Actually i'd be happy to be included. Question time. Was Duran peak when he beat Ken Buchanan? Yeah, SRL beating Benitez did announce his arrival on the scene. Was he however absolute peak? No, he wasn't. Why wasn't he? He had yet to learn the lessons Duran was to teach him for starters. He still had some rounding out to do, tactically and mentally as much as anything. Duran taught Leonard the art of psychological warfare and it was to be a lesson Leonard would extract maximum value and milage from. Duran's buildup, from giving Ray's wife the finger and calling her a ***** to treating Leonard with absolute disdain was all aimed at making Ray lose his cool and entering Duran's toe to toe web. He succeeded. Leonard and almost every expert still thought Ray could win by taking it to the smaller man regardless of his much greater experience and infallible trench warfare. How wrong they were, Duran knew better than ALL of them. Look at the second fight, the massive change in tactic and mindset as well as the games he played against the likes of Hearns and especially Hagler. Hagler tied himself in knots out there, and it was Leonard who controlled the course of the second Duran fight and it's buildup. Was Hearns peak after beheading Cuevas? No, he was yet to learn the art of clinching and fighting under extreme duress, points which were slammed home via a loss to SRL as Ray before him had learned his own subtle lessons from losing to Duran. Lennox Lewis became a much better fighter mid career by losing to McCall. Examples are numerous. There is no substitute for experience, especially experience vs great opponents. Look back to the days of SRR, Charles, Mongoose and co. They learned countless things from fighting top fighters numerous times. IMO Leonard was quite possibly at his absolute peak after the Hearns fight but unfortunately retired. He not only was at the top of his game physically but he was also brilliant mentally and tactically. People are hardly saying he was a novice.There's a fair period between novice and total peak yes? Oh come on! You CANNOT make the assumption Leonard definitely loses to Hearns if the fight was 12. With Leonard knowing he had less time the whole dynamic of the fight changes drastically. Possibly Hearns can hold him off, possibly he can't. It's that simple. Getting comprehensively outboxed by Hearns means nothing in the slippage stakes, Hearns was simply a monster at 147 and would always outbox Ray and possibly anyone else as long as he was on his feet. Ray showed great experience and patience hanging in so long against such stout resistence. Agreed most times, tho some are either beaten so bad they never recover or have a fragile psyche that never rises to the same heights. Again you cannot simply cut 3 rounds of the actual Hearns encounter and nor can you forget the Duran rematch SRL DID win. Add to this he'd already beaten Benitez and we can pretty much wipe the above paragraph. Good call, and 30 years before that again you had the likes of Charles, Moore, Burley et al hammering the **** out of each other on a regular basis. I won't be stating otherwise based on my lengthy comments above. It's not rocket science. Mostly, but there are intangibles and exceptions. Sometimes a great can be beaten by a very good fighter based simply on styles. Other times a great has a rare off day. It's not empirical. Summing up I believe Leonard was brilliantly lured by Duran into fighting an over aggressive fight in the initial encounter and Duran's unbelievable intensity and trench ability won the day. In the second Leonard came in perfectly tactically and mentally but unfortunately Duran was a little off. I believe Ray of the rematch would have possibly won a tight decision vs Duran of the first, tho i admit this scenario could go either way. I don't believe anyone could pick one way or another with any great certainty. Leonard improved after Duran 1, and was already showing it in the rematch. It's not just about physicality, it's about experience as well. On this front Duran was a long way ahead of Leonard at the time, tho Ray was sure proving an able student pronto. The Duran loss was probably the best thing that could have happened to Ray.
How do you do that multi-quote thing that you did with my post? I agree with about 50% but i'll shred the rest.
Just keep cutting and pasting selected parts into quotations. Well we gave our two opposing views but after addressing all your points i have but one i'd like returned. Was Duran peak vs Ken Buchanan?
