Home News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia
The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 57

Thread: Emile Griffith vs Ray Leonard

  1. #1
    pendleton23
    Guest

    Emile Griffith vs Ray Leonard

    I know Griffith was a great fighter but I think Leonard would have defeated him if they met in there primes.Leonard has the speed and enough power to present Griffith huge problems.Leonard by a wide decision.

  2. #2
    GorDoom
    Guest
    Emile Griffith is in my ALL TIME top five personal list of favorite fighters that I have seen in the 48 years I've been involved in boxing ...

    BUT ... As much as I love & admire Emile personally, I've got to go with Leonard here. A close but clear decision for Ray.

    GorDoom

  3. #3
    gregbeyer
    Guest
    do you consider leonard on his way to a WIDE decision over benitez? i can't recall griffith losing too many wide decisions at welterweight. this too me is a pick-em fight.

    EXPERIENCE....emile had a much longer career and faced a wider range of fighters. i remember at the end when griffith came to LA to fight the rising mando muniz. at that time emile had fought more championship fights that muniz had pro bouts. the old man just schooled the kid. did it to top contender ernie lopez also.

    who would you say fared better at middleweight? they were both great fighters and i see no wide decisions between the two.
    greg

  4. #4
    GorDoom
    Guest
    Ya know, you're right, Greg. But as much of an old school guy as I am, I gotsta lean toward Sacarinne Ray.

    By a C-hair is what we're talking about here.

    If they fought 10 times, Griffith would have won a minimum of four.

    Actually, I should recluse myself from this question. We are talking about two incomparable fighters that are also two of the greatest fighters I've seen in my life time...

    SO ...My pick is, May The Best Man Win!

    GorDoom

  5. #5
    pendleton23
    Guest
    Leonard would beat Griffith.He simply is to fast for Griffith.And not only that but Leonard hit harder as well.

  6. #6
    Ronald Lipton
    Guest

    reply

    Looks like Leonard on this one due to his height and hand speed. If this was at welterweight my heart goes with Griffith the iron man over flash. At middle I pick Leonard by decision.

    Where much bigger Hagler just kept walking after Leonard and got tagged all night and over trained, Griffith would step with him. He was so fast on his feet and a good jabber, that everything he threw to the body and head came off his double and triple jabs the way it is supposed to. Griff could also really move his torso and head well and was a sharp strong puncher.

    Don't sell him short at welter V Leonard.

    But do not be surprised if Emile Griffith had the speed to get to him and make it a very rough night. Why?
    Two 15 round wins over fleet footed master boxer Joey Archer who beat Carter, Tiger, Gonzalez and an old Robinson.

    Great matchup

  7. #7
    StingerKarl
    Guest

    Griffith the Great

    Emile wins here.
    Griffith was an absolute machine.
    Griffith W 15.
    Karl

  8. #8
    crold1
    Guest

    Re: Griffith the Great

    Leonard and pretty big here. Griffith was an all time great but did nothing better than Leonard, another all time great. Ray had better power, speed, feet and variation in his game.

  9. #9
    gregbeyer
    Guest

    Re: Griffith the Great

    tough call to be sure....if we are talking about a pre-paret griffith at welter i still gotta give griff a good shot. he seemed to hold back after paret. when i saw him against lopez and muniz he seemed perfectly content to out box them. that would not get it done against leonard.

    if i imagine the griffith from the nite he last fought benny paret against the welterweight leonard who fought benitez or even the duran fights....its still a pick-em war.
    greg

  10. #10
    walsh b
    Guest

    Re: Griffith the Great

    Ray would have been too fast, busy and slightly stronger than Griffith. He wins by late TKO or decision. Nobody but a prime Robinson beats Leonard at Welter

  11. #11
    gregbeyer
    Guest

    Re: Griffith the Great

    nobody but a prime robinson????

