Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

[Hands of Iron]

Originally Posted by duranimal

Spot on

Yep, when both where prepared for battle on a level playing field the better man & boxer prevailed

Thanks for putting everything i've ever said on this subject into plain english

De nada, buddy. Your input is always valued and priceless at times.

"I've studied him more than my shadow. I'm ready for any terrain he's prepared to step into. He's a good boxer, but he's going to be boxing a better one."

Originally Posted by AlFrancis

So do you think Duran was a better fighter beyond lightweight or not?

Duran was clearly coming into his peak around the time of the Hearns fight, Al.

[AlFrancis]

Originally Posted by Hands of Iron

De nada, buddy. Your input is always valued and priceless at times.

"I've studied him more than my shadow. I'm ready for any terrain he's prepared to step into. He's a good boxer, but he's going to be boxing a better one."




Duran was clearly coming into his peak around the time of the Hearns fight, Al.

Haha, thought you were being serious then until I saw the smiley.

[redrooster]

Originally Posted by recycling

I think Benitez from his Duran fight would school Duran in montreal Duran charging in with overhand rights and feints to setup his charge will not work with Benitez

Oh please! Benitez was the most overrated fighter of my lifetime who managed to get the press on his side. A good slick boxer will outpoint him by miles. Either that or pressure on him and watch him fold like a cheap deck of cards (Hamsho, Moore, Hilton even B. Curry)

[ushvinder]

Originally Posted by redrooster

Oh please! Benitez was the most overrated fighter of my lifetime who managed to get the press on his side. A good slick boxer will outpoint him by miles. Either that or pressure on him and watch him fold like a cheap deck of cards (Hamsho, Moore, Hilton even B. Curry)

Exactly, i have always thought Benitez is the most overrated 'great' fighter ever. Im not even sure if I would rank him in my top 100. The only reason he gets so overrated is because he fought in the hearns-leonard era. Not only did he burn out at the age of 24, he basically lost to bruce curry and got a gift, harold weston arguably beat him too, very overrated fighter.

[ushvinder]

Originally Posted by redrooster

I think Robbie wouldve worn down the less experienced Hearns. he wouldve sniffed out his weakness which included lack of strength, & stamina. he just didnt look strong. What did he have, a nice left jab?

Robinson wins probably within 12

Tommy's best weight was probably 154-160 as one might expect from a man 6-1. Notice how nicely he had filled out with much needed muscle in the Duran fight on thru the Hutchins fight and in the Shuler fight, Tommy had never been better

I would have to agree, Hearns best weights were clearly 154 and 160. At 147 he didnt have an ounce of muscle mass on him, looks like he came from ethiopia. Its not a surprise that he grew out of the welterweight division by the time he was 23.

[MAG1965]

[quote=AlFrancis;14322194]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

yes I do. The variable was Ray in all 3 fights. Ray decides to fight Duran's fight he loses. Ray decided to box and fight his fight he wins. It is that simple to me. The ease with which Ray beat Duran in the 2nd and 3rd fights, coupled with Benitez easily being Duran and the Hearns fight showed speed of an elite were trouble for Duran. If you mention weight I will just say Duran fought at 154 as early as 1978, and as far as age. 29-32 years old is not old for a guy who won his last title at 38 and fought until he was 50. yet he did not fight the type of elites he fought in the 1980s.. Had he fought a guy like Roy Jones he would have lost again. Even the 30 year old Duran. Or had he fought Whitaker. I love Duran ,but speed of an elite was trouble for him. A warrior he was and he could be devastating and he fought everyone. But to give him credit in the Leonard fights and discard Benitez and Hearns just because it is favorable to him? That takes away from those greats.[/QUOTE

So do you think Duran was a better fighter beyond lightweight or not?

no, but I don't think many fighters are as effective as at their first weight class, although I think some variables like experience are more and sometimes they tip the balance. For example, the Hearns of 1981 was much greater than the Hearns os 1991 who beat Hill, but the 1981 Hearns would have tried to knock out Hill and leave himself open to a counter. The older Hearns jabbed Hill and was aware of a left counter and basically used his jab to control Hill and only land punches when he had a good punch available. But he did not go for a knockout. So in a way the experience helped him a lot with Hill. Or Duran with Moore. The experienced was a big factor, and also Moore having 11 fights makes that point evident.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by redrooster

Oh please! Benitez was the most overrated fighter of my lifetime who managed to get the press on his side. A good slick boxer will outpoint him by miles. Either that or pressure on him and watch him fold like a cheap deck of cards (Hamsho, Moore, Hilton even B. Curry)

Benitez was I thought underrated at 154. He had a window where he fought great which was 147 and 154. I thought at 140 he still had things to learn but he was great in speed. But the Hamsho and Moore and Hilton fights are either at middleweight or way past his prime. The Hamsho fight was a bad style for him and that hurt his confidence and his skills started to diminish maybe in connection to that.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by ushvinder

I would have to agree, Hearns best weights were clearly 154 and 160. At 147 he didnt have an ounce of muscle mass on him, looks like he came from ethiopia. Its not a surprise that he grew out of the welterweight division by the time he was 23.

