If Leonard had boxed Duran in the first ft like he did the rematch , what's the result?

“Ray was too good for Duran” - that’s a strong statement. I suppose it depends on which version of Duran you are talking about.

The popular narrative is that he only lost the first fight because he got sucked into fighting Duran’s fight and he won the second because he fought his own way. Well the style he used in the second fight (clowning) was unlike any of his previous fights.

What Duran had to say about the fight:

''Leonard is from the United States; they let him do anything he wants,'' Duran had said through his interpreter, Richard Sandoval. ''They let him clown around. They let him make a show...”

And he had a valid point. It is all up to the referee: a boxer may be disqualified if the referee deems that he is not fighting. Do you think that Leonard would have gotten away with that behavior outside of the USA? Leonard was our golden boy. Duran was the evil villain who couldn’t even speak English. He wasn’t marketable in the USA. There was way too much at stake. Leonard had to win.

 

strong statement, but he was a greater fighter. More versatile and he beat greater fighters than Duran ever did. A short career, but he proved more in the guys he beat . Well the second fight shows Ray's versatility. He fought in the second fight the way he fought. Moved when Duran got him on the ropes or fought back and moved out. Angles and speed and winning rounds and then adding in some body punches and when Duran quit, he was actually starting to me hit to the head. And Benitez beat Duran easily just a year later, a guy Ray and Tommy beat, and Tommy knocked out Duran, who Leonard beat. That why I say Ray was better. I think he was.

 

Fair enough. Certainly their records after NO MAS speak for themselves. Leonard’s was more impressive, that’s why we have to consider which version of Duran we are talking about.
Also if you’re going to talk about losses when they are past their prime, how about Leonard’s KO loss to Camacho?

Back in the mid 90s I had the honor of meeting Mills Lane who was a great admirer of Duran, but he admitted that his big problem was that he didn’t take care of his body with his roller coaster partying and erratic training. In his opinion the 2 best natural fighters he had ever been around were Muhammad Ali, fastest heavyweight, and Roberto Duran, best pfp.

 

it was not what happened after. it was the resume and who Ray beat. He outshines Duran,Hearns, Hagler and Benitez because he beat them all and in different styles.. He took it all in and won.. no matter what. Duran not getting in shape? To me what does that mean.. He selectively was not in shape when he lost and then in shape for lesser fighters. Leonard losing to Camacho in 1997 6 years after he was beaten up by Norris and not having a fight since? Not really a fair comparison. duran was champion when he fought Hearns.. He lost to Benitez easily.. He did not have the versatility of a Leonard.

 

There was no selectivity there. Duran was never again in top shape after the Montreal
Fight, never. Just look at his pudgy body at 154 and 160. That tells it all. Compare that to the lean body he had when he was in top shape at LW.

Other fighters grew into those higher weight classes. Best example was Hearns.
He was all muscle at 154 and 160. He was still relatively lean at LHW, maybe even at cruiser.

 

that is convienient for him. He has an excuses for all his loses to the great fighters.... Moving up was just as hard for Hearns as it was for Duran, and Duran fought at 154 before Hearns. Benitez or Leonard ever fought there. Duran just couldn't deal with the speed and greatness of those guys. Pudgy? Hearns looked pudgy against Olajide and then outboxed Hill at an even higher weight a year later.

 

Duran in top form was not slow at all. Palomino was most impressed by his speed, not his power. Duran frequently beat Leonard to the punch in their Montreal bout.

 

Palomino is and never will be compared to Hearns. Leonard, Benitez and Hagler. He was good but not great.
Ray was faster and when he fought his fight he controlled Duran. I think he needed the first fight to learn his lesson. but he learned it. Move when Duran got close throw punches and counter than hold and slip out... over and over, then start to work the body when Duran tired a little and come up to the head and Duran quit.

 

Duran quit with Leonard having the lead but not an overwhelming lead. There was no danger of an imminent KO. By Leonard’s own admission, Duran was very hard to hit cleanly. The only boxer that was able to hit him at will was Hearns who dropped bombs on him from a distance.

 

Ray was hitting him well enough after starting to land body punches. As you remember too, when Duran turned his back Ray was hitting him to the body.

 

The false narrative you've been continuing corrected on. He didn't CHOOSE to fight Duran's fight... he was forced into that type of fight. By Duran seriously hurting him in 2nd and 3rd round, and Duran mentally beating SRL before the fight. When your trainer and you come out and say, my guy in the bigger guy, stronger guy, longer guy, taller guy and he's going to KO Duran. Duran fights best when he's coming forward, so my guy is bigger and stronger, he's going to hold the center of the ring and move around there, I don't want him backing up against this guy. Seems to me, by all the things they said, they were trying to fight THEIR fight, while trying to take away what Duran does best. HOW THE F is that fighting Duran's fight?

