Fights you suggest for getting a new fan started.

Pac-Morales 1
Corrales-JLC 1
Tito- Mayorga
Hamed- Kelly (with ring walk)
JMM-Barrera
Gatti-Ward trilogy

Just to name a few

 

Man, I find it so difficult to get into this stuff, same as I find it difficult to talk about Hopkins-Calzaghe etc, because I've spoken about it just so, so many times with so many people, and no-one ever changes anyone's mind, and repeatedly making opposing statements is not only futile but also very, very tedious.

It's a vicious circle. You say:

But say that Leonard would've beaten Duran if he had fought differently. But Duran did not fight to the same level in the second fight as he did in the first. If you make allowances for Leonard's "tactics" in the first fight, then why not make the same allowances for Duran's under-par condition for the second fight? Why is one more valid than the other? I believe you are not being true to the statement I have quoted above, just the same way as you believe people favour Duran.

I can see this easily sliding into the same old debate. I'm opting out, I just can't be bothered. If you want an excellent explanation for the viewpoint that you don't understand/accept regarding the two Duran-Leonard clashes, PM Sweet Pea on the subject. I have seen him write some great posts about it, and I think he could outline it better than me.

One last thing: I genuinely don't believe I have ever heard even the most ardent Duran fan say that the Hearns loss was on account of conditioning, or make excuses for it in any way. I think, again, that you are taking your Duran complex far too far. Duran was a lightweight in his mid-30s fighting at light-middleweight against the best light-middleweight ever, and facing huge physical disadvantages. He was knocked cold by one of the best punchers ever in the 2nd round of a fight he was never in. I have no idea how anyone could attribute that loss to anything other than a bigger man with physical and stylistic advantages winning fairly, brilliantly and horribly comprehensively.

Time for a fresher topic I think.

 

I think Leonard made it appropriate to believe it because he out boxed Duran in both of the rematches. Had the same thing transpired in the rematch and the scores would have been even remotely close, I would agree with you. However, their rematch ended in Duran quitting after being behind on the cards. He even tried to get on the inside and trap Leonard on the ropes in spurts yet he was unable too. In their rubber match, although I put little to no stock in this due to their advancement in age, Leonard out boxed Duran again.

That suggests to me that if Leonard gets on his toes and dances, he is much more effective against Duran. There is nothing to me that suggests Duran was any worse off physically in their rematch because the video evidence shows him to be fine. Not out of breathe or anything of the like.

I have not the time nor the patience to go and find the exact quotes from the classic forum, but I have on more than one occasion that some people said Duran did not train prior to the Hearns fight. I also heard the same thing about the Benitez fight. You can either choose to call me out as a liar or believe me, but I garuntee you, I did not make that our of thin air.

I have no reason to think this about Duran. It's a fact as far as I'm concerned that he gets special treatment.

 

Well, I agree with you that to say that about the Hearns fight is stupid. Duran may not have been peak fitness for the Hearns fight, or he may have been, it doesn't matter a jot since the best he could ever be at 154 would've been crushed by Hearns anyway.

However, to say:

"Leonard would've won if he fought differently"

is special treatment for Leonard, the exact same way as you think I and others favour Duran. To say SRL would've won had he fought differently completely writes off any effect that the Duran of that night could've had on him, and for me that is disrespectful of one of the all-time great performances and short-sighted as regards the quality of Duran at his rampant, rampaging best. It totally discredits a win achieved where Leonard poured every ounce of himself into trying to win and fought like a demon.

Duran did not fight the same in the second fight.

However, I keep getting drawn into this and I don't want to, we will never change each other's minds so best to talk about something else. You should PM Sweet Pea though, just to get a good explanation. I just can't be ****ed with this particular topic, I'm sure you have ESB topics that you are ****ing sick of too.

 

DURAN/MOORE

HAGLER/HEARNS

When my teenage son & his mates were about 2 hit the town on a sat night i'd stick the Hagler fight on just 2 get-em crazed & pumped up

 

Duran-Moore is as brilliant as it is brutal. I love Duran-Barkley as well, especially for the "that's a surgeon at work" unbelievable KD.

 

PS: (last word I promise)

If you say Leonard would've won if he fought differently, why can Leonard's wins not be written off in the exact same way?

If Hearns boxed more cautiously and safely at long-range in the last couple of rounds, he would have won the fight v SRL.

