre-fight reports, witnesses, and the film footage.
> 
> It's not that the second fight didn't happen, it just doesn't have as much weight as the first. As much as that rips right through your perception of Duran, it's how most fight fans feel and not because they love Duran but because when both were undeniably at their best, Leonard couldn't adjust over 15 rounds. A Leonard nobody except you would call green.
> 
> And this is exactly the bullshit that apologists espouse. Sugar Ray Leonard was not a slick defensive stylist who ran around the ring. Defensively sound, yes. But he was a boxer-puncher who was a mean finisher and stood in front of his opponents at range to let off his jab and hard combinations. He was not a backfoot guy. So no, that performance does not epitomize Sugar Ray.


I think the second fight is the fight between the real styles. That is why I think Ray comes out ahead every time after that. Duran would not beat Ray again after Montreal. And Benitez beat Duran when Duran had time to train and not overeat and win another title. And he didn't beat him. Only a little over a year after the second Ray fight.

I never bought Duran being out of shape because he said that after each loss-he didn't train well. He overate. Even that 230 thing shows how he is not being truthful.. After a while a pattern came up. He said it everytime he lost. And the thing I heard a day after the fight was not about being out of shape, it was the steak and galllon of water he drank and that he had cramps or something. Everytime he fought he came up with that excuse that he was out of shape. I mean you would get excited about a fight. Benitez/Duran, Hearns/Duran , Leonard/Duran 2 and after he says he was out of shape. These fights are talked about in the magazines, on TV and the fight happens and after the fight after all that time, he was not in shape.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





Bogotazo said:


> No, not only Duran's, and not all; ones that I can decipher during a performance. Bad camps happen. Injuries happen. Being drained is not some unique concept unknown to boxing and boxing fans. The number isn't important; what is is that numerous reports indicate he was overeating, he ballooned, had to drain, and it showed on fight night. Leonard moved well and adjusted but Leonard's movement didn't make Duran's movements sluggish and uncoordinated. It accentuated that perhaps but it's clear on tape Duran was not in the same shape. It makes no sense to try and deny the combined weight of pre-fight reports, witnesses, and the film footage.
> 
> It's not that the second fight didn't happen, it just doesn't have as much weight as the first. As much as that rips right through your perception of Duran, it's how most fight fans feel and not because they love Duran but because when both were undeniably at their best, Leonard couldn't adjust over 15 rounds. A Leonard nobody except you would call green.
> 
> And this is exactly the bullshit that apologists espouse. Sugar Ray Leonard was not a slick defensive stylist who ran around the ring. Defensively sound, yes. But he was a boxer-puncher who was a mean finisher and stood in front of his opponents at range to let off his jab and hard combinations. He was not normally backfoot guy if he didn't need it, but some of his best wins are the wins where he is moving around. He was more lateral, so I cannot say he moved back and all that. Ray fought Duran and Hagler more lateral, yet at times moving back. So no, that performance does not epitomize Sugar Ray.


Ray was versatile. He was not normally a backfoot guy, but he could be anything, He usually was moving laterally, when he moved back he was not as effective if the guy was outjabbing him. Ray had fast hands and good range. Hard to call his fights back foot fights when he boxed. He was not a Hopkins or Mayweather. Against Hearns he was many things, against Duran different things in the two first fights. Benitez inside fighter. Hagler? Very similar to the Duran fight with less hitting on the break and more outright clinching.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Let me ask you or other Duran fans. Do you believe all excuses after fights? Or only Duran's excuses? And if only Duran's? Why do you give him that luxury and not other fighters? So in other words the second fight didn't happen? Should they have not paid Duran? He might have ballooned, but he did weigh 230. That right there shows how naive Duran thinks the fans are and how he knows he can put out an excuse and people buy it. That is all I can think. He gained 90 pounds in how much time?? That is just ridiculous. i will accept if he says he went up to 180 or 190.. Maybe. That is the limit.


And why are you cherry picking Leonard his excuses.

He himself said Duran would be out of shape in the 2nd fight.

You act like Leonard was the only variable, but Duran was also the variable.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





dyna said:


> And why are you cherry picking Leonard his excuses.
> 
> He himself said Duran would be out of shape in the 2nd fight.
> 
> You act like Leonard was the only variable, but Duran was also the variable.


Ray was going to win that second fight no matter what. If he thought Duran was out of shape, that was just one factor of many. Ray was not going to lose, and he was going to fight his fight. If you ask Ray right now and see him somewhere, ask him was there anyway you would lose to Duran in the rematch? I bet he would say No way.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

I cannot say Ray was a backfoot guy. He could fight that way, but it was more lateral and when he needed it. By lateral I don't mean he was pivoting off the rear foot, since Ray could move laterally side to side. It was something most fighters cannot do. He did with Duran in the rematch. Styles make fights. Really upset Hagler when Ray did that because Hagler could not corner him at times.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Ray was going to win that second fight no matter what. If he thought Duran was out of shape, that was just one factor of many. Ray was not going to lose, and he was going to fight his fight. If you ask Ray right now and see him somewhere, ask him was there anyway you would lose to Duran in the rematch? I bet he would say No way.


Ask Duran right now and see him somewhere, ask him was there anyway you would lose to Leonard in the rematch provided you had the same motivation as the first match?

I bet he would say No way.

Goes both ways.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> I cannot say Ray was a backfoot guy. He could fight that way, but it was more lateral and when he needed it. He did with Duran in the rematch. Styles make fights.


Because boxing a prime Duran went so well for Buchanan right?


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





dyna said:


> Ask Duran right now and see him somewhere, ask him was there anyway you would lose to Leonard in the rematch provided you had the same motivation as the first match?
> 
> I bet he would say No way.
> 
> Goes both ways.


whose answer matters more? Duran lost the rematch easily. Ray was not going to lose that fight.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





dyna said:


> Because boxing a prime Duran went so well for Buchanan right?


you guys are picking prime as earlier than they really are. Duran was prime in 1972?? I would pick his prime about 1978. Actualy near Palomino whenver that was. 1979?


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> whose answer matters more? Duran lost the rematch easily. Ray was not going to lose that fight.


The only time they were both in their best shape, Duran won.

That either man was going to win the rematch provided Duran didn't lose his motivation is pure speculation.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> *I think the second fight is the fight between the real styles.* That is why I think Ray comes out ahead every time after that. Duran would not beat Ray again after Montreal. And Benitez beat Duran when Duran had time to train and not overeat and win another title. And he didn't beat him. Only a little over a year after the second Ray fight.
> 
> I never bought Duran being out of shape because he said that after each loss-he didn't train well. He overate. Even that 230 thing shows how he is not being truthful.. After a while a pattern came up. He said it everytime he lost. And the thing I heard a day after the fight was not about being out of shape, it was the steak and galllon of water he drank and that he had cramps or something. Everytime he fought he came up with that excuse that he was out of shape. I mean you would get excited about a fight. Benitez/Duran, Hearns/Duran , Leonard/Duran 2 and after he says he was out of shape. These fights are talked about in the magazines, on TV and the fight happens and after the fight after all that time, he was not in shape.


And that's why nobody agrees with you. Duran being in terrible condition isn't his style, neither is Leonard hopping around. Benitez, Hearns, Mayweather, LaLonde, every bout except Hagler, Leonard was not a defensive backfoot boxer. He made an adjustment, but Duran was out of shape. It's well documented, you just don't want to believe it because you're obsessed with devaluing him.

Benitez was at 154. By then Duran was past his best. Do we again need to bring up the fact that Duran had more fights than anyone else in the fab 4 by the time he fought Leonard the first time?


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

dyna said:


> The only time they were both in their best shape, Duran won.
> 
> That either man was going to win the rematch provided Duran didn't lose his motivation is pure speculation.


Exactly. We'll never know.

The first fight matters more. Live with it MAG. Just let it go.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





dyna said:


> The only time they were both in their best shape, Duran won.
> 
> That either man was going to win the rematch provided Duran didn't lose his motivation is pure speculation.


so now Duran was in shape, when usually you guys say he was above his best weight? Fact is Ray fought Duran's fight. The rematch he fought his fight and used his speed and legs, something Duran could not match. And Ray won easily. If Duran beat the best Ray there was he woud not have lost so easily. That second fight proved a lot. It was everything. Ray won the series of fights and he stood out. And then a year later Duran did not beat Benitez. Winning the 154 pound title in January of 1982 was not enough motivation for Duran to get in a shape and show people the second fight was history? Believe me, I know people think Duran beating Moore was important, but had he beaten a great like Wilfred at 154, it would have been much more significant.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> whose answer matters more? Duran lost the rematch easily. Ray was not going to lose that fight.


I think you should conceed that Duran wasn't exactly in the best shape for that fight (fuck his excuses for a second). He certainly wasn't in good condition against Benitez either. I saw a pretty sluggish Duran, and I remember SRL on commentary making the same comment. Duran can't be the same Duran over 15, considerably against Benitez. 
It reminds me of Fighting Harada who used to come into his fights in pretty poor condition sometimes, FH's style was such that fitness etc. was important.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> *so now Duran was in shape, when usually you guys say he was above his best weight*? Fact is Ray fought Duran's fight. The rematch he fought his fight and used his speed and legs, something Duran could not match. And Ray won easily. If Duran beat the best Ray there was he woud not have lost so easily. That second fight proved a lot. It was everything. Ray won the series of fights and he stood out. And then a year later Duran did not beat Benitez. Winning the 154 pound title in January of 1982 was not enough motivation for Duran to get in a shape and show people the second fight was history? Believe me, I know people think Duran beating Moore was important, but had he beaten a great like Wilfred at 154, it would have been much more significant.


