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

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

If Duran was better than Leonard, besides not beating him the 2 last times he fought him, he should have beaten the guys Leonard beat Hearns,Benitez,Hagler and beaten them better than Leonard did, but he lost to them.

That's true, that is.


(*I thought Leonard got a bit lucky with the decision against Hagler though.)

[FloydFan1988]

this thread is still going?????

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by FloydFan1988

this thread is still going?????

Every few days mag tries to pretend the Durans victory over leonard isn't significant.

[Garrus]

He's very consistent.

[Waynegrade]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Every few days mag tries to pretend the Durans victory over leonard isn't significant.

Right on that ...

[Bogotazo]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

My point has always been Duran and the opposing performances with Leonard in Montreal and New Orleans -and my thinking Ray was the variable and not Duran,

And therein lies the root of it all. Two performances with such drastically different tempo and results, and you seem to think it's solely because of some talent and skill Leonard tapped or acquired so soon after. The first fight will always matter more because we're sure each man was prime and prepared well.

And again, the fight wasn't even a wash before the stoppage, and again, Floyd has never moved around like that in his life, so the original point stands; Floyd is not going to out-run Duran, and Duran at 147 in Montreal (not 154 against Benitez when he was king at Lightweight for so many years) would out-do Floyd on the inside.

[dpw417]

I think Duran at Montreal reached the absolute peak of his great career in that fight...and I also think that..that fight made Leonard a better fighter. Two of the very best of all time..IMO.

[Waynegrade]

Originally Posted by dpw417

I think Duran at Montreal reached the absolute peak of his great career in that fight...and I also think that..that fight made Leonard a better fighter. Two of the very best of all time..IMO.

Both very good points !

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Every few days mag tries to pretend the Durans victory over leonard isn't significant.

I think it was significant but more by the the perspective of Ray learning how to fight his fight and being a complete fighter.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by Bogotazo

And therein lies the root of it all. Two performances with such drastically different tempo and results, and you seem to think it's solely because of some talent and skill Leonard tapped or acquired so soon after. The first fight will always matter more because we're sure each man was prime and prepared well.

And again, the fight wasn't even a wash before the stoppage, and again, Floyd has never moved around like that in his life, so the original point stands; Floyd is not going to out-run Duran, and Duran at 147 in Montreal (not 154 against Benitez when he was king at Lightweight for so many years) would out-do Floyd on the inside.

the comment that Leonard was prime is one I do not agree with. He was prime in his second defense of his first title?
That is the statement I do not agree with which Duran fans use to give Duran credit for the first win. It is overrating a win just on that statement because Ray was not prime. In reality he was not prime for Hearns a year and 3 months later, but he was closer to it. The fact he retired means we never saw him completely prime, but with Hearns he was probably close to a year from it.

As for Leonard being prime in his second defense of his first reign-That would mean Hearns was prime for Randy Shields and Duran for Dejesus the first time. Ray was a good fighter but not complete, and Duran made him complete. I give Duran credit for teaching Ray a great thing about boxing. Don't get emotional and waste energy and fight your fight.
The discussion comes up because I think the second fight was more significant. Say Duran did not train and ate a steak and had 2 gallons of water. If he loses like he did, how can he at least expect a 3rd fight in early 1981 to prove the 2nd fight was a fluke? I always see the Benitez fight as a continuation of Leonard. Why? Leonard said when he fought Duran it was like fighting a mirror image of himself.

I don't think a man quits for no reason, and Duran was too smart to quit just because he was being made to look foolish. He quit because Ray was starting to land power and head punches. Ray beat him mentally and then physically in the second fight. That is significant and absolutely Ray has the edge over Duran in thier fights and in boxing history because he beat the greats Duran didn't regardless of the excuses.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by dpw417

I think Duran at Montreal reached the absolute peak of his great career in that fight...and I also think that..that fight made Leonard a better fighter. Two of the very best of all time..IMO.

that comment is convenient for Duran. He fights his best fight against the only great he ever beat, then he slipped in skills so much he quits in the rematch only 5 months later and fights on another 21 years and 40some fights and wins two more titles at 2 higher divisions.

[lufcrazy]

jesus give it a rest.

[Flea Man]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

Here is the thing. I don't think there is anyway Leonard was prime in June of 1980. He was closest to prime when he fought Hearns or more correctly Bruce Finch,and that was just because he retired and didn't fight until Kevin Howard in 1984.

Leonard was not prime in June of 1980 same as Hearns was not prime in April of 1981 when he had his second defense of his first title against Randy Shields in Phoenix. Or Mike Tyson prime when he fought Bonecrusher. We can go down the line. Second defense of your first title is not prime. Even Duran who fought Esteban Dejesus right after he won the title lost his title. Later he beat him. So if we say Duran beat a prime Leonard, then Dejesus beat a prime Duran in 1973?

Another example, I do believe Thomas Hearns beat the most prime Virgil Hill anyone else ever beat or fought. Virgil had 10 title defenses and undefeated. If Duran would have beaten someone of Virgil's caliber and defenses and 5 divisions over his first title weight people would say he was the greatest fighter ever. Thomas Hearns does it and he didn't get as much credit as he should have. Do I think Virgil was as good as Sugar Ray Leonard? No.. But in 1991 he was more experience and most established as champion than Ray in 1980.

I rate the win over Hill very highly.

[Hands of Iron]

Originally Posted by Garrus

He's very consistent.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

I rate the win over Hill very highly.

so do I. I was hoping at the time Tommy could rack up a few defenses of the WBA light heavyweight title. I thought defending against Barkley was a mistake. He could have fought Frank Tate or Bobby Czyz and beaten them easier than Barkley. Somehow Barkley had a good style for giving Tommy trouble. He took a good punch and he threw in the middle of exchanges and was strong.