Leonard -Duran Question

yeah and I told you many times and explained with great detail and facts why Duran was not washed up. He fought 35 times after he lost to Hearns. Won another world title which Duran fans give him credit for and that was 5 years (half a decade) after he lost to Hearns. Duran actually fought for another title Joppy 14 years after he lost to Hearns. Saying Duran was washed up does not make sense. He lost to Benitez easily and then later won 2 titles. He could not beat the faster legends. Since when is 32 old when a guy fights until he is 50? And he fought well enough up to that point. Duran is being given excuses. 32 is not old and he fought well. He just could not handle the speed of Leonard,Hearns and Benitez. He could handle Moore and Barkley which shows he did well when he didn't have a great in front of him.

 

Before this goes another 36 pages lets all stop where we are and forgot about this thread.....for the good of the forum.

I've heard enough of Duran/Leonard to last me a lifetime

 

I can tell from everything you say that you weren't around watching the sport or going to fights in those days 70's-84. Duran NEVER fought the same after Leo. 1 when the rage was satiated. Just the fact that he came back in 83 and did so well after the nightmare of 82 was the miracle. After Laing, NOONE would have thought he would be fighting Hagler one year later. What you say is bull**** and you don't know what you're talking about. Everyone who was around the game or followed it back then knew Duran was past his prime and that what he did in 83 was amazing. He even said in 82 in KO and World boxing that he wasn't what he used to be. Wake up dude, you talking out your ass and don't know what you're talking about. I was in the Garden the night he beat Moore, in Erie when he beat Bizarro, Philly for Viruet and and Cleveland for Gonzalez and Duran of Bizarro and Viruet was a completely different style and fighter than the fighter of the other two.The fact is that Duran was satisfiede after Leo.1 and never fought with that anger and passion again. Can you guys imagine Duran at his best at 135 matched up evenly somehow against Hagler, Leo. and Hearns. Prime for prime he would ko them all. He is not considered a greater fighter in history than them for nothing. Wake up dude. You are wrong and full of ****. Boxrec-boy.

 

Its Good vs Evil, bra. It never ends. And its a testament to a great rivalry

 

Duran beat Camacho.

 

Not every day though, bores the **** out of me.

 

Pachilles...dude...are you really in this picture?

 

Let's make a fair comparison. The nearest Duran has ever come to being as physically inept as Ray Leonard was against Camacho was when he himself was devastated, humiliated and sent to the retirement home by Joppy. There is only one excuse for either defeats and that's that both of them were completely and utterly shot to pieces.

Leonard wasn't just past prime for when he lost to Norris and Camacho, he was insanely inactive. I don't think those defeats can be compared to Duran's losses to Hearns and Hagler...he still had a lot to offer, and was fighting fairly regularly.

 

Can you see the differance bettween Duran getting ko'd by the biggest puncher at WW, who was much bigger than Duran and Leonard getting ko'd by the featherfisted Camacho, who was smaller than Leonard.

 

**** off with that Gesta. Leonard hadn't fought in 6 years....and was already done in his fight before that. atsch

 

What do you think?:tong I'm typing full sentences with perfect grammar.

 

****..I wanted it to be true. :|

 

When Roberto Duran lost to Ray Leonard the first time he was still in his prime. (Cue the he's a natural lightweight responses :hi. He was comming off a win over Leonard. A close win but a win none the less. In the rematch he quit. He was losing and he quit. I don't understand how even the most loyal fan of Roberto Duran can defend him for that action. Even if you think I underrate him. Quitting just because your losing and even being embarrassed is not defensible in my book.
The second loss to Leonard third third fight. Duran was coming off his win over Iran Barkely. A win according to supporters of Duran was a great win.
Leonard was coming off a draw with Thomas Hearns. A fight that many felt Hearns had won.

Now lets talk about the Ray Leonard losses in question.
His losses to Terry Noris and Hector Camacho.

Terry Noris was one fight removed from a first round ko of John Mugabi who had up till that point been living up to his nickname "The Beast"
The fight was billed as a comeback fight for Leonard but looking back it really wasn't. He might have "retired" after beating Duran but it was only 14 months between fights. Not ideal for an active boxer but not long enough for Leonard to forget what to do.
On one hand the result was the accepted result Noris was a young lion in his prime, and Leonard was on his way out.
On the other hand considering that Leonard was coming off his win over Duran, and that he was not as inactive as he is made out to be at times.
Ray Leonard gets something of a free pass on this one.

The loss to Hector Camacho is a differentt story. At this point Leonard had been out of boxing for six years. Had Leonard remained active since his loss to Noris even a fight a year. I think he could still been a good boxer even at 40 almost 41. However at that age and that much time off he was not going to beat Camacho at that point and time under those circumstances.

 

Duran was past it at 29?