Ray had been inactive for years on and off and was getting old himself, and for a fighter on his feet and fast combinations like Ray, that would be more of a hindrance than someone like Duran who fought another 12 years after the 1989 fight. And Ray won I think every round of that third fight. I heard someone mention denial, yes there is some denial here. Most great fighters fought beyond their weight so all of them were stupidly beyond their natural weight I suppose.
And this is exactly what I said about Duran. He said "Sugar Ray never beat me and never will" It is ridiculous. The man beat him 2 out of 3 times and made him quit once. And when the greats beat Duran he made up excuses. What is the shock of him saying a win is not legit? If he lost he devalued the losses always with an excuse. Yet somehow he was Duran when he fought Moore and Barkley. Do you people here want to be fair about rating fights and history or just look for popularity and charisma?
Leonard states in this new documentary that he never planned clowning v Duran until he saw nothing in his eyes and that it was a different guy he was fighting, Duran is now saying that this confirms what he was always saying, that he was not at his best in the 'no mas' fight and the third fight was at super middle when Duran and Ray way past their best.
Duran`s ability to slip shots had had slowed as he aged and moved up, his was far quicker in Montreal, Ray said he was shocked at how hard Duran was to hit in that first epic clash.
Ray has said different things before so I don't know what to believe in what he says today for this program. What he said in the past was something different. He was going to fight his fight and not fight Duran's fight like he did in the first fight so regardless of anything else he started off fighting a different fight- if you compare round one's in the two fights. Duran saying he was not at his best means nothing. He says that after each loss to greats. If Ray was past his best in 1989-also? He beat Duran every round when Duran was champion at 160 and fought another 12 years... You don't see how the excuses don't match reality?
Duran's ability to slip shots went down from June to Nov in 1980 and yet he fought until 2001-21 years and something like 40 or more fights later? When he was fighting at 168 -20 pounds north? This is why I don't like excuses. No, my boxing knowledge and instincts tell me that if we give Duran the benefit of excuses we should believe all other fighters excuses. And we cannot do that. Ray was the greater fighter in reality.. He didn't have the longevity, but he had the wins which Duran never had regardless of the many excuses. The fact remains. Duran never beat another great fighter again after that one win over Leonard, whom I said was in my mind not fully great yet.
It's been well documented over the years by Leonard himself that he pushed for an immediate re-match because "He knew Duran's habits". It was well known that Duran liked to party after fights & would pile on the pounds. Once Duran reached the summit by beating Leonard & the really big money came, he was never really the same. He remained a great fighter albeit somewhat inconsistent & he had some great wins post Leonard but he was never the savage that he was pre Leonard.
Leonard didn't really have to the tools to deal with Duran's style. He didnt do well with ultra agressive fighters who brought pressure. Especially when they had great speed and quickness. Duran, Norris and Camacho. It was a huge flaw in Ray's game. Speed and pressure kept him from being true Sugar. He is still just Sweet and Low. I don't recall Robinson making LaMotta and Gavilan wait 8+9 years for rematches.
Except Duran clowned right in Ray's face while Leonard ran across the street and made faces. One of the reasons people found No Mas so shocking and controversial is because Leonard didn't do ****. If he had we wouldn't be debating it 40 years later.
I forgot how Leonard had such remarkable reach that he could mock the guy from across the street and still land the jab off the fake bolo.
He made Hearns wait also and Hagler, it was not just Duran. Were people talking about a third fight in 1980 after Duran quit? In reality, Duran was his easiest fight once he fought him again in Nov. 1980. You would guess he would want to fight Duran over and over, it was one of his easiest fights. The comments here are typical. Had Duran given him a tough fight in the rematch you would think about a rematch. I don't understand the comments in regards to Duran. I still don't. I think his resume lacks wins against greats and he and his fans want to construct excuses to diminish the losses and make it seem like he would have won had he not been beaten rather easily.
Sure they would debate it. This is why I post here, because the comments about Duran are so unfair to his opponents. It is as though he gets the benefits of excuses and when he wins he miraculously was in shape. If Duran says he was not in shape when he fought the greats people somehow believe it, yet he did not beat a great after Ray. He beat Moore and Barkley.. Was Ray's win any more conclusive than Benitez or Hearns a short time after?
I think it was a great way to mess up Rays win and take the shine off of it. Had Leonard NOT have started acting the clown, Duran would have taken his loss like his others. Duran was just trying to get through the rounds and had nothing in the tank. He was not going to let Leonard get away with taunting him as he already should not have been in the ring in his condition. So, he gave Ray what he deserved.