The reason Roberto Duran Quit

Come-on MAG you're slipping you forgot to add your usual Leonard was a GREEN champion 5 months earlier in Montreal & now i suppose he ai'nt in New Orleans:rofl

 

That was why Ray lost the first fight and fought Duran's fight. But Ray adjusted and came back and fought his fight in November. Look Duran fans will say that he was out of shape and ballooned up over 200 pounds for the rematch. excuses are everywhere and on both sides, but proving Ray was green is more of a fact than Duran being out of shape.

 

that is the excuse Roberto had when he fought Ray in New Orleans in 1980, and the same one he had when he fought Benitez in 1982 and Hearns in 1984. Everytime he lost to a fellow great he said he was not ready. The excuse is convenient if anything.

 

I have never seen so many excuses made for a loss in my life. If duran is allowed all these excuses for new orleans, how come SRL isn't allowed any for Montreal?

 

This was Durans '2nd' carrer, his 1st was at light weight.

Leonard had half a carrer, Leonard was green for their first fight and fought the wrong fight even though he was bigger, faster, stronger? when was Leonard prime?

 

duranimal - i'll be back in the next 12 hours to give your post the complete attention and response it needs. I will of course be presenting the flipside.

 

I never saw this as his second career. He was 29 when he fought Ray in Montreal. He fought until he was 50. Duran was fighting at 154 as early as 1978 before Hearns or Ray or Benitez fought at 154. Duran is given excuses no other fighter would be allowed. Duran could not deal with speed in the second fight, once Ray fought his fight. Compare the first Ray fight in Montreal to New Orleans. Watch Ray's foot movement.

 

He's not allowed any excuses. A loss is a loss and this loss was begun months beforehand. Duran failed, plain and simple. However, there is no shame in losing to an ATG, which goes both ways here. It is only a shame that Duran did not better prepare himself for the second go around, and left us wanting more of the kind of action from the first fight.

 

But you are. Your making exuses for Duran in New Orleans by saying "He did not train hard for the 2nd fight" implying leonard beat an out of shape duran. Yet when it comes to Montreal, your stance is " leonard was at his peak when duran beat him".

 

exactly, And they say Ray was peaking at the beginning of his first reign at welt. That is like saying Hearns was peak after he beat Cuevas. When his peak was more like when he fought Duran.

 

How did Leonard not fight his fight in their first bout?, when had he fought like that before?

Durans footwork in the 2nd fight was worse, then the first bout, hence why Leonards footwork was better in the 2nd bout.

 

When was Leonards prime\peak?

 

Would you mind pointing out all of the performances either pre or post-Leonard I that resembled his performance in the second Duran fight? After all, he was fighting "his fight" as you claim.

 

What do you disagree with, exactly? Are you implying that Duran was indeed in the best of shape and preparation for the rematch? If so, I assume you've either not researched or simply dismissed the factors leading up to the second fight. Not to mention the manner of Duran's demeanor and performance in comparison to the first.

You may not believe Leonard was at the very apex of his career, but given his performance against Benitez the previous year (arguably the best of his career, in my opinion) you'd have to at least admit he had entered his prime.

 

Never heard "Ray fought the wrong fight"?

That one's much more commonly accepted than any excuse Duran ever had. In fact, it's almost impossible to hear it brought up in boxing circles without hearing "Leonard brawled with Duran" tacked on afterwards.