If Hagler came out in the correct stance and fought at a high tempo for the first 4 rounds rather than almost give them away, he would have won the fight v SRL.

If you start with that ****, where does it end? Anyone can say it about anything, with every bit as much legitimacy as you have saying Leonard would've won if he fought differently.

 

I won't put fights like Corrales-Castillo 1 and Saad Muhammad-M. Johnson 1.

That might make newbies to the sport have unrealistic expectations of fights.

Here's some that might be good for a newbie:

Oscar De La Hoya-Fernando Vargas
Floyd Mayweather-Jesus Chavez
Evander Holyfield-Michael Dokes
Roberto Duran-Iran Barkley
Pernell Whitaker-Buddy McGirt 2
Marvin Hagler-John Mugabi
James Toney-Vassily Jirov
Kennedy McKinney-Welcome Ncita 1
James Toney-Mike McCallum 1
Felix Trinidad-Fernando Vargas
Gerald McCellan-Julian Jackson 1
Kelly Pavlik-Jermaine Taylor 1
Manny Pacquiao-Erik Morales 1-2

 

The Daily Express was the only paper that covered the moore fight, headlines read like this, Duran's back with a CRASH! BANG! WALLOP!

I had my 2 weeks dole cheque on it at 4/1:happyit made me a financial weapen ov mass distruction

I just don't get these anti Duran posts, talk about ****in boxrec nit-pickin:-( they just don't understand the Man or what he was all about as a man, there's DURAN in all ov us, good/bad/indifferent thats why he's idolised, took every ****er on & made no mistake he played a major part in the carears ov Hagler/Hearns/Leonard, without duran as the catylist the other 3 would'nt have had the high interest exposure they had.

 

I just love him because I think he was one of the most skilled and brilliant boxers ever to lace them up. His first win over Leonard is the single best win by any fighter ever, and from the mid-late 70s Duran as lightweight champion was one of history's select few elite boxers. His achievement in winning the lightweight belt in 1972 then the mw belt in 1989 is legendary.

Plus he was ****ing amazing to watch! The Moore fight is pugilism at its beautiful, savage best.

 

Ruiz vs. Valuev:rofl

 

I can admit that perhaps to say Leonard "would've" won had he fought differently is perhaps silly. However, the point I want to make is that there was room for improvement in Leonard's work. I think he could have fought a better fight, but he was drawn into trading more than he would usually because of the **** Duran was doing pre-fight. Now, whether or not Leonard would've won as a result of the change up in strategy is unknown, but I think there was room for improvement. I think he vouched to trade as much as he was forced too.

But it's almost as if the regulars on the Classic refuse to hear any of that at all. They would dismiss it sharpish. However, when it comes to discussing Duran's losses, I can guarantee, there will be several posters bringing up excuses for him. It's not made up, DINAMITA, it's evidenced each and every single day in the Classic. The fact is, Duran is every bit as good as people thinks he is, but some very intelligent posters here seem to think it's an impossibility that a well trained Duran could ever lose.

To sum up, Leonard may not have won had he had a better gameplan, but I think he could have exchanged less and had more success. Duran gets full credit for being the only man to ever beat a peak Leonard, and despite the difference in size, but I don't want to hear that he was in bad shape every time he loses to top tier opposition. I'm not pointing the finger at you, but I'd be nice for you to at least acknowledge that this does occur in the classic fairly frequently.

 

i would have to say as of most recent i would go with Torres vs Holt 2. quick and short .

then follow it up with Judah vs Tyszu ( show them some build up clips and hope they haven't seen the dance before . because if they haven't they'll never guess the ending and it will be a total shock effect. then i say follow that up with Mayorga vs Six heads Lewis for that OOH Awwwe moment of that Ko. then give them a hard dose of Frietas vs barrios, Chico vs Castillo and then end the night with Hopkins brutal KO of Lispy or close it out wis NAZ brutal KO of Augie Sanchez

if you want to fine tune them into excellence PBF vs Chico, Calzageh Vs Kessler, Calzaghe vs Lacy, PBF vs Gatti, B-hop vs Pavlik, Pavlik vs Taylor 1( show why it's important to have fundamentles and is a dam good fight to boot) PBF vs N'dou and then i would have to say Kessler vs Andrade that show precision and accuracy along with defence. of you can also show them MAB vs Naz and Mosely destruction of Margo is always fun to watch

 

morales vs zaragosa, an underrated fight...

and also vargas vs trinidad