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

To be fair, the opposite is quite common on this board as well. It's far more rare to see Leonard be given any props for his perfomance in the rematch than to see Duran get it for Montreal. Even good posters seem to take it for a given, for some bizarre reason, that Duran quitting all had to with some mysterious transformation he underwent as grown man in six months, rather than with Leonard.

To bad I wasn't in the ring with Duran that night. I, just like anyone, could have won the WW title without breaking a sweat that night, apparently:hey

 

...
A 28 year old lightweight champion who steps up to fight welterweights and jr. middleweights and middleweights and supermiddleweights is a natural lightweight with extra weight beyond his best fighting weight. He is not a "natural" lightweight unti he fights at 147 and becomes a "natural welterweight".

He obviously fought as a welterweight, JMW, and MW when he fought in those divisions, but the man himself was a natural lightweight, with added
weight beyond his optimum weight.

Disagree? That's your right, but you're out there virtually alone.

The trap is sprung. Duran was fighting over the weight precisely because his discipline in training was far beneath the level of Hagler. That's what I've been bending over backwards to help you understand.

Duran did train for Benitez. Benitez may have been a foil for him, though I really wished that they had fought as welterweights in '79 or thereabouts.

Okay, let me end this worthless debate about whether Duran himself made excuses. I've already stated my own belief that the man had more than a few flaws -sloth, gluttony, arrogance, etc. Let's add in that he makes excuses. The real issue is not Duran's excuses -because there are plenty of fighters with far worse sins than Duran. Monzon, Tyson, Ayala to name three that everyone knows.

The real issue is the context of his later losses. Could Duran performed better against Leonard, Benitez, Laing, Hagler, and Hearns had he come in ready and motivated like he did in Montreal?

You seem to be of the mindset that every fighter was Hagler or Chavez or Leonard or Holyfield -a devotee who could be counted on to come in ready and in shape. The reality is that fighters are individuals. Duran had a flaw that that group did not. Duran was not disciplined like them. And guess what -neither was Riddick Bowe or Mickey Walker or Joey Giardello.

I think that Duran would have done better against Leonard had he trained like he did for the first meeting. I think Duran could have done better against Benitez and Hearns had he done the same. But I think he would have always lost to Leoanrd after that first fight, would never have beaten Hearns at JMW, and would ~probably~ have beaten Benitez at WW.

A word on Hagler. You don't hear anyone on this board "excusing" that loss, do you. Do you know why? Because no one disputes that Duran came in as ready as he possibly could against Marvin, and still lost.

Bah.

 

This is textbook personalization.

The last time a natural lightweight defeated a natural MW champion (and Barkley was just that despite his LHW and HW campaigns) was..... never in history. Duran has a feather in his cap that no other natural LW in history has.

Dismissing this like you do indicates either bias or ignorance, so I can only encourage you to concede the point.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but your point is rooted in ignorance.

Duran defeated an ATG in Ken Buchanan at the age of 21. He defeated in ATG in Esteban De Jesus twice. He defeated an ATG in Carlos Palomino. He defeated one of the most formidable WWs ever in Leonard and had no business ever beating him if history is a teacher (by the way, the last time that happened was in 1906)

He went 15 rounds, and was the first challenger to do so, five years past prime against a man who many consider to be among the fiercest MWs ever.

Still not impressed?

 

Did he say shorter??

Get serious, man. Look at the tale of the tape. Start with the reach.

 

Leonard deserved better. Duran ripped Leonard off, boxing off, and his own legacy off.

The fact is that this fight was "take II" for Leonard. In Montreal, he came in VERY well trained, very motivated, and with a sound game plan despite the brain-washing of the past 30 years. I for one, would have loved to see if Dundee and Leonard's decision to completely contradict their own strategic reasoning in Montreal was a sound one. As it was, Duran gave everyone the finger and walked off.

I have a grudge against him for that. However, anyone who allows that and his other faulty performances to outshine his undeniable greatness really needs to go lay down and think about it.

 

Well Said, I faced up to the fact many many years ago that duran didn't give a ****, but when you're younger you try & mind-link with the boxer you follow & his day is your day ect. Like everyone else i tried to come up with something other than the truth for that night, i even looked at alien abduction as a possible cause.

Yes there were issue's to the lead up to this 2nd fight & in some ways i hold both parties guilty but duran about 75%.

If only Leonard had played the game (Morally) & fought duran in January & if only duran had'nt been such a pig pre-november then as you say it would have been great to see if Leonard/Dundees's new stratergy would have been affective against a prepared duran & yeah duran cheated Leonard, He folded his hand after the flop & never stayed to get cleaned out on the turn & river to use poker speak.

I learnt not to try & put my western mindset into duran's anymore who as we know with his background & upbringing would be & is alien to 95% of us. Yep, he just said "**** this" i don't feel so good, i have the money, who cares!!!

