Montreal Duran vs PBF at Welter

Test-tube "SON of MAG":smoke

 

I am saying if you eliminate any fight Duran had post 30 years old, what happened before that time in his lightweight reign does not make him top 10 atg. So obviously it would be what he did past 30 when he fought the best fighters he ever fought, that would elevate him to top 10 ATG. and what did he do for that elevation? Lose to all the greats. Beating Moore and Barkley should not move him up an ATG list any more than he was already.
Your dream team analysis is flawed since the dream team has to always play the same quality teams all the time. In boxing a fighter can avoid elites since there really are not many guys the quality of Hearns,Leonard,Hagler and Benitez near one weight at one time usually. In 1980-1985 there was. Duran did not avoid the greats before he fought Ray, but he didn't fight any to show he was top 10 atg. My argument is top 10 atg and Duran does not qualify.

You mention Duran fighting above his weight. And I did say Duran fought at 154 before Leonard,Hearns, Benitez did- all 3 guys who outclassed him at 154 and below. You can mention Duran beating Ray in the first fight, and ignore the outclassing in the second and third, but those two fights are significant. Even when Ray fought Duran's fight in the first fight he was not outclassed, but when Ray fought his fight he outclassed Duran. And Benitez outclassed Duran. And Hearns did also. And at weights like I said where he fought before those guys ever did-as early as 1978. So how are those fights against the best guys he fought ever not significant. To say they are not is selective reasoning in favor of Duran. If he were top 10 ATG he should have beaten all 3. Ray in the rematch, Hearns in the unification and Benitez for his title.

To compare Hagler/Duran to Hearns/Hagler and say Duran did better is ignoring the fights and what happened in the ring. A 3 round war where both guys were hit clean and swung for the fences compared to a technical fight where both guys sat back and counterpunched yet Duran lost is not really doing better. If we are talking about that then Roldan knocked down Hagler, so he did better than both Duran and Hearns against Hagler, yet Hearns cut up and rocked Hagler. Those other guys did not. And then Hearns stopped Duran in 2 rounds, which if you mention the Hagler/Duran fight, you have to mention Hearns/Duran since it was months later and at a lighter weight-which as Duran fans said was more beneficial to his size.

 

Trying to convince me Duran was greater than I think? It is boxing and we all have opinions. They are not that important regardless. I still think he was great, but the way I always have. He was not great in the sense Ray Leonard was. A guy who was versatile against other elites. Duran was great, but not 1-10 ATG which is what I have always stated. I have thought the same thing for 30 years.. He had good handspeed and ferocity when he had the right style in front of him. At lightweight he had lesser qualities in fighters where he could excel easier. When he moved up he had guys who could fight just as well as him and use the ring with more versatility, and that is when he ran into trouble. Just better fighters. Was he older and heavier? Sure. Not as effective. Probably, although at WW he looked good. But the fact is what makes him 1-10 ATG? If his lightweight reign did not, then he would have to beat the elites regardless of the excuses since that is when you get to that ranking, not fighting Lampkin and Buchanan.
If Duran is greater than I think he would have beaten Ray in the rematch and not looked very incapable in the rematch. And the excuses he gets make it worse. Any other fighter who looked like Duran against Ray in the rematch or against Benitez or Hearns (when he was champ) lost and was outclassed in the same situations. Not Duran. Duran gets the excuse. But if he were out of shape, he still could have made it a fight early in the rematch in Nov., and he did not.
Again, the thing to do is to compare Ray vs. Duran first fight and second. Put the fights side by side and compare how Ray is fighting differently in the second fight. Anyone do it, and you see he is moving out of the way and boxing and fighting his fight in the rematch. It is on tape. I am not sure why people do not believe actual fight footage. We can argue back and forth but comparing Ray's foot positioning speaks for itself. Duran is fighting the same as the first fight, Ray is not. It is on video.

 

Thank you.

 

I've deleted 90% of that doolally post of yours & kept the real interesting bit.

This is either a usual figment of your deluded imagination or it just confirms what a lying treacherous duplicitous shitbag SRL is. Anything & everything that has ever come out of Leonards mouth is pure & total spin for the nieve & the gullible who he was a master at manipulating. SRL made it up as he went along. I recall reading back in the day that SRL wanted absolutely no part of Duran again.

