Is Leonard Vs Duran I one of the best fights ever, or atleast your top 5?

No, I don't consider it among the very best fights ever. I DO think it was among the most important fights since Greb-Walker and Robinson-Gavilan II for determining P4P ATG placement [with the smaller and older Duran coming up from 135 for the win], but I agree with UPI's live report after the tenth round that night that Duran had taken nine of those ten opening rounds.

Like Holmes-Norton, I considered the challenger to have matters sewn up after ten. Then, the only question was whether or not the defending champion could save his title with knockdowns or stoppages on the ten point must system. [If scoring had been on a rounds basis, then stoppages would have absolutely been the only options left for title retention for the defeated after the two-thirds mark.]

I consider Hagler-Duran to be superior to Montreal, since Hagler had to rally on the scorecards to take it, and because Duran, at an even more advanced age, was moving further up against the then consensus P4P best in the world, 25 pounds above his peak weight, against a peaking ATG MW.

For me, Duran's best performances were DeJesus III and Palomino. His most entertaining and exciting fights from a viewing perspective were Barkley [a clear number one] and DeJesus II [where he was overloaded with vitality, and came off the deck to wear down DeJesus with countering and hammering attrition].

Montreal was a grueling, tense, brutal and extremely well hyped brawl, which I believe measured up to the anticipation, but I consider the FOTC to have actually surpassed what was expected of it. [Ali was far better than he should have been in the FOTC, when looking at the brevity of Jerry Quarry I, and the slow dull pace of Bonavena. He rushed into Frazier I before fully competition sharpened, while Joe had been active all along.]

Ray Leonard DID fight his fight in Montreal, as any review of his previous bouts should make clear. He only turned cutie for the rematch with Duran, then we didn't really see it again until the opening stages of Hearns I. He had a solid chin and dangerous power. He was taking on an older, smaller lightweight. Best for best, he ALWAYS fights Duran that way in a first time meeting. Only in a rematch would he have ever made the elusive lateral movement adjustments he applied in New Orleans.

SRL telegraphed his punches. That's why he missed so much in Montreal, and against Benitez and Shields. It's also why he was never able to hurt Duran in three bouts. Roberto unflinchingly always saw them coming. After Duran-Barkley, Ray wasn't about to consider revisiting his failed Montreal template again. Attempting to do so and try replicating Hearns-Duran would have made for an entertaining rubber match, but SRL would have been labeled one of the dumbest ATG's ever for engaging like that.

Critics ask what great opponents Duran ever legally stopped. To me, it was his twin knockouts of DeJesus which blocked Esteban from achieving that status [as Arguello did to Escalera]. Hell, you could throw out the same question about Walker. [Dave Shade had to withdraw with a dislocated wrist from one of their bouts, but it can be argued that Mickey never stopped anybody "great" with his fists before the final bell.]

 

Why don't we just agree that excusses don't matter on other side?

Duran beat a prime SRL and SRL turned around and beat him twice. End of story. And yes, a bigger, young ATG fighter named SRL who is considered the 2-3rd best ww of all time, had more sucess fighting guys his own size, than Duran did.

What a shock!

 

Duran was his own biggest enemy.

 

I don't think he would have kept him there and he didn't. The Ray of New Orleans would not have been on the ropes or would have held or punched his way out. Chuchulain mentioned Leonard underestimating Duran's power and size in the first fight, which I always said was legit. So I agree with that comment by Chuchulain.
Ray fought Duran's fight thinking he would overpower him, and he didn't. He wanted to beat Duran at his own game, and it does make sense when they say Ray thought he would overpower him. I never even used that angle at all in my previous comments, but that actually backs up the claim that Ray fought Duran's fight rather than not.
So Ray had to get on his toes and use distance and speed, and it worked. Easily. And it was not just one fight, it was the third fight 9 years later. Some say that is insignificant, but I do not think so. Put Ray in with Duran anytime after June of 1980 and he easily outboxes him. He figured it out. Like Humberto with Carbajal or Toney with McCallum or Jones with Griffin or Ali with Spinks etc etc etc. Norris with Brown.

I think Duran looked aimless and desperate because Ray was getting the distance he needed to hit Duran and not get hit. I think Duran was a legit welterweight at this point, but Ray did use his reach well. 74 inch reach to 67 for Duran. I am not saying Duran was too small to be a welt, I am stating how if Ray uses his reach and speed and LEGS he wins. And he did.