    ya know he did fight a guy named duran....
    greg

  12. #12
    rocky111
    Guest

    Re: Griffith the Great

    Griffith easy. His era was much much tougher at welter. Duran was a pumped up lightweight and handled Ray AND Carlos Palamino. Benitez had no power and Hearns no chin. They were good but not welters in the class of Cuban Luis Rodriguez in any way. Griff fought much much better guys at welter and middle. I mean he beat Rodriguez three of four. Could Ray Leonard do that?
    Leonard had speed? Yes he did, but Emile Griffith in his prime at welter had the much much faster jab and was a monster in close. Watch him at welter in his prime. You'll see. Leonard had flash, but Griff had the better hands. Those flashy hooks of Ray werent gonna do anything to Emile. Neither was the "shoeshine" stuff. Emile was solid man.
    Not even a close fight. Emile handles Ray Leonard with ease. Ray had some sock, but he wasnt gonna do anything to Griff. A Rubin Carter he wasnt for power.

  13. #13
    Hagler04
    Guest

    Re: Griffith the Great

    At first glance I'd favor Leonard easy . . .he is faster, possibly stronger, and very flashy. But then when I see Griffith at welter he was just so damned steadfast . . .both had great stamina at welter but I see Emile having the edge in that area, and Griffith would be wearing Ray out with those HARD body punches even though he'd lose the wide majority of the first 9 or so rounds. Griffith would come on strong late and floor Leonard to lose a controversial split decision over 15.

  14. #14
    robertk
    Guest

    Re: Griffith the Great

    I'll take griffith in the upset in this one. If they fought 3 times I'd lean towards leonard to take the final 2 via decision.

    I think good jabbers present problems stylistically to leonard. He just doesn't look his best and a jab seems to keep him off that comfy pitchers mound where he looked great. Griffith had an all-time great jab and a deceptive left hook off of it. But that jab is the key and it wasn't all that easy to slip or to counter and it sure wasn't telegraphed.
    This is a decision bout all the way but overall, I like the way griffith held those hands up==a must against leonard==and that jab to squeek out the W.

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    1,527
    vCash
    500

    Re: Emile Griffith vs Ray Leonard

    Good reads while the fantasy section is slow.

  16. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    237
    vCash
    500

    Re: Emile Griffith vs Ray Leonard

    GRiffith, Griffith , Griffith. Ten out of ten times, Griffith.

    I'm not saying that Leonard wasn't a top welterweight, he's just a tad overrated. The difference between Duran 1 and Duran 2 had much more to do with the difference in Durans preparation then in any adjustment that Leonard made. Every time I hear the story about how Ray fought the wrong fight the first time I believe it should start out with the term "once upon a time" because it's a fairy tale. Ray didn't box in the first fight because a trained and motivated Duran didn't allow him to. Ray fought the only type of fight that Duran allowed him to fight, and did a FANTASTIC job, it was almost good enough.

    It is not Leonard's fault that Duran wasn't in top shape for the second fight. I think the blame can be placed firmly on Duran and his managerial and promotional team. Leonard's team so outmaneuvered Duran's people in setting the conditions for the fight that it was almost impossible for Duran to be in shape. Had Duran been in the same condition for the second fight as he was for the first, Leonard wouldn't have been able box and move anymore than he did in the first. Duran was just a better fighter. His negotiating team on the other hand wasn't in Leonard's teams class.

    I could talk about Hearns 1 and 2 but I don't think the comparisons apply here.
    Leonard was a good fighter, Griffith is just a better fighter.

    Just for information, except for the Camacho fight I rooted against Leonard in every fight he fought.

    134

  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,133
    vCash
    500

    Re: Emile Griffith vs Ray Leonard

    Quote Originally Posted by thewonderful134
    GRiffith, Griffith , Griffith. Ten out of ten times, Griffith.

    I'm not saying that Leonard wasn't a top welterweight, he's just a tad overrated. The difference between Duran 1 and Duran 2 had much more to do with the difference in Durans preparation then in any adjustment that Leonard made. Every time I hear the story about how Ray fought the wrong fight the first time I believe it should start out with the term "once upon a time" because it's a fairy tale. Ray didn't box in the first fight because a trained and motivated Duran didn't allow him to. Ray fought the only type of fight that Duran allowed him to fight, and did a FANTASTIC job, it was almost good enough.

