Fight of the Week #1: Roberto Duran - Ray Leonard I

It’s taken me a while to get round to it, but finally rewatched Duran v Leonard. Scorecard below:

1 Even
2 Duran (hurt Leonard)
3 Duran (clear)
4 Duran (clear)
5 Leonard (v close)
6 Leonard (v close)
7 Duran (close)
8 Duran (close)
9 Duran (clear)
10 Duran (clear)
11 Duran (close)
12 Duran (v close)
13 Leonard
14 Leonard
15 Leonard
Duran 145-141 Leonard

I had 9-5-1 in rounds to Duran. After a cagey opening round, Duran swept the next three and won them all clearly. Leonard mounted a bit of a recovery over the next couple before Duran started to regain control and really began to boss things in the middle portion of the fight. I think Leonard went into his shell a bit but started to come out of it in the championship rounds, but by that time Duran had built a substantial lead. He cruised a bit over the last three rounds and Leonard won those fair and square.

I’ve scored this fight before and had it closer (I think by a couple of points) and there are plenty of close rounds that could have gone either way BUT every time I’ve watched it I’ve been in no doubt that Duran was the winner. He imposed his will on Leonard and at certain points bossed him around the ring. It was a brilliant performance from him.

Leonard proved his toughness but found out he couldn’t out-hustle or outmuscle Roberto so had to find another way in the rematch.

Tremendous fight to watch again, even after having seen it many times before.

 

Just to re-up my scorecard here.

Leonard Round 1
Duran Round 2 (clear)
Duran Round 3 (clear)
Duran Round 4 (clear)
Leonard Round 5 (close, but I think Leonard outfought Duran in close in this frame)
Leonard Round 6
Duran Round 7 * (Leonard was ahead until Duran landed a monster right)
Duran Round 8 * (Leonard more consistent in this round, Duran once again closes strong)
Duran Round 9
Leonard Round 10 * (Very close, but Leonard landed the best shots of the round, imo)
Leonard Round 11 * (See round 10)
Duran Round 12
Leonard Round 13 (Great round. Leonard shakes Duran at the end and that's enough for me to give him the frame)
Leonard Round 14
Leonard Round 15

Anything with a star would indicate a round that could easily be called even or scored the other way.

I will note that I could see Round 5 and 13 being called even, though I personally edge them to Leonard and always have so I chose not to mark them

Anyway, Leonard 8-7 when I last scored it. Duran won more rounds clearly, but I thought Leonard did quite a bit better in the first twelve than conventional wisdom on this site indicates and his strong close allowed him to take the fight on my card. I have a feeling that if I were to be more liberal with even rounds, it would still be a very close card that may well favor Leonard.

 

Cool! Appreciate you sharing this. We only got 3 other cards submitted so I couldn’t really tabulate these to see which rounds were a consensus. It’s been 2+months since we did this fight so it’s not fresh in my mind. Off the top of my head 10-11 look like the only ones I might question. I also scored 5/13 for SRL even though my card went Duran’s direction.

 

In glancing over your card, I see you called the seventh for Leonard, while I called it for Duran and then we disagree on the 10th and 11th. I think you have an even round in there somewhere. Otherwise, not that much difference between our respective cards.

 

Yeah I don’t feel like scrolling back but I think I had rd 1 Even, but none of them are fresh in my mind after 2 months or so

 

We don't need to go over this much, as everybody is entitled to their opinion. But two questions:

Don't you find it odd that you have to work so hard to figure out a way to score a fight for SRL... by basically giving him most of the close/even rounds? What I mean by this is, you even admit that sometimes the overall narrative might look different than a round by round score. Okay, yes, sometimes that can occur, but shouldn't it be more the opposite and the other only an outlier? What I mean is, when I come away from a fight where I think, one guy clearly had the better of the overall action and I'd rather be him after a fight.... doesn't it seem odd to then try and give even/close rounds to a guy who I believe got the worse of it by fights end? You admit that Duran, if taking the fight as a whole picture, won, but when scoring round by round... it became closer and now even a SRL win... that strikes me as odd and generally the opposite of how I like to judge fights. When I generally come away thinking one guy one the overall fight, very rarely does that not coincide with also getting a rounds victory. I would be an outlier, and this just doesn't seem like outlier material to me.

You mentioned in another thread that you don't believe Duran gave away the last 3 rounds of the fight. I said he coasted those last three rounds believing he'd already done enough (as most already had and the scores indicated)... you disagree and said... you didn't see much coasting or something like that. So you believe Duran in these last 3 rounds (all of which you scored for SRL), had the same energy levels and commitment as before? Shoot he was even clowning in the 15th round... something he rarely ever does... even when blowing people out. Yet here, he does in the final round, and seemingly took his foot off the gas in the rounds prior, but yet he wasn't looking and acting like he had it in the bag? That's odd to me because he clearly looked like a fighter that had already thought he had done enough. Which again goes to point no . 1.... he and most felt the same way because of how the fight played out... yet you seem okay declaring SRL winning a fight where you have to give him the last 3 rounds Duran was coasting in. To each there own I guess.

 

I would agree with this. I do think Duran won clearly and for the most part on my cards he has. I think I had it 8-6-1 but am to lazy to look it up because I spread it out over 5 separate posts lol. I do struggle to see a SRL card (but who am I lol), but think a case can be made well from a draw to a 4 pt Duran win. I wished we had more cards on this thread similar to SRL vs Hagler I would love to see which rounds 10-15 find clear or debatable. That would be cool

 

Sounds like you're the one trying to work hard to convert me to your way of thinking on this.

