Pacman vs Ray Leonard at 147

Almost controversially, I still buy into Leonard's claims that he fought the wrong fight in Montreal. I think he could have made more of an effort to stay on the outside and box Duran, but at the same time, I think he would have lost even more conclusively as a result..and I believe he knew it. Duran was going to land his shots, no matter what, it was the best shape he'd ever been in, and he never wanted to win as badly as he did that night.

You know me Popkins, I always used to shrug off the claims that Duran wasn't in good shape against the likes of Benitez and Hearns. He always gets knocked out by Hearns in my judgment, but I have the Benitez fight in good quality, and that guy is a farcry from the dude who fought Leonard. No urgency at all, didn't even look like he wanted to be there. It's surprising to me because Duran really didn't like Benitez anymore than he did Ray. I don't know if it was bad preparation, whatever, it just wasn't the same guy.

I know I went off topic. All of these guys beat Manny Pacquiao in my estimation, and Benitez does it as emphatically as the others. I never knew how big Benitez was until I saw him in the ring with Duran, he had a really strong upper-body, which leaves me to believe he'd have done fairly well against Hagler too. Not beat him, but I always thought he'd get knocked out..not so sure now having seen him against Duran.

 

sweet_scientist and I discussed this only the other day.

He feels Pac's best weight was 126.

I firmly believe it is 140. I can see what you are saying, but real welterweights don't only weigh 147lbs on the night, unless that is their walk around weight and they would have put in effort to make 140.

Pac purposefully bulks up to get close to his opponent's weight when his opponent is going to be 140+. That's why he was 142 with a 147 limit vs Oscar, and 144 with a 145 limit vs Cotto.

To be a welter, you need to at least rehydrate to 149-150 IMO. Minimum. Even small welters like Floyd, Hatton and Judah got up to 150 and above on fightnight, and big welters like Margo, Mosley and Clottey can get near 160.

You can't be at your best weight if your opponent is 10-12lbs heavier than you, everything being fair.

Manny looks as good above 140 as he does at 140, but his opponents will be closer to his own fightnight weight when he fights at a 140 limit, so 140 is his best weight IMO.

I think you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who have ever fought in the jr-welterweight division who would have beaten this version of Pac without much trouble (Whitaker & Chavez being two of them). I'd think he'd have beaten some great lww's (guys like Meldrick Taylor, Kostya Tszyu, Oscar De La Hoya), and there are others where I find it difficult to call (Pryor, Mayweather).

I made a thread on it a couple of days ago in here.

 

Very interesting take on the Brawl In Montreal tactics issue, very interesting indeed. That's not even something I've considered, that SRL would have lost more convincingly if he had boxed, I've always been in the camp who scoffs at the very issue, I just don't see the point in it at all. If anyone who lost had fought totally differently against anyone who beat them, of course the fight could have been closer. I just don't see the value in that. Both men went into the ring in great shape, both fought their hearts out trying to win, both chose their own tactics and had ample time to change them, and the result was the right one. End of story for me. If Hearns had been more cautious in the last couple of rounds against Leonard, he would have beaten Leonard. Why is there not an eternal debate about that as well? Obviously this rant is not directed at you, just venting about a perennial irritation on this forum.

 

I definitely see the logic in what your saying, and I have no grounds to disagree. That said, I strongly disagree with whoever said 126lbs was Manny Pacquiao's best weight. He got his breakthrough victory against my boy, Marco, and looked great doing it, but Marquez wouldn't have nearly as much success against a 140-147 Manny Pacquiao as he did down at Featherweight.

I think Pryor beats Manny at 140lbs. I made the thread the other day, and I just don't see anyway Manny can beat a guy with never-ending stamina (over the 15 round distance), a terrific knockout ratio, above average handspeed, and he showed a wonderful jab at times. I think a good jab is key to beating Manny, which is why one of the best jabs in history, Pernell Whitaker, has little trouble against the Filipino.

But for all of the talk about people beating Manny, I don't count to many Super Featherweights in history who do.

 

Have you seen Pryor vs Dujuan Johnson? I recently bought a partial career set of the Hawk, and he was not always the irresistable force of nature that he was against Arguello, not by a long shot. I think he was a fantastic fighter, but I do believe Manny beats him more often than not. Pacquiao may not quite match Pryor for stamina, but his own stamina is such that stamina would not even be an issue. Pac always looks as full of energy in the last round as he does in the first, even when he fights 12 rounds at a frantic speed. It's easy to convince yourself that Pryor would win by watching the Arguello fights, and listing his strengths, but what about his weaknesses? He was inconsistent, often complacent, often indisciplined, his defence was never impregnable, he did not have the balance to avoid the odd KD, although he was fast he was not lightning, although he hit hard he was not a one-punch KO man. I think Pryor was one of the best lww's ever, but I think Roach would concoct the plan to beat him, and I think Pac has the necessary strengths to execute it. It would be a war for the ages though.

