His age probably wasn’t much of a factor, but being fat certainly was. Just take one look at his physique in 84 against Hearns compared to his physique in Montreal. It’s quite obvious that he put on more than 7lbs of fat, more like 15-20. If you do the math, he would have lost 7-13 lbs of muscle to make weight, which put him at a big disadvantage
I doubt Leonard loses any sleep over anything Duran related. He fought extremely gallantly in the first Duran fight - standing and trading with Duran all night long. Yes, he lost a close decision, but came away largely unscathed physically and mentally. Duran was just too good on that night - almost demonically possessed to prove himself superior to the "Golden Boy" which Ray Leonard was at that time. Conversely, if Duran has as much pride as he seems to have, he probably still wakes up in a cold sweat after nightmares of "No Mas." I mean, he did the most embarrassing thing a fighter can do.
It is comparable with whom you fight. Hearns was in tremendous shape. I am not sure why you guys spend all this time excusing Duran for wins against great fighters. As though it takes away the win of Hearns, or Benitez or Hagler or Ray. The Hearns fight is in most people's greatest knockouts. Hearns knocked out a guy who was champ at 154..
There's no excuse there. I freely admit that Hearns beat him fair and square and Durán didn't have a chance from the opening bell. Hearns looked awesome. That's not the issue at hand. The question was whether the much more fit Durán could have given a better account of himself at welter, and we really don't know the answer, unless you subscribe to the "often wrong/never in doubt" philosophy. If a prime Durán can slip Hearns' best shots and get inside, then he could win, and i'll admit that it is a big if, and if he cannot, he's in big trouble.
he beat him fair and square but Duran was fat and out of shape is what you are saying, so the excuse takes away from the win. I don't think it can. I think being that he fought the greats and lost to them, that those fights are significant-more than had he fought elites at lightweight and then fought elites higher. I don't think anyone could get Duran out of the way of the right hands and counters.
You continue to avoid it, and yes like the plague. I've asked you to answer a few basic questions with simple true or false answers, and you've been giving me excuses for, what, 15 posts now. Look how hard you're avoiding them that you'll continue to give me reasons WHY you won't answer (none of which are even relevant or good answers). You'd think this would've been done long ago, yet here we are, and still no answers from you. Doesn't that strike you as odd, and yet very transparent why you aren't?
Choice of words? Do you mean Durán could never get out of the way of Hearns' shots? As we've said before, certainly not in 84, but in1980? The jury is still out. I'm not saying that you are wrong. Just that we don't know.
Yeah, they would have you think that Leonard-Duran II was a bigger blow to Leonard's legacy and psyche than Duran's. Weird.
Joe was so outta shape against George he was borderline Buster against Holyfield that first time LOL!
People tend to forget that Leonard's corner went into that first fight extremely confident. Angelo Dundee predicted an early KO because after all Durán was just a lightweight.
No, I don't think so. He would not get out of the way of Hearns punches. Hearns hit guys. He could be hit, but he hit guys clean and often. I think with Hearns he is hit with a high percentage of punches. The style of Duran and not bending under the punches and Hearns jab and speed are terrible for Duran's style. Jury is still out because it did not happen, but we can see the style disaster for Duran. Had Cuevas never fought Hearns, people would say today how Hearns would not stop him in 2 rounds.
People tend to forget that Duran's corner went into that second fight extremely confident. After all, Duran hadn't fought at lightweight for almost 3 years.
Well, it was quite obvious that Durán didn't bend down as he should have against Hearns. One of the announcers even pointed that out before Durán got into trouble, and that is the point of contention. The point being that Durán was able to do just that frequently and effectively against Leonard in Montreal. He had no trouble ducking under many of Leonard's best shots. So why couldn't he do it against Hearns? Was Hearns just that much faster and accurate than Leonard? Or was Durán was just that much slower and stiffer in 84 than he was in 80.
I doubt he wakes up in a sweat at all. He knows he was not at his best in the 2nd fight. It is easy to sleep when you know you can beat someone with enough training time.
