*~* Welterweight GOAT Tournament *~* Roberto Duran vs Sugar Ray Leonard.

I take Duran by a split. June of 1980 spoke volumes more than the subsequent too matches. Leonard 'fought' him more than the hindsight prophets think he should have but why wouldn't he? Duran was smaller, slower, and at the time it was believed that he was slipping. Additionally, Brown and Arcel had devised a strategy that was all about neutralizing Leonard's mobility. Duran was instructed to "be the boss" -crowd him, cut the ring off and pummel the body.

An argument can be made that Leonard actually made it harder for Duran by using less mobility. Duran was prepared for Leonard to box, to stick and move -not for Leonard to plant his feet and throw fast combinations and engaging him in the trenches.

Duran is the greater fighter, no matter how you look at it. Leonard is the greater WW, but Duran's mitigated legend at 12 pounds beyond his prime weight still edges Leonard's greatness.

 

The important thing is, in any Superfight, the guy who gets it right first time deserves more credit. First time around, the motivation is equal, the expectation is as high on both sides, the will to win should be insurmoutable for both men. No one knows for certain whether there'll be a rematch. And the rematch always has the loser wanting it more (although they don't always win of course).


It's also different from an upset kinda thing, ala Turpin-Robinson, Ali-Spinks as the motivation factors are so disimilar. It's then that the rematch counts more.

 

I dont buy that line about Leonard fighting to Duran's advantage, by "brawling".
Truth is, Duran's outboxing in that fight. And Leonard brawls just as much in previous fights and subsequent fights, (eg. v.Hearns), that was Leonard's style, or a major part of it.
Leonard was a great boxer-fighter.
Duran was the superior boxer and superior fighter.

Leonard was more wary of Duran in the 2nd fight, but Duran really didn't do much, he didn't have the fire.

 

Not in terms of accomplishment. Leonard was two-time champion with several defenses. But I think Duran was the greater fighter. Had he concentrated on being a top welterweight for the long haul he would have been a greater one that Leonard.

 

Both fighters in top form?

I believe SRL would pull it out in a hard-fought close UD.

 

Leonard became a better fighter because of the first Duran fight. He realized he could hang with a great fighter. And no matter how anyone tries to dress in up, Duran quit. If he had knocked Leonard down just before he quit does anyone think he would have quit then?

Leonard - SD.

 

we had the scenaio of both fighters in top form in the first fight. there were no questions about fire, motivation or conditioning. and we saw what the result was. those of you saying that srl chose to fight durans fight, are not being objective in the least. look at it from the angle of duran made him fight that type of fight by the constant pressure.
most people ook at the second fight and only see that a much less than 100% duran quit. the indictment of leonard is that the same out of shape fighter who quit was only slightly behind on the cards. the fight was fairly close. so how can someone see both fighters at the top of their game, and see what actually happened, tghen use a fight where one is clearly not in prime condition, as a reason why srl would win.

both at 100% srl was beaten that is not mythical. that is fact.

 

it already happened thats the thruth, and its espns most important fight of the last 30 years, it already happened

 

Leonard had lost 2 out of 7 rounds, on 2 of the judges score cards. Duran could say he was winning 2/7ths of that fight. He was sure losing the next round when he quit. So you might say he was winning 2/8ths, which means 1/4th.

If you want to call winning %75 of a fight making it close, so be it.

I like Duran more than I like Leonard. I wish I could pick him. I just can't find a way to do so. Not if they are at their best.

Some of you are saying they were both at their best in the first fight. I'm not going to say they were not. I still believe Ray tried to prove he could fight with Duran in that fight. It is not like Ray was old. You saw how he moved in the rematch. You saw how he moved against Hagler years later. How can you say that he was not choosing to stand his ground?

 

Are you saying that Leonard poisoned Duran's food?

 

Did it ever occur to you that Duran might have lied?

 

Had Duran not looked so puny I might have considered that possibility, but he looked ill to me. His skin was pasty and he was in pain. His mobility was cut by something, and it wasn't Leonard. In the seventh round, Leonard was able to stick his chin out for Duran to hit and Duran couldn't respond. That's when it was more than obvious that something was wrong with the Hands of Stone. I see no reason to doubt Duran's explanation.

I am assuming that the question of this thread presumes both boxers are in top condition. Under those circumstances, Duran wins, as he did in Montreal.

 

Duran just wasn't in the best of shape. I have every reason to believe he's gonna come up with a story.

Leonard was one of the best movers in the game, Duran didn't respond in the 7th because Leonard was just too damn fast. Even at the top of his game the best Duran could have done was lunge at him, like he did in the first fight when Leonard did move.

The Leonard that beat Hearns was a much better fighter than the Leonard in Montreal. Awesome movement and more snap to his punches. I'll take that Leonard over Duran in Montreal.

 

I want to respond to these two points.

I have the video of Duran-Leonard II. Leonard is fast, but he's not that fast. Leonard isn't doing anything that shows me that he is too fast for Duran. Something is wrong with Duran. If that had been the Duran of Montreal Leonard wouldn't have gotten away with his antics in the rematch.

Hagler was at his peak against Duran. He was not the same fighter he was when he faced Leonard. Hagler was shot for the Leonard fight. Hagler tells us a lot more about Duran than about Leonard.

 

Hagler was missing shots against Leonard like crazy. When he had Leonard in his sights He couldn't pull the trigger. He was slow. He should have retired after Mugabi. A peak Hagler would have ripped through Mugabi. Mugabi looked great because Hagler was losing it. By Leonard he was shot.

I am not buying the argument that Leonard was a different fighter in the rematch with Duran. I don't buy this idea that Leonard fought the wrong fight in the first fight or that Duran fought the wrong fight in the rematch. Duran was better than Leonard. In his fights against Palomino and Leonard, Duran was a demon tornado. Leonard didn't know what hit him. Duran lost the rematch because there was something wrong with the guy. He wasn't in the proper condition and he looked puny.