Is Montreal's Duran The Best Fighter Ever

Tell me why he's a stylistic nightmare and Barkley wasn't. Simple question. If you can't answer that question, then your reply and your comments have no validity.

 

No, YOU need to brush up on this.

Leonard did say that he fought the wrong fight, he fought a style very different than what he's used to doing and what he did afterwards. You have to get your facts straight.

Now now, no one is saying that the Duran from the first fight was the same as the second one.

He put on a lot of weight, needed dietetics to get down in weight. We know this.

But to say that it was that he beat the best ever Leonard stylistically is a joke.

Oh and a prime SRR/Hearns would battered him (Montreal Duran). :deal

 

That version of Duran was great, but I wouldn't say the best ever. You can make a case however that the Duran of 1978-1980 might've been one of the 5 greatest fighters to ever step into a boxing ring. He came off a very long and dominant run at the LW division and he capped off the 70's by winning fighter of the decade. He was great well before he stepped into the ring with Leonard, but what makes him a top 10 P4P stalwart is what he was able to accomplish during those past his prime years to add onto his already ATG resume from the 1970's.

It's hard for me to say he was greater than Ray RObinson at WW or Harry Greb at MW. Unfortunately for those 2 men they don't have the video footage to show how truly great they were in their respective primes. But if you go by resume and what's been documented about them, I'd imagine the greatest fighter ever is between Robinson and Greb.

 

First, Barkley isn't half the fighter a prime Hearns was. Do I really need to go into this?atsch

 

Yet Barkley was good enough to beat Hearns TWICE..okay you've said all you need to say about this.

 

That's certainly possible. No shame in losing to either of those two, given that he started out fighting at 106 and peaked at 135. So losing to the top ranks of the welterweight division isn't exactly an insult, especially since one is universally regarded at the best ever.

 

Hearns wasn't prime when he fought Barkley the first time and was kicking Barkley's ass until he got caught. In the second fight I thought Hearns beat Barkley in the rematch. All in all I think that Barkley was just a bad match up for Hearns.

 

Here's what happened. Learn something.



Angelo Dundee counseled Leonard to box, to move side to side and not to get caught on the ropes. However, Leonard decided to fight Durán's way. "Flat-footed," he said. "I will not run."



LEONARD CHOSE TO FIGHT LIKE THIS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FIGHT.



Durán forced the issue and took the fight to Leonard, cutting off the ring and denying Leonard space to fight his fight. Durán attacked at almost every turn. Leonard battled back again and again, but he had to work just to find room to breathe and swing, at times simply to survive. In the second, Durán rocked Leonard with a left hook, sending him into the ropes.



DURAN IS NOW FORCING LEONARD TO FIGHT LIKE THIS EVEN THOUGH LEONARD NO LONGER WANTS TO.





Leonard started to do better by the fifth round, finding some punching room and throwing numerous multi-punch combinations. The two fought with great intensity throughout the fight. According to Bill Nack: It was, from almost the opening salvo, a fight that belonged to Durán. The Panamanian seized the evening and gave it what shape and momentum it had. He took control, attacking and driving Leonard against the ropes, bulling him back, hitting him with lefts and rights to the body as he maneuvered the champion against the ropes from corner to corner. Always moving forward, he mauled and wrestled Leonard, scoring inside with hooks and rights. For three rounds Durán drove at Sugar Ray with a fury, and there were moments when it seemed the fight could not last five. Unable to get away, unable to counter and unable to slide away to open up the ring, Leonard seemed almost helpless under the assault. Now and then he got loose and countered—left-right-left to Durán's bobbing head—but he missed punches and could not work inside, could not jab, could not mount an offense to keep Durán at bay


THIS IS NOT LEONARD FIGHTING DURAN'S FIGHT, THIS IS DURAN FORCING LEONARD TO FIGHT HIS FIGHT.

 

Well if Hearns wasn't prime against Barkley want the hell was Duran? Duran simply had no business winning that fight. He was shorter by 6" he was slower, older, and didn't have as much power. The only thing Duran had was guts, heart the ability to take a tremendous amount of punishment and hands of stone, in which he landed a 4 punch combination in order to drop Barkley, which had Gil Clancy, one of the best trainers ever, speechless.

 

I feel Duran was the better fighter than Hearns but Hearns is a bad match up for Duran just like I feel like Hearns is a better fighter than Barkley but is a bad match up for Hearns.:good

 

Answer is NO.

 

Fair enough. The cobra was a bad match up for a lot of fighters. That said I think Barkley was just as bad match up for Duran as Hearns was. They had a lot of similar characteristics.

 

:deal

 

The fact is this, and you really should learn something here.

Leonard was advised by Dundee like you said to box/move from side to side/use the entire ring to his advantage, box him. But he didn't.

He fought Duran's fight for the first 9 rounds because he wanted to show that he could outslug Duran, beat the bull by using his own tactics.

He gave away too many of the early-mid rounds.

Leonard changed tactics in the later rounds and managed to box him and win the later rounds.

The crowd in the 14-15th round was already chanting, "Let's go Ray, let's go Ray" etc. The crowd knew that Ray was turning the fight around.

You could see the tides completely changing in the late rounds if you watched the fight, which I highly doubt.

It was however too much to overcome (The point difference) and Duran won, fair game, he won the fight.

But to say that Duran made Leonard fight HIS fight in the early rounds is a joke. And you can spin it however you want with boxing terminology. I could do that also, but I'd much rather save time and state the facts.

Leonard already said, he could have boxed him but didn't. He wanted to fight Duran's fight and he did.


In the second fight, you could see that he didn't nearly have as much success because Leonard came in with an entirely new gameplan. He didn't beat him by every round. He won marginally but he took away all of Duran's confidence.

Duran was befuddled by the man's boxing/footwork and in the end, he no mas'd out.

Leonard didn't fight his fight and did way better. :deal

TO ANSWER OP's QUESTION

Hell no. A prime SRR would have easily smashed him. :deal

Montreal Duran or not. SRR would have easily beaten him.

 

Aside from all the SRL debate, and getting back to the OP, I believe, p4p, the Pep that fought S Sadler in the 2nd fight is certainly better than the 'Montreal Duran'. So....no...Duran of Montreal is not p4p TBE IMO.