Sugar Ray never truly beat me & he knows it

It avoids being knocked out, and Leonard was starting to set down on his punches more. As a matter of fact Duran quit when Ray was hitting him to the body.

 

You claim you use facts, but then ignore facts that aren't convenient to your narrative. For example, all you do is cite the loss and totally forget about the relevant facts that played a crucial context in why he might have lost. When Duran lost to Hearns and Hagler, he had already been pro for 15 years. You gloss over the fact that Duran was no longer fighting at his prime weight, while his foes were ATG's in the midst of their prime or very close to it, and fighting at their best weight. Those are also facts, but they are completed ignored, and instead, you claim Duran to be prime because he continued to fight 15 years after those fights. The 12-15 years is a fact that he fought that long after, but it's a total misrepresentation of the facts and context to then deduce he must've still been prime then if he continued to fight years after.

Facts and context aren't your friend when it comes to Duran.

 

Duran should have done something about it then. My favorite fighter ever but an embarrassing performance.

 

I am not into excuses or non facts. Duran saying Ray knows he never truly beat me and Ray knows it-and yet Ray has 2 wins over him. Easy wins. This kind of stupidity is hard to ignore. And his fans fall for it.
I do not like excuses. Ever. Yes the fact is Duran beat Ray when Ray fought his fight, and we know Ray fought his fight. If you deny that then you are not being fair. Ray fought his fight he said he did and the second fight proves it by how Ray started the first round in the second fight. You cannot change things to help Duran's legacy, or say Ray was the great in June 1980 he was later when he did fight his gameplans and not with emotion.
Duran started fighting at 16 years old. Manny is in what year of his career now? and 8 years older than Duran was when he fought Hearns. And Duran fought until he was how old? 50?
I don't gloss over the weight, I say Duran fought at 154 earlier than Hearns, Benitez or Leonard. That is another fact. And the greats he fought all beat him. That is a fact. Another one.

I think the misrepresentation is giving Roberto credit for wins in the 1980s when he was still vital and paid substantial amounts of money. He beat Moore and Barkley and gets credit for those fights and is said that these wins prove his greatness. Fine let us say they supplement his legacy. Then he had greatness then, and Hearns, Benitez and Leonard beat him long before the greatness shown in 1989. Misrepresentation is Duran and his excuses and trying to diminish losses. Representing the truth says the facts are if he were in fact better than Leonard he would have beaten the greats Ray beat and not lost to all of them.

 

And he tried to put it off another yr and the wbc forced him. Duran, not Leonard, was Benitez' #1 contender.

 

g
More great posts dude! Keep it up

 

And his fanboys are even more in denial than he is.

 

You once again ignored the context that I illustrated and totally disregarded it and glossed right over it. So let's try again...

Is it not true that when Duran fought both Hearns and Hagler… He had already been fighting professionally for 15 years, and was no longer in the division of his prime... 135?

Is it not true that Hearns and Hagler were both younger than Duran and more in their prime than Duran when they met?

Is it not true that Duran fought them both at their best division... Hearns (154 my imo) and Hagler (160) ?

While is it also not true that 154 and 160 weren't Duran's best division?

Is it not also true that when you fight ATG fighters, who are in their prime, and in a division more suited to them, it will make it that much harder to beat those guys when you're not in your prime?

Lastly, just cause I want to see you say... Is it your claim that Duran was still prime when he fought both Hagler and Hearns, because he continued fighting for years after those fights?

 

You want me to acknowledge excuses for Duran? This is one big excuse you are trying to put together here. What was his best weight? So if I say 135, see he has an excuses to lose. The question is when did he beat all these greats fighters to show he was better than Ray who like it or not beat great fighters.
So other fighters have real wins against greats and Duran has excuses why he didn't beat them, so therefore it is akin to beating them? That is the logic? Where are the wins over the greats? How did Ray never beat him if he has 2 wins over him? How is that for not being fair. And how could Ray beat greats and Duran could not? The weight excuse? The age? Well I said he weighed 154 before the others, and the age? 29 when he fought Ray? Only 32 when he fought Hearns and he fought another 35 times after Hearns and 17 years. This is what I mean by facts. You can say, well he was a professional for 15 years and yet he fought 34 years, which is significant.

