PDA

View Full Version : I'm sorry but ray leonard actually won the 1st duran fight..



wpink
04-21-2006, 12:51 AM
Please bear with me, read this then if you do have the dvd..just follow my scoring.....

I had a 10 people over some hoopers some ex boxers...and I just wanted to make sure I was not seeing something...However here it is..

I know the common theme is that ray leoanrd was the boxer and duran the slugger, however leonard did not come into box, therefore you cant give duran points for cutting off the ring as ray never attempted to box except for the 5 & 6th roughts...He was aggressive but after the 4th round every time he came in except for a couple of rounds leonard actually out landed him..Please before you all start blasting me about what you think you remember. please put the dvd in..look at each individual round...stop..play the round again...then score it....Amazing..what you actualy see..now I know that live you get caught up in the drama..and the drama here is that ray was on the ropes...but I tell you this, it was not because duran made him go to the ropes..leonard wanted to go toe to toe...

Here is how 9 out 10 people at my house scored it including me...amazing when you spell out how to score the fight on 10 pt must system...then you stop it ,,, and score it again..Almost everyone of them came over saying duran kicked ray's ass the 1st fight..and I argued argued argued at the gym it was not so...I bet them all $20 a piece if they came over and was fair and logical in their decision about each round that Ray would win i guarantee them that....They came...
Here are the results..

1st round leonard. 2nd round duran (easily) 3rd round duran (easily)
4th round duran (easily) 5th round leonard 6th round leonard
7th round leonard 8th round round leoanrd...(leonard won the 1st 2:30 of that round easily..duran landed a great shot at the 10sec left mark)
9th round duran....10th round duran...11th round very very hard to score..I called it a draw....it was even across the house...
12..leonard...13th duran..easily...14 leonard easily...15 duran didnt even fight...........

Now those of you that have the fight..please remove what you thought..and actually look at the fight...The key is that ray actually won the 1st round with keeping durn in the middle of the ring with his jab...then 2 great combinations off the ropes..duran landed maybe one punch or two that round...

Before I finish I would like to say that what tends to happen is that many people score on aggression only...but you cant do that..if leonard was trying to dance and duran cut him off and made it a war that is one thing, but if both came to fight then it is effective aggression..and shots that land... finally you have always focus on the 1st round,,because many times this round is overlooked by everyone, and it comes back to bite many....

I know I will get many many who say that this is false,,but mark my words if you play the fight and rule out what you think about ray or duran,,and you simply judge the fight itself..you will see my point..

sweet_scientist
04-21-2006, 03:31 AM
Duran landed one or maybe two punches in the first round?

Well here's a punch by punch analysis of the first round:

2:35 Jab to the face by Leonard
2:28 Left hook to the body by Duran
1:33 Left hook to the head by Leonard
1:32 Light left hook to the body by Duran
1:25 Jab to the face by Leonard
1:16 Left hook to the body by Duran
0:46 Left hook to the body by Duran
0:30 Left hook to the body by Duran
0:20 Left hook to the body by Leonard
0:11 Straight right hand by Leonard
0:09 Two light lefts to the body by Duran


Duran actually outlanded him.
I actually scored the first round even (10-10). It was a pretty tame round and if anything I think you could argue that Duran might have edged it.

And just to take you up on the 14th round which you say Leonard took easily, I strongly disagree. Leonard was flurrying more but watch the round again and check out the accuracy of the shots that land. Duran is the one that landed the more accurate, telling shots. Leonard landed some good shots but for the most part was missing widlly.

Anyway, my score for the fight: 144-142 Duran. I gave Duran rounds 2,3,4,9,10,11,13 and 14. I gave Leonard rounds 5,6,7,8,12 and 15. As I said I had round 1 even.

PeteLeo
04-21-2006, 03:54 AM
I saw the fight live (closed circuit live, anyway) with no preconceptions and no biases that I can recall. Duran won. PeteLeo.

Roberto Aqui
04-21-2006, 06:04 AM
I was a big fan of Leonard back then and only knew Duran by reputation. Duran liquified the bowels of Leonard who's sole bright moment was hanging on and making a decent scrap the last few rounds as Duran started to relax.

Leonard was beat up so bad that he told his trainer he wanted to retire and had to be gently coaxed back for the rematch. I really fail to understand the popcorn cult of Leonard that has him walking on water.

Like I stated, a great peak welter with copious talent and toughness, but in his prime he took sustained beatings by Duran and Hearns, so he could be had by other greats. He had very few bouts after that, relying on smoke and mirrors to pad a thin record.

wildhawke11
04-21-2006, 06:18 AM
I - Welcome to the Board.
2 -This is not a Fantasy Fight and the Boss likes us to keep things in order.
3 -Duran won that fight i think anyway ;)

TKO11
04-21-2006, 07:19 AM
I had Duran a clear winner. Had it been a 12 rounder, I would have scored it 9-3 in rounds for Duran. Duran was outlanding, outhustling, outscoring Leonard for the first 12-13 rounds, plus he was dictating the pace and geography of the fight for nearly every second. Leonard was not the man in control, and he was getting hit by much more effective shots. Duran won. And he wasn't even much behind in the rematch when he lost his mind and quit.

wpink
04-21-2006, 07:30 AM
Sweet Scientist...

I can definatly see where you got your score from...as yes I did not give duran the credit for his body punching in the first round..as you can see...but I do not think through out the fight that people gave ray credit for his effective body punching..round one was one in my eyes the ray controlled because that was the only round ini which when duran rushed in leonard caught him with counters and spent off the ropes twice..in fact once landing a very very very nice and hard left hook....Yes duran landed body shots, but one part of the equation is ring generalship and in that round only ray wanted to stay off the ropes (why this round only well 5 & 6th too he boxed somewhat) and he did .....

Round fourteen,,if you give duran credit in round 1 for effective body shots.then go back and look at round 14....wow...duran came in and caught devastating left hook after left hook to the body..I mean leanard was really digging to durans body..but many missed this as rays backs were to the ropes...and leonard landed flurries but in this fight these flurries were thrown with mean intentiions and were solid shots (in this fight),,,he also got the best of a very brutal exchange in the middle of the ring...one in which the announcers said "ray did the no no of left hooking with a left hooker,,but in this case ray got the best'....14round was a easy round for leonard if you go back and look at each minute in a capsule, and realize that ray won when they were in the middle of the ring,,,did land gr8 flurries,,,and yes duran landed some good shots,,but leonard outworked him,,and then the bolo punch which was a solid right uppercut followed by a nice left hook..that shook duran....Easy round for leonard....

I just had to destroy the myth that duran beat up leonard badly...false...No it was one in which leonard fought a legend on the legends terms...and we were not used to seeing leonard in this position on the ropes..but what people dont realize is that in most of ray's big fights...he abandoned the dancing style...ranzanny, benetiz, price, chavarini, hearns after round 4...kalule, so i just get frusterated when 99% of people that really dont know boxing get on sites, and say that duran beat up leoanrd badly, or that he made leoanrd fight his fight (mentally he did), or that leonard fought a style he never fought before...Hmmm what leonard were they watching..I will tell you..what most people do is go off of memory which is selective...when you go back and look at his fights then really dig into this fight,,you will be amazed at how ray regrouped after round 4....sweet scientist..your scoring is what people should look at....it shows how close this fight is, and the difference between us in lookinat round 1 and round 14 is what decided in our minds the fight...Close close close fight...

Ted Spoon
04-21-2006, 08:07 AM
The fight was close, of that there should be no mistake.

Funny you should say Duran won the 13th easily -- that was the most action packed round of the fight, but I gave it to Leonard as he out slugged a tiring Duran nearing the dong of the bell.

The key difference between the two was, generally, Duran was the effective one whereas Leonard was just constantly retaliating to his inside brawls. Throughout the fight Duran made it his own, he was the one forcing Ray into uncomfortable positions, stopping him from flurrying while most of Ray's punches did not seem to have the same effect on his nemesis when he was given space.

Ray made it real close as Duran was either tired or just felt he had done enough in the later rounds, which I believe he had.

hawk5ins
04-21-2006, 08:57 AM
Not as wide as T had it, but comfortable enough where if he lost the last three rounds, whihc on my card he did, Duran still wins the bout.

I did think the bout was close. I thought Ray edged out the 13th in a very fast paced round and I beleive Duran took off the last two rounds. both of whihc he lost as well.

Great, tough bout. One I thought Duran won, but I agree my final tally was close.

Hawk

sweet_scientist
04-21-2006, 09:25 AM
wpink, I agree with you that its a myth that Duran beat Leonard easily. It was a close give and take fight with only a few points in it. I still hold to my opinions on round 1 and 14 though. Leonard did set out to stay off the ropes in round 1 and he did accomplish that, landing a few punches along the way, but really it was a nothing round. A few punches landed by each man in a feeling out stanza of the fight.

Went and watched round 14 again, and I still think Duran landed the better shots, though I do give Leonard credit for landing some hard body rips during that round. By the way the bolo punch missed as the replay clearly showed. But yeah it looked great and the crowd got worked up over it.

wpink
04-21-2006, 09:45 AM
R aqui....Your soooo wrong...i have read other post's and while it is apparent you know boxing,,it appears you let bias affect sound objective judgment..Ray didnt not take sound beating by hearns..he took tough shots, but this is boxing. On one hand people ridicule him for dancing and flurring etc.,,the one the other hand he shows how tough he was in the duran and hearns fights and he gets ridiculed...One thing that most do not know,,Ray leonards eye was already messed up prior to the fight,,he caught an elbow in traiining, and had a lot of damage to that eye..The swelling had went down before the fight. As far as damage, heanrs took the sustained beating,,Look at every action packed round in which they exchanged meaningful shots.and hearns was backed up, and hurt,,,contrary to popular belief that leonard did nothing until the 13th...He backed hearns up in the 3rd,,,exchanged (on the losing end) in the 4th,,then hurt him badly in the 6th and 7th rounds,,hearns ran in the 8th,,then the 9th through 11th hearns used his jab and occasional right hands to keep ray at bay as ray was head hunting,,the 12th was hearns best round,,,,..So again I am not sure where you get your information from, maybe it is from memory, as we all think we remember things that just are not soo. I hope you have the dvd's..Now for duran..yes duran applied tremendous punshishment on ray, but again it is a fight,,,and ray elected to fight a style that would allow for this to happen...I agree that duran was the aggessor, but ray was aggressive too, and after the 4th round,,,it was even steven the rest of the way. I was shocked that duran let off the pedal from the 14th and 15th rounds..as this did allow in my book ray to win..but either way, what actually came of this encounter was a much tougher, mentally and physically ray, one who realized he could count on his on heart.

Finally you (auii) made mention of he in his prime..In ray leonards prime no one but Robinson should be favored to beat him as a welter....No one...Leonard fought on mostly even terms with duran when he fought durans fight..and I dont want to here that duran moved up etc.....all lightweights pretty much end up at jr or welter it is a natural progression as they age...duran was at his physical peak, ray leonard was only 24...duran was much more experienced..you see what happened when ray decided to make duran fight his fight,,,no contest....I really feel that Leonard was soooooo much better than duran, that he would have ko'd duran had the 2nd fight continued...I base this off of what leonard was able to do in the 1st fight rounds 1 5 & 6 when he decided to show duran a little movement and angles....He caught duran repeatedly coming in,,,combinations off the ropes..and this carried over into the 2nd fight..Why ray leonard decided to fight duran on his on terms the 1st fight no one knows..but what we do know clearly is that when ray decided to box duran for 3 rounds in the 1st fight,,8 roounds in the 2nd fight,,and 10 rounds in the 3rd fight..or 12..i forget,,duran had nothing for ray....We know that after the 4th round of the 1st fight even when leonard went toe to toe with duran it was even...You rank mayweather, whitacker, dlh, mosley, all other gr8s based on their efforts at jr and welter too....hmmm duran beat leonard which should help him,,but he also is 1 -5 against ray, hearns, benitez,hagler...out of 73 fights at lightweight only 2 names are very good dejesus,and buchanon...I would have to think that we are too caught up in the duran mystic versus his actuall perfomrances against gr8's... Either way you have to rank ray leonard above duran all time as he beat duran 2 out of 3...moved up with more success than duran...even though he retirmed and had few fights,,those few fighs were of higher quality than most have in a lifetime and he had wins in these fights...which no one since the 70's can claim those type of victories on their resume..finally duran got beat by ray 2 out of 3..got ko'd by heanrs who ray tko,,lost to benitiz, who ray tko'd..lost a close fight to hagler,,who ray came out of retirment to beat ....hmmm

wpink
04-21-2006, 10:04 AM
R aqui....Your soooo wrong...i have read other post's and while it is apparent you know boxing,,it appears you let bias affect sound objective judgment..Ray didnt not take sound beating by hearns..he took tough shots, but this is boxing. On one hand people ridicule him for dancing and flurring etc.,,the one the other hand he shows how tough he was in the duran and hearns fights and he gets ridiculed...One thing that most do not know,,Ray leonards eye was already messed up prior to the fight,,he caught an elbow in traiining, and had a lot of damage to that eye..The swelling had went down before the fight. As far as damage, heanrs took the sustained beating,,Look at every action packed round in which they exchanged meaningful shots.and hearns was backed up, and hurt,,,contrary to popular belief that leonard did nothing until the 13th...He backed hearns up in the 3rd,,,exchanged (on the losing end) in the 4th,,then hurt him badly in the 6th and 7th rounds,,hearns ran in the 8th,,then the 9th through 11th hearns used his jab and occasional right hands to keep ray at bay as ray was head hunting,,the 12th was hearns best round,,,,..So again I am not sure where you get your information from, maybe it is from memory, as we all think we remember things that just are not soo. I hope you have the dvd's..Now for duran..yes duran applied tremendous punshishment on ray, but again it is a fight,,,and ray elected to fight a style that would allow for this to happen...I agree that duran was the aggessor, but ray was aggressive too, and after the 4th round,,,it was even steven the rest of the way. I was shocked that duran let off the pedal from the 14th and 15th rounds..as this did allow in my book ray to win..but either way, what actually came of this encounter was a much tougher, mentally and physically ray, one who realized he could count on his on heart.

