Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

It is a little early and I am tired a little, but I wanted to respond to you guys. I saw 3 comments here. Take care. I am going to go have a pepsi and wake up.

 

I'm going back to sleep. :dead

 

I think the point is that the only thing that changed was Duran and his training habits.

The rubber saw him 2 stone and a decade past his best. big money fight but meaningless in this debate.

Would Leonard beat a properly trained Duran, well he tried once and failed.

 

AS per usual you evaded the question/accusation put to you just to fall back on yer usual dogma.

The above just testifies to the fact that you live in cloud cuckoo land, you are the ultimate in B/W analysisis, criminal gullibility, if it's in the book it must be true or it would'nt be in the book ect ect, totally ****in blind to the point of being branded as a danger to science & humanity in general.

Oh by the way! Go ask SRL what he thought of Durans speed of footwork in Montreal, he'll tell you that it was one of the major factors in the fight in the early rounds of the fight, "He's speed of foot is what is so deceptive" HE WAS OUTBOXING LEONARD!! HE WAS TO FAST FOR LEONARD & ESPECIALLY TO FAST FOR LEONARD ON THE COUNTER:deal

You just can't handle the fact that Duran handed Leonard his arse to him on the end of his boot:smoke

 

Benitez gets credit for picking on an older duran, but buchanon gets no credit for beating ismael laguna when laguna was the ****in lightweight champ! Marcel and buchanon arent as good as cuevas or hill, they are BETTER than those guys by a decent margin. Are you joking, Marcel beat arguello, caraballo, mercano, serrano, he beat antonio gomez twice, you knoe the guy that whooped cervantes. Marcel's resume more than stacks up compared to benitez lol.

De Jesus beat a better version of duran than benitez did. Just admit it, you are clueless when it comes to fighter pre-fab 4 era. You talk as if benitez is on the same level as joe walcott, mikey walker, jimmy mclarnin, kid gavilan, ray robinson, charley burley, jose napoles, ray leonard. He aint anywhere near those guys, most overrated hall of famer ever.

Cervantes got shut out by locche and antonio gomez beat him, quit making him sound like an elite world beater.

 

no not at all. I like the truth and not building someone up when it is not warranted. If Duran had beaten Leonard in the rematch it would have been different, but he didn't. And Duran never redeemed himself with a win over another elite to prove something. Leonard fought his fight and won easily in 2 fights after the first. And to say Duran was dominant in the trilogy is not true.

Ray Leonard came out way ahead in that trilogy over Duran. Same as Humberto Gonzales vs. Michael Carbajal. They had 3 fights same as Duran vs. Leonard. First fight Humberto goes for broke and almost has Michael out of there and he runs out of gas and Michael knocks him out in I think round 5. Well Humberto regrouped and won the next two fights by decision. Who came out ahead? Humberto . There is no doubt. Same with Ray. And with Ray he was not stopped in the first fight, and you could see how he was boxing well in the second and third fights.

 

30 years old was an older Duran? And Benitez retired 11 years before Duran did. It is this kind of logic which Duran fans use, and then Duranimal said I take the facts and turn them around. Duran was an old man when he was 30 and he fought until he was 50 and won two more titles at 2 weight classes after this fight? It is almost like Duran fans want to say Duran was no good when he won those titles, yet when I say Moore had 11 fights they say, it was a great win and proves he is great. Dejesus was better than Benitez? On paper no. Benitez beat Cervantes and Duran and Dejesus lost to them both.

 

the training variable is not a valid excuse. Anyone can use that and training goes good and bad for guys, and we have to rate them on their whole career. I do not think the 3rd fight was meaningless. Duran did not decline like many fighters do all of a sudden and I give him credit for that. Many guys fight Hearns and they declined fast because Tommy did have an affect on fighters after he fought them, they were never the same. Duran did well and did not decline much. A lot of heart and spirit, but that did not mean he could deal with speed well.

 

Yeah 30 is old when you have been boxing that long, its okay though benitez was shot as a fight before he even turned 26. Just because he boxed until he was 50, which was due to him losing all of his money, doesnt make him an elite fighter at that age. Nice to see your using boxrec as your source for arguments. De Jesus beat a much better version of duran. Marcel twice beat a fighter that easily beat cervantes.

 

bottomline is this.. And it is fact not just talk. Benitez,Hearns,Leonard,Hagler were the best guys Duran fought. I think even you would admit to this. All in the top 100 ATG and probably top 50. Duran lost to all of them and was 1-5 record with no knockouts. Marcel is not an ATG, Dejesus is not and neither is Buchanan, although Duran fans would probably out them in the top 100 to give Duran credit.

Benitez has been rated in there because of the ability to win a title at 17. defend all his titles, and the last I saw on a top 50 he was rated right around Mike McCallum-not a bad spot. I don't see Kobayashi near that spot.
And regardless of opinions he beat Cervantes,Palomino,Curry,Hope, Duran,Santos,Shields,Weston . I think he beat Sheilds if I recall. And he fought Hearns and Leonard and Mathew Hilton who was a good fighter. .. Benitez not a top 25 ATG but top 50 by most standards. I never use boxrec. I get everything I know from my memory or I do not use it at all. If I used boxrec could I have posted 70 times on this thread? It would take too much time. I would admit to it if I did. It is probably a good source and I don't know why a lot of newbies are insecure about using it and accuse other people of doing it. If I don't know a fighters history I don't mention it. I like to post freely otherwise I feel I am doing a book report for a college class I stick to what I know and what I can draw facts from. And the fact is this. Should I underline this.. People do not hear this.

