Montreal Duran vs PBF at Welter

Watch the first round.

Then watch Ray after Duran twats him in the 2nd. Duran changed the dynamic of that fight. Either that or Ray resigned to losing because he clearly wasn't winning.

Either way, Ray lost in Montreal fair and square, either due to Durans superiority that night or Rays stupidity. If I was a supporter of Leonard, I'd opt for the former.

 

Again Mag... It must really bother you that in an All-Time sense... Duran is clearly the better fighter huh? Hearns career doesn't come close to Duran's and it seems that really bothers you.

 

explaining to people how the myth of Leonard losing in Montreal as opposed to Duran winning is not true got boring a good couple of years ago. Flea Man is right on this, end.

 

Besides does anyon on here really think that PBF would ever have signed to fight a true ATG like Duran ?????????????? When he had his lunch packed by Castillo, PBF would not have the heart or balls for a true fight with Duran...

 

It isn't about Hearns really, it is about overrating fighters. I look at boxing as facts and proof. Who did the fighter beat regardless of hype.
As for Hearns, I am confident he will always be remembered well. As a matter of fact, if you compare Hearns to Duran, Tommy has arguably the best round fought in ring history with Hagler. Duran does not. I think eventually the truth comes out when it comes to great fighters. Hearns beat champions who were great like Cuevas,Hill and Benitez and Duran. Duran beat Leonard. 4-1. I do think Hearns career comes close. And I think most people know that. And I do believe that back in everyone's mind they know Duran is a little overrated as far as beating the great fighters.

 

Ray was not used to the big fight and took things personal with Duran. What better proof is there that Ray was the better fighter than Duran when he came back and outclassed and made Duran quit. And he beat Duran easily in 1989 in the rubbermatch. Stylewise, after 1980, Ray beats Duran everytime they fight. And Benitez easily outboxed Duran in Jan 1982, a little over a year after Ray fought Duran.. The boxers were not good styles for Duran.

 

Fighters don't win without skill. Had Ray not had the skill he would not have beaten Duran in the rematch.

 

Did you actually list a reason Hearns is better by citing a good round i na fight he got KO'd in? Interesting proof Mag. What I would cite is this... Duran beat the best fighter either of them fought.. in his prime.. at his prime weight. That is something Hearns failed to do twice. You mention the loss the SRL the next time they met... You do realize a few things don't you? First, SRL said specifically that he thought it was best to challenge Duran immediatly because he was prone to putting on a lot of weight after fights and thus wouldn't be as strong if they fought soon. Guess what, that is exactly what happened. Second, you act like SRL did some kind of damage in there to Duran and had him on the ropes and shut out Duran. That is pile of turd. Duran won some rounds in that fight, and all the flash in the world didn't change that fact. Just like all the flash that he pulled against Hagler (with the crowd going wild) didn't faze nor impress me when Hagler was landing the solid punches with no flash. Next, Duran had already been fighting for MORE than a decade at that point and had already become one of the best LW ever by the time he MOVE UP IN WEIGHT to fight SRL. I can't even believe you mentioned the 3rd fight Facts you seem to forget.

You mention Cuevas.. you do realize Duran also beat him as well and pretty easily. What you also fail to mention again is that Duran was fighting WELL OUTSIDE HIS WEIGHT AND PAST HIS BEST for the losses to Hearns and Benitez. You can't say the same for Hearns. Hearns was in his prime for those fights. You do understand the difference between Prime and not Prime age and weight right? You do know that Tommy was prime and the bigger man right?

You also didn't mention Barkley... but we all know why.. because he crushed Tommy's soul of two different occasions.. while Duran beat that same Barkley.. AGAIN WELL PAST HIS BEST. Hagler... you cited Tommy having a great round... okay.. well Duran had a great fight against the same person, not just one round.

