Is Leonard Vs Duran I one of the best fights ever, or atleast your top 5?

It's not one line, it's just a view of the fights that most people have. Most posters. Most fans even. It's not just one of us constantly arguing with you, it's you, just you, constantly parroting the same **** in every Leonard-Duran thread. "Leonard was the variable". We know your opinion by now, you can stop. You don't need to always let it be known you disagree with the vast majority of posters. We know.

 

Well if he stopped there would be nothing to discuss. You know that right? somewhere along the line Mag needs to realize that Leonard was a beltholder when he fought Duran and was far from green. In fact he just came off a win from Wilfred Benitez and was moving towards an extremely steller career, and had he the ability to make adjustments, he could have done so during the fight. Why anyone would want to put some kind of askerisk around this fight by diminishing who Leonard was at the time is a mystery to me, especially when it's the same poster who's always complaining about Duran supporters doing the exact same thing.

My viewpoint is when you decide to step in the ring, it counts regardless of why you won or lost.

 

I am not the ones who start these threads about Roberto Duran. Other posters do. Check it out when you see them pop up. I don't start them. They bring up the same points over and over and over. Saying the win over Ray is the greatest win of all time. They say Duran is ATG top 10 because he beat Leonard, completely devaluing Ray's win over Duran in the second but also the 3rd fight because Duran was out of shape in Nov. 1980 or old in the third fight, as though Ray was not 33 but 24 years old still in 1989. Somehow Ray was always this great ATG fighter and Duran was either out of shape or old. Duran always has the excuses. It borders on ridiculous to be honest. If Duran had one win against the fab 4 after the Leonard rematch I would have said ok he proved something. But he lost easily when he was relatively young and good at the weights. Then we get the Kirkland Laing excuse.
And logically I say if beating Ray in 1980 by decision means Duran is top 10 ATG, then where does that put Ray? He has to be the best fighter ever, or mathematically you cannot have Duran jump to 1-10 with the opposition he had at lightweight. There is a higher standard on me not to reiterate my points because you see me as just one person, but if you guys repeat the same points that is ok since there are many of you. I find myself discussing Duran with many people over the years. Awhile back Duranimal and I used to discuss this and also others, so my points will not change just because I am discussing it with different people.
I am still waiting for a Duran fan or threads starter to give me real proof that Duran was a top 10 ATG. He is great, but I still say he lost to all the greats he fought, so what gets him that lofty position 1-10? Certainly not his lightweight career which featured no ATG fighters as his opponents or beating Leonard once and then losing the next two fights. Too bad Duran didn't beat Alexis at 135 and then Pryor at 140. That would have proved a lot. But he didn't. Those were more legit fighters than anyone he fought at 135.

 

Duran fans put an asterick around Leonard beating Duran in the rematch and rubbermatch. The proof that Ray was in my mind not who he was later is the lesson he learned by fighting Duran's fight. He didn't just barely win a rematch, he dazzled Duran and controlled him. He learned. That is why I mentioned Humberto Gonzales vs. Michael Carbajal.
Let us say Duran was not who he was in the rematch as he was in the first fight. If he was out of shape, Ray would have won even had he fought Duran's fight correct? Well he still moved and used his legs right from the get go. It was not Duran being out of shape which changed, it was Leonard. So just by Ray moving his feet shows that was the variable. If he really thought Duran was out of shape he would have probably wanted to knock him out in the same kind of fight. I don't see how people can see this any different. Not giving a fighter credit for a win because another one says he was out of shape.

 

another point. When I mention Leonard learned with Duran and became a better fighter. There was one fight which McGirt had early in his career. I saw it on TV back in the 1980s. There was a young fighter who was rather popular and had a whirlwind style just all pressure and punches named Frankie Warrren(not the promoter). I had to add an excuse N there since ESB seems to block that name. This fighter Frankie Warrren beat up McGirt in the fight which was 10 rounds, and he beat a few fighters that way just on his activity. Well McGirt fought him again a year or two later and controlled him and I think stopped him. So that is learning and fighting his fight. Fighters get better and learn how to control tempo, which is why I think Ray became a better top fighter after Duran 1. He learned the whole game mental and physical.

 

All that may be true but Leonard still lost when he fought Duran, just like Duran lost in the rematch. End of story. And I'm old enough to have watched both fights and Duran wasn't all that far behind when he quite, contrary to popular opinion. People forget but this was the offical score prior to Duran quiting.

Leonard led by scores of 68-66, 68-66 and 67-66"

That's damn near an even fight, leading up to Duran's decision to quit.

 

that fight was not close! Ray alwys had Durans number after the first fight!!

 

Get back to yer mum's bed.

 

Ok! oh boy.

 

Like it or not that was the official score prior to Duran quiting. I personally didn't think it was that close, but posters seem to imply SRL was pitching a shut out prior to Duran quiting. It was the bolo punch antics that sent Duran over the top.

