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

why are you telling people what they believe. Why even have a message board with anyone's opinions if you already know what someone believes. My belief has always been that Duran was great but not versatile. He was limited when a person had speed and would fight him on the outside. or with great reflexes as Benitez did. Remember Hearns.Leonard and Benitez were not huge guys, they started off lower than Duran was fighting when they became pros.. In 1978 Duran fought at 154.. before the other 3 did.
I mention Duran fighting at 154 to show he was not a small fighter fighting these huge guys.. So that is proven right there. Were Hearns and Benitez more prime. Sure they were young guys at 154.. but Duran was not old and he is given credit for beating Moore, a year and a half after Benitez beat him easily.. and 7 years after Benitez , Duran beat Barkley.. So much for the excuses he was this past his prime guy who was washedup, and he fought until 2001. Did Whitaker fight another 20 years after Trinidad an how many more titles did he win? Did he win a title 7 and 5 years after he fought Tito in a higher division as he did after Benitez and Hearns? Duran did not have a loss after he fought Hearns in his next fight, did Whitaker? And after Benitez, Duran had that great year fighting Cuevas and then Moore...
I did not say Duran was at his best, but he was not downhill either. He was a top fighter who had trouble beating the legendary guys he fought Leonard,Benitez and Hearns were too fast for him. That is fact. But he was good enough to beat prime guys Moore in 1983 and Barkley in 1989

how is that nonsense. He was not a mover like Leonard, so his speed of legs did not take away his whole versatility like it did Leonard. And you know this.. Larry Holmes still had enough ring generalship to beat Mercer and he was much much older than Duran, who still fought another 12 years after Barkley.... Hearns beat Virgil Hill 28 pounds above welt.. had Duran accomplished that his fans would have said it was the greatest victory in boxing history. Hearns outboxed an undefeated fighter with 10 title defenses at lightheavyweight, and it was not seen as a big deal. Pretty amazing. As for Duran, he is given credit for when he won titles in 1983 and 1989 and he won in spectacular fashion. He won against Palomino also. But when a fighter used speed he lost,, and then we got the excuses he was out of shape. As though training for Benitez and Hearns and Leonard was not needed, yet training for Moore and Barkley were. Getting back to the mover comment. Foreman could fight at 45 because he was not a mover, he relied on power and he was at heavyweight, which has a slow pace. And people do not believe to this day when I say. I knew Barkley would lose to Duran. That is the truth. I heard about the fight and I knew. Stylewise he was made for Duran. Moore not as much, but 11 fights? Not exactly a polished guy fighting a man with near 80 fights.

 

You typed all that, and still didn't address the questions. I want specific answers to the questions I posed.

1. Was Jack still as good as ever when he won the Masters in 86', even though his first victory there was in 63'?

2. Was Conners just as good as ever when he made his epic run in the U.S. open?

3. Was Whitaker in better shape to beat Trinidad when they fought because he fought at WW first?

4. Was Jack Johnson in better shape than Willard because he fought at HW first?

5. Was Jack Dempsey in as good a shape as Tunney when they thought because he fought at HW first?

6. Even though Hagler wasn't a mover, did he look just as good against SRL as he did against Hamsho?

7. Because he wasn't a mover, did Joe Louis look just as good against Marciano as he did Baer?

8. Is it not true that Wilfred and Hearns were smack dab in the middle of their primes and Duran wasn't when they fought?

8a. Does fighting an ATG in their prime become more difficult if you're not in yours?

9. Does stuff like hand speed, reactions, timing, stamina etc etc all get worse as you get older?

You keep making false distinctions and not answering the questions.

The questions aren't:

1. Was Duran still good enough to win sometimes after Hearns, and therefore he was just as good as ever? WTF, but that is exactly what you're saying. Because he still won, doesn't mean he was still as good as ever. That is some ******ed logic there.

2. Some weird bizzaro world where speed and moving is the only thing that goes away as you get older. WTF is this idiocy. The question isn't, is speed the only thing that goes when you get older. It doesn't matter if you can fight while you're older, WHAT MATTERS IS, VARIOUS ATTRIBUTES GET WORSE AS YOU GET OLDER AND THAT IS A FACT.

