Montreal Duran vs. pre-Hearns Cuevas

:hey

 

I can't see how Cuevas could win. Duran by mid to late stoppage.

 

some horse tranquilizers and a baseball bat

 

Pipino got off to an excellent start when they did square off in 1983, but Duran roared from behind to take it. After Montreal, the expectation prior to Hearns-Cuevas was that Pipino would knock out El Cholo in a WW unification if Roberto tried fighting Jose the way he defeated SRL in Canada. (One scribe wrote that, "If Duran punches with hands of stone, Cuevas punches with hands of lead.") The way things went down between them in 1983 was kind of a surprise, as it began with the Panamanian successfully absorbing the Mexican's best. If Duran and Cuevas had never fought, Pipino might be the runaway winner of this thread, but the startling reality of what happened when they actually did meet suggests that Roberto could have taken it in 1979 or 1980 as well. He had the chin, durability and skill to pull it off.

 

credit to Douglas for beating a prime Tyson though yes?

 

I think Duran from '78, 79 could've moved up and ****ed up Cuevas. Too much foot speed, too many angles, too many tools.

 

I dont see the point in this thread.

 

I guess...

'88 Tyson KO3 Prime Tyson though :hat

 

88 Tyson is prime Tyson, so is 90 Tyson

 

I'm just ****ing with you teeto.

Well this joke fell flat on it's face

 

I stand guilty before teeto. However, before I put my hat in my hand, let me raise a fist in defense.

Duran fans used to say "Duran is Duran" way back when. However, looking at his career in its entirety, we know that "Duran" is mercurial. He was very inconsistent after 30. That ferocious world-beater ravaging the lightweights in the 70s was relatively tame in the 80s. By the 90s he was practically a caricature.

Now, "Montreal Duran" was a beast. I may have been the one who coined that term out here -that and "Toledo Dempsey/1919 Dempsey" and "1959 Liston." Say "Duran" and you got guys with axes to grind who pretend that the Duran who couldn't handle Laing was no different than Leonard's conqueror. They think that Duran would do not better against Hearns in 1980 than he did in 1984. And that's just silly. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of this fighter and others like him know damn well that they performed far better when inspired than when not. They're passion fighters, not workmen, with careers marked by highs and lows more than consistently good performaners who actually like to train!

So, "Montreal Duran" is the figure who should materialize in WW h2hs -that and no other. Even the Palomino conqueror was an inferior model. The rest weren't even close.

 

Let me be the advocatus diaboli here: why?

 

If you read the way Arcel and Brown talk talk about the brawl in montreal, they describe Duran's condition going into the fight as a rare peak. I think there's no question he was at his supreme best on that day.

 

Isn't the best of any fighter what you want in these hypotheticals? I don't see many threads involving the Roy Jones of the Green fight or the Duran of Lawlor I.