Finally you (auii) made mention of he in his prime..In ray leonards prime no one but Robinson should be favored to beat him as a welter....No one...Leonard fought on mostly even terms with duran when he fought durans fight..and I dont want to here that duran moved up etc.....all lightweights pretty much end up at jr or welter it is a natural progression as they age...duran was at his physical peak, ray leonard was only 24...duran was much more experienced..you see what happened when ray decided to make duran fight his fight,,,no contest....I really feel that Leonard was soooooo much better than duran, that he would have ko'd duran had the 2nd fight continued...I base this off of what leonard was able to do in the 1st fight rounds 1 5 & 6 when he decided to show duran a little movement and angles....He caught duran repeatedly coming in,,,combinations off the ropes..and this carried over into the 2nd fight..Why ray leonard decided to fight duran on his on terms the 1st fight no one knows..but what we do know clearly is that when ray decided to box duran for 3 rounds in the 1st fight,,8 roounds in the 2nd fight,,and 10 rounds in the 3rd fight..or 12..i forget,,duran had nothing for ray....We know that after the 4th round of the 1st fight even when leonard went toe to toe with duran it was even...You rank mayweather, whitacker, dlh, mosley, all other gr8s based on their efforts at jr and welter too....hmmm duran beat leonard which should help him,,but he also is 1 -5 against ray, hearns, benitez,hagler...out of 73 fights at lightweight only 2 names are very good dejesus,and buchanon...I would have to think that we are too caught up in the duran mystic versus his actuall perfomrances against gr8's... Either way you have to rank ray leonard above duran all time as he beat duran 2 out of 3...moved up with more success than duran...even though he retirmed and had few fights,,those few fighs were of higher quality than most have in a lifetime and he had wins in these fights...which no one since the 70's can claim those type of victories on their resume..finally duran got beat by ray 2 out of 3..got ko'd by heanrs who ray tko,,lost to benitiz, who ray tko'd..lost a close fight to hagler,,who ray came out of retirment to beat ....hmmm

Roberto Aqui
04-21-2006, 10:45 AM
R aqui....Your soooo wrong...i have read other post's and while it is apparent you know boxing,,it appears you let bias affect sound objective judgment..Ray didnt not take sound beating by hearns..he took tough shots, but this is boxing.

Look, I know what my biases are and I try to adjust to compensate. Ray took some solid punishment against Hearns and Duran, and that was pretty much the end of his regular career. Those are facts and it doesn't matter that you think he beat Duran in the 1st fight or that he pulled out a TKO over Hearns in their 1st match.

You're the one doing the spinning here. You claim that no welt save Robby could possibly beat him in his prime, yet a lightweight nearing the end of his own prime with over 70 fights worth of wear and tear moved up 2 divisions and beat him up, bad enough that Ray publically stated that he had told his manager he was retiring. Now we know retirement turned out to be a cruel joke he used to manipulate the rest of his career, but facts is facts, and facts are also that had not he gotten the late TKO on Hearns, Ray was going to lose another fight.

In short, Ray is beatable by other great welters, but sure, he'd beat his fair share of other greats. That 1st version of Duran was just too mean, skilled, quick, and hungry for any version of Ray. I fully believe Hearns would have knocked him out in the rematch. That was a huge payday he turned down, just like that was a huge payday for the Hagler rematch, guaranteed to be the biggest paydays of his career. These guys fight for money, so obviously something else was going on since he chose to fight chump change bouts instead.

BTW, my observations on the 1st Duran and Hearns fights have not changed from the first time I saw them, and guess what? I was as big a Ray fan as anyone, so, where's the bias?

His other touted prime bout was against Benitez in a fight that was stopped with only seconds left by a BS ref. Benitez had held him close every round in a difficult to score bout until the late KD and wasn't hurt in the least. Benitez at least deserved to finish on his feet, but I was young and later on discovered the concept of the house fighter and other assorted tricks of the boxing biz that Ray benefited from.

I've made my Ray adjustment. I just here to influence you in your bias. Plenty of welters had plenty of his natural talent, many had superior records. NONE had his big money promotional backing and career leverage. A fine fighter, yes, but just not invincible as his short career proves.

kikibalt
04-21-2006, 10:57 AM
Duran won the first fight with Leonard with out a doubt

Frank B.

hawk5ins
04-21-2006, 11:18 AM
I agree with alot of what you are saying here about SRL. Not all of it, but a great majority of it.

And your pointing out biases of others seems to be spot on as well.

But don't you think that you yourself might be guilty of the same biases that you are accusing others of?

To state that you can not rank Duran over Leonard pound for pound (as I currently do) becuase Duran went 1-5 with SRL, Hearns, Hagler and Benitez kind of glosses over many factors don't you think? Such as weight and prime?

My final scorecard of Duran Leonard I had Roberto winning by 2 points. To say NO WAY Leonard won based on my card having Roberto only by 2 points would be ridiculous. But to argue vehemently that Ray won, to me is just as silly.

I rank Ray very highly on my LB list. I too would make Ray the favorite over any other welter other than SRR. But I certainly would not say he's heads and shoulders superior to a Napoles, Griffith, Walker, Armstrong, Rodriguez or Basilio.

Sugar Ray Leonard was an ALL TIME Great fighter. But you can't dismiss everyone's negative or differeing opinion of the man as strict bias when you yourself are demonstrating clear examples of Bias as well.

Just my opinoion. I could be wrong.

Hawk

wpink
04-21-2006, 12:28 PM
Aqui, your way off...I mean way off. Ray beat his fair share...Hmmm you name one other fighter since 1970 that beat the # of top fighter ray did. I think that you may get confused by a fightr like chavez that pads his resume with fighters with 10-10 records while he is a champ, of has rematches with fighters that had a record of 6-3 then the rematch they are 6-4..(these are facts by the way)...No you did not have that with ray...from 79 on,,,almost everytime he stepped in ring it was against legends..or fighters bigger than him...and he won..up until norris...Now you say things that you have no basis for...lets take for instance Benitiz,,was very close...What fight was you looking at...Benitiz did some decent work after the headbut, but the only thing that made the fight close was his great ability to slip punches....Ray clearly beat benitiz,,dropping him twice...Now for duran..you refuse to acknowledge that boxing if about styles...and ray simply abandoned his gr8 boxing ability against duran whom you have a different set of rules for.. First i will address ray & duran...Duran clearly won 3 -4 rounds in that fight,,2-4 easily then 9 & 10 I give but it was back and forth...To claim that duran brutalized ray or whatever your trying to say is about as far from the truth as the KKK supported martin luther king....the announcers had it a draw..The judges had it a majority decison for duran by 1 round... and most on here had it close...Everyone acknowledged duran was either up 3-1 or 4 -0 going into the 5th round...That should tell you that after the 4th leoanard regrouped and brought it to Duran on favorable or even terms at worst..However just llike hagler did,,,losing the 1st 4 rounds was too much of a hole....

As for Duran beinga lightweigh near the end..Hmm he was 29...physically at his best...and it showed....he just destroyed palamino..and to say that duran should be given extra kudos for moving up to welter when mosley, dlh, sweat pea, etc..all do it..I am lost here....Also then give ray leonard credit for the "lacking career" as you call it - for moving up which he did quit successfullly after the hearns fight...Hmmm didn't he beat a legend after being off 5 yrs..whatever you want to say,,,,ray has a w...against hagler whom duran, nor heanrs has...Leonard beat duran twice easily...in fact duran quit..and we call him mano...and duran ko ko'd during his prime and while he was active...to a guy that ray tko'd...ray tko'd a lightheavy donny lalond..Now i agree that it was some bull about donny having to come down to 168 but the fact is he is much bigger man and ray tko'd him.....

Finally, heanrs ko ray..based off of what...What did you see in the 1st fight that showed that hearns could hurt ray...Hmmm let me know. What i saw and the rest of the world saw, was every time they had a meaningful exchange ray hurt tommy, broke his ribs, his spirit, had him out in the 6th, and 7th,,,should have finished him..tommy then btched up,,and ran until the 11th using his jab...had a very good 12th..then ray destroyed him and dropped him twice in the 13th and stopped him in the 14th...You try to have people believe that tommy was kicking rys ass...what round did tommy have ray in trouble? How many times did tommy appear to be on the verge...and was this only in the 13th as many say that tommy was winng the entir fight..The only reason that tommy was winning by such a big lead on the cards was that the 6th 7th and 13th rounds were scored 10-9....Dundee argued successfully after that fight about how fights should be scored thus you do now have more 10-8 rounds.....

Help me understand your logic Aqui....Your very very biased against ray and it shows by you saying hearns would have ko'd leoanard..based on what..Had ray ever been seriously hurt n a fight at welter, or dropped...and when they went head to head what happened....

Sharkey
04-21-2006, 12:56 PM
I think Duran not only won the first fight, but was very comfortably ahead until the last few rounds.

It was competitive, but Duran to me controlled the action in the majority of the rounds, landed better shots, and his shots did more damage in more rounds.

And I am not sorry for thinking this.

I also think Duran was better than Ray p4p against each other and would have defeated him best v best in those silly 'if they were the same weight' thingys. I do not however base rating Duran ahead of Leonard solely or even heavily on that belief.

I also believe that the Ray Leonard from the first Duran bout loses to Griffith and Basilio had they been in the opposite corner. Leonard may indeed have been better than either, and likely to fare better against more varied foes than either Duran, Griffith or Basilio at welter...but he had few fights and as a result, tackled some unfamiliarity in Duran in fight one I think. I also believe the Duran from that fight one against Leonard loses to Basilio and Griffith for example had they been the guy he was trying to win the title from.

If his win in fight two and the Hearns win are him at his best...it is difficult for me to see how those translate to defeating Griffith or Basilio..or ranking above him. With SRL there is both an acceptance of his greatness and a leap of faith that his foes were as good as they have been made out to be in the era when a Superfight was between more favorably protected and less tested fighters than in yesteryear. It is hard to have it both ways. I won't argue that SRL is not a top 5 or higher welter on some people's lists. I think however he compares well to other champions in his class due to his rather limited fight schedule and the acceptance that the Superfights really were super. I don't deny Benitez and Hearns reside comfortably as legit greats. Don't misuderstand me.



I also do not accept that Ray's win in fight two proved who was actually better..as if the first fight was an aberration. I do believe he learned from fight one, and conversely Duran took fight two as fight one redux.

wpink
04-21-2006, 03:58 PM
i can not argue with your logic, but I do disagree. I look at the only footage of ray robinson, and he had troubles with a less agressive (not less fighter) but less aggressive lamotta...and basillio...now I saw other footage of basillio and wow when he wanted to bring it dammmm....But Ray leonard did nt have any trouble duran when he boxed him....he only had trouble when he allowed him to get pinned on the ropes....And the word allowed is the controlling factor here. Whenever ray wanted to land counters and move off the ropes in either the 1st or 2nd fights he was successful, he just didnt try often in the 1st fight....Now one major weakness in rays arsenal that duran exploited and so did hagler and hearns,,,was that ray took str8 right hands far too often...in the duran fight duran would simply lead with a str8 right early on,,and this stunned ray....However with that being said, he took durans, hagler, and hearns best shots and never went down or was seriously hurt until he was clearly past his prime and retired for 5 + years....

IMO, if duran and leoanrd fought 10 times...leonard wins 8 of them and I am struggling to give duran the 2nd one...there just is no way that he beats ray when ray boxes him....no way..

GorDoom
04-21-2006, 04:23 PM
Can't remember if I've welcomed you to the board, so welcome to the board, Pink! Interesting subject. I'm going to have to look at the fight again because it's been quite a few years ... But, I've always felt that Duran won a closer than most think, fight.

Though after reading your commentary I'll be watching the fight with new eyes so who knows? Maybe I will change what's left of my mind.

One point that you made that I totally agree with is that just because a fighter is moving forward doesn't by any means automatically mean that he's winning the fight. & today's judging seems to be primarily based on that.

By today's standards, Ali, Willie Pastrano, Ralph Dupas & Luis Rodriguez would never win a fight! Hell I can remember more than once seeing Rodriguez knock somebody cold while moving backwards. Ali, Rodriguez & Leonard inflicted a lot of damage while in retreat.

GorDoom

hawk5ins
04-21-2006, 04:24 PM
A Prime Duran facing SRL in a Pound for pound scenario. Was THAT the best Duran Ray ever faced? The absolute best?

Agian, your bias seems to be clouding you ever bit as much as Roberto's (aqui) is couding his.

Hawk

JLP 6
04-21-2006, 05:13 PM
This is a post I made at boxingtalk.com. My old block. This score is from the last time I watched the bout.

Leonard-Duran
1. 10-9
2. 9-10
3. 9-10
4. 9-10
5. 10-9
6, 10-9
7. 10-9
8. 9-10
9. 9-10
10. 10-9
11. 10-9
12. 9-10
13. 9-10
14. 10-9
15. 10-9

144-143 Leonard.

Some of the rounds that I normally give to Duran, I felt like I forced to Duran. This time I didn't cheat Leonard because I'm a Duran fan. The 13th was the round were Duran got of to a good start, but Leonard rallies big at the end. I usually give that round to Leonard but Duran dominated so much of the begining of that round that I scored it correctly this time.

Round 14 is the round I usually give Duran, because for some reason I thought he was dominating the round up untill the bolo punch. But I saw that It was Leonard doing most of the punching and landing and on top of that he landed the bolo and two other good punches after that. So I corrected this round too.

Duran loses in Montreal. That last round killed him. He should have fired away. Leonard landed the harder body shots as well and I think towards the end of the bout you started to see the effect more on Duran than on Leonard.

I hate myself for this score, but Leonard earned it. No even rounds. Leonard derseved the nod as much as Duran did.

wpink
04-21-2006, 05:36 PM
Each time I have watched the fight with others that thought duran won..they have came back and said at a minimum that it was not the fight that they had remembered. I think that what causes so much confusion with a Leonard is because he is flamboyant and yes he initial perception is reality. We initially saw ray leonard as a dancing, flurrying, media darling who did not have the hard knock way of like a normal boxer does. He was nice looking articulent, not really a braggart (at first) not marvin haglarish..So we developed this perception of him as soft.....However, if you look at his fights all the way up,,You will see a fighter that while he may not look like a duran, or stylistically may not roar into a fighter and slam them against the ropes..what you have in ray leoanrd is a killer. He actually fought much much better when hit, than before. I like duran what he brought to boxing, loved hearns what he brought to boxing,,,hagler ws the man, roy jones had unbelievable reflexes and skills, mayweather is almost the total package, much better defense than ray...... But what separates ray leonard is that he dug down against every type of fighter and came out with enough to win, and even ko great fighters....Ray had great speed, ko power, jaw, heart, boxing ability, slugging ability, sense of the dramatic, balance, flair, ring smarts, etc..i could go on..he did not have a great defense,,he got hit with shots that he shouldnt have, but his jaw and his heart camaflouged this....his relfexes and ability to roll with the punches allowed him to stay in their with anyone and take and give....and you do not see any boxers....do this....dlh couldnt,,,he tried but didn't dare against tito, got stopped by hopkins,, was too robotic for mosly..Mosley couldnt summon up the heart for forrest, and against winky he searched for answeres but couldnt find them....roy jones was a front runner like tyson,,when everything is going his way,,he looked like the greatest boxer every, but when someone shows up and challenges him personally and can provide some artillery to back it up..you see what happened.....

I will not put ray leoanrd on robinson pedastal because of 2 things...longevity fiighting and beating top fighters...and robinson's right hand I think would exploit ray leonard knack for catching rights...but other than that there is not anyone at welter in the history that you can say that ray leoanrd would not have the upper hand at beating....He was just that good. As i started off saying you thought he was simply and dancing micheal nunn, but if you follow him through chavarini, price, geraldo, mayweather, benetiz, hagler, duran, hearns,,kalule, you see that he had substance and the total package no matter if it was against a good fight, a great fighter, if he was losing, winning, etc..he had it....Some refuse to admit it, even when they hate on him for losing to duran (fighting durans way and still winning in my view) then he is smart against hagler and he gets hated on...Some want to say ray got all types of concessions...but never bring up that he had a detached retina and was out of boxing for his most physically effective 5 years..and still pulled off the greatest upset of all time possibley..No some will not address that because they can believe that boxing is the art of winning the fight, not getting beat up and beating up til one ofyou cant talk by the age of 35..ask tommy hearns, ali, meldrick taylor....they took punishment to satisfy people..now look at them...No ray leoanard will not get some to give him his just due even thought he has more victories agaisnt top fighters that I know of ,,especially since the 70's and how can peopel continue to say well it is because of this or that..that truth is ray leonard could damm well fight any style and win, and he proved it time an time again.....

GorDoom
04-21-2006, 05:47 PM
Well I must not be "some people" because I rank Leonard as the best fighter of the last 1/4 of a century & the best fighter I've seen since Eder Jofre in the late '50's early to mid-60's.

GorDoom

wpink
04-21-2006, 06:02 PM
No your not some people. I agree strongly with your post....I also respect opinions..I do not look for yes people, but some post are just biased and full of false statements.

HE Grant
04-21-2006, 06:09 PM
The fight was extremely competitive and close. Duran had a tremendous edge in experience. Leonard let his ego influence his better judgement, fought Duran's fight and still was still extremely competitive. It easily could have been a draw.

Roberto Duran and Thomas Hearns were two all time great welterweights. The fact that Leonard fought Duran so young and came back as he did and beat the exceptionally tough Hearns prove he was one of the two or three best ever at the weight.

thumper3852
04-21-2006, 06:57 PM
And the word allowed is the controlling factor here.

That's the real myth about this fight...Ray didn't allow Duran anything...Duran didn't give him a choice.....The whole scenario about Ray's ego or choosing to brawl w Duran completely ignores Duran's tremendous abilities as a boxer as well as a puncher...the guy was a master feinter, had a very good left jab and a beautiful knack for throwing effective punches at the whole target...he just plain dictated the fight...Leonard didn't "allow" anything.

As for 10-8 rounds in the absence of a knockdown...maybe round 2 in Montreal should be a 10-8 round....Leonard got his bell rung and after that needed all his skills, which were certainly plentiful, to make a fight out of it, my hat's off to him for that.....but Duran won that fight, and in my mind did so convincingly.

Another poster pointed out that the second fight was actually close in points when Duran quit (to avoid shitting his boxing shorts).

It's damn hard to say only Robinson could rank with Leonard at welter when Duran beat him at his peak........

HE Grant
04-21-2006, 07:41 PM
Please...Duran could not stop Edwin Viruet from boxing...you actually tell me that he stopped the much bigger, faster harder hitting and more talented Leonard ? Show me where in the fight this happened...point out the times where Leonard attempted to jab and move but "could not" because Duran "would not" allow him. You cannot because it did not happen. Leonard fought Duran's fight and almost won. He learned and fought a completely different fight the next time out, which was also competitive as well until Duran blew a fuse.

TKO11
04-21-2006, 10:20 PM
Which proves a point though HE - fight 2 WAS competitive. Duran came in suffering terribly from dehydration, followed by gorging (after making the weight), was in clearly far worse condition than he had been for fight 1, he was clearly very soft and barely looked like the same man. Yet he was only a point or two behind when he quit. Against a running-like-hell, boxing as hard as he can Leonard, a brutally out-of-shape Duran was still right there.

I look at it this way - Duran clearly won fight 1, but it was relatively close. Leonard was clearly winning fight 2, but it was relatively close. In fight 1 Leonard fought Duran's fight and in fight 2 Duran was in woeful condition.

ANY conclusions can be drawn from these circumstances. IMO, it's a 50/50 proposition between these two, best on best, at 147. Anyone who says either man wins 8-9 of 10 from the other, well, they are not seeing things objectively at all, IMO.

robertk
04-22-2006, 02:39 AM
One thing is for sure though====how would history look at Leonard if Duran choose not to give him an immediate rematch? Or, if the Duran camp insisted on the bout transpiring in Panama and make Leonard be a road warrior to win back the title?

HE Grant
04-22-2006, 07:52 AM
Fight two was definately competitive...Duran was an exceptional fighter...'d like to expose what I feel was another myth, that Duran was not in shape for the second fight. I think that's overated and bull as well.

Duran was in shape for the fight. He made the weight and had the same tone and coloring he had for the first. He had always played around in training camp. He was never a monk. He quit in that fight because of some loose screw in his head. All this stuff about him being competitve despite terrible condition his ridiculous. He was competitive because he was in very good shape. He simply lost it when Leonard began to toy with him a bit and make a terrible decision he regretted forever.

If Duran was in such bad shape he would have been destroyed.

hawk5ins
04-22-2006, 07:59 AM
been an immediate rematch.

Course he got fired for that insistance as well.

Hawk

GanchoIzquierdo
04-22-2006, 10:19 AM
"Duran was in shape for the fight. He made the weight and had the same tone and coloring he had for the first."

Come on, HE. He was NOT in the same shape as the first fight. That was obvious just by looking at him. Cosell even mentioned it.

And everyone knows that making the weight alone means very little. Bobby Chacon made weight for the second Olivares fight, too.

wpink
04-22-2006, 10:21 AM
excuses excuses excuses.....why is it that every victory ray has,,there are haters with excuses.....First off duran deserves all the credit in the world for the 1st fight..he moved up beat palimino...came in and backed up what he claimed that he would bring it to ray....No doubt..However, there were two people 'fighting' that nite..and I mean fighting...whoever claimed round 2 should be a 10-8 round..are you on crack......duran caught ray with a gr8 left hook ray knees buckled..for a split sec...that is it..he was clear, not hurt just stunned as you can clearlky see that he saw the remaining punches coming his way and avoided them and tied duran up....Please...

As for duran not being in shape for the 2nd fight..that is the weakest line of garbage ever...he was in tip top shape...he use to have to go from partying...like he always did and like so many other fighters doo, and get down to 135, to now he had to get down to 147.....he was not dehydrated and he did not have cramps...that is bogus excuses for duran simply quitting..you all want to talk bad about ray...dammm duran flat out quit in the ring and could not even come up with a good reason...I have watched to tape hundreds of times,,no one indicated of any problem at all in his corner, not one sign of duran wincing in paid at all from cramps during the fight...and if you know about cramps how it impacts you you dont wait for 5 hours to go to the hospital for cramps...this was a ploy to regain some credibility after he realized what a pssy he had been simply because he was getting humiliated....This easy fight should have been foreseen as for real the 1st fight after round 4 ray had duran figured out in 2 ways...if you look at rounds 5 6 & 7 he clearly and easlily dominated or lets say out boxed duran in the center of the ring so much that duran became frusterated there, and started mocking ray...Ray leonard himself decided to go back to toe to toe at the end of round 7 then the rest of the fight...ray never employed the jab,,duran didnt disarm ray of the jab or nothing,,,on thing duran did to get inside was pump 2 -3 -4 little jabs in a row then followed by a lung or a str8 right...this if you box know this is easy to avoid, you simply thrw your jab and dip to the right,,,,,in ray leonards case he had the best foot speed in the businiess he simply could have moved side to side to avoid this, or countered and spint off the ropes like he did in round 1,,and in the 2nd fight...For those that think that duran made ray fight his fight the 1st time your drinking...ray clearly was motivated to fight this style simply to show the world what he could do toe to toe....then he showed how easily he could outbox duran if he wanted too...No way in hell duran belongs in the same class with ray...He was a great fighter but you all are giving duran a lot more credit than he deserves.....name the great fighters in his 73 victories at lightweight that he beat..dejesus was good not gr8...buchanon was very good not gr8......So the only victory on his resume that is equal to what ray has acccomplished is his victory over ray leonard himself...and this was simply because ray elected to fight his style...he got his ass handed to him the next 5 fights he had against legends....1-5 versus ray, hagler, benitex, hearns and a one way ticket to nite nite vill by hearns...Come on. people judge duran the same way you judge chavez, dlh, leonard, sweet pea, and you will not place duran up there with robinson, leonard, ali, pepp etc....He is a great fighter though no doubt..but ray beat duran, hearns, hagler , benetiz...if you want to count victoris like dejesus, buchanon, and moore and barkely, then i will throw in price, kalule , lalonde as peopel forget price beat palimino and cuevas and was thought to really be a gr8 fight for ray until ray ko'd him in the 1st round...finally ray never got stopped until 40 and several retirmeents...hmmm duran went to sleep early on...buy a fighter that in ray peak he tko'd and even after retirment went the distance and got a wrongful draw...he deserved a l in that fight...

wpink
04-22-2006, 10:27 AM
Actually even though chavez had a resume full of fighters with records of 6-4 that he rematched (fact) and fighter with a record of 10-10 while he was the champion (fact),,,,you would have to rank him higher than duran based on he beat better fighters than duran did except for durans one victory over leonard..which again was simply due to ray leonard electing to go toe to toe....Lets be objective here..Chavez is not a top 10 fighter of all time, based on his performances against taylor, sweat pea and randall, but he beat fighters in his career at lightwight that duran didnt..and you cant tell me that mayweather at lightweight, or sweat pea at lightweight, dlh at lightweight is not at the very least a intriguing dream match for duran...he is truly over rated....gr8 fighter but not up there with leonard....

wildhawke11
04-22-2006, 11:10 AM
wpink
You say "No way in hell duran belongs in the same class with ray"

That about sums up your whole attitude to your beloved Ray Leonard and explains just why you wont accept what most of the other cyberzone posters are trying to tell you. At the moment i make it your about 7 to 3 down on your views on Leonard beating Duran in their first fight.

Also a little advice if i may, dont start a thread with *I'm sorry but ray leonard actually won the 1st duran fight* If you really want people to side with you. The secret is to get an audience on your side not start off by getting their backs up. A better subject line might have been *A fresh look at the first Leonard v Duran fight* That way at least you would have been in with a chance of getting some support from the Duran lovers on here. But as i see it you blew your chance in winning this one right from the very start. Perhaps you might stand a better chance of getting others to share your point of view if you visited a Ray Leonard fan club site ;)

starlingstomp
04-22-2006, 11:20 AM
Pink, are you sure you think Duran was great?.It certainly doesn't seem like it.

In fact reading your post, i wonder why you would think Leonard beating Duran in the rematch was an accomplishment at all.

After all this is a man that only beat two or three good fighters in his first decade as a pro and lost to almost every legend he faced.A truly overrated fighter.

wpink
04-22-2006, 12:39 PM
to the gentleman giving me advice on how to get agreement..I am stating my case and my opinion...not trying to sway anyone...Well correction and trying to sway people to look at the fight again...then summize...if you read the post ..i believe ray won the 1st fight..but i have no problem with those the honestly have reviewed the fight and came back and say duran won...Most have said either it was duran very close decsion..draw or ray..it has been about even once you outline to people that most have simply thought duran won because of the style of the fight...and that is wrong..That has been my argument,

Now as far a ray leonard being better than duran....Well I am big on quality of opposition that you beat...I also use to box amateur and i understand what amatuer fighting is ..it is simply a great training grown for those that do not need the income immediatley to learn their trade, or learn it while they are very young..this prevents fighters like ray, mayweather, rjj etc...from having the 100 fights under their belt like a chavez and duran because many of their fights were as amateaur..but the key point here is that to be great,,,it is what you do when your at the top agaisnt top fighters....I don't believe that you have to have 100 fights..now if you have that many fights and you consistently beat the other great fighters then you have more ammunition for your case...A la Sugar Ray robinson....But duran and chavez are great fighters no doubt...but I ask you did they beat the top fighters..I say no..Duran did beat ray leonard ONCE in a very very close decision that could have went either way...a majority decision at that by one point, and it was a fight again that ray leonard flat out through his greatest tool out the window...boxing...So you have to consider this when you compare the two..You can say that head to head when they went toe to toe duran won once..and leonard boxed his ears off twice.... Now if you look flat out objectively...who else great did duran beat? Now who else great did ray leonard beat? Stop saying duran moved up and this should not count againt him, because you discredit dlh for losses when he moved up, your still holding back opinion on mayweather after he has moved up 4 weight classes..so you have to rate duran off of what he did at welter and jr middle too....which is 1-5 versus the greats......Those are the facts...So what if mayweather was 1-5 versus greats but was dominant at 130...or ray leonard only beat duran and hearsn,,never moved up and beat kalule hagler, lalond..etc....Sweat pea..etc.... So be honest now I laid the facts...duran beat buchanon, dejesus, nd leonard...once out of 3 fights...Hell mosly was dominant at lightweight..but we quickly dropped him out of contention when he lost to 2 fightsr much bigger than him.....So duran is great but top 10 all time,,,no. He deserves to be rankes behind leonard, before hearns, hagler and benitiz..

GorDoom
04-22-2006, 12:59 PM
Pink:

A suggestion for you & other posters. When you write long blocks of text without a lot of paragraph breaks it's hard to read on a screen. You've made some excellent points but it's been my experience in 11 years of the CBZ that people tend to skip over long blocks of text on a screen.

The points you make will be more effective & readable if you do this.

regards,

GorDoom

Roberto Aqui
04-22-2006, 01:39 PM
.So duran is great but top 10 all time,,,no. He deserves to be rankes behind leonard, before hearns, hagler and benitiz..

Utterly goofy. Duran is clearly the greater fighter of all listed above. He did not suffer any significant losses until the time he could no longer comfortably fit into a division 3x higher than he started with and by then he was 72-1, 13-0 in title fights having beat the hell out of every man who stepped in the ring with him.

Leonard was completely shot by 38 fights and running on fumes from about 30fights on and only won 10 title fights in his entire career. As a reference point, Salvador Sanchez had compiled a better career record by age 23 with a perfect 10-0 record in title matches than Leonard in his entire career.

Like Leonard was always the house fighter, you seem to be his house poster. You absolutely have no clue how ridiculous you make Leonard appear when you attempt to drag down Duran and Chavez, fighters who were well ring worn by the time they started to derail.

Jack Dempsey once stated that every fighter has a weakness that could be exploited, and of course he included himself in that assessment. I suggest you open your eyes to Leonard's flaws because your completely out of whack focusing on the imagined flaws of other fighters to weakly prop up your idol.

Leonard stands just fine on the body of his work without his rah, rah, go Sugar Ray, go cheerleaders mooning the historical record.

JeffR
04-22-2006, 02:25 PM
".... a majority decision at that by one point"

It was originally announced as a majority decision, but the cards were checked and it was discovered that all three judges scored the fight for Duran. A one-point margin on two cards and a two-point margin on the third.

Leonard's Cheerleader-in-Chief Howard Cosell grudgingly conceded that Duran won that fight. That should be enough right there.

hawk5ins
04-22-2006, 02:46 PM
a fight has ever seen.

6-4-5
6-5-4 and
3-2-10! TEN ROUNDS EVEN!!!

19 flipping even rounds among three judges?

Pathetic.

Pink. Sorry my friend, I merely thought you were simply biased. NEARLY as biased as Aqui was.

Now I see you are clearly on par with him. You both put blinders on when it suits your arguments.

And the obviousness of BOTH of your blindnesses(es?) is destroying each of your credibilities.

Time to move the dial on down the radio if you ask me....

Hawk

wpink
04-22-2006, 04:09 PM
Hawkins i am not following you...those were the announced scores...of the 1st fight. Duran won by majority decision..i never argued that, I said in my opinion i had ray by 8 6 1.....but the my main point was to put to rest the theory that duran whipped ray in the 1st fight..He did not. It was close no matter how you look at it. I did here that the scorecards were changes later but I never saw that this a fact, so i can state that.

Aqui, man are you drinking. Your post repeatedly get worse and worse. You state that ray leonard was running on fumes by his 30th fight, and that he had only 10 title fights....So I guess the detached retina and him being retired for 5 years has not relevance huh....I don't care that some people dont like him or that people think duran beat him, but to read post like that is simply insane. 3 pts that should shut you up...

1. In Ray leonards 10 title fights...he beat better quality fighters than duran, chavez, sanchez (who i think would have been an all time great had he not died). Just because you have a bunch at wins doesnt mean your the best. What did chavez do every time he ventured north of the border ...hmmm taylor..beat his ass and got robbed by the worst stoppage ever...Sweat pea clearly handed chavez his ass in the ring and again a robbery,,,then randall finally put the beating on him that was backed by the judges...Can you do list chavez title fights cuz i have them...hmmm tell me another champion who fought a title fight against a fighter with a 10-10 record or rematched a fighter with a 6-3 record then immediated rematch with him at a 6-4 record...So does quality mean anything to you......

2.

wpink
04-22-2006, 04:21 PM
Hawkins i am not following you...those were the announced scores...of the 1st fight. Duran won by majority decision..i never argued that, I said in my opinion i had ray by 8 6 1.....but the my main point was to put to rest the theory that duran whipped ray in the 1st fight..He did not. It was close no matter how you look at it. I did here that the scorecards were changes later but I never saw that this a fact, so i can state that.

Aqui, man are you drinking. Your post repeatedly get worse and worse. You state that ray leonard was running on fumes by his 30th fight, and that he had only 10 title fights....So I guess the detached retina and him being retired for 5 years has not relevance huh....I don't care that some people dont like him or that people think duran beat him, but to read post like that is simply insane. 3 pts that should shut you up...

1. In Ray leonards 10 title fights...he beat better quality fighters than duran, chavez, sanchez (who i think would have been an all time great had he not died). Just because you have a bunch at wins doesnt mean your the best. What did chavez do every time he ventured north of the border ...hmmm taylor..beat his ass and got robbed by the worst stoppage ever...Sweat pea clearly handed chavez his ass in the ring and again a robbery,,,then randall finally put the beating on him that was backed by the judges...Can you do list chavez title fights cuz i have them...hmmm tell me another champion who fought a title fight against a fighter with a 10-10 record or rematched a fighter with a 6-3 record then immediated rematch with him at a 6-4 record...So does quality mean anything to you......

2. You all give people like roy jones, and mayweather hell for stepping in the ring with bumz..but ray leonard only stepped in the ring with greats,,,,and you want to discredit him for that....hmmmm

3. Ray leoanrd while active beat 3 all time greats....and beat other champions...need i quote the record of the fighters he fought from 79-82...hmmmm but then he retires due to detached retina,,,a injury that is very very serious,,ask sugar ray seales..Grebb..etc.. a injury that other fighters have not been able to rebound from...But aqui, why dont you address this...Ray leonard came back from retirment 1 fight in five years..and beat hagler who was 2 weight classes higher and active and just ko'd mugabi, hadnt lost in 10 yrs...hmmm but i guess you will find a way to discredit this;. Aqui this has never been done before.. Fighters who are active cant do it..tito, dlh both were stopped by hopkins who is not a hagler...This is an all time feat...You state duran was on the down slide of a great career..not when he fought leonard..And if so then what about ray who was retired does he get the same benefit of the doubt from you..You say he was washed up after 30 fights..but you give duran the denefit of the doubt....

Finally, you mention duran 13 title fights..I ask you who did he beat....and does quality of oppostion mean anything.

Quality of opposition is the most important thing,,if not then you would say hopkins is the greates middleweight ever..but when you look at who he beat...wow different story.. No duran is a great but based on quality of oppositon he and chavez lack what ali, leonard, robinson, louis, have....Based on your theory, Marciano is the greatest fighter to ever live. Not!!!!!

Aqui I think your very very intelligent - I am not targeting you. I only want you to be fair and apply the same review to all fighters..If you do, then duran is not above ray. If you say quantity is better than quality then yes duran is better than ray, hopkins is better than hagler. chavez is the greatest fighter since robinson...I think quantity is important by not as important as quality. When you have both, then you have a sugar ray robinson and ali....

kikibalt
04-22-2006, 04:25 PM
This Pinky guy just doesn't make any kind of sense.

Frank B.

wpink
04-22-2006, 04:27 PM
Frank

What is confusing to you.....honestlly I am stating the facts..quality vs quantity...

kikibalt
04-22-2006, 04:32 PM
Pinky
Your posts are confusing, i think you are confuse.

Frank B.

hawk5ins
04-22-2006, 04:39 PM
It was a Unanimous decision. I just gave you the cards. Don't take my word. Verify it yourself.

What's not to follow? The judges were horribly indecisive for the bout. 19 even rounds is inept.

That's the official decsion with whihc I am referring to.

As far as your viewpoints towards Leonard and other fighters that you have mentioned, you biased comments and tone TO ME reders your viewpoint as non-credible. Again that is TO ME.

Understand there are several points that you make about SRL that I agree with. But looking at the entire package that you bring to the table and how redily you are willing to call other's biased without recognizing your own BLATANTLY biased comments and viewpoints, again TO ME, it renders your words as not holding alot of water.

I am a huge Larry Holmes fan. And anyone who refers to Larry as one of the greatest Heavyweights of all time, I will agree with them whole heartedly and want to listen more about what they have to say. However, if one of these same people state that Holmes had a great left hook, I would immediately dismiss them and anything they have to say. Becuase that comment would be utter nonsense.

I agree that SRL is an all time great fighter. And one that I have VERY high among my all time pound for pound list. I agree that his bout with Duran was closer than some have stated here. I think Ray beat Marvin Hagler. And I think his wins over Hearns and Benitez were superbly high quality wins. I have argued that Ray has defeated one of the greatest collection of diverse talents that any fighter in the history of the sport has ever beaten (though Sharkey will point out Greb for me before the ink dries on this post).

That said, your dismissal of Duran and over the top viewpoints of Ray and blind allegiance and your unwillingness to listen or at least consider differing viewpoints, eats away at your credibility.

Thus, I am no longer interested in what you might have to say.

Possibly that's my loss. Who knows?

Hawk

wpink
04-22-2006, 04:39 PM
Ok I will make them clearer. I admit the lack of paragraphs hurts.. I will do better.

wpink
04-22-2006, 04:48 PM
Hawk,

I really can care less about what you have to say.... But I will say this. People and it appears you to have a problem with facts. I am removing feelings out of the equation and maybe that is hurting you.

I ask everyone I deal with regarding roy jones, duran, leonard, hagler,,etc.simple questions. Who have they beat? That simple question I guess frusterates many the support fighters that have not beaten top fighters but they alwasy offer excuses as to why a leonard has.

Lets sum up duran - No doubt he is great. I think Roy Jones Jr has the best skills since Robinson. However, almost everyone including myself lowers our view on Roy for lack of quality wins. With that said, why is Duran the beloved Duran not subject to the same scrutiny. I will say this again, if you believe in quantity over quality, then chavez, hopkins, marciano etc..are your best along with duran. However, Robinson, Ali both are repeatedly mentioned as your top fighters because of who they beat. Well Robinson is the best ever because of both who he beat, and longivity. IMO duran and chavez came up short in this category.

I enjoy debates, and apologize to all if my bias towards Ray offends anyone, but i also am able to just the facts and they are that Ray beat 4 all time top fighters...Duran, chavez, hopkins didnt.

hawk and aqui - Fact is duran record versus ray hagler hearns and benitiz a important factor in deciding his overall ranking all time to each of you?

hawk5ins
04-22-2006, 04:56 PM
So It would be pointless for me to answer your question that you posed to me, becuase agian, you could care less what I think.

As far as facts go.....I'm pretty secure that I have them. And that I apply them appropriately.

And that I do a decent job in NOT allowing bias to cloud my judgement in applying the facts to my opinion.

And as far as my opinion or what I think, well, who cares?

Hawk

GorDoom
04-22-2006, 05:00 PM
Now were talkin'! Much better & easier to read. That wasn't directed at just you Pink, lotsa people do it & it's a bad habit to fall into if you want to be read clearly.

As to the argument: Hey, it's just boxing. It's not like we're discussing the Israeli-Palestinian peace accords here. Sometime you can over Einstein a subject too much. Like an over trained boxer ...

GorDoom

wpink
04-22-2006, 05:09 PM
Hawk

My bad just responding, Sorry. your opinion counts as much as mine do. You are correct I am biased toward ray. However, I try as much as i can to take that out of the equation when comparing him.

I would like to get yours, aqui's and Gordoom's opinion on the rest.

1. Duran's record versus ray hagler hearns and benitiz is it important factor in deciding his overall ranking all time to each of you?

2.

Roberto Aqui
04-22-2006, 06:53 PM
1. Duran's record versus ray hagler hearns and benitiz is it important factor in deciding his overall ranking all time to each of you?

2.

Not really. Duran was already at the end of his prime and his motivation when he quit a fight he was close on points rather than soil himself in the ring. Everything else that followed was just extra frosting on the cake.

Let's remember that by age 29 he already had more bouts than Hagler, Benitez, Leonard, and Hearns finished their careers at and he only had one decision loss in a non title fight that he brutally avenged twice. Add on the 30-40 lbs of fat he had to lose for his last couple of dozen fights before the Leonard rematch which he had to lose 50lbs for in 2 months, he was clearly past his best well above his best weights.

Now, as for as Mr. Hawk goes, well, your welcome to point out my bias. I've already admitted I don't like Leonard and readily admit he's an alltime great. Since you generally post little content but the obvious, I really don't know what you are talking of regarding my personal analysis.

wpink
04-22-2006, 07:35 PM
Duran had more fights, but in your mind has he beaten the caliber of fighters that ray leonard beat?

wildhawke11
04-22-2006, 08:59 PM
As to the argument: Hey, it's just boxing. It's not like we're discussing the Israeli-Palestinian peace accords here. Sometime you can over Einstein a subject too much. Like an over trained boxer ...
GorDoom

Right on the money Bucket as you guys like to say.


wpink

As far as i can see you have still failed to change anyone's opinion on how any of us view both fighters. My own feeling are your still trying in vain to flog a dead horse. Please also keep in mind that some of us are long time posters and Duran and Leonard have been discussed many time in the past and after a while it becomes to me anyway a little boring covering the same subject time and time again.

In my opinion Ray was a great fighter but the main thing i have against him is many times when a a threat loomed in the shape of another fighter who i think he figured might be a bad match up for him. His eye problems suddenly appeared or he decided he needed for some reason or other a little rest away from the fight game. You talk like Leonard was gods gift to boxing as if no other fighter could have held his own with him. Dont you think that Jose Napoles who went in with Carlos Monzon perhaps most peoples top MW could have given your guy who seems to you to walk on water a run for his money or a few other WWs i could name. Hell Harry Greb that old timer had more fights in one year then your so called hero had in his boxing lifetime. My final sum up is both were great fighters but Leonard only for a short while. But when it came to longevity Leonard could not hold a candle to a lot of other fighters including the Hands of Stone.

wpink
04-22-2006, 10:24 PM
I keep reading post..but no one will answer the question regarding who did Duran beat, or answer why you all really focus on lack of quality opposition for roy, or refuse to acknowledge that rays career was cut short due to retina damage and now you are on here saying that ray used this as an excuse to stop boxing...Wow.

I am a man about facts so somehow get them straight..Ray leonard avoided top fighters.

1. Ok he fought benetiz when he was undefeated two time champ at his peak...hmmmm
2. He fought duran when he was 29 at his peak just beat palimino 72-1 record...hmmm
3. He fought undefeated hearns 32-0 30 ko's hmmm
4. Moved up fought undefeated kalule never been knocked down amatuer or pro,,,would have been favored to beat ray in the 76 olympics but they boycotted the olympics..
5. Had retina surgery ( i think you kind request proof from john hopkins hospital) this forced his retirment.
6. In stead of taking tuneups...he came back and after 1 fight in 5 yrs...he fought the most feared middlewieight, undefeated in last 10 years..middleweight who was not far removed from his peak....
7. Moved up again and fought lalond in a bullshit deal of a fight I agree ..but he still moved up from welter to super middle and ko'd him

So I am trying hard to figure out who he ducked....Oh yes he ducked Aaron pryor,..Hmmm If my facts are right. Aaron pryor was jr welter who used to get beat down in training by ray ( you can go to HBO where are they at now aaron pryor and he tells in his own words how ray got the best of him in sparring) contrary to false popular belief..Aaron pryor who never ever fought at welter..Aaron pryor who had a major struggle with Arguello (all time great lightweight) who was at the end of his career and moved up and challenged pryor and landed at will on pryor..and wasnt this Aaron pryors biggest fight and when did this fight happen in 82. Was that not after ray retired..Oh yes he was facking his eye injury.....

So Mr. I do respect one thing your saying...ray did not have the longivity, that is why he is not up there with a robinson... but please save the weak "we have been on here for a while" .....don't care... The fact is people are on here saying garbage..false statments and giving duran credit but no one yet has objectivly addressed how is he great when he was 1-5 versus the greats in his era....Or how could he be considered better than ray when he was 1-2 against him, quit once..and the fight he won against ray was very very very close when ray chose not to use his strengths....

I am not knocking jose napoles..i really have not seen him, and I have major respect for Grebb...Since you bring up grebb are you aware that he had detached retina and kept on fighting and what happened to him..

Many of you have great points, but you attacking me for supporting ray..I am stating facts..Leonard was a gift to boxing, we were robbed by him not being able to fight for 5 years..but save the garbage..On one hand you all attack fighters for fighing bumz like roy jones and many were questioning mayweather fighting judah...but then you have a ray leonard who fought ever single top challenge in his era..and to hear this completley false statement that ray avoided fighters because it was a bad match for him...Wow...How about this..I have asked one question...Why does duran get a pass with the record he had against the gr8's...I have another...Name one fighter since 1970 that fought and beat the caliber of fighters that ray leonard did..After you find your answer then you have to say that everyone in boxing since 1970 has some major explaining to do since you said this about ray " but the main thing i have against him is many times when a a threat loomed in the shape of another fighter who i think he figured might be a bad match up for him" No one else has beaten the fighters he has..

Peace..

wpink
04-22-2006, 10:37 PM
Not discussing it anymore as it is obvious Duran who is the only fighter in the top 10 on many list has a record against other greats of 1-5......wow or if you consider buchananon and dejesus..then 4 and 6. Sorry folks those are the facts.....Yes he had 72 plus victories but he got it handed to him when he fought great fighters..


top ten
1 robinson
2. Ali
3. armstrong.
4. louis,
5. grebb
6. leonard (sugar ray)
7. pepp
8. Monzoon hagler toss up
9. Duran
10. Mayweather....
8

TKO11
04-22-2006, 11:41 PM
pwink - Duran beat every bit as many great fighters as Leonard. Just because you may not be aware of them does not change that fact. Granted not all of these guys were in their prime, but why don't you look up the career and accomplishments of Ernesto Marcel, Hiroshi Kobabyashi, Buchanan and DeJesus, as well as fantastic contenders like Viruet, Thompson, Lampkin and Brooks. BEFORE moving to 147. Leonard was great, no doubt, but his resume shines no brighter than Durans, unless you want to make light of Roberto's 135/147 accomplishments because of what came post no-mas and well above his ideal weight.

And as far as your claim: "As for duran not being in shape for the 2nd fight..that is the weakest line of garbage ever...he was in tip top shape..."

Crap. I'll take Randy Gordon's work over your opinion any time. Read this:
http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxing-article/310/mas-version/

Anyone who can read Gordon's account (and Gordon is hardly going to lie up Duran here, especially when so many people can verify most of these events) and say Duran was in the same condition as fight 1.... well I'd question if you've seen the fights or believe anything that disproves your mantra. Duran was CLEARLY, just looking at him, in nowhere the shape he'd been in Montreal.

gazot
04-23-2006, 03:52 AM
I also have to doubt that Duran was in poor shape coming into the second Leonard fight. If you take into account how long he had been champion and how many fights he'd had, Duran at this point was probably the most experienced fighter in the world. Also he had just been in a life and death struggle in the first fight. He new Leonard was the real deal and yet he doesn't bother to train?! It's just an excuse and a poor one at that. Leonard was playing with him and Duran quit. And I love both guys so no bias here.

wpink
04-23-2006, 09:37 AM
So your trying to say that thompson lampkin brooks and viruet (whom leonard beat also) were great fighters....Ok well I get to say that inistead of haglr hearns duran and benitiz,,I will include viruet, price, chavarini, kalule, davey boy green ... Sorry Tko 11 those fighters are good fighters and even very good. They do solidify that duran was a great fighter...Agiain no question here about that...However leonard, hearn duran hagler benitez were top tier fighters...

Now for the weak weak excuse about duran not being in shape..That is an excuse. 1st off, this is a professional fight between two champions. That means they both are professionals. They knew the date. So regardless it was his job to come into the fight in top shape and give his all. Ray leonard has been ridiculed for what happened with camacho, when he had a leg injury going into the fight...He should not have taken the money unless he was able to compete 100%. Same for Duran, if he was out of shape then don't show up and not take the peoples money. However, look at the fight for your self. Nothing about that fight suggest that he was out of shape. He made the limit. He looked good, not dehydrated. He tried to rush in, had a lot of energy. When he quit, he was not in paid due to cramps, not on time in the fight did you see this. Not once. He went to the emergeny room 5 hours later for cramps....Come on. Duran was simply out boxed ..easily. Yes ray was only up by 2 points..However after 7 rounds unless he would have won every round the most he would be up is about 2 points...4 leonard 2 duran 1 even.....No sorry partner. If you look at the first fight whenever ray chose to employ boxing tactics..Duran became frusterated..He started mimicking ray because he could not hit him in the 1st fight when ray chose to box...Look at it for yourself. rounds 1, 5 & 6. Move up to the 2nd fight and then the 3rd fight..Ray leoanrd chose to box the entire fight and thus Duran became frusterated in the 2nd fight and quit.....That simple. Please dont make excuses for duran, as we are not makeing them for ray..

GanchoIzquierdo
04-23-2006, 10:34 AM
Gazot,

Duran hated to train. You should read Pat Putnam's SI account of the third deJesus bout to see the kinds of lengths Arcel, Brown, and Quinones had to go through to get Roberto in the gym.

Roberto Aqui
04-23-2006, 11:26 AM
Please dont make excuses for duran, as we are not makeing them for ray..

Baloney.

You completely ignore that Ray was completely shot after 38 fights and barely made 30 fights before he had to retire. That's not an excuse, it's just a simple fact. You've also completely ignored that Duran had severe weight issues for most of his career, including a major weight problem in the Ray rematch. Ray has also famously talked about these issues in many interviews, so they have been well known to all but the oblivious. These are facts, not excuses.

You keep bleating about Ray's better HOF comp. So? Best to best Ray was still beat up by a fading Duran 2 divisions above his best weight. Had that been the prime lightweight Duran in the ring, Leonard might have been KOed.

Like I stated, Duran could no longer make the welter limit again and was just too old, shop worn, and poorly trained to be the same fighter he had been in his prime, and all but the oblivious know this. He still had some pretty good moments and even managed to win some titles. Did you realize Duran had more bouts AFTER he could no longer make the welter limit than Leonard had in his entire career? HOFers he beat after he was well above his best weight and out of prime are Cuevas, and Castro is a HOF lock. Had Duran the leverage and management of the network golden boy Leonard, he also would have outpointed Hagler first in a 12 round fight and done it without controversy.

Duran also beat the first 3 HOFers he ever met in the ring, Buchanan, Palomino, and Ray. Did Ray? Nope, and Ray wouldn't have beat the first one, Benitez, had not Benitez been running like a scalded cat from Duran.

If you want to be a Leonard fan, fine, most agree he was a great. You've just look bush league trying to drag down other great fighters like Chavez and Duran to make your points.

wpink
04-23-2006, 01:34 PM
Aqui.

Excuses...Excuses...As a professional you know what you have to do get to a certain weight by a certain date. End of story. No other fighter gets to use that excuse so why does duran. By the way he was 29 when he fought ray...which is for every other fighter considered in the middle of their prime years, unless he was taking beatings..and duran had only one loss at the time so, where is this coming from that duran was not at his peak.

Yes I agree duran at lightweight pound per pound was much better than he was at welterweight. Alos, aqui I am not dragging down duran. I am giving him every bit of credit he deserves. Every single post I have ever written has listed him a great fighter. My top ten aqui has him listed all time. So not sure why you say I am discrediting him. What I have pointed out to you and others are facts that many ignore. I will repeat it. The facts are every other lightweight champ that has moved up, their career is based on the entirety of their career, what they have accomlished when they fought at jr welter, welter, etc...Dlh, mosley, chavez, now Mayweather. However, what you all are saying is that Duran should be looked at differnetly, even though he moved up when he was 28. Why? Mayweather is scrutinized repeatedly for not having fought hatten yet, or fighting judah...Mayweather has already beaten better fighters than duran has, outside of ray leoanard....I will not agree that because you fought 72 times your great. I will agree that is part of the equation...but not the deciding factor. It is who you beat. You all are struggling to show credibility to Duran's victories in comparison to leonards by listing names as palomino, viruet, Castro, lampkin....None of these fighters holds a torch to a duran, hearns, hagler, benitiz...I have left off names when I bring up the top tier fighters that ray beat that make him a top ten like kalule, price, lalond, because they are good fighters (price beat palomino, and cuevas for instance) but not the levels of the legends...No I am sorry Duran does not have a resume of victories that ray leonard does, and if you want to say we should not count what he did above lightweight then why are you counting the ray leonard victory or hmmmm what about th other fighters who moverd up and get discounted for their losses. See my point you are not applying that say review to duran that you do to others. Not to mention your statement that duran was active, 29, not fading as you stated when they met the 1st 2 times...and 2 weight classes above his best weight...Well then Aqui help me here...why doesn't ray leonard get the same benefit against hagler. Is Middleweidht two weight classes above welter. You have yet to mention the fact that ray leonard was retired for most of 5 years...Or are you simply ignoring this fact. And when you through this into the equation that he was inactive moved up and beat hagler at middleweight,,, well if you are reviewing duran and leonard equally then hmmm you would have to give ray the same accolades for the accomplishment versus hagler that you do duran..Maybe even more so since leonard was retired. However based on your previous post's I doubt that you will.

Finally, each victory ray got you have a weak excuse for. Had benitez not been running, duran was faded, he got the benefit of celebritism for hagler..etc..It is obvious and reading that others have stated your bias..(yes they have stated my bias too) but again I am not saying anything opiniion here I have stated facts... Mighty funny that each of the fighters that you make excuses for why ray beat them, has victories over Duran...Hmmmm and by the way throw another thing into the equation Duran was knocked clean out by a fighter that ray stopped. So if you want to argue facts be my guess, but if you do, outside of the fact that duran has 72 fights, chavez had 100 fights..but my question for both is who did they beat...yes chavez beat some very good fighters..more so than duran did except for durans close decison over leonard (which I know this will hurt but he got his but handed to him the next 2 times they fought..* fact - and he quit .. * fact) if you refuse to accep that then you have to disallow duran being better than dejesus because their record is the same as SRL and Durans..2-1...

Bring me some facts aqui - I also have in my possession both complete careers of duran and chavez..and their victorys hmmm lets just say most of the peopel on their list are questionable...records of 6-4...10-10 come on..

wpink
04-23-2006, 01:41 PM
Ooops forgot to mention..in rays 38 fights - he has better quality wins than duran and chavez..and head to head with duran he owns him..and he beat the fighters duran loss to - Facts* Tell me one other fighter that in comparison with another fighters that has the same comparisons as SRL and duran does, that the fighter with a 1-2 records against them is considered better.. Hmmmmm. I am asking for facts now. Not opinions. Facts

TKO11
04-23-2006, 02:32 PM
Pink - I can only assume you are either deliberately mis-using what I wrote, or you are simply thick. Either way, this will be my last wrod on this topic.

I did not call Thompson, Lampkin, Brooks and Viruet great fighters, as you try to imply. I VERY CLEARLY called them "fantastic contenders". I called Kobayashi, Marcel, DeJesus and Buchanan great fighters. You ignored that, and compared the contenders names to the best on Leonard's resume.

That kind of attempt at misdirection shows me what I'm dealing with here.

I can also assume you didn't read Randy Gordon's article, where he explained firsthand what kind of stupidity Duran acted with in New Orleans, and what was going on with him when he got to the ring. CLEARLY you did not read it. Hence, I will continue to regard Gordon's opinion in the highest esteem, and throw yours out the window. Because bullshit like, "..this is a professional fight between two champions. That means they both are professionals. They knew the date. So regardless it was his job to come into the fight in top shape and give his all," means nothing. I agree it is the fighter's responsibility to show up in shape. But many don't. If you don't know this, you are on the worng forum.

Good thing Douglas showed up in shape for Holyfield, or he'd have been killed. Imagine if he'd ignored his "job" of showing up in shape? Shall I begin now listing other champions that showed up for a fight looking like ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag? Because there's only about a thousand....

And as far as Leonard beating fighters that beat Duran, you DO realize Duran spent a dozen years at 135, right? Can we now counter that Leonard never beat the great fighters that Duran beat? Cause he didn't and it would make about as much sense.

Bye Pink. Enjoy dementia.

wildhawke11
04-23-2006, 07:00 PM
Do you guys in fact know who lpink is? Give you all a little clue, There only 3 people that i know of on this site who spell Harry Greb's name as Harry Grebb. Plus all three of these so called new posters all often use little dots such as this ... at times. There are a couple of other little things that all of these 3 posters do in there posts but i will keep these back of course. Take a bet with anyone that two of them or all three, never and i mean never are on the cyberzone at the same time.

There is an old expression it goes something like this.
You can fool some of the people all of the time.
And all of the people some of the time
But you cant fool all of the people all of the time.

Did not mention this before kid because of another old saying.
*Give someone enough rope and in the end he will hang himself* and in the end you did just that Benny. Bye Kid i am disappointed in you to say the least.
Danny

The Shoemaker
04-23-2006, 08:09 PM
Nothing like conspiracy theories... I don't agree with some of wpink's comments, but at least I respect the guy's opinions, because at least he backs them up with evidence. At least he admitted that he had bias towards Leonard, unlike roberto, who claimed he was a Leonard fan at the time of the fight-yeah right. (Roberto usually makes good points on many of his posts, but if he doesn't like a fighter , Leonard, Holmes, ect- it doesn't matter what positive evidence you bring supporting those fighters).

Thing is, you guys will blast wpink, but the guy's posts stimulate debate. And his opinions on Leonard are way better argued than Leonard's detractors. I mean who could compare DeJesus (the DeJesus supporters never bring up his loss to Cervantes), Buchanon or any of Duran's Lightweight victories to Leonard's wins over Hearns (who as Pink stated KO'ed Duran), Beneitez, or Hagler ? Or this arguement that Duran was fading at age 29 (it must have been a glacier-like fade, since he fought for twenty more years-including a close loss to Hagler and victories over beasts like Moore and Barkey). Just like believing that Duran weighed over 200 llbs in September 1980 (imagine what a 5-7 guy going from 150 to 200 in two months would look like ? -it wasn't as though Duran was incognito after he beat Leonard, he was in the public eye and he sure as hell didn't weight 200 llbs). Randy Gordon as a source ? Randy Gordon lost all journalistic integrity and respect, when he wrote a fluff piece about Tony Ayala ("he had a misunderstanding with a women") during the early 80's. Randy also blasted all of these boxing commissions that allowed George Foreman to make his comeback- of coarse Foreman made an ass out of Gordon during the Cooney fight, a fight that Gordon not only predicted an early Cooney KO, but worried about George's health in that fight as well. Typical Journalism major, who's never competed in a sport in his life.

Well, I have to get to my other pc, so I can log on as wpink and congradulate myself for a brillant post..... Or maybe I'll start up a thread on how overrated Harry greBB is ....

wildhawke11
04-23-2006, 08:59 PM
Shoemaker.
Good job your not a fish you would get caught every time. I wondered how long it would be before you posted again. Strange dont you think its only after i made the comment about lpink that you suddenly decided to make your first post on this thread in his defence. Lucky enough i never said the other couple of similarities that i held back on purpose. Little story for you if GorDoom will forgive me just the one time for posting this on a boxing site.


A wealthy old lady decides to go on a photo safari in Africa, taking her faithful aged poodle named Cuddles along, for the company

One day the poodle starts chasing butterflies and before long, Cuddles discovers that he's lost. Wandering about, he notices a leopard heading rapidly in his direction with the intention of having lunch. The old poodle thinks, "Oh, oh! I'm in deep shit now!" Noticing some bones on the ground close by, he immediately settles down to chew on the bones with his back to the approaching cat. Just as the leopard is about to leap the old poodle exclaims loudly, "Boy, that was one delicious Leopard! I wonder if there are any more around here?"

Hearing this, the young leopard halts his attack in mid-strike, a look of terror comes over him and he slinks away into the trees. "Whew!", says the leopard, "That was close! That old poodle nearly had me!"

Meanwhile, a monkey who had been watching the whole scene from a nearby tree, figures he can put this knowledge to good use and trade it for protection from the leopard So off he goes, but the old poodle sees him heading after the leopard with great speed, and figures that something must be up. The monkey soon catches up with the leopard, spills the beans and strikes a deal for himself with the leopard.

The young leopard is furious at being made a fool of and says, "Here, monkey, hop on my back and see what's going to happen to that conniving canine!" Now, the old poodle sees the leopard coming with the monkey on his back and thinks, "What am I going to do now?", but instead of running, the dog sits down with his back to his attackers, pretending he hasn't seen them yet, and just when they get close enough to hear, the old poodle says: "Where's that damn monkey? I sent him off an hour ago to bring me another leopard!"

Moral of this story
Don't mess with old farts, age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill!, bullshit and brilliance only come with age and experience!
Have a Good Day Kid

wpink
04-23-2006, 09:25 PM
Well, I guess there is a little fraternity on here. Hmmm sorry I just joined in, but I am generally on eastside boxing. I will say there seems to be some very educated posters on here, but wow...I still can not get many of you to be honest in your evaluations.

Its seems very funny that the truth hurts.....and it gets ignored in your responses.. I like your support for duran but sorry it has no credibility. The only thing duran has to his favor on this arguement is that he had mort title defenses. Yes that does weigh into the equation, but again who did duran beat???? Ray leonard once out of 3 attempts. Thats is. Buchanon Dejesus, and these other fighters are at best good fighters, not of the quality that leonard faced and beat. Why still are you all avoiding the issue of comparing duran like you compare others... You compare dlh based on his entire career, chavez, sweat pea, Mosley, but not duran, you want to say at 29 when he beat leoanard we should stop reviewing his career. We should not count the rematch because he was out of shape. That is soooooooooo weak and pathetic..I am shocked you continue to point to that. Duran simply can not box with leonard. The bogus cramp theory or that he picked up and lost weight..So what if he did.. he has been known to do this all through his career, and get down to 135...now he only had to get down to 147. And if you have a problem with someone spelling out to you the expectations of a professional fighter, who is getting paid millions of dollars buy hard working fans and that his responsibility is to get in the ring in tip top shape...well so what then have a problem with it. You can detract from leonard because of Durans problems..All I know is, Duran is 1-2 versus ray! and quit like a b@#$%. Got knocked out by heans..got schooled by benitez, and loss to Hagler. In response to this your trying to sell victories over dejesus, viruet, Kobayashi, Marcel, lampley etc......as reason for him to be ranked above a ray leonard. Not buying it. Sorry!! Maybe if duran beat ray 2 out of 3 times, or if he beat just one other top tier fighter then you could rate him above leonard, but you have nothing to support your claims. Absolutely nothing but weak rants and raves..and excuses by some reporter.....

You have to bring it much stronger than that...and I am still waiting for someone to tell us why it is ok to review duran one way, and everyone else another?

kikibalt
04-23-2006, 09:30 PM
Danny loved that story, guess you told "LiL Pinky " but good, "don't mess with old farts " love you for that.

Frank B.

The Shoemaker
04-23-2006, 10:09 PM
Wildhawke,
I posted my responce to your slanderous accusation that pink and I are the same poster on the Hagler and Leonard thread, which is in this same section. My apologies.

The Shoemaker
04-23-2006, 11:00 PM
Wpink,
At the risk of getting accused of "typing to myself" I'll at least play the Devil's Advocate and argue your Duran-Leonard points. First off, you have to remember many poster hate Leonard because he made asses out of them 25 years ago, when they stated that he was just hype, not tough, overrated, a product of Cosell and ABC's media machine and on and on. Michael jordan had his detractors as well, as did Ali in the 60's. So instead of admitting that they were wrong, they keep making excuses, downgrading his wins (opponents), overempahasizing his losses (or loss in a prime Leonard's case).

I had Duran beating him by one round in their first fight, so i have no problem with you giving Leonard the nod (one of these days I'll watch the fight again) I think Duran, like Frazier in "71" fought the fight of his life, and Leonard fought a stupid fight. Now, I don't put the blame all on Leonard, I'll blame Dundee as well. Certainly, Leonard got caught up in the hype of proving his manhood and all of that crap, but Dundee (whether under pressure from Leonard or not) embarked on the strategy to back Duran up, dig to the body, and force Duran to fight the whole 3 minutes of the round. They thought that Duran couldn't fight going backwards, didn't carry the devestating power from lightweight to welterweight, plus Leonard in their minds was the bigger stronger, more powerful fighter. They also thought that Duran fought in spurts
didn't like it to the body (who does), and would wear down. Obviously, they blew it (the second round changed the complexion of the fight) and wasted all of Leonard's speed (hey, it worked in the Kahlule fight). Yet, IMO, Leonard still almost beat him. In their second fight, Leonard improved, and fought him the correct way, and duran, like most bullies, quit because Leonard was making a fool out of him.

Next point: p4p ratings. I'd rate the Duran at Lightweight a shade over the Leonard at welterweight. But that's arguable. Of coarse p4p ratings are often a joke, like how do you factor in Thomas Hearns' size and power when matching him with a heavyweight ? You may as well make him 6-9", because that's what he's probably like for a welterweight. But for arguemnt's sake I'll argue it. You state that because Leonard beat the better fighters than Duran did you'd rate him higher. I can't argue that Leonard beat the better fighters, but that can't be the only criteria. I think Larry Holmes was a great heavyweight, yet, the level of competion was debatable that's NOT his fault. He fought the best fighters available. Same with the lightweight Duran. He didn't duck anyone (although the Buchanon fans may debate that) at Lightweight. I just think that he was slightly more dominant at Lightweight than Leonard was at welterweight. I also think that he showed his greatness by MOVING up a class and beating a great fighter in Leonard (you and i could come up with Leonard excuses for that loss, but like the Hagler-Leonard arguement, Leonard was the welterweight, and Duran was the one coming up to fight him). Duran also went up basically two weight classes from his natural weight (in relationship to his frame) and came within an eyelash of beating Hagler. Same thing with his win over Moore, who was way bigger and stronger than Duran (of coarse i could argue that Duran intentionally thumbed him). Same with beating Barkley when Duran was old. How many post WWI Lightweight champs won Middleweight titles ? You can mention Hearn's KO, but that is a bad style matchup for Duran, and the fight is at 154. Plus Hearns is an all time great fighter himself-probably the hardest hitting welterweight of all time. I mean it wasn't as though Leonard went through Hearns (although I think he'd had won an easier fight had they rematched within a year of their first fight). Like I said, your points on Leonard beating better fighters arn't disputable, but that's not the only criteria. And like I said, you can't penalize people for not defeating great fighters at their weight if there arn't any great fighters available to fight.Here is how i see p4p

1)Robinson (at welterweight)
2)Duran (at Lightweight)
3)Greb(b) at Middleweight-although I hate to rate him that high, since i've never seen him fight. more of a guess
4)Ray Leonard at welterweight
5)Ezzard Charles at Light Heavy (you talk about Leonard beating great fighters)

Ali would probably be #6, of coarse heavyweights always get screwed in p4p ratings.

The Shoemaker
04-23-2006, 11:01 PM
Wpink,
At the risk of getting accused of "typing to myself" I'll at least play the Devil's Advocate and argue your Duran-Leonard points. First off, you have to remember many poster hate Leonard because he made asses out of them 25 years ago, when they stated that he was just hype, not tough, overrated, a product of Cosell and ABC's media machine and on and on. Michael jordan had his detractors as well, as did Ali in the 60's. So instead of admitting that they were wrong, they keep making excuses, downgrading his wins (opponents), overempahasizing his losses (or loss in a prime Leonard's case).

I had Duran beating him by one round in their first fight, so i have no problem with you giving Leonard the nod (one of these days I'll watch the fight again) I think Duran, like Frazier in "71" fought the fight of his life, and Leonard fought a stupid fight. Now, I don't put the blame all on Leonard, I'll blame Dundee as well. Certainly, Leonard got caught up in the hype of proving his manhood and all of that crap, but Dundee (whether under pressure from Leonard or not) embarked on the strategy to back Duran up, dig to the body, and force Duran to fight the whole 3 minutes of the round. They thought that Duran couldn't fight going backwards, didn't carry the devestating power from lightweight to welterweight, plus Leonard in their minds was the bigger stronger, more powerful fighter. They also thought that Duran fought in spurts
didn't like it to the body (who does), and would wear down. Obviously, they blew it (the second round changed the complexion of the fight) and wasted all of Leonard's speed (hey, it worked in the Kahlule fight). Yet, IMO, Leonard still almost beat him. In their second fight, Leonard improved, and fought him the correct way, and duran, like most bullies, quit because Leonard was making a fool out of him.

Next point: p4p ratings. I'd rate the Duran at Lightweight a shade over the Leonard at welterweight. But that's arguable. Of coarse p4p ratings are often a joke, like how do you factor in Thomas Hearns' size and power when matching him with a heavyweight ? You may as well make him 6-9", because that's what he's probably like for a welterweight. But for arguemnt's sake I'll argue it. You state that because Leonard beat the better fighters than Duran did you'd rate him higher. I can't argue that Leonard beat the better fighters, but that can't be the only criteria. I think Larry Holmes was a great heavyweight, yet, the level of competion was debatable that's NOT his fault. He fought the best fighters available. Same with the lightweight Duran. He didn't duck anyone (although the Buchanon fans may debate that) at Lightweight. I just think that he was slightly more dominant at Lightweight than Leonard was at welterweight. I also think that he showed his greatness by MOVING up a class and beating a great fighter in Leonard (you and i could come up with Leonard excuses for that loss, but like the Hagler-Leonard arguement, Leonard was the welterweight, and Duran was the one coming up to fight him). Duran also went up basically two weight classes from his natural weight (in relationship to his frame) and came within an eyelash of beating Hagler. Same thing with his win over Moore, who was way bigger and stronger than Duran (of coarse i could argue that Duran intentionally thumbed him). Same with beating Barkley when Duran was old. How many post WWI Lightweight champs won Middleweight titles ? You can mention Hearn's KO, but that is a bad style matchup for Duran, and the fight is at 154. Plus Hearns is an all time great fighter himself-probably the hardest hitting welterweight of all time. I mean it wasn't as though Leonard went through Hearns (although I think he'd had won an easier fight had they rematched within a year of their first fight). Like I said, your points on Leonard beating better fighters arn't disputable, but that's not the only criteria. And like I said, you can't penalize people for not defeating great fighters at their weight if there arn't any great fighters available to fight.Here is how i see p4p

1)Robinson (at welterweight)
2)Duran (at Lightweight)
3)Greb(b) at Middleweight-although I hate to rate him that high, since i've never seen him fight. more of a guess
4)Ray Leonard at welterweight
5)Ezzard Charles at Light Heavy (you talk about Leonard beating great fighters)

Ali would probably be #6, of coarse heavyweights always get screwed in p4p ratings.

wpink
04-24-2006, 01:32 AM
shoemaker.

You bring up the issue that is sooooo hard to decide and what makes it fun to debate across the nation, in gymes, barbershopes, boxing establishments,,and now via web sites...and that is p4p discussion..It is truyl impossible, never would be accurate as styles make fights. The benefit that leonard, robinson, ali have is that they had major great challengers that forced them to be great in front of our eyes...They were given the chance to prove themselvs. Also, since styles makes fights, we get to see a SRL switch styles and fight pretty much every type of style and win, and this is what makes him great. Robinson, and ALI too. We never know how leoanrd would have fard against a 135 pound duran who obvioulsy was much more of a beast than he was at 147. I mean for real duran was killing people for years at 135, I mean killing them.

I am one that looks beneath the record, and the media perception. Look at Tyson, he was killing people but I truly think that they style that tyson can not deal with is what Douglas employed against him. So I can summize off of that showing that In my mind, Ali would easily have beaten him. But we never know, the flip side, is someone can say look..Ali was a sucker for left hook, and tyson's left hook..Oh my god....Tyson was faster and stronger for his size than those that Ali faced....

I believe the biggest challenge is not Duran vs leonard at 135...but Larry holmes and roy jones. These are two dominant fighters...Larry homes was a fighters and had a great jab. What would he have done against Lewis, Holyfield. Roy jones, maybe the fastest fighter to ever live. Yes he is faster than ray leonard even at 160, his counters are sooooooo fast and right on point, that most fighters simply stop punching after 2 rounds. The main argumement here is who are these fighters. Roy Jones is partially the blame for not being in the top 10 all time, as his skill suggest he should be. There were several fighters that he should have fought. I would have picked roy to beat them, but the point is after 94 roy had a very very easy resume. Roys speed was flat out scary.

Finally, Duran. The great duran. Only a idiot will doubt his greatness. And it is easy to simply look at what he did from 67 til 79 at lightweight. He was awesome, and i will say the most 'dominant' lightweight ever. The facts speak for it self. However, people dont get madd at me here. I am just applying objective rationing here. However, 2 things. Many of his first fights were againts fighters that Leonard would have faced as an amateur. Chavez the same way. Simple review of these fighters that faced. Some had a records of like 6-4 then there were rematches with these fighters...? Chavez had a title when he met and fought a guy with a record of 10-10. You do not get resume stuffing fights like this from Ray. Am I suggesting that Ray leonard was as dominant as a Chavez or Duran over their weight class, NO ...but their dominance was not agains the level of challenges like leonard was lucky to have, even if his career was cut short.

When I rank duran, I look heavily at his long period of dominance. However, the key word here is comparison. I compare all fighters on the same level. I don't give duran, leonard, or hagler, ali anybody the benefit here. So when that comes into play, we do have actually fights that duran fought at 147 and above while he was at peak form to judge this off of. We did not stop our review of DLH, at 135, where he did not have the long period of dominance that duran did, but he moved up and lost some fights that have lowered out review of him. Same across the board, all the way up to Leonard. Wow definatly in the case of a Roy Jones. Is there anyone out there that suggest that Roy Jones at middleweight was a once in a century type of skill. I hate roy jones, because of lact of proven substance, but dammm at 160 it is hard to find a fighter that would ever have beaten him..But what have we done, we have reviewed roy on lack of quality. Well then we have to do the same for Duran. That is all I am saying. Duran's record is 1-5 versus the legends. You have to look at that, and also weight when comparing him to leonard, you have to weight their head to head record. You have too. How can you not. You have to look at the fact that leonard beat him 2out 3 and beat the fighters he lost too. If you point to ali career after 30 , then you have to do the same for duran.

I have duran in my top 10 after Leonard based on everything, I personally do not see how my mind can ever be changed on that. Shoemaker you are exactly correct with your post. The only post that I flat out disagree with on here is the one by Aqui, he will not accept that ray leonard retired and this affected his lower volume of fights...

Duran is great great great I repeat great, and wow at lightweight very scary. I will agree to do this, if you all will agree to rate fighters for what they are only in their 1st 29 years, and at their original weight,,,,and go off of strictly # of fights..then I will place duran top 5....If not then he drops considerably based on the consistent test that we apply to everyone, and this is where duran fails to measure up.

wpink
04-24-2006, 01:49 AM
Shoemaker.

I have to give the nod to Ali over ray. Even though I agree, heavyweights do not possess the skill set of welter or middleweights. However what makes ali and robinson what they are is that they both not only beat top fighters,,but Ali did this after his peak years...he dominated two different generation of fighters, with his legs, and without. I have to rank Ali up there behind robinson. I agree with you about Greb (b...ha haa) I never seen him, but the documentation that I have read, wow.

The Shoemaker
04-24-2006, 03:18 AM
Pink,
Obviously, we have different criteria in rating p4p or all time greats at their weight. Mine is prime vrs prime AT THEIR MOST DOMINANT WEIGHT, while your's is more based on their careers. Like you said it's almost impossible to match up say Ali vrs Elder Joffre, so maybe your criteria is better. Plus, the "on their best night" argument is also iffy, because you have flukes like Buster Douglas- odds are a realistic Douglas is the one who fought Tucker, which is somewhere in between the one who fought his ass off against Tyson, or the one that quit vrs Hollyfield (brillant move trying an uppercut from the outside against Hollyfield, hey it worked against the swarming Tyson). The Douglas who fought Tucker is probably the more realistic one, he fought hard for a while then quit when the going got tough.

Yes, using your criteria, you have to factor in Duran's 1-5 record against elite fighters and it is damaging. But using mine, his career basically ends in "79" and anything he accomplishes at the heavier weights is icing on the cake. That's why I give him all the credit in the world for beating Leonard once and almost beating Hagler, while i don't really penalize him heavily for getting blasted by Hearns (it's more of a plus for Tommy for being the only person to KO an iron-chinned Duran). Thing is IF Duran had retired in "79" then where does he wind up on p4p lists ? I can't penalize Monzon or Hagler for staying at middleweight their whole careers; nor would I have penalized them had Bob Foster or Michael Spinks wacked them if they would have tried to move up (which is what would have probably happened) but had they beaten them or given them a tough fight then you have to give them props(aint happening)

That's fascinating that you bring up Roy Jones Jr. as a middleweight. I was just arguing with a buddy of mine who is an IBRO writer about him. My point was with that speed at Middleweight, how the hell are the counter punchers like Hagler, Monzon, and Hopkins going to counter him ? (I know they are more than just counter punchers-but that's what they primarly are). They can bring up his questionable chin, which is a fair argument at Light Heavy, but at middleweight ? About the only arguements against him as an all time great middleweight are that although he's fast for middleweights, he's not the blur he is for Light heavies. I think that's weak, because like you said, he's a blur for middleweights as well. I can maybe see Greb (again more of a conjecture since I've never seen film of him) being a swarmer getting to him, and maybe Robinson, and possibly Charles (another guy who like Jones didn't spend that much time at middleweight) beating him, but the rest of the division ? Sure, style-wise the brawlers like LaMotta, Fullmer, Tiger, Walker and maybe even a prime McCallum (doubt it), would have the styles and chins to give him fits, but they don't hit like Light heavies do. Like you I can't stand him, but even with my bias against him, i have to call it the way I see it. Funny, like the Duran excuse makers for Leonard II, the James Toney excuse makers point out that Toney was out of shape for his bout with Jones, as if that's Jones' fault that his opponent wasn't professional enough to show up in shape for a mega-fight.

The Shoemaker
04-24-2006, 04:13 AM
Pink,
Again it's different criterias. You're correct that Ali had a better career accomplishments than probably anyone next to Robinson. But using my screwy criteria : Leonard's got more power at welterweight than Ali does at Heavy (obviously Ali hits harder than a welterweight), Leonard will go to the body while Ali ignores it, Leonards better fundamentaly (Ali's athleticism and chin bail him out), and Leonard has more ways to beat you than Ali does (like Robinson, Leonard can lead and back people up-Kalule fight). I know Ali was shot and fat when he fought Jimmy Young, but he didn't have a clue how to lead, when Young forced Ali to take the fight to Young. Ali was like a fish out of water.

Of coarse commen sense will tell you that if you have unbelievable athletic ability (especially speed), mentle toughness, AND A CHIN- you're going to be hard to beat. Robinson, Leonard, and Ali all had that, that's why they were practically impossible to beat in their primes (Robinson and Leonard had power as well-Robinson especially). In fact the only people to beat them close to their primes were swarmers who fought the fight's of their lives. LaMotta, (who had a 16 llb weight advantage), Duran (Leonard fought the wrong fight) and Frazier (Ali was off for 3 1/2 years). I don't take anything away from the three that beat them, but they all had style advantages, and all three lost their rematches. I'd put Roy Jones on that list but I don't think he has the chin or mentle toughness the other three have (not saying he has a glass jaw, but i don't think it's in their league).

My favorite "what if" on Leonard is of coarse had he not had to retire early. Like you, i think he beats Hagler in 83 (especially if Trainer can force Hagler to drop to 154 to fight him-might happen, they got Duran to agree to fight in November for extra cash, and they got hagler to give into every demand in return for extra money). Still Ray, might have a bitch of a time beating Ayala and possibly McCallum at 154. I am pretty sure that hagler would beat those two at 160, but style-wise and size wise Ray may have had trouble with them
But you never know (Ayala's more of a conjecture). Plus those two have to get by Hearns and Duran as well at 154 (I don't know if Beneitez, hits hard enough to keep them off, but then again he may be a bitch for Hagler-style wise). Too bad. The 80's were a hell of a decade, imagine what it would have been like had Leonard fought through it (Curry's got talant as well).

wpink
04-24-2006, 04:25 AM
Roy easily destroys hagler at middle. I base this off of what we saw hagler do with duran and leonard. Roy was stronger and faster at middle than both. Yes hagler was older in 87 but he wasnt in 83, and if you think leonard and duran cause stylistic problems, bigger faster more awkward roy jones at 160, it would not even be close, unless hagler hurts roy. Then we dont know. I have not seen enough of monzoon to make an opinion.

I enjoy your post well thought out, and backed with evidence whether is in line with my beliefs or not. Thanks for the objective post.

I do disagree about duran not being ranked after 79. Yes he had a lot of fights, but it is comonly agreed that his 1st 20-30 fights were like amatuear fights, as he didn't have a trainer or manager, and many were against questionable opposition. That brings into question my other point that many american fighters that come by way of the olympics, ali, jones, leonard, mayweather will not have the large amount of pro fights because they had large amatuer careers ending in a medal..dlh, whitacker as well. So instead of them buildig up pro statistics that would add to their career totals that we look at, in fact ray leonard was fighting bruce curries, randy shields etc,,as amateurs going against his 145-5 amateur career, roy jones was fighting mccllelan's etc going against his amateur career, hearns was fighting aaron pryor's...Yes these are different types of fights, but while fighters like chavez was building up his professional resume against fighter with records like 6-4 etc...and this is building up his professional resume..You have fighters well groomed no doubt, but who were fighting better fighters as amateurs than many of the pros that chavez was fighting...How do you reconcile this? You look at the fact that DLH was a champ after how many fights...This is in part due to he had a tremendous amatuer career an those fights didnt count towards his pro record.

The first person to bring this to the forefront to my attention was emmanual steward when he was discussing sweat Pea and chavez, when he mentioned that sweat pea is not getting the respect coming into this fight that he deserved, he mentioned the fighters that he had already beaten, and said that in fact sweat pea amatuer fights were equal to many of the first 20-30 professional fights of Chavez......Good point as even though they may get title fights sooner because of managment, and affiliation with a major promoter, they are also prepared for the fight when they get it because of great fights vs amatuer, and their early on professional fights are of much higher quality than a duran's and chavez...Go look for yourself. I have read people on here claiming people like viruet as a good quality fighter for duran, but leonard fought him around his 10th fight,..Now it is not apples to apples as viruet was older and had moved up, but the point is the fights that are on chavez's and durans resume as pro fights ....and build up their stats, well leoanrd and others that were on the olympic team chose to have these wins in a different column, doesnt mean that they didnt have good fights or victories that should nt reviewed...That is why I still believe it is what you do versus top quality fighters when your on top. You can beat up on all the bumz you want to, but what do you when you get to the top, and against who. I will say duran did a great job at lightweight while on top, but it a challenge to compare careers of a dlh who wins a title at 130 within his first 10 fights or whatever but had 100 plus amatuer fights,,then you compare him do duran that has a very small amatuer career and after 10 pro fights he was fighting worse fighters than dlh was fighting as an amateur.....

wpink
04-24-2006, 04:42 AM
shoe maker,,
I am about to crash,,but damm your right on point..... I would bet my house that leonard beats hagler 99 times out of 100....when he was active..Hagler was lucky leonard was soo much slower and reflexes shot, and no stamina, because yes hagler was slower too, but I hope everyone realizes that styles makes fights..and leonard style was predicated on timing, speed, angles. boxing...etc..and he lost almost all of that in retirment, but still had enough to beat hagler, by simply side to side movements that forced hagler to lead..and at that lunge....I wish people would just review each round in that fight 3 times in a row and you can see that each time hagler set his feet leonard, in the 1st 6 rounds when he had legs, would simply shift side to side and hagler would have to readjust, then readjust, etc..then he would end up lunging...now this is a 5 yrs from boxing removed leonard. What if they met in 82..remember how bad he had duran missing in the 2nd fight..or how he made benitiz repeatedly miss....For those that say hagler in 82 was much faster..look at the duran fight in 83....Hmm if a is faster than b, and b is faster than c...then you can summize that a is faster than c right? Now add names into this equation and you got Ray leonard much fastr in 82 than duran and hagler..and based on the 2 times we say hagler face a fighter than made him lead, and was faster than him...well styles makes fights..and rays style beats hagler.

But your point about ayala, and mccallum at 154,,is right on. I think maybe at 154 leonard may have enough to beat them, but not at 160. Ayala was very very veryy good, and ray would have to box box box..and show the same speed he did vs duran...Mcccallum leonard would have to box, but reallyk come in tip top shape and not give a stationary body targets for mccallum.

Good post, not too many peopel are able to address issues such as you did.

One final thing. Duran is by far the better natural fighter. He and ayala both probably could have longer careers than a leoanard, mayweathe jones..they are not your natural fighters, even though you got a good glilmps of what leoanrd really is made of whenever he got hit....he showed he was a beast when this happened.....ask duran, hearns, kalule, lalond..hagler in round 9....but Duran's style is not off of precision and time, just feriocity mixed with great defense and all around body and head boxing styles..Great fighter that I would say is more equipped for longer sustained career than ray. I stills say that longer sustained career doesnt mean your the better fighter or that you would beat the fighters that the person with a shorter career has. It means that boxers off of speed, have to resort to different skills after age 34 or so...and many cant adjust...Ali and robinson are the exception that is why they are top 2 to me. Ray leonard could adjust somewhat but retirments damaged our ability to really see whats what after 82...but you cant go as far and say the stupid stuff i heard that ray avoided fighters...if so, he is lousy at it..he failed at avoiding the best 4-5 fighters from welter to middle...then...so he really avoided fighters....

JeffR
04-24-2006, 09:38 AM
There are several new posters whose writing style and grammar vary noticeably from post-to-post. It was anticipated that the move from EZ Board was going to improve this forum. From a user-friendly prospective that may be the case. From an overall quality prospective, I donít think so.

Sharkey
04-24-2006, 09:49 AM
I did the dots (....) before they were cool.

Off The River
04-24-2006, 10:03 AM
Acidwash jeans were cool once and so were mowhawks and Dungeon and Dragons. Ughhhhhhhhh.

Sharkey
04-24-2006, 10:25 AM
What do mean 'were' and 'once'?

Off The River
04-24-2006, 10:40 AM
LOL
Thank God I'm a redneck in conservative Korea, because I never had to endure too much of any of them.

thumper3852
04-24-2006, 02:46 PM
Please...Duran could not stop Edwin Viruet from boxing...you actually tell me that he stopped the much bigger, faster harder hitting and more talented Leonard ? Show me where in the fight this happened...point out the times where Leonard attempted to jab and move but "could not"

Nice twisting there.........I should have just said the Duran of that fight was as driven a fighter as I have ever witnessed, much as Frazier was against Ali as an example....Duran wasn't going to be denied. Sticking a jab in his face and moving wasn't going to keep Roberto off Ray the whole fight...Leonard had to fight to survive, especially after he caught Ray with the big punch in round 2.

No doubt Ray was the slicker boxer and faster than Duran...but Duran was no slouch in the skills department....Leonard had never been matched with that level of fighter before, Benitez having been the best thus far, and Wilfred didn't have the punch, or the fire, that Duran had.

It was a great, great fight between two great fighters. I think it diminishes both Duran and Leonard to chalk Duran's victory up to momentary and uncharacteristic stupidity on the part of Leonard, who was as smart a fighter as a fan would ever hope to see.

Viruet doesn't have a thing to do with what was being discussed....he lost, too...just like Ray got beat in Montreal. It's just my opinion that Leonard used everything in his vast arsenal out of necessity, not choice or stupidity or bad strategy.

The comment on the second fight were obviously just side comments...the thread was about the first fight...not New Orleans or p4p or the careers of the 2 fighters...just Montreal. Duran won a close, very competitive fight, one of the all time best fights between two all time great ranked fighters.

And Pink.............if it was just so easy for "any boxer" to just move side to side to counter a Duran " lunging" in behind 2 or 3 little jabs, how in the hell did Duran ever beat anybody? You talk like he was a one dimensional fighter for crying out loud. That alone would keep a lot of posters from taking you as much more that Sugar Ray cheerleader. Add that to your personalizing comments, and you're starting to slide down the credibility scale. Keep posting on each comment by each poster that disagrees with you and pretty soon you can have the whole damn thread to yourself.

hawk5ins
04-24-2006, 03:42 PM
A few years back watching a College Hoops game between Highly ranked Louisville Cardinals And UMass.

UMass put the wood to my Beloved Cardinals that game and halfway through the game the Fans began shouting: "Over-rated"! Clap clap, clap clap, clap "Over-Rated"! Clap clap, clap clap clap.

And my buddy who was sitting next to me, turns and asks rhetorically, why they would chant that. Why would you want to diminish the magnitude of the accomplishment by diminishing the calibre of the opponent that you are beating?

Would you not WANT to take credit for beating a highly ranked team or all time great fighter? What purpose does it serve you to minimize the accomplishment? If they were NOT that good and indeed over rated? Why take the credit for beating them?

Hawk

wpink
04-24-2006, 04:21 PM
if you read my post, and my arguements they are not pointed at anyone who disagrees with me. It is continously unfortunate that many are jumping in and argueing issues that are not anything that I have argued.

My arguement is when you discredit Ray, and slam him for only having 38 fights, and not be objective in your review. It obvious why ray leonard had only 38 fights but many are on here ignoring the seriousness of his eye injuring and attempting to write him off as someone who was shot when he fought norris. No mention of retirement for 5 years.

I believe that duran leonard 1 fight when leonard goes toe to toe is one of the all time great fights and it shows duran's greatness. How many times and how many different ways do I have to say it. Name one post that I did not claim duran is not great, in fact if your read my top 10 he is listed.

What you and others continue to do, since you can not debate the questions I have raised objectively and probably successfully, is ignore the 2 - 3 main valid concerns I have with those having valid arguments (that is everyone except Aqui). I think it is valid and argueable who is the better between duran and Ray....No objection here. So please check my actual post and read the content before assuming i have problems with those that disagree with my point, I do not. Only when you say false things like ray was scared of duran...or ray was shot by 34, with out pointing out that he was retired from age 27 til 32 and this robbed him of his tremendous skills, and he still had enought to beat hagler, duran again, and a close fight with hearns that he deserved to lose....I agree the lalond fight was not all that noteworthy since lalond came in under the weight limit for super middle...but ray still did beat a bigger man....

my questions...

1. Why does duran get his career looked at differently than every other light weight...meaning dlh, mosley, whitacker, mayweathe.r.all have their careers judged by not only what they do at lightweight but every other class they are fighting in. To date only one person has been courageous enough to takle that question. Others have ducked it, as it brings into question what how great duran really is.

2. Quality vs Quantity....which is more important....If you go by quality then duran does not measure up....If you go by quantity, then duran, chavez, hopkins, etc are hight up there. Would you all rate hopkins over roy jones at middle? He had more defenses than roy did.

I dont care what your answer is.or who you side with, only if your can objectively point out your case and back it. That is it. Aqui please refrain from responding, your post have not intellegence it brings nothing to the table. To say leoanrd was scared of Duran, shows that your not working with a full deck.

wpink
04-24-2006, 04:23 PM
Hawk, I do agree with a lot of your logic by the way...I just want to get your opinion on those two questions, then I am finally satisfied with this issue.

thumper3852
04-24-2006, 05:46 PM
Another question.....

Did Ray Leonard ever complain about the decision in his first fight w Duran??

HE Grant
04-24-2006, 06:02 PM
Nope. Ray never made excuses. He just went out and won the second fight....


I've tried to tune in to this long, interesting and detailed debate but there seems to bee sooo much to read I'm not up for it at this moment..

PeteLeo
04-25-2006, 02:13 AM
For all of its segues into side-issues, insults, posturing, dick-crossing, revelation, and machination, this thread seems to have gotten away from its own title.
A title which is wrong, by the way. I saw the fight. Duran won. PeteLeo.

GorDoom
06-28-2007, 11:51 AM
bump