* I think Duran coasted and clowned in the 15th, but not so much in the previous two frames. He was fighting hard...especially in the 13th and into the penultimate round as well (though he was starting the feel the pace a bit at that point). He may not have had the same energy, but he certainly appeared to be making every effort to win the 13th and 14th. Not so much in the fifteenth, I grant. Still, fighters have taken their foot off the gas in the final round in fights they've thought they won and wound up losing decisions as a result, so I don't view that as incontrovertible evidence that Duran won the fight outright.

* * I judge fights on a round by round basis, while the fighter who appears to control the overall narrative usually winds up winning the decision, that isn't always the case.

As an example, I thought Salido made Lomachenko look awfully uncomfortable for long stretches in their fight, but scored a few close rounds for Loma. That meant that when Loma surged late he wound up overtaking Salido on my particular card. That might appear to be an outlier card, but if you look at the RBR thread for that particular fight you'll find at least a few other posters in agreement with me.

DLH-Trinidad would be another example...though in that case I think DLH took his foot off the gas earlier than Duran did.

There are most certainly other examples, but you get the idea.

In the current scoring system, where every 10-9 round counts equally toward a final score regardless of what occurs, it's entirely possible for fighters to squeak out close decisions in fights where they are dominated in the rounds they lose (not that Leonard was dominated in all of those rounds). That's kind of what happened in this case, though Leonard did win some frames clearly on my card, too.

In terms of how I view this fight's overarching story...It seems a case of Duran hurting Leonard early (after a tactical opening round) and jumping out to an early lead, and then Leonard regrouping as the fight goes on, and then staging a championship rounds rally to close the gap on the cards (and overtake Duran on mine). I can see why people might give it to Duran...it's a close fight.

I didn't, though. Leonard did a little more or landed a little better in enough round to bag 8 of them on my card.

 

What I'm saying is this... usually the overall narrative and feeling you have after the fight should mesh with round by round scoring of the fight. The usually go hand in hand and are mutually inclusive. Very RARELY (as Drew says) do those clash and when it happens it's usually an outlier. So we have something that doesn't generally happen, and generally shouldn't happen, and so when somebody claims it has eyebrows get raised and I believe more of a burden of proof is needed. It's like in a court of law... Okay, so most times when a murder is committed, you'll have the suspect's phone ping in the area, they're DNA will be at the scene, somebody noticed them or a car leaving the seen. Sir, your phone pinged near the location, your DNA was at the scene, a car similar to yours was seen speeding away... Now explain to me how all those things could be possible and you not commit the murder. Sure, there could be proof and a explanation for why those facts are there, but it will require some good explanation as to how this could be possible. That is my point. The overall narrative everybody seems to have is that Duran clearly won the overall narrative of that fight. I don't think anybody disputes that. Then we have the vast majority who also think he won the overall narrative but that also mirrors Duran winning the rounds needed. So when somebody says... Well I feel Duran won the overall narrative but didn't give him the rounds... imo... that requires a little more explanation than most times because of it being an outlier. Does that make sense? lol

 

We clearly disagree on the coasting. I think he absolutely coasted the final few rounds, and his output backs up that theory, as well as the clowning. As I illustrated, Duran when dominating more, didn't clown... Yet here, he decided to, and I'm expected to believe he didn't think he had it in the bag? Yeah, that logic doesn't work for me, but hey, that's your view and I'm good with it.

SRL didn't outland Duran though, so I'm not sure how that criteria played into SRL winning the fight. Not only did he not land more, SRL was visibly hurt and wobbled a few instances in that fight. I never saw Duran in the same kind of trouble I saw SRL was in on a few occasions. Which again, is my point, every thing points to the same thing for me. Sure, there can be an outlier when overall narrative doesn't match round by round scoring. How that is very rarely the case, and when it happens, there is likely some outlier during the fight that cause it to be as such. I see nothing here to make this an outlier. That's just how I and others see it I guess. No harm man, and I appreciate the discussion on it. Nothing wrong with having a discussion about a classic fight imo

 

To a degree it makes sense....but not the dna ping etc.because I can prove I was not there and have 100 eyewitnesses, so you have 3 pieces of data to 2 but not enough for a conviction.

I am not arguing that a case can be made for SRL without actually trying to find ways to score for him in this fight...but on the flip side some posters I respect have scored it for him.

Any way back to the point. If fighter a dominates 3 rds and wins 2 close rounds but fighter b wins 7 close rounds. Well fighter b wins the fight. The issue you would have would have to lie in the scoring system not the scores themselves

 

Even under your eyewitness theory, a jury could still be swung by the other evidence and believe the witnesses were just lying for you. When you have things that are generally good indicators of something happening... well... that thing likely happened. If it didn't, at it goes against the general line of logic, that's going to require some explaining. Further take your example, having a 100 witnesses saying your elsewhere IS an above and beyond explanation to contradict the overall "feeling" of who committed a crime with seemingly good evidence to back it up. That's kind of where I'm going with things here. If something is an outlier, generally there will be an outlier factor that caused it. Scoring even rounds and close rounds for SRL just doesn't seem outlier enough for my taste to explain away the overall narrative. I see the point you're making though.