When i went too the 3rd fight at the Mirage i was convinced that this will be the night of redemption, nieve loyalty which i'am proad of, i believed Leonard when he said in the pre-fight hype that he had unfinished biz with duran & would fight him & knock him out. but as we know it was all crap & duran played his part also in not upsetting the SRL circus script of let's both of us get paid well & we'll do it again sometime.

I sat in the Sands in absolute crushed shock at what i'd just witnessed from both of them, again i was in denial!! even when duran & leonard hugged each other an hour after the fight both looking well pleased & duran said "Champagne for ray & beer for me"

I thought NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Don't do this to me please, the brawls i'd been in, the teeth i'd knocked out & the teeth i'd lost & you both sit there grinning like 2 highway robbers.

My buddy just said WE'VE BEEN HAD!!!! BIG TIME:deal lets go pack our bags & get outer here it's a long way home.

But at the end of the day it's a bizzness after all ai'nt it:smoke

 

Duranimal, such a sincere mea culpa like this makes me regret some of the bad things I've posted about you...! Great stuff.

Yes, Leonard's Machiavellian plotting before Duran II and before Hagler get a pass from many of the double-standard-bearing-Duran-detractors out here but as for me, well, they cast a bit of a shadow on Leonard and those wins. And that is unfortunate, because Ray had every right to be supremely confident in his ability. He was great enough not to need those sneaky little advantages.

I was just a corner kid in December 1989, but I went to a place called The Castle in Roxbury, MA to see "Uno Mas" after I'd been talking trash since that major February win over Barkley. And then Duran didn't even try. He went through the motions, seemed outpsyched ("frozen with rage" I remember Hagler saying something akin to that) and far too damn respectful for a man who wanted to "avenge" himself. I still remember Hagler's commentary though -for this fight and for Leonard-Hearns II. Man, he hated Ray, and it showed.

Bottom line for both of us, it seems, is this: Duran failed in Leonard II and III, and in Hearns, to give them (and us) his best. This is not an excuse, because the losses are legit and I'd even say that he would have lost all three of those bouts anyway.... but Ray, Tommy, Duranimal, Stonehands and everyone else in the crooked-nosed congregation... deserved better.

But a few of these newer posters who despise the man should count their blessings, because if Duran did somehow gain another win against Ray, and somehow miraculously defeat Marvin and/or Tommy, they'd have no choice but to consider him on par with the great Sugar-Man himself. Robinson.

Roberto Duran. Among the greatest of fighters, but not without flaws. Like everyone else.

 

In the 2nd fight they saw a very unimpressive fight. Duran disagraced himself, was obviously nothing like the first fight and Leonard was playing paddie cake with him. Doing lame things like bolo punches to play to the crowd. I watched the fight live and it was unclear who was even ahead. Now because Duran quit some try to look at the fight in a different light thinking that Leonard was dominting. But during the fight nobody was thinking that Leonard was domination. Thats what the 2nd fight was. Compared to the war that was the first fight with 2 warriors giving all, the 2nd fight was a joke.


Leonard deserved to be champ because he won the fight, Leonard was a better fighter the Duran in Nov 1980, but don't compare it to the first fight.

I think Leonard after June 1980 would have always beaten Duran, but Duran of June 1980 was a totally different animal.

 

Thats exactly what i've always said about Leonard, he was great enough without having to resort to those sneaky school kid ways & that has always put a question mark for me as too his underlying psyche.

Looking back after Montreal i think duran really instilled a primordial fear into leonard, it obviously must have been shattering for him mentally & it stayed with him all though the 3rd fight until the 11th round.

I've watched the Montreal fight again a couple of times recently & all i'am interested in is watching leonards reactions as in facial & physical, it's eye opening, he really looked distressed & who can blame him.

It showed in the re-match, leonard to me fought tight & more than a bit hesitant, so unlike him, he fought without his customery confidence you'd expect from someone of his statue. My buddy was a big SRL fan & he hated the fight & up until duran quit he was convinced that leonard would lose & that duran would suddenly spring too life & KO leonard.

I cannot for the life of me understand anyone bad mouthing duran, it's just a sign of knowing ****-all. I pay absolutley no respect to any of the duran detrators on here so hence i love just love abusing them, only those around in the day can really understand what these 2 fights were & are about as you can't get it just from a vid or a mag what you/i & a few others are taking about here & anyone who comes out with these crap anti-duran verballs is too me just a pure wanker.

Yeh it would always have been a tough call for duran to produce another Montreal, he'd climbed Mount Olympus, he'd beaten the Champ. But duran is your ultimate enigma, i've said this on here a few times that there's duran in all of us good/bad & the ugly.

He would never have beaten Tommy at 154 at 33 years old, he'd had his day by conventional standards but thats what makes duran such an enigma!!! He defied logic.

But i think what sums it up & is missed by 99% of people here is that HE FOUGHT FOR PAY!!! not glory!!! what else could he do, i wonder how many owned a piece of him at any one time & this is why he's always carried on & defied all sense of reality & beating Barclay is straight out of a rocky script.

