"Montreal" Roberto Duran vs. "New Orleans" Sugar Ray Leonard

Fewer rounds. But Duran dominated Leonard in the first fight as much as Leonard did in the rematch. The pecentage would work out about the same.

 

Mate, i don't consider it griping at all. I always enjoy our sometime debates even tho you are obviously hard to combat. What i most appreciate about your methods is an almost total lack of criticism for the fighters you happen to be opposing. You never belittle or use low down or shallow attacks to solidify your stance. None of this if so and so (insert ordinary fighter whom say a Duran/Hearns/SRL or whomever happened to have a rare off night against in a mostly one off event, say Snipes dropping Holmes, Tillis troubling Tyson, Tyson beating an ancient Holmes, Hearns struggling with Kinchen etc) dropped him or troubled him imagine what the heat of so and so, a much greater fighter and harder hitter would do or use of battles way way past prime as meaningful events. Actually i can only think of one i might consider unfair, and that's Jones - Tarver/Johnson, but we debated that one to the hilt.

I have to go to moms for supper, but will try to address your post later tonight. Appreciation for the efforts, even if you end up kicking my arse

:good

 

Paisan, there have been asses kicked out here, but most of the time they end up that way because their bias gets exposed, their logic is tortured, their knowledge is deficient, or they're just a jerk and deserve to get chased out of here. You are neither biased or illogical, your knowledge is more than considerable, and you aren't a jerk.

I've been thinking about the Jones debates that I've had with you and others. I think that there are two schools of thought there. Some think that he was shot after Ruiz or Tarver I and tend to excuse what happened with Tarver II and Johnson. Others like me, had long standing criticism of his technical problems (even the source of this is debatable: was it laziness or a failure to grasp fundamentals) that was hidden inside almost supernatural athleticism. Who really knows...

 

Totally agree here.

I disagree here. Roberto came back from the dead at least twice. There also wasn't a bigger fight on the planet for him than SRL.

I contend SRL beat the same Duran Barkley lost to with stylistic and class level differences making their appearance. I just plain think Duran could not cope with slick boxers at this point, which is sure no shame or knock on the guy in the context of things.

You can't have it two ways on this one. You told us how many stitches Roberto caused on Leonard the one or two times they came together heavily. You were talking some serious damage. This strongly supports Leonards decision to box Duran the way he did, and boxing was once all about hitting and not getting hit, which is mostly what Ray did that night. Leonards courage is undoubted as is his intelligence. Suppose he traded early and had to go 10 rounds with these cuts? Tho a stinker he guaranteed himself the safest and surest road to victory.

Yes but your explanation of the cuts he sustained tells me most of what i need to know - that his caution was perhaps not uneccessary. The scorecards tell me the rest. You also say yourself Duran took zero risks in Leonard III, and was wary of Ray's power, so he should certainly take his share of the coward rap. Personally i feel he was just too slow at this stage as we have discussed.

Yeah, pretty boring due to two reasons, Leonards cautious approach and Duran's inability (or unwillingness if you are correct) to pressure him.

For sure, and it also puts Hagler in my camp regarding Duran not being able to catch Leonard vs not wanting to lay more on the line to do so. Hagler thought he couldn't catch him.

Well i disagree with Ezzard on this one.

There are two almost evenly split camps on whether Duram MADE Leonard fight his fight or not, and great debate can and has been made for either side.

I think we will have to agree this point can and will be debated forever and no matter how strongly we feel - can never be nutted out either way with any sort of certainty.

Which shows your class and fairness.

Can't remember the round, but Hagler deffo had Duran starting to wilt but backed off next round.

I go heavily for Hearns at 147 too but retain caution regarding Benitez. Duran's performance vs Barkley you will be happy to know is one of my favourites ever, he came back from the dead to put on an absolute clinic vs a good, strong talented young boxer. He just roasted him, a real beatdown. I am tho a little saddned his trainers didn't show more compassion and get the poor guy out of there way sooner, and the ref should have been slapped.

Yeah, memory and unbelievable instincts. He's an extraordinary boxer, so utterly natural in his own style. I like his uncanny instincts and ability to see forward. Tho not a natural in the aesthetic style of a SRR, Duran is nevertheless one of the most natural performers in a ring i have ever seen. Even in a novelty event such as sparring Stallone one can see how stupidly gifted he was.

I'll take Ali! but your points on Duran are agreed upon as i expanded on above.