    It is not Leonard's fault that Duran wasn't in top shape for the second fight. I think the blame can be placed firmly on Duran and his managerial and promotional team. Leonard's team so outmaneuvered Duran's people in setting the conditions for the fight that it was almost impossible for Duran to be in shape. Had Duran been in the same condition for the second fight as he was for the first, Leonard wouldn't have been able box and move anymore than he did in the first. Duran was just a better fighter. His negotiating team on the other hand wasn't in Leonard's teams class.

    I could talk about Hearns 1 and 2 but I don't think the comparisons apply here.
    Leonard was a good fighter, Griffith is just a better fighter.

    Just for information, except for the Camacho fight I rooted against Leonard in every fight he fought.

    134
    Totally disagree. I ask,, so you point out the difference in Duran1-2 was only Duran prep and approach to the fight. Hmm was there not some minor issue in the 1st fight, like Leonard WILLINGLY chose to go toe to toe, and not box and not utilize his speed advqantages, angles, boxing, combinations etc. Funny again how many simply look at one person's adjustments or changes.
    Looking at Durans auto Hands of Stone, he even mentioned his camp did not think the choice of referee suited them favorably and if Ray was allowed to box, that Duran chances of losing increased dramatically. Duran strategy was to get inside Ray's head and challenge his manhood to force him to fight. This Duran did, and also Padillo did not do what he normally did and seperate the fighters, only slapping of the gloves in the clenches.

    I continue to ask get the video footage of the 1st Duran leonard fight, and show me anywhere, where he cut off the ring vs a leoanrd that ATTEMPTED TO MOVE BOX. He did not , because Ray chose not to utlize these skills. Thus to simply say Duran only lost the 2nd fight because he was not prepared, but ignore the obvious that Ray had a completley different mind set and style between the 2 fights,...Well shows a willingness to ignore certain facts.

    The leonard THAT EMERGED FROM the Duran fight, IMO beats Emile Griffith. That leonard mentally was toughter than who entered the fight, or who fought benetiz. That leonard physicially became stronger. Lets not take anything from Duran in the 1st fight, that Duran in Montreal was a beast, but Leonard flatfooted style, allowed the Beast to explode, and I as I said Leonard the emerged from this fight showed the abillity to get his style or adjust moreso, and vs Griffith, I believe he mentally and physically would be stong enough to employ his skills to ensure a victory. The Leonard that fought Benetiz, IMO still could win, but IMO it would be COULD WIN, vs Would win.

    Also so many false statments that surface from the Duran leonard fights. First off he was in good shape. Nobody said he was not in good shape until AFTER THE FIGHT. In fact weeks before the fight Duran was the Ali-Holmes fight and proclaimed himself now the greatest, since Ali had just lost, and stated he was in EVEN GREATER SHAPE THIS TIME, AND WOULD KO LEONARD. There is even youtube footage of Duran pre Leonard 2nd fight stating how much better his training camp was going. I know information has surfaced AFTER about how the things did not go right, too much partying. However, DURAN ALWAYS PARTIED BETWEEN FIGHTS, AND A COUPLE OF FACTS THAT ARE ALWAYS LEFT OUT...

    1. Duran previously ballooned up between fights and had to get back to 135, this time he only had to get down to 147.
    2. If you look at the average time between fights previously leading up to the Leonard Duran fights, it was around 3-4 months. The time between Duran 1 and duran2 was 5 months. How in the hell is this rushing him. The fight number two was agreed up 2 weeks after the 1st fight ended. I guess Pacquio is being taken advantage of, since he only has 3 months between Cotto and Mayweather.

    Too many false excuses always given. Mighty funny for the 71 previous fights we never hear excuses or cry's out about Duran when he was winning. Also we never heard about Leonard almost having to cancel the 1st fight due coming down with the Flu the week before, thus he was late getting to montreal. No we only hear that because duran lost in the 2nd fight, and quit, and leonard boxed this time, it must have been because Duran was not himself.

