Its not just THAT Duran. The Duran that beat Palomino was brilliant also. Those versions of Duran would be a handful for damn near any welter in history, and that Duran would own Honeyghan in pretty one sided fashion.
Which is precisely why people should stop referring to him as Montreal Duran. The version that showed up and dominated Palamino was the same cat.
Saying 'Montreal Duran', '88 Tyson', 'the Don Curry from the fight immediately before the Honeyghan fight but not drawing any comparisons whatsoever to the one that actually fought Honeyghan', if you say any of these you're gay.
Many boxing fans knew SRL was in trouble when Duran decided to move up and set his sights on Leonard. Ray needed one or two more rugged fights before he fought Duran I. A Cuevas fight would have helped Ray pre-Duran.
Not too many thoughts, i've benn consistent with my thoughts on all fights though. I'm not sure what the question is though PP. Do you mean the rematch? Like i ALWAYS say, performance wise i think the whole think is highly exagerated, and i'm consistent with that. Check my post history, i think early on respectively both fights aren't too dissimilar, both men are standing off one another, trying to gain leverage. The ocnly difference is who is succeeding, and that happens when great fighters fight each other, regardless of the styles match up, great fighters can win, and in Montreal, a great fighter beat another great fighter, and in the rematch the same happened. They are my ultimate thoughts and always have been. Both fights are similar in style, far more so than has become folklore anyhow. I always say this.
As good as Honeyghan was against Don Curry,there's no way he'd have beaten the Duran of the Palomino or first Leonard fights.