If Duran face McCallum instead of Hearns, who you got?

So by that logic leonard's first win against hearns wasn't great either because hearns didn't learn how to hold yet?

 

My question to you is did Hearns fight Leonard's fight?

 

You didn't mention that in the post I was replying to. You just said that Leonard didn't know his whole game when he fought Duran making Duran's win good but not great. Then you mentioned how in Leonard's fight with Hearns he hadn't learned to hold yet. So you can't say Leonard's win over Hearns was great either, if you do then you clearly have double-standards and a bias against Duran.

 

I know what I said and the weight I put on the two circumstances. Tommy did not come back and beat Ray decisively in the rematch after he corrected his holding problem. Fact is Hearns didn't hold much until he fought Juan Roldan in 1987, 6 years after the Leonard fight. Ray fighting Duran's fight was everything in that first fight, and Ray comes back and boxes and easily wins which shows that it was his decision to fight Duran on the inside which was why he lost. He corrected it in the next fight. How was Duran beating Ray a great win. Do I think Ray's win over Hearns was great? It was great but not as great as had Tommy been as experienced as say when he fought Benitez, but Hearns at that point was a great welterweight and Sugar Ray Leonard beat him. Was Ray great when Duran beat him? He only had the title for a few months at that point. Compare that to Leonard being Hearns 5th title fight. Hearns not holding was a problem when Tommy got hurt, but not the sole reason for him losing. Again I say, compare the first fight and the second fight and look at Ray's foot movement in round one. Saying it is a double standard is fine, but I am explaining it. A fundamental boxing issue compared to a mental boxing issue is very different. If any of you go look at Ray's foot movement in the two fights because it shows the answer.

 

Either I'm not making myself clear or there are real reading comprehension issues among a few new posters. Duran's frequent lack of discipline is not an excuse. It's a flaw. What is the problem?

Duran has NO excuse for any of his losses!

 

You need to read the posts. I said this earlier.

... and yet he handled Leonard.

You begin with an assumption that allows you to bash Duran. It is this: You assert that Duran was never a natural LW, that he grew into the heavier divisions despite the fact that he was about 27 years old when he stepped up to fight WW. And of course, you don't know what an over-the-weight fight is.

Oh, and you STILL haven't answered the question.

...

Explain the difference between an "excuse" and a "reason."

 

I admire all fighters and am fully aware of Duran's flaws. I do not believe that you are objective when it comes to fighters who you do not personally like.

 

This illustrates your problem.

You don't like Duran. So his being the only man of the Fab Four/Five to defeat Leonard is minimized. You are a fan of Hearns. So his loss to Leonard is excused, by your own quirky definition of what an excuse is.

 

I think it's debatable whether Duran was strictly a "blown up lightweight" or not. Duran looks quite strong and lean and natural at 146 pounds.

This content is protected

 

Yep & there you have it in a nutshell:deal

Now we'll wait & listen for the usual denial of this fact

 

So you complain about excuses for Duran about not training enough for fights, but you make the excuse for Leonard that he "fought the wrong fight" to detract from Duran's win?

 

When a mans ripped to shreds like that no way is he a small WW or blown up LW. Hes big, strong and conditioned at the weight. Its a bit like saying 'Pacquaio is a blown up featherweight, when hes big at lightweight/140lbs

Looking at Durans bodyfat and muscular fullness there he may have benefited from the step up to WW, he may have been drained at LW

 

I agree with everything in this post MAG, good post, they won't listen to you though

 

I admire stoney for having patience in this debate...
Just a few points,watch duran v leonard,hagler,moore,hearns,benitez and barkley and please 'objectively' look at the size difference they all have over duran. Last week i watched a clip of duran barkley and i just laughed at the comical size difference between the two. Barkley is probably the biggest middleweight i have ever seen (maybe because his upper body is huge compared to his legs.) and duran was never even a big lightweight really. In durans bout with lou bizzaro at 135,even bizzarro looks bigger than duran. In contrast leonard did not look significantly smaller v hagler,and hearns never really looked smaller than anyone he fought. (except maybe barkley.)
Most boxers can add 7 to 14 pounds on their frames without looking fat,but this is dependent on a) being lean in the first place, b) having the frame or height to add functional weight. I think duran was fine for going up to welter,and it may even have benefitted him with more strength,power,etc...BUT,remember then he is going up against guys who are naturally stronger,bigger etc,so it kind of evens out.
Finally,going up in weight (by added fat,muscle or natural growth.) is one thing,but going up in weight when you are older and of a short/small frame is another thing altogether,never mind doing that at world level.

 

Good points.
But I dont think he was really fighting outside his class when he's at welter.
Anything above welter, yes. But at welter there are probably lots of guys of his frame size who compete there anyway.

I didn't actually think Hagler looked much bigger-framed than Duran. Yes, naturally bigger, lean and muscled. But not really much taller, broader, bigger-boned.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3fZ_bSAy8Y[/ame]

But that's not surprising because Hagler was actually smaller than Hearns, and about the same as Leonard.

You say look "objectively", but a lot of it is subjective. The scales and the measurements are objective, but even the measurements can be incorrect. So the weights are most objective, but we know that doesn't tell us anything about natural skeletal frame size, or body composition.

I agree that Duran fought and beat lot of bigger men than himself. Barkley being perhaps the best and most remarkable example.