The best guys Duran fought he lost to all of them regardless of excuse. And if you eliminate those fights, does his lightweight reign put him top 10 ATG? Then answer is abosolutely not. Because Duran can destroy Lampkin and say had he been in shape (something he even used back in the day) he would have done better, is not the same as fighting the legends. is Ray top 10? Absolutely. Ray did not have a long career, but his wins against greats are as good as Ali's. The sad thing about Hearns which you want to always mention is that he did beat Virgil Hill who is underrated. That win was great and it redeemed Hearns. Virgil was the opposite of Duran. Underrated but had 25 title defenses during 4 reigns. Duran had the charisma and ferosity but in my mind lacking when he finally fought true elites. Virgil did not do well against Elites like Hearns and Jones, but again he was right under it, but his boring style hurts his legacy.

 

Nice to know you dodged the question about which lightweight would beat hearns at 154 and hagler at 160. No benitez is not better than the guys duran was beating at lightweight, and no benitez did not beat bruce curry, he was beaten in my eyes and recieved a gift, madison square garden argees with me as they booed loudly when he was given the decision.

Benitez ranked around mccallum on which list? The one that ranks duran top 5 all time? Gotcha. Marcel and Buchanon have better resumes than benitez, you dont know **** about them.

Its a testament that duran still fought leonard when he was 38 years old, why did hearns stop fighting elite guys once he got his butt whooped by barkley in the rematch, did that loss break his heart? Was he afraid that at age 38 a roy jones jr or james toney would have crushed him?

 

I don't know which list but I always see Benitez on there,and I do not see Marcel or Buchanan or Dejesus, and we wouldn't. I don't look at the lists too much since they are so subjective, but it ranked Duran near 10 I think Duran's ranking in the ATG list has been slipping lately I noticed just on the lists I see over the past 20 years. Historians will try and put Duran into perspective on actual wins and not popularity, which then will affect his overrall ranking. Popularity helps a fighters legacy, which is why Virgil Hill is underrated, but that happens. Ali fought everyone and was great, but his legacy was helped by his popularity and personality. Then you have the flip side with a guy like McCallum who was not a boosting type of guy yet was a great fighter
Did Marcel and Buchanan have a better resume than Virgil Hill? No.


What did you ask me about lightweights and Hearns? Could another lightweight beat him? Hearns was only beaten by 4 guys in his career, and none were lightweight so the answer would be no. You know that as well as me. I don't know ifWhitaker could have beaten Hearns, but Hearns had a jab and I would say no way-Tommy did beat elites. I can tell you this. Whitaker would have beaten Duran and as much as it pains me to say since I do not like Floyd, I think Floyd's style and Duran's fights with elites show he might just UD Duran.

Which list? Go look at any top 100 ATG list which ring magazine or other publication puts out, which is usually an average of many people's lists, and Benitez is about 45 or 50, and usually near McCallum believe or not. Hearns is usually near 25-30. The interesting thing is Hearns has risen in the last few years and Duran has dropped off. Leonard has risen also and Hagler stays about the same. This movie coming out next year about Duran will help Duran's legacy depending on the box office numbers, but regardless again it is about popularity and not actual wins vs. greats. I do not study these lists, but I see a trend.

 

Exactly you couldnt name a lightweight that beats hearns at 154 or hagler at 160 but you want to keep shiting on the lightweight champ duran for moving up and then losing to these guys.

Benitez wouldnt even make my top 100 list if it includes fighters throughout history, which includes the 1890s and onwards. Hes definetly below marcel and buchanon.

 

name the first welterweight to win the lightheavyweight title? Actually won it two times. Benitez not making your top 100 does not mean he does not belong there, it just means you do not put him there. Marcel and Buchanan? Where would you rate them top 100? And I met Ken Buchanan. Great guy. Doesn't mean I want to rate him top 100 or top 50 I should find that picture of he and I. When I lived in California, I met him at the Boneventure in Los Angeles. He was wearing a kilt.

 

Thomas Hearns is not a lineal welterweight or lineal light heavyweight champ. I would rank buchanon, marcel and benitez around the same tier within 10 spots of each other. You want to give **** to duran for losing to hagler and hearns man, how lame can your argument get. Whitaker, Benny and Joe Gans would never beat hagler at 160 or Hearns at 154, so your argument is weak and lame.

Did you ever think that Duran should be applauded for the fact that he gave hagler a big money fight, duran didnt need to take that fight. Hagler wouldnt even move up 2 weight classes to challenge spinks, yet Duran was willing to move up to a 5th weight class. If Hagler fought spinks at light heavy, then holmes and tyson at heavyweight, he would have gotten roasted and you'd call him a overrated fighter. But he decided to stay at the same weight class and only fight guys who have to move up in weight.