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

This is exactly right, but people like Kev like to put forth this silly argument that SRL fought more like Duran 2 and than Duran 1. When in fact it was the total opposite. He always tried to be the boxer puncher who used the center of the ring with some lateral movement. Look at how his fought the biggest fight of his career before Duran. He fought Wilfred the same way. Take the center of the ring, and box, circle and box. Look at how he was with Duran in round 1. it's all there to see, but Kev just misses that round and the start of round 2. HE'S BACKING AWAY when Duran charges, he's circling and boxing JUST LIKE HE ALWAYS DOES. Then he gets caught and messed up badly in the second and again in the third. This changes his fluidity and timing. Now Duran is controlling the tempo and SRL being hurt gets into his head. It was the first time he was hurt like that in the pros and he didn't expect it from a smaller guy. Now he has to respect Duran, and now Duran's feints further throw off his timing and balance. It's all there to see. Yet Kev seems to believe that SRL usually fought like Duran 2, and thus he just chose to fight Duran's fight and that was the only difference. Me and Kev generally agree, but here, he's just wildly off base imo

 

Interesting observation. Watching the first round of Leonard Hearns I, Ray started out much like the Duran 2 fight, trying to be cute, and that didn’t work all that well against Hearns with his longer and reach quick jab. Ray even thought about doing one of those silly bolos, but he backed off, realizing it wasn’t a good idea against Tommy.

 

who said he was elite. I am showing that even after Hearns he had a winning record, even near 50. You seem to want to make one big excuse and if someone does not buy it you get upset about it So Duran can get excuses when he is champion and no one else can Yet the best guys he fought was when he was out of shape and not good yet he is considered part of a great era. You cannot have it both ways. You argue for an excuse to be made for a guy losing to all the greats he fought. How complimentary is that to Duran?

 

well Duran did fight at 154. which was my point. So he was at 154 before Hearns,Benitez and Leonard, the 3 greatest fighters he fought besides Hagler, but Marvin was not at 154. Hearns waistline was not as trim at middleweight as he was at 160, but no one made excuses for him. The excuses for Duran go with Duran making excuses everytime he lost. But tell me this, if he got credit for beating Moore and Barkley ion 1983 and 1989 why aren't the guy who beat him in 1982 and 1984 getting credit, since they beat him 19 and 17 years before he finally retired. Depending on excuses to explain a guy losing to the best guys he ever fought to me is not the best support for a guy being the best ever, since at lightweight he did not have the opposition he had later. And that lightweight competition does not make him top 15 ATG.

 

“But tell me this, if he got credit for beating Moore and Barkley ion 1983 and 1989 why aren't the guy who beat him in 1982 and 1984 getting credit”

You mean Benitez and Hearns. Why not include Hagler?

Of course they all get credit for beating Duran. There’s no need for excuses when you win. But of course Hagler had his excuses for not knocking him out.

Post fight Hagler said that Duran had been a great lightweight but didn’t have any business moving up to middleweight. He also insinuated that Duran was just trying to survive to avoid a KO.

Do you know of any featherweights who could have moved up to beat Duran at 135?

 

I am talking about 154 since he was lower in weight and still could not beat them. Hagler he still did well at 160. higher than he fought Hearns and Benitez.. So the weight excuse is not valid just on that. That is why Arum wanted that fight, he saw Hagler and Duran together and saw that they were not too different in size. Hagler did better when he thought a guy threatened to beat him and lose his championship. which is why Leonard acted like he was not a good fighter and was so nice to Hagler.

 

I don’t quite follow. Are you saying Leonard pretended to be afraid of him?

 

yeah a little. He acted and said Hagler was nice and so was Bertha. He saw how Hagler acted when he fought Hearns. Hearns got him mad and said he would knock him out and he was a midget and all these insults, and Hagler was furious, which those are two things Hagler does better with when he was mad and thought the guy could possibly beat him. Leonard could not have had a good showing in a tuneup fight or Hagler might have taken him more seriously mentally. So Leonard comes out of retirement all humble and then he gets the 12 rounds he wants and everything worked for him. Hagler came out right handed wanting to outbox Ray. You think had Ray upset Hagler prior to the fight Hagler would have come out righty?

 

Interesting strategy.

The part I remember most about the fight was when Hagler appeared to have him cornered, and Ray suddenly unleashed a flurry that was too much for Hagler. More than anything he ever did against Duran.

 

Incorrect, I exposed all your bs, for exactly that, bs. I took each one of your points and showed how it wasn't what you're trying to make it out to be. You keep acting like 26-11 is a GOOD record. It's not. It's not elite, it's not great, it's not even good. It's Journeyman level or worse. Do you think you'd call a fighter good if they are 26-11? I certainly wouldn't. Yet that is the BS you're trying to peddle here. You can't accept the fact that Duran was diminished and past his best, because you want to make his losses to the fighters you like seem better than they were. They weren't. Were they good wins, sure, was Duran at his best or prime, no way. There are no two ways about it. You can't make him prime because you want the wins to seem better. Not how it works. 70-1 is what a prime, elite record looks like. 26-11 looks like a record of a average fighter at best.