You have to be fair. In my estimation but not Duran fans, I think Duran needed more wins over greats to have the legacy people think he is. I am Duran. He had a great personality and legacy, but that does not translate into wins over greats. Where are the wins over greats? one? Leonard? When Ray fought his fight?

You want me to be the same as Duran fans and buy this stuff. I cannot. Duran lost to Ray two times so the thread about him saying Ray knows he never truly beat me is false. I am not sure why Duran says this. Hard to accept a loss?

I am not sure what was Hearns best division. It would have been welterweight but he left, and he got experience at 154. At 54 he fought great and beat two legends at that weight. Benitez and Duran. One more legend than Duran beat in his career. Duran fought there before Hearns did, so he was comfortable there. What was Davey Moore's best weight? Iran Barkley? He could beat them at their best weight but not Hearns or Hagler? And Benitez? He started at 140 and Wilfred easily beat him. A guy Leonard beat.

This whole Duran thing of excusing for losses and saying Ray knows he never really beat him is not factual. It is ridiculous.. Besides the Leonard fight did he beat another great fighter? DeJesus and Buchanan were not great. Palomino either.

 

Dejuesus, Palomino and Buchanan were great, and may have been considered ATG if Duran had not come along.

Duran is a Lightweight, and perhaps the best ever. He beat an ATG in Leonard above his best division. Leonard lost to Hearns, Hagler, ( IMO) Duran, Norris and Camacho. His best win against Hearns, saw Hearns beating him pillar to post most of the fight until he ran out of gas. Then he LOST the rematch.

Many people were fooled by the hype machine known as Sugar Ray Leonard. He really is a ATG, but almost his whole career is followed around by *.


.

 

Nope, I'd like specific yes or no answers to the questions I posed. I don't need your interpretation of those questions and what they mean, I want answers to just those questions in a true or false format or yes and no. You can make of them as you will, but I want to know if you consider those "facts" as well?

 

They are all excuses. You could do that with anyone Manny,who is 40 and still fighting top guys. Hearns. Leonard. Chavez.. Most fighters. What was their best weight? So you answer the original. Well then see he had an excuse.

Floyd fought on decently when he was older than Duran against Hearns or Hagler. They are all excuses. When someone is a Duran fan you have to work with excuses because otherwise you cannot go on with the talk.

I don't want to validate excuses. You guys are here making excuses for Duran and acting as though Ray really did not beat him. If you enjoy doing that and think denying facts then do that, but when someone comes out here and says the truth you cannot get too mad about it.

I do think Duran is overrated a bit and he should have beaten Ray in the rematch and beaten Wilfred and Tommy and Marvin and he could then back up the way he talks. That is my opinion.

 

But they were not great. Palomino would not have been great regardless of Duran. DeJesus still lost to Cervantes. Palomino to Benitez. A guy who easily beat Duran. Well Hearns never beat Leonard on paper. I admit he should have won, but there are judges who score that. Norris and Camacho? Norris? More legit but Ray was almost looking for a reason to quit? Camacho? I don't really think that was anything to pay attention to. The fact is Ray beat Hagler, Hearns, and Benitez. Duran lost them all and lost to Ray 2 times. Saying Ray never truly beat me. It is ridiculous and his fans seem to go along with it.

Sugar Ray Leonard's career is also followed by wins over other greats.

 

Nope... still waiting on those answers.... You can interpret what they mean as you see fit... but I'd like answers to each and if they are indeed facts and true or false.

 

There is no agenda here.. When you guys have no one countering what you are saying you start to go overboard and say things like "yeah Duran made Leonard look like a fool". No humility or thought about Duran quitting when Ray was beating him soundly and landing punches. No awareness that he did not have that great a resume when it came to gu

in my answers I am saying what I feel and it is clear. Your questions are validating excuses or attempting to, and he was well equipped and given credit enough for what he did in the higher weights when he did win, yet excuses when he lost. That is an unfairness to the objectivity of boxing history.