The Brawl in Montreal - who would defeat Duran on that night?

[Webbiano]

Hearns would knock him out in the mid rounds. Stylistically I don't see how Duran ever beats Hearns unless Tommy is worse than 80% of his full abilities.

[Bogotazo]

Originally Posted by Son of Gaul

He's basically saying that the rematch version of Leonard was better suited to beat Duran. The problem with this is that SRL only fought like this in the rematch because he LOST THE FIRST TIME. Leonard's natural fighting style, the one that should be used in hypothetical matchups like these, was the one he exhibited in the first fight not the second one.

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.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

I disagree. Douglas really kicked Tyson's arse that night the fight wasn't even close. Tyson has a punchers chance, if he lands with enough time to finish, he will, unfortunately that night, he didn't.

Duran beat a prime Leonard in the shape of his life, it isn't really in question, I'm staggered you think Leonard would beat him when he actually didn't.

Jackson was made to order for a sturdy, hard hitting, master boxer like Mike.

He did beat Duran. That is like saying I am staggered you think Leonard could not beat Duran when he actually easily beat him in the rematch and rubber match. Easily. Leonard proved he could easily beat Duran so the only thing Duran fans have to defend against that is Duran beat Ray and let's make Ray prime, even though he was in the 2nd defense of his first title. And if Ray was prime, Duran did not have to beat Hearns or Benitez or Hagler when he fought them, since he beat Ray when he was prime. Fact is Ray,Benitez,Hearns all beat him easily for titles. And Hagler beat him rather easily. As for the Leonard rematch? Had it not been a close fight and Ray edged the rematch I could see argument. But he made him quit because in rounds 7 and 8 he started to land more to the body and was started to land to the head. As a matter of fact, I think the staggering thing are the excuses for Roberto in the rematch and in this fights with all the other greats are rather staggering.

[KuRuPT]

Originally Posted by Vyborg1917

I disagree with your characterization of the fight. Hearn’s maintained a distance where he could hit Duran but Duran could only reach him by lunging. Hearns hurt him at that distance; a feat he’s always going to be capable of given his physical characteristics, and only really bum rushed him when he was in desperate trouble.

As great as he was, the dynamics are always going to be all wrong for Duran; no amount of willfully blind romanticism can get beyond that.

He hasn't on his bike like he was against SRL... He wasn't moving around and boxing.. He was standing toe to toe with Duran.. which IMO isn't a great strat against Duran... How don't care how big you are... A prime duran had great reflexes and great countering. Hearns was there to be hit and moving sticking and moving. Rest assured.. if SRL could hurt Tommy to the body... Duran most certainly could. IMO it was a bad play on Hearns part that worked out... I just think he would to that more times than not.. and pay the price for it.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

Tyson on that night still managed to land and drop Douglas.

I agree. Douglas would not have beaten Tyson in 1987.. Douglas quits against Tucker and later is stopped by Evander in 3. Mike would stop him 1-3 , and my guess in round 2. I don't even see it as a tough fight. By 1990 Mike is not moving his head so when he steps in he is hit with that nice Douglas right, which would not have hit him in 1987. So everytime he tries to step in he is hit, and that slows him down, and a slowed down Mike is vulnerable and he gets hit more. The whole style of Tyson is energy and speed and defense. Take it away and he is very ordinary and open with still that power, which knocked down Douglas in round 8. .

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by turbotime

I love the Whitaker shout, mag.

Well I agree with you, Whitaker was great and he would not have fought Duran's fight. He wins a decision over Duran. Lightweight or Welt. Duran fans on here seem to want to believe that Ray fought his fight and Duran made him brawl, but if they look at the first fight and second side by side, Ray is fighting differently from the get go. Whitaker was a rare fighter.

[MAG1965]

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??

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

He did beat Duran. That is like saying I am staggered you think Leonard could not beat Duran when he actually easily beat him in the rematch and rubber match. Easily. Leonard proved he could easily beat Duran so the only thing Duran fans have to defend against that is Duran beat Ray and let's make Ray prime, even though he was in the 2nd defense of his first title. And if Ray was prime, Duran did not have to beat Hearns or Benitez or Hagler when he fought them, since he beat Ray when he was prime. Fact is Ray,Benitez,Hearns all beat him easily for titles. And Hagler beat him rather easily. As for the Leonard rematch? Had it not been a close fight and Ray edged the rematch I could see argument. But he made him quit because in rounds 7 and 8 he started to land more to the body and was started to land to the head. As a matter of fact, I think the staggering thing are the excuses for Roberto in the rematch and in this fights with all the other greats are rather staggering.

we're not talking about Roberto on other nights nor are we talking about his losing efforts to Benitez or Hearns (both god shouts to beat him). we're talking about the fact he beat Leonard when both fought in their primes.

Everyone knows Duran wasn't 100% in the rematch, even Leonard himself knew this. It's his own stupid fault, he had 5 month to prepare, but none of this changes that we know with 100% certaitny that Leonard would not beat him that night because a prime version of him failed this task.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

we're not talking about Roberto on other nights nor are we talking about his losing efforts to Benitez or Hearns (both god shouts to beat him). we're talking about the fact he beat Leonard when both fought in their primes.

