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

well its the excuse Leonard himself uses. He knew Duran wouldn't be in shape. He said so himself.

They fought only once with Duran in shape and it was roberto who won.

 

So you DO believe Duran was prime and the bout had some significance... FACEPALM.. There is really no more reason to discuss this topic further. Just because Duran got some big wins after his prime doesn't mean he was prime. It means he was good enough and skilled enough to still get away with not being primed at times. That is all, nothing more. It doesn't make him prime. The fact that you believe so is ridiculous. The fact is, when Duran was at his best.. he beat SRL from pillar to post. When Duran wasn't in shape.. he lost to SRL. IT's really that simple. Well that, and he's superior to hearns on most if not all ATG list of "experts" and the ESB community. that was really burn you up inside huh?

 

Duran actually balooned up to 210 lbs before Hearns. He was riding the success/showing from Cuevas/Moore/Hagler.

 

Ray know he beat Duran and he has an edge in the fights. He beat him two times after the first fight where he to his own words says "I wanted to beat that man at his own game. and I almost did". Then he said "this time I would fight my fight" And he did it. How accurate was he? And his fights with all the other greats prove that he had the potential to beat anyone.

 

Prime? go on any post I made ever and fine where I said Duran was prime in the 3rd fight. Show me when I said that.. When is someone prime? That is a small window in any fighters career, and the fact was Duran did not fight elite greats when he was a lightweight, so the only real measuring stick we have is when he fought Hearns,Leonard,Hagler, Benitez, and at that point his fans say he had excuses. So we really don't know as much as we think about his potential,to beat the elites but the way he fought against Ray and Benitez show that a Mayweather or Whitaker style could possibly be very difficult for him, and I am not a Mayweather fan, but that style of speed and counterpunching and moving is not a style Duran did well against. That is not saying I do not think he is great, but I do not think top 10 and I don't think a loss is a win because he said he did not train. He still lost and he lost easily to Hearns and Benitez and Leonard the 2nd and 3rd times. And Hagler easily won the last 3 rounds of the fight to win a decision.

 

it is as easy for me to say Hearns got up to 300 pounds before Hagler, riding the success of Cuevas,Benitez and Duran. The excuse is the same one we always hear and it still does not produce a win against those guys.

Had Duran come back and proved he could beat these guys another time at least once it would be more believable. He lost and then lost again to elites.

The fact is the Duran fans say he was not good at 154, yet then make excuses that he didn't train. If he was not good then not training would be irrelevant. Fact is he gets credit for beating Moore and Barkley at 154 and 160. Those two wins prove he was not a washed up fighter. Duran fans want to make Duran washed up at 154 (almost 20 years before he retired at 168 to explain why he lost to Hearns and Benitez, yet say he did so great against Hagler at 160 which proves his greatness. With all respect, this logic is ridiculous and selective.

It is illogical to say a man is great because he almost beat Hagler at 160 and beat Barkley in 1989 at 160 and Moore at 154 in 1983, yet say he did not fight well at 154 near the same time so those two losses at that weight (Hearns and Benitez) should be discounted, yet almost beating Hagler should not. That is logical? With all due respect how is this logical? It is why I comment about Duran. It is sort of wanting it both ways. And then saying his fight with Leonard 2 is dismissed because he did not train. It is picking and choosing what fights are going to be accepted as legit according to what is best for Duran's legacy, at the same time not admitting he really did not beat many great fighters. So if he did not beat those great fights because of all these excuses. What makes him top 10 ATG??? Beating Leonard one time?? What does that mean Leonard is ranked ATG?

 

He said he wanted to catch him when he wasn't in perfect shape and guess what, he did. The only time they fought with Duran in top shape, he won.

That is a fact.

 

He also said he wanted to fight his fight and he did. Duran insulted Juanita and got Ray to fight his fight. It is all psychology. Duran got his fight fought in the first fight and Ray his in the second. But Ray was the variable by how he did against other elite fighters. He showed how high he could get in quality by beating those top guys. Duran is a case of greatness by domination and longevity but not with winning against the best, and Ray is a case of a short career with wins over greats. Which one do you like more? I like the wins against greats.

 

and the fact is Ray fought a different style fight. The actual fight is the only real fact. Like I said, had Duran been able to beat Benitez and Hearns I would have easily said then yes he was out of shape in the rematch. But he didn't and didn't even come close. That is significant.

 

He's great because he's the best lightweight of all-time and beat the arguable #2 welterweight of all-time in his prime. Not sure what you're on about, Duran was a washed up fat **** above 147. To even compare him to the 130-147 incarnations is pretty insulting. You're pretty blind not to see the enormous difference in levels he was operating at. He beat Stacked Odds against Moore and Barkley, fights nobody expected him to win. Why wouldn't they, MAG? Read the above and let it sink in.

 

Exactly, imagine if hearns had to fight 2 all time great middleweights and a top 5 all time 175er like michael spinks, he would get his butt whooped in those circumstances. Is there any lightweight that would actually be favoured to beat hearns at 154 and hagler at 160, mag sure loves barking nonsense.

Or imagine if Hagler had to fight two all time great light heavyweights, and then a atg heavyweight, would he even last the full 12 rounds. Talking to MAG is like debating a brick wall.

 

If Duran didn't get into that car accident in 2001, he'd still be winning fights today. :rofl Puts him no closer to being prime.

 

best lightweight of all time is debatable. I think Whitaker would have beaten Duran at 135 the same way Leonard or Benitez did. Ray when he fought Duran was not #2 at welterweight solely because the top Ray Leonard would have fought his fight. The significance of Duran to Ray's career is that he taught Ray to fight his fight. That fight was a lesson to him, but in no way do the fights Ray had with Duran show that Duran came out on top. When you think about Leonard/Duran's trilogy, you think Ray came out on top easily. The third fight cherry on top of the sundae type of thing. Ray closed the book on his dominance over Duran.

Beating stacked odds is fine but he did it because he was ok at the weight Duran was given credit for winning those fights, yet dismissed by his fans as washed up at 154 and 160, even though he fought at 154 as early as 1978. I don't see how my logic could be seen as illogical.

 

Duran fought at 154 before Hearns,Leonard and Benitez. Hearns did not start at 154 and Duran was moving up from lightweight. Duran was fighting at 154 at the time Leonard fought Hearns in 1981.

Hearns moved up to 175 and won that title 2 times. The first welt. to win the lightheavyweight title. Virgil Hill was seen as a solid undefeated fighter in 1991.. 26 years old. . Hearns beat him by UD. Where is my nonsense? I am bringing up facts. Saying Hearns has to fight Spinks to equal what Duran did? When Duran was fighting at 154 in 1978? Hagler or Hearns were not fighting at cruiserweight near the time Spinks won his title. I don't get the Spinks comments. Duran moved up and fought Leonard who still was in his second title defense of his first title. Prime fighter? If Meldrick Taylor was prime when he fought John Meekins? Buddy Mcgirt was not great but he was whipped by Frankie ****** prior to coming back and outclassing him after learning the game a little more.

 

Which shows the excuses for him being a washed up fighter were inaccurate in the early 1980s when he fought the legends. By 2001 I forget who he was fighting, but he was active. He could still fight. He wasn't fighting championship level, but he did ok and earned some money. I don't know else to say about his career in the 1991 to 2001.