LIGHTWEIGHT TORNAMENT FINAL- Roberto Duran vs Henry Armstrong

You seen Rooster recently?

 

Who's Rooster?

:good

 

Stonehands, I was "slightly" impaired last night :yep. I actually mistook you for someone else and wanted to jerk his chain a little. But since you're being such a good sport, I'll expand a little. I personally take all the Leonard - Duran fights at face value. Albeit my version of face value. Fight I - Duran outfought Leonard. Duran's amazing abillity to close on Leonard forced an inside fight. I don't believe an inexperienced Leonard could have done much different. Leonard COULD NOT have done what he did in fight II without learning the lessons he learned in fight I. Fight II - Leonard learned and adjusted. I personally didn't see much physical difference in Duran from the first fight. Leonard had his number that night, Duran knew it. I might disagree with you about Leonard doing any physical damage. I believe he was starting to get to Duran with some serious shots in the 7th round. Duran shortcircuited history by bailing out. Fight III - Historically irrelevant to me. Both fighters way past prime. What Duran did against Barkley (around that time was impressive) but Leonard beating Duran in Fight III does nothing for his legacy IMO.
I'm more inclined to give Duran a pass in Fight 3 than Fight 2 by a longshot.

 

That fair minded poster. Not remember him?

 

Lollipop, Duran vs. Armstrong in the final...why don't you just call it the token fighters final?

Benny Leonard should have made this final and he would have sculpted anyone before him in the mold needed to clinch the decision because that is what he did to fighters in the hundreds in the strongest lightweight era there ever was.

Who beat Leonard?! Honestly people.

I hope I've been clear enough.

 

I saw a massive difference between the Duran of the first and second fights. It's actually quite noticeable if you watch the fights back to back. He had none of the fire from the first fight, none of the strategy, and seemingly none of the motivation. I put a lot of merit into Duran's well documented poor condition going into the rematch based on how he looked in the fight. Otherwise I would pay it no mind, but the Duran of the first and second Leonard fights were miles apart the way I saw it.

 

Duran would win by virtue of better defense.

 

I think I can meet you half way. We agree on the first. The second one is a bit complicated... Duran deserves the consequences he got for quitting the ring mid-fight, but I don't believe for a New York minute that he was anywhere near the condition he was in Montreal. I am surprised that anyone would! I will also say what I've said before and that is that Duran would never have beaten Leonard unless he was at his absolute best and that he would never have beaten Leonard before or after the point he did beat him. He caught lightning in a bottle that night.... but never would again. This means that at their mutual best, I believe that Duran beats him but only in that brief, very brief window of peakdom.

The third... I fault both fighters for that fiasco -particularly Duran.

 

The fight inside would be a wonderful spectacle, but Duran was a fine three-dimensional fighter, whereas Hank, as great as he undeniably was, was one-dimensional.

 

I totally agree

 

All i can say , is that duran went the distance with hagler , barkely , and twice out of three with leonard. i doubt if henry armstrong could do the same , so maybe it says something about chin comparison and power.
looks like armstrong had a good and maybe better than good chin , but i'm not sure that duran's level. hearns would probably have done the same with armstrong , don't you think ?
duran also went the distance twice with jorge castro and vinny pazienza , these are also two strong and tough guys. so although i know nothing of armstrong's technique , i believe that duran would have been too strong and tough for him , and i don't know how smart it will be for armstrong to swarm against duran , becuase duran's resume shows how much power he can absorb (and maybe also give back in return).

 

Duran was quadruple dimensional. :good

 

Have to go with Duran. very aggressive. But a controlled aggression, boxed well & fought smartly on the inside. Plus Duran should have a power advantage, which would serve him in the long run. Duran Decision Win.

 

If Armstrong can out work Whitaker in the simi-finals. He can out work Duran.
9-6 Armstrong.

 

I wasn't exactly talking about him being not in peak form, I meant that he simply might've been less sturdy with less meat on him - like Jimmy Ellis and Ezzard Charles at 160, Pacquiao below 126, Cotto at 140, etc. I think there's reason to suspect the same is true for Duran, as his sturdiness (chin or body) wasn't tested by many big punchers at 135, and one of the few solid punchers that he did fight (DeJesus) floored him twice - which obviously isn't a lot, but that's more often than we were used to seeing him floored above 135.

Most of Duran's opponents at 135 were cut from the same mold - slick movers who couldn't really punch. I don't believe we saw all aspects of him thoroughly tested at that weight, and I question how well he would've handled someone who could match his strength at this weight and really test him on the inside. Furthermore, he often tended to leave his body open as he came rushing in, and IMO he would've been vulnerable to someone adept at stepping in and countering hard to the body (which is why I would always pick Ike Williams to beat him). Whether or not Duran was particularly "vulnerable" to the body at this weight might not be known, but just the simple fact that he might be leaving himself open to as good a bodypuncher as has ever lived at the weight is going to be a factor against him.