Originally Posted by Bill Butcher
Nah, Im not buying it MR.BILL....
Dejesus I - Took him lightly, non-title fight.
Leonard II - Outta shape, too much money to turn down, stomach cramps.
Benitez - Still suffereing from `no mas` mentally, lost his drive, conditioning could have been better.
Kirkland Laing - Took him lightly, outta shape again.
Hearns - Women, booze, thought Tommy was a chicken etc.
Robbie Sims - Choose one of the above.
You see the pattern developing here ?
Roberto Duran is easily one of my favourite fighters & undisputedly a top 10 ATG but he is one terrible loser, really really bad, **** me, this guy is the king of excuses, for real...
.... no doubt at all.
Well the pattern is that just about all of those fights were after Leonard 1...as I see it, that was the Everest that Duran climbed and anything after that he just wasnt as hungry.
He was loaded, living it up and I truly believe he mostly fought after this to maintain this lifestyle. The kind of lifestyle that cost a lot, not to mention he and his wife's love of gambling.
Duran doesnt beat Hearns is 10 fights..But I dont think Duran at his best goes out like that..I dont think its hard to see that this is a Duran who put any effort he was going to put into this fight just to make the weight and truly thought he could just bowl Hearns over as soon as he connected.
Do people truly think that the Duran who beat Leonard and the Duran who lost to Robbie Simms are the same fighter?