I've come to the conclusion that Roberto Duran would knock out Monzon

Has Duran ever had trouble coming down from a caffeine high? Surely he must have, at some time. I'm sure his sluggish showing against Jimmy Batten in 82 was down to slugging back too much sweet 'java' between rounds.

 

That's jus no true. Some excuses hold water, some don't and it's pretty easy to see which do and which do not. But when you say you think one holds water, people like you act as you would believe anyone. I made my position clear. I think the "excuse" for the second Leonard fight is a fact. I don't think the other excuses hold any weight. Duran had motivation problems after Leonard I. That's not an excuse. It's a fact and his own fault. Of course that should be considered when judging him. When a fighter can't motivate himself for a big fights it's a blemish on his career.

 

...Beaten by the better man in the rematch. Didn't look overweight or weight drained for the fight, and he was quite competitive until he gave up. :good It's true, you've already made your position quite clear, as have I, leave it at that.

 

I do think that if there are people believing the excuses though Addie, it's not any poster that you respect in a debate on the classic, people using the excuses are the equivalent of the *******s who think Pacquiao has become a Jose Napoles esque technician over night. So just ignore them, i don't want the classic to become a silly place, let's keep the debate good and ignore the attrocios threads.

 

Some excuses might be true for some fighters, it's just that when you start believing them you're opening up the flood gates, so everyone should just keep consistent and accept losses as losses and wins as wins, provided they aren't dodgy decisions you disagree with.

 

:good I just want to see some respect for Ray Leonard on the Classic, no big deal.

 

Just because an "excuse" is thought of as true does not mean the loss isn't a loss anymore. Leonard II for example is a loss for Duran but I don't rank it as high as his losses to Hearns or Benitez because I think there's truth to it.

 

He gets plenty though Addie, he's rated almost universally on here just behind Robinson head to head at 147, and not far behind as an atg. Everything's getting blown out of proportion on here. We need to seriously boycott the stupid threads before the best forum of all time deteriorates.

I'm off for a shower and out now, speak to you later Addie. Remember, classic fambo need to stick together and keep the debates real.

 

To me, they're all just losses,

 

You might be waiting a long time, some posters would rather deny how great he was & try pick at his career down points rather than just admit they dont like him but he was a brilliant fighter.

 

Am i missisng something with the Leonard hate? Last i heard, all the best posters were saying he has one of the best resumes of all time for top wins.

 

I disagree. Duran's loss to Laing is worse than his losses to Benitez and Hearns for example. Even at this stage he never should have lost to a fighter of Laing's calibre while here is no shame losing to atgs, especially not when you are above your best weight and past your prime.

 

Yep, I don't like Leonard but I can't see how he should not be high ranked high.

 

Duran lost to Leonard because he was fighting a very good fighter who was more cautious than he was usually accustomed. Maybe Duran didn't turn in his best performance, but neither did Barrera when he fought Jones the second time, but nobody remembers that...they just remember the loss. That's fair enough, Duran lost. I know what Leonard said, but he also said that he fought the wrong fight in Montreal but you decide he's talking **** with that one. It's no coincidence that the only excuse a victim of Duran's has come up with is looked upon unfavorably.

When an excuse is thought of as true, it discredits the winner.

 

I never knock fighters for losing when past their primes to be honest. This isn't an excuse, i'm the same with every single fighter, like Robinson with Jones or Tyson with Williams. It's true Duran wouldn't be expected to lose to such a fighter, who wasn't terrible by the way, but when a man is past his prime **** happens.

When i said losses are losses though, i wasn't talking about the caliber of fighter, i was on the subject of excuses, as in i don't excuse the loss to Leonard because he 'wasn't trained properly', i meant the mannerism of a loss doesn't factor heavily into legacy for me, but the fighter who incurred the loss does. So yes of curse you are right that a loss to Kirkland Laing is worse than a loss to Hearns. That's obvious.

I really have to go now, i'm running late, later.