In conclusion when you look at the top fighters they faced, they were.. SRL and Hagler... Duran did better against both and beat one. The next best fighters they both faced were Barkley and Benitez... Hearns lost twice to Barkley and beat Benitez. Duran beat Barkley (again well past his best) and lost to Benitez. They both fought and beat Cuevas. Difference is, when you go further... Duran also has the scalps of Ken B and Davey Moore to his credit.. Hearns doesn't. In an all-time sense... they really aren't even close imo

 

Duran never knocked out a great fighter and Ray was the only great he ever beat. And then Ray outclassed him two times after that. I have said this stuff numerous times before as other people know. The 3rd fight is significant since Ray and Duran were both older, and actually Duran had been more active the the 1980s than Ray and fought better into the 1990's than Ray did, and still Ray outclassed Duran in the 3rd fight, months after Hearns outfought Ray but only got a draw.

I mention the Hearns round not to prove who is better, but more to show that one round will have Hearns and Hagler live on in a way Duran will not. Barkley did beat Hearns, but the fact is Tommy was headed to an easy knockout on bodyshots had Barkley not landed that right hand in round 3. Duran beat Barkley barely, yet I knew Duran would beat him the day I heard it was signed. I actually said oh ****!! Duran is going to be champion again.. I knew the style would work well and that he could beat Barkley. Barkley was an ESPN fighter for years before the Hearns fight and Olajide was his breakthrough fight as well as Kinchen in 1986 in Detroit. But Kalambay,Nunn and Benn all beat Barkley relatively easy compared to Duran, so the accomplishment by Duran is not significant. Duran would have never beaten Hearns (rematch), or Kalambay or Nunn in 1988 or 1989.

Ray did outclass Duran in the rematch and rubbermatch. If you notice in the second fight when Ray starts to land to Duran's body and head, that is when Duran quits. Duran also lost to Benitez easily, the same year Hearns outboxed Benitez. Leonard said Hearns was his toughest fight, and Hagler said Duran was like a sparring match which he had to pour on at the end.

Cuevas? Duran fought him not at Cuevas title winning weight and after the Stafford fight. Hearns beat the champion Cuevas years before at WW.

You said Duran was too small at 154. He fought at 154 in 1978 before Hearns or Leonard or Benitez ever did, and he was outclassed by Wilfred and Tommy at that same weight he fought before they ever fought at that wieght. I never went for excuses with any fighter including Hearns. I always felt that leg message than with Hagler was nonsense. The way I see it, if Duran was not good enough to fight the elite guys when he did, then it was an insult on the public to put the fights on and advertise it as Duran maybe winning. After he lost that is when the excuses came, but before that he had a chance. For Hearns/Duran in 1984 Hearns was a 2-1 favorite. Not 10/1 like Pacman was over Marquez this week.

Davey Moore is something to be proud of for Duran to beat? First you said Duran was way outside his weight and past his best (which I said he fought at that weight before Hearns,Benitez or Leonard) and his best? Yet you mention those fights to say he was great. It is the Duran double stadard. He fought at 154 7 years before he beat Barkley in 1989, a fight you mention to prove Duran fought well. Yet you are ignoring the Sims fight at middleweight and when he fought elites and lost.

Duran gets praise and excuses any way the fight goes. Duran was past his best and over his weight? Or he fought well with Moore and Barkley (at weights near or above when he lost to Hearns,Benitez,Leonard,Hagler) and he was great or he loses and he was past his best. It is alway that way with Duran. When he won (even at 160 against Barkley) he was great and when he lost he was old and out of shape. The thing is the Hearns knockout was so devastating that people talk about that being one of the single best knockouts of all time. People will never forget that fight when Duran was champ and so was Hearns at the same weight. And Hearns won. Same as Hearns won the title agains Benitez that Duran could not win when he fought Wilfred the same year.

Hearns was the first man to win a title at 175 over 10 years past when he won his first title and 14 years into his pro career. Hearns beat Virgil Hill 30 pounds above his fight with Cuevas 11 years before. That win alone is better than Duran beating Davey Moore who had 11 fights and dental surgery that week, and Barkley who lost to everyone, yet beat Hearns.
Against Benitez,Hagler,Leonard,Duran Hearns is 2-2-1 (1) Duran is 1-5 (0)

 

Ray couldn't have gone 15 rounds with Duran the first time without a serious set of skills. That's obvious.