That was the one i was going to come back too you on as you'd know doubt know & so you are in effect saying that Leonard was as green as Duran was when he fought Ken. How on earth can you use this comparison juxtaposed with Benitez/Leonard:nono Duran in reality was a rough & ready 21 year old street thug in comparison to Leonards maturity & skills employed in the Benitez fight & got outboxed & put on his arse by the 2nd best Lightweight of the 70's in DeJesus 5 months after Buchanan so Arcel & Brown kept Duran away from this sort of opponant until he'd finished his apprentiship in 74 when he stopped DeJesus. It's a ridiculous comparison & one of Kens downfalls was that he totally underestimated Duran & dismissed him as nothing more than a savage punk which of course but with a natural boxing talent. Ken had this old school mentality about having to pay respect & deference to your better's ect.....Ken was partly responsible for his own downfall IMO. But to seriously try & use Leonard/Benitez & Buchanan/Duran as a template is frankly wrong........Leonard was streets ahead of Duran when both challanged for their respective crowns.
I'm already sensing a certain double standard, even this early. Well, you have actually achieved this, i just asked if he was peak with zero mention of SRL let alone the SRL - Benitez fight. You're getting quite defensive in a big hurry here. Take a look at the massive double standards and worry of where i was heading. But since you broached the subject SRL was 25-0 going into Benitez. Duran was 28-0 going into Buchanan. SRL was 22. Duran was 21. SRL had been fighting 2 years and 9 months about. Duran had been fighting 4 years and 4 months about. BOTH had at least one notable win with nothing overly earth shattering. Leonards so called maturity and skills were very hard to see vs Duran in the first fight, but he certainly had learnt a lesson and showed a different face in the second regardless of Duran and his woes. Duran in turn had learnt quite a bit from the De Jesus loss. De Jesus for Duran was a learning experience, as was Duran 1 for SRL. For Duran the continuing lesson was both technical and mental, for Leonard it was more tactical and mental. Duran had done his full apprenticeship by the time he fought SRL, and it was this allied to his great skills and fire (And SRL's inexperience) that helped Duran to maybe the greatest win of his career. By nominating 74 as Duran peaking you have given him 6 years and 42 fights before you've ackowledged the fact. You've also allowed and excused him a loss along the way. In return you give Leonard just 27 fights and 3 years with no losses yet you continually go at anyone saying SRL was anything but a peak machine of destruction and grace. Leonards amateur career in noway makes up for near all that sorry. You also tell us Arcel and Brown sheltered Duran and ducked certain opponents for a period after he had actually already won the title. Interesting. By contrast SRL was anything but sheltered or protected (your insinuation per Duran), fighting the brilliant Benitez, taking on the rampant Duran and then going right back at him after a heavy loss before winning a title at 154 just two fights later then fighting the white hot Hearns very next fight. Talk about a mixture of greats as well as styles. A telling factor is that by the time you allow us to consider Duran peak he had more fights than SRL fought in his entire career!!!! Think about it. Of course Leonard didn't underestimate Duran due to his own sheer size advantage and youthful overconfidence either, did he? Again, blatant double standards and descrimination. But lets make allowances for Ken's actual loss in order to shade Durans peaks and primes a bit more. You've lost me totally, are you saying Ken lost because Duran didn't respect him? :huh I think it (tho it was you who forced it as an issue) served me up a fantastic opportunity actually. I knew you had to protect Duran due to the De Jesus loss just after see and it was exactly where i wanted to head. I thank you for addressing it at such length to allow me plenty of inroads and comparisons as well as inspiring me to a lengthy debate. Haven't had one in eons.
What a load nit picking hair splitting assumptive santimonious self serving waffle & you say you're confused:huh You are not interested in the slightest with regard to debating as the above waffle is just a leader to self praise & for the cringing desire & acknowlagement of your peers so please don't get cute with me in your rabid desire to gaynsay me pal with only your assumptions being your only form of address, I thank you:smoke