MARVIN HAGLER-I don't think so

I honestly don't think Ray fought when his prime would have been. The closest to his prime was the Hearns fight in 1981, since it was closest to when he would have been prime about 1983. But he was retired than and came back against Howard in 1984. Ray and Hearns became professionals in 1977... Ray earlier in 1977.. Thomas had 163 amateur fights and Ray had a little less than that. So how was Ray prime in 1979, yet people say Hearns was prime in 1984? I am bringing up facts and timing, and yet people say I don't know what I am talking about. How was Ray prime in 1979? Why would he be prime so early? So the Duran win is seen as better for Duran?

 

Agree with most of this, good post Saad

 

Agreed .. Him beating Tommy was him starting to peak and him really getting his grove going ... too bad about his injury . .I'm with you on the timeline

 

Did you bother to watch the video and the time stamps? I mean really, did you even bother? You can visually see all the times he did move away and back away. There were even a few occasions where he was seen "running away" from some of Duran's charges. Go watch the damn video. He tried to fight exactly how he always did. Circle, jab, back away, jab-exchange, circle away and reset. He did this over and over again. He wasn't just standing there going toe to toe. You can visually see this, yet you continue to rely on SRL post fight, and some random article. Visually he was moving side to side, he was doing side, side, inside. That is EXACTLY how he was fighting Duran in round 1 and the start of round 2. Just as Angelo says. So I guess he didn't listen to his prefight interview plan? Wow, somebody saying how they'll fight to confuse a foe and think they'll fight a way they won't. Mindboggling news here.

 

Ray was certainly smack dab in the middle of his physical prime when he fought Duran in 1980, he just wasn't quite in his mental prime at that time imo. Physically though, I don't think he was any more prime against Hearns than Duran.

 

You could be right physically, but you acknowledged the mental part of it which I do agree with .. And that does factor in because that's as important in boxing as it is in other sports .. And we saw that in the Hearns fight, where Ray was able to come back from the adversity of being behind and taking apart Tommy ... that's why I like him in that fight better( both physically and mentally at his peak)

 

So Leonard’s prime only lasted one year? Despite having a huge amateur career and defeating a prime hall of famer in 1979....righhttttt

 

Never said that , 1 year prime.. I said I liked Ray in that Hearns fight the best

 

Anytime later in his first career is more prime, but since he retired, he missed his prime which like Hearns would have been around 1984 or 1985. So what is the closest time he fought before that when he was active? 1981 or 1982.. Just going back from the time he should have been prime. But he was retired. No way was Ray prime in 1980. Hearns was not near it. Why would Ray be?

 

Leonard was in his prime against Duran in 1980

Hearns was in his prime against Leonard in 1981

 

Neither was prime in either year. It would be like a graph. When is a fighter the most experienced when he is at his peak physically. So you go back from when he starts to slip and then come up with his greatest physical level going back. That is how I would put it, and how was Ray or Hearns at their top experience in 1980 or 1981. Just on that, your statement is not true. Not by a long shot.

 

Nice find.

Yes, it seems clear that Leonard, against the advice of his trainer, had decided before the fight that he would fight head to head with Duran.

 

Ahh here come the excuses. I’m a huge SRL fan but Duran beat him fair and square

 

Only he didn't did he. He actually fought EXACTLY like his trainer said. Side to side, inside, side to side. Then when he would back away, he wouldn't back straight away, many times it was at an angle and circling away. That is exactly how he Angelo wanted him to fight. How is that going against Angelo? Further, the notion in question was "fighting Duran's fight".... not going head to head with Duran. It's a fight, in any boxing match you're doing head to head. What is being dispelled here, is the notion that SRL fought Duran's fight intentionally, and that simply isn't true. Fighting Duran's fight would be following the instructions Angelo said not to do, i.e. backing straight up against a toe to heel fighter. That is what he didn't want. He wanted circling and side to side, which is EXACTLY how he fought in Round 1 and most of 2 before being hurt badly in round 2 and 3. Then he couldn't move as much, because from his own words (which we seem to love to report on as fact), he was in a cloud for the next 3 to 4 rounds. Point is, he didn't fight Duran's fight which has been reported by the few. He tried to fight his fight, and couldn't.

 

Excellent!!!