Question about Benitez vs Duran

He said Benitez ‘could’ have beaten Duran at 140. That’s not the same as saying that he definitely would have beaten him. IMO it would be a good fight that could go either way, but I would give the edge to Duran.

If they had fought at 140, Benitez would have to use a different strategy. At 154 Benitez surprised Duran with a more aggressive than usual strategy, using right hand leads. He got away with it since he was the the bigger man. At 140 Benitez wasn’t strong enough, and Duran would have walked right through those right had leads. Duran was also much quicker at the lighter weights, and he could have easily slipped many of Benitez’ punches. Even Leonard had trouble landing any clean shots on Duran. Benitez would have to use his usual more defensive strategy. I could see it going much like Duran vs Viruet, but there is always the chance that Duran could catch him with a late KO, just as Leonard did.

 

Yes definitely more in line with how I see it. 140 would be a terrible weight for Benitez to have a go against Duran.

 

Great performance by Benitez. Duran looked a bit uninspired in this one

 

he always looked uninspired when he lost. He was always that way. When he was winning he had this momentum and he looked and felt great.

 

Benitez always gives a tough fight to Duran. One big difference though is that at 140 Duran had much more quickness. He lands that right hand more. He could close distance. He also there more punches in general.

 

At the time they fought, and at that weight, I had Benitez winning all..the..way! My bud and I bet $500 on Wilfred; of course we only won about $385 since Benitez WAS the fav.
Say what you want but, that night, at that weight, we saw NO reason not to lay a half a thou on Benitez. One judge gave Wilfred a 1 point victory?? What was this idiot smoking??

 

Duran didn't really make excuses for Hearns, Benitez or Hagler. Don't know where that comes from.

He made a million excuses for the No mas in Orleans, but not for those losses against Hearns Hagler and benitez.

I read "Hands of stone" and while yes Duran did train near a prison
there is no mention of any debilitating injury or illness nor any outrageous in-camp misconduct.

Same for the Hearns fight.
He just lost those fights against bigger skilled men, he should get brownie points for just taking those fights above his best weight and past his peak.

People need to understand that fighting against younger guys that skilled who are naturally quite a bit bigger, you're not even expected to be competitive and that he had any success at all above 147, at age 30+ without roiding up to the eyeballs like certain modern greats (who have "somehow" managed to go up half a dozen+ weight divisions while actually seeming to get stronger against their bigger competition until suddenly losing that gift with advancing drug testing) is astonishing.

 

He fought at 154 before Leonard and Benitez and Hearns. He was not that little. That is another excuse. Listen, Luigi Minchillo went 12 with Hearns and took it all and Duran beat him, yet Duran has an excuse for losing to Hearns.

 

How do you guys see a bloated, 33 year old Ray Leonard doing against a peak Bob Foster? Peak Michael Spinks?

Does he make it through 15 competitive rounds?


How about a33 year old Hagler against the best version of Cruiserweight Holyfield?


Does that comparison enlighten you to the extent of Durans testicles for even taking the Hagler fight? And then managing to make it a good fight?

 

Duran doesn't give an excuse for losing to Hearns.

And he didn't need to. It was obvious why. He was past his best, bloated and he was in with a peak ATG who had his number.

What exactly is your point?

 

How old was Hearns when he beat Virgil Hill in 1991 for the 175 pound title and won a UD? 32 same age Duran was when he fought Hearns. The excuses don't work. I just said Duran fought at 154 in 1978 before Leonard,Hearns and Benitez fought there. I cannot speak for Ray.. He never stayed active and was not the competitor Duran was. he picked fights and maneuvered wins at the end of his career. Duran fought until 2001 at 168 ,, and yet he was washed up in 1984 at 154 -17 years before?

 

An aging Thomas Hearns wouldn't need an excuse to lose to a peak Roy Jones either.

 

My point is Duran gets excuses for losing no one else does, and the fact is he has a lack of wins over great fighters. his only one is Ray, who then outclassed him two time after that.

 

he didn't lose to Jones and he wanted to fight him in 1996.. Look at his interview after he fought Karl Willis in Nov. 1996.. The fact is Duran made excuses in fights he lost. As a matter of fact, Mike McCallum said after fighting Jones, he thought Hearns could do well against Jones.

 

Jesus you are thick.
1st of all styles make fights. Hill wasn't a puncher. Hearns looked like dog**** and took a beating vs An over the hill Barkley around the same time.

Some fighters have another fighters number. Hearns had Durans number stylistically.


Hearns also had freakish height for his frame which allowed him to be successful at a higher weight. Duran was short and fat at higher weights.

Duran would still mix it up with brawlers past his prime at higher weights,
Hearns could still mix it up with boxers past his prime at higherweights.

Styles.

Peak Qawi messes up an aging Hearns at 175 just as bad as Hearns beat Duran at 154.