The Brawl in Montreal - who would defeat Duran on that night?

I cannot admit something which is just not true. If Duran was better than Leonard, besides not beating him the 2 last times he fought him, he should have beaten the guys Leonard beat Hearns,Benitez,Hagler and beaten them better than Leonard did, but he lost to them. On this issue of who is greater, it is not hard to figure out that Ray Leonard should be regarded as greater. He didn't have the fights Duran did, but he had better wins. I don't think anyone doubts Rays had the better wins.

 

sarcasm

 

I thought it could have been. Sorry. The way some of the guys out here talk, they would say that, ignoring that he fought until 2001. And he fought well until then.

 

Well, yeah. The idea that Duran in Montreal was invincible when he got humiliated against the same guy in his next fight is just stupid.

 

Yes, I always thought it was rather ridiculous the excuses for a guy who lost the fight fair and square, regardless of signing the fight quickly or not. Duran was a professional and he took fights on short notice before and won them. Ray boxed and won easily. and the third fight was significant because he again won easily I think 118-110 scores.

 

So you dont think the fact that Duran was in his 3rd, 4th and 5th weight division North during those fights had any impact on the outcome? Age is one thing Duran was getting old but not many fighters can have success that far up the scale.

I dont know anybody that thinks Duran was the same fighter at `54 and `60 that he was in his prime.

 

Obsessive bias. MAG has an obsessive need to rationalize away Duran's accomplishments and the realities surrounding the rematch.

 

No one is the same fighter as they were in their prime and Duran was still young when he fought Benitez and Hearns and Hagler. 30 and 32. How washed up as he? and he fought another 17 years after Hearns and something like 35 fights
Hearns beat Virgil Hill out of his prime. Foreman beat Moorer, Hopkins beat everyone. When people say Duran was out of his prime was 154 when he was 30? Hopkins was still fighting and beating guys in his mid 40s. Even Floyd mayweather now is 3 years older than Duran was when he lost to Hearns
Duran fought at 154 as early as 1978 before Hearns, Leonard and Benitez did. I honestly don't think that is a really good excuse at all, like all the other ones they are excuses but why does he need them and the other guys dont? Still it isn't about his losses as much as he doesn't have wins over great fighters. Leonard is the only one, and he lost the rematch easily. He did fight them, but he lost to all of them.

As for the divisions, Hearns won his 6th title in 5 division up and beat an undefeated guy with 10 title defenses in Virgil Hill. If Duran is to get excuses for losses, I would think Tommy would have been praised more for a win against Hill. Virgil HIll was much more accomplished than either Moore or Barkley, whom Duran won his titles against in 1983 (154) and 1989 (160).

 

it is not taking away his accomplishments, but many people on the board overrate his accomplishments and diminish the fighters who he lost to with excuses which diminish Leonard, Benitez, Hagler and Hearns. He lost to them all and yet he had excuses to them all. How is that a bias?

And I think Leonard in the rematch fighting a moving fight and dazzling Duran proved he outclassed Duran.They knew each other and Ray won a rematch. Rematches have been fought before and excuses have been discarded. Duran's excuse of being out of shape is just a maybe. Leonard not fighting his fight in the first fight is positively proven, since Ray said it, Angelo said it, and Ray fought so different in the rematch and won easily as he did in the third fight. I think the bias is Duran's fans and Duran's image.

If Duran gets credit for beating Leonard and goes 15 when Ray fights his style fight, and then Ray wins and Duran quits when he starts to get hit and Duran gets an excuse. How is that fair or justified? He was 29 years old.

 

20:45

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s8tGmXHJIY[/ame]

When BOTH camps readily admit that a fighter was nowhere near his best, it makes sense to also accept that reality. For ****'s sake, don't just look at Leonard bouncing around, look at Duran move at a fraction of the pace he's done with a variety of other fighters and movers.

 

Bogo, it ain't worth it man.

 

Here is the thing. I don't think there is anyway Leonard was prime in June of 1980. He was closest to prime when he fought Hearns or more correctly Bruce Finch,and that was just because he retired and didn't fight until Kevin Howard in 1984.

Leonard was not prime in June of 1980 same as Hearns was not prime in April of 1981 when he had his second defense of his first title against Randy Shields in Phoenix. Or Mike Tyson prime when he fought Bonecrusher. We can go down the line. Second defense of your first title is not prime. Even Duran who fought Esteban Dejesus right after he won the title lost his title. Later he beat him. So if we say Duran beat a prime Leonard, then Dejesus beat a prime Duran in 1973?

Another example, I do believe Thomas Hearns beat the most prime Virgil Hill anyone else ever beat or fought. Virgil had 10 title defenses and undefeated. If Duran would have beaten someone of Virgil's caliber and defenses and 5 divisions over his first title weight people would say he was the greatest fighter ever. Thomas Hearns does it and he didn't get as much credit as he should have. Do I think Virgil was as good as Sugar Ray Leonard? No.. But in 1991 he was more experience and most established as champion than Ray in 1980.

 

that video I just saw also says Ray's brother said "if you taunt Duran and use your speed you will drive him crazy". And I have heard and seen other interviews where Ray said he fought Duran's fight and wanted to beat him at his own game. Ray said "I knew if I fought my fight, I would win". Look this is a Duran documentary and they edited out somethings, but that is fine. It is a great show. I loved watching this some years back. Duran was great and this proves it.
My point is always the Leonard fight and the excuses for his fights with Hearns,Benitez and Hagler, and the contention that somehow with the excuses he somehow is top 10 ATG without having to have the actual wins doesn't make sense. I think most of agree he needs wins over those 4 guys to be top 10 ATG. So how does he get that? By fighting them and having an excuse explaining why he loses and somehow that means had he trained he beats them? So give him the credit for a win and put him at top 10 ATG?

I think this beyond the glory program is where he also says he gained weight before he fought Hearns also and was not in shape. It is what I always say. Why didn't Duran train and fight these great fighters and beat them if that is what was needed? These guys Hearns and Leonard and Benitez were not Minchillo or Moore. He trained for those guys but not for these legends or Benitez in 1982 when Duran was 30? There is something illogical about that. Train for the lesser quality guys and be out of shape for Leonard to the point of drinking two gallons of water and having a huge steak before the fight? How is this a bias in favor of Leonard? I still think wins elevate a fighter more than losses, regardless of the excuses. Ray had the wins. That is not a bias, that is a fact.

My point has always been Duran and the opposing performances with Leonard in Montreal and New Orleans -and my thinking Ray was the variable and not Duran, and then Duran's performances vs. Leonard in the third fight and Benitez and also Hearns. It is not saying he was not great, as much as how much credit he should get for beating Ray in Montreal- if he gets credit for demolishing Ray and beating a prime Sugar Ray Leonard. If he does get credit for beating a prime SRL, then I cannot agree because of how he lost to Ray easily in the rematch and Ray's relative inexperience in Montreal. Ray did not know the full game and that is evident solely because of how Ray fought Duran. The second fight nullified the first fight and then some in the favor of Ray as far as legacy. Then Ray beating Benitez,Hearns and Hagler is really what winning is about. Beating the legends and not making up an excuse after. It is not a bias. I look at all this very objectively. I never rated my favorite fighter Hearns as top 10 ATG. And I don't Duran either, But I rate Leonard top 10.