The Myth About Sugar Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran

It had nothing to do with it. It was all about Duran’s overconfidence and lack of discipline.

 

Duran > Leonard

 

it's not the layoff. 5 months isn't enough

but I do recall a story in which Roberto put on too much weight

He never quite looked the same peak physical condition after the first bout

 

But Duran was using trickery too. He insulted Leonard's wife and got him all angry and macho to try and go to war with Duran instead of boxing. If that's "fair and square", then so is pressuring a guy to do a rematch when you know he's partying irresponsibly.

 

Psychological warfare but Leonard MORE than evened the score. He sent Duran into a depression!

 

1) Pretty sure it was Leonard who accused Duran of trickery, though. Which would be a self-serving account (for Leonard) in a way that Leonard's account of his own trickery wasn't, necessarily.

2) Making a guy mad isn't quite the same thing as (allegedly) scheduling someone to come in unprepared. Emotions happen in the ring, and a fighter is supposed to control them. But unlike emotions, if you've partied beforehand, there's nothing you can do in the ring to fix your conditioning.

 

Leonard didnt schedule Duran to come in unprepared.
Duran did.

 

Not according to Leonard's version of the story, which was what I was addressing.

 

Duran’s condition was not Leonard’s problem.
I never liked this ease people take credit away from fighters.
Like what he did was easy or something.

 

I agree it wasn't Leonard's problem. Leonard didn't stuff burgers into Duran's mouth. I also agree that both men had to agree to the date.

My posts related to two factual questions:

* Did Leonard ask for a closer date because he wanted Duran to party and get out of shape?

* Was Duran, in fact, out of shape?


The second question was only tangentially related, though.

 

1) but apparently Leonard admitted he took advantage of Duran's partying so it kind of cancels itself out. Either they're both using trickery to gain an edge or neither of them did.

2) I'm not saying it's the same, but in both cases they're doing things to make the opponent more compromised and not at their peak condition intentionally. Duran, a seasoned veteran of boxing, staying away from junk food and drugs should be a bit easier than controlling your anger when someone insults your wife by the way.

 

The issue I was getting at was: whether Leonard was a trustworthy source about the two instances of trickery.

In the first instance, Leonard's claiming he beat Duran by trickery. This is a less likely story to make up. Why take away your own credit for a win?

In the second instance, Leonard's claiming that Duran tricked him into slugging it out. Leonard offers this as an excuse/explanation for his loss. This is more likely to be a lie or rationalization than the story about Duran partying. It preserves Leonard's reputation.

Now, there might be other reasons to believe one or both of these stories. I'm just assessing how reliable Leonard is as a source for either.

 

I thought Duran himself admitted he talked trash to Leonard to get under his skin. We don't really need to know if Leonard is a reliable source in this case. Look at the press conference footage. Duran was Mayorga before Mayorga.

 

It makes Duran look less professional, sure. Although that kind of discipline problem is depressingly common among boxers.

Still, if we were in a "Who was better head to head?" discussion, I'd prefer to be the guy whose fighter had discipline problems. Because in that kind of discussion, I can just stipulate we're talking about each fighter in his best physical condition. It would be a little harder to argue for a guy who was in his best condition, but lost due to anger.

 

That would certainly make Duran a more reliable source for that anecdote. Sure.

Leonard might not be reliable on most matters related to this case. But I was talking about an area where he might be reliable -- because he's less likely to make up an unflattering story about his own victory.