Everyone knows Duran wasn't 100% in the rematch, even Leonard himself knew this. It's his own stupid fault, he had 5 month to prepare, but none of this changes that we know with 100% certaitny that Leonard would not beat him that night because a prime version of him failed this task.

this is where you and I do not agree. Leonard was not prime in June of 1980. You said here Duran was prime, yet then when he lost to Benitez just a year and a half later he was somehow washed up. As for Leonard, all he had to do was get it in his head to fight his fight -learn the lesson not to fight Duran's fight and be suckered into it by emotions and he wins the fight. That was not Duran deciding he was being humiliated and quitting. Ray was starting to land punches to the head and body and Duran quit. I would even argue Leonard really was not prime yet for Hearns in 1981, but it was the closest thing to his prime he ever came since he retired after Bruce Finch in 1982. To think Leonard was prime on his second defense of his first title? By the same argument, Duran lost to Dejesus in his first defense of his title in 72 or 73, so the prime Duran lost to Dejesus? Now Duran had 30 or so fights when he lost to Dejesus, Leonard had about 25. My point is Leonard was not prime for Duran in the first fight as Duran was not prime for Dejesus the first time.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

this is where you and I do not agree. Leonard was not prime in June of 1980. You said here Duran was prime, yet then when he lost to Benitez just a year and a half later he was somehow washed up. As for Leonard, all he had to do was get it in his head to fight his fight -learn the lesson not to fight Duran's fight and be suckered into it by emotions and he wins the fight. That was not Duran deciding he was being humiliated and quitting. Ray was starting to land punches to the head and body and Duran quit. I would even argue Leonard really was not prime yet for Hearns in 1981, but it was the closest thing to his prime he ever came since he retired after Bruce Finch in 1982. To think Leonard was prime on his second defense of his first title? By the same argument, Duran lost to Dejesus in his first defense of his title in 72 or 73, so the prime Duran lost to Dejesus? Now Duran had 30 or so fights when he lost to Dejesus, Leonard had about 25. My point is Leonard was not prime for Duran in the first fight as Duran was not prime for Dejesus the first time.

your still in some "duran is not top 10 p4p" mode. this thread is specifically about that one night. I'm not saying he was washed up against benitez. I'm not sayiong he was pre prime for de jesus.

Him and Leonard fought prime for prime on the night in question. Duran won
Leonard isn't part of this debate, he's the one man we definitely know loses. Pick some other guy to bang on about.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

your still in some "duran is not top 10 p4p" mode. this thread is specifically about that one night. I'm not saying he was washed up against benitez. I'm not sayiong he was pre prime for de jesus.

Him and Leonard fought prime for prime on the night in question. Duran won
Leonard isn't part of this debate, he's the one man we definitely know loses. Pick some other guy to bang on about.

Leonard has a lot to do with this because he is the one Duran beat that night. This thread was about who could defeat Duran in Montreal on the night he beat Leonard. I am saying Leonard was not prime when Duran beat him, which is why I bring up Leonard.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

Leonard has a lot to do with this because he is the one Duran beat that night. This thread was about who could defeat Duran in Montreal on the night he beat Leonard. I am saying Leonard was not prime when Duran beat him.

you're wrong.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

you're wrong.

just an opinion. But the same argument can be addressed with Duran earlier in his career. Was Duran prime when he lost to Dejesus the first time? or was he more prime when he beat Esteban a couple of years later. Some people think a fighter cannot be great until he has his first loss and learns from it.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

just an opinion. But the same argument can be addressed with Duran earlier in his career. Was Duran prime when he lost to Dejesus the first time? or was he more prime when he beat Esteban a couple of years later. Some people think a fighter is not great until he has his first loss and learns from it.

start a thread on that if you wish.

this thread is simple, considering Leonard failed, who would be favoured to beat Duran that night.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

start a thread on that if you wish.

this thread is simple, considering Leonard failed, who would be favoured to beat Duran that night.

I consider a loss part of a guys progression as a fighter. A fighter has to lose to get better usually. There are exception like Mike Tyson or Chavez. Ray learned the lesson quickly and applied it in his second fight. He learned to fight his fight and to play little mental games, although he never mastered the mental games well like Duran. Duran was just natural at everything he did. Natural boxer and he loved the whole aspect of the game. Leonard had to work at being a manipulator at press conferences, and he did not have the same effect as Duran. But Ray loved how Duran got him to brawl which made him want to be able to do that.

The only guy who fell a little for Leonard's games later was Hagler and the public, who thought when he came back in 1987 to fight Hagler that he would lose easily. People didn't know Ray was simulating fights with Quincy Taylor and others. Hagler bought the nonsense that Leonard was his good friend and rusty and not a top fighter, which I think that made him come out right handed to outbox Ray. Hearns on the other hand made the mistake of getting Hagler mad and that motivated Marvin to focus. I am going off subject.