Trinidad vs. Duran of Montreal vintage

Both what fights? I was referring to three fights...

(and the first Viruet fight was extremely controversial)

 

you never mentioned you were discussing both Viruet fights, you just said Viruet and Fernandez.

Regardless I don't really know what your point is.

If your point is that Duran had trouble with movers at lightweight or welterweight, I disagree.

He won these 3 fights and the other two I cited, some in devastating fashion. After Montreal his training because erratic and when it did, he could lose to movers.

But Fernandez, Buchanan, and Bizzarro were all movers that ended up getting KO'd.

 

My point was just that for all his skills and talents, Duran doesn't have the superpower that lets him prevent men from moving and running around the ring against him. Some posters here seem to think otherwise.

Which Viruet fight did you think I was referring to? Are you sure that you knew he fought Viruet twice? :think Maybe you momentarily forgot? :think

 

1. Right you haven't watched the fights you're claiming to have watched. NOT ONE, NOT ONE of those fights did he fight like he did in Duran No. 2. It's so blatant he didn't fight like that, that I'm not certain you haven't the fights you claimed to have seen. To even use Hearns as an example makes this point clear. He LITERALLY walked down Hearns in that fight, THAT is how he won. He didn't win by running and circling. That explicitly shows you've never seen the fights or have no idea how to evaluate the fights you're watching. BTW, the same strategy SRL used to BEAT Hearns is the SAME Strat he tried with Duran. His plan, stated over and over by him and his trainer was to walk Duran. He failed in this attempt. Make no mistake though, you won't find one fight where he fought like he did in Duran No. 2... not a one.

2. This point further reinforces my belief that you have no clue what you're talking about. His trainers said the EXACT opposite of what you're claiming they said prior to the fight. Do you not think people have researching skills or have studied these fights? It's common knowledge by now with seasoned fight fans that SRL strategy was to stand in the center of the ring and either circle and box or make Duran go backwards. They believed Duran couldn't find nearly as well going backwards and was a heel to toe fighter who excelled when going forward. Angelo specifically says before the fight... My fighter is the bigger fighter.. longer fighter.. stronger fighter.. faster hands... We're going to take the fight to Duran and my guy is going to KO him. Those were his words before the fight. Yet you come here and claim their strategy was to use movement and running. You couldn't be more wrong, and yet another thing I've had to correct you on.

3. I have no issue with people thinking the fight was relatively close. By relatively close I mean, duran winning by a minimum of 3 rounds. No issue with that, and that is reasonably close. You're claiming SRL WON THE FIGHT. THAT IS SOMETHING THE VAST MAJORITY OF BOXING FANS AND EXPERTS DISAGREE WITH. It's not an exercise in futility, it's you pointing out to me which rounds you gave to SRL to have him winning that fight. It's a simple question that you should have no problem answering since you believe he won.

4. Lastly, stop asking me to prove a negative. I never claimed Duran took away SRL movement from their second fight in their first. That is proving a negative. He didn't try and fight that way so how could Duran take something away he never tried. That is how I know you're grasping at straws in this discussion. Duran took away SRL NORMAL movement he liked to employ... Circling and boxing when and where he wanted. Duran took that away. He also took away SRL trainers strategy of walking Duran down and making him fight going backwards or simply controlling the center of the ring being the bigger stronger fighter. Duran also took that way and force SRL back much more than vice versa. Once you come to terms with the fact that SRL tried his usual strategy in big fights.. it just failed... you will feel a lot better. It's a reality that is plain as day to see.

 

You continue to ignore and mischaracterize my points no matter how often I repeat them and now you're spouting off falsehoods too. Really quickly:

1) Once again, my point is that Leonard used his legs against dangerous and aggressive fighters. He did this against more formidable opponents like Hagler and Hearns, and lesser ones like Green. I never meant to suggest that he used the exact same strategy in those fights as he did in Duran II but if you think he fights them the same way that he fights in Duran I, you really need to rewatch them all ASAP. My point re: the Hearns ****ogy is that Leonard set the tempo in the first five rounds by constantly using his legs to control the tempo and space and to avoid engaging on Hearns' terms. Anyone with two eyes should be able to see the difference between how he reacts to Hearns' aggression and how he reacts to Duran's. It's almost night and day.

2) Your position here is nonsense based in part on your complete misunderstanding of how Leonard fought tough fighters. There are plenty of quotes where they indicate that Leonard will move and use his legs before the fight and plenty of quotes where they indicate that he is going to fight the second fight how he should have fought the first. People in his team were disappointed in him for fighting that way (even though several still thought he deserved the win). It's also common sense. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that virtually every single commentator was shocked by Leonard's decision not to move his legs? This wasn't just hindsight-- you could hear it from the guys calling the fight too. You have a very warped view of Leonard's m.o.

