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

I think eveyone is amazed at hearns beating hill. It's a great victory.

Just not as great as (sorry I can't help myself) beating a prime peak all time great in Sugar Ray Leonard.

 

Leonard isn't "great" though, Luf. Benitez "didn't train", Duran was "380 lbs" a month before rematch, Hearns was "drained", and he "ducked" Cuevas, Pryor, Curry, Stafford... And Harold Weston. The painter.

It's really not any better of a win than Joseph Nsubuga.

 

Ray was not peak. He was on the second defense of his first title. And the proof he was not peak is that had he been peak and fought his fight he would have beaten Duran easily like he did the other two times. Duran was an easy fight for him if Ray fought his fight. Duran could never deal with Ray's lateral movement. Ironically Benitez didn't use lateral movement with feet and he beat Duran easily. When Duran fought Benitez, I thought Duran could do better, but Benitez's upper movement is what beat Duran. I didn't think he could that easily. I had it a pickem fight in 1982. Hard to believe that fight was almost 31 year ago.

 

Hey MAG,

What type of effort do you think Robinson would make to fight Hearns if they shared the same era? Would he have the balls to fight him like Leonard did or would he be too pretty to suffer detached retinas in seizing greatness?

Do you think Hearns should rate above Hagler considering their H2H was at Hearns third best weight class and that he beat top fighters at 147, 154, 160, 168 and 175 alike compared to Marvin building his legacy solely at MW?

 

Robinson fight Hearns or Duran. I think Tommy is a tough fight for anyone because of his varied styles of fighting. He could be a little standup at times and move straight back, but he came to fight, and his jab was one of he best ever.

I think Hearns is greater than Hagler all together. He fought more great fighters and moved up to different weights and I think the totality of his accomplishments eclipses Hagler. Not much , but a little. Marvin was a great middleweight. I would have liked to have seen him try to move up in weight and fight at light heavyweight. Whether people say he could not beat Spinks or not, it is something all fighters try and do eventually. And Hagler wanted all the lower weight legends to fight him. Naturally he should have been able to move up and fight Spinks.. And about Hearns over Hagler. if look at Hearns title winning fights. He beat Cuevas (10 title defense champion) Benitez (3 time champ) and Virgil Hill (10 title defenses and undefeated), then beat Duran at 154 at a weight Duran won a title at . Tommy moving around in weight and being first man to win titles in 4 and 5 divisions and first man to win the light heavyweight title (2 times) after winning the welterweight title. How many guys have won the light heavyweight title after winning the welt? And from a undefeated titlist who had 10 title defenses.

 

Me too. High five.

 

Yeah, I don't know that he would. Schooling Craig Ehlo, Dan Majerle and Jeff Hornacek one-on-one is an easier match-up than running through Shaquille O'Neal (w/ Grant) David Robinson (w/ Rodman) and Patrick Ewing (w/ Oakley) head-to-head.

I agree one hundred percent. It's amazing to me how people look at Leonard-Hagler and Hagler-Spinks as two completely different situations because Leonard considered and toyed with the idea, while it didn't even cross Hagler's ****ing mind. You got fights at middleweight? Leonard has fights at Welterweight. Spinks needs you? You need Leonard! Bet SRL felt dumb when the most skilled fighter of all-time showed him how to beat him, to make him be the aggressor, don't let him counter...but if he'd won then '82, Hagler wouldn't of yet been the arguable Top 3middleweight we know him as but, overrated and dethroned by a natural welterweight. Which is what happened anyways, but there would be less to holler and groan over than -- 10 oz gloves. I never knew Hearns and Mugabi werent scheduled for 12 in a 20 foot ring. That's news.

 

Sorry...I missed. Let's try again:

High Five!

 

OK, this is supposed to funny, right?

"beaten Duran easily like e did the other two times..." You mean the time when the SRL team was smart enough to sign Duran to a rematch 5 months later because they rightly knew Duran would not train and would be partying the whole time. And all credit to them for this wise tactic. But really, the cards were very close at No Mas. Had a Duran as prepared as the Montreal version showed up in New Orleans it would have been another very close fight. Or do you mean the 38 year old Duran who was a lot more miss than hit and seemingly showed up for a paycheck. Is that version of Duran a pelt on which to hang your cap?

Again, all credit to Leonard for New Orleans. But nothing about it was easy. He had the correct tactic of a quick rematch and still it was close.

Does anyone even remember that Duran was the World Lightweight Champion for SIX YEARS and that was his peak?

 

MAG gives Leonard more credit for New Orleans than he does Duran for Montreal.

Yes, it's hilarious.

 

"Green" Leonard had already ran through a half-dozen welterweight contenders and beaten Benitez on the big stage at Caesar's Palace. "Green" Leonard didn't fight his fight. Angelo tells it, prior to the first bout:

"Duran's a heel-to-toe guy, he takes two steps to get to you. So the idea is don't give him the two steps, don't move too far away. The more distance you give Duran, the more effective he is. What you don't do against aggression is run from it, because then he picks up momentum. My guy won't run from him."

"He's soft. Leonard's the puncher in this fight. I think he's going to knock him out in 10 or 11 rounds because Duran hasn't destroyed anybody as a Welterweight... Ray's going to nail him. Ray's going to stop him in his tracks with the jab. Leonard's got so much talent they haven't seen it yet."

 

Funny? I mean it seriously . Ray beat Duran easily the two last times they fought, and Ray stated he fought Duran's fight the first time. The first and second fights are interesting to compare if you look at Ray's footwork in the two fights. Didn't matter quick rematch. If Ray did it for that reason, it just helped out beating Duran, but that Ray would have always beaten Duran. Maybe even stopped Duran had Duran been countered. Look at round 7 and 8 of the rematch. Ray is starting to hit Duran to the head and body. When Duran turns around and waves off the fight, Ray is hitting him to the body. Ray is not moving away and taunting Duran. Duran had Ray in front of him then, he just was not fast enough to hit him when Ray was moving in and out and using his speed. The outclassing is evident. That is what was clear in the second and third fights. And yes the third fight is significant because even a diminished Ray could outbox Duran easilly. So that solidified that Duran had the right style for Ray always.

 

half a dozen welt contenders are not the level of Duran. I never said Duran was not great, the fact is Duran taught Ray to be a complete fighter, and all Ray had to do was incorporate that facet of fighting his fight and being disciplined into his thinking and he was a much better fighter. Look how much better Pernell was after he lost to Ramirez.
And I disagree with the more distance you give Duran the better. At times if Ray would move to his right Duran (Duran's left) was totally out of range to hit Ray. When Duran got close Ray held him. When Duran walked in Ray hit him at his range and moved out. Duran was afraid of Ray's punches at Ray's range. I cannot explain Angelo's thinking. Fighting Duran was a mistake . Boxing him worked easy for Ray.

 

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.

 

not to compare Duran to Cotto, but for the sake of argument on fighting top guys and excuses. Cotto did beat Shane, but the other top guys he fought which were not favorable to him were Margarito,Mayweather and Pacman. He lost to those top guys. If he were Duran people would give him an excuse for those losses and say how great he was to beat Shane. It is convienient for the fighter who gets the excuses, but diminishes the guys who beat him and trained and put it hard work. And Cotto would have had the excuses last night he was way up in weight last night that is why Trout won. It is all for Duran's benefit, not like the legends of the other guys matter.