If Duran face McCallum instead of Hearns, who you got?

If Hagler's mentality was where it should have been vs Duran he would have walked thru his punches too.

 

Your reasoning is downright silly, and your assumptions are even worse.

First of all, not training is no excuse. Any trainer worth his weight would tell you, your friend, and any novice that simple and plain fact.

Second of all, Duran did not just not train when he fought "legends." Is Pat Lawlor a legend?! Was that belly he brought into the ring in the 90s the product of 6,000 sit-ups? That assertion makes it clear that you are aware of the rudiments of Duran's career and nothing more. Duran didn't even train properly for many of his fights in the 70s!

You really need to avoid psychoanalyzing. There is nothing "objective" in your assertion about Duran "knowing he'd lose" and so somehow manipulating his own loss by not training. That was silly. Fighters who have been in the ring for twenty-years don't train because they have lost motivation. Not because of some quack psychoanalytic theory.

For the record, had Duran trained like hell on wheels to fight Hearns in '84, I doubt he'd have beaten him anyway. He did in fact train like hell against Hagler and lost anyway. Rightfully. Your assumptions just exploded.

 

I think so also, but none of these guys will buy it. They are Duran brainwashed. They don't want to hear it.

 

Duran fans have been brainwashed. :dealDuran all time status is discussed and you guys cannot handle it. I think mag bring up decent points that you guys refuse to face about durans wins against great fighters. atsch

 

Probably because he under-estimated Leonard, and Leonard fought a different fight.
I'm not making excuses for him. I'm just saying he was a changed fighter, probably over-confident. And he quit.

Leonard was a changed fighter too - he was better.

 

I thought Leonard lost the first fight quite clearly, but I agree he was a lot better in the rematch.

I think Duran quitting in the 2nd fight was a disgraceful act from Duran. I dont make excuses, just tell it how I see it.

I agree with some of your points on Duran overall. He's often overrated here.
Then again, he was one of the greatest lightweights of all-time.

 

Michael Spinks' win over Larry Holmes in 1985 is being under-rated.

Spinks moved up from 175 to fight 220 pound 48-0 Holmes in his first fight above 175.

It's an impressive performance too.

 

I swear, I don't think I've ever seen any variety whatsoever in any post MAG has ever made. You could talk about the recent quake in Chile and he'd bring it back to Leonard fighting the wrong fight against Duran. Even when he's getting thoroughly owned, he just won't budge. One of those guys who's got it all figured out in his own head, apparently.

 

If anyone has been brain-washed, it's you guys. Do you not realize how willing you are to excuse Leonard's defeat in the first fight and then call bull**** on the excuses made for Duran in the rematch? Do you know what a double standard is?

 

Except theres a difference, Duran pulls the same excuse against Hearns, Benitez, Leonard 3, Laing as he does in the Leonard rematch.

Durans win was great and an amazing performance, but if Leonard didnt decide he was going to go toe-toe with Duran to beat up a disrespectful man he figured would be smaller/weaker then Duran wouldnt have won the first fight

 

I feel like we're going on a Ferris Wheel ride every time this topic is ever brought up, honestly. I'm not down for discussing it, anymore. I was just coming in to make my usual quip and then bounce. You guys have at it.

 

If it wasn't for that hack Cosell's rambling Leonard propoganda, nowhere near as many people would think the way they do about the first fight.

 

At Last!! MAG1965's afterbirth has appeared, you're just another box-rec/black/white number crunching stat-hound whose desperate for cred:yep