Duran-Leonard I: Devil's Advocate

Bad strategy was evident from the get-go and it would influence Leonard's future strategy: never fight a swarming red-hot fighter who can take your punches.

 

Leonard wasnt normally a `runner,` that is correct but it was far from Leonard in pure boxing mode as he was vs Benitez.
Ray used the running style more in his career than the style he used in Montreal.

Also... Ray never choose a bad strategy in Montreal, as you say, he was bigger & younger, its only with hindsight that we think he choose a bad strategy...... but just because it wasnt a `bad` strategy does not mean it was the `best` strategy.

:thumbsup

 

I really cant agree with that though mate...It just didnt happen like that for extended periods in that fight. Ray fought Duran on the back foot, the front foot, inside and at range and was beaten everywhere he tried.
During the first 2/3 of the fight when both were still fresh, a lot of that fight was a shootout on the outside between these two..To say Ray never even tried to fight like that is not on the mark IMO..its just didnt work for him that night.

He actually had more success I feel fighting "Duran's fight" (which I still feel isnt that far off from his natural game of the time) when Roberto was coasting a bit later on.

 

Stonehands, in my opinion, and in the opinion of a few others here, the issue of why Leonard lost to Duran the first time is pretty cut and dried and doesn't require much analysis. Wrong tactics. Yes, Duran fought a great fight, yes, Duran sucked in the rematch. Regardless of these facts the reason for Leonard's loss the first time holds, and seems acutely obvious.

 

For the life of me I cannot understand how anyone who has seen this fight and watched it closely can come to the conclusion that "poor tactics" was the definitive reason why Leonard lost that fight.
Leonard tried several things in that fight and couldnt get the win..He had never shown the "tactics" he used in the 2nd fight to any great extent in just about every pre-Duran fight I had seen of him.

To me the reasons people seem willing to accept for Leonard just getting straight up beaten in the first fight are as big as an excuse as why some people think Duran quit the 2nd fight.

But its seems very hard to convince people otherwise and shake off this preconception. For a while I ran with it to I must admit but for a long time now I havent bought into that whole wrong tactics arguement..And it was really only simply a matter of watching the fight a few times to convince myself otherwise.

 

Duran was the better fighter and beat his ass. That's why Leonard lost. End of.

 

Duran nailed Leonard in the 2nd round with a left uppercut and Leonard was dazed the rest of the fight, IMO. Duran didn't give a choice of how to fight.

In 2nd fight, I actually had it pretty much even before Duran quit.

 

It's anyones guess as to how the fight would have went had Leonard or Duran for that matter, adjusted, and fought differently. But Leonard made life easier for Duran by fighting up close for long periods, staying on the ropes, and generally not using his feet to shift out of harms way. Leonard may well have been physically bigger with good power at the weight, but his height and reach weren't used much at all, especially defensively. Duran gets credit for implimenting the right strategy. Watch the fight closely and you'll notice that when Duran rushed Leonard, you'll see no pulling back and shifts to the side to increase distance.

As I said earlier, the press asked Leonard how he would fight Duran and he said "flat-footed", which brought surprise to the faces of those who heard that quote. The commentators also remarked at Leonard's lack of movement during the very first round. And those were commentators called the fight live, not delayed. Maybe they knew something you never.

 

'nuff said :good

 

The first round was a feel-out round with neither fighter doing too much attacking, it would've been completely useless for Leonard to have used excessive movement (as he did in the rematch). In the second round, he was caught with a big one-two and hurt, and from there Duran went to work and turned up the pace.

You guys talk of Leonard's strategy as if whatever he decided to do would've decided the outcome of the fight, seemingly ignoring the things Duran was doing. Perhaps Leonard found it more difficult to get out of harm's way because of Duran's constant feints and multi-skilled attacks, and relentless in-fighting/control of Leonard when he had him in close. Leonard tried to tie up constantly, but was simply unable to. The fact that Duran hurt him multiple times within the first few rounds had just as much to do with Leonard's conservative approach at times as any lackluster gameplan. Do you really believe Leonard just planned on being a stubborn fool and taking a beating (as there were many portions when he wasn't fighting back at all) early on, or is it much more plausible that he was simply unable to contain Duran's relentless onslaught? I'd say the latter.

Also, I forget exactly who it was, but among those who were aware of Leonard's pre-fight tactics, one of the bigger names predicted a 4th round KO for the bigger, more powerful Leonard.

 

Robbi, I must say that you are spot on in this thread. I have little to disagree with in your posts here.

I like Duran more than I like Leonard. I rate him higher at 135 than I rank Leonard at 147. I also rank Duran above Leonard pound for pound. I also believe that Leonard tried to prove he could stay on the inside with Duran in their first fight.

 

yea that was angelo dundee

 

Finally someone who understands :good