MARVIN HAGLER-I don't think so

Do you agree he was still prime in 1980 ?

One of his greatest performances is in 1980 and at welterweight. His performance against Palomino in 1979 was great too. He was regarded as unbeatable and relatively unscathed at lightweight when he last fought there in 1978.
He was 30 years old against Benitez in 1982, and only 19 months removed from that great victory against Leonard.
Those are facts.

I don't believe there was a sudden dramatic decline between the ages of 28 and 30, or thereabouts.
His long career suggests a lengthy prime and a gradual decline.

 

He said that afterwards, after he lost the fight and trying to take credit away from Duran. Like, sure I lost, but hey, I fought his fight. His comments before the fight, and his actions, as I illustrated with time stamps in my previous post, show he wasn't standing there waiting to exchange. He was moving, he was circling, he was backing away throughout round 1 and at the start of round 2. Then he gets badly hurt, and it all goes out the window. Now he has to respect his power, and he falls for numerous feints which disrupts his timing. As on the streets and in the ring, when stun, sometimes your instincts tell you to either run and hold, and other times you get pissed and feel like you need to fight for your life and get him back. Who's to say how one reacts. However, the above isn't SRL walking into the ring and going, ya know what, I'm going to stand here and fight his fight... RIIIIIGHT

 

Sure, he could have been bsing and making an exuse.

We know in the rematch he fought differently and was very successful.

Of course, Duran wasn't as in shape physically or mentally in the rematch.

My feeling is that if Leonard tried to box more in the first fight, he still would have been outpointed. Duran was on point in the first fight - he fought with a startling fierceness.

 

Mrkoolkevin claims Leonard and his team said BEFOREHAND Leonard would engage Duran.

I haven't seen any evidence either way.

I guess it depends on who you choose to believe.

 

I don't think Duran was past prime at all in 1980.

He had grown out of the 135 division by 1978 and grew naturally into a 147 lb. fighting machine.

He was 29 yrs old and had no history of taking heavy punishment.

His power at 147 didn't have the effect it had had at 135 lbs but that's because he was facing naturally bigger opponents than he had at 135. But his reflexes, desire, defense, were all there.

 

Does Duran look like the same fighter he was at LW to you vs. Wilfred or Hearns? Those fights were 3/4 divisions north of where he started. I think it's obvious that at LW, he still had ATG power, mixed with being faster of hand and foot. I think it's obvious to see on the film. Do you disagree and think he had the same speed, timing and reflexes against Wilfred and Hearns as he had against Dejesus for example. I think the difference is obvious.

That doesn't mean he still can't pull off wins, and very good wins at that, what it means is, he'll be inconsistent being that he's not prime. Just because you win fights sometimes doesn't make you prime. Which is why I cited the examples of Jack at the Masters or Conners at the U.S. Open. Doing well didn't make them prime, it just meant that their skills were good enough to sometimes overcome what they've lost physically. Nothing more.

You keep saying 19 months past his best victory. Did that look like the same Duran to you in their as the one in the LW days or even the one against SRL? 19 months sounds good, but functionally it's 2 years. As we know, a lot can happen in two years right, let alone 3 or 4 etc etc. Would it not be fair to say, that constant weight draining because you're not in the best shape in between fights can take a toll on the body? A toll not as easily swept under the rug as you get up there in age? I mean, do you honestly think that was a prime Duran we saw against Laing or Sims? It clearly underlined the fact that he wasn't what he used to be, but could still turn back the clock at times. He would never lose to a Laing in his Prime.

I think he was very close to prime in the fight vs. SRL. Not at his best weight, but close enough and not far removed from it, that it was essentially the end of his prime imo

 

What Kev says doesn't work in any regard. He only mentioned fighting Duran's fight after it was over.

However, what they did mention beforehand, had NOTHING to do with fighting Duran's fight, but to fight THEIR fight. Dundee says, Duran is a heel to toe fighter, he fights best if you back straight away into his punches. I don't want my guy backing away. Why should he, my guy is the bigger guy, stronger guy, younger guy, taller guy, faster guy.. why does he need to back away? He can take the center of the ring, circle and box and he'll KO him. That sounds nothing like some made up bs about fighting Duran's fight. If that was the case, according to Dundee, he would just backed up straight away and beat Duran at his own game. Yet, they said they needed to do the exact opposite of that. SO how is that fighting Duran's fight? It's just comical at this point...

 

Good post and I agree with most of this .. I will add, as you mentioned, that ballooning up and partying and what not is definitely something that you can only get a way with for so long, it is hard on the body .. As you get older, he gets harder. And in Duran's case especially facing ATG comp. and at higher weights, was ill advised for him to do this, imo .. But I do say that Duran chose to handle his biz the way he did and that's on him ... And no way Duran was the same fighter at 154 as he was at 135, imo .. I agree with you there

 

You talk about Benitez and Hearns but there are the other fights there where he looks good. You're arguing the same thing. You're saying the bad ones illustrate how past prime he is, but the good ones just show how great he is .... but maybe the bad ones might have something to do with the way the opponents boxed too.

He's definitely past prime at age 30 to 32, I haven't said otherwise. But he's nowhere near as old or past it as the constant repeating it makes it seem.
It's not as if he was taking bad punishment at the time.

For an approximate boxing analogy, Duran in 1980-1984 is at the same stage as Pacquiao in 2008-2012

 

no it is not the best. Ray was not experienced then and he did fight Duran's fight, which was proven by how easily he won the rematch and rubber match. It was a good win, but not close to best, as a matter of fact it was an professional who fought an inexperienced guy. That is not the best win. Had he beaten the 1981 Leonard that would have been a real accomplishment. That one year made a difference, as much as Evander or Pernell improved.

 

which makes a lot of sense. Duran was not this washed up guy, the washed up comes from the excuses people want to use. As though a person has to be washed up to be knocked out by Hearns or outboxed by Leonard or Benitez. Virgil Hill was not washed up when he lost to Hearns 7 years after Hearns beat Duran.

 

I thought it was common knowledge but Kurupt seems to disagree. This old SI article describes one of the various pre-fight statements:

"Angelo Dundee, Leonard's trainer, counseled him to feint left and move right, to move from side to side, not to get caught on the ropes, to box. "A good boxer plays checkers," Dundee said. "Side, side, inside. The key is Ray's left hand. Everything off the jab.... Ray will knock Duran stiff." No, Leonard said, he wouldn't do it that way; he'd fight Duran's way. "Flat-footed," Leonard said. "I will not run." One of the questions about Leonard was his ability to take a punch, and now he seemed intent on answering it once and for all."

https://www.si.com/vault/1980/06/30...and-bruised-his-way-to-the-welterweight-title

 

you guys think Pernell and Evander were the same greats they were when Pernell first fought Ramirez and Evander first fought Qawi? Well then so much for learning a craft and improving. If you think a guy cannot improve from when he first wins a title to when he is prime then you cannot say he went down in skills with age.. There has to be a pattern getting better and then going down. Ray was not yet at that great stage. You cannot make a guy greater just because you want Duran to look better, the same as you cannot make Duran more diminished when he loses to excuse his losses. Boxing truth is more important than one man's reputation. If Duran wanted to be the best ever, he should have beaten Ray in the rematch, moved up and stopped Benitez and beaten Hearns, then moved up and beaten Hagler. And he lost to them all.

 

I think it’s clear to almost everybody sugar ray Leonard’s prime was 1979-1981...Duran beat Leonard smack in the middle of his prime