 

You did not expose anything. I brought up facts. Duran had two losses when he fought Benitez and four when he fought Hearns. You are trying to validate Duran's excuses for losing to Hearns and Benitez, which cannot be validated.. Two losses when he fought Benitez and had fought at 154 as early as 1978. What did you expose? So if you are looking at records and saying 26-11 for a 50 year old is not good since fighting Hearns in 1984, which is 37 more fights after Hearns, then 2 losses when he fought Benitez and 4 when he fought Hearns was not a bad fighter, and he was champion when he fought Hearns. Is it that important to make Duran washed up when he was not? You can say this is bs all you want, but the facts are he is given credit for his wins against Moore and Barkley (Barkley was 5 and 7 years after Hearns and Benitez) yet when he loses he is this overweight fighter.. It insults boxing and the fighters who beat him. The fighting at 154 in 1978 validates he was not overweight, and the fact Arum saw how he was near Hagler's size validates another thing,and the fact he went 15 with Marvin. Hearns was another story when it came to power. People think Hearns could not punch maybe. His right hand hurt or knocked down most of the legends he fought. I think my points are valid. Very. And I was mentioning he had a winning record up to 50 since Hearns, The fact that he lost 2 of his next 10 fights after Hearns, is not exactly a bad thing if you consider Leonard was one of those losses and he won the middleweight title in 1989 in one of those 8 wins. I think making excuses for Duran is just that. Excuses. He stepped up in competition and that had a lot to do with his losses. It is not the popular opinion, but I don't want to go with facts I don't believe in.

 

Ray was great, but Ray put it all together. He knew Hagler was rusty and was sort of done with boxing mentally a little. He saw that in the Mugabi fight. So he comes out and then makes it look like he is just this rusty old welterweight and talks nice to Hagler, and it worked He put it together. He was the sharper less rusty guy as it turned out.

 

I will say this. I thought Hagler would stop Ray in 5 or 6 rounds in 1987,,, Duran vs. Barkley. I did think Duran would win, and I wish there was the net there where I could show people who do not believe that I did know Duran had the perfect style with Barkley. My friend Arthur might know my opinion. but in those years without the net you just thought what you thought and followed boxing. Not many of my friends were into boxing to discuss it except me, so I just followed it and read the boxing magazines. With Ray, I thought Marvin would win. I like everyone else thought Ray was rusty and the Kevin Howard fight showed something, but he had more than what we thought and he was motivated..

 

Of course the 'excuses' as you call them can be validated. I prefer to call them explanations. There is no disrespect intended to any of those great fighters. I will say that Duran got a lot of disrespect even after he beat Leonard. There were many more excuses for Leonard's loss than there ever were for Duran.
Duran and Hagler weren't even close to he same size. Hagler may have only been about 2" taller, but he had a significantly longer reach 75" vs 66" for Duran. Their proximities in weight was misleading because Duran still had the frame of a lightweight. He only weighed more because he wasn't lean.
So he fought at 154 once in 1978. So what. He had along history of fluctuating weights between bouts and that was no more than a tune up fight for an upcoming welterweight fight. He may have weighed as much as 180 at some point in 1978. That doesn't mean he was in optimal shape.
I'm not sure everyone understands the toll on person's body that is caused by rapid weight loss. To lose 1 lb of fat one has to burn about 3000 calories, which is the equivalent of running about 30 miles, more than a marathon. The most fat one can reasonably expect to lose safely is about 1/2 lb/day or about 15 lbs/month. Losing more than that through starvation diets will lead to muscle breakdown via gluconeogenesis. So yes, in most of his later fights he was in suboptimal condition. He never gave himself enough time to lose the weight correctly conserving muscle mass. So he showed up fat and not as strong as e should have been. This is not popular opinion. These are facts.

 

But that's on Duran. Every boxer has his own choice how seriously he wants to take the sport.. That's sports in general. Pea and Kupurt have been battling this out forever and they both are right but just see things differently.. Yes Duran getting older and ballooning up in between fights is factual but when you start going down the road of making excuses for boxer's as why they lose, that can be done in every single fight that has ever occurred... That's not boxing and sports in general.. It is factual footnotes but NOT why the winner wins as in all sports.. This is all pretty simple, Duran was a natural LW, so obviously it going to be harder for him to go up and face the tougher comp. as he did fighting the naturally bigger men at 147 and 154. It is simple as that. And I know very well that weight adv. isn't everything, BUT it is simple common sense that it is harder to move up, especially when you are fighting better guys. Duran chose to go about his biz they way he did.. and at the end of the day.. it's on him .. there is no doubt in my mind that if he did things differently he would have done better