Leonard's decision to rematch a less than full strength Duran

As I said excuses post fight mean little to me. As does the same people saying pre fight everything is super. Those are a wash, equally useless.

Arcel saying immediately after that everything had gone as normal weighs extremely heavily, though. As does the fact that he started training in good time, which make the claim that he didn't have enough time dead wrong.

Objective observers saying that he looked impressive in training also carry some weight.

I think those that views this any way objectively will agree with me. So I will step out of this eternal debate for now on that note.

 

I understand. However, I will leave you and anyone else with this question...

Why would Dundee be making excuses for Duran, after the fight?

This one act from the opposing corner says a lot more to me than Arcel's towing a party line, in the face of potential repercussions from Duran's action.

 

This is true. Well put.

 

Interesting point because he was losing to Tommy on the outside but managed to knock him out when he got close.

 

Yes

 

Duran beat a better version of Leonard, than Leonard did Duran...
People say Leonard fouught Duran on the inside because he was 'green', which isn't true at all.

 

I've read that he wasn't motivated, and, just LOOK at Duran, he is obviously not in the great condition he was in Montreal.

 

Yes

 

If Leonard was 'inexperienced', which he wasn't, Olympic gold medallist and It's well documented how well Dundee guided his career and brought him on, then he stayed that way through his career, since he only ever had 40 fights v Duran's 100 +.

Doesn't mean he wasn't prime, or certainly very close to it.
He was only a year, or 3 fights away from his best win against Hearns, and he only ever had about 10 fights after Montreal altogether!

 

I've seen a few people claim that Leonard was not the finished article against Duran, in their first fight.

If his post-Duran I improvement is, as you categorically state, an "observable fact", what did you specifically see that had improved in Leonard to the point at which he could be considered the best version of himself?

 

...he'd beaten Ranzany, boy Green, Eklund, Muniz, Aldama in the olympics, Benitez!
Countless hours under Jacobs, Dundee, even Manny Steward.
And after all that he was just a naturally gifted, instictive fighter anyway, like Jones, he didn't have and didn't need a long apprenticeship in order to develop.

 

Because Tommy is like the god of outside fighting but was much worse than Leonard at inside fighting.

 

1-That's Duran's fault if he wasn't at his best in the rematch.

2-nowhere in my post did I say Leonard was green. I simply said that he hadn't become the best version of himself. Do you think Leonard's skill stayed the same after Montreal until he retired with no improvements?

I was actually giving Duran a compliment. He used psychological warfare to trick Leonard into having an infight. That is a skill just like being able to use head movement or counters--getting your opponent to fight outside their comfort zone. Leonard was better on the outside than the inside and most of fight #1 was fought on the inside. Therefore, Leonard didn't fight with the best game plan. Therefore, Duran did not beat the best version of Leonard who was fighting angry not playing to his strengths (foot speed, using his jab, etc).

It's no different from Ali vs Foreman. Ali got in his opponent's head and made him fight like an idiot. It's not taking credit from Ali, it's simply an observable fact that Foreman was not at his best on that fight since we can see him performing way better in other fights. It's HIS fault for not keeping his cool and not playing to his strengths.

 

He became much more well rounded over time. The Duran loss improved him for starters. He had a flashy speedy style that was suitable for the points based amateur system but had major flaws (opponents who applied non stop pressure, opponents who had the reach/technique to neutralize the speed, etc). He improved during the course of the fight with Duran and became a better infighter. But he realized Duran had been fighting that way for years and it made no sense to try and beat him at his own game.

1sr Hearns fight he tried to outbox him but this was a fool's errand. He applied the skills he learned over the years to sit down on his punches and slug. You didn't see Leonard fight that way early on, and he scored one of the best come from behind KO's ever.

Hagler fight, although his speed had diminished, he gained another invaluable skill which was defense and fighting in spurts and flurries to frustrate a guy. Most fast guys who rely on their reflexes don't bother improving this area of their game (looking at you Roy Jones) and end up getting caught and stopped. It's a testament to Leonard's defense that he was never dropped or badly hurt in a war with one of the best middleweights ever (who had crushing power and skill).

 

All good points and I see what you're saying, but "much more well rounded over time"? How much time are we talking about here? If we say that Leonard's prime ended in his first retirement then, following Duran, he had four more opponents, against whom he could exhibit any improvements.

It's fair to speculate that Leonard might have become a better in-fighter, by fighting Duran, but I can't recall him having to test his in-fighting skills too much, after that; at least, in such a way that I could say he'd demonstrably improved there. Is there a subsequent fight where his improvement here is apparent?

I'm also not sure that Leonard making minor, mid-fight adjustments constitutes him getting ostensibly better. Does Leonard (or his corner) making timely tactical decisions, in situ, mean that he has become a better boxer? Perhaps - though, I generally see a distinction between capabilities and tactics.

In Leonard/Hearns I (probably my favorite bout ever), we're effectively talking about a marked tactical shift from Leonard, onto the offensive, and one-punch (a long right), which changed the complexion of the contest. This triggered Leonard's onslaught to finish the fight and I tend to agree with you on it being one of the best come from behind KO's ever.

However, I wouldn't have seen this as Leonard showing me something especially new. To my recollection, he did tend to open up on his opponents and sit down on his punches, once he'd tagged them good. Moreover, if we're talking about Leonard really digging in and slugging it out then it's hard to ignore how he handled Benitez in the last round of their fight (a fight he was winning handily, anyway).


I also understand what you mean about making adjustments to offset diminishing physical attributes (e.g. speed and reflexes) but, here, I'd say that this does not represent an improvement. I mean, there's no way I'd view Leonard '87 as the best version of himself. Again, are we talking about the introduction of new capabilities or just the use of tactics, given the situation at hand?

Leonard was just a canny fighter - always.

Typically, the Leonard/Duran debates I see going on, focus on the tactics of Leonard and not on whether Leonard fell short in some area of his skillset. So, when I consider Duran as having beaten the best version of Leonard, I do so on the basis that, after their fight, I saw no distinct improvements in Leonard, as a boxer. To my mind, he'd had a most comprehensive and varied upbringing, through the ranks of pro boxing, and was pretty much the complete fighter before winning the WBC Title.

But, that's just me.