3) I shouldn't have let you dumb down my position earlier. My claim was that the fight was extremely close with several rounds that could have gone either way. I scored it for Leonard the last time I watched it because outside of a few rounds, I did not find Duran's early aggression nearly as impressive as many other viewers. I think that people were influenced too much by what happened in round 2 and continued scoring accordingly, even in the rounds where his aggression was far less effective and his blows were landing less cleanly having far less of a visible effect on Leonard. People also ignore the clean punches that Leonard landed in several of those rounds because they were too wowed by Duran's relentless physical aggression and pressure. Duran won several rounds big but plenty of the other ones were judgment calls, imo. I had the fight even around the halfway point but I understand why many people had Duran up. I thought that Leonard edged the second half of the fight. The only scorecards that I dismiss are the guys who have Duran winning by blowout. Those to me are people who don't know how to differentiate clean, sharp punching from brute aggression.

4) Your argument about Duran taking away his normal movement doesn't make sense because you don't understand Leonard's normal movement against tough, aggressive fighters. Like I've said before, even a small child could see the difference between how Leonard moved from the opening bell in the other fights I've mentioned to how he moved in Duran I. In any event, the bottom line is that the claim that Duran took away his Leonard's movement is a myth from people who don't understand footwork.

 

1. No actually that was your claim, which was soundly shot down. Your claim was that the strategy SRL should've used in his second fight is how he should've fought the first one. What I'm saying is, that is a revisionism at its finest. Anybody could see he did better in No. 2.. but you don't fight like YOU'VE NEVER FOUGHT IN YOUR ENTIRE CAREER when you're defending the WW championship of the world. THAT is the point. He tried to fight how he normally would in his high level fights, problem is, Duran didn't allow him to fight his normal fight. This easy point to grasp has somehow alluded you.

A. You keep listing Hearns has him fighting how he normally did, and that just isn't so. He didn't use movement to win that fight. In fact, his initial attempts at using movement were ineffective against Hearns. What won him that fight was walking down Hearns. Funny enough, he tried to be the bully in his fight with Duran and hoped that would win him the fight... It didn't. Hagler??? You really need to watch that fight again. He could only move in small small portions of that fight. Many times he was up against the ropes just like he was against Duran. How this fact alludes you is beyond me. Do you not remember he being on the ropes with Hagler quite a bit?

2. So you're going to continue to blatantly lie about what Angelo said before the fight. It's kind of funny actually. He literally says his guy is the bigger guy... stronger guy... longer guy... faster hands and he's going to walk him down and KO him. Are you denying that he said this? Which is the point, Angelo wasn't telling him to fight like he did in No. 2. Yet somehow, you believe you more versed in boxing than an ATG trainer and knew how SRL should've fought him before he did, sorry I don't agree. Watch his fight with Bennitez... he fights him very similar. That was for the WW championship of the world. One of the best fighters he's ever fought. Guess what he did? Tried to circle and box and stand mostly flat flooted. Which according to you is a terrible strategy for SRL. Seems to have worked for him just fine in many high profile fights.

3. This is just an excuse to move the goalposts again. You can try and duck and dodge the question over and over, but the reality is, you even have a hard time giving SRL the win. Which is exactly why you don't want to post your card.

4. What you don't understand is... SRL did try and fight that way in the middle rounds. Circle and box... it didn't work. Wanna know why? That second round punch is why. By SRL own admission it took him several rounds to recover from that and clear his head. This happened in the second round. So how do you know this didn't change SRL strategy to move more? It unquestionably did. However, in your quest to discredit Duran this simple caveat alludes you. Do you admit that punch changed the complexion of the fight? Further, going back to the middle rounds where he tried to circle and box... Duran landing that punch meant that his feints had a great effect on SRL. He now knew duran could hurt him and thus he reacted to almost all of his feints. Have you ever been in the ring before or in a fight? If you had, and you've been hurt, and you know you're fighting somebody with a propensity for rushing and putting pressure on you... If you don't think that affects your psyche and makes you hesitant at times... then you've never been in any kind of fight in your life. To say Duran didn't effect SRL movement at all, tells me you need to work on your boxing knowledge and how you view fights. He absolutely effected his movement. Even if you believe he could've still moved more, he still affected it. Period, end of story

 

Alright, this is the last post I'm wasting on you. Why do you keep arguing against strawmen when I've made my position very clear multiple times? I can't tell whether you're being dishonest because you want to "win" an argument against a stranger that badly or you're just delusional. Either way, I'm not going to entertain. But I will correct some of your more ridiculous falsehoods.

