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

That's true, that is. :good


(*I thought Leonard got a bit lucky with the decision against Hagler though.)

 

this thread is still going?????

 

He's very consistent.

 

Right on that ...

 

And therein lies the root of it all. Two performances with such drastically different tempo and results, and you seem to think it's solely because of some talent and skill Leonard tapped or acquired so soon after. The first fight will always matter more because we're sure each man was prime and prepared well.

And again, the fight wasn't even a wash before the stoppage, and again, Floyd has never moved around like that in his life, so the original point stands; Floyd is not going to out-run Duran, and Duran at 147 in Montreal (not 154 against Benitez when he was king at Lightweight for so many years) would out-do Floyd on the inside.

 

I think Duran at Montreal reached the absolute peak of his great career in that fight...and I also think that..that fight made Leonard a better fighter. Two of the very best of all time..IMO.

 

Both very good points !

 

I think it was significant but more by the the perspective of Ray learning how to fight his fight and being a complete fighter.

 

the comment that Leonard was prime is one I do not agree with. He was prime in his second defense of his first title?
That is the statement I do not agree with which Duran fans use to give Duran credit for the first win. It is overrating a win just on that statement because Ray was not prime. In reality he was not prime for Hearns a year and 3 months later, but he was closer to it. The fact he retired means we never saw him completely prime, but with Hearns he was probably close to a year from it.

As for Leonard being prime in his second defense of his first reign-That would mean Hearns was prime for Randy Shields and Duran for Dejesus the first time. Ray was a good fighter but not complete, and Duran made him complete. I give Duran credit for teaching Ray a great thing about boxing. Don't get emotional and waste energy and fight your fight.
The discussion comes up because I think the second fight was more significant. Say Duran did not train and ate a steak and had 2 gallons of water. If he loses like he did, how can he at least expect a 3rd fight in early 1981 to prove the 2nd fight was a fluke? I always see the Benitez fight as a continuation of Leonard. Why? Leonard said when he fought Duran it was like fighting a mirror image of himself.

I don't think a man quits for no reason, and Duran was too smart to quit just because he was being made to look foolish. He quit because Ray was starting to land power and head punches. Ray beat him mentally and then physically in the second fight. That is significant and absolutely Ray has the edge over Duran in thier fights and in boxing history because he beat the greats Duran didn't regardless of the excuses.

 

that comment is convenient for Duran. He fights his best fight against the only great he ever beat, then he slipped in skills so much he quits in the rematch only 5 months later and fights on another 21 years and 40some fights and wins two more titles at 2 higher divisions.

 

I rate the win over Hill very highly.

 

:rofl

 

so do I. I was hoping at the time Tommy could rack up a few defenses of the WBA light heavyweight title. I thought defending against Barkley was a mistake. He could have fought Frank Tate or Bobby Czyz and beaten them easier than Barkley. Somehow Barkley had a good style for giving Tommy trouble. He took a good punch and he threw in the middle of exchanges and was strong.