Leonard-Duran 2 and 3 are incredibly underrated wins

Please tell you're not over 20. Because that would make you clinically ******ed. If you're in your teens you might at least be a late bloomer. Fingers crossed...

So, just to get it straight, you accept that Duran had no excuses for his losses to Benitez, Laing and Hearns? That he just met opponents that were too good for him?

 

Leonard-Duran I and II are fights

Leonard-Duran III should have been smoothered in its crib :twisted:

 

The Barkley fight was the only time Duran had looked decent in years. You are ignoring all the fights Duran had for the last 6 years when he looked awful. The truth is Duran fought one good fight against barkley but Duran as a rule at that point in his career was not very good anymore, and had Leonard by 5 years and a ton of fights.. The Leonard win means nothing. he had better win with all those advantages.

 

Benitez at 154 and at his very best was a better fighter then Duran at 154 when Duran was 3 weight classes and 5 years past his best.

Hearns at 154 at his very best was better at 154 then Duran who was about 7 years past his best and 3 weight classes past his best weight.


Laing fought a very out of shape Duran who would have lost to a ton of fighters in that shape. I saw the fight at the time and it was very obvious that Duran had nothing. Duran's fault, but Laing was not a better fighter.

 

Go away you nit picking hair splitting boring little man:smoke

 

Excuses, sweet excuses. Now I just have to know how he managed to lose to DeJesus. He hadn't trained, right? He took him too lightly, didn't he? Or was DeJesus up to the same Machiavellian chinenegans as Leonard?

 

Yeah, that's me. Just having the gall to actually take results of fights at their face value. When talking about Duran of all people.

But still, I would like to know. Are you a semi-******ed young adult or a punk kid? The people on this board have a right to know. How many days since you whacked one out looking at your Duran posters? Be honest, young man.:nono

 

You obviously have a huge issue with Duran & all things Duran:huh All i can say is that it may be best if you have a word with your mother as she may have some shocking news 4 you:smoke

 

I'm not sure if those are qualified as excuses. It's not like he said that Duran partied for 6 months straight and had to lose 100 lbs in two weeks.

Duran was simply not at his best above 147 lbs. Benitez and Hearns were better than Duran at 154. Laing wasn't but Duran was obviously not in the best shape of his career.

 

Coming from someone who calls himself "Duranimal". Priceless.

 

He also said that Duran was "5 years past his best" against Benitez (at 31, two years after Montreal) and "7 years past his best" against Hearns. This smells to me like trying to exagerrate how past his prime Duran was. Sure, he was past his very best by then, but this tendency to downplay his losses are just so common. Gets tiring. So does this thread, so I'm out of here.

 

Very Good:good

 

Duranimal is a truly shocking and biased poster.