 

Ray didn't make up the excuses. And regardless, Ray beating Duran easily in the rematch proved more than any excuse could. Ray was better head to head and proved it. He beat Duran easily and then 9 years later he won every round when Duran had just beaten Barkley and Ray had struggled with Hearns. At the time in 1989 many people gave Duran a chance thinking Ray had diminished against Hearns, but I knew Tommy was the reason that Ray looked bad and that Ray would outbox Duran again. Styles make fights. Duran could not set with Ray and when Ray would be still he would hold Duran and then wait for the ref to break or hit Duran on the break and move out.

 

this is exactly why I comment so much on Duran. Duran was not the variable. Ray was. Hearns was. Benitez was. If Duran was the variable he would have beaten Hearns,Benitez, Leonard rematch. These kinds of comment diminish the greatness of Hearns,Benitez and Leonard. Now had Duran fought greats at lightweight and demolished them I would say ok his fans have a point, but the names he beat are not names which prove he could match up with those greater fighters and that the reason he lost was age or out of shape. He was out of shape when he fought the greatest fighters he fought. Any logical person knows this is very odd logic. Not comparing Duran to Cotto, but I will just on the losses. Cotto did not beat top guys like Floyd or Pacman. What if his corner said when he lost to Floyd or Pacman or Margarito that he was out of shape and didn't train. Legit excuse?
The names Duran beat at 135 who were the best he ever fought are akin to the names he beat later like Cuevas (who was washed up at 154) or Moore or Barkley. Good fighters, but stylistically beatable for Duran. Put Pernell or Floyd in with Duran at 135 and Duran has problems just like he did at 147. Yet, no way do I think Floyd is the warrior and fighter Duran was, but stylistically is why he lost at 147 and 154 to the greats, and why he would struggle with Pernell and Floyd.

 

If his strategy would be around holding/hitting on the break it wouldn't be the style that would make the fight, it would be the ref that would make the fight...

Leonard was also the bigger man than Duran and had all the physical advantages.(Except maybe the chin)
Duran for his style was getting old, explosiveness degrades quick with age.

And Duran being at 154 quicker than Hearns and Leonard means not much as Duran blew himself up with his eating habits. (Prime for prime this doesn't make him weaker but it does hurt his ATG legacy a bit)
Otherwise you could make case for Denis Lebedev being smaller than Dwight Muhammad Qawi which is bull****.

Prime for prime, pound for pound Duran is simply the better fighter than Leonard.
But beyond his prime I agree Duran was incosistent at times which hurt his ATG standings but prime for prime he remains the monster people remember him as.

 

To be fair, struggling with Sweat Pea and Floyd who are both regarded as p4p some of the best fighters we've ever seen isn't a bad thing.

Pernel was a monster of a lightweight.
Floyd was h2h makes case for being the best 130 lbs fighter ever.

Though at higher weights Duran would have the superior frame to carry weight. (Based on his performance against Hagler)

But beating Floyd or Pernel at 130 or 135 would be a win any great fighter could dream of and struggling with those men is nothing to be ashamed of and shouldn't hurt your ATG in the slightest had they fought in the same era.

 

and your comments make sense. Ray thought he was bigger and wanted to overpower Duran and found out Duran was a legit puncher and legit at the weight. For them to think he could overpower Duran was inexperience and they took Duran for granted. Obviously that was not great logic, since 9 years later Duran beat Barkley, who was a huge middleweight. The Ray of 1981 would have fought his fight with Duran. Not many guys could knock out Duran or could. Only Hearns I would think, so Duran had a great chin and was legit at the weights up to 160. I think like Benitez, Duran was last really effective at 154. 160 was a stretch for both of them.
And like I said if we want to go by what you say is fact that Ray thought he would overpower Duran, well then I think that shows he was not at his best yet at that point in June of 1980 to gauge fighters and use the best tactic. Duran taught him not to take for granted any fighter and always assume the fighter is coming in legit. Leonard did take Hearns for granted in June of 1989 and that almost backfired on him and he should have lost that fight. But I do believe had Hearns and Ray fought a third fight Hearns would have knocked out Ray. And Ray knew it so he picked Duran to fight, yet had Hearns got the decision against Ray in June of 1989, they would have scheduled Duran/Hearns rematch. Which I think would have been harder for Hearns than 5 or 6 years before in 1984, but he would have won by mid round TKO.
The main thing is Ray was not prime or at this best in June of 1980 and he did not fight his fight, and he beat Duran easily in the rematch and rubber match. Those 3 facts prove to me that Ray dominated this head to head matchup and no way can Duran be considered greater than Ray. Adding to this how Duran and Ray did against Hearns,Hagler,Benitez. Duran was 0-3 against those guys and Ray was 3-0-1 against them.
Duran was great, but the thing I discuss and why I respond so much to Duran are these comments that Duran is greater and because he was out of shape in New Orleans. Was he out of shape in 1989 at the Mirage? Remember many experts thought Duran could win. Only after that fight when Ray won easily did people say Duran was washed up again. And yet Duran fought another 12 years.