So you can't be in shape and above his best weight?


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





Bogotazo said:


> Exactly. We'll never know.
> 
> The first fight matters more. Live with it MAG. Just let it go.


It cannot mean more. Ray fought a beautiful fight and used his legs and speed and skills. We cannot discount a great fighters great performance because Duran is out of shape. If we do that, we don't give credit to the fighters who beat him. And guess what. That is what happened. Somehow Benitez,Hearns,Leonard and even Hagler are not given credit. Because Duran said he was out of shape, or in the Hagler case people say he did so well. Roldan knocked down Hagler and pushed him around more than Duran ever did. Duran was a long fight, but not a physical fight. Hearns hit Hagler more than anyone ever did besides Mugabi, which was a contributory factor of the Hearns fight and a year off from 1985-1986.


----------



## Rockinghorseshit (Oct 4, 2013)

Well I'm late back to this thread but let me guess, folks are still claiming Duran was shot after No Mas? His manager and Arcel already said there were no issues with stomach cramps, Leonard was the better man the 2nd time around.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





The Undefeated Gaul said:


> I think you should conceed that Duran wasn't exactly in the best shape for that fight (fuck his excuses for a second). He certainly wasn't in good condition against Benitez either. I saw a pretty sluggish Duran, and I remember SRL on commentary making the same comment. Duran can't be the same Duran over 15, considerably against Benitez.
> It reminds me of Fighting Harada who used to come into his fights in pretty poor condition sometimes, FH's style was such that fitness etc. was important.


how can I concede to someones common excuses. Duran expected people to be naive, and even at that young age I saw it for what it was. Just an excuse. and when he lost he kept up with this out of shape thing. Like that documentary. Benitez used to say he only trained a few days for fights. Doesn't matter. They signed the fight and I assume everyone is in shape. I never bought Hearns excuse about having a massage on his legs before the Hagler fight, so he had to brawl. He signed the fight.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

They're given enough credit.

Also why should Hagler get credit for beating an ex lightweight?
Everybody would laugh at Golovkin if he went 12 with Broner.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





dyna said:


> So you can't be in shape and above his best weight?


how many fighters have the perfect conditions for fights and fight exactly where they should? Hagler maybe? Duran had trouble making weight for years. Hearns fought more than twice the fights he had at professional out of the welterweight class. 33 at welterweight,8 junior middle ,6 at middleweight,3 at supermiddleweight, 8 at lightheavyweight, 9 at cruiserweight.. Just for an example. Holyfield fought 30 of his fights at heavyweight. Duran was good at welterweight. He moved up to a great division with many great fighters, so the level of even the top 10 was pretty good.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





dyna said:


> They're given enough credit.
> 
> Also why should Hagler get credit for beating an ex lightweight?
> Everybody would laugh at Golovkin if he went 12 with Broner.


I don't know if he should get much credit, although as Duran fans say, he beat Davey Moore at 154 months before, and say Hagler was a small middleweight, so in reality maybe Hagler vs. Duran was not so far off as far as size. Look at the introductions and see how close in size Duran is to Hagler. He was not a little guy.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> It cannot mean more. Ray fought a beautiful fight and used his legs and speed and skills. We cannot discount a great fighters great performance because Duran is out of shape. If we do that, we don't give credit to the fighters who beat him. And guess what. That is what happened. Somehow Benitez,Hearns,Leonard and even Hagler are not given credit. Because Duran said he was out of shape, or in the Hagler case people say he did so well. Roldan knocked down Hagler and pushed him around more than Duran ever did. Duran was a long fight, but not a physical fight. Hearns hit Hagler more than anyone ever did besides Mugabi, which was a contributory factor of the Hearns fight and a year off from 1985-1986.


But it does, because both were at their best in the first meeting. Ray deserves credit for adjusting in the second, but Duran looked sluggish and out of shape, because he was. And it wasn't really "beautiful", it was skittish and unengaging and frustrating to watch.

This isn't about Hearns and Benitez and Leonard and Hagler not getting credit, they get it, because even a badly conditioned or past-prime Duran is still a force to be reckoned with, but the pain of the losses is diminished for Duran somewhat, as happens with all past-prime fighters.

Duran's physical shape for the second fight is far more believable than your speculations about Leonard's naive mental state (despite having already beaten Benitez, invalidating any arguments about greenness). And it's not Duran fans only. This is consensus opinion.

Leonard moved more, Duran was not in shape. Period. Live with it.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





dyna said:


> They're given enough credit.
> 
> Also why should Hagler get credit for beating an ex lightweight?
> Everybody would laugh at Golovkin if he went 12 with Broner.


lets put it more in context. Broner is not a Duran level. Let's say GGG could fight Mayweather and beat him. Not a bad win. Cotto is middleweight champ and he won his first title at the same weight Benitez did, a weight class above Duran's start.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> how can I concede to someones common excuses. Duran expected people to be naive, and even at that young age I saw it for what it was. Just an excuse. and when he lost he kept up with this out of shape thing. Like that documentary. Benitez used to say he only trained a few days for fights. Doesn't matter. They signed the fight and I assume everyone is in shape. I never bought Hearns excuse about having a massage on his legs before the Hagler fight, so he had to brawl. He signed the fight.


No that's not really accurate. Duran came into fights at different weights, he was noticeably different fight-to-fight and you've disregarded how Duran looked in the Benitez fight just now and not just mine but SRL's opinion of Duran (as well as the other commentators). Benitez used to barely train, sure, but he used to barely train for all of his fights - 'Benitez didn't train for fights' is a red-herring.

I don't think it's ever a strategic decision to blow up like a fat pigeon to the extent that he did, after fights. The accumulative effect of that is damaging, Hatton in recent years experienced the same, and the funny thing is, despite the strong accumulative effect, Duran yet competed at world championship level at middleweight :lol: so again your view is very farfetched on another point.

'They signed the fight and I assume everyone is in shape' - You shouldn't feel comfortable to fallaciously respond like this.

I don't know why you're mentioning Hearns.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





Bogotazo said:


> But it does, because both were at their best in the first meeting. Ray deserves credit for adjusting in the second, but Duran looked sluggish and out of shape, because he was. And it wasn't really "beautiful", it was skittish and unengaging and frustrating to watch.
> 
> This isn't about Hearns and Benitez and Leonard and Hagler not getting credit, they get it, because even a badly conditioned or past-prime Duran is still a force to be reckoned with, but the pain of the losses is diminished for Duran somewhat, as happens with all past-prime fighters.
> 
> ...


Duran's people were good at public relations back in 1980 and later. He says he was out of shape and people believed him. I heard him say it too much after all his losses to think he was as valid as others. If it was one fight like Kirkland Laing I would say maybe, but everytime he lost. Then he gets in shape for Moore and Barkley? Those guys were not as versatile as the greats.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

@PityTheFool The Gaul's days are over very shortly (matter of days). Now is just the last hurrah.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Duran's people were good at public relations back in 1980 and later. He says he was out of shape and people believed him. I heard him say it too much after all his losses to think he was as valid as others. If it was one fight like Kirkland Laing I would say maybe, but everytime he lost. Then he gets in shape for Moore and Barkley? Those guys were not as versatile as the greats.


He clearly got up for Hagler, and he was past his best at 154. No verbal excuses needed.

Did you not hear the reporter talking about how Duran looked listless and uncoordinated in training? Did you not see Duran looking uninspired on the bag? You're obsessed with denying Duran was out of shape in order to make Leonard's gameplan look like the easy blueprint for the "overrated" Duran.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> No that's not really accurate. Duran came into fights at different weights, he was noticeably different fight-to-fight and you've disregarded how Duran looked in the Benitez fight just now and not just mine but SRL's opinion of Duran (as well as the other commentators). Benitez used to barely train, sure, but he used to barely train for all of his fights - 'Benitez didn't train for fights' is a red-herring.
> 
> I don't think it's ever a strategic decision to blow up like a fat pigeon to the extent that he did, after fights. The accumulative effect of that is damaging, Hatton in recent years experienced the same, and the funny thing is, despite the strong accumulative effect, Duran yet competed at world championship level at middleweight :lol: so again your view is very farfetched on another point.
> 
> ...


Actually Benitez lost the Hearns fight because he trained for it.
I've read a Steward quote about that. :lol:

Also Benitez his not training, didn't damage him that much because he didn't blow up like Duran. He didn't eat like a fatass so weight loss wasn't a problem for him.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





The Undefeated Gaul said:


> No that's not really accurate. Duran came into fights at different weights, he was noticeably different fight-to-fight and you've disregarded how Duran looked in the Benitez fight just now and not just mine but SRL's opinion of Duran (as well as the other commentators). Benitez used to barely train, sure, but he used to barely train for all of his fights - 'Benitez didn't train for fights' is a red-herring.
> 
> I don't think it's ever a strategic decision to blow up like a fat pigeon to the extent that he did, after fights. The accumulative effect of that is damaging, Hatton in recent years experienced the same, and the funny thing is, despite the strong accumulative effect, Duran yet competed at world championship level at middleweight :lol: so again your view is very farfetched on another point.
> 
> ...


why is Benitez not training a red herring but Duran's is believable? Maybe in Duran's case to take away from the fact that he really lost. And the fact Duran said it after losses. Somehow Duran trained for lesser guys. Benitez used to say that after wins and losses yes. So it sees more legit, and he was naturally defensivefighter. Duran saying he was 230 after Montreal is ridiculous. So he was fighting above his weight of 135 when he weighed in at 147, but he could get to 230 between fights and weigh more the Larry Holmes or Joe Frazier at the time. I don't know what Frazier's weight was for Jumbo Cummings in 1982, but it was probably below that. Either way if Duran made up the 230 weight or not. One way it shows he is not truthful about the weights, or it shows he was not as small a man as people think. Even if he was 180 between fights, that was more than Hagler,Hearns,Leonard or Benitez ever weighed between fights at the time.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





Bogotazo said:


> He clearly got up for Hagler, and he was past his best at 154. No verbal excuses needed.
> 
> Did you not hear the reporter talking about how Duran looked listless and uncoordinated in training? Did you not see Duran looking uninspired on the bag? You're obsessed with denying Duran was out of shape in order to make Leonard's gameplan look like the easy blueprint for the "overrated" Duran.


