Leonard's disgusting late eighties era

The Lalonde fight was a circus sideshow.

 

New York Times and Ring Magazine both scored the fight for Leonard. Revisionist history paints the fight as complete domination for Duran. It wasn't. It was a close fight with enough swing rounds that a SRL card isn't out of the realm of possibility.

 

This whole notion that the Montreal fight was close is downright hilarious to me. WATCH THE FIGHT!! You tell me who'd you'd rather be walking out of that ring. Duran beat him from pillar to post. Literally. He hurt SRL so bad that SRL himself said it took him 3 to 4 rounds to recover AFTER the second. SRL never once hurt Duran or put him in that same situation. He again hurt SRL in the 3rd and he was covering up badly. SRL was taking much more punishment to the body that Duran was, by a big margin. To even think SRL came close to winning that fight is absurd. It wasn't a particular close fight at all, competitive sure, but not close on who won.

 

1980-1951= 29...

 

Right, the poster boy got some favorable scoring. We aren't knew to boxing right? Let me ask you this... when you watch the fight.. You, as in Drew101, Who do you have as the winner of that fight? Why are we trying to make something overly close that wasn't. The entire fight is on film. I no way do I view it as a contested decision or that it was particular close. It seemed very obvious to be a clear Duran victory. If you somehow do have SRL ahead, I'd appreciate a scorecard showing which rounds you gave to SRL that awarded him victory that night.

 

True. Duran got the better of most the exchanges in most of the rounds. Even when SRL brought some really good stuff, more often than not Duran came back with something a bit extra.

 

Question U, how did you score the Duran vs. SRL 1 fight. Do you view that fight as it could go either way type of decision?

 

You're just giving your opinion.

The New York Times and top magazines at the time - KO Magazine, International Boxing Digest, the Big Book of Boxing -- all scored it for Leonard. It wasn't decisive at all. 15 total rounds were scored EVEN on three cards.

Duran never won more than six rounds out of 15 on any card. (And he only won 3 rounds on one official card.) How the f#ck is that a decisive win?

Name another guy who won 3 of 15 rounds on a card and that same judge awarded him the win and a title -- EVER? That was the only time.

You're the one who is clearly biased. Leonard could've gotten the nod just as easily.

Duran didn't beat ANY of those guys decisively. But they all beat him decisively.

 

So, Duran won his rounds more clearly....That doesn't mean that he won every single one of them. Nor did he win any of them by 10-8 margins. Leonard was landing his share...and landed more in the later rounds- most of which he won.

I've watched the fight. A number of times. It's close each and every time I see it.

 

If you're thinking what a younger and bigger Duran would have done to a smaller, older Hagler, it doesn't sound like you're convinced by your own 'tossup' idea there, Trav.

 

Not at all.
It's similar to the Ali-Frazier 1 fight. A clear and punishing win for Frazier but there's always someone who'll come along as say it could have gone Ali's way.
Duran-Leonard was a little less severe but the margin is about the same.

 

No, that would make him 30 in 1981.

Einstein.

 

If Ring magazine did, too, that makes all the major boxing pubs in the U.S. (with the exception of Boxing Illustated and I have to check that one) ... giving the first Duran fight to Leonard.

 

I'll dig out my card in a bit. Last time I scored it, I think I had Duran up by one. I'll get back to you with my official card. What's yours, incidentally?

 

I could be mistaking Ring for another publication, it should be noted. But I know that NYT wasn't the only periodical that scored it for Leonard.