    Finally for overrated, can you help identify a Welter outside of Ray leonard out side of Robinson, who beat 4 fighters who were ranked p4p as high as they were ..all time lists. Duran top 10, hearns, Hagler, Benetiz all getting top 60 or so.
    Last edited by wpink; 12-05-2009 at 03:27 AM.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    214
    vCash
    500

    Re: Emile Griffith vs Ray Leonard

    I certainly don't think Griffith's textbook standup style would allow him to better Leonard on the outside, expecially when considering his speed handicap (by comparison of course). Leonard had the speed and technical acumen to pretty much dominate Benitez at his own game, therefore I can't see Griffith getting the better of him, at least from a distance.

    Griffith did have, if nothing else, a clear strength advantage though. If he were to try to press the fight and get rough with Ray, things could get a bit more interesting. However, even in these circumstances I think Leonard's power and combination punching would allow him to at least hold his own and get the fight back to neutral grounds.

    Leonard wins this one on the cards pretty clearly in a competitive technical boxing match the way I see it.

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    949
    vCash
    500

    Re: Emile Griffith vs Ray Leonard

    Wpink makes a lot of good points. Also, in the Leonard vs. Duran I, there are a lot of people including on this site that felt that Ray should have won. Ray fighting out of his element and it could still be argued that he won. Ray had speed, power, good movement, great chin, and defense. Griffith had huge strength and did fight in a tougher era. Napoles was able to beat Griffith and I see Ray beating Griffith in a similar fashion.

  20. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,283
    vCash
    500

    Re: Emile Griffith vs Ray Leonard

    I would agree that Duran beat Leonard in the 1st fight, no argument.

    But, some of the things I'm reading above...?? Benitez had no power? Duran would beat Leonard just the same in fight #2 had Duran been in the same shape as in #1 (anyone besides Cosell and yours truly notice that Leonard was noticeably bigger and stronger in fight #2)? Griffith fought in the tougher (welterweight) era??

    Man, I disagree with those assertions. I'll take Leonard by a comfortable decision every time out. Griffith's style is all wrong against Leonard. This isn't going to be Benny Paret in there with him.

    Griff was a strong man, an advantage he has over Leonard, and Griff had that hard jab... but I don't think either will much matter. Leonard didn't just have more flash, he had more talent, and the tools to frustrate Griff all night. Yes, he was faster.

    And respectfully, Greg, I don't see where Mando Muniz belongs anywhere in this conversation. A wonderful man, a class act, but nowhere near this discussion in terms of ability, IMHO at least. Same with Ernie Lopez.

  21. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Cicero, New York
    Posts
    513
    vCash
    500

    Re: Emile Griffith vs Ray Leonard

    I'd make Luis Rodriquez even money vs Leonard and Griffith beat Luis 2 out of 3 I think. I think Emile would give Leonard hell and likely beat him.

  22. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Louth, Ireland
    Posts
    5,150
    vCash
    500

    Re: Emile Griffith vs Ray Leonard

    I'm confused as to why anyone would automatically think that Griffith
    is stronger physically than Ray

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    214
    vCash
    500

    Re: Emile Griffith vs Ray Leonard

    Quote Originally Posted by Elwill7847
    I'd make Luis Rodriquez even money vs Leonard and Griffith beat Luis 2 out of 3 I think. I think Emile would give Leonard hell and likely beat him.
    He officially beat Rodriguez 3 out of 4, but by accounts of those who've seen all or at least most of the series, those wins are highly disputed and often ridiculed. Based on what I've seen and read I'd say the series going 3-1 the other way around would've been a lot closer to the truth. Then again the only man I know whose seen the entire series believes Rodriguez to have won all 4 bouts conclusively. The only bout available on Youtube is of their third fight, a bout which Griffith officially won despite Rodriguez seemingly getting the better of the fight throughout. Take a look for yourself.

    I hold Rodriguez in much higher esteem than Griffith based on reports of their series and what I've seen of the two on film. He just seemed to be a more varied, awkward and overall more effective fighter. He's one of those rare fighters who'd be even money with pretty much any Welterweight in history on his best day. An awkward and unorthodox, but extremely skilled and experienced stylist.
    Last edited by El Gato; 12-05-2009 at 09:22 PM.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    214
    vCash
    500

    Re: Emile Griffith vs Ray Leonard

    Quote Originally Posted by walshb
    I'm confused as to why anyone would automatically think that Griffith
    is stronger physically than Ray
    They'd probably base that on the footage available of their fights, especially Griffith's at MW and against Dick Tiger. I'd certainly agree with those who stated as much.

  25. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    237
    vCash
    500

    Re: Emile Griffith vs Ray Leonard

    wpink and others

    Let me try to answer some of these opinions.
    Yes , Duran did get into Leonards head and so in the beginning Leonard was more inclined to punch then he normally might have been, but when your under pressure you have a tendency to use the style that you know, as Teddy Atlas likes to say "If your born round you don't die square". Ray had been a boxer all his life, and I believe thats the style he tried to fall back on, I haven't seen this fight in many years, but if I recall right somewhere early in the fight, second or third round, Leonard tries to change the distance the fight was being fought at, Duran hurts him and forces the fight back to the inside. AS for Duran cutting off the ring on Leonard. You need to cut off the ring when you are trying to catch someone who is fighting at a distance, a boxer can't get or maintain that distance unless he is given a certain amount of respect. I don't remember Duran ever giving Leonard the type of respect he needed to establish the distance that he needed to box and move.

    Before the second fight when Duran was being interveiwed and said he was in great shape, well that's called marketing. You really won't expect him to say that he was in comparatively bad shape. I don't think the promoters would have been pleased to hear this.Leonard himself said in an interview that he and his people knew how far out of shape Duran had allowed himself to get and had the goal of getting Duran back in the ring before Duran had a chance to get back in top shape. Duran was offered what at that time was an immense amount of money for the rematch. When Durans people asked for more time, they were told that if Roberto didn't sign for the fight that Leonard would go after the other champion, Pipeno Cuevas. It was a bluff, but there was to much money on the table for it to be called, Duran signed on. Now you can take this next part with a grain of salt because it was a long ago and second hand, but this is how I remember it. Sometime after the second fight I was at the westminster gym and the topic of what happened to Duran at that fight came up. Jackie McCoy told me that Monroe Brooks, who was Duran's main sparring partner for this fight, told him(see, very second hand) That Duran didn't really train, he just made weight. Roberto would be scheduled to spar x amount of rounds but instead would only do about half, then go sit in a sauna. He( Duran) was certain that he had Rays number, that all he had to do was show up. Personally, I think thats what Duran did, he made weight, but he was in nowhere near the mental, physical and emotional shape you would have to be in to fight a Ray leonard.

    On the topic of this thread, I freely admit that Ray Leonard was faster than Griffith, but I don"t think that the difference was so overwhelming that it would be a deciding factor in this contest, I think that Griffiths jab makes the difference.

  26. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,133
    vCash
    500

    Re: Emile Griffith vs Ray Leonard

    Quote Originally Posted by thewonderful134
    wpink and others

    Let me try to answer some of these opinions.
    Yes , Duran did get into Leonards head and so in the beginning Leonard was more inclined to punch then he normally might have been, but when your under pressure you have a tendency to use the style that you know, as Teddy Atlas likes to say "If your born round you don't die square". Ray had been a boxer all his life, and I believe thats the style he tried to fall back on, I haven't seen this fight in many years, but if I recall right somewhere early in the fight, second or third round, Leonard tries to change the distance the fight was being fought at, Duran hurts him and forces the fight back to the inside. AS for Duran cutting off the ring on Leonard. You need to cut off the ring when you are trying to catch someone who is fighting at a distance, a boxer can't get or maintain that distance unless he is given a certain amount of respect. I don't remember Duran ever giving Leonard the type of respect he needed to establish the distance that he needed to box and move.

