Originally Posted by Bogotazo
Not to mention the fact that Leonard's strategy depended on a weakened condition on Duran's part. Or that Duran was past his best at 154 against Benitez and Hearns, very much north of where he started. But don't count on MAG to ever act like these things matter.
I am supposed to eliminate the results of a great Leonard win where he fought his fight and dazzled Duran and made him quit because Duran came up with an excuse? How logical is that?
Duran used excuses when he lost to all the greats near the welt division. He said he was out of shape when he lost to Leonard,Benitez and Hearns, yet somehow he trained for Minchillo and Palomino and Moore, guys who were not great. Duran fought at 154 as early as 1978 before those other greats he lost to. When you put in the facts and circumstances the only conclusion you can come up with is when he lost to the greats and said he didnt train mean either #1 he is making up an excuse or #2 he didn't train because he knew he would lose and needed to have an excuse after. Either way it had to do with their speed and how good they were.
That past his best thing is another excuse. A fighter is only at his best for a year or two. If he is not at that point in his career, he is either still getting better or declining. So what is the big significance of prime? Hearns fought past his prime and at 175 and beat Virgil Hill. It can be done.
If Hearns or Hagler fought for years. that means many of thier wins were out of his prime either before or after. I don't see how the prime stuff can be an excuse for Duran and not for other guys, and if this theory works for everyone, no fighter would ever get any credit for a win against anyone. I just do not see that how that works. If a fighter is not prime when he lost he did not really lose??