Leonard-Duran 2 and 3 are incredibly underrated wins

Nah man, it's bull****. You don't make the pound for pound #1 fighter in the world a 50/1 underdog. And he was yesterday's man? Please, I guess Pacquiao at 30 is yesterday's news too. . .

 

Bascially everything I stated is fact.

So in your world if someone says that Leon Spinks was as good a fighter as Ali, when someone respndes that Spinks was as good as Ali in 1978 because Spinks was at his best while Ali was maybe 10 years past his best then its just as excuse. Are you kidding me here.

I guess Terry Norris was a better fighter then Leonard right.
There are some Duran excuses used on this board that i don't agree with, like he was grossly out of shape vs Benitez and Hearns. But anti Duran people are the other way. If you listen to them you would think that Duran started boxing in 1980 at 147.

 

So he uses the one fight Montreal which Duran fought great but ignores all other fights from his almost losing in 1979 to Ganzalas to looking awful in his 2 fights at 154 before Bentiez. Duran was a much slower fighter past past 147 then he was at his peak at lightweight.

I think almost all would agree Duran's absulute best was in about 1977 at lightweight. So I will stand by my statements.

 

Duran was still at his best for Palamino in 1979, and Duran in 1980. No question about it. While his prime weight was lightweight, he still put in performances at welterweight than were 'prime' quality.

 

edit

 

It's BS, plain and simple. Leonard had no right to dictate the weights of his opponents. I'm in full agreement with you on this one.

 

What was Duran's KO rate at welter? Right there will tell you he was never at his best at 147.

 

Thats absolute nonsence to make comparisons too 30 years ago.

I'am not a bookie mate, The odd's are dictated by the $$$$$$ taken in, they've got 2 offset this or lay it off by sucking in counter bets, obviously you're not a gambler & i hope someone on here who is will afford you a better insite 2 the bookmakers progress.

Like you i'am of the mind sportingly that 50/1+ is absolutly loonie, but as i said earlier the odds are not a fair reflection of fistic reality/bar room opinion, but they would be too a bookmaker thats just had $millions of $$$$ piled onto Leonard.

You just cannot make the same comparison of a fighters of today as too the fighters of 30 years ago in relation 2 lifestlye/training tecnique's/diet supplements ect, fighters today can now carry on well into their 30's with a little help along the way. How many top class fighters/lighterweights can you name who fought on like Duran did past 29 from the 60/70's at top level, not that many, most were all burned out.

I hope some one has one of the old boxing media mags hanging around which shows how the scribes saw the fight panning out. Over here in the UK none had Duran winning, everyone went for SRL in a close fight but all still said Leonard by UD, the bookies don't often get it wrong but when they DO:scaredas:

 

Duran vs Leonard was not a 50/1 fight. Maybe a certain outcome (such as a 14th round knockout) could have been something like 50 to 1 odds but not the fight.

May not have even been 2 to 1, it was two great champions in there.

I would like to know the real odds if anyone knows them.

 

The odds were supposedly 9/5 in favour of Leonard.

 

Yeh & proberbly born 10 yrs after & you've got 2 take into account that most of the bleating anti-duran bitches on here were no doubt victims of the Duran loving school bully who took their lunch money & forced them 2 do his homework, it all falls into place:yep this anti- Duran thing is just the wailing howling bleats of the massed ranks of sheep waiting outside the slaughter house:smoke

Not one of them has a individuality they can call their own & all crave responce's from their posts here on ESB/Safe haven & it's just a case of mutual dick stroking with these weeds

 

You're know doubt right buddy:smoke

 

I am the sword of TRUTH the whole TRUTH & nothing but the TRUTH so help me DURAN:smoke

 

Just because his KO rate at welterweight wasn't as good, it doesn't matter a jot. His overall effectiveness as a fighter was the same or better against Palamino and Leonard.

 

That's what I was trying to say. . . . .:huh