1) If you don't see the difference in Leonard's footwork and movement from the first minute of a fight like Green, or even Muniz, compared to Duran I, you're probably a lost cause. The entire world was stunned that Leonard didn't use his legs in the Duran fight. They were stunned from the opening bell-- before Duran worked whatever Panamanian magic you believed took Leonard's lateral movement abilities away from him. Your attempt to characterize this as 20/20 hindsight is absurd.

2) If you think that Leonard fought Hearns like he fought Duran, you're a lost cause. Leonard won the fight by using his legs and ambushing Hearns when he saw openings. When Hearns tried to attack or press the action, he tried to avoid and reset. This is the opposite of how he fought in Duran I. He did his best work while on the outside coming in against Hearns, not by trying to walk through Hearns and go chest-to-chest like he did with Duran. You're either being dishonest or you need to rewatch.

3) Please don't tell me that you're trying to suggest that Leonard fought Hagler at all like he fought in Duran I... It would make me feel like even more of a moron for engaging you. Hagler trapped Leonard on the ropes at points in the fight? So what? Duran trapped Leonard against the ropes several times in Leonard - Duran II. It happens. In no way does it mean that he fought a similar fight against Hagler as he fought in Duran I. I really hope that I've just misunderstood your point here.

4) I don't get your accusations. I don't dodge or move goalposts on this forum no matter how unpopular my positions are. I'm not one of these clowns who does dishonest stuff here to "win" arguments against people I'll never meet. I made my take on the extreme closeness of the fight clear from my very first posts. You've chosen to ignore it, presumably because you're one of those people who think that Duran won every round in which he was the aggressor. I'm not going to waste time trying to convince you to score fights differently.

5) You're still in fantasy, fairy tale land. If Leonard wanted to use the kind of movement that he had previously used in fights against guys like Green or Muniz, and that he would later use in fights against Hagler and others, Duran wouldn't have stopped him. Just like Duran couldn't stop lesser, weaker fighters than Leonard, including Vilomar Fernandez and Edwin Viruet from moving and using lateral movement against him. I don't care how often you repeat the fairy tale; it's not how the human body works.

Good day, sir. :hi:

 

You are the one who's made his position clear and then blatantly side step direct questions about said position. Even refusing what should be so easy, tell me which rounds SRL won. How about this, how about you tell me rounds he won via PM. That way you won't have "worry" about Duran fans foaming at the mouth. Deal?

1. Show me a post where I said he fought them exactly as he fought duran. Please show me this post. I never made the claim he fought the exact same way. What you aren't getting IS... Duran MADE that happen more than SRL wanted. That is a concept that you keep avoiding and covering your ears go no no no!! If you would've admit said fact at any point, we probably wouldn't have carried this convo as long as we have. Instead you tried to do outright terrible revisionist backseat quarterbacking and it has been painful. You've to say something I never said. Did SRL come out a little more flat footed than in some other fights, sure, but to the degree you're making is the issue and has been. What you're missing is the reason he was able to fight more how he wanted and comfortable, was because duran was simply better at his aggression and boxing than the fighters you named. To not be able to see that Duran was the difference and he forced SRL to do things he maybe didn't want and was best at, is quite sad actually. He's the difference and has been the difference this entire time. It's literally the elephant in the room.
http://www.boxingforum24.com/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif
2. I never, not once said SRL was trying to lay and hearns chest and fight inside. WTF?? No, but what I did say was SRL was walking him down and using very clear aggression in said attempt. No he wasn't trying to make it an inside fight totally. He would move at times, but you forget he did the same with Duran. He tried to reset at points, but again, the difference was Duran was more aggressive than Hearns when Hearns pressed. To not even understand that was the difference in why SRL couldn't reset as easily is kind of disappointing. It's funny how you can't tell that SRL won that fight by being aggressive and trying to walk him down. Patiently and not as reckless as duran would, but make no mistake he won that fight by walking him down. He didn't win that fight by running as he did in Duran No. 2 which you seemed to imply.

3. The funny thing here is, you keep trying to make me prove a negative, when in fact. I'm trying to prove your premise and conclusion wrong. Get this straight YOU cited Hagler as a fight he fought like he did in Duran No. 2. THAT WAS YOUR CLAIM. I strongly disagree with said claim. Did he try some of the same showboating? Sure. Did he have the legs he had in Duran No. 2? No way. Not even close. So he physically could never fight that way. Which is easily how I dismiss your characterization of the fights. That is flat out wrong comparison. Me trying to say such doesn't equate to me saying he fought the same way as he did in Duran no. 1... WTF? It's your claim, own up to ****ogy being flat out wrong.