Would you agree tho that apart from DeJesus he had a pretty tame lot to deal with consideirng his extreme talent? He did lose one to Esteban (co-incidently his best opponent post title) too, but beat him nicely in the other two - so there is a small inconsistency. Personally i think a Whitaker would have beaten Duran's opponents at 135 quite well, and think Duran could have beat many of them with one eye shut. He said himself after struggling with Lampkin that he wasn't in shape. It would have been interesting if he faced a divison as rich as SRL's 147 pound era. Benitez, Duran, Hearns, Cuevas, what a startling array.

 

Correcto, and i totally agree it tells a story. The story.

No worries. I know he blames isolation in camp and a death but he has an excuse for ever single loss, and i've read em all i reckon. He also still thinks he beat Hagler.

Float like a butterfly, string like a bee baby!

 

I think that we agree here! You may be making too much of my statements about Duran's wariness about his power. I believe that this was only apparant when he was not at his best. In III, he was "Legs of Stone" which is what you'd expect after you're a pro for 30+ years! He and could never be expected to catch a Leonard on wheels... In II it was exacerbated by his being out of condition... in I, Duran was priming and had only systematic mayhem on his mind and didn't give an F*ck.

Speed kills -especially fat guys and old men. In III, Duran was coming off a miracle. Miracles happen rarely. How many guys staged two miracles in a row? The only time would ever beat Duran is if he became what he was in a brief 2 year period. Duran must be at his best to beat Leonard.

You just landed a good intellectual shot.

However....you do realize that you are using the same line of reasoning that I used to defend Hagler's decision to mitigate his aggression against Duran. Duran popped that left eye when Hagler turned it on in the second half of the bout and that eye was closing. Had Hagler been more aggressive, there is a demonstrable risk that Duran would have landed on that eye earlier and more often and closed it. And Hagler ain't beating Duran with one eye closed.

I also contend that Leonard just took it too far. He was not engaging Duran. If Duran just tried and took more risks, he may have been taking more rounds. Leonard was running but taking more shots (I suspect far more) shots in New Orleans and it was still a close fight on the judge's scorecards. Right or wrong, I think that judge's have a right and a responsiblity to look for effective aggression more than they would for "not getting hit" --anyone can "not get hit" if they get in the ring like a fugitive on the run.

Yes but your explanation of the [swelled eye, quickly closing] he sustained tells me most of what i need to know - that [Hagler's] caution was perhaps not uneccessary. The scorecards tell me the rest.

Abolutely. I agree that there are two roughly evenly split camps on ESB, but in the boxing public at large, my camp, if you will, has never even been considered. There is a party line about it, and everyone's in the party. Here are other party lines: the Joe Louis "Bum of the Month" club (Were they bums?). Liston and Duran exposed as "bullies" by the heroic Clay and Leonard.

Duran was breathing heavy early against Hagler. In round 2, his mouth was wide open against Barkley. Then he got 3 more second winds, as Gil Clancy pointed out. Barkley hurt the hell out of him. I never saw any sign of Hagler hurting or even stunning Duran. Duran was making faces the whole time.

Duran had no real trainers since Brown and Arcel left him in '80. Those guys were cheerleaders who wiped his brow. And Duran was broke. He routinely gave away his money.

 

I agree that Leonard was more naturally gifted. And that little vignette with Stallone is used by me when training guys on how to spin off of larger, stronger men. Have you ever heard Stallone talk about sparring with Duran in 77-78? Read this:

"Stallone said ring realism occasionally led to trouble in the filming of Rocky II. One of his sparring partners, for example, was former lightweight champion Roberto Duran.

"'A few times, it got out of control,' he said. 'You're sparring and you say to yourself, 'Hey, maybe I can go with this guy.' Then you trade a few shots, and you realize you're an actor again.'"

Bigger guys always amuse me. They think that size matters more than skill and experience. At the gym where I came up (Central branch of YMCA on Huntington Ave. in Boston), there was a weightroom down the hall. The gorillas would come down with their tights on and their balloon-chested girlfriends and you could see them thinking that their muscles meant something. So the trainer would throw them in with the skinniest boxer in the gym. They'd get pummelled like trespassers should. The girlfriend's jaw would drop, and after 3 minutes, Muscles would leave the ring with his nose bent, his ego shattered, and a new opinion about the sweet science.

Sure, I'd agree. Although, Duran's saying he was "out of shape" against Lampkin was dramatics... it was a set up phrase for saying that Lampkin is lucky he didn't end up in the morgue. He knocked the #1 contender into a coma ...I don't think you can compare that or any LW performace with the bouts in the next two decades against Laing and Hearns and Lawlor in terms of inconsistency!

