Duran from Montreal vs Leonard (New Orleans)

Your only laughing because YOUR posts are biased, probably because you like Duran way way more than Leonard, thats not the case for me, both ARE among my all time fav fighters & believe me when I tell you, Leonard was the better H2H fighter.

Im sick of idiots overrating Duran & underrating Leonard... beating Leonard is the biggest fkn reason Duran makes a top 10 in the first place, sort yourselves out & call it the way it is.

 

Posts like this are the reason that your opinions cant be taken seriously on this topic.... far too much bias & bitterness to call it the way it is.

Thats all !

 

Ray beats Duran everytime if he fights his fight and not Duran's. It was easy for him compared to the first fight was not easy for Duran. That is the difference. Once Ray fought his fight he won easily. And also Duran was beaten by Benitez a little over a year later easily again. If a guy does not fight Duran and uses speed he could be beat by the elite guys.

 

This is boxing. SRL would win everytime after Montreal. He would move and Duran wouldn't be able to do anything.

 

Ray was also inexperienced for the first Duran fight. The second one he was prepared. I am surprised boxing fans do not see it. Ray was too fast for Duran if he fought his fight. Fights two and three prove it.

 

:happy

Thank you.

You heard it from Leonard`s own mouth... if he ever fought Duran, he would give him side to side, lots of movement, he wouldnt stand there.... this proves that he knew the best style to beat Duran from early on as he showed in fight 2 but CHOOSE to fight Duran`s fight in fight 1 to prove a point because of the dislike he had for Duran due to the disrespect Duran had shown.

End thread !

 

They went into the fight thinking that style would work because of Leonard`s physical advantages but found out that it did not.... regardless of SRLs physical advantages Im pretty sure he knew that it wasnt the best way to beat Duran but its a way he thought he was good enough to pull off & it backfired.

In other words... it was the right fight beforehand... but the wrong fight afterwards.... sometimes you`ve got to live & learn, Leonard learned that he should have stuck with the original fight plan (see fight 2 for details.)

He used the style that would ALWAYS beat Duran in fight 2, no version of Duran could have overcome Leonard in that mode, none at all.

 

Both said so afterwards too ... and Leonard tried to stay away from Duran at the first at times. He had no success.

Botttom line is, in the first fight both were at their best. In the second not. Thus the first fight is the more important one.

 

Didnt you all see the second fight, Leonard schooled the Montreal Duran pretty easily, it wasnt in Montreal but it was the same Duran

 

The excuse that leonard fought the wrong style is tte lamest excuse a boxer could ever use. 45 minutes of fighting and he never adjusted huh. Never has a fighter adjusted his style and came up with different results. And save the examples because I have asked this question before, and people always come up with desperate examples that are not true. Like Ali changed his style against Frazier.

Bottom line, the combo of stronger,quicker,smarter, and more determined fighter will win. Duran was a better fighter then Leonard in June 1980 period. They both were well trained and Dura proved clearly to be the better fighter.One thin tha people never bring up was the fact tha Duran at is best was a better defensive fighter then leonard.In Montreal he slipped punched like nobody Leonad ever faced.

 

Yeah..uran rarely trained hard at lightweight. He was so good he didn't need to. He tried that against Leonard and he paid for it.
Why do people keep going through this on this board. Its a fact tha Leonard and his people knew Duran would not be ready for the 2nd fight if they fought in Nov. Read Leonard's 1982 playboy interview. I can't cut and paste but its online. He said he knew Duran would have a harder time recovering as quickly because he was the older fighter, and he knew Duran ballooned up after the first fight. He offered Duran a ton of money to fight in Nov because he know it was to his advantage. He has also said he knew in the first minute of the 2nd fight that Duran had nothing like the first fight.

Another thing that nobody talks about ever is the motivation for the 2nd fight. Leonad who lost the first fight was training to get revenge for the first fight, while Duran had a been there done that view. The whole 2nd fight had a been there done that feel to it. Duran vs Leonard had been going on for about 14 months at the time and it was old.
The first fight all things were even and Duran was the better fighter period.

 

Bit of a dumb thread this. It's like saying "if Leonard deliberately fought the kind of fight that invited defeat, would he, in fact, suffer defeat?"atschatschatsch

 

personally, i think my former respect for classic forum posters dwindles every time a thread about duran comes up. there is FAR to much bias. there is nothing wrong with thinking one way or the other but people take this way to personally.

 

I am biased,

I love watching Leonard vs Benitez, Hearns (1) and Duran (1), but I will never like Leonard.

Saying Leonard was the better H2H fighter. When both were at their best the best man won. Duran did not need to be underhanded to get his wins.

Do you think that Leonard is a better H2H fighter then Roy?

 

No lamer than saying you were not in proper condition for a rematch with the guy that you admitted yourself was your toughest ever fight.... & definitely not lamer than quiting & claiming stomach cramps.

At least Leonard`s excuse is acceptable + he reversed that **** in the rematch.