Some (dare I say it) critical comments after watching LEONARD v HEARNS I again....

I never thought that. I saw Hearns start to land his jab and that left hook when Marvin would tuck himself in to go to Tommy's body. Hearns was using his left to swell up Marvin's face. The right hand he did not use much after round one that is true. But if you look at Marvin in round 3, he was getting tired and he was not that fresh. But Hearns was exhausted. Regardless, we might not ever see a first round and a fight with that sort of action between two of the best in boxing again.

 

Thats tricky, but you have to give credit to Duran for being the best lightweight in the world for 6-7 years which is a longevity at a single weight that SRL never achieved. I think their careers are so different thats its very hard to compare the 2 and come out with a "winner". Out of the "Fab Four" I always have Duran and Leonard numbers 1 and 2, but can't decide on the order.

 

Somewhat similar to Hagler-Hearns which has an outstanding 1st round and then a lotta nothing in round 2 and then the KO in round 3. Both fights are move mindless popcorn action flicks than indepth analytical thrillers if you get my analogy of sorts.

 

That is a easy way out of discussing boxing with someone who has watched it for almost 30 years and forgot more than you probably know. So yeah excuse yourself out of it. I thought we were here to discuss boxing and not to back out of a discussion when it got difficult.

 

Great analogy. Spot on, to be honest.

Morales/Barrera I would be Platoon, whereas Duran/Leonard 1 would be Apocalypse Now!.

 

And Duran-Leonard II would be that shitty Pearl Harbor movie.

 

It was a good reign, but my point is Duran's lightweight reign is not great enough to warrant him number one or even 1-5 ATG status. This is and has been my point for years. If his lightweight reign does not make him 1-5 ATG ever, what pushes him to the 1-5 level? beating Leanard yet being beaten in the rematch and quitting? Or beating Moore and Barkley, yet losing to Benitez,Hearns,Hagler? Something has to be a fact to have Duran 1-5 great ever. The wins over Buchanan and Dejesus are something Shane Mosley would have done also. and we know Shane is not 1-10 even ATG

 

He got inside Leonards head the same way Ali got inside Foremans but I do think that Leoanrd set the record straight in the rematch. With all things being equal I think a 26 year old Leonard was a better fighter than a 30 year old Duran at 147.

Just my 2p....

 

Leonard did not just prove he was the better fighter at 147, I think his wins over Hearns/Hagler/Benitez prove he was a better fighter ATG. Duran had Ray fighting his fight and he still did not knock him out. Even Ray said that later "I fought that mans fight and he still couldn't knock me out"

 

I think it's intriguing how even in the complicated matters of their 1st fight (and the situation wit the 2nd)...how simple the answer to who wins between Leonard and Duran is.

If Duran wins the psychological game, he wins the fight. If Leonard does, Leonard wins the fight.

Simple as that....funny how boxing works sometimes.

 

I've enjoyed the discussion. Laters.

 

And? He fought his fight and lost.

What does knock outs have to do with winning? If you win you win, simple. RJJ had tons of lesser fighters he chose to just walk through without knocking them out, he's still an ATG.

I'm not getting this whole "How many knock outs did he have at lightweight?" business.