Montreal Duran vs PBF at Welter

Where is good old Mag when you need him to respond to some posts....

 

So yeah, duran beats floyd every day.

Matches his speed, has better power and more skill. Footspeed is about even. The only advantage floyd has is timing and that won't be enough to defeat roberto.

 

alot of responses in two days. Dundee? That is great what Dundee said, but what Ray did is what are the facts. Dundee saying Duran made Ray fight his fight was great, but he didn't make Ray fight his fight in the second fight, which some might attribute to Duran hurting Ray in round 2. Yet if you compare the 1st fight with the second, the difference in Ray's foot movement is obvious in round one before Ray was hurt. What exactly is the argument? The fights speak for themselves. And it isn't like Duran didn't have chances to beat at least another legend, but he didn't. Even the Benitez fight is clear Duran's weaknesses. Once Ray showed the blueprint it was going to be hard for Duran to beat some of the elite fighters. You really think a Pernell Whitaker of 1990 would have watched the 2nd Leonard fight with Duran and let Duran fight his fight had they fought?

Rushing Duran into the fight does not explain Ray winning with foot positioning. Ray always was a guy who wanted all the advantages for psychological reasoning. Why not. He learned from Duran to take advantage of everything. I am not saying he did not rush the fight, but if Duran is 1-10 ATG he should have had an answer for that tactic and been in shape like a top 10 ATG would

. If it was a tactic it was a good one, the same as Duran insulting Ray's wife Juanita and making Ray upset. All tactics. Seems like Duran's tactics are ignored and Ray's are not. But the fact is Ray fought differently in the first fight than he did in the second.

Be fair about what? Comparing Duran of 1980 to 1989 is legit since Duran did win a title which most Duran fans give him credit for with Barkley in 1989. And the fact is by 1989 Ray had only had 8 or so fights since the Duran fight and had not been active for 5 of those years. He was not going to be as sharp either, but he still outboxed Duran easily with his footwork. Not his handspeed. When Ray started to stand still in round 12 of the rubbermatch we saw how Duran hit Ray and Ray was bleeding. Ray always beat Duran with foot positioning, which then made Duran open when he lunged and Ray countered.
Duran's trouble with handspeed at 30 years old? A guy who fought another 20 years. 30 is not 40. Hopkins is fighting at 46. I don't think making that excuse is really legitimate.
147 was not trouble for Duran as his fans have tried to mention. I mentioned how Duran fought at 154 before Benitez,Hearns or Leonard. The fact was he moved up and fought better guys at 147 and 154 than he ever had. Fighting Ray and losing to Ray did affect his confidence, but it also gave the blueprint on how to beat Duran. Duran being hit clean and lunging was not forgotten by others who saw the fight.

Duran's faults as a fighter were not just over and underestimating fighters. His foot positioning was too wide apart for elites, which would not come out with the average guys he fought at lightweight. so if a guy gave him lateral movement he could not adjust and cut the ring off properly. Somethings were not in his control. He just didn't have the possibility to beat Leonard again. I am not sure why there is so much argument for it being Duran's call on these fights. It was Ray's. if you compare how Ray fought in just round one of both the 1st and 2nd fight the difference is obvious. Ray even said later "I fought that man in his own fight and I went 15 rounds with him and he couldn't knock me out. I knew if I fought my fight I could win easily" That is right out of Ray's mouth.

 

No it was not hate. I want fighters to win fights legit against the top guys and if they lose not have excuses. I liked Duran's style, but I cannot ignore how I think he is overrated when it comes to people thinking he is 1-10 ATG. It just doesn't compute with his resume and wins against top fighters.
When a guy would lose to all the champions including a guy like Sims, to get a title by fighting a style which is made for him would make anyone say "they are handing him a title". Like Morales a few months ago. Duran in 1989 would not have beaten Hearns, or Nunn or Kalambay or Benn. Then the Barkley fight comes up and I thought, this is how he wins a title and then his fans will say it is such a great win. It is all predictable. Tommy moved up and beat the best light heavyweight with 10 title defenses and was undefeated in 1991-11 years after his first title at WW 30 pounds previous.

 

I am back. I was not on ESB too much recently.

 

exactly. I do not think Duran being old means that if he beats a lesser quality guy, that is greater than if he never really beat many elites.
He beat one elite who then outclassed him in two following fights. He aged very well and had a lot of experience which helped him when he fought the right styles. The Barkley fight was good but it was predictable. I don't think beating Barkley at 37 is better than had he beaten Benitez or Hearns at 30 and 32. I don't think anyone does. Other fighters have beaten legends and they don't get as much credit than Duran who never beat such fighters in a consistent way.

Duran was still motivated in the 1980s, but there were bigger obstacles, which yeah tougher but a guy who is 1-10 ATG should have been able to get over the hurdles. They are tough hurdles but 1-10 is a pretty lofty place and should be earned by beating greats and not coming close and then having excuses why he didn't. I think he is top 25 which is not bad. Pacman, Ray and others have beaten other greats and stopped them. That proves more to me.

