Can A Case Be Made To Place Duran At #1 P4P All Time?

Big George Foreman

 

Not understanding this logic at all? Why would Duran quit if he felt like he was winning and was going to win the fight? He would not have got frustrated and quit if it wasn't for Ray putting him in that position. If Duran was dominating, he wouldn't have quit, whether he trained 1 day or everyday for the fight

 

what takes away? I don't buy excuses of steaks and water and all these other things. They were both paid to be in shape and fight. And that amount of time to fight? Ray fought Hearns less than 3 months after Kalule in 1981. Duran was a factor in the first fight simply because he outfought Ray at his fight, yet as Ray said I almost won that fight at his own game. I knew if I fought him my way I would win. Easy. And he did. This is why I think Ray was the variable

 

I hope they gave him a reason for why he was booted.

 

I'm not sure how you've managed to generate so many questions from a fairly simple statement.

What 'logic' is involved here, other than there are two people in a fight, who contribute to the result of a boxing match? In this case Leonard and Duran (II). Therefore Leonard was not the only variable.

When did I say Duran felt he was winning?

When did I suggest that Duran was dominating?

It currently doesn't appear that you've followed the conversation trail, at all.

 

Duran didn't have a choice in the second fight. Ray was fighting his fight and outspeeding Duran and frustrating him. Duran fought in the first fight because he had that option, but in the second fight Ray decided how the fight would go. Duran would have loved to have had Ray fight in the second fight. He probably would have won or had a close fight this time also. Ray knew, stay away from that and box and frustrated and he didn't want to just beat Duran, he wanted to embarrass him. Ray was absolutely the variable.

 

LOL... The same old played out routine from Sweetpea...

 

That's not even a reply to the content of my post; just you copying and pasting from your "Why I think Roberto Duran is not a Top-Ten All Time Great Boxer" essay.

 

I didn't copy and paste it. That is my thoughts on Duran..

 

how would it change? History does not change.

 

Yes - a point which you always manage to skip to, and have repeatedly made, at every vague opportunity, in many a thread, in the past several months alone. In this case, the chat was about your idea that Leonard went through an apparent transition, from incomplete to complete fighter, between Duran (I) and Hearns (I).

Unable to specify in which way that transition manifested, you unsurprisingly come to rest on Leonard/Duran (II) to, once again, state that Leonard’s victory was ‘absolutely’ everything to do with Leonard, with no other variables in play.

I’m telling you that, in any contest between two sides, there are always other variables in play.

 

Y'all need to smoke more weed.

 

But what I meant was, and the way I wrote it was saying that Ray put him in that position ,, I wasn't saying that you said Duran was dominating, or winning .. I'm saying if he was he wouldn't have quit.. you agree that Ray put him in that position, then we are good

 

I did specify. It was not something he learned like a right hook or how to jab, he knew all that. It is part of the experience of learning the whole game, and that is how they come up with the saying a complete fighter. He was not a complete fighter in June 1980 but he was in November. Duran taught him that, and I bet Ray would agree with this.

 

Don't mention weed.....unless you have some.