 

I made my points and I backed it up with other people who did well. Hearns 11 years after Cuevas beat an undefeated champion with 10 title defenses. Spinks moved up and beat Holmes at heavyweight 30 or 40 pound difference, and this was Larry Holmes. You seem to want to make excuses for Duran and will try any excuse you can. The fact is Duran was 32 when he fought Hearns.. I think you are exaggerating his age and his size..I already mentioned he fought at 154 as early as 1978. Floyd fought Manny and he was 37 and undefeated. GGG is 4 years older than Duran when Duran fought Hearns. So much for Duran being this old fighter. He was 30 when he fought Benitez.. 30 is old? Now you will mention the amount of fights he had, but his title fights were not too numerous. he had many over weight fights, many at 154 as early as 1978.. Duran fought until 2001 at 50, and only a car accident got him out of boxing. He would have kept fighting until 2004 probably. Duran didn't just win after Hearns, I think he had another 35 fights. 26-11 with I think {13} knockouts. Duran was good enough to win sometimes? That is a decent record, and only 2 losses in his next 10 fights-to Sims and Leonard.. in a 5 year period 1984-1989.. You are exaggerating Duran's age for an excuse. The logic you are using is excuses and the same ones Duran fans always used. Always. He lost to great fighters and he didn't train or he was old and out of shape. He wins and he is one of the greatest ever. Cannot be both ways. When Hearns lost to Barkley I never said well Hearns was older then. You win some you lose some, but Duran happened to lose only to the greats and win against Moore and Barkley.. he fought to that level.

And asking me, does fighting an ATG in his prime make it more difficult. Well so this is asking shouldn't Duran have an excuse for losing to Benitez,Hearns and Leonard 2 and 3? He was getting good money and he gets credit for beating Ray, but not losing to Ray. The Benitez fight is all but ignored, yet he said before the fight he was in shape and he was motivated just a little over a year after the 2nd Ray fight. Ray thought he would beat Benitez,, and Ray thought Benitez would beat Hearns. So Ray was a little off that year of 1982.

Handspeed is affected when a fighter gets older yes. 30 and 32? when a guy fights until he is 50? I don't think he was that old when he fought Benitez or Hearns, he just fought two guys who were great. Simple, and your excuses for Duran insult those two guys who were great fighters with great handspeed and legacies.

Whether they were prime or not. Duran was not too far out of his. Here is a question for you. Didn't Duran step up in competition when he moved to welterweight? Losing to Ray and Benitez and Hearns was a tough road.

Hagler looked decent in the Hamsho rematch. Roldan gave anyone trouble. Hearns was Marvin's great fight and he was inactive and then slipped.. More inactivity than age. in my opinion.

Whitaker relied on speed first and when that went down his skill level slipped. I think you are answering your own questions.

The difference in 1963 to 1986 is the same as Duran in 1982 and 1984? When he fought Benitez and Hearns? That is more like Duran in 1994 when he was fighting those Pazienza/Camacho fights.

 

I agree with most of this. But Leonard , let Duran get under his skin, (And that's a skill also) before the fight, got caught up in the moment when he got nailed in the 2nd rd, and tried to seriously hurt Duran with almost every punch he used in that fight, he went into the fire with dragon, and got burnt for that effort. They clearly underestimated (Leonard and his trainers) Duran, saw him for nothing more than a blown up light weight and refused to see Duan for what he was, a truly dangerous opponent. And factor in Duran had so much success after the 2nd fight with Leonard at even higher weight indicates to me at least, Montreal wasn't a fluke, and Duran if he had remained at welter would've been an ATG at that weight. Other than Hearns and Leonard (had retired) who else in the 80's beat him? Benitez? a big maybe at welter. So yes if Leonard boxed more it may have changed the out come. But I wouldn't put the mortgage on my home on it that's for sure.

 

Agree. The first fight was very good for Leonard.

 

We do make excuses for Hearns: He was always a great boxer with awesome power, but as he moved up in weight he just wasn’t strong enough to put away those bigger guys. At 147 there were virtually no werterweights that could take his punch. SRL perhaps the lone exception. Even at 154 he was freakish with that unique combination of speed power and reach. It was just too easy for Hearns to put away Duran who was just a puffed up lightweight. At 160 he had problems: Hagler and Barkley destroyed Hearns, bringing into question whether it was even advisable to jump up more. He did so anyway. At LW, Hearns was much like Duran at 147 in terms of leanness. He didn’t start to look pudgy until he got up to cruiser.

