Re Duran-Leonard I: How many welterweights in history would've beaten that Duran?

Leonard barely had to ship a big punch, in fact none at all, lost only one or two rounds on my scorecard (and like you said, that was due to his own inactivity rather than Duran getting through much), and got home with the welterweight championship of the world after barely breaking a sweat through 8 rounds because Duran was on his period.

Am i missing something here or does that describe an easy victory?

 

:good Could not agree more!

 

I think Robbi is right in that it was a very tame offensive performance(by leonards standards).Neither man took much damage at all.

Leonard unusually seemed to set out specifically to frustrate and spoil, which worked better than i'm guessing he could ever have anticipated.

I would have preferred to see him box Duran in the manner he did Benitez, which i think would have worked at least as well.

 

The Leonard of the rematch would need to be busier with his fists while on the move. The most crucial aspect of the New Orleans verision of Leonard beating Duran of the first fight IMO.

 

The he lost because of the wrong style theory is such a stretch. Leonard lost in the first fight because he fought a well trained Duran who was the best fightter Leonard ever faced. How can you being up the 2nd fight without mentioning the difference in Duran. Leonard himself has said over and over that Duran had nothing in the 2nd fight and it was a close fight. Leonard slugged it out with Hesrns also and most consider it his best fight. I always think the style a fighter fights is the lamest excuse of all. Name me all the times a fighter switched styles and won a rematch.

T

 

I have never came to a solid conclusion on the Montreal Duran matched up against the New Orleans Leonard. It's such a tough one to call. As I said earlier Leonard would need to be busier with his hands while on the move than he originally was during the rematch. Duran would obviously be more effective with his pressure and obviously his motivation would be the same as it was 5 months earlier. He would just be faced with a different obstacle.

What Leonard would need to do would be to stay off the ropes at all times. During the rematch he did go to the ropes now and again, flurried, then was on his bike. If he was faced with the Montreal Duran that night, whos timing was sharper, he might well be coming off second best. And Leonard would need to be very aware when he planted his feet centre ring and decided to bomb Duran. He was countered by Duran's right hand often in Montreal. So he'd need be brief with his heavy artillery. IMO his jab output would need to be higher to outscore the Montreal Duran at long range. He's not going to get it done with no offense of course.

 

Leonard ALMOST beat Duran in the first fight. Short of making an excuse for Duran, I'll admit he wasn't as sharp for the second fight. I still believe that the Leonard from New Orleans or against Hearns for that matter would beat "Montreal" Duran in a close fight.

 

Leonard ddn't almost beat Duran in the first fight. Duran knew he had the fight won by the 10th round. He let up a little and played at the end and the judges scored it a little close then they shouls have. hat was Duran's fight period. He dominated Leonad more then Leonard dominated Duran in the 2nd fight.

Duran of the first fight would beat any version of Leonard even though I think that it was the only fight past 135 when Duran was good enough to bea a primed Leonard.

 

Nonsense.

 

I thought Duran gave Leonard a pretty thorough beating in the first fight prior to coasting in the later rounds while Leonard turned up the heat and closed the distance on the scorecards. The way I had it, throughout the first 12 or so, while competitive and exciting, Duran was up big on the cards. He was just outworking and, most importantly, out-skilling Leonard. What I'm getting at is that I don't really think Leonard can claim to have almost beaten Duran in the first fight, as I just saw Duran as the clearly superior fighter with only the latter rounds closing the distance on the scorecards. Just my opinion having re-watched the fight a couple times. I do think the Leonard of the rematch would be capable of beating the Duran of the first fight though, as long as he upped his workrate. Still very close to call.

I also think Hearns would've always been a bad matchup for Duran, though assuming that any Duran would be KO'd within a few rounds based on what happened in their actual encounter involving a bloated, past it Duran is not quite right IMO.

 

Duran is one who'd beat Napoles pretty much every time at his best for stylistic reasons, though on one of Duran's off nights Napoles could and likely would take it. As it is, Duran's workrate and the high pace he'd set would turn the fight into a close range war(as Napoles had no qualms about throwing down), with Duran's superior inside skills getting the better of things down the stretch and increasing the risk of opening a cut on Napoles, which was more or less his only weakness in my book.