 

That is simply what most people think. Most people recognize that when the two met for the first time, both at their best, Duran beat Leonard, controlled him, forced him back, and over 15 rounds, the brilliant mind of SRL, the same mind that was able to match wits and adjust to Wilfred Benitez, couldn't do a thing.

The Laing excuse is simply reality. Eventually, Duran is not as good as he once was, just like Leonard, Hearns, and every other boxer.

Your excuses for Leonard tower over others' for Duran.

Don't blame the world of boxing fandom for simply disagreeing with you. It doesn't justify your incessant need to post your redundant opinion. "Leonard was the variable. Leonard was green. Leonard was inexperienced. Duran however shouldn't get to use any excuses." We get it. If we, the rest of the forum, choose to discuss things the way we see them with each other, that doesn't mean you need to hammer points that have been talked to death because of your need to post the same thing over and over.

 

That fight was not close to that scoring. And if it was close, than Duran fans can say a man who was out of shape was fighting a close fight with Leonard when Ray was fighting his fight. I suppose it works both ways.

 

Who is blaming the world fandom? You are sort of telling me don't talk anymore about it because you are stating the same points over and over which we don't want to hear, and the Duran fandom wants to go with their fantasy that Duran won the first one legit and had an excuse for every other loss he ever had.
I come on here and state my points, and then I will have 5 people responding to me. Naturally I respond to whomever addresses me. So my points will be the same on each one on a certain facet to the differing opinions, and they are actually very solid. How many more points do you want? The main one is excuses are not valid ways to devalue a loss for Duran, especially in light of the fact he did this everytime he fought a great fighter and lost. Everytime.. And my points are if he lost to all the greats he ever fought, then he beat other greats at lightweight to show it was the weight gain and not just excuses. And that cannot be proven.

And I know the Duran fan response is "he was old and little and not natural when he moved up in weight"- My answer is he was 29 when he fought Ray and only 32 when he fought Hearns and fought at 154 as early as 1978. That is a valid point I am making. He was small you guys will say and I answer he fought at 154 before Hearns,Bentiez or Leonard. Completely negating the comment he was moving up and fighting bigger men. Simply put, if people put up the threads and keep commenting on things and I respond, if 10 people answer me I respond to it. Someone asks me a question and I respond and then others say we don't want to hear you respond? That seems to contradict the boxing message board.
This commenting about Duran and me being one of the only ones responding, does not happen on other threads and other topics because usually on those threads I am more in line with the general thinking or at least in-line with 50 percent of the people, so others will answer the questions which I also hold. But about Duran, I am the only one or one of a few who hold the opinion, although many others hold the view, they just don't feel like commenting when 10 people answer them.

And no I did not say Ray was inexperienced, I said he was not yet the superfighter he became later. Rather green in comparison to that fighter he later became since he was not mentally and physically as mature as he was when he beat Hearns or even Duran in the second fight. That is why I mentioned other fighters like Humberto Gonzales, who even though Carbajal was not his first loss (He lost to Rolando Pascua), he learned what to do and how to win. That is maturity and when a fighter can do that he becomes a better fighter. Ray knew this and that is why he did not grant Hearns a rematch in 1982. He figured Tommy might improve mentally and learn as much as he did after Duran 1.
Duran top 25 fighter. What is so bad about that. Seems like Duran fans want him to be top 10 or something is wrong. Well my question still is What did Duran do and who did he beat to warrant top 10 ATG status? If it is beating Ray one time and then losing to Ray, then Ray has to be the best fighter ever.

 

Yes, I am asking you to stop saying the same thing over and over again, because we all know your positions and disagree with them and the discussions never go anywhere. But it's the internet, you're free to do as you wish, just know that many posters (if not most) consider your excessive Duran-Leonard posts an eyesore.

 

Well most people do not tell me that and seem to respect the fact that this is a messag board, and most people seem to respect my position on Roberto Duran because I bring facts and back them up. And about me and the threads,the history of me and the threads are here on ESB since all the posts and threads are saved. All of my posts are responding to people who ask me questions. Sometimes it seems like I say things and people do not listen. This might be why repeating is a common theme on here

You can look on any thread about Roberto Duran and it is clear I did not start the threads on him for a year or two. And you can look on any response I make, and I am responding to a poster initially about the threads, and then after that people ask me questions or talk directly to me like you are now. This is a bit of contradiction. You are asking me not to say the same things over and over, and yet you are asking me questions about it and talking about Duran saying the same things over and over yourself. If people do not want me to respond, they do not have to ask me a question or respond to me. I almost always respond when people ask me a question, if the person asking is not rude or out of line.
Like I said the posts are there to look at. I have never been out of line myself on ESB or insulted anyone. I am stating my opinion and responding to people with good facts and I think excellent information which cannot be denied regarding Duran and the excuses and weights and age and style.
Anyone can go back and look at my posts. I think the thing to do is to tell other like-minded Duran enthusiasts to stop responding to me. I don't care if people don't respond to me. I am not out here to just talk and have no one listen. I see this as discussion. If someone asks me a question, why would I not respond because someone tells me not to?