Duran from Montreal vs Leonard (New Orleans)

so true.

 

How can we know any fighter was in any fight at his best?

 

How is that a bad excuse that Ray had in the first fight? We know that is not his normal fight, and then in the rematch he outboxes Duran and makes Duran quit before Ray was going to knock him out. Why couldn't Duran even make it a war like the first fight? Ray was the guy who decided what styles were going to be fought in those fights with Duran, not Duran.

 

It is funny how Duran fans say both were at thier best when they fought as though they were the same generation, but then Duran got old vs. Benitez a year and a half later and Ray was prime. Ray was still inexperienced when he fought Duran, and still beat him easily in the rematch. Ray beat more ATG fighters than Duran. Very clear who is the better head to head fighter.

 

Exactly!

 

You are changing history by saying Ray was at his best if he was still inexperienced enough to let a comment by Duran about Ray's wife make him so angry he fights on the inside. Ray had just won his title the previous November against Benitez. Chavez didn't reach his best until 1987 or 1988 which was 4 years after he won his title. People are changing Ray's best fighting point just to compliment Duran, when in reality 4 months later Ray beat Duran easily and made him quit. That speaks for itself.

 

What are Ray's best wins? Benitez, Duran 2 ? , Hearns and Hagler. Three of them are around the same time. When was his peak then?

Ray did not fight the wrong type of fight vs Duran . Duran made him fight that way. Durans fients kept Ray second guessing and was suprised with Durans speed. Duran moved forward and Ray had no time to counter and was back paddling towards the ropes, where Duran got the best of Ray on the inside.

Duran hurt Ray from the outside with that great shot in the 2nd or 3rd round, so Duran was winning on the outside and on the inside. What was Ray to do? dance? One he did not have that style yet and two Duran was to quick for him.

Ray fought a great fight and the fight was still closish, But Duran was always going to win that night

 

I forgot how much fun ESB could be at times

Comedy Gold, bodhi :good

 

Ali took one flash knockdown in the 60s vs Sonny Banks & one heavy knockdown in the 60s vs Henry Cooper......

Ali took one flash knockdown in the 70s vs Chuck Wepner & one heavy knockdown in the 70s vs Joe Frazier......

Ali was never knocked down during his accepted peak yrs, when he was champion the 1st time from 1964-67, a time were he won the title from Liston & defended it no less than NINE times vs all the top HWs of that time in that 3 yr span... he was never close to being off his feet, he was at his absolute physical peak during that 3 year span & was looking better each fight before being stripped of his title 3/4 months after his 25th birthday, likely denying him his absolute best yrs as a pro fighter.


I dont know how ANYONE at all could think that the 70s Ali was on a par with the 64-67 version, they must not have seen much of that Ali IMO.

 

I have seen pleny of Ali. But the Ali of he 60s would not have been able to do what the Ali of he 70s did. I think the forced layoff changed something inside him. Something that made him harder mentally, better. I can´t describe it but it's there when I see him fight.

 

The Leonard of fight 2 wins a very narrow decision ...

 

Leonard arguable took the last three rounds of the first fight by utilizing more movement; and while Duran may have taken the foot off the accelerator to some extent, it gives an indication that a version of Leonard who had a better understanding of what Duran was capable of would probably be able to implement his game plan more effectively than he did in the first fight. He'd circle more and engage less, and steal some of the close rounds by flurrying in the same manner that Duran stole some of the close rounds by mauling and driving forward and making it look like he was dominating Leonard far more than he actually was.

Leonard UD 15

 

No need for me to look any further, that's it right there.

 

My opinion is one i've put on here countless times. I haven't really got the time right now to go into it unfortunately. But my opinion is that both men just won on the night they did so because they were better on it. Such a simple perspective yet everyone goes into all this complex madness derived from theories which to this day are ultimately speculation.

Here's mine. I can't remember what round, but maybe 2 or 3 in the first bout, Leonard starts to use his ridiculously fast left hand to dart in using his front foot and snap it at his target. That's what Leonard always did at his very best, not defensive countering, but boxing you to set up offense and create openings for combos that kill you. Duran just nips it in the bud, and he's better at long range on the night also. Vintage Duran is the fighter that fires rights that aren't telegraphed over the top of low lefts or jabs to close the distance, rather than cutting off the ring conventionally. He does this so well on the night and it means Leonard's jab is not the dominating factor. It's a fantastic fight and my favourite very possibly. Competetive all the way but i had it by 5 points at the end, i know a lot of people here did also.

In the second fight, first i won't comment on being out of shape and **** cois again, speculation, regardless of even what Leonard's said about luring Duran to fight him. What i konw is the fight, so i'll talk about that. Some of the early rounds are just the same as those of the first fight, regardless of them having a different victor. They are shooting in shots from distance but Leonard is getting the better. Duran won one round for me. The showboating thing is highly exaggerated. Leonard starts it heavily i think in only round 7. Then round 8 commences and same as before, Leonards is simply winning, he's moving more definitely, but he had a go in the first fight and got hit with bodyshots underneath and his gameplan was thwarted, this time he was the better man. Then Duran just quit because he was losing, it's simple, no bull****. He was losing and he quit. They are 2 of the very best fighters ever, so my answer to the thread is i just don't know. They have a win over each other, so how can you say?

**** the analysis, they've beaten each other one apiece when it counted. It's not even a hypothetical match-up

 

I think the big debate was the fact that all the Duran fanboys are saying that Montreal Duran couldn't be beat, when the fact was that by the end of the first fight, Leonard had adjusted to Duran and was getting the better of him. The second fight had a newly battle-tested Leonard ready for more of the same, and a Duran who should have known to come in the best shape he could have. Duran was in shape, but he wasn't ready for what Leonard brought that night, and he quit.