It might be Benitez greatest performance. He did win with movement, upper body movement. He was very sharp.
Regarding the fight. Benitez controlled the range for most of the fight, his success on the inside increased as Duran tired. I wouldn't say he ran... that's childish crap. He was defensive and maximized his advantages. Benitez wasn't an idiot, there's a reason he didn't end up like Moore.
I am the poster who said Duran's comp at lightweight was average so you cannot say I am partial to Duran I am also the one who has wondered aloud why Duran is compared with Robinson and the same person wondering "what's the big deal?" Even so, I had seen Duran fight at a much higher intensity in previous bouts. It's as if we were seeing a lesser Duran, winding down If I had to answer my own question I would say a combination of age (31 or close to it) and all that extra weight he was carrying. I dont think he could get up for fights like this anymore. He did better against Hagler.
Duran aged quickly in the ring, as swarmers usually do. Some swarmers are past their best even before age 31.
Answer what? That he wasn't in his prime? Who cares. These same people who prattle on about this are the same ones who applaud his greatness for every victory past-prime, as if the losses never happened. Not sure what answers you're searching for. As far as insecure; no, son. I am very secure in my disdain for Duran fanboys.
Let me clarify what I meant. Benitez was a big super lightweight while Duran was a lightweight. Had Duran moved up to take Wilfred on circa 1976, IMO Benitez beats him.
anyone can say anything. Duran was not 5 foot 5. Then Hearns was 5-11. If ou are going to make a point, make it an accurate point, since it does matter. he had a 67 inch reach and was 5-7 1/2. The reason he fought Hagler so soon after 1983, one was Davey Moore but also he did a commercial with him I recall and he and Marvin were not that big a difference in height. Marvin was 5-9 3/4 I think or 1/2