    Before the second fight when Duran was being interveiwed and said he was in great shape, well that's called marketing. You really won't expect him to say that he was in comparatively bad shape. I don't think the promoters would have been pleased to hear this.Leonard himself said in an interview that he and his people knew how far out of shape Duran had allowed himself to get and had the goal of getting Duran back in the ring before Duran had a chance to get back in top shape. Duran was offered what at that time was an immense amount of money for the rematch. When Durans people asked for more time, they were told that if Roberto didn't sign for the fight that Leonard would go after the other champion, Pipeno Cuevas. It was a bluff, but there was to much money on the table for it to be called, Duran signed on. Now you can take this next part with a grain of salt because it was a long ago and second hand, but this is how I remember it. Sometime after the second fight I was at the westminster gym and the topic of what happened to Duran at that fight came up. Jackie McCoy told me that Monroe Brooks, who was Duran's main sparring partner for this fight, told him(see, very second hand) That Duran didn't really train, he just made weight. Roberto would be scheduled to spar x amount of rounds but instead would only do about half, then go sit in a sauna. He( Duran) was certain that he had Rays number, that all he had to do was show up. Personally, I think thats what Duran did, he made weight, but he was in nowhere near the mental, physical and emotional shape you would have to be in to fight a Ray leonard.

    On the topic of this thread, I freely admit that Ray Leonard was faster than Griffith, but I don"t think that the difference was so overwhelming that it would be a deciding factor in this contest, I think that Griffiths jab makes the difference.
    I have to say.. this post is an example of a person who wants to blatently say one fighter gets and excuse for their loss and another does not.

    There are so many things factually and "general norms assumptively" wrong that I do not know where to start....

    Lets identify your horrible account of the 1st fight. It was round 2 when Duran hurt Ray. It was early when they just both seemed to losen up and Ray through a couple of punched and Boom...he was caught but Duran. Then from rounds 2-4 Duran dominated a apprehensive Ray. There was no cutting off rings, forcing Ray to fight anything. Ray was simply getting his ass whipped... Then rounds 5-7 Ray started off each round with nice left hooks in the center of the ring, and Duran did not bull rush Ray back, and ray used a bit of side stepping (not all out lateral movement like he did vs hearns at first or hagler)..but enough to win the rounds. I point this out, because your saying or aluding that Duran forced ray to fight his fight. Mentally yes...Physically all you have to do is look at the fight, and go over each round and see where did ray try to move but could not? Ray simply instead of using lateral movement or dancing, to create angles etc.. he went to to toe and duran slipped his jab repeatedly and force ray to go straight back to the ropes. If you followed Ray since he was in the Olympics you know Ray knows how to avoid a person rushing him. Lets say Duran had to ability to make Ray fight his fight..Ray would have AT LEAST TRIED TO SIDE STEP DURAN..LIKE HMMM HE DID IN ROUND ONE OF THE 1ST FIGHT. Again you may want to go back and revisit the footage.

    Now to be perfectly honest... Leonard in many big fights did not dance, etc. Benetiz fight he didnt, hearns he did at first, but then went flat footed. So it not like Leonard used a totally foreign boxing style. Not trying to say that at all. Duran simply whipped Ray's ass, at least in the 1st part of that fight. My point is Ray could have easily starting moving and made Duran try rather successfully or unsuccessfully to cut of the ring, but this never happened. Also get footage of Ray stating prefight that he wanted to KILL Duran.... he stated also he would not box he would slug and stop duran. Dundee stated several times Ray would stop Duran in 1. Thus leonard entire mind set was to make duran pay for the things he did outside of the ring.

    As for the weak offer of a explanation for the Duran 2 fight. You should have really saved that one. Yes your correct Duran and all fighers market themselves pre fight and say they are in the best shape ever. Yes your correct. What you leave out is that ALL FIGHTER MARKET THEMSELVES AFTER A LOSS TO, AND MAKE EXCUSES FOR WHY THE LOST, INCLUDING THIS TIME DURAN.

    If you really want to know visably the biggest reason why duran lost the 2nd fight...IMO..is this.