JT, you seem to hold Duran to a standard that he himself created for you. In other words, you allow that Duran has done what no other LW in history has ever done (and that division is the odds on favorite as the deepest), but then criticize a career that was really unprecedented. You have to go back 80 years to find something comparable -and even Langford and Greb and Walker weren't natural 135 pounders whipping larger men right up to 50 years old.

Any conjecture that Duran would have been less had the level of his LW opposition been more doesn't stand -because Duran was whipping good and elite larger men in his 30s. If he could beat one of the greatest WWs who ever lived and make such a stand against the greatest MW who ever lived (both of whom were at or near prime), I am very hesitant about favoring guys his own size like Benny Leonard and Armstrong and Ortiz in hypotheticals match-ups.

 

Well at the end of the day i think we've ended at - you believe Duran was a bit wary of Leonards speed and power at his age and this stifled his agression, where as i believe he plain couldn't react or move fast enough.

Again i think Leonard beat pretty much the same Duran Barkley fought.

Had Hagler been more aggressive the worries would have been Duran's, not Hagler's own.

Leonard got damaged near the end of the fight and wasn't fighting cautiously because of it, he chose caution from the very start of the fight due to respect for Duran and the fact that speed was the easy way for him to beat Duran. Why go to war just to please the fans when you don't have to? Leonard was under no obligation to AGAIN fight Duran's fight and give him a better chance of winning, his only chance really. If you had a choice between pitching a shutout and taking minimal punishment or turning it on and allowing an opponent some sort of chance as well as taking substancially more leather what do you choose? Leonard learnt his lumps well from fight one.

Scores of 119-109, 116-111 and 120-110 tell me the judges must have thought Leonard was doing some sort of effective scoring and boxing.

Hagler ended up near losing, bad scoring or not. Leonard pitched a shutout on one card and nearly another. If Hagler kept up his pressure from an earlier round cards may not have even been needed. Monzon said it is important to establish dominance over smaller men and show them who was boss, Hagler did this with a willing Hearns but was all at sea to do the same vs Leonard and Duran, even tho he showed he could vs Duran but inexplicably never followed up.

I've read Haglers own reasoning for backing off vs Duran after troubling him greatly with aggression, and he doesn't mention cuts or other. Sometimes i wonder if he had confidence worries regarding his own stamina. Tho he faded against Antuofermo he was ok in this one with Duran being the smaller man and visibly tiring at times himself.

I have read countless articles implying directly that Leonard fought Durans fight. I'd hardly call this view an ESB special if that's what you are hinting at. It's quite widespread to say the least.

Another fight i will have to try find time to rewatch. He visibly wilted in one round and if Hagler kept pace was going to be in substancial difficulty.

 

I was talking SRR actually. I think Duran was gifted to the hilt, just not as aesthetically as some but nonetheless he loses nothing to most anyone effectiveness wise.

Classic story, love it. I can also very easily picture Stallone thinking what he did during sparring hahaha. Personally i wouldn't be getting even half serious in there with a guy like Duran, whether i thought it would **** him or not.

His accomplishments are extraordinary, but lets not forget the likes of Armstrong, who went up from feather all the way to welter and made umpteen defences. This is 4 divisions up, regardless of actual poundage. Duran at Middle is 4 divisions up, a place where Armstrong wreaked havoc. If we talk strictly poundage Hearns was beating the best 175 in the world while past it and 30 odd pounds past his original title weight. Robinson beat some top names two divisions up and made a decent fist in a 175 shot.

This isn't what i was getting at. What i am getting at is how he would have went if his standard of opponent was very very high much of the time. Would inconsistency rear up? Could he get up often to fight decent threats even at 135? In q two year spell Leonard fought Benitez, Duran twice and then Hearns. If Duran had to fight this sort of opposition at 135 in such a short time could he get up often enough to keep winning? These would be massive wins, much bigger than he had at 135 and we've been told how Duran celebrates after such big occasion. If it was a worry at higher weights it might also be a worry at 135? Idle and meaningless speculation but thought provoking to say the least.

 

Again, his refusal to engage Duran was lamentable. It was anything but effective aggression. Were you impressed with Klitscho's performance against Sultan a couple of weeks ago? I thought it was meek.

Now, let me be clear. Half the problem was Duran, who wasn't even trying. He didn't cut the ring off, he didn't throw a shot when Leonard was in range mugging for the camera, he didn't bull Leonard into the corners. The same fighter who faced Barkley? No. For whatever reason, Duran just went through the motions. You say that he should have been inspired because of who he was fighting and that chance for redemption. I say he was demonstrably uninspired.

Of course, because Duran was doing nothing at all.