 

Hearns fought a lot of guys who were bigger not just Hagler, and I would not say Barkley destroyed him and Hagler, regardless of anything never looked good after he fought Hearns. And I think that fight had a lot to do with it.. He did as much damage or more to Barkley than Barkley did to him in two fights. He broke Barkley's ribs in the second fight and Barkley could hardly warlk,, and he beat Virgil Hill who was undefeated and had 10 title defenses. Duran's best win was against Leonard, who outclassed him in the rematch, whichpeople seem to not want to see. It isn't like Barkley and Hagler were the only guys Hearns fought at middleweight. I think he fought 25 fights middleweight and above.. Hearns doesn't get many excuses because people think height means he can hold that weight, and he had a small bone structure, even if you compare him to Virgil Hill. There is a reason he could weigh in at 147 at his height. Duran was not a puffed up lightweight. That is the excuse. He weighed in at 154 as early as 1978,, before Hearns, Benitez or Leonard even fought there, the same weight Hearns knocked him out in 2 rounds and where he outboxed Benitez for his second title. Hearns started to look pudgy at 168. Look at the Olajide fight. The thing is one moment people say Hearns could handle the weight, in the next people say he couldn't knock out bigger guys which means he had just as much struggled moving up as anyone does. This post is not that great. I didn't organize it well. I went back and posted in the middle with different points. I suppose the main comment is Duran gets excuses most fighters do not, and yet the best guys he fought he lost to.. How can he be rated one of the best ever. Regardless of Hearns..

 

In the post-fight discussion between Leonard and Cosel, they conveniently forget Dundee’s pre-fight proclamation:

This content is protected

You can fast forward to the 5 min mark

They also insinuate that the referees allowed Duran to get away with questionable tactics.

 

Duran really changed Leonard, and not in a good way.

Leonard met someone who was better than him, and he knew it. Leonard's performance in the Duran fight was him at peak ability. He lost, and tried everything from standing toe to toe, moving, boxing...Nothing worked. Duran was just better than him and Leonard even had youth and size on his side.

After the Duran fight, that's when we saw the cherry picker, the negotiator, the runner from Leonard. Ray from that day forward fought only when he could squeeze every advantage from the promoters, like ring size and glove size, he waited for opponents to lose a step before he would risk a match.

Before Duran he fought for real, took risks, and challenged himself and his opponents. After, he realized he was great, but not the best.

Duran took more away from Leonard than most realize.

 

Look at the pictures of Duran in 1978 in this article:

https://www.thefightcity.com/jan-21-1978-duran-vs-de-jesus-iii/

I somehow doubt that he weighed 154 in this fight, but regardless, he was all muscle. He was never that fit again after Montreal.

 

I don't think this is accurate at all. I think Duran made Leonard greater and better and he taught Ray to fight his fight and that winning fights has as much to do before the fights (with some fighters) with attitude and games. He was to me 25 percent better after the first Duran fight. I think the fight which hurt his confidence a little was Hearns, but he still won. Ray was not a career boxer like Duran and Hearns, he wanted to get acclaim and to fight the best with as little fights as he could get.

 

excuses for Duran are ridiculous. He fought at 154 as early as 1978.. I don't need pictures to make excuses for Duran, and the fact is against Hearns and Benitez and Ray he was being outclassed from the get go. I think he was a little overrated.. Not as versatile as a top 10 ATG should be.. He was ferocious and if he could fight his fight, he was the greatest.

 

I want to add a comment.. Sometimes the games people play with fighters which work like Duran against Ray and insulting Juanita, those same games can backfire and be used back on fighters who do that. The ones who do not play games are sometimes not as susceptible to the games..

 

Leonard getting better by 25% is very subjective.

I don't think Leonard got better, he did fight smarter by waiting for the right time to fight someone, or negotiating advantages for himself.

But his aversion to risk and the confidence that he could beat anyone on ability alone was diminished.

Leonard became aware. But that did not make him a better fighter, just a better tactician. Ray was not equal to the rest of the FAB 4, he has wins, but they come with an *. Hearns 1 was his best fight, Then Duran 1, for which he deserves all credit and not a *.

 

Which fight was it that he fought at 154 in 1978?

If he’s overrated, do you really think that any of them could have beaten him at 135?