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

well I have watched as much and read as much on these topics for years. It was a great era the 70s and 80s. The 90s up to now have not been as exciting for some reason. And Duran did fight the best fighters he could in a very exciting era, which is why we can figure how good he was objectively.
But I took in everything, so my opinions are the same opinions I have had for years, which is why they don't change and my points are pretty much the same all the time. I have been on ESB for almost 4 years on Dec. 1, and you can find posts from me on ESB in 2008 when I first started or 2009 with the exact same stuff. People call it bias, but it is just what I believe. I like to look everything objectively in a scientific way and then get a result, which is how I figured out when Hagler was cut by Hearns. Many people say Hearns punch, but I figured out it was inadvertent mouthpiece and it would have been a clashing of heads, but Hearns was so much taller. Marvin's head crashed against Tommy's mouthpiece. I use the Hearns/Hagler cut just to show that this is not personal, it just a belief after years of watching styles and great fighters.

 

But you still don't understand that weight, age and wear and tear are factors in boxing in this great scientific research of yours.

Duran lost to Hearns, Hagler and Leonard because they were great. And thats it. Like size does not matter in boxing. Beeing on the wrong side of 30 fighting some of the best fighters ever at several weightclasses over your natural one. Like Hagler, Leonard and Hearns beat much bigger top 5 guys all time in higher weightclasses at that stage of their careers.

And you somehow brush off that Duran won in 80. The only man to beat Leonard in is prime. Because Leonard was not peak until 81 you say.
Well he was 24 or so in 80. Gold four years ealier and he looked great all the way up to Montreal even beating Benitez pretty easy imo. And he looked great in Montreal.

But lets say you are right. Leonard is a little better a few months later. Or a year later. That Leonard beats Duran easy you say. How do you know? That Leonard never fought Montreal Duran did he? You say you are looking at this objectively. You know Leonad even brags about getting Duran in a rematch fast to take advantage of Durans poor habits. The huge ring.

Duran had that huge payday.Durans intensity was clearly not the same. Im not making any excuses for Duran. Im actually trying to lokk at things objectively . He was at fault. And maybe he trained really really hard as Arcel said and came in close to 100% but was beaten by one of the greatest fighters of all time.

If you are a former and older former lightweight with over 70 pro fights going up against the 2nd best welter of all time you probably need to be 100% to even stand a chance. Thats why the Montreal win is so huge. What other former lighweight do you have winning over Leonard? I guess they are not great then.

And please dont mention how Duran was somehow the bigger man than Leonard Hearns again becasue he fought a 154 fight earlier or what the hell you keep saying.. Your scientific ways of looking at things clearly deos not work well there. The same with you r mention of Floyd as a proof of Duran not beeing a bit past it when he fought Hears and Hagler and so on. Thats some miracle **** on Floyds part right there. Train hard as hell and stay in shape alle the time and not fight dangerous guys. Fight once or twice a year beeing much bigger than a Marquez og average fighters like Ortiz. Almost the same as fighters much bigger guys that can really punch.

They went 1-1 when they were at their best or close. But you manage to use the 89 bout in an argument on whos the better fighter moreso than Montreal.

 

^Leonard switched his gameplan for the the second fight, right? I'm not saying it's a one or the other scenario, but I think that was the most important factor in the different outcome. Duran was worse in the rematch, but he would've done a lot better if Leonard fought the same as in Montreal. And Leonard very likely would have beaten Montreal Duran if Leonard fought like he did in the rematch. The conclusion I'm making is that Duran in Montreal was not unbeatable fighter on that night. It's supported by Duran's slip-ups against other fighters during his career who boxed well.

