The best, who was it really?

[walshb]

I know Duran beat Ray when both fighters were possibly at the height of their careers and Duran really fought sensationally considering he was up against one hell of a champion and he was moving up nearly a stone in weight. I do however feel that the fight was extremely close. But who is the better fighter of the two at their peaks at Welter, disregarding their first fight. If they fought ten times at this weight I feel Ray after the first defeat would suss out Duran to beat him more times than Duran beats him. Overall I think a peak Leonard beats a peak Duran at Welter more times

[starlingstomp]

I agree.

[GorDoom]

I also agree with the premise. BUT ... Because of his far more extensive body of work on an altime P4P basis I rank Duran above Ray. Ray's accomplishments were historic but he only had what? 36 fights? He's probably the highest ranked P4P fighter with the fewest fights.

GorDoom

[mike]

ditto above

[rocky111]

Disagree. The best Duran never fought the best Leonard. A puffed up Duran beat the BEST leonard and many of us dont even think it was close. I thought Duran won easy and Leonard never ever drove the guy back with any effect where Duran didnt fight back harder and take the play away. Leonard was a great fighter with all the quality, but Duran will go down in history as the greater fighter cause I think he was.

[robertk]

Agreed.

It was a case of Duran going into the lions den and coming out with the victory. How many old guys moving up past their optimal weight do that?

[hawk5ins]

Just a bit of hyperbole maybe?

THis WAS Duran. Afighter who already established himself at 147.

Duran may no longer have been at his absolute peak. But let's not act as if this was percieved as longshot for him to have beaten Ray.

Geez.

Hawk

[raylawpc]

walshb: Why do you "disregard . . . their first fight" in determining who was better at welterweight?

[rocky111]

I NEVER thought Leonard could beat Duran. It was no surprise to me that Duran spanked him. The "surprise" was Duran quitting in the second bout to a guy who couldnt hurt him at all nor really (throwing out pranks and non scoring razzle dazzle) outbox him.

[walshb]

Some are saying that this was not the best Duran, well it was the best Welter Duran. Maybe the lightweight Duran was faster, fitter etc, but that would not have been enough to beat Ray. Duran had to gain nearly a stone to beat Ray. I know Duran deserved the nod in the first bout and it was one of the finest performances by a boxer in history, considering who he was up against, but it was very close I thought. I just think overall Ray was the better fighter at Welter on their peak. I suppose if I put it like this:

Say they were to fight a 5 fight series and Duran wins the Montreal show as he did, I see Ray coming out and winning the next 4, because he learns from the first bout. Duran gave it his absolute best to win, Leonard I feel had more left and would use it to beat Duran thereafter. Leonard on his day was slightly a better fighter than Roberto. Career wise Roberto possibly achieved more, but Leonard still better overall. Roberto had that one amazing night and performance, I say that would be his last in beating a peak Leonard

[Elwill7847]

I believe the Duran who beat Leonard in Montreal was past his prime and he still won clearly....if my memory is correct In remember giving Duran 9 rounds in that fight. He outwilled Leonard and made SRR fight his fight. All the talk about Ray slugging w/Duran on purpose is BS...once he got nailed by Roberto in the 2nd round he tried to box but Duran wouldnt let him.

I also feel the Duran that beat Palomino would have beaten Leonard clearly.

After the win in Montreal I believe Duran lost his edge and, with the exception of the Moore & Barkley fights, was never great again. Leonard would have beaten Duran everytime they fought after Montreal. However, the Duran of the Palomino and Montreal fight beats Leonard every time.

Who was the better fighter PFP? Duran w/o question.

[rocky111]

Agree totally with the above....................

[hawk5ins]

Elwill is theorizing that between the first Leonard bout and the second one, Duran lost his edge.

You have stated that that wasn't the case, rather you said Duran threw the bout for financial reasons. And you pointed as evidence that Duran could still compete at a high level at higher weights: the Hagler and Barkley bouts.

So I guess my question here is: Which is it? Did Duran lose the rematch becuase he lost his edge, or did he throw the bout (as well as the Hearns bout)?

Hawk

[raylawpc]

The earlier talk of Duran going into the "lion's den" for Leonard-Duran I, and whether or not Duran was a longshot prompted me to check: For what its worth, the odds ranged from 8 to 5 (Washington Post 6/18/1980, P. D1) to 9 to 5 (Chicago Tribune 6/20/1980, p. C1) for Leonard before Leonard-Duran I. According to these articles, however, some journalists disagreed with the oddsmakers and thought the bout should be rated even.

[walshb]

Duran lost the escond bout I feel because he just was not motivated at all for the fight, was not in great shape and was plain bored, not scared, not beat up, not fixed. As for the Hearns fight, if that was a fix, it ranks as the bravest in HISTORY!!!!

[robertk]

Lions den includes far more than odds. It also covers the old champ fighting the new pedigreed up and comer. Lots of old champions won't even do this & not many that do come out with the win.

It also can include being a road warrior and fighting in the other guys back yard or it can be fighting the guy with the huge and powerful promotional ties.

[hawk5ins]

Duran Was an established Welterweight when he fought Leonard, having moved up full time two years earlier and having proven hisworth at this weight by his one sided victory over Palomino.

He was considered to be at the time of the bout, the best pound for pound fighter in the game and SEVERAL writers and insiders were taking Duran to win the fight. A Poll among the press a few weeks before the bout had it split as to who they were taking.

The bout was in Montreal, where Duran showed up speaking some French to the press, and INSTANTLY became the foavorite with the fans and the local press. Leonard may have won Gold in Montreal. But he was still an American.

Duran had promotional Ties to Don King at the time who was working with Cedric Kushner And Bob Arum who put on the bout. Leonard, as we all know, never had any promotional affiliation with either Arum or King.

So how was this Duran coming into the Lion's Den again?

[walshb]

Well I learned something new here. I didn't know Duran was two years or so at Welter prior to the fight with Ray. I assumed he was lightweight champ moving up to challenge Ray. Takes away a bit from the achievemnet, but he still was naturally the smaller man who didn't hit as hard, slightly slower and I would say not as strong. His tactics and defense were the key to his win as well as his ferocity and no respect attitude. He didn't fear Ray's power and just got stuck in for 45 mins solid

[hawk5ins]

But you started this thread about who was better at Welterweight, Duran or Leonard, and you never bothered to do even a preliminary amount of research to find out that Duran was fighting at Welterweight for 2 years prior to his bout with Leonard?

You never bothered to look at Duran's record?

Jeez before the age of the internet, if I didn't have a copy of the Ring record book handy, I would be similarly crippled. But with Boxrec and every other source at one's fingertips, well I personally think it might be helpful, to do that basic research prior to drawing a conclusion as to who was better than who.

It sure is easier to back up your position, if you have something to go on.

Hawk

[Sharkey]

I do not see how one can answer who the best was at welter with a fight, at welter, between the two, excluded from consideration.

[Elwill7847]

Elwill is theorizing that between the first Leonard bout and the second one, Duran lost his edge.

You have stated that that wasn't the case, rather you said Duran threw the bout for financial reasons. And you pointed as evidence that Duran could still compete at a high level at higher weights: the Hagler and Barkley bouts.

So I guess my question here is: Which is it? Did Duran lose the rematch becuase he lost his edge, or did he throw the bout (as well as the Hearns bout)?

Hawk

I'm not theorizing anything......look at the Duran of the second fight and you can see he isnt the same fighter from the first fight. And, as I said, w/the exception of the Barkley & Moore bouts, he never looked great again. He did well in the Cuevas and Hagler fights, but I'd call those good performances not great.

In my opinion Duran lost the rematch to Leonard because he wasnt in shape....mentally or physically. I just think he lost interest after Montreal and, except for Moore & Barkley, never had that killer desire again.

[hawk5ins]

Would be your theory.

You said between Leonard bouts, Duran lost his edge. I stated you said that.

Rocky's opinion and theory is Duran threw the bout because he owed the mob or wiseguys money. He then stated that he agreed with you and your opinion/theory.

I'm asking which one is it: Did Duran throw the bout? Or did he lose "it" between bouts?

Hawk

[wpink]

Elwill, I love this arguement because it is soooo easy to prove this wrong. As hawk said, Duran was an established Welter before the Leonard fight, and if memory serves me right he was ONLY 29. Now if the arguement was who at their peak weight was better pound per pound I go with Duran, however at 147 Leoanrd beats duran 9 out of 10 times.

There was a mention on here about Duran made Leonard fight his fight. This is completely 100% false. Leonard came into the fight with a plan to catch duran backing up (as he did in previous fights with lessor fighters one which Leonard was sitting ringside at, and came into camp with this plan) and STOP him. That is correct, Leonard thought he could stop Duran. This is even referred to in Durans autobiography that Duran's camp new this and Duran even went out of his way to further infuriate leonard once when they were walking by the hotel and Duran approached Ray and cursed him thier kid, and his wife). Very bad call on Ray's part. Yes Duran got under Leonards skin, and won the mