Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

Hearns,Leonard,Benitez, Duran all moved up and fought at higher weights. No one should have that as an excuse to take away from another fighters credit. When you mention Cotto it was a good point. The wins Cotto had with Shane and Zab and others. Corley, Clottey, He had some good wins, but when he lost to elites that affects his resume regardless of excuses like size. But Duran was much better at the higher weights than Cotto, regardless of the fact Duran is a much better fighter. As for size and one of Duran's biggest losses, Duran and Benitez won their first title at 135 and 140, so to say Duran was so much smaller when he fought at 154 before Benitez did is a little ridiculous. And Duran was 30 years old at the time.

And you asked me who had better wins past 30 I said Hearns beat Hill when he was 32. Duran was 29 when he beat Ray. The question was about wins after 30. So you said I said Hearns win over Hill was better than Duran's over Leonard. in this thread I did not say that, I was referring to the over 30. Although I did say sometimes on other threads that I do indeed think in light of the fact that Hill was undefeated and 26 and experienced enough at 175, Hearns beating him at the age of 32 when Tommy was declining was a more impressive win than Duran against Ray since Duran had a guy fight his fight when Duran was still relatively fresh. The Duran win over Ray is more talked about and a bigger fight because of Ray's image at the time and expectations.

I never expect anyone to agree with me because of what I say. This is a discussion. I doubt anyone ever changes their mind because of anything I say.

 

Nah, he was a natural heavyweight boiling down. Always.

 

Well you think the variable is Leonard. I think it's Duran.

You think it's about Leonard fighting his fight. I think it's about Duran being in shape.

There's a reason Leonard warmly recalls making the fight so soon after learning Duran was out partying every night. It is because he realised the advantage it gave him over the man who made fighting feel like "death".

 

Yes I think it is the variable because Ray changed his style and he wins by stoppage when Duran quits. That proves the variable. Duran being out of shape will be a long fight issue, but not from round one on. I think the variable of Duran being in shape has been proven wrong by his repeated excuses saying he was out of shape when he fought great fighters. He used it at times. He did not train when he fought better fighters, and then trained for the lesser ones. Ray proved two times that he can beat Duran easily. If this were a scientific study the evidence would go on the side of Leonard, and the fact Ray beat Benitez and Hearns and Duran lost easily to both and was outboxed by Benitez rather easily. That fight and the 3rd Leonard fight are significant.

Ray was covering the bases. He gets everything in his favor it helps his odds. He did the same with Hagler, that does not take away from Duran losing the fight. He could have dictated more time to train. He didnt. The fact that Ray fought so much different than the first fight is the key obviously.

 

Or the fact that Duran trained so differently from the first fight is the key, obviously.

 

What is so hard to understand about Duran not training very hard for many fights.. NOT just the great fighters he fought. He could get away with it against the lesser fighters, because ya know, they are lesser fighters. That doesn't mean he trained harder cause he won. Yet, when you go against world class fighters, and you don't train properly, yes it will be harder to win. Why this point, and others escape you is beyond me.

 

Honestly, I don't think the concern should be a fighter saying he trained or not. It is a given he should be in shape. no excuses with being in shape should ever be used.. They are paid good money to be in shape and he had many fights to that point. He is expected to come and be in shape isn't that how it should be? No one bought the excuse that Hearns had weak legs for Hagler, so why buy Durans? And to say he did not train and then losing and saying well I was out of shape. Or I ate two steaks and had a gallon of water. They are excuses. I don't see how they can seen as anything else. And the fact that Duran could not win against Benitez and lose rather easily a little over a year later with Benitez for a title yet could beat Davey Moore, which proves it is not how good he was but the style which fought him. After Ray beat Duran in the 3rd fight, all Duran said was is that Ray was a sissy to move around and not fight. He knew he could not say he was out of shape, that was already used numerous times before.

 

if he didn't train then that speaks for itself. Fighters not training diminishes a legacy if that is the case. How many fighters get that excuse. people say on ESB "MAG what don't you understand!!He lost because he didn't train!!! " The excuse itself is rather ridiculous. A guy is paid to get in shape and fight the best fighter he ever beat and he is out of shape??? As though that is a legitimate excuse for any fighter. I never was big on excuses. The end result is what I see. When they interview any fighter after a loss 95 percent of the time he makes an excuse. I don't buy the out of shape excuse, but if I did then that still does not mean that much. Why would a fighter not get in shape. It isn't like Duran beat many greats in his career to take it for granted.
Regardless of anything, Roberto didn't deserve the accolades if he didn't think he could win and he didn't train. I don't understand the theory that if he didn't train then that is why he lost so the first fight should be the important fight. Sure from a Duran fans perspective the first fight would be important since that is the fight he won.