    1. Duran tried his same old bullrushes in the 2nd fight that he did successfully in the 1st fight. This time Instead of Ray throwing a amateurish overhand looping right, or a jab that Duran easily ducked. Ray starting round 2, in then 2nd fight, caught duran repeatedly with hooks and uppercuts, when he rushed in, and he would have duran off balance (even falling through the ropes once) trying to get to SRL, but ray would counter with hooks and uppercuts, the laterlly step to side. Differnce Hooks uppersuts, movement.... vs jabs overhands rights, no movement.

    2. Leonard much stronger upper body, so that he would not get thrown around by duran in close. Also SRL mentally was stronger, to ensure the fight went how Ray wanted it.

    3. Funny how you say or refer to cutting of the ring, but do not reference when Duran tried to cut off a moving ray, and was totally unsuccessful. Duran didnt really train this, Duran had cramps that,
    Duran had diarrhea....Simple fact we can only go on the results that actually happen in the fight. If we use your analogy..then we would never be able to accept the verdict of a fight as everyone would have an excuse. Duran simply lost the 2nd fight

  27. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Louth, Ireland
    Posts
    5,150
    vCash
    500

    Re: Emile Griffith vs Ray Leonard

    Quote Originally Posted by wpink
    I have to say.. this post is an example of a person who wants to blatently say one fighter gets and excuse for their loss and another does not.

    There are so many things factually and "general norms assumptively" wrong that I do not know where to start....

    Lets identify your horrible account of the 1st fight. It was round 2 when
    If you really want to know visably the biggest reason why duran lost the 2nd fight...IMO..is this.
    Steady on pinky

    I do not think the account was at all horrible. And even if it was, you don't have to take such offence.

    As for excuses as to why Duran lost the second fight. Can anyone honestly say that they believe Duran trained and prepared as
    hard or tough as he did for fight 1? Even Ray admitted that he wanted to get Duran when Duran wasn't ready.
    He said this, which actually is nothing to be proud of. He beat a less than prepared Duran. That is
    not an excuse, it's a fact. And it is MORE true than the excuse that RAY fans have for why Ray lost
    fight 1,(because he fought the wrong fight).
    Last edited by walshb; 12-07-2009 at 12:45 PM.

  28. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    237
    vCash
    500

    Re: Emile Griffith vs Ray Leonard

    Wpink

    I Just watched both fights, I hadn't seen them in many years and I wanted to see if my memory was was even remotely accurate. Please don't start sticking pins in your 134 doll ( that's my ex-girlfriends job and she will get jealous) but you are wrong. The main difference in the second fight from the first is Durans lack of being in proper shape, not Ray's adjustment. My own personal opinion is that the first fight is is much closer of how they fare against one another, top form vs top form, then the second fight. As I stated earlier, he(Duran) just made weight, thats huge difference, physicaly, mentaly and emotionally from training for a fight, especially against a Ray Leonard. This is what allowed Ray to do what he did.

    134

  29. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,133
    vCash
    500

    Re: Emile Griffith vs Ray Leonard

    Quote Originally Posted by walshb
    Steady on pinky

    I do not think the account was at all horrible. And even if it was, you don't have to take such offence.

    As for excuses as to why Duran lost the second fight. Can anyone honestly say that they believe Duran trained and prepared as
    hard or tough as he did for fight 1? Even Ray admitted that he wanted to get Duran when Duran wasn't ready.
    He said this, which actually is nothing to be proud of. He beat a less than prepared Duran. That is
    not an excuse, it's a fact. And it is MORE true than the excuse that RAY fans have for why Ray lost
    fight 1,(because he fought the wrong fight).
    Totally false. Leoanrd never ever said that. At least not on a documented record I heard, and I bet not one that you can produce. Dundee said that he knew that Duran had a notion of ballooning up between fights. Keep in mind Ray went on Vacation to hawaii, and upon returning told Trainer he wanted to make the fight. Then Mike Trainer contacted all parties including Dundee. The thing that still makes no sense my friend is that you say the following.

    1. Duran was rushed back into the ring purposefully to take advantage of knack for ballooning up between fights. Help me understand how is it that this excuse was never made before in 72 fights before, and the their was a 5 month lay off between june and nov fights, they had. The average lenght of time even in his 8 fights at welter was 3 months. So why any difference.