4. Here I'm still waiting to here if you have heard his trainer say that he wanted to make Duran fight going backwards. That he wanted SRL to be the aggressor. He coming out and realizing that was a bad strategy, doesn't take away from what he said. Stop trying to act like you and him saying that was a bad plan, means that it was a bad plan at the time. Problem wasn't the strategy, the problem was Duran. Does that mean SRL couldn't have fought better? Of course not, he could have. Does that mean his plan was faulty, and that is the only reason he lost? I categorically disagree with such a suggestion. Note, this is exactly what you've been suggesting, and why weren't discussing this.

As you say, I guess there isn't much more to say on the matter. You won't give Duran the rightful credit he deserves for that fight. You can't seem to grasp simple concepts of fighters getting hurt and that changing the whole complexion of the fight. It such blatant bias it's palpable. Anyways, as I said, send me your scorecard and we can be done with this. I won't even reply just so the whole process is easy for you lol

 

This is a pretty definitive discussion as to what transpired in that fight. Leonard makes it clear that (1) he fought flat footed for most of the fight and that (2) Duran prevented him from executing his game plan of moving to his right. watch at 5:50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsQaaJzfZCI

 

Still hilarious. What a clown.

 

What a moron.

Leonard. " Duran made me fight his fight "

Kevin the moron. " Leonard fought the wrong fight. "

 

So now you're going to pretend that Leonard and Dundee haven't made plenty of other statements explaining that they intentionally chose to fight Duran at close quarters? That he didn't come out fighting flat-footed from the opening bell, well before Duran "forced" him to do anything? Why is this quote more relevant or meaningful than the others? Only morons think that cherry-picked quotes from Sugar Ray Leonard (of all people) would settle anything. Pathetic stuff.

 

Whats the matter now didums? Does it hurt you so much that a quote from your own hero makes you look a total ****?

Next you will claim Leonard is the liar and not you when he said Duran MADE him fight his fight.

Don't worry history is full of moronic garbage like you, who always think they are right no matter what.

Hitler
Charles Manson
Saddam Hussain
Osama Bin Laden

and plenty of other assorted sh!t.:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

Kevin you really have zero evidence to back up your theory. Yes, we all know that SRL did better in the rematch. We also know he moved more in that fight, and we know that SRL purposely tried his best to get Duran back in the ring, when he was overweight and undertrained. These are essentially facts. Also a fact is that at the time of the stoppage in the second fight, the scores were pretty close, probably closer than they should have been, but close nevertheless.

But we also know that going into the first fight, both Dundee and SRL thought they could out punch Duran based on the results in the prior 5 fights. Dundee is on record as saying that "people think Duran is the puncher, they are wrong, my guy is. Over the last 5 fighters my guy has 100% KO rate and Duran has a 40% KO rate. " So they felt Duran wasn't the same power puncher he was at lightweight.

There were also fights leading up to this that made them think Duran wasn't all they thought he would be. His fight against Gonzalez in particular was a very sub par performance. Add to that that SRL was the bigger guy, was faster, stronger, and likely punched harder and it was a perfectly sound strategy at the time.

The first round, probably went exactly as they expected it to. Duran was attacking and SRL was using his movement to get out of the way, and then when he felt he could go on offense, it would stand in front of Duran plant his feet and throw power shots. It's hard to even score the first round, maybe a slight edge to Duran.

In the second round however, everything changed.

Duran blasted out of corner and went after SRL extremely aggressively, and ended up catching SRL with a left that clearly stunned him. Actually he was more than stunned he was wobbled. SRL himself said he was pretty much in gaga land for the next 3 rounds or so, and during that time, Duran hurt him again and certainly won these rounds convincingly.

SRL however, ever the warrior, started to come back and then he tried to outbox Duran, but the outcome of that was mixed. SRL likely won more rounds than he lost doing that but it was pretty close. But if you consider the lead Duran racked up in the earlier rounds, it was going to be hard for SRL to pull off a win and for whatever reason, Duran essentially gave him the 15th round. But the warrior spirit of SRL is what gave him so much respect after the fight, people knew that SRL wasn't just an Olympic hype job, rather than he was a real fighter.

But that still doesn't negate the fact that going into the fight, SRL and Dundee thought they could fight Duran based on the past results and what they felt their strengths and weaknesses were. During the fight, when it was apparent that they under estimated Duran, they tried changing tactics but by then Duran was on a mission and wasn't going to be denied. I honestly don't think the strategy in New Orlean's would have resulted in a different outcome, but that's obviously debatable. But what isn't is that leading up to the fight, the strategy they used, even though in hindsite proved to be wrong, was sound based on the knowledge they had. And to be perfectly honest it was a fighting style that SRL actually preferred. He was a boxer/puncher by nature not a mover runner.