Duran not fighting an ATG at lightweight, and then moving up and losing to all the elites he fought isn't 1-10 ATG in my mind .It is simple reasoning. That is my opinion in a simplistic way. I think Whitaker would have outboxed him as well as Floyd at lightweight. Yet if you match Duran with Tyson at heavyweight he might beat him. It is all styles and what Duran was great at, but Leonard in my mind was more versatile and could beat all styles better than Duran did. Which is why I think Ray is a greater fighter easily than Duran.

You mention Duran beat the best guy both Hearns and Duran fought, yet that best guy only outclassed Duran and not Hearns or Benitez. And he outclassed him twice which is significant.

Duran beat Ray when Ray fought his fight when Ray was not yet elite. You really think Ray was elite when Duran fought him in June of 1980? That causes many people to get upset, but really is any great a prime alite fighter when he wins his first title and is fighting his 2nd title defense without one loss yet. A loss is not terrible to a fighter regardless of what Floyd Mayweather says.

Ray needed that loss to get better and learn the whole game that it was not just a physical game but also mental. Duran did teach him that. And look how well he learned... He went from losing the first fight to outclassing Duran and making him quit. That is a great fighter. Versatility. Then Benitez beat Duran easily and Hearns outboxed Wilfred. And Hearns stopped Duran. I don't think Duran comes up better than Hearns in head to head fab 4 matchups. Impossible. All you can mention is the Leonard first fight, but during superfights and when they were elite it is not close.

 

Stoney:

 

I honestly can't believe that is your stance MAG, and I thought you were better than this. To say that being 30+ and already boxing for over a decade means nothing is ludicris, and that is being generous. Just so we're clear...

You think it makes no difference that Duran was fighting elite fighters ABOVE his natural weight.. after he was over 30 and already fighting for more than a decade. WHILE another naturally bigger fighter is fighting those same people IN HIS PRIME. Do you honestly think that makes no difference or were you just trying to be funny? It obviously makes a huge difference and pretty much everybody on this forum would agree which gives you the better chance to win. Even so, Hearns still didn't accomplish more than Duran and again didn't beat the best two fighters either of them fought.. SRL and Hagler. Duran beat one and did MUCH better against Hagler WELL PAST HIS PRIME while the other still lost in his prime.

It also boggles my mind that you think it didn't matter that SRL intentionally got Duran to fight after he put on so much weight.. Again I don't know if you're serious when you say that makes no difference. In evaluating who is better IN ANY SPORT we look past just wins and losses but what actually transpired before the event if it's applicable. In the analogy I used.. which you didn't comment on.. illustrates this point. Just because St. Louis plays the game of their life and Greenbay takes it lightly... Does that mean St. Louis is the better team? No, it means Greenbay didn't prepare well.. weren't motivated.. had things go wrong.. or any number of variables. Yet, we know Greenbay is the better team.

The other analogy is.. we can take lets say a few stars on offense and defense for a dream team of 32 plus vs a dream team of 25 plus. Who do you think wins that game.. The players in their peak prime or the players on the downside and past their prime? Seems pretty obvious to me, to you, it seems like you feel there is no difference and an even playing field.

 

Floyd wouldn't be able to handle durans mixture of savage aggressiveness, power and underated elusiveness. "hands of stone" would impose his will on pbf, bulling him into the ropes and corner and unloading vicious shots to the head and body.

Floyd had nothing to hurt duran with and he would find many of his punches blocked , ducked or slipped. Also, he didn't have leonards legs so he would be forced to stand toe to toe and slug, which would be to durans advantage. Duran would probably just laugh at anything that mayweather connected with and just continue to smother him with pressure.

Floyd's one of the best fighters of this generation but he would be in over his head against duran (especially against this duran) who fought and prevailed over stiffer competition.

Floyd couldn't beat duran, leonard, hearns or benitez.

 

I haven't lied to you, MAG. Duran is greater than you will admit. Ray lied to you, MAG. He pulled a fast on you about Duran I. Ray lied when he said that he didn't fight his fight the first time. I already told you that Ray announced to the press before the fight in Montreal that he's "not going to run," that he's “not changing" his style at all," and that Duran will "be beaten to the punch."

"Those are the facts." Thus spoketh Sacred Ray Leonard.

You got hoodwinked, MAG. Bamboozled. Run amok. And something tells me that you will continue to go along with this convenient myth indefinitely. You are impervious to alternative views that place Duran in his rightful place in the top 10. Why?

Well, I have a theory, just developed. It says that you are about 60 and that you lived in Panama in the mid-60s. It says that when you were both kids, Duran beat you down with a bag of mangos and rode off with your bike.

Forgive Duran, MAG... It's time.

 

A bag of mango's though? :rofl:rofl

 

Good thing he had those mangos, otherwise MAG would have opened up a can of movement on lil' El Cholo and befuddled him with science.

 

Awesome:yep

Cant wait for MAG to start spewing his loonie toon line that Leonard was still GREEN when he fought Duran & PRIME against Hearns a year lateratsch ****in NUTTER:yep

 

:good Great Post.

 

Haha -yeah, it was bag. I found witnesses.