    2. Duran ALWAYS BALLOONED UP BETWEEN FIGHTS, so why now when he loses claim this as an excuse.
    3. If you say Duran in the 2nd fight mentally or physcially was not the same, then anyone can see Ray was not as strong in the 2nd fight as he was the 1st fight, and he clearly did not willingly fight the correct fight. So they both lost in fights that they physically and mentally where not at their peak, according to your flawed, excuse filled logic
    4. If we are to accept excuses for every lose a fighter has, then why declare a winner. These are professional fighters. His job is to come to the ring prepared, mentally, make weight, give 100%. You cant claim these weak lame excuses when your favorite loses. Duran simply was getting outboxed and was frusterated. In his own autobiography, HIS WORDS, he admits that there was not lack of being in shape, no cramps, no nothing other than the fact he was frusterated that Ray was not standiing in front of him fighting him as a man, he uttered, in his native language" i am not fighting this clown anymore" and quit. It was others, including Cossell that created the No mas, statment.
    5. Again back to you all weak excuse for why Duran loss, then we ignore, Ali loss to Frazier, hell he was off several years, we can ignore Robinson loss to Lamotta, hell they where fighting every week then, we can clealry ignore leonards loss to Duran first time for reasons stated before, You all have already discounted Dejesus's win over Duran (any loss Duran ever has to some is not due to the efforts of the figher, only duran lack of effort. It, according to you and others, is wordly impossibe that Duran could lose. However, need I remind you of his record vs the best in his era. Do you really want me to show the factual truth, and not carry on the myth.

    I tried not to go there. This excuses filled responses made me do it.

    Again. If you all are willing to stop the weak excuse giving everytime Duran lost a fight, and just accept the fact HE LOST. Plain and simple.

    I Just watched both fights, I hadn't seen them in many years and I wanted to see if my memory was was even remotely accurate. Please don't start sticking pins in your 134 doll ( that's my ex-girlfriends job and she will get jealous) but you are wrong. The main difference in the second fight from the first is Durans lack of being in proper shape, not Ray's adjustment. My own personal opinion is that the first fight is is much closer of how they fare against one another, top form vs top form, then the second fight. As I stated earlier, he(Duran) just made weight, thats huge difference, physicaly, mentaly and emotionally from training for a fight, especially against a Ray Leonard. This is what allowed Ray to do what he did.

    That is your opinion Ok. I notice you chose not to address the issues about cutting off the ring, as I asked you to identify ANY spot in the first fight where Duran cut off the ring vs a Leonard. I stand behind my statment that you will not, and cant, because IT JUST AINT SO. So I guess according to you, Leonard either miraculously came down with a bit of dementia and simply forgot how to box, stick and move, OR AT LEAST TRY AND FORCE DURAN TO CUT OFF THE RING, MAKE A MOVING RAY STAND AND BOX (WHICH HE DID NOT DO AS AGAIN RAY NEVER DID THIS), or Ray chose to fight the wrong fight. Again choosing to fight the wrong fight, IMO, simply is a strategy mistake, he still lost. However, IF you all gonna whin and say Duran only lost to ray because he was ill prepared this time, WHEN THE FACTS, do not support this, THEN I WILL SAY RAY WAS ILL PREPARED FOR TH 1ST FIGHT. Same thing different fight....

    If Ray fights Duran 10 times, the Ray that emerged from the 1st fight beats duran 10 times out of 10. Just to good, to fast, was just really getting into rythim in the 2nd fight, when Duran quit and robbed him of a worse beating.

  30. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Louth, Ireland
    Posts
    5,150
    vCash
    500

    Re: Emile Griffith vs Ray Leonard

    I heard Leonard in an interview say that his camp KNEW that Duran had a tendency to slack off during fights, and that he (Leonard) wanted to take advantage of this. I am certain that Ray admitted to WANTING to get Duran when he knew Duran wasn't up to it. I was shocked that Ray would admit this, as to me, it devalues Ray's win really.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia Links Home