The Hagler fight hurt Hearns skills. He was not the same fighter after as he was before. It happens. It would have been interesting to see a younger Hearns at middleweight fight guys like Dewitt or Barkley. The 1985 Hearns would have probably stopped them. He lost a little speed and reflexes because of the Hagler fight and that made him struggle for the knockout later. Some people mention weight and the fact he could not stop Sutherland at 160, but even Spinks had a hard time stopping Murray as many others did.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by ushvinder

Exactly, i have always thought Benitez is the most overrated 'great' fighter ever. Im not even sure if I would rank him in my top 100. The only reason he gets so overrated is because he fought in the hearns-leonard era. Not only did he burn out at the age of 24, he basically lost to bruce curry and got a gift, harold weston arguably beat him too, very overrated fighter.

I am not sure he was overrated. 3 titles in 3 weight class when it mattered. Beating Cervantes and Duran and the way he made Tommy Hearns miss with bodypunches was incredible. He did burn out fast, but that was because of moving up to a weight at middleweight where he never should have been. He was not the strongest guy mentally. I think Hearns and Hagler and Duran were tougher than Leonard or Benitez mentally. Some people might argue with me about that saying Ray was tough, but no Ray retired when he would have had to keep fighting at that elite level. He picked his spots, but Ray ended up with only 40 fights total. compare that to Duran over 100 fights and Hagler and Hearns almost 70.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Hey mag I see what you're saying, however I think Leonard was at his peak for the first fight.

peak no. no way. He still did not put together the mental and physical aspects of the fight. Duran taught him to stick with a gameplan which will win you the fight the easiest way you can. I think Ray before the first Duran fight was 75 percent of the 100 percent he was after. Yes I believe Ray improved 25 percent just on what Duran showed him. You can be great, but if you fight the wrong fight you will lose.

[ushvinder]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

I am not sure he was overrated. 3 titles in 3 weight class when it mattered. Beating Cervantes and Duran and the way he made Tommy Hearns miss with bodypunches was incredible. He did burn out fast, but that was because of moving up to a weight at middleweight where he never should have been. He was not the strongest guy mentally. I think Hearns and Hagler and Duran were tougher than Leonard or Benitez mentally. Some people might argue with me about that saying Ray was tough, but no Ray retired when he would have had to keep fighting at that elite level. He picked his spots, but Ray ended up with only 40 fights total. compare that to Duran over 100 fights and Hagler and Hearns almost 70.

He beat duran after leonard made him quit and right after this fight kirklaind laing schooled him, he was past his prime, dont make it sound like this is an all time legacy win, its not.

Im aware of what benitez did in his career, but no sorry he really doesnt have the overall accomplishments to be ranked as a top 75 all time boxing great and his longevity is complete and utter crap. If he doesnt fight leonard or hearns, his all time ranking would drop by 50 spots rather easily. This forum loves the fab 4 era and thats the only reason he remains relevant on this site while other fighters like luis manuel rodriguez, curtis cokes, bill graham, and others are rarely talked about. Benitez is mentioned beacause of his era.

You want to ignore his shortcomings against moore, hamsho, and the gift against bruce curry, but mention all of his accomplishments. Wilfred can be in the hall of fame, but hes not an all time great. If i make a top 100 list, he would be at the bottom of it. Im not going to rank him 20-30 spots higher just because he is the peer of hearns and leonard.

[ushvinder]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

The Hagler fight hurt Hearns skills. He was not the same fighter after as he was before. It happens. It would have been interesting to see a younger Hearns at middleweight fight guys like Dewitt or Barkley. The 1985 Hearns would have probably stopped them. He lost a little speed and reflexes because of the Hagler fight and that made him struggle for the knockout later. Some people mention weight and the fact he could not stop Sutherland at 160, but even Spinks had a hard time stopping Murray as many others did.