 

Ray was slick. He would start to hold and then hit so it was not a legit hit on the break, He would have hit Duran before the ref became a factor and did and then would move away. Ray was dirty. I never said he was not. One of the dirtiest fighters who ever laced up the gloves.
Well that is where I disagree. Duran in 1980 was not old. He fought another 21 years and something like 40 fights. After Hearns he fought 17 years and 35 fights. Hearns was the midway point in years for Duran's career if you can believe that. Duran was 29 when he fought Ray and only 32 when he fought Hearns. I think Ray took a little of Duran's confidence away and for Duran's future opponents Duran was stripped of his aura a little. But Duran was not old or washed up.
Leonard was a bigger man in height and reach, but not really in weight and bone structure. Duran still fought in the 1990s as we all know and I would watch his fights on USA network. He had a sledgehammer right hand and always did, and always had power. Even at 40 and 45. The man was not this small guy people want to make him and he was not washed up and lacking explosiveness in 1980.

 

I am just saying that same speed and quality at 135 would have given Duran problems. It was not the weight it was the speed and style, but since Duran fighting better fighters coincided with him moving up, it was used as his excuse. And yes I agree, Duran fought higher than Floyd or Pernell ever could. Even pictures of Duran and Pernell at the hall of fame when both were inducted shows how much bigger Duran was than Sweet Pea.

 

Well, it depends on how you look at it.

I don't think it would make my top 5, or top ten even, overall. But as far as mega fights go, it could be top 5 for me.

 

But there are moments he is on the ropes, despite his (excessive, really) movement and Duran looks sloppy and unable to advance more than two paces in chase, as opposed to taking many steps forward in Montreal. It's clear on tape that it is not the same Duran.

And you even refuse to acknowledge Duran was clearly past his best at 154 against Benitez. Lumping the two, if anything, indicates that Duran was more of the variable. And who says only one of them has to be? Why can't you acknowledge dual components that contributed to the results? You're just so hellbent on insisting Leonard was the variable that you begin to ignore facts everyone else observes on tapes and agrees on.

 

You know as well as I do that what happens in the ring is more significant than an excuse a fighter has after a fight. And it was not just the excuse that he did not train, it was the excuse that came up in the days following the fight about steaks and gallons of water. And then the excuses with the other fights where he fought the greats and said he was out of shape. A pattern was created which was beyond logic. He didn't train for the great fighters but he trained for the lesser fights. That is not logical to me, and shouldn't be to anyone who really thinks about it. Why would he not train for the most important fights of his career? Doubt? Lack of confidence? I saw the picture of him before he fought Hearns at the press conference for the fight. He looks healthy and young.
As for Sugar Ray Leonard which is what this is about. Do I think he was as motivated as he was in November of 1980 as June of 1980? Probably not. But that is not a valid reason for him losing in a very one sided fight. That is part of greatness. Keeping the motivation going and always giving your best.

 

It isn't that I refuse to acknowledge he was past his best at 154, it is hard to really tell at that high high level. He didn't fight the Benitez level guys at 135 for us to know, which is interesting because of the Dejesus connection to Gregorio Benitez-yet no one ever has claimed Dejesus was the fighter Benitez was. So it is convienient for Duran for people to say he was way past his best, when if he was past his best it was because of confidence in regards to the 2nd Leonard fight.

I think that Duran being past his best at 154 is an overrated theme. He was a little higher in weight and he had to compensate and he did with Moore and Barkley. I think the skills of Benitez and Hearns were different. He could still beat Davey Moore who was a very good fighter and he beat Barkley in 1989, when Barkley was a solid strong fighter. He beat Luigi Michillo easily enough, and Minchillo was not a bad fighter. Gave Hearns some trouble. A washed up fighter in 1982 when he fought Benitez, is not going to beat Barkley 7 years later. As good a fighter as he was at 135 when he was at 147 and 154? Probably not exactly but who is, and his power will have an effect and small issues, but I think the factors had more to do with the better fighters, which is why I mentioned Floyd and Pernell in an earlier post. Yet I do think Duran is great. One of the best resumes in boxing as far as who he fought.
The fab four and Duran both were fortunate to have each other and he deserves to be in in that group. But these excuses and people saying he was greater than Ray because of the first fight is rather ridiculous in light of the second and third fight.