Simple, Hagler was in his range, and if you are in Duran's range, that is what Duran is great at. Duran was clipping him with the right hand all night. Duran lost the fight, and at the ending of the fight, Hagler just pored it on a little and won. That fight was not a war, it was what Duran wanted. It was a tactical fight, and when Hagler fought it too close after expecting a different fight from Duran, he pored it on and won the later rounds. Hagler also said later he was conscious of Duran's thumb after seeing the Moore fight.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





dyna said:


> Actually Benitez lost the Hearns fight because he trained for it.
> I've read a Steward quote about that. :lol:
> 
> Also Benitez his not training, didn't damage him that much because he didn't blow up like Duran. He didn't eat like a fatass so weight loss wasn't a problem for him.


Benitez was great with Hearns, but Tommy was also great in that fight. But Tommy controlled him with his jab. Tommy couldn't land the right on him. He was too elusive, then when he almost got close, he hit Benitez head awkwardly and hurt his right hand and had to box the rest of the fight. Probably smarter. Benitez had knocked out Maurice Hope with a right hand a year before, so people knew he tried to trick people into thinking he couldnt punch.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> why is Benitez not training a red herring but Duran's is believable? Maybe in Duran's case to take away from the fact that he really lost. And the fact Duran said it after losses. Somehow Duran trained for lesser guys. Benitez used to say that after wins and losses yes. So it sees more legit, and he was naturally defensivefighter. Duran saying he was 230 after Montreal is ridiculous. So he was fighting above his weight of 135 when he weighed in at 147, but he could get to 230 between fights and weigh more the Larry Holmes or Joe Frazier at the time. I don't know what Frazier's weight was for Jumbo Cummings in 1982, but it was probably below that. Either way if Duran made up the 230 weight or not. One way it shows he is not truthful about the weights, or it shows he was not as small a man as people think. Even if he was 180 between fights, that was more than Hagler,Hearns,Leonard or Benitez ever weighed between fights at the time.


3 of the heaviest people in the world were only 5 ft 7.
They were all 1100 lbs+ at their peak.
You don't need to be big to be a fat ass whale, you just need to eat a lot.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> Well you rank exclusively on your own calculation of head to head ability right?


yeah man.

Can't remember the next few off top of my head but Leonard, Hagler and Hearns are all in my top 15 somewhere.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Simple, Hagler was in his range, and if you are in Duran's range, that is what Duran is great at. Duran was clipping him with the right hand all night. Duran lost the fight, and at the ending of the fight, Hagler just pored it on a little and won. That fight was not a war, it was what Duran wanted. It was a tactical fight, and when Hagler fought it too close after expecting a different fight from Duran, he pored it on and won the later rounds. Hagler also said later he was conscious of Duran's thumb after seeing the Moore fight.


This doesn't really pertain to the two fights with Leonard. In the second, Duran was in bad shape and Leonard moved more. Leonard deserves credit for the adjustment, but the asterik makes the first fight worth more. This is consensus opinion for a reason.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





dyna said:


> 3 of the heaviest people in the world were only 5 ft 7.
> They were all 1100 lbs+ at their peak.
> You don't need to be big to be a fat ass whale, you just need to eat a lot.


Duran is a professional fighter. Duran did not weigh 230 in 1980. That is not the truth. That is a big exaggeration by about 50 pounds.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Actually Benitez lost the Hearns fight because he trained for it.
> I've read a Steward quote about that. :lol:
> 
> Also Benitez his not training, didn't damage him that much because he didn't blow up like Duran. He didn't eat like a fatass so weight loss wasn't a problem for him.


:lol: tbh with Hearn's style, it was good enough that Benitez got through to the end. A tall rangey dude who wouldn't allow Benitez to get on the inside as it is, and I actually think Benitez was a little past it. Benitez did make Hearns miss quite niceeeely by the ropes though.

Good point about Benitez's weight.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





Bogotazo said:


> This doesn't really pertain to the two fights with Leonard. In the second, Duran was in bad shape and Leonard moved more. Leonard deserves credit for the adjustment, but the asterik makes the first fight worth more. This is consensus opinion for a reason.


public relations is very powerful. I will never buy it. I saw Ray change his tactics and move his feet and keep the distance and when it did get close with him on the ropes, he flurried off and moved to the side and did it again. From round one on. I don't think my opinion is as rare as people think. I saw Duran make excuses for years when he lost. He beat Moore in 1983, and Barkley in 1989, but had that been Tommy Hearns in the ring with him at MSG he would have lost probably by 5th or 6th round TKO. I don't think in 1989 Hearns was as sharp as 1984, so I don't think he would have knocked him out in 2. But the jab would have been a problem and he was still faster.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





The Undefeated Gaul said:


> :lol: tbh with Hearn's style, it was good enough that Benitez got through to the end. A tall rangey dude who wouldn't allow Benitez to get on the inside as it is, and I actually think Benitez was a little past it. Benitez did make Hearns miss quite niceeeely by the ropes though.
> 
> Good point about Benitez's weight.


I sometimes think 154 was Benitez best weight. He was more relaxed, had more confidence in his power after Maurice Hope. Really outboxed Duran in a nice fight over 15 rounds,, I think he had a title defense between Hearns and Duran in the summer of 1982, then lost to Hearns, but didn't take a beating at all. Yeah Benitez made Hearns miss with body punches. It was amazing to see. The problem with Benitez was he lost his title. After one fight, he moved up and fought Hamsho. A terrible style for anyone. Sort of maybe like Maidana a little, but just a rough guy and not for Benitez at all, and by that point, somehow that fight at 160 took something out of Benitez which he gained at 154. Confidence.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> public relations is very powerful. I will never buy it. I saw Ray change his tactics and move his feet and keep the distance and when it did get close with him on the ropes, he flurried off and moved to the side and did it again. From round one on. I don't think my opinion is as rare as people think. I saw Duran make excuses for years when he lost. He beat Moore in 1983, and Barkley in 1989, but had that been Tommy Hearns in the ring with him at MSG he would have lost probably by 5th or 6th round TKO. I don't think in 1989 Hearns was as sharp as 1984, so I don't think he would have knocked him out in 2. But the jab would have been a problem and he was still faster.


So Leonard's excuses for the first are valid, Duran's for the second aren't. Gotcha.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> why is Benitez not training a red herring but Duran's is believable? Maybe in Duran's case to take away from the fact that he really lost. And the fact Duran said it after losses. Somehow Duran trained for lesser guys. Benitez used to say that after wins and losses yes. So it sees more legit, and he was naturally defensivefighter. Duran saying he was 230 after Montreal is ridiculous. So he was fighting above his weight of 135 when he weighed in at 147, but he could get to 230 between fights and weigh more the Larry Holmes or Joe Frazier at the time. I don't know what Frazier's weight was for Jumbo Cummings in 1982, but it was probably below that. Either way if Duran made up the 230 weight or not. One way it shows he is not truthful about the weights, or it shows he was not as small a man as people think. Even if he was 180 between fights, that was more than Hagler,Hearns,Leonard or Benitez ever weighed between fights at the time.


In short, because we have the tapes to watch for ourselves to see the extent of how good they were relative to their previous performances. Duran did lose, it was a good fight though. Duran wasn't really meant to be at 154lbs in the first place, honestly. From what I can remember a pretty close fight + 154lbs + Duran looking in pretty bad condition vs a Top ATG = that's a good performance. A loss isn't just a loss. The manner of the loss is important to consider tbh.

:lol: Duran was never 230lbs, the only people who would really believe that are the Duran-worshipping Panamanian villagers.

I wouldn't get so hung up on what Duran said he weighed, Duran looking as he did between fights is more than enough, the exact figure is unnecessary.

The others kept themselves in shape, but with Duran, he just piled on FAT. Making weight for fights themselves were not easy - so the fact that he weighed more than the fighters you mentioned emphasises that even with Duran's decent performances, it's reasonable to say that he lost a part of himself trying to make weight for his fights.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Didn't Ray say the same "shit" about knowing Duran would indulge himself? Duran weighed 230 after Montreal? No. that is nonsense. If you are saying Leonard says this stuff after the fight, well then it is Ray's word against Duran's word or whomevers. It is all said after the fact. But we have the 2 fights to compare, and Ray moved in the second fight. He was the variable.





Bogotazo said:


> So Leonard's excuses for the first are valid, Duran's for the second aren't. Gotcha.


the second fight shows that the first fight explanation about fighting Duran's fight are valid. He reversed the result.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> I sometimes think 154 was Benitez best weight. He was more relaxed, had more confidence in his power after Maurice Hope. Really outboxed Duran in a nice fight over 15 rounds,, I think he had a title defense between Hearns and Duran in the summer of 1982, then lost to Hearns, but didn't take a beating at all. Yeah Benitez made Hearns miss with body punches. It was amazing to see. The problem with Benitez was he lost his title. After one fight, he moved up and fought Hamsho. A terrible style for anyone. Sort of maybe like Maidana a little, but just a rough guy and not for Benitez at all, and by that point, somehow that fight at 160 took something out of Benitez which he gained at 154. Confidence.


