watching leonard-duran I right now

I'm not really going to argue this point, but between this sin and Mayweather's decision to avoid his toughest opponent for about 5 years, I think Mayweather's ducking Pac is worse.

At least Duran fought and beat a prime SRL. Mayweather no matter what, is never going to be able to say the same thing about Pac.

 

Why is there no middle ground regarding the second Duran/Leonard fight.

Leonard is absolutely one of the greatest fighters of all time, a true phenom, who held every physical advantage over Duran.

Of course Duran had to be sharp, motivated, and at his absolute best to beat him. But in the second fight that was not the case, while reports vary all are consistent in reporting Duran was in poor shape and had trouble getting his weight down. Duran was nearly as quick as Leonard in the first meeting but in the second fight looked lethargic, his punches were being telegraphed, the difference is night and day.

Leonard certainly made him quit because he was so great, so superior physically, and boxing a damn near perfect fight. Duran would not have quit against anything less, he certainly didn't against the great Bentiez despite being in even worse shape for that one, clearly gassed out in the final rounds.

Just because Duran didn't show up, doesn't mean Leonard was any less great and doesn't deserve credit. Duran has showed up in bad shape plenty of times and never got frustrated like that.

But on the same hand, you come off like a delusional hater if you are going to pretend the only difference between the two fights is Leonard's strategy and Duran in reality is always just that bad. Get real, you are not kidding anybody, not even yourself.

 

Not disagreeing, really, but to make a couple of quick points...

Duran looked decent over the first five rounds of the second fight, though. Leonard really only started to assert himself from the sixth onward. Up until that point, Duran was very much in the fight, even if he wasn't ahead. Leonard indeed deserves credit for the way he was able to frustrate Manos de Piedra in the second go round.

Also...in the latter part of the first fight, Leonard started to utilize a bit more movement and wasn't quite as stationary. Coincidentally (or not), this was the period of time when he enjoyed more success. I think that's where the "Leonard fought the wrong style" argument stems from.

 

The big question in the first fight was whether or not SRL had the ability early in the fight to use that strategy or not. If you go to SRL's Wikipedia site it says this:

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. 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

So if this is an accurate account, which having watched the fight I think it is, then SRL didn't have the option to fight any other way then he did for the first 4 rounds or so.

 

SRL was forced to fight that way.

Idiots think that every time a guy known for slick boxing gets into a slugfest it's because they want to please the fans. Sometimes the opponent gets a a say in what happens. Especially when they happen to be better than you.

 

:dead

 

Please define what exactly is '100%' for a fighter with a history (going back to his lightweight days) up ballooning in weight between fights. He took the same 3-5 month break between SRL I & II that he had taken in his previous bouts since moving to WW.

Again, why is it an unreasonable expectation for Duran being '100%', especially going into a HUGE fight and basically on the same fight schedule had already been on?

 

Mongoose,

I don't think most people have a problem with this and can appreciate that sentiment.

But in the same fashion, I would ask: Why is there no middle ground regarding the FIRST Duran/Leonard fight?

Why is there a need to continue to portray that fight as only a testament to Duran greatness, where he 'overwhelmed' a 'prime' Leonard into a dominating win.

The reaility is that Leonard was a freshly turned 24 yr old champion making his 2nd title defense. He was a fighter that people still had questions about his toughness (hard to believe now, but at the time yes) and wondered if he was more pretty boy than actual fighter. Leonard WANTED to answer those questions about himself.

People act like this was the 'smaller' Duran's 1st fight at WW, when in fact he had been campaigning there for some time and had way more championship experience then Leonard.

People accept Duran 'explanations' for his performance in the 2nd fight (weight, cramps, steaks and orange juice, whatever), but ignore SRL own statements of feeling overwhelmed by the moment in the 1st fight. His own words say so:

A pysched out Leonard admits he got caught up in the machismo elements leading up to the fight. And Duran deserves full credit for that, but it should at least be acknowledged if you want really to be fair to SRL. And it was STILL a close, action packed fight.

If Duran's performance in Duran/SRLII must be contextualized, then, IMO, it is only proper to do the same for Leonard in the 1st fight. But typcially, you do not see that.

Again, that's my thought.