He was mentally shattered after having his arse handed to him in fine style in Montreal. Duran exposed the myth of Leonard that night & if according to YOU SRL actually made that 1st class **** statement that "HE COULD'NT KNOCK ME OUT" then that is a statement of a mentally beaten man who had every single advantage going for him in this fight & Duran crushed them all & the little older feller outboxed/out-thought & out-fought a young champion who was at his peak & atop boxings MT Olympus & with ALI's trainer in toe was being groomed & all set too hi-jack ALI's crown as the next global icon & DURAN ****ed that up good & proper did'nt he by exposing Leonard to himself as being deep down mentaly weak once faced with someone he thought he could bully & KO in 4 rounds & failed so he spins it around for the likes of you & other assorted shitheads that needed mutual mental conforting just in case a swathy bearded bogeyman came a knocking on your door & SRL's mental weakness manifested itself in spades when journeyman Kevin Howard parked him on his arse just 4 years later & Leonard QUIT THE SPORT!!!! He could'nt flee the boxing scene quick enough & out of "RAYS OWN MOUTH" i don't have it anymore, i'am emabrrising myself & i retire for GOOD

That just proved that when Leonard was evenly matched he always was in trouble & could'nt take it & if he could'nt jiggle & fiddle an advantage he QUIT!!! Just like New Orleans, HE RAN AWAY!!! He did'nt box!! HE RAN AWAY!!! & he did the same thing in 89 with an old pudgy Duran who needed the payday to get his U.S exit visa reinstated, LEONARD RAN AWAY!!

Duran ****ed SRL up in the head big time, he truamatised him in Montreal & he never ever got over it, especially that left hook in the 2nd round ****ed leonards mind up for ever. He was terrified of Duran:deal

Duran scared Leonard mentally more than people realise & never mind all the bravado in 89 when leonard sold the line to the waiting world that he had "Unfinished Business" with Duran & was going to engage Duran & Knock him out. BUT HE DID'NT ENGAGE DURAN!! HE RAN AWAY!! it was only in the 11th round what with the celebs walking out & the crowd shouting BULL****!! BULL****!! that SRL engaged the old slow pudgy Duran & nearly got knocked out & 60 stiches in the process & then FLED for his life with the 16000 boos from the crowd blasting open his ears.

Why don't you remind everone here on classic what you told me:

YER DADDY IS A DURAN FAN:rofl

 

Duran was the best thing to happen to Leonard. He taught Ray the whole game when Ray did not know it yet. If Duran terrified Ray, then beating Duran and making him quit in the rematch reversed that. And Ray didn't just run in the rematch. He was starting to hit Duran to the head and body and Duran then quit. It is all on video, not just me saying it.
Ray knew in the rematch and rubbermatch that he could beat Duran by boxing and using his skills, and he did. That is how you beat Duran, and that is how he beat Hagler also. Why engage him and risk another first fight situation. It is called the sweet science. I am not sure what that means if Ray did not engage Duran. So what. Had Buster Douglas engaged Tyson and fought his fight he would have lost also. Ray won the second and third fights easily. That is boxing.
Duran exposed the myth of Ray? That was before there was this big myth of Ray. Before that he was this young fighter who was a gold medalist who won a title and was on his second title defense. But he was still inexperienced and didn't know the game, comparable to Duran. That is boxing. He beat Ray when Ray fought his fight. But Ray got better, and the myth of Ray was developed after the first fight with Duran, not previous to it. To ignore that Ray outclassed Duran not one but two times is not being fair to Ray. It shows the Duran fan mentality of taking his wins and building them into more than they were, and taking his losses and making excuses. No other fighters get that consideration. Like I said to Stonehands. compare the first and second fights and the foot positioning. It is on video.

The thing I agree with you on is that Ray was a little weak minded. He did quit boxing when things got tough, in times the other guys just kept fighting. He was never as mentally strong as Duran and Hearns and Hagler, but in the ring when he had a fear of losing he did have guts and beat all 3 of them-which cannot be disregarded and is why I rate him over all 3 p4p. But those guys lived on the edge more.

 

Complete and utter nonsense. Just watched the first round of the first fight and Leonard's movement is minimal to say the least. While Leonard at times, backs away, he's pretty much flat-footed and is sometimes being the aggressor himself during periods of the round. Even the commentators state in the first 10 seconds "Leonard has came out flat-footed" and later in the round, it's...."Leonard is not backing off, he wants to trade with him". He was constantly on the move during the rematch. However, the first round in Montreal his movement is very minimal and brief.

 

Exactly.

So the pro-Leonaard fans must admit that Ray was unable to make an adjustment first time round.

 

It should be nothing to do with being a pro Leonard or Duran fan. It should be about letting your eyes do the talking and being honest with yourself.

Another thing I don't buy is that prior to Leonard facing Duran, he was always a flat-footed boxer, thus when he faced Duran the first time, he simply fought how he always fought. To an extent, yes, I agree. But Leonard was athletic and fast enough to be able to box and move on Duran far more than he did in the first fight, even if Leonard wasn't known as a constant mover up until that point in his career. He had the ability and athleticism to come out during the early rounds and move, jab, and tie Duran up when he got close. Whether, he would've been successful enough to get the better of Duran that night is anyones guess. Everyone expected Leonard to box and move with Duran. The press were shocked when Leonard said during the build-up to the fight that his tactics for fighting Duran were to stand flat-footed and trade with him. Duran's antics....What he said about his wife, etc, infurated him. So what happened during the first fight, exactly? Well, Leonard fought the wrong fight and Duran made sure of it by constantly being on him, feinting, countering, leading and cutting off the ring when Leonard briefly moved on him.