If you think Benitez was at his best at 154lbs in general, then that makes Duran's loss against him look even better. Which one is it? :lol: 
It was a nice fight but I was dissappointed tbh, no one wants to see a pretty soft and pudgy looking Duran who didn't look to have the sharpness of his previous fights. 
Yeah I agree with the latter part of your comment.


----------



## Leftsmash (Oct 22, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> :deal MAG is full of grace.


MAG is a legend.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> the second fight shows that the first fight explanation about fighting Duran's fight are valid. He reversed the result.


Ah, so the second fight doesn't validate Duran's because the result was different? How convenient for you.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MAG1965 said:


> the second fight shows that the first fight explanation about fighting Duran's fight are valid. He reversed the result.


or the first fight explains Durans conditioning in the second, its an argument could swing both ways, probably a bit of both for both.

Sent from my LT30p using Tapatalk


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Seriously though, MAG has 137 posts in this thread.
@Bogotazo is second with 47.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> Seriously though, MAG has 137 posts in this thread.
> 
> @Bogotazo is second with 47.


:rofl

I didn't even think I had that many but damn MAG.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> :rofl
> 
> I didn't even think I had that many but damn MAG.


"'I didn't want to comment here and someone mentioned me. I am not sure how that worked since I had not commented here yet."


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> "'I didn't want to comment here and someone mentioned me. I am not sure how that worked since I had not commented here yet."


"So here I go, I'll just post over a hundred times saying the same regurgitated bullshit."


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> "'I didn't want to comment here and someone mentioned me. I am not sure how that worked since I had not commented here yet."


:rofl:rofl:rofl


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> So Leonard's excuses for the first are valid, Duran's for the second aren't. Gotcha.


You're pushing it a little here baby!
Leonard's excuses aren't really comparable to Duran's in the second.Leonard stood and fought for 15 rounds and gained the respect of many who slated him before.
Duran turned his back in the middle of a fight where he was being more embarrassed than hurt in what was at the time,one of the most shameful incidents in the history of the sport.

And as the great intellectual giant Forrest Gump once said,"And that's all I have to say about that."


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

PityTheFool said:


> You're pushing it a little here baby!
> Leonard's excuses aren't really comparable to Duran's in the second.Leonard stood and fought for 15 rounds and gained the respect of many who slated him before.
> Duran turned his back in the middle of a fight where he was being more embarrassed than hurt in what was at the time,one of the most shameful incidents in the history of the sport.
> 
> And as the great intellectual giant Forrest Gump once said,"And that's all I have to say about that."


That is all true.

I just watched the 30 for 30, pretty great movie considering the topic has been done to death.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> That is all true.
> 
> I just watched the 30 for 30, pretty great movie considering the topic has been done to death.


Is that the first you've seen it? 
I almost wanked myself to death when I heard it was coming out!
That was an opportunity missed by Cholo,although I was very impressed by both guys for the most part.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

PityTheFool said:


> Is that the first you've seen it?
> I almost wanked myself to death when I heard it was coming out!
> That was an opportunity missed by Cholo,although I was very impressed by both guys for the most part.


I recorded it and then it erased and I forgot about it. This thread inspired me to hunt it down and watch it after I'd forgotten.

I agree, both men carried themselves well but Duran could have said more.

I have this weird feeling Duran is saving a big reveal for the upcoming movie. He's said in past interviews he's saving his real story for the big screen, it can't be the same old stomach cramps stuff (or hell it might be, it's Hollywood). But I don't know, I have a sneaking suspicion he might reveal a fix. Which is not my actual thoughts but with this in mind I can't think of what else it would be. The movie is advertising itself around revealing the "No Mas" secret, would they do that just to talk about drinking hot coffee (or two hot steaks and a glass of cold water)??


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> "'I didn't want to comment here and someone mentioned me. I am not sure how that worked since I had not commented here yet."


:lol:

I actually have 47 posts ops


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I recorded it and then it erased and I forgot about it. This thread inspired me to hunt it down and watch it after I'd forgotten.
> 
> I agree, both men carried themselves well but Duran could have said more.
> 
> I have this weird feeling Duran is saving a big reveal for the upcoming movie. He's said in past interviews he's saving his real story for the big screen, it can't be the same old stomach cramps stuff (or hell it might be, it's Hollywood). But I don't know, I have a sneaking suspicion he might reveal a fix. Which is not my actual thoughts but with this in mind I can't think of what else it would be. The movie is advertising itself around revealing the "No Mas" secret, would they do that just to talk about drinking hot coffee (or two hot steaks and a glass of cold water)??


What do you think it could be? They'll need to be paying him a shitload of money to say something different after 34 years.
Whatever it is,there's nothing that is acceptable that he needed to hide until now.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Still waiting for MAG to tell us Ezzard Charles and Langford's starting weights :think


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Langford never managed to capture a world title, he's irrelevant.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

PityTheFool said:


> What do you think it could be? They'll need to be paying him a shitload of money to say something different after 34 years.
> Whatever it is,there's nothing that is acceptable that he needed to hide until now.


I think if it's going to be anything new, it might be some sort of coercion/intimidation to throw the fight for a trilogy type of thing. I mean he did look like he was actually trying, but then again fixed fights were never readily discernable.


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

dyna said:


> Langford never managed to capture a world title, he's irrelevant.


:lol:


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

dyna said:


> Langford never managed to capture a world title, he's irrelevant.


Langford weighed 0 lbs and beat heavyweights. The GOAT


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Langford weighed 0 lbs and beat heavyweights. The GOAT


:rofl


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

So funny I just watched the 30 for 30 after being in this thread right around this date. From Sugar Ray's facebook:

*"That name, 'Manos de Piedra', is true, Hands of Stone. Every punch&#8230; felt like bricks, stone, rocks. He knocked my teeth back&#8230; he was just so possessed. He was a demon."

#FlashbackFriday 33 years ago today. #SugarRayDuran*


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I think if it's going to be anything new, it might be some sort of coercion/intimidation to throw the fight for a trilogy type of thing. I mean he did look like he was actually trying, but then again fixed fights were never readily discernable.


I really don't appreciate the passive-aggression in your posts babygirl.
There's a real undercurrent of taking every little bit of credit you can away from Ray.

Got a real bad feeling that those who said we would never work because I'm a proud African/Mexican American and you're Latino-American might have had a point.
I don't want the honeymoon period to be over but I'm not liking where you're going with this.:verysad


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> :rofl
> 
> I didn't even think I had that many but damn MAG.


I have 137? Oh boy. Come to think of it I have 138 now. How did I do that? I would have thought more like 40 or 50.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> :rofl
> 
> I didn't even think I had that many but damn MAG.





Bogotazo said:


> :rofl:rofl:rofl


I'm glad I can amuse you, Bogo. Being able to make people smile and laugh is a valuable trait.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> :rofl
> 
> I didn't even think I had that many but damn MAG.





PityTheFool said:


> I really don't appreciate the passive-aggression in your posts babygirl.
> There's a real undercurrent of taking every little bit of credit you can away from Ray.
> 
> Got a real bad feeling that those who said we would never work because I'm a proud African/Mexican American and you're Latino-American might have had a point.
> I don't want the honeymoon period to be over but I'm not liking where you're going with this.:verysad


I'm fairly certain Bogo thinks the world of Leonard both in terms of record and ability outside of Duran debates. By his own criteria, he's probably gotta be a Top 10 ATG on his list.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

@Bogotazo what is your Top 10, better if you can do Top 15 all time.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> @Bogotazo what is your Top 10, better if you can do Top 15 all time.


I don't have a top 10 because I haven't evaluated the eras that the consensus top 10 have fought in. Guys like Langford, Greb, Tunney, even Robinson, I haven't sat down to watch who the top contenders were and evaluate their performances. I've done that with the modern fab 4, the original fab 4, Ali's heavyweight era, the 90's crew, the 80's and 70's, but anything before 1960 I'm pretty ignorant of.



Hands of Iron said:


> I'm fairly certain Bogo thinks the world of Leonard both in terms of record and ability outside of Duran debates. By his own criteria, he's probably gotta be a Top 10 ATG on his list.


Oh hell yeah, Leonard is arguably above Duran. Leonard is incredible. He should be treated as godly as Duran is. Not the same savage defensive-offensive whirlwind of counters and combinations, but a ferocious combination of blinding speed and power packed into one of the most classic styles I've ever seen.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

PityTheFool said:


> I really don't appreciate the passive-aggression in your posts babygirl.
> There's a real undercurrent of taking every little bit of credit you can away from Ray.
> 
> Got a real bad feeling that those who said we would never work because I'm a proud African/Mexican American and you're Latino-American might have had a point.
> I don't want the honeymoon period to be over but I'm not liking where you're going with this.:verysad


Leonard absolutely deserves credit for adjusting the 2nd fight. This is based purely on the nature of the movie promotion. Duran's performance doesn't suggest at all he threw the fight.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Leonard absolutely deserves credit for adjusting the 2nd fight. This is based purely on the nature of the movie promotion. Duran's performance doesn't suggest at all he threw the fight.


You're on the sofa tonight!:ibutt


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

PityTheFool said:


> You're on the sofa tonight!:ibutt


smh one of those nights.

Don't worry folks we're fine, he just gets like this.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I don't have a top 10 because I haven't evaluated the eras that the consensus top 10 have fought in. Guys like Langford, Greb, Tunney, even Robinson, I haven't sat down to watch who the top contenders were and evaluate their performances. I've done that with the modern fab 4, the original fab 4, Ali's heavyweight era, the 90's crew, the 80's and 70's, but anything before 1960 I'm pretty ignorant of.
> 
> Oh hell yeah, Leonard is arguably above Duran. Leonard is incredible. He should be treated as godly as Duran is. Not the same savage defensive-offensive whirlwind of counters and combinations, but a ferocious combination of blinding speed and power packed into one of the most classic styles I've ever seen.


