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

I don't think being a tough fight where he is not knocked out hurt Leonard. He went 15 with Duran fighting Duran's fight. I think he learned that fighting his fight was the best way to win, and not letting ego get involved. And he even said later. I took everything he had and I almost won fighting his fight.. I knew if I had a second chance to fight my fight I would win. I think he was significantly better, which is how I came up with 25 percent. Better tactician made Ray better and greater. Oh I think Ray might be the best of the fab 4 on his great wins. The other guys didn't beat them all. I think it made him a much tougher guy to beat after Duran.. He learned about tactics and fight plan and mind games, and putting it all together.

 

I think had he had the Hearns or Leonard or Benitez level fighters at 135 he would lose at 135 because of speed. That level was rare.. Had he had a Whitaker or Mayweather at 135 he would lose a decision.. That is my opinion. i do not remember the fight, but he foughtat 154 in 1978... he was having trouble with weight for years.. He was not this small lightweight who was pudgy fighting at higher weights. He could pack a good punch and hurt anyone at 154 or 160.. Those are all excuses for Duran.

 

I agree with most of this. The bottom line is that Leonard and his team clearly underestimated Duran--his physicality and his in-fighting abilities--going into the first fight and employed a suboptimal strategy. It was a mistake for him to fight such a flat-footed fight, relative to how he fought other aggressive and physical opponents. Leonard still pretty much held his own in what was a very even fight (even if Duran won his rounds more convincingly), but his strategy played into Duran's hands.

The people who believe that Leonard couldn't have boxed and moved more if he wanted must really believe that "Montreal Duran" had super powers.

 

I don’t think there ever was a Hearns-like fighter at 135. Hearns turned pro as a Welter in 1977. A year earlier he fought at 132 as an amateur, where he was known more as a boxer than a puncher. So over a year he put on 15 lbs of upper body muscle that gave him that KO power.

Benitez briefly fought as a light welter at the start of his career so he wasn’t far off.

Leonard weighed in at 137 when he fought in the olympics, so he would have had no problem making the weight then.

Regarding the supposed superiority in speed: as I said before, the young Duran wasn’t slow at all.

His trouble with weight was lack of discipline and overeating, which I certainly don’t condone. Just stating a fact. It wasn’t as if he was adding muscle as Holifield did when he moved up to HW. He still had the basic frame of a lightweight. Looking at him in the 80s he probably had less muscle than he did in the 70s.

 

If he fought at 154, it wasn’t the DeJesus Fight since that was clearly a lightweight title fight.

He had 3 other fights that year:

Win 66–1 Monroe Brooks KO 8 (12), 1:59 Dec 8, 1978 Madison Square Garden, New York City, New York, U.S.
66 Win 65–1 Ezequiel Obando KO 2 (10), 1:09 Sep 1, 1978 Gimnasio Nuevo Panama, Panama City, Panama
65 Win 64–1 Adolfo Viruet UD 10 Apr 27, 1978 Madison Square Garden, New York City, New York, U.S.
64 Win 63–1 Esteban de Jesús TKO 12 (15), 2:32 Jan 21, 1978 Caesars Palace, Paradise, Nevada, U.S. Retained WBA, The Ring, and lineal lightweight titles;
Won WBC lightweight title

One doesn’t just put on 19 lbs of muscle just like that within a few months. If he fought at 154, he had to be fat and out of shape. Not at his best, but good enough to win.

 

my point was not that he was in shape or not. it was that he did infact fight there in 1978, and I would not have mentioned it if it was not true. I remember it, he I think weighed in about 151 in a 154 pound fight. which is at the weight. I think it was Obando.. looking at your list. Pretty sure of it. The fact is he fought at 154 earlier than Hearns, Leonard or Benitez.

 

Yes, that makes sense, it had to be Obando. That was a last minute tune up for his fight against Monroe Brooks.

And yes, Hearns should take credit for being a much more disciplined fighter who trained more consistently, and didn’t allow himself to get fat between fights. Even at middleweight he was still very lean.

Compare that to Duran when even at 147 the commentators noted that his waistline wasn’t as trim as it had been in the past. Here is a video of his fight with Brooks where they point out that he wasn’t in optimal shape. So the “excuses” as you would call them began long before he needed them:

This content is protected

 

Whitaker vs Duran would be an interesting fight. Both close to the same size. Duran maybe slightly thicker. No excuses there.

