Terence Crawford vs Roberto Duran @147

This is why I have Foreman higher than most. However a limited guy like Tommy Morrison was able to outbox him. He wouldn’t have beaten any prime great heavyweights at that age.

Back to Duran, he fought a bang in prime Hearns and Benitez, while past his prime and naturally a smaller guy. Robinson was a win a few, lose a few guy past his prime too, but Duran seems to get no end of stick for it but Robinson gets a pass?
Hagler was finished at 32, everyone has a different clock. He only eeked out the tightest decision against Duran while bang in his prime too.

Barkley was very good but didn’t have the speed of Hearns or even an older Leonard, he came right at Duran and Duran had enough savvy to pull it off against a style that he always liked fighting.

 

Duran would have beaten Leonard no matter what that first time.
Leonard couldn’t beat him on the outside, he was feinted in to a knot whenever he tried it. He even admitted after the fight that he couldn’t do what he wanted to do. Duran was just a better boxer than Leonard, (and Crawford).

Admittedly it took a lot out of him to beat Leonard, look at him in the rematch he looks 10 years older, you can see he wasn’t ready. There are fights later on where he claimed to be out of shape and other BS but it’s clear he’s not ready or fired up for this one.
He doesn’t have the strength on the inside exchanges or the speed to cut Leonard off. It’s obvious from the first round.

 

Saying Duran struggled with smart technical boxers is like saying Tarver was better than Jones.

 

I don't think anyone can watch Leonard/Duran (I) and believe there was absolutely no 'outsmarting' going on. The early rounds, in particular, were crucial in defining the shape of the bout and did not see the two of them going at it in devil-may-care fashion, without any thought involved.

Leonard was one of the greatest strategists and tacticians in boxing history. To suggest that "Duran didn't beat a Leonard who was using his legs, thinking, and boxing" is quite a big statement. In reality, Leonard made a conscious decision to fight the way he did, not due to having been provoked, but in the belief it was the most expedient strategy against Duran.

I'm not saying that Duran's pre-Leonard (I) antics didn't play their part, but the influence they had over Leonard's approach is overstated. What happened in the ring, and especially during those early stanzas, had the bigger say in how the action went down.

Leonard himself said:

"I really did not want to take all those punches, but I had no alternative. I fought Duran the way I thought I could beat him."

 

Well, that's obviously nonsense because Leonard didn't fight Duran in the first fight the way he did in the second. So I find it incredibly bizarre to claim Duran would've "always won" when Leonard made it look easy when he switched fight plans.

He wasn't 10 years or even 1 year older in the rematch, it happened the same year as the first match and he QUIT after getting outboxed cleanly. Duran fans are impossible to talk to.

 

Yes, you could say outsmarted him as the two of them engaged on the inside. I am aware Leonard made a conscious decision to fight that way, I myself pointed that out multiple times in this thread. He did it because Duran psyched him out and made him think it was all Leonard's idea.

But he didn't manage to outsmart Leonard when he was boxing and moving in the rematch, which was my whole point. The facts of the matter are that Duran didn't beat Leonard performing at his absolute best firing on all cylinders the way that was most optimal.

 

He would’ve always won in Montreal, he wasn’t in shape in the second fight and not motivated for the fight. That’s my opinion.

The other argument is yours, which is that Leonard was baited in to a slugfest, and decided not to bother changing his strategy when he was losing, to one where he could have won just as easily as in New Orleans.

The trouble is
*Dundee and Leonard both said they thought that was the best way to beat Duran.
*Leonard decided not to change and win easily when according to his fans, he always had the option, and chose instead to take a beating?
*Duran is visibly slower and weaker in New Orleans, he’s visibly not as cut. Leonard is in the same superb shape he always was.
*Leonard didn’t only lose on the inside to Duran, but on the outside, Duran the master boxer at his peak took his jab away and established his own, despite being the smaller fighter with a shorter reach.

 

He lost the outside battle as well. Leonard couldn’t have clowned a fit Duran, if he tried he’d have lost a decision and looked ridiculous as well.

People forget he was stronger than Duran on the inside in the rematch, he would have beaten Duran on the inside as well, because Duran wasn’t in shape.

His dancing style being the difference is rubbish, he did that to mock Duran knowing he had him beat any way the fight was fought.

 

Well, I was talking specifically about Montreal and your take on that bout and, in particular your statement that "Duran didn't beat a Leonard who was using his legs, thinking, and boxing". (New Orleans is another matter and a debate all on its own).

I don't buy into the idea that Leonard fought the way he did in Montreal because Duran psyched him out pre-fight. It may have contributed something to the intensity of their battle, but it's well overplayed as a determining factor and cause of Leonard's actions.

It was made pretty obvious by the Leonard camp, before they fought, that they had a game plan, showing indifference to that plan involving an inside or outside strategy. They more or less said they could beat him either way.

It was Duran's early boxing that served as the real trigger. And, in the immediate aftermath of the fight, Leonard admitted himself that he felt his approach was the only way to beat him.

I see no facts here. But I'll accept you have opinions on this that are somewhat removed from my own.

 

Well whose fault is it that Duran wasn't in shape?

 

Durans

 

I’ve said before I don’t know if Duran was capable of beating Leonard again, at the age he was, it’s the best win ever and it came close to him being 30.
Leonard 1 was really the last we ever saw of a prime Duran. He was at his best from 77/78-80.

If he’d been properly prepared for a rematch I think it would have been a very close fight, if the motivation was there.

 

Literally nothing you wrote changed what I said.

Foreman's corner thought pressuring Ali on the ropes all night was the best strategy. Does that mean in a time machine, Foreman vs Ali plays out the same way 100x even if Foreman decided to not just aggressively attack full throttle against the ropes...?

Do you not see the flaw in saying fighter x loses to fighter y every single time even if they were to change strategy...? Unlike Foreman, Leonard actually bear Duran in a rematch.

The fact Leonard didn't change his strategy is irrelevant. He didn't read the scorecards and didn't know if he was losing or not. The facts of the matter are that Duran lost to the best technicians and movers he faces. All you're posting is a bunch of excuses.

 

Whether you believe Leonard was psyched out or not, he decided to stand near Duran and duke it out at Duran's preferred range. And that certainly helped Duran more than if he had elected to stay 100% committed to boxing and moving.

 

Duran who beat Leonard beat anyone at 147.