Oh man you're going to have a great time. The old timers I prefer. The richness of the history, the eras etc. just a great journey. I'm personally going to start concentrating on them again. I just cant get myself to watch a lot of the 80's i.e Nunn etc. and Curry etc. 
Leonard and Duran on people's lists are only a few places apart. If people had Duran around 14th, I wouldn't really have a problem depending on how they analysed him. SRL for me is 12th-15th.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> I recorded it and then it erased and I forgot about it. This thread inspired me to hunt it down and watch it after I'd forgotten.
> 
> I agree, both men carried themselves well but Duran could have said more.
> 
> *I have this weird feeling Duran is saving a big reveal for the upcoming movie. He's said in past interviews he's saving his real story for the big screen, it can't be the same old stomach cramps stuff* (or hell it might be, it's Hollywood). But I don't know, I have a sneaking suspicion he might reveal a fix. Which is not my actual thoughts but with this in mind I can't think of what else it would be. The movie is advertising itself around revealing the "No Mas" secret, would they do that just to talk about drinking hot coffee (or two hot steaks and a glass of cold water)??


Maybe he fell in love and it wasn't stomach cramps but butterflies?


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

dyna said:


> Maybe he fell in love and it wasn't stomach cramps but butterflies?


:rofl Maybe. That would be awesome.Makes me view that last moment in the 30 for 30 doc in a whole new light :lol:


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/onthisday?source=feed_text&story_id=10152541896574271


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

O fuck it's June 20th!!! :happy :jjj


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Oh man you're going to have a great time. The old timers I prefer. The richness of the history, the eras etc. just a great journey. I'm personally going to start concentrating on them again. I just cant get myself to watch a lot of the 80's i.e Nunn etc. and Curry etc.
> Leonard and Duran on people's lists are only a few places apart. If people had Duran around 14th, I wouldn't really have a problem depending on how they analysed him. SRL for me is 12th-15th.


I hate the old times. How the fuck was ROCKY GRAZIANO a Middleweight fucking champion but Holman Williams never was. :twisted


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> I hate the old times. How the fuck was ROCKY GRAZIANO a Middleweight fucking champion but Holman Williams never was. :twisted


What about him?


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

dyna said:


> What about him?


I'm mad enough!


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Langford weighed 0 lbs and beat heavyweights. The GOAT





turbotime said:


> Still waiting for MAG to tell us Ezzard Charles and Langford's starting weights :think





dyna said:


> Langford never managed to capture a world title, he's irrelevant.





Bogotazo said:


> :rofl





MAG1965 said:


> I have 137? Oh boy. Come to think of it I have 138 now. How did I do that? I would have thought more like 40 or 50.


:smug


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> :rofl
> 
> I didn't even think I had that many but damn MAG.





Bogotazo said:


> I don't have a top 10 because I haven't evaluated the eras that the consensus top 10 have fought in. Guys like Langford, Greb, Tunney, even Robinson, I haven't sat down to watch who the top contenders were and evaluate their performances. I've done that with the modern fab 4, the original fab 4, Ali's heavyweight era, the 90's crew, the 80's and 70's, but anything before 1960 I'm pretty ignorant of.
> 
> Oh hell yeah, Leonard is arguably above Duran. Leonard is incredible. He should be treated as godly as Duran is. Not the same savage defensive-offensive whirlwind of counters and combinations, but a ferocious combination of blinding speed and power packed into one of the most classic styles I've ever seen.


Leonard has two of the best wins in Welterweight history over two prime, undefeated ATG's of completely different threats and styles... And avenged - by hook or crook - his only prime defeat against a third. On top of beating a whole slew of 147 contenders in an incredibly short period of time, a second lineal crown at 154 over the undefeated and highly skilled, ambidextrous Ayub Kalule and a third over a reigning Top 5 middleweight of all-time as a considerable underdog and previously having fought one time in five years prior to, never before at 160.

Oh yea, he's great.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

And not by just a little bit.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Sugar Ray is ridiculous.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> And not by just a little bit.





Bogotazo said:


> Sugar Ray is ridiculous.


http://checkhookboxing.com/archive/index.php/t-15481.html


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

turbotime said:


> http://checkhookboxing.com/archive/index.php/t-15481.html


Great thread. Lunny's answer was unexpectedly worthy as a challenge. As are some of the follow-up posts. But man, so hard to top that Leonard quintuplet.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Great thread. Lunny's answer was unexpectedly worthy as a challenge. As are some of the follow-up posts. But man, so hard to top that Leonard quintuplet.


There are great cases made in that thread.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> I hate the old times. How the fuck was ROCKY GRAZIANO a Middleweight fucking champion but Holman Williams never was. :twisted


Because of his hair, of course (I have the exact same hair style) lol


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Langford weighed 0 lbs and beat heavyweights. The GOAT





turbotime said:


> Still waiting for MAG to tell us Ezzard Charles and Langford's starting weights :think





dyna said:


> Langford never managed to capture a world title, he's irrelevant.





Bogotazo said:


> :rofl





Hands of Iron said:


> And not by just a little bit.





The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Because of his hair, of course (I have the exact same hair style) lol


Tunney was class, but a cunt too.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> O fuck it's June 20th!!! :happy :jjj


Shocking that it took me of all people to remind y'all!:lol
I actually waited a few hours and watched all the Cholo crew miss the boat!



Hands of Iron said:


> Leonard has two of the best wins in Welterweight history over two prime, undefeated ATG's of completely different threats and styles... And avenged - by hook or crook - his only prime defeat against a third. On top of beating a whole slew of 147 contenders in an incredibly short period of time, a second lineal crown at 154 over the undefeated and highly skilled, ambidextrous Ayub Kalule and a third over a reigning Top 5 middleweight of all-time as a considerable underdog and previously having fought one time in five years prior to, never before at 160.
> 
> Oh yea, he's great.


Is it Ferris Bueller that has that song that goes "Bow Bow-chika-chika....Oh yeah!"?



Bogotazo said:


> Great thread. Lunny's answer was unexpectedly worthy as a challenge. As are some of the follow-up posts. But man, so hard to top that Leonard quintuplet.


Amazing what a night on the sofa can do for clearing the head.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

:lol: I did at one time :sad5



The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Because of his hair, of course (I have the exact same hair style) lol


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

@MAG1965 what was Langford's starting weight?


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Langford weighed 0 lbs and beat heavyweights. The GOAT





turbotime said:


> Still waiting for MAG to tell us Ezzard Charles and Langford's starting weights :think





dyna said:


> Langford never managed to capture a world title, he's irrelevant.





Bogotazo said:


> :rofl





Hands of Iron said:


> And not by just a little bit.





turbotime said:


> @MAG1965 what was Langford's starting weight?


MAG will duck this FOREVER


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> MAG will duck this FOREVER


No need to pick on the guy here.You have to be fair.
MAG has a strong opinion but unlike many, he never resorts to abuse and just sticks to a mixture of what he believes and genuine statistics.
He has a view that's unpopular,but he's never shitty about it.

RESPECT THE MAG!


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

PityTheFool said:


> No need to pick on the guy here.You have to be fair.
> MAG has a strong opinion but unlike many, he never resorts to abuse and just sticks to a mixture of what he believes and genuine statistics.
> He has a view that's unpopular,but he's never shitty about it.
> 
> RESPECT THE MAG!


is he picking on me? I stopped posting here on the Duran thread because 138 was too much. Now 139 here. I have 17,399 on ESB and then they banned me. It took me 4 years to get that amount. I would be hard to get that here on CHB.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> is he picking on me? I stopped posting here on the Duran thread because 138 was too much. Now 139 here. I have 17,399 on ESB and then they banned me. It took me 4 years to get that amount. I would be hard to get that here on CHB.


Nah mate.turbo's cool.
Was just keeping it real so some of these kids don't get the wrong idea about you.
I'm almost certain turbo was just joshing.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

PityTheFool said:


> Nah mate.turbo's cool.
> Was just keeping it real so some of these kids don't get the wrong idea about you.
> I'm almost certain turbo was just joshing.


oh I know. I have known him since ESB. About 3 years or so. About ESB. I was on there almost 5 years. ESB banned me for I don't know what. They were cutting all these things like lounge and pictures on profiles and all this, and I asked someone just in case ESB is going to go bad, what is another site. And somehow they banned me right after I asked that in a private message. I had about over 18,000 posts, but when they cut the lounge posts and others, it went to 17,399 or something. Some others who posted a lot on lounge lost most of thier numbers. I didn't as much, since I mostly posted in boxing areas. I didn't see the point in making another name and starting over on ESB, so I came here and made the same name with the same picture. So I have something like 2,400 now after a year and a month almost. A little behind the pace I was there.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

turbotime said:


> @MAG1965 what was Langford's starting weight?


----------



## Stone Rose (Jul 15, 2013)

Because of his victories.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

I will never reach 10,000 posts here. I guarantee it.

EDIT: Haaaah.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> I will never reach 10,000 posts here. I guarantee it.


That's a beautiful thing to be able to say.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> That's a beautiful thing to be able to say.


Why? :lol:

Your activity has to be at least 3-4X what it was on ESB. Forum Celebrity status has skyrocketed too... All these lounge people here didn't even know you before.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> Why? :lol:
> 
> Your activity has to be at least 3-4X what it was on ESB. Forum Celebrity status has skyrocketed too... All these lounge people here didn't even know you before.