Hagler, Goody and Pat were worried about the roughness of Duran and his capability to do damage. Ignoring Duran's recent history would have been reckless. Duran's ability to do damage was proven on Hagler's left eye. Hagler said that he got that swelled left eye from "slipping in the bathroom before the fight!" He asked in the post-fight interview exactly that: "why didn't you knock him out?" He said "Duran's a 3 time world champion, and Pat says "no one's ever knocked him out" a second before Hagler said it. They were telling him in the corner "just win."

I would argue that Hagler did show Duran who was boss! He outboxed him, outlasted him, and outpunched him.

Anyway, I see a double standard in your attack on Marvin's cautious, but engaging approach against Duran, and your defense of Leonard's roller skating refusal to engage the smaller, older Duran.

I am not talking about great boxing here. For example, Ali's sticking and moving, shucking and jiving boxing lesson against Liston was beautiful. Klitschko's performance against Sultan was anything but.

No, I wasn't clear. It is I who am in the minority with my take on the whole Leonard-Duran saga. My strident belief that peak WW Duran would beat any WW version of Leonard, is not the general belief by analysts or historians.

 

Well, I think that Leonard and Robinson were more gifted than Duran. Agreed though.

I have Armstrong about 3 slots ahead of Duran in the p4p ATG. Armstrong and Duran were more impressive than Hearns, et al. in my opinion. Precisely because they were small men doing this. LW, FWs -these men don't have the WW/MW's frame and thus have an additional disadvantage.

I think that Duran deserves the benefit of the doubt for a whole bunch of reasons:
1. He was younger and his body was better able to recover. Metabolism was quicker, etc.
2. Brown and Arcel were there to control him.
3. His passion was burning brightly -it was still new and exciting and his testosterone was off the charts! It's hard to continue if you are a passion fighter in your 30s and after having fought 70 times. Testosterone plummets. You're tired. Your're rich and want to enjoy the privileges of good food and much drink.

Hell, let's throw in some names to make things interesting. Say Laguna, Ortiz, Arguello (three guys who surrounded the Duran era) were active and dangerous in the division during the 70s. Does Duran win? I'd expect that he would.

Where would you rank him then?

 

Well the thing is Leonard has numerous great displays of excitement and heart behind him against great fighters, Klit zero. Leonard won the fight by almost too many points to add up over three cards, so he did something right.

Didn't you yourself answer this before tho, with Duran being too wary of Leonards combo of speed and power to throw caution to the wind and give himself a chance?

We've presented our two varying opinions on this one thoroughly regardless tho.

Duran's recent history was impotent compared to Haglers.

No surprise Hagler would cough that lame excuse up

Yet the same camp continually boasted and vowed not to let the judges take part in their fight outcomes anymore after the Antuofermo draw. A total turnaround here. They were simply in damage control from anticipated criticism, which came thick and fast.

Hagler came out stinking via world press, ex greats and consensus opinion. Duran came out redeemed and heroic. These are the facts.

I'm at a loss as to how. Hagler was the one promising and boasting never to leave his fights in the hands of judges anymore. Leonard never professed such a thing. Leonard won his fight by umpteen points and was not as much the bigger and stronger man, where as Hagler sure as heck was. Hagler was also on a ruthless streak, Leonard had been dumped on his ass three times in his previous two fights and was well past his best, again Hagler sure wasn't.

Hagler's motto was "destruct and destroy", but it went out the window as soon as wily and classy competitors tested him in superfights. Leonard was always a boxer first and foremost. I really can't see the correlation here sorry. The situations are anything but the same.

Ok, i misunderstood sorry.

 

Not by much if any, Duran had his own gifts and natural nuances. I'd hate to be picking a more gifted trio excluding all three.

Fair enough.

I can assure you i am not trying to cast doubt here or undermine his lightweight career, just more curious than anything. It's not like his 135 feats can be doubted or attacked really.

Fair enough for sure. Duran's an incredible machination at 135 that's for sure. Brutal, cunningly diverse and plenty more.

Question - if you could choose 5 Duran fights at 135 to put in a time capsule to epitomise him there what would they be? Obviously Buchanan and at least one DeJesus, what else mate?

Yeah Arguello just missed him. Duran is a stylistic nightmare for the great Alexis. I have a picture somewhere of Duran, upon hearing Alexis was moving up, holding this pic of Arguello in boxing trim with his fist cocked in front of it at the ready complete with raging scowl

I'd hate to be the others too

I don't there's room any higher at 135 for him is there. Benny is just a bit too far back for my liking.

 

Leonard vs Duran 3 was garbage.Both fighters looked terrible and clearly only did it for the money.

It was hack work of the highest order.

 

I don't think anyones arguing that point hahaha.
Both were mere mere remnants of what they once were.