The point is to train and get in shape and win the fight. It is a given a fighter come in shape for a fight -not a bonus. I don't see how that can be an excuse for a world class fighter.
He lost, and the fact is he beat only one legit great in his career, and then he lost easily to that great and then lost to all the next greats he ever fought. So proving the first fight was a fluke was important ,and he didn't prove it. Had he at least beaten Benitez that would have proven something, but he didn't . So the fact is Duran fans have to build up the first Leonard fight because his legacy means a lot by it, but I think he had a guy fighting his fight and he couldn't stop him. That gave Leonard the knowledge, He fights his fight and he can win and Ray did. Duran still would not hurt him. And Ray won easily. And recognize that in the rematch Ray was starting to hit Duran to the head and body. Duran turned his back as Ray was hitting his body.

 

of course it is his own fault. But it was well known about Duran and his partying, Leonard himself admits this.

The third fight means nothing. Duran was way past his best. As meaningless as fenech v nelson 3 or Holmes v weaver 2.

 

To me it is irrelevent. Ray beat him clearly by moving and in the rematch and Benitez outboxed him easily. Duran has one win over a great who fought his fight, and who moved in the rematch and made Duran quit when he started to hit Duran clean. That is significant. We are never going to agree on this. Ray to me proved with his wins over Hearns,Benitez,Hagler that the 2nd Duran fight was not a fluke. Duran did not prove with wins over those guys that the variable in the Duran/Leonard fights was him. Ray did he was the variable on his wins. The wins against the other guys mattered.

 

the third fight means a lot. Here is why. Well put into a question were Fenech/Nelson 3 and Holmes/Weaver title fights or were either champions? It is not comparable. That is not even the same thing. If Duran and Leonard fought in 2005 that would have been the equivalent to those fights.
Duran and Leonard were WBC Middleweight and WBC supermiddleweight champs when they fought in 1989. No comparison to those other fights which were sort of joke fights. No one was laughing when Duran and Leonard fought and many people thought Duran was going to win. Leonard had been knocked down twice with Hearns and should have lost a decision and Duran beat Barkley for his title.

 

well they only fought once when Duran was in shape and that one time Duran won. So the variable could just as easily be his fitness.

 

Ray proved more by beating greater fighters. He showed how great he can be by the quality of his wins, and that shows that he was the variable to me. Not someone who says they didn't train. Willie Fireball Rodriguez or whatever his name was who fought Ray earlier in his career could have used that excuse also. Lalonde also. Who couldn't. No one would buy Lalonde saying that because he is not Duran, yet Duran never had the wins Ray had either. So that is my basis for saying Ray was the variable.
It is the easiest excuse to use to say he was not in shape, and the fact is Ray proved he could win fights against greats with tactics. Had Duran beaten Benitez and Heans I would have said maybe he was the variable. He didn't come close, and he was in shape in that fight with Benitez and a fellow champ to Hearns in mid 1984 FIghting at a weight he fought at for years 154.

 

Was Duran Prime in 89' Mag? Was he even close to prime? Jesus H. Christ. So you count Holmes beating Ali as some signifcant bout? Do you really? For God's sake Duran had already been a pro for two decandes. Why the **** would a loss during that time count the same as a loss in 72 - 80 is beyond me, and imo, is pure stupidity to think so.

 

Well was Ray prime in 1989? Duran had been active the whole decade except for a year and a half after losing to Hearns. Ali was champion when Holmes beat him like Duran was? And how many more times did Ali fight after that? Once to Berbick in the Bahamas? Duran had another 20 or wins after Ray in 1989, and Ray never had another win. Who was the washed fighter and who still won easily?

Well if you think my logic is stupidity that is fine, butwho had another 20 wins and who never won again? the fight in 1989 was significant. Duran was champion at middleweight WBC Ray was champion WBC 168. How is that stupidity to mention this fight? Certainly Duran fans give Duran credit for beating Barkley in Feb. so it is a legitimate argument. Duran was not Ali when he lost to Holmes. The style matchup was still evident and Ray was still the variable. Had Ray decided to fight Duran in 1989 and not box he would have lost like the first fight. That is proof Ray was the variable. How did Duran control the fight styles? He didn't. Ray did and always would have after June of 1980. I am not making up facts. I am very consistent with my comments, which must make people think "Mag is saying the same stuff he has always said". But I do believe Ray was the variable. I don't see how Duran was. If Hagler says he did not train for his fight with Ray in 1987 that means Ray shoulnd't get credit? Not fair to the fighter who won.