 

Exactly. Duran told Palomino post-fight, that Carlos "didn't have it anymore". Young SRL of course didn't pursue fights with either Palomino nor Cuevas, when they were available.

 

Another clown statement you've been corrected. It doesn't matter WHEN they moved up, but their condition WHEN they moved up. When Hearns moved up, he was still SMACK DAB IN HIS PRIME. When Wilfred moved up, again he was SMACK DAB IN HIS PRIME. When Duran fought Hearns there and El Radar, was he SMACK DAB IN HIS PRIME? No, and you know he wasn't, he was considerably older then both when they fought. Did Whitaker moving to WW BEFORE Felix Trinidad mean they were in the same form and condition when they did meet? Some of the stuff you say sometimes is pretty dumb, and I'm not even sure if you believe it.

 

I believe all of it. Duran was never a jab and dance man who then slowed down so when he got older like Leonard, it would not affect him the way it did Ray, who could not be effective when he got a little older. Ray started to get hit and lose. Fact is Hearns moved up many time in his prime and when he was not prime and beat Virgil Hill 11 years after he won his first title at 147... Hearns moved up just as much as Duran and no one makes excuses for him because somehow it is not the same thing. But it was just as hard for Hearns to move up as Duran. People assume because someone is taller they can handle any weight. Manny was not that tall and he moved up well and no one made excuses for him either. Oscar moved up and lost some of his power at 147.. So did Hearns. But Duran somehow is the only one who gets excuses. And Hearns fought all the way to cruiserweight. So, who made excuses for him? Fact is Duran fought the best fighters he ever fought when he moved up. And he fought at 154 before Hearns, Benitez or Leonard fought there. And yet he was this small old guy then from some people's opinions, when he fought another 20 years after he fought Benitez. 20!! Duran won titles and was champion in divisions after he was beaten by Benitez and at the same time he fought Hearns. And he won a middleweight title 5 years after Hearns beat him and 7 after Benitez beat him, yet he is this washed up broken down fighter when he loses, yet the greatest ever when he wins. Or he didn't train when he lost, but somehow trains for lesser guys when he wins. It is all great excuses but the fact is he lost to all of his fab 4 contemporaries including Benitez. I believe in fairness. If it was hard for Duran to move up and win titles, it was hard for all of them.

 

No, you don't believe it, and I can tell by your responses you don't. Even if you "think" you believe it, you know deep down, being that you can't address my point, it makes no logical sense. You keep saying the same ******ed stuff over and over, while not answering questions you know disprove your point. Examples:

1. Duran fought at 154 before Hearns and Wilfred

Okay, but the difference is, Duran was past his prime and had already been fighting for over a decade when he met them there. While they, Wilfred and Hearns, were smack dab in their prime. Yet somehow, this eludes you and these concepts go right over your head. The appropriate analogy here, which shows your fallacy is the following:

Was Whitaker in just as good of a condition as Trinidad when they met being that Whitaker fought at WW before Felix? Let's see if you answer this question, and then maybe you'll see how silly your statement is.

2. Duran still had victories after Wilfred and Hearns, therefore he wasn't past his best

Okay, but the problem here is, just because you win past your best, doesn't mean you're at your best, or even close to it. You can still win well past your prime if the circumstances and situations are right. Here, even though Duran was past his best, in some cases well past his best, he was good enough to still win. That doesn't mean he's prime, it simply means he's that good that he can continue to beat people in their prime while he's past his. The examples that prove your point invalid are as follows:

Was Jack still as good as ever when he won the masters in 86 while past his best?

Was Jimmy Conners still as good as ever when he made his epic run in the U.S. while well past his best?

Was SRR still prime when he was winning and losing during his various MW runs? According to you, still winning here and there means you're just as good as ever. When we all know SRR was better and prime as a WW not a MW years and years later.

3. Duran going up there in age didn't affect him as much because he wasn't a mover

WTF is this nonsense. You don't have to be a mover or a speedster to have time rear it's ugly head. Your timing can and will deteriorate with age. Same with your reactions. Same with your hand speed. There isn't a single attribute you have as a boxer that isn't affected by age. Even down to not being able to train and hard in the gym or recover as quickly from exercise or injury. To think because Duran fight like Pep, that means age didn't have an impact is comical. The examples are as follows:

Hagler wasn't a mover, but he was clearly affected by father time, and it was evident in his boxing displays. Joe Louis was anything but a mover, but you could see that his timing, reactions and hand speed were not what they used to be as he got older. The list goes on and on, you don't have to be a mover to have time negatively impact your boxing attributes.


Now, let's see you address the questions and analogies and see how they might apply to Duran.