 

everyone has those factor not just Duran,, That doesn't take great scientific research. and we are talking about Duran in New Orleans? He was 29 and fought another 21 years. Fought at 154 before Hearns and Leonard and Duran. Wear and tear in 1980?? Ray just outboxed him. Duran was good at he weight. The excuses for him are really rather ridiculous.
Being on the wrong side of 30? He was 29,30 and 32 when he fought Leonard,Benitez,Hearns and Hagler. Hearns beat Virgil HIll when he was 32. Hill was 5 division up from Hearns first title with Cuevas and 11 years and Hill was undefeated and young.
My whole point about all this is Ray was not prime. same as I don't think Meldrick Taylor was prime when he won the title against McGirt in 1988.
Leonard proved more. He fought two styles against Duran and hung with him twice. He revised his style in the rematch, Duran did not. When Duran fought his style he barely beat Ray. When Ray fought his style he outclassed Duran. That is significant, and I know his fans know this deep down.
And Ray won when he revised -and he won easily. Any other fighters when this happens, Ray won and proved it. With Duran people accept the excuses even though against other greats like Benitez, Hearns showed he could not deal with speed.

Like I said it is obvious Ray was the variable and not Duran. Ray moved and Duran fought his same fight. That shows it was Ray who changed the outcome. And Ray will admit that today regardless of Duran's excuses he was not in shape, an excuse which came out everytime he lost to a great.

Well you said fighters should train hard as hell. Yes I agree. If Duran did not train hard for the greatest fighters he fought. Fine. He didn't beat them. Being beaten easily and then saying he didn't train is not a win. If he didnt beat the greats he fought regardless of the excuses, he still got a loss. Am I supposed to accept Duran's excuses like everyone else? I don't. He could not deal with angles and started to plod forward, and he couldn't match that. Regardless of anything.

The thing which seems to upset people on ESB or anywhere on the net exactly that point. Why don't I accept Duran's excuses like everyone else? Because I don't. It takes away from Leonard's win and also, just from what I saw with Duran when he fought Benitez and Hearns the win was justified.

 

well it seems tireless because my points are very simple. I am not coming up with some wild theory about gloves or something obscure. Simply, Leonard beat Duran and outclassed him in a rematch when he fought his fight when Duran was 29 and young and comfortable at a weight. I am surprised that other fighters don't get the luxury of an excuse the Roberto did. Rafael Marquez came up with an excuse the other night which reminded me of Duran. Something about fish. Had that been Duran making the excuse people would have accepted it and disregarded his loss. With Marquez people know he lost and no one thinks twice about it. The fact is Leonard Benitez and Hearns all beat Duran near this weight, and it is significant to the thread. And those styles give us an idea who could beat him now. Mayweather, Pernell. maybe Oscar. The Hearns fight, I am not sure anyone could duplicate that. Not many fighters have his combination of speed and power.

 

That is my point. Leonard was not the same fighter Duran fought in Montreal. The New Orleans Ray would beat him. And I think rather easily. Duran looked great against Barkley when he was 38 in Madison Square Garden and many picked him to beat Ray in Dec. of 1989 after Ray struggled with Hearns, and again in the third fight Ray outclassed him. The evidence is more on Ray's side.

 

exactly. Ray showed stylistically that he could nullify Duran if he fought him like he did in New Orleans. He didn't just nullify him a little, he nullified him easily.

 

'Sugar' Saensak Muangsurin of course :deal

 

I see your point. I just don't think Ray was that same fighter past that point. He learned. that is like if I made a thread saying. The outboxing in New Orleans - Who would defeat Leonard on that night?

Duran of Montreal would be ruled out because he lost to Ray that night?

The thing is this. Had Ray fought Duran in Nov. 1980 like he did in June the same outcome probably- a loss. And had Ray fought Duran in Dec. of 1989 in the third fight on the inside, Duran would have won and people said "look how great Duran is beating Ray when he was 38. But Ray changed his style. That has always been my point. Duran could be out of shape or not. Ray will win. He proved with Hearns,Duran,Benitez, Hagler he could beat anyone at any level, and Duran never did. Even coming off a 3 year inactivity Ray beat Hagler. Even with a good excuse he beat great fighters.