Because for every post you're not making, you're doing something better. (Maybe that wouldn't be EVERY post for me but it seems shit.)

The lounge rats just remind me how fucked the world is :lol:


----------



## Dreadnought (Aug 7, 2016)

MAG1965 said:


> Fact is Ray fought Duran's fight. The rematch he fought his fight and used his speed and legs, something Duran could not match. And Ray won easily.....That second fight proved a lot. It was everything.


Actually Ray fought "Duran's fight" because he thought he could overwhelm the former lightweight. In fact Angelo Dundee predicted an early knockout. He was surprised at how quick and hard to hit was Duran, much like Benitez. Look at this post fight interview, where Leonard admits that Duran was very elusive and hard to hit cleanly.






As far as "Leonard's fight" is concerned. What he did in the second fight was unlike anything he had done before. Mostly clowning around. Not a whole lot different than what Duran did in the last round of their first fight


----------



## paloalto00 (Jun 7, 2013)

He was a lightweight fighting the absolute best


----------



## gumbo2176 (May 17, 2013)

Don't know why it's taken me this long to either see this thread or respond to it. Duran is one of my favorite all time fighters and his quitting against Leonard in their second fight put me on my heels because I'd have never thought he'd so something like that in his career.

As for the losses he was taking, they were late in his career when he was fighting way above his ideal weight simply because he could no longer make lightweight and welterweight as he got older and less inclined to train as hard. He was also notorious for his weight gains between fights even as a younger man, so it came as not surprise he had issues with weight as he got older. The majority of his losses were in the middleweight range and up and he really had little to no business fighting at that weight.

Nobody can argue that he wasn't a beast at lightweight.


----------



## Dreadnought (Aug 7, 2016)

gumbo2176 said:


> Duran is one of my favorite all time fighters and his quitting against Leonard in their second fight put me on my heels because I'd have never thought he'd so something like that in his career.....Nobody can argue that he wasn't a beast at lightweight.


Looking at Leonard Duran II, it is common knowledge that Leonard used more lateral movement, and was doing much better than in their first fight, but it was still relatively close. It is also obvious that Duran didn't show the quickness that he displayed in Montreal. He stood straight up, and didn't do any of the head movement and ducking that befuddled Leonard in their first fight. My personal opinion is that he quit because he realized that he wasn't at his best, and wasn't moving as well as he did when he was in shape, so he felt that he was probably going to lose anyway.

I agree that he was a beast at lightweight, and it was amazing that he was able to move up and go toe to toe with one of the best, if not THE very best Welterweights.


----------



## gumbo2176 (May 17, 2013)

Dreadnought said:


> Looking at Leonard Duran II, it is common knowledge that Leonard used more lateral movement, and was doing much better than in their first fight, but it was still relatively close. It is also obvious that Duran didn't show the quickness that he displayed in Montreal. He stood straight up, and didn't do any of the head movement and ducking that befuddled Leonard in their first fight. My personal opinion is that he quit because he realized that he wasn't at his best, and wasn't moving as well as he did when he was in shape, so he felt that he was probably going to lose anyway.
> 
> I agree that he was a beast at lightweight, and it was amazing that he was able to move up and go toe to toe with one of the best, if not THE very best Welterweights.


Add to that the fact Ray and Angelo Dundee knew about Roberto's penchant for partying and blowing up between fights. Dundee even said in an interview that was their goal, to get to Duran as quickly as possible after the first fight knowing Duran's pattern of behavior would work in their favor. Smart move on their part.


----------



## gumbo2176 (May 17, 2013)

I'm not reading through 24 pages of posts, but I'll add this. Duran's career of 119 fights is one of the longer ones in the more modern era of boxing. He fought when Leonard was active and Leonard retired with something like 40 pro fights.

Duran only had 2 losses by the time he was fighting in the mid 70's range of bouts against some pretty damn good opposition to boot.

Once he got into the 155 and up weight range, he just couldn't bang with many of these guys that were more natural at that weight and many of them much younger and less shopworn than Duran by this time.


----------



## El-Terrible (Jun 5, 2013)

Good post and good question I think. I think Duran was so supreme at lightweight that it's almost as if anything after that was icing on the cake. His win over Leonard is incredible though Leonard fought a very naive fight. I think his huge KO loss to Hearns didn't help but Hearns was huge in comparison. He did brilliantly against Hagler and I think his performance against Barkley was what really helped forgive some of his previous losses at 147. Considering his age and the fact Barkley had beaten Hearns for the 160 belt the year before, it was an incredible win. This somewhat made up for his worse loss to Benitez, which was rightly mentioned above

Duran's physique should have given him no right whatsoever to even compete at 147, never mind 160. He never had the muscle density and always had to carry around more body fat than other boxers as well as his general struggles with diet, and yet his skill and tenacity helped him win fights he had no right winning.

I guess that's my view on why he doesn't get a pass as such for those losses, but there's good reason why they're not exaggerated either.


----------



## nuclear (Jun 15, 2015)

Rockinghorseshit said:


> He comes of his best win against Leonard.. a few months later "Duran was bloated, he didn't train properly! nothing Leonard did that night made a difference as Duran wasn't interested at all" Or a reason for his No mas was "it was either keep fighting and embarrass himself on the world stage by shitting his pants or save face" Frankly that is all just speculation and takes away the shine off Leonard's revenge win.
> 
> Another one
> 
> Duran was shot when he lost to Leonard in 1989 but just came off another big win against big MW Barkley.


duran was definitely out of shape in that 2nd leonard fight its well known thats why leonard pushed for quick rematch. duran likes to party.

not srl's problem but don't forget leonard waited damn near a decade for the rubber match


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> The point is that most of it seemed to have already happened before he got in the ring. And Leonard's performance was hardly masterful, it was shameful running and the fight was competitive even then.


Are you being serious Bogo?
Most of it already happened before he got in the ring?
He was the WBC champ and baddest man on the planet who knew he was on the hook for a rematch(and let's not pretend he got 10 days' notice) and it was his responsibility to be in shape.
"Shameful running"? How about shameful lack of professionalism from Duran (who I love but he is the #1 beneficiary from revisionist history)?
So it was shameful running but not the most shameful lack of professionalism and the most shameful quit job in modern day boxing?
Mike Trainer said that even though it was hard to give more than two or three(unlikely) to Duran,but if he knew the scores he'd have fought on.
What about Ray Arcel when asked if Cholo may have had a heart condition?
"Impossible.He doesn't have a heart"
I'm pretty stunned that you of all people would use the word "shameful" about Leonard when it comes to that fight.
Bit like saying it was shameful that Holyfield jumped up and down in pain when Tyson bit him.

And I think I saw a comment that Ray won four rounds max v Hagler here.
That'll mean he didn't win a round after the fourth then.
I'll take on anyone in a real time RBR who wants to make that argument but I'm hoping you posted this when you were snowed under with study mi amigo.

:sheeeeit


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Rockinghorseshit said:


> Well Duran says that, Duran manager Carlos Eleta also says he didn't quit due to stomach cramps, he just no answer for it, we'll have to disagree as it selling Leonards superior movement short by calling it shameless running. Duran just had no answers. Duran did attempt to get him against the ropes where he had the success but Leonard who committed to pivoting out more in this one had him befuddled.


Ray Arcel was pretty emphatic about the fact that he had no stomach cramps.
But what would he know?


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

gumbo2176 said:


> Add to that the fact Ray and Angelo Dundee knew about Roberto's penchant for partying and blowing up between fights. Dundee even said in an interview that was their goal, to get to Duran as quickly as possible after the first fight knowing Duran's pattern of behavior would work in their favor. Smart move on their part.


So what?
A champion near the top of the P4P list should stay in condition when he knows he's on the hook for a rematch clause.
He had five months to act and train like a champion.The fact he never is on him,not Leonard.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

PityTheFool said:


> Are you being serious Bogo?
> Most of it already happened before he got in the ring?
> He was the WBC champ and baddest man on the planet who knew he was on the hook for a rematch(and let's not pretend he got 10 days' notice) and it was his responsibility to be in shape.
> "Shameful running"? How about shameful lack of professionalism from Duran (who I love but he is the #1 beneficiary from revisionist history)?
> ...


Shameful is the wrong word. But it was a bit cringeworthy. I give Leonard a good amount of credit for the rematch win, even if Duran did chub up. I'd say his tubbiness was just as shameful, although I believe him when he said he tried to postpone the fight and was pressured to go through with it. Not that it was an unusually short inbetween layoff though.


----------



## gumbo2176 (May 17, 2013)

PityTheFool said:


> So what?
> A champion near the top of the P4P list should stay in condition when he knows he's on the hook for a rematch clause.
> He had five months to act and train like a champion.The fact he never is on him,not Leonard.


I wasn't arguing that point, I was merely pointing out a bit more info to Dreadnought's post about his take on Leonard/Duran II. It was no mystery that Duran loved to party between fights, often blowing up in weight high enough to make light-heavy if he chose to fight at that weight.

And I agree with you, it was on him, and only him that he'd get out of shape so much in the time between the fights, especially with the rematch clause in effect. He definitely should have know better and acted accordingly.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> The point is that most of it seemed to have already happened before he got in the ring. And Leonard's performance was hardly masterful, *it was shameful running* and the fight was competitive even then.


Terrible post. I'm disappointed in you. I'm crying now.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Duran and Hagler are both beneficiaries of alibis when it comes to their losses to Leonard. Leonard is given none of the same benefits. 

