Duran from Montreal vs Leonard (New Orleans)

There`s only one thing that the Ali of the 60s couldnt do that the Ali of the 70s could....... & thats struggle with guys like Norton, Lyle, Shavers, Young & Spinks.

The proof is there on video... the 60s Ali was far superior in every way, believe it..... & Im not having any of this `70s Ali was mentally tougher & could take a better shot` bull****.... its the exact same guy except one version is physically peak & the other is not.

 

:good

 

Good & actually very fair sounding post - considering we are discussing Duran, your fav fighter :good

 

He would have run rings around Foreman as well, there would have been no need for taking all that punishment doing the rope-a-dope.

 

Thanks for the kind words there mate. I just logged in to check the hostile replies and got this, made up! Haha

 

Yeah the fanboys get it twisted with him neing unbeatable. But one thing i've got to say has got twisted is this Leonard sweeping the last 4 or so rounds of the fight, it's not true, well not in my eyes anyway. It's at the end where Duran stands in the pocket and evades a full combo i'm sure. I'll watch it again the weekend, i'm really busy right now. Like i said, i had it by 5 points for Duran, just mine though.

People just totally overlook the fact that what happened is simple, 2 of the very best fighters ever fought twice (significantly in terms of this debate), and got one win each, which is logical. Nothing else to it, 2 great fighters, 2 great wins, one each.

 

...+1 one more fight, 2 great wins Leonard and 1 great win Duran

 

did you read the part in brackets?!

 

Leonard admitted that he wanted an immediate re-match because he knew Durans habit of blowing up in weight between fights. So he wanted a quick re-match to exploit Durans expected lack of conditioning, & for one very good reason, he knew that whatever tactic he employed against an in shape Duran would be futile.

 

We have to agree to disagree then. Ali looked better in he 60s but he fought and beat better compeiion in the 70s. The second counts for more than the first.

My oppinion, you don't need to agree with me but if you don't you are wrong :good

 

yes, but its about as ridiculous as saying, "lets pretend they actually had 4 fights and lets pretend Duran won that one...so its actually 2 - 2 when you think about it"

 

No, it's not.

He clearly stated that it was for the purpose of this debate....which it is.

 

Thats what makes Ali the best ever HW, he came back past his best & finished on top of the strongest decade of HWs in history, even tho he had to take a couple of losses in the process.

 

Well the purpose of the debate is to find a winner of a hypothetical fight. And there is absolutely nothing that comes close in terms of weight to the argument, of a hypothetical fight, than them actually fighting. And they did, 3 times. And Leonard won 2 of them.

 

The fact he retired before his peak is significant. Hearns fight one was closest to his peak since he probably would have peaked about 1982. But June of 1980 was not his peak and he was still inexperienced and only had one title defense. The Duran fight one taught him a lot about sticking to your fightplan, and he did and that helped him later with Hagler also.
Had Ray fought on his toes and counterpunched Duran instead of staying on the inside trying to prove to Duran he was tough he would have won easily. Ray was standing still in the first round with Duran in Montreal. How can you say that was Ray's fight? His fight in New Orleans with Duran he is not standing still for one second. Duran's feints wouldn't work if Ray were on his toes since that is Ray in control. Why are Duran fans trying to change history and facts? Ray was flatfooted in the first fight. Fact. Duran got into his head. That was the success Duran had, but in the ring Ray would beat Duran everytime if he fought his fight. Fights one and two prove that. Fight one is Duran's fight and fight two is Rays. Fight one Duran barely won and fight 2 Ray made Duran quit. Who came out ahead?
That punch was not on the outside to me. He reached in but Ray was standing still and at times laying on the ropes on the inside with Duran. That was not Ray's fight and still Ray hung in there fighting Duran's fight.
Saying Duran was too quick for Ray is not true. Duran had decent handspeed yeah -he did hit Ray at times and hit even Thomas Hearns in his fight with them, but they still won and outclassed Duran when they fought their fight. Duran could not deal with footspeed since he plodded too much. Against most guys that worked but with guys like Benitez and Leonard they were too quick. But Duran got lucky. Ray fought his fight in the first fight. If he really was greater than Ray he would have won the rematch and he didn't. And he never knocked out Ray fighting his fight. All the excuses are just excuses.