Mayweather actually said the he thought Duran was the second best fighter ever after himself.

With all due respect to your namesake, Pernell Would have had the same problem Duran had af 154. He could probably avoid Hearn’s onslaught a little longer than Duran, but eventually he would get clocked.

 

Duran was on top of his game in Montreal, He was a smart crafty guy that was relentless. Prime Duran in condition very hard to beat.

 

You do realize that Hearns, Hagler, Kalule, and Lalonde, were AFTER the Duran fights right l.

 

Duran took significant body punches from Leonard who sat on his punches in Montreal. A New Orleans Leonard burning that much energy moving would have been hard pressed to keep the Duran of Montreal off for 15 rounds if he couldn't do it in the 1st fight.

To answer the thread question, I think the fight would have been extremely close , but I still favor Duran.

 

Yes, exactly.

Hearns 1 was a great performance, Heans2, Hagler, Lalonde.... All only at catch weights or after they slipped a little.

Ray fought smart, for the most part, but he did not fight to be the best, only to get the W.

 

Had Duran been in the same shape in fight 2, that he was in 1, he would have won.

 

Leonard usually fought flat-footed, fights like Duran 2-3 and Hagler were the exception. Leonard did make a mistake in Montreal, but it was the fact that he didn’t change his style and use the ring and dance more. Not as if he was usually some fleet footed boxer and suddenly decided to fight flat-footed and trade toe-to-toe. His usual style was to box flat footed in a relaxed manner, circle around, looking to open up with combinations, particularly trying to get his left hook in.

Judging by the way the 2 fights went, i think it would result in a close, perhaps controversial decision. The rematch was competitive, which made Duran’s quitjob all the more puzzling (and disgraceful). Leonard wasn’t as effective offensively when he danced, he was most effective in his usual style. Both guys would have a tough time landing because of their defensive skills, and this would result in some close rounds that could go either way. I think Duran wins a close one.

 

Do you even read what you wrote? You're saying he was still almost at the top of his game during Wilfred and Hearns and after, and then admit he was 26-11 for that period. Does that sound like an elites record to you? What great boxer in his prime goes 26-11? It doesn't happen. Duran, by the time he met SLR was 70-1. That is what it's like to be a great boxer in your prime. Same thing happened to SRR during his MW days when he was past his best. His record became much more spotty. Now imagine that, coupled with his eating and training habits. Granted that is his fault, but it's a fact none the less. Does that sound like a recipe for great performances? Certainly does to me, it sounds like a recipe for 26-11. Yet with a straight face you're going to act like he barely slipped? You're truly laughable with this line of thinking.

You then admit that, yes other things can be affected by age besides just losing your speed and movement. But then skirt that under the rug in the next breathe because it's doesn't fit with your narrative. Reflexes, timing, speed, durability, hand speed can all be negatively affected by age. Period, end of story. When Duran got older, he was no different and these things hurt his overall game. Yet you try and BS your way through stuff and cite ******ed examples that boggle the mind. The worst part is, you actually think they prove your case, they don't. You cite Foreman as, look, age didn't affect him much because he didn't rely on speed. It did though. Do you honestly think Morrison would have a chance in hell had that been a Prime Foreman? Do you think it takes a prime Foreman that long to finally catch up to a foreman LHW in Moore? Shall we go on to other suspect decisions won or lost by Foreman that would've never happened in his prime? Again, that just proves my point, not yours.

Your next ******ed argument is, well Duran fought at 154 first, so it's not like he was fighting above his natural weight class. By saying it the way you do, you're acting like Duran's body was better suited to fight at higher weights, and in fact, he did so first as you like to point out. Clownshoes, he fought there because of his eating habits and not training properly. You freely admit he wasn't a solid muscle 154 when he moved up there in 1978, he fought at that weight then because he was OUT OF SHAPE. Why, again because of his bad habits. You can't act like something isn't a fact, when it unquestionably is. These things matter. Context matter. You wouldn't know what context is if it slapped you in the face. He wasn't Tommy Hearns naturally growing into his body in his mid 20's moving up. He was over 30, and moving up because he couldn't control himself and train properly in between fights. Those are worlds apart in what is ideal and what isn't. You know this, yet spout complete nonsense to try and cover up these facts. It's almost mindboggling by now.