I don't think there has ever been an elite fighter who fares so badly in hypothetical h2h's as Pacquiao. Because he fights aggressively and has a "take one to give one" mindset, people en masse write off his abilities again and again, no matter who he beats or how he performs. I heard a rumour that Pac was going to have a homecoming fight in Manila next year against Guzman at 140 as preparation for Mayweather so I made a thread on it, and most General Forumers seem to think that Guzman would beat him! It boggles the mind.

 

Admittedy, I havent seen any Pryor fights outside of Arguello I and II, and his victory over a washed up Cervantes, but I've been watching Wilfred Benitez' fights before he became champion, and the exact same things can be said about him. Benitez, for all of his defensive prowess, was on the verge of a knockout against Bruce Curry and another fighter who's name eludes me at this moment. The argument can be made that Benitez was 16 year old fighting grown men, good fighters, but most great fighters never had smooth rides as they were coming up. I don't think we ever got to see the best of Pryor, but I saw enough against Arguello to suggest he'd be a pain in the ass for anyone.

I rate Freddie Roach highly as a trainer, but I think it's the same as if Pacquiao was fighting Duran or Leonard - no matter what he does, he'll come out on the losing end. Pryor was a terrific boxer, a really great amateur, and he often showed how well he could work behind the jab. Pacquiao got hit by Cotto's jab at will, who's every bit as inconsistent as Pryor was. Likewise, if they go toe to toe, I favor Pryor again...the way he ate Alexis' shots is scarier to e than Manny eating Cotto's. Alexis would have made for a great 140lbs fighter, he just ran into a special fighter in the making.

Who know's what would happen.

Not to many fighters fare well in hypothetical match-ups against the likes of Ray Leonard and Aaron Pryor, though. As for Trinidad, the guy just hit way way too hard. The only guys who beat him were either much bigger than him, or defensive maestro's. Pacquiao is neither.

 

I've never been in the ring so I couldn't comment as well as the fighters among us could, but I always assumed that once you get into a fight like the one in Montreal, you don't revert to Boxing. Likewise, Leonard was as good as he ever would be physically at that time, having beaten great fighters already, but he was still relatively green in comparison to Duran who was in like his 73rd professional bout or something insane. I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that a young fighter who isn't used to getting hit, gets hit by that big left hook early on, and then loses the plot. I'm not discrediting Duran, I think he beats Leonard no matter what he does. I think Ray would have just been fighting to survive had he got on his bike, and therefore lost the rounds even more conclusively.

 

Nice post.

My view is that there is nothing Leonard could do to beat a motivated Duran. Duran was a better welterweight the Leonard. He not only overwhelmed Leonard, but he kicked Palomino's ass, as well. Palomino was a hell of a fighter.

 

If you're looking for anyone to agree with you that Roberto Duran was a better welterweight than Ray Leonard, you'll be sadly mistaken. Compare the resumes at the weight and it's no contest, and Ray dealt with a fighter like Benitez, far superior to Palamino, in almost equally efficient fashion. What's your excuses for Duran in the second Leonard fight. Keep in mind that I've heard them all.

 

It could be argued that Duran has the single better win at welterweight than Leonard, when Duran beat Leonard himself. Leonard beating Hearns was more impressive than Leonard beating Duran in the rematch.

But overall, Duran's greatness was brief at WW. Leonard did have a slight hiccup when he lost to Duran but he has the better wins at the weight. Better resume at WW. Benitez, Duran and Hearns. Not even debatable, IMO.

 

Yes. Duran's greatness at welterweight was brief.
Briefer than Leonard's even.

 

Hearns (TKO14), Benitez, (TKO15), Duran (TKO8 ), Ayub Kalule (TKO9) makes for very good reading.

 

leonard inside 9

 

Kalule was at JMW. I'm comparing Duran and Leonard at WW. So were you earlier in response to MrMarvel.

 

Your post was good mate, I'm looking forward to coming back to this thread later, but I only have a minute to write a reply coz I'm at work. The statement I have picked out is a very rash overstatement I think. At will?? I didn't see that at all. Cotto landed a few early, it was not a jab landing "at will" throughout at all IMO.