I never said Hearns was in his prime against Barkley, but the loss against him still diminishes his legacy. I feel hearns could have really cemented his legacy at 154 or 160 if he had fought kalambay, mccallum and graham. Sure there are reason as to why those fights didnt happen, but at the end of the day, they only hurt him, not help him. Hearns would have ranked above leonard on most all time lists if he beat those guys, instead he chose to fight the names at 154 like benitez and old duran. Hearns has a good resume, but it could have been much better.

[turbotime]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

the post was so sarcastic i can't even remember what this thread is about but surely Duran deserves a mention.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by ushvinder

He beat duran after leonard made him quit and right after this fight kirklaind laing schooled him, he was past his prime, dont make it sound like this is an all time legacy win, its not.

Im aware of what benitez did in his career, but no sorry he really doesnt have the overall accomplishments to be ranked as a top 75 all time boxing great and his longevity is complete and utter crap. If he doesnt fight leonard or hearns, his all time ranking would drop by 50 spots rather easily. This forum loves the fab 4 era and thats the only reason he remains relevant on this site while other fighters like luis manuel rodriguez, curtis cokes, bill graham, and others are rarely talked about. Benitez is mentioned beacause of his era.

You want to ignore his shortcomings against moore, hamsho, and the gift against bruce curry, but mention all of his accomplishments. Wilfred can be in the hall of fame, but hes not an all time great. If i make a top 100 list, he would be at the bottom of it. Im not going to rank him 20-30 spots higher just because he is the peer of hearns and leonard.

that is an excuse for Duran. Duran gets school by Laing when he is still only 30 and he was washed up? Because he lost he was washed up not because anyone beat him. Benitez beat Duran easily when Duran was only 30 years old and had 20 more years of boxing left. I think Duran fought 50 more times after Benitez.
I think to say Benitez is overrated then people definitely have to say so is Duran. Benitez beat Cervantes and Duran, and Duran beat Leonard. But Leonard then outclassed Duran and so did Benitez. I would even say Benitez best win was Duran. Duran knew what was in front of him and he had a belt there to win and that was not a Kirkland Laing situation. We can throw the Laing fight out and say Duran knew Benitez was an important fight. He just couldn't deal with the speed.
. And then you have to take into consideration Benitez being the youngest man ever to win a belt. 3 title reigns. Beating Weston,Shields,Duran,Cervantes,Curry, Palominio and fighting Leonard and Hearns. I don't think he is overrated. The record shows he beat Curry. I would even say that I think Benitez best reign was 154.
Benitez ranked because of his era? Perhaps a little. When you fight Hearns,Leonard and Duran in that era and beat Duran you are going to get some mention, and he is a big footnote to the careers of Leonard and Hearns since those two guys won their 147 for Leonard and 154 pound title for Hearns.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by ushvinder

I never said Hearns was in his prime against Barkley, but the loss against him still diminishes his legacy. I feel hearns could have really cemented his legacy at 154 or 160 if he had fought kalambay, mccallum and graham. Sure there are reason as to why those fights didnt happen, but at the end of the day, they only hurt him, not help him. Hearns would have ranked above leonard on most all time lists if he beat those guys, instead he chose to fight the names at 154 like benitez and old duran. Hearns has a good resume, but it could have been much better.

The Barkley fight to Hearns is like the Duran fight to Laing. No one cares that much. The totality of the fighters careers is what we look at. Hearns beat greats and was in superfights and Duran beat a great and was in superfights. Barkley and Laing beat them. I do think Hearns would have beaten Kalambay if anyone could it was Hearns with his jab. Hearns didn't fight McCallum because he had Hagler and Duran. Beating those guys would cement Hearns legacy more than McCallum would have and he beat Duran and lost to Hagler. It happens. The McCallum fight is what people mention now, but back in 1984-1986 not many guys mentioned that. They were talking about the fab 4 fighting each other and those other guys like McCallum fighting Curry.
The Hearns fight cemented Hagler's legacy which then makes Duran look better because Duran went 15 with him and then Hearns knocks out Duran which cements his legacy, so the fab 4 sort of build each other up. Duran never fought Kalambay or McCallum or Graham and Hagler didn't either. I don't think legacies are built on that so much as long as they have legacies to count on. In the 1980s Duran,Hearns,Hagler and Leonard with Benitez sort of are remembered more than the McCallum,Curry,Kalambay,Nunn fighters. Those 4 could have beaten some of the fab 4 I am sure, but that really doesn't matter much at this point. The famous group has an advantage in history. As wrong as it is.