 

Duran was a very good defensive fighter for being so aggressive. I'd certainly put him as one of the best defensive/aggressors. For me great defense can come in so many forms. Eg: Muhammad Ali in his prime was very hard to hit due to his style, basically. While he lacked solid fundementals as a boxer, that unorthodox style that he possessed was very effective at making opponents miss. He moved fast on his feet, held his arms low, pulled his unprotected head away from punches, etc. His speed and reflexes were what made his defense so good. His defense was nowhere near as varied or complex as a smaller guys like Pep or Whitaker. But you could make a case for Ali's ability in his prime to make an opponent miss as good as any fighter in heavyweight history, even if he lacked the solid defensive fundementals that would later show up when his foot movement and reflexes deteriorated after his exile.

 

I think we agree with each other. I am not sure what the "complete and utter nonsense" is what I wrote? I said Ray did not move in the first fight and did in the second, and if you compare the first round in both fights the difference is apparent. And since people will say in the first fight Ray was hurt in round 2 that is why he fought Duran's fight, I said he was flat footed before being hurt, which is why Duran reached him. When Ray moved, Duran could not reach Ray.

 

.
Thirty years is long enough!

I won't try to convince you that Duran is greater than you allow, but I will challenge your bias. I'll also challenge you to think of his legacy using different lens. For example, do you consider longevity in your rankings?

Longevity is a big one and it does much to clarify greatness. Consider # of fights. Consider length of career.

-Who deserves the higher score here -Duran or Leonard?

Another big one is Dominance. Dominance considers length of reign as well as seriousness of challengers. You downplay Duran's lightweight career and ignore the fact that he was THE dominant lightweight in the 70s. But when was Leonard dominant? He lost to a 5'7 like-it-or-not-natural- lightweight in his second defense, regained it and made 3 successful defenses before retiring.

-Who deserves the higher score here -Duran or Leonard?

This applies after his first 73 fights. Are you aware of that?

You really need to absorb what has already been told to you and stop forcing me to repeat it. Duran was physically outgunned against Leonard, Moore, Hearns, Benitez, Hagler, Barkley, and Cuevas. The last time he regularly fought men his own size was in the 70s.

His lightweight reign is evidence. That's dominance. 119 fights in 5 decades is evidence. That's longevity. His defeat of Ray Leonard is compelling evidence. The stand against Hagler and Barkley removes any doubt and the whole boxing world was in awe when he did those feats -except for you.

I don't hear you mentioning Ray's performance against Terry Norris. Are you aware that Leonard was 3 years younger than Duran was when he bombed Iran? I don't hear you comparing Duran-Camacho I to Leonard-Camacho either. Let's hear it.

Did you hear something flapping over your head? That was your credibility that just flew its winged flight out the window when you said that "Duran was fighting the same as the first fight."

....

Are you aware that Leonard is considered about the best welterweight in history since Robinson? Duran's defeating him even once is enormously impressive. I do not for a moment believe that he ever could have done it again at any point after June '80 or before. You should concede how great that victory was and cut the nonsense of trying to refocus the attention on the rematch. The fact is, Duran had no business ever beating Leonard at all -on Leonard's turf.

Are you aware that Hagler is widely considered within the top 3 middleweights in history? Count how many of Hagler's challengers took him 15 rounds.

In challenging Leonard, Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler, Duran willingly faced four all-time ELITES in their respective divisions. Calling him a new-fangled natural welterweight, Jr middle, or middleweight because he ate himself into higher divisions is silly. The man dominated the lightweights for damn-near a decade! And your use of those fights out of his division and away from his prime as your main criteria to downgrade him is unfair.

And you know what's funny? When Leonard lost to Duran, no one was saying that Ray was a fraud or overrated. They knew that Duran had outdone himself. He proved that he is one of the greatest fighters ever with that singular victory.

After Leonard I, the boxing world knew for sure that Duran is in the top 10, all-time. His sporadic stands and triumphs in the 80s were only exclamation points to what we already knew:

After Moore..... Duran is in the top 10, all-time!

After taking Hagler 15... Duran is in the top 10, all-time!!

After Barkley.......... Duran is in the top 10, all-time!!!

 

...Am I even making a dent?

I feel like Mugabi against Hagler.

 

Duran was already considered a top ten fighter of all time BEFORE he beat Leonard (late 70s Ring poll of legendary pundits and trainers) and the 2nd Lightweight of all time only to Benny Leonard (a view still held by most)

 

I really can't talk to MAG anymore once he said.. it didn't matter that Duran was over 30 and above his natural weight. If that actually means nothing.. then there is really nothing else to say imo.