Let's consider: Duran was a more experienced, more battle tested pro going into the Leonard fight. He took advantage of Ray's penchant for standing in the pocket trading and clocked him so good it took the guy around seven rounds to clear his head. And by the end of the fight, Ray was beating the shit out of Duran. 

No alibis or credit, just Duranimals saying he beat Ray at his best. But by the next fight, Duran is apparently a shell of himself despite fighting largely the same fight - but the difference being that Leonard is winding him up and making fun of him, and refusing to oblige in a firefight. Suddenly, Duran is horrifyingly out of shape, Leonard's running, and it's a meaningless rematch. This despite Duran QUITTING! He wasn't taking a beating, he just didn't like that Ray was bullying him. 

It's absolute revisionist bullshit. Leonard was the better fighter. End of discussion.


----------



## El-Terrible (Jun 5, 2013)

Fully agree with @dftaylor and @PityTheFool
Leonard was the better fighter, at 147 at least. I had him win the Hagler fight 115-113, but I wrestled hard with 1 or 2 rounds. Leonard won minimum of 5 rounds, I had him winning 6-7. Hagler himself knew he was in trouble, that little jig he did was so damn out of character you knew he was trying to convince himself he had won easily simply becuase he wasn't hurt by this former welterweight

What Leonard did to Hagler is the equivalent of Brook beating Golovkin having fought just once in the last 5 years. Leonard beat all the top guys at their peak (just past-prime with Hagler). And the guys are right, he doesn't get enough credit for incredible wins against ATG fighters in what was still a relatively short career


----------



## Thomas Crewz (Jul 23, 2013)

All this thread proves is that if you nit pick at any resume long enough then you can discredit it. 

Plenty of fighters get passes for losses/poor performances when past their prime. Pretty much all of them actually. Only undefeated fighters get a pass, and they normally take criticism for not taking on good enough fighters.

What was SRR's record vs Gene Fullmer again? And which fight of the series is the one we all remember? 

Duran is absutely one of 10 best fighters i have ever seen, and he has the resume to prove it. As does Sugar Ray Leonard.

Two absolute top tier greats.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> Terrible post. I'm disappointed in you. I'm crying now.


I've revised. There there.

:theretherebogo


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

A pass? He is the reason for the term "No Mas" in boxing. He catches plenty of shit.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Does he really get a pass for his loses though. I mean whenever someone mentions duran either the very first thing or near to first thing that comes up is No Mas, near the top of that list will also be Kirkland Laing and Thomas Hearns. Not really seeing how he gets a pass for any of those three.

He gets credit for the Hagler loss cause he was a massive underdog and put up a good fight. Maybes the Benitez loss flies under the radar (pun intended) a bit but his main losses are usually brought up. From 1989 onwards he was seen as well past prime, Barkley was his last big win and then his form suffered more inconstancy than it had over the 80s when he was fairly inconsistent anyway.

I'm not sure what people would expect.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

gumbo2176 said:


> I wasn't arguing that point, I was merely pointing out a bit more info to Dreadnought's post about his take on Leonard/Duran II. It was no mystery that Duran loved to party between fights, often blowing up in weight high enough to make light-heavy if he chose to fight at that weight.
> 
> And I agree with you, it was on him, and only him that he'd get out of shape so much in the time between the fights, especially with the rematch clause in effect. He definitely should have know better and acted accordingly.


Sorry gumbo.I was just a bit stunned at some of the comments I was seeing and like yourself,couldn't be bothered reading right through.
I have read most of it now though,and I feel like a kid from Chicago who's just discovered that Michael Jordan has a penchant for young fresh milky chocolate.

There's shit in this thread I wish I could unsee.But again,sorry if I sounded defensive.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> A pass? He is the reason for the term "No Mas" in boxing. He catches plenty of shit.


This ain't your first rodeo turbo.Let's not pretend every boxing forum doesn't have him on the "most forgiven disgrace ever" throne infinitesimally.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> Does he really get a pass for his loses though. I mean whenever someone mentions duran either the very first thing or near to first thing that comes up is No Mas, near the top of that list will also be Kirkland Laing and Thomas Hearns. Not really seeing how he gets a pass for any of those three.
> 
> He gets credit for the Hagler loss cause he was a massive underdog and put up a good fight. Maybes the Benitez loss flies under the radar (pun intended) a bit but his main losses are usually brought up. From 1989 onwards he was seen as well past prime, Barkley was his last big win and then his form suffered more inconstancy than it had over the 80s when he was fairly inconsistent anyway.
> 
> I'm not sure what people would expect.


He gets credit for the Leonard loss because he showed a complete lack of professionalism before he got near the Dixie line.Ultimate revisionist boxing history 101.

I'll tell you what though,I watched it again because of this and when Ray Charles is singing America The Beautiful and SRL is bouncing on his toes with a huge smile,it's a truly spine-tingling moment.
If I had been old enough and there was in play betting back then,right at that point I would have bet my major organs on Leonard.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

PityTheFool said:


> He gets credit for the Leonard loss because he showed a complete lack of professionalism before he got near the Dixie line.Ultimate revisionist boxing history 101.
> 
> I'll tell you what though,I watched it again because of this and when Ray Charles is singing America The Beautiful and SRL is bouncing on his toes with a huge smile,it's a truly spine-tingling moment.
> If I had been old enough and there was in play betting back then,right at that point I would have bet my major organs on Leonard.


 I gotta disagree tbh. He was made a pariah in his hime country for years and to this day he gets grief for No Mas, hence the thread being one of the biggest on this site.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> I gotta disagree tbh. He was made a pariah in his hime country for years and to this day he gets grief for No Mas, hence the thread being one of the biggest on this site.


Oh,you're right for the most part mate.
But on boxing forums you have people defending him vehemently (just like the other comprehensive win Ray got seven years later) and most weren't around when what you said about the "pariah stuff" happened.
And it's exactly why,when I see that it becomes another attempt to discredit Leonard.
And without Frochy,you know I need me some fire to fight!:lol:


----------



## gumbo2176 (May 17, 2013)

PityTheFool said:


> Sorry gumbo.I was just a bit stunned at some of the comments I was seeing and like yourself,couldn't be bothered reading right through.
> I have read most of it now though,and I feel like a kid from Chicago who's just discovered that Michael Jordan has a penchant for young fresh milky chocolate.
> 
> There's shit in this thread I wish I could unsee.But again,sorry if I sounded defensive.


No problem. At least this thread is mostly staying on track as it progresses. I've seen myself look deep into threads and the posts have absolutely nothing to do with what the OP said. After 25 pages it's still about Duran for the most part, and how that fight in New Orleans played out to affect his career by being the biggest stain on it.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

PityTheFool said:


> Oh,you're right for the most part mate.
> But on boxing forums you have people defending him vehemently (just like the other comprehensive win Ray got seven years later) and most weren't around when what you said about the "pariah stuff" happened.
> And it's exactly why,when I see that it becomes another attempt to discredit Leonard.
> And without Frochy,you know I need me some fire to fight!:lol:


I'm a huge Duran fan tbf but I give Leonard full credit for the victories. The third is a little different as both were well past their prime at that point, neither really looked very good in that fight and it was a shame it happened tbh as its one of the only fights by either that I refuse to watch, it so bad. But Leonard won it fair and square and by a margin at that so fair game.

The second one I think Leonard was actually gipped because he does get some credit taken away from him due to all the bollocks that came with No Mas but it was a clean win over an ATG who was still in his prime, even if it was the fight that ended that prime. It should have been his greatest win tbf but it doesnt feel as big as it should have been due to the shitty ending. STill though, fair play, Leonard was up for the fight and winning and would have won imo, nothing more he could do than that.


----------



## Dreadnought (Aug 7, 2016)

Chatty said:


> The second one I think Leonard was actually gipped because he does get some credit taken away from him due to all the bollocks that came with No Mas but it was a clean win over an ATG who was still in his prime, even if it was the fight that ended that prime. It should have been his greatest win tbf but it doesnt feel as big as it should have been due to the shitty ending. STill though, fair play, Leonard was up for the fight and winning and would have won imo, nothing more he could do than that.


Too bad we didn't get to see Leonard use that strategy against an in shape Duran willing to go the distance. It would have been a great fight, and it could have gone either way. People tend to forget that Duran was the smaller opponent and Duran did a lot of movement and clowning in their first fight. A different kind of movement, but enough to frustrate Leonard, who thought he could overwhelm the former lightweight.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Dreadnought said:


> Too bad we didn't get to see Leonard use that strategy against an in shape Duran willing to go the distance. It would have been a great fight, and it could have gone either way. People tend to forget that Duran was the smaller opponent and Duran did a lot of movement and clowning in their first fight. A different kind of movement, but enough to frustrate Leonard, who thought he could overwhelm the former lightweight.


Yeah,too bad.
How dare Leonard not use that tactic when he lost the rag because Duran abused his wife because for all the shit we hear about "fighting Duran's fight",it's been proven on the big occasion that Leonard could adapt like no other,but then you could do worse than take a look at the scorecards from Montreal (which were a million miles from scandalous in the grand scheme when putting all three together)

144-145-Duran
147-148-Duran(3-2-10.An admittedly disgraceful scorecard)
144-146-Duran

We could do a lot worse than look at some of the AP's scorecards but that's not the ones that count.
So one for the revisionists who talk like Duran absolutely punched seven shades of shit out of Leonard to consider there.
And utterly ironic that Leonard gets more credit for how he fought in Montreal as opposed to N'Awlins so your point is relevant but if someone called my wife a whore it would probably fuck with my ego and I'd more than likely have left it too late to adjust after being hurt badly for what? Six rounds?

