Was Duran-Hagler even going into the 15th round on judges scorecards?

Nobody's overrating Barkley.But he was a big,tough middleweight that a past prime,past best weight and in his mid 30's Duran beat.It's that simple.

 

have you even watched the first fight between pea and ramirez? he schools him.

 

yeah I have it on tape. Both of them. It was not as clear cut as the second fight, and Pernell fought more flatfooted in the second fight but more dominant. The first fight he moved more and yet the rounds were still not as clear for him. The second fight he was defensive yet stayed in punching range and controlled the action. He learned how to be a complete fighter. As a matter of fact it is a similar case as to Duran and Leonard.

 

no it isn't similar. pea clearly won both fights.

leonard got outgunned by duran in an aboslutely career defining atg battle between two elite top 15 fighters in the fight of their lives.

the more you bring up duran the more it dawns on me how great he was.

keep this up and i'm gonna put him at number 1!

 

yes his very next fight Ray turned it around. He outclassed Duran in the remaining two fights. All he had to do was use his feet and counter Duran with his speed and he won. Compare the 1st and second fights and look at Ray's footwork. He did not fight his fight in the first fight obviously, and all he had to do was fight his fight and he wins easily. The facts are there. It proved his dominance over Duran and his greatness. You do not think he won easily in the rematch and rubber match? What do you attribute that to? Duran being out of shape or eating two steaks and drinking large amounts of water? Then Duran had another fight with Ray in 1989. Yet Duran was older but so was Ray, and still Ray won easily.

Duran was not far from his best in early 1982. 30 years old and fighting at a weight he fought at 3 1/2 to 4 years before. You guys sure bought Duran's excuses.I think that is why you guys get frustrated. You have to know what I say is truthful because the truth is there. Duran's lightweight reign involves no ATG fighters. Fact. Later when he fought higher in weight he lost to all the greats. Regardless of the excuses, for him to be as great as some of you said he should have beaten Benitez and Hearns. And he was outclassed. Not just beat but outclassed. Spinks moved up and accounted himself well with Holmes. He did it. Hearns beat Virgil Hill 11 years after his welt reign.

What does it matter if Leonard knocked out Benitez in his first title fight. That does not prove Ray was elite and knew the whole game of boxing. He gutted it out and beat Benitez with infighting and guts. He fought Duran on the inside also and gutted it out and lost a close decision. Do you really hear what you are saying? Do you know boxing or understand experience and how fighters get better during a title reign? Especially in Ray's case where he had 23 fights or so when he fought Wilfred? Forget about me being stubborn, maybe you guys should try and see this objectively. You bought Duran's excuses and ignored boxing logic.

I am trying to understand your points, but they are more Duran excuses with a smiley face around them as though what I said was totally out of line. I am bringing up facts. if people think they are out of bounds that is fine. I know this era and the circimstances. If I said Pacman has no chin and has been fighting bums with no punch then that might warrant one of the smiley faces.
Ray knocking out Benitez in 1979 and Tommy winning a decision in 1982 means what?. Tommy won the fight by boxing. He broke his hand in the fight, so he boxed. What point are you trying to make? Different styles of fights. Tommy cannot knock out everyone, especially with a broken hand, and I always thought Benitez fought some of his best and most experienced fights at 154. So maybe that bears that out.

That is funny. You wasted 10 minutes of your time responding? I agree.
When Duran fought Benitez he was not 31 or 32 he was 30. Floyd when he outclassed Shane last year was 33. Duran lost to Hearns when he was 32. Hopkins just won the light heavyweight title at 46. Anything you say can be countered with weights and times where Duran fought fine, but the facts are that when he fought the greats he lost.

Duran was not this little guy at 154 and 160 at all. That is more of the myth. The things he sold to his fans are he was this little guy who was way past his prime and out of shape. If he lost the guys did not have the guts to fight him like men and he didn't train at all. The guy was in his early 30s who fought until he was 50, and that is significant.
He was out of shape only when he lost to greats, but miraculously in shape when he beat 2nd raters Moore and Barkley for titles. He fought at 154 before Hearns, Leonard and Benitez did, but his fans say he was this guy who was a natural 135 pounder moving up in weight. The facts are clear. If you guys want to say he was great due to his lightweight reign? I agree. But his opposition was not stellar.

 

Thank you for that compliment. Your criteria of Duran goes up with what I say but not from what he does. Duran gets credit for everything but beating the greats fighters. That is my point. What is the real criteria for him being 5-10 ATG? You really believe Ray was elite when Duran fought him in June of 1980? I respect all of your opinions on here, but I also see how you guys bought the myth a little. Duran's weaknesses with quick great fighters is as evident as Tommy Hearns weakness in losing to Ray and Marvin in the two top fights of his career, or Hagler's weakness with versatility. Sure they had other parts of their careers like Duran and his lightweight reign, or Tommy with all the titles and defenses and superfights and Marvin beating Hearns and Duran. But put it all together and Duran is not 5-10 ATG. Neither is Hearns or Hagler. Ray Leonard is the only one of the fab 4 who could warrant that. He beat them all.

 

So,"Duran was not far from his best in early 1982"?Are you sure you want to put that down on record?Are you?Well in late 1982,10 months after Benitez outclassed him,Duran lost to KIRKLAND LAING.That's right,KIRKLAND ****ING LAING.As you like to say,that's a fact.So no,he was nowhere near his best in 1982.Unless,do you believe that that Kirkland Laing would have beaten the version of Duran that beat DeJesus or Leonard?I can't wait to read your response on that one.And yes,Leonard's knocking out Benitez proves that he was elite at that point.That was also the belief across the board at that time.Deny it if you wish,but that's what the boxing community believed.But you know better.As far as your bringing up B-Hop,you do know all fighters age differently.But what's REALLY significant is that you ommited the fact that Shane was THIRTY-NINE or FORTY when 33 year old Money beat him(which completely decimates your argument in that point).And btw,do you believe Money is close to his prime now just for shits and giggles?Bringing up B-Hop,who is a freak of nature and the exception to the rule agewise doesn't do much for your case either.And shot Leonard was not close to 46 when light punching Camacho destroyed him.And you say I'm the one ignoring boxing logic(uh oh smiley faces.Well actually they are laughing faces).Wow Duran being 30 when he fought WB,not 31 or 32,really bolsters your argument.You wonder why people on these boards don't take you seriously when it comes to this subject.

 

You also wrote that Duran lost to all of the greats when he fought them.This is more that you wrote:"Duran was not this little guy at 154 and 160 at all.That is more of the myth."Myth?Are you sure you want that on record,too?Are you?Factsuran 5'7" 66 reach,Benitez 5'10" 70' reach,Leonard 5'10" 74" reach,Hagler 5'9" 75" reach,Hearns 6'1" 78' reach,Barkley 6'1' 74' reach,the list goes on and on.The math doesn't lie.But I'll bet Duran's waistline was bigger than those men when he fought them(uh oh more laughing faces).Yes the facts are clear.Duran was a natural lightweight.And he was definitely past his best in 1982 unless Kirkland Laing was really better than him.Btw,his opposition at 135 is clearly not as good as Leonard's was at 147,but even though Buchanan and DeJesus aren't ATGs,they were great fighters as their records and performances speak for themselves.But you'll undermine them as you always dverall,his opposition at 135 was pretty terrific.