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

Steve Farhood, William Nack, Nigel Collins, Jeff Ryan, Jim Murray would argue otherwise. Said Farhood "Ray Leonard fought the perfect fight". Too late to change history now you sap! I already read the article.

 

Leonard was a proven warrior in the ring -Duran I and Hearns I solidified that claim. I heavily criticize both men for this fight -and I heavily criticize both Klitschko and Sultan for their lamentable performances. I don't care who won or by how much. Both fights hurt boxing -and while both losers were impotent, both winners were unimpressive. I'll you this, I got great satisfaction in seeing Oscar take a page from Leonard in the rubber with Duran and run like hell from Trinidad and then blow his lead and lose the fight. Tito did what Duran didn't -he tried.

Duran's wariness of Leonard's shots being too fast and hard for his geriatrics is no excuse to commit a functional No Mas II. I merely stated an observation, but I'd never contend that it was an excuse.

Destroying a puncher in Cuevas and knocking out a young, strong, and undefeated Jr. MW champion? I wouldn't say that. Not to mention the fact that everyone this side of 1975 knew that an inspired Duran was extremely dangerous.

I don't necessarily believe that, they'd have to be thinking like prophets because this came out minutes after the fight had ended during Hagler's post fight interview. They felt that simply winning is more important than a KO -and Duran was the best fighter they had met by far at that point. They had planned for and expected Duran to come at them fast and hard. Duran stood off and they smelled traps, so they reverted to boxing -which meant using Hagler's natural advantages of size, reach, and a southpaw style that Duran admitted he found confusing.

Ah, but hindsight is 20/20. And those facts are not at issue.

 

What exactly about Hagler's southpaw stance confused Duran? From what I saw he fought pretty much exactly how to fight a bigger, stronger, southpaw from my perspective.

 

He sure did -but it wasn't enough. Duran was to small to move him or fight him close like he did and have stamina at the end. And Hagler is confusing -very confusing. Anyone who can so smoothly move from orthodox to southpaw, at times in the middle of combination, is going to very confusing.

Duran claimed that his southpaw stance confused him post fight -and that is a rare admission by him. I think that he meant that Hagler's switching stances is what confused him. Duran was fighting a thinking man's fight and it's hard to figure out where to place yourself out of harm's way when he's changing up on you. It's like fighting two guys at once. You can see Duran's head bouncing throughout the fight and he didn't see the shots in time to roll like he would normally do when he anticipated them.

 

Oscar didn't take a page from Leonard, two totally different fights. Leonard was shutting Duran out from round one moving, Oscar built a good early lead then looked to protect it.

Bottom line - Regardless of moving and losing the last few rounds Oscar still should have won the fight. Yet another black mark for boxing that decision.

Cuevas was coming off an embarrassing and comprehensive loss to the featherfisted and unheralded Roger Stafford (including getting knocked down) and hadn't fought in over a year before taking on Duran. Moore was considered promising but hardly fantastic in the boxing community.

Now i think these were good wins, especially Moore, but if two fights like this sure wouldn't have racked a Monzon, SRR of Hopkins with tentativeness.

Personally i felt he was at his best from around 81 - 83. The same year he fought Selaes III he was very disappointing vs Antuofermo, especially if he was peak.

Albeit he wasn't facing people who couldn't exactly "box" impressively earlier. Briscoe and Hart were well past it too.

Hagler was winning the outside exchanges less impressively than the inside ones - making for a closer fight. I see suspect tactics personally. He was going to beat Duran any which way he fought, it's not as if fighting carefully from the outside and winning this particular fight was any sort of tactical masterpiece, quite the contrary in the eyes of most.

I still can't correlate them.

IMO Hagler didn't take the surest route, he left it in the hands of judges that almost robbed him when IMO he may well have stopped Duran. He actually gave Duran his best chance of winning the fight as far as i am concerned. The cards are my ally. Look at the last two rounds when Hagler visibly came on much more aggressive, suddenly he won both convincingly. This should have been the standard. Going after Duran the last two quite possibly gave him the nod, much better tactics and there was not much answer at all from Duran, especially per cutting or swelling the eye.

I'm sure you would tell me if Leonard went right after Duran then you could see Duran being a live chance of outfighting him. Leonard planted the feet in fight one and got outfought. He moved in fight II and won. Regardless of age the only way Duran really could win was for Leonard to engage him. I'll accept both were responsible for a stinker, but it's not as if both didn't give their share of extravaganza's over the years, especially Leonard with electric superfight wins over the likes of Hearns and Hagler. Neither should have fought again after this one IMO, only trouble Leonard won so easily it still looked like he was on top of his game after a couple of percieved poorer performances.

 

Oscar took a page from Leonard when he decided to disconnect from the fight and simply move around the ring away from the fighter and therefore the fight. I'm in the minority here I know, but Oscar's refusal to engage Tito for the last 4 or so rounds cost him the fight. I don't think that I have much of a problem with that.

Anyone this side of SMW not wary of Duran's capability to do damage would be a bit reckless. The point is that Duran was Duran again -and that gave Hagler and co. pause. You don't think it should have, I merely see their reasoning. We just disagree there.

I used to agree with you... but I think now that it was earlier... just like I think that Hagler was older than his listing. I think that his legs went early for a fighter either way.

Okay, that's fair. I think that it is presumptuous to say that his winning was a foregone conclusion though....

Hagler couldn't see the scorecards and was being rightfully careful with a legend. He was outboxing Duran and taking him into deep water. He won the fight. I can't argue nearly as much as you can about that... Leonard fought that kind of Duran once and lost (were Leonard's tactics better in II and III? Perhaps... but I say that they looked far better than they would have looked had Leonard began the Duran trilogy in 1978 and ended it in 1980.)

I think that we've financed our respective camps pretty well... I see your points and respect your considerable skills and knowledge in this debate.

The last word is yours if you like...

 

Mate, totally enjoyed our banter and enjoyed your view from the other side on some points. I always learn something from our debates and this one is no different. The only thing i want to address is this

On a P4P basis the Duran that fought Leonard in their first encounter would have beaten Hagler handily IMO, handily. Marvin at a decent time in his career had quite a few probs with a Duran way heavier and older than Leonard faced. I think if Hagler had been a natural welter and fought this version of Duran we would have seen a very very different outcome. We are talking one of the best fighters in history possibly on his finest night. I hope we can agree on this one.

Cheers

 

Hell yes we agree.