So a point,another and a two point margin.
Yeah,Duran really kicked the shit out of Leonard in Montreal and proceeded to engage again without getting into Leonard's head.
But that's ok because it's Cholo!:happy

(Not aimed at you @Dreadnought )


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> I'm a huge Duran fan tbf but I give Leonard full credit for the victories. The third is a little different as both were well past their prime at that point, neither really looked very good in that fight and it was a shame it happened tbh as its one of the only fights by either that I refuse to watch, it so bad. But Leonard won it fair and square and by a margin at that so fair game.
> 
> The second one I think Leonard was actually gipped because he does get some credit taken away from him due to all the bollocks that came with No Mas but it was a clean win over an ATG who was still in his prime, even if it was the fight that ended that prime. It should have been his greatest win tbf but it doesnt feel as big as it should have been due to the shitty ending. STill though, fair play, Leonard was up for the fight and winning and would have won imo, nothing more he could do than that.


I remember I used to read at the other place stupid posts like "If Hearns-Leonard 1 had been a 12 rounder history would be different" whilst completely ignoring that if the second fight (which everyone knows Hearns won,including Leonard) had been a 15 rounder,Hearns would not have seen the end of the 13th.
My point is that everyone who wasn't around should forget about everything Leonard did after Hagler.With very few exceptions,guys were lucky if they got to 32 and still made good money,and Leonard circa 88-90 was like a seniors tour.
I was a kid and felt very lucky that I was getting to see him fight as I was only 7 in 1980,but like a band you followed,apart from rare exceptions again you realise that there was a time to quit and most great fighters are the last to know it.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dreadnought said:


> Too bad we didn't get to see Leonard use that strategy against an in shape Duran willing to go the distance. It would have been a great fight, and it could have gone either way. People tend to forget that Duran was the smaller opponent and Duran did a lot of movement and clowning in their first fight. A different kind of movement, but enough to frustrate Leonard, who thought he could overwhelm the former lightweight.


Leonard used his normal strategy against Duran and lost. That clowning stuff he did in the rematch? That wasn't Ray.


----------



## Dreadnought (Aug 7, 2016)

steviebruno said:


> Leonard used his normal strategy against Duran and lost. That clowning stuff he did in the rematch? That wasn't Ray.


So why does Ray get so much praise for his strategy in the second fight? Even Ali, when he went against Foreman did less clowning and more face to face fighting. Also in the last round of their first fight Duran was criticized for not throwing enough punches and clowning around.

So why was it OK for Ray to clown around and not OK for Duran?


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Dreadnought said:


> So why does Ray get so much praise for his strategy in the second fight? Even Ali, when he went against Foreman did less clowning and more face to face fighting. Also in the last round of their first fight Duran was criticized for not throwing enough punches and clowning around.
> 
> So why was it OK for Ray to clown around and not OK for Duran?


:lol:
Finally putting your real feelings out there?
Best to get it out there from the start.Sitting on the fence until you can't stop yourself from falling.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dreadnought said:


> So why does Ray get so much praise for his strategy in the second fight? Even Ali, when he went against Foreman did less clowning and more face to face fighting. Also in the last round of their first fight Duran was criticized for not throwing enough punches and clowning around.
> 
> So why was it OK for Ray to clown around and not OK for Duran?


I thought that Ray fought like a buffoon in the rematch, but that's just me...


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Ray did take the piss in round 7. Imo he should have been at least warned for not trying to fight but the strategy worked a treat so in hindsight it was a good move.


----------



## Dreadnought (Aug 7, 2016)

steviebruno said:


> I thought that Ray fought like a buffoon in the rematch, but that's just me...





Chatty said:


> Ray did take the piss in round 7. Imo he should have been at least warned for not trying to fight but the strategy worked a treat so in hindsight it was a good move.


Our media promoted the idea that SRL could do no wrong.


----------



## Dreadnought (Aug 7, 2016)

steviebruno said:


> Leonard used his normal strategy against Duran and lost. That clowning stuff he did in the rematch? That wasn't Ray.


Watching the Leonard Benitez fight, Ray's strategy was no different. He was, as they say, flat footed, went after Benitez and looked for exchanges. Only difference is that strategy didn't work against Duran.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dreadnought said:


> Watching the Leonard Benitez fight, Ray's strategy was no different. He was, as they say, flat footed, went after Benitez and looked for exchanges. Only difference is that strategy didn't work against Duran.


Exactly. Ray was primarily a flat-flooted stalker with elite speed, quickness, defensive skill, and brutal power. He generally walked his guys down and tried to put serious hurt on them. He was quite malevolent in the ring.

The stick and move stuff was mostly for show; he was no Ali in that regard.


----------



## IsaL (Jun 5, 2013)

Look at what he did at LW. Look at what he accomplished and against who above LW.


----------



## Flag Nonce (Apr 28, 2016)

Giving this quitter a pass is shameful


----------



## Dreadnought (Aug 7, 2016)

Flag Nonce said:


> Giving this quitter a pass is shameful


Well, that's a fairly common viewpoint among sports fans, but I don't think that was the point of this thread.

This thread is more about why his performance was poor. Was SRL just that much better or was Duran just not at his best? The general consensus is that Duran probably would have lost anyway, even if he had finished the fight.


----------



## Dreadnought (Aug 7, 2016)

El-Terrible said:


> Duran's physique should have given him no right whatsoever to even compete at 147, never mind 160. He never had the muscle density and always had to carry around more body fat than other boxers as well as his general struggles with diet, and yet his skill and tenacity helped him win fights he had no right winning.


That's what everyone seems to miss. Remember Angelo Dundee predicted that Leonard would KO Duran in the early rounds. They had no reason to fear an exchange from a former lightweight.


----------



## Dreadnought (Aug 7, 2016)

MAG1965 said:


> Even the announcer commented how Ray was going to fight Duran on the inside. In the rematch Ray would fight Duran off, but with faster shorter punches, then move out to his right, reset an then get the distance in the center of the ring.


That of course was an announcer who was already making excuses for the Golden Boy's imminent loss. Watch the fight and make your own observations. In their first fight SRL's speed did not appear superior to Duran's. Duran frequently made him miss and frequently beat him to the punch.


----------



## Flag Nonce (Apr 28, 2016)

Dreadnought said:


> Well, that's a fairly common viewpoint among sports fans, but I don't think that was the point of this thread.
> 
> This thread is more about why his performance was poor. Was SRL just that much better or was Duran just not at his best? The general consensus is that Duran probably would have lost anyway, even if he had finished the fight.


Duran deserves all the credit for getting inside SRL head 1st time around & getting a great win. 
Duran bailed and made shit excuses. Bloating up an partying are all his own doing.
SRL with the right gameplan wins every time


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dreadnought said:


> That of course was an announcer who was already making excuses for the Golden Boy's imminent loss. Watch the fight and make your own observations. In their first fight SRL's speed did not appear superior to Duran's. Duran frequently made him miss and frequently beat him to the punch.


He also didn't appear to be a great deal faster than Tommy Hearns...


----------



## KO KIDD (ESB EX-Patriot) (Jun 3, 2013)

Tyson Marquez Pacquiao and Hopkins seem to get plenty


----------



## Dreadnought (Aug 7, 2016)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> I wouldn't get so hung up on what Duran said he weighed, Duran looking as he did between fights is more than enough, the exact figure is unnecessary.
> 
> The others kept themselves in shape, but with Duran, he just piled on FAT. Making weight for fights themselves were not easy - so the fact that he weighed more than the fighters you mentioned emphasises that even with Duran's decent performances, it's reasonable to say that he lost a part of himself trying to make weight for his fights.


There were 2 version of Duran:

Pre-NoMas
Post-NoMas

Post-NoMas Duran never was as competitive as the earlier version. He had his moments, but he never regained the relentless aggression he had before. He tended to much more cautious, and most notably, he was much slower. People tend to forget that the younger version (Pre-NoMas) was very quick on his feet and with his hands and body. Look at his fight with Buchanan in 1972: see how his rapid assault style easily broke through the defenses of a very good boxer:


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 8, 2013)

He lost to 3 all time greats. Plus he had well over 100 fights and went through 5 divisions over 30 years. No one could go through all that undefeated


----------



## Dreadnought (Aug 7, 2016)

steviebruno said:


> Exactly. Ray was primarily a flat-flooted stalker with elite speed, quickness, defensive skill, and brutal power. He generally walked his guys down and tried to put serious hurt on them. He was quite malevolent in the ring.
> 
> The stick and move stuff was mostly for show; he was no Ali in that regard.


Watching the Leonard Hagler fight again. Hagler had just destroyed Hearns. He was much bigger, stronger, and more dangerous than Duran. so it was no surprise that Leonard did a fair amount of running in the early rounds but none of the clowning that he did against Duran. After a few rounds he tired and couldn't run as much, ended up having to go toe to toe quite a bit. He got in some good exchanges with him, but he really couldn't hurt him. Nobody could hurt Hagler, except maybe a heavyweight.


----------



## gumbo2176 (May 17, 2013)

Dreadnought said:


> There were 2 version of Duran:
> 
> Pre-NoMas
> Post-NoMas
> ...


What delineates the difference in eras for Duran is more than Pre and Post No Mas. It is no secret the guy was one of the best to ever campaign at lightweight and into the welterweight ranks.

After he quit against Leonard in the now famous "No Mas" fight, he kept moving up in weight, was getting older and was notorious for blowing up in weight between fights. As he got older, it was more and more difficult to make the lighter weights and by then I doubt he really cared all that much and was cashing in. It is no mystery that as fighters age, their hand and foot speed diminish long before the power they possess goes away. Simply put, he was just getting older and a bit shopworn. I mean the guy had more fights than 3-4 Champion pros records put together add up to.


----------