If he'd retired after Montreal he'd be compared to Robinson i have know doubt about that & it goes without saying that if he'd fought cuevas next after Montreal say in jan/feb 81 & become undisputed champ then he could have shot straight for Hagler & we would have had that as the "Showdown" instead of Hearns/Leonard in sept 81, frankly speaking if that was the case then Leonards career would'nt have gone much futher in regards to monopolising the media spotlight.

I've not one ounce of sympathy for marvin, he let it happen, he did'nt need leonard, leonard needed him, he should have just said NO.

 

My mate watched it in Leicester Square ODEON, there was uproar, he's a Leonard fan, he was in shock at the whole fight, he had the fight level.

i'll always remember his words, "that ai'nt Leonard" what the **** was he playing at!! maybe it could have been a gesture too me who had slipped into a shock coma at hearing the news.

 

Boxing history is filled with guys who did just as much as Duran. He wins and he gets too much credit, and he loses and people accept his excuses. If only all great fighters would get that luxury and respect. Hearns moving up to lightheavyweight and beating a younger fighter who was undefeated and 30 pounds above his first weight was a great accomplishment. And this is why I mention Duran. Had Duran had this accomplishment and beat Hill in the same circumstances Hearns did, his fans would have made it into the greatest win of all time. When Tommy beat Hill I was surprised he did not get the credit he should have. Beating the best lightheavyweight in the world 11 years after winning his first title. He beat an undefeated fighter at 175. This is why I think Duran is overrated. He had a good lightweight career and beat Ray, but anything after that cannot make him go down greater in the ATG list. The Leonard fight and Barkley fights can be mentioned, but those two fights do not make him ATG best ever or near it. I think Duran's machismo and charisma (which are good qualities) made people like him and overrate his wins, since if you look at his career objectively, he lacks a great dominating win against an ATG fighter. And this is rare to have a great fighter not to have that great win or wins. His record is a record of top 25-30, but not top 5-10. If people look at he record and opponents and ignore the talk, they will see that Duran in an objective view is overrated. Look at the record and lightweight. Then at welterweight- look at his weights and size. Look at Moore and Barkley as opponents. Not at the hype. It becomes clear if you see the actual numbers and wins and weights. Many people accuse me of not being objective, but I think many people on the board are subjective in favor of Duran. Yet look at the reasons for him being great. The best his fans come up with post lightweight are Barkley and Leonard. One guy he lost easily to in the rematch and who he did not dominate in the win and who fought his fight, and the other was not a great fighter.

 

Bizarre.

 

No mas was a giant blimp in duran career,especially for those who look at it superficially. But,personally,i think duran came to know hed made a HUGE mistake by quitting/taking leonard lightly. (or whatever it was he did.) Obviously the man who was revered for his machismo in his native panama was now reviled and humiliated. I think it takes some special character to bounce back from such a humiliation with TWO more world titles at even higher weights,And to take his licks and losses against benitez,laing,hagler and hearns without resorting to quitting. I personally love the hagler fight as duran is heroic,and remains the only man in haglers title reign to take marvin the full 15,duran doesnt resort to running either,and best of all that hes 25 pounds smaller than hagler! In my opinion no 135 er in gloved history could take a peak marvin 15 without doing a 'bizzaro'.
And finally,my favourite duran moment,when he redeemded all his detractors,yes,the Hearns fight. Duran was outsped,outhit,outhought,outboxed,out everything by a rampant hearns. But the man still came out for round two,probably knowing he was going to be humiliated and sparked,and tried his best to win. To me,thats the perfect redemption and answer to those who say/said duran was a quitter...

 

I hope that the myth that Leonard fought the wrong fight tactically will be laid to rest soon. The man was a boxer-puncher and had never fought as evasive as he did in the rematch previously. Very few in history would have outgunned the Leonard of Montreal at WW, so there wasn't much reason to believe Duran would. But he did.

But I also hope that the myth that Leonard's win in the second fight was all about Duran letting himself down and nothing to do with Leonard dies. Leonard fought a smart fight and controlled it from the get go (even though he wasn't outclassing or punishing Duran in any sense).

For me it boils down to this:

Did Duran get inside Leonard's head before Montreal and make him lose composure inside the ring (not fight the wrong fight tactically, mind you, but not fighting with a cool enough head either)? Possibly, but at the end of the day it's just speculation lacking in substance.

Did Duran get so lazy and overconfident after Montreal that he was too unprepared mentally and physically for the rematch? Possibly, but at the end of the day it's just speculation lacking in substance.

It's really not more complicated than that.

 

Durans last fight at Lightweight was at the age of 26yo, not 28, in a fight he killed himself to make weight. He couldnt make lightweight anymore because he'd outgrown the weight

His best performance is probably as a 29yo Welterweight, where he was ripped to shreds. Duran grew into a good sized Welterweight, even a big 1 considering his stockyness, above that weight he was soft and not in the greatest shape

Mayweather fought below LW until the age of 26 and Mosley fought below LW until the age of 27. Are they all small blown up LWs too?