What is not obvious is why you continue to hold onto the myth that both Leonard and Dundee didn't intend to fight Duran exactly the way he did the first time. They had a plan going in and the plan was a sound one.

He didn't get "lured into a macho battle" -he didn't "fight Duran's fight"--all that nonsense was designed to cast Leonard's newly-tainted record in the best light possible; the media bought it, and they still do. Don't be a lemming, man.

The fact is Leonard brought nothing less than his best in Montreal but lost to a greater fighter -and there is no more excuse for that loss than there is for Duran's loss 8 months later.

 

Dundee? Dundee admitted later that Ray gave Duran a tough fight fighting Duran's fight in the first fight, and now they were going to use speed and beat him in the rematch and they did easily. Yet it really didn't matter much until the fighter proves it, and Ray proved it so the words mean more. I don't listen to opinions or comments much of trainers before or after fights. What does it matter what Nacho Beristein says now about the fight on Sat. Not like he will be objective. I look at styles and what works, and Leonard boxing Duran easily wins everytime after June of 1980.

Watch the 1st fight compared to the second. Watch Leonard's foot speed and positioning and tell me if it is the same in the two fights. He gave Duran the style he wanted by fighting him on the inside more than he had to. In the second fight it was Sugar Ray Leonard doing what he did best. Using his speed and foot speed to outmanuever Duran and create openings for his handspeed. Duran's weakness was foot speed, not handspeed. Ray's handspeed was not enough vs. Duran since Duran had good handspeed himself, but when Ray used his footspeed plus handspeed Duran could not handle it since Duran puts his feet wide apart, and a good mover could always outmanuever him if he knew what he was doing. Why would Barkley not be beaten by Duran. Duran had decent handspeed and Barkley didn't move. The third fight vs. Leonard was significant because it just showed how again Ray could easily out manuever Duran and win the fight.

On ESB the lemming opinion you talk about is more that Duran was out of shape, instead of Ray beating Duran fair and square. Funny about Duran. With the best guys he ever fought the elites (which he did not fight an elite until he fought Ray) he always lost and the excuse was always that he didn't train. Why would he not train for the elite fighters, and if he didn't train for the other guys (which would be the assumption since he didn't train for the elite guys (Benitez,Hearns,Leonard,Hagler) then not training was enough to beat guys like Buchanan,Moore and Barkley, but not the elites. That means there is a definite line drawn in the level of fighter he could and could not beat. Regardless for excuses. which is why I think 1-10 ATG is no way possible for Duran, but it is for Leonard.

As for the out of shape and not training excuse. Ray should have used that when he fought Duran the first time. Worked well for Duran when he lost, which is totally unfair to the opponents who beat him, and looking at his losses do not really make sense. It is apparent Duran had trouble with fast guys who used speed and counterpunched him. Hearns was the only one who outsped him and outpunched him, most guys who beat Duran outmanuevered him.

 

Let me get to the bottom of something here before we can move forward....

Are you claiming that Duran being as old as he was and the weight he was fighting at.. aren't valid things to consider when evaluating the man and the fights?

Are you also claiming that Tommy being in his prime or way closer to his prime isn't a factor in comparing him to someone who had already been a pro more than a decade before Tommy even turned pro. So the fact that Duran won the lightweight title in 1972.. and we are talking about fights well past that weight and close to a decade or much later aren't factors? I honestly hope you aren't saying that because that you're really being naive about boxing, and you seem pretty versed on the sport. You know as well as I do.. that tommy being in his prime and still hungry and motivated as Duran was in the 70's IS a key factor. They aren't excuses they are facts.

You still can't dispute that Duran BEAT THE BEST PERSON EITHER OF THEM FOUGHT. While Hearns had two chances to do so (one he got KO'd) and the other he got a draw. There is no getting around that. What makes it even better is again.. that was well into Duran's career and he was past his best weight... while Hearns was in his prime and at his best weight at that time.

Duran having issues with weight are well known and documented. Don't think I didn't notice you not mentioning SRL strat to beat Duran and set up a fight quickly. Sure, it's a criticism of Duran that he sometimes didn't come motivated and had a weight issue. Yes that is a strike against him in a sense but also a legit reason for some issues in fights that wouldn't have been there had he not had this issue. For example, if Greenbay shows up for a game against somebody down the road and doesn't come out very motivated and energetic and gets down by 21... They then try and turn it on but still end up losing 31 to 21. Does that mean Greenbay sucks and the Tampa Bay are better than them overall? Or do we factor in the fact that Greenbay took the game lightly and that was a factor?

The point is... Duran has beat better people overall and ruled a division for an extended period of time. When he moved up and was past his best.. he had consistency issues at times, no doubt, but that will happen when you're past your best and fighting THE best. You act like he was losing to scrubs.. he was losing to the best IN THEIR PRIME. All the guys you listed had primes WELL AFTER DURAN. Tommy was having his prime during that time. Huge difference.

 

Open your mind because I'm gonna fill up with facts.

Dundee said after the fight that Ray made the mistake of "fighting Duran's fight." He said that AFTER the fight. Do you know what he was saying before the fight?

“In this fight, Duran’s not the puncher,” Dundee said, “my guy is.”

Dundee said that Duran was a “heel-to-toe guy. He takes two steps to get to you. So the idea was not to give him those two steps, not to move too far away because the more distance you gave him, the more effective he was. What you can’t do in the face of Duran’s aggression was run from it, because then he picks up momentum. My guy wasn’t going to run from him.”

Now, immediately after the fight -immediately- after the fight, Dundee was asked by reporters what happened. Keep in mind he had no time to spin a thing. Here's a direct quote:

“You’ve got to give credit to Duran, he makes you fight his fight.”

Now, you gave credence to Dundee's outlook for the rematch, that Ray was going to going to use speed. Keep in mind it was speed of FOOT. Are you aware that Leonard freely admitted and still admits that he wanted to rush Duran back into the ring because he knew he wouldn't be in condition?

It's a puzzle with about 3 pieces.

I have more proof for you. If you choose to ignore Dundee's words because they don't support the myth you have bought into, allow me to allow Ray to shatter it for you.

Ray said that he planned on “standing and fighting more than expected” against Duran in June. “They all think I’m going to run. I’m not,” he said to New York Magazine, “I’m not changing my style at all… he’ll be beaten to the punch…those are the facts."

Wrong. Duran's "trouble" with footspeed was no more than the vast majority of fighters when he was in shape and under 30. Your comparing Duran of '80 with Duran of '89 is silly. Are you aware of how many fights Duran had even by 1980? Are you aware that he had nearly twice as many as Leonard's career total and still fought for another 20 years? Do you think that Leonard would be whizzing around the ring when he was 37? He had legs of stone when he fought Norris when he was 34! Be fair.

Duran's trouble with footspeed began in his 30th year (just like yours did and mine!) --and his 13th year as a pro.

I've ripped this kind of argument to shreds for so long, I've gotten bored with it.

I'll say this: Duran had glaring faults as a fighter. He could be a pompous fool who overestimated himself and underestimated his opponents. It worked when he was young and fighting men his own size. It worked less when he was older and fighting men larger and stronger and faster than he was.

Every fighter has trouble with speed. When you've been a professional with upwards of a 100 fights and your well into your 30s and all you have over opponents who haven't been a lightweight since they were 15, is skill. That's it. Duran was an amazing fighter precisely because of that. He had no business being in the ring with Hagler or Barkley but he did well. Hearns looked like Grim Death next to a Panamanian midget, but Duran fought him toe-to-toe anyway.

Alas, if Duran fought and beat Godzilla, you'd say it was because Godzilla's arms were too short.

 

This. Obviously. :deal

 

You hated Duran that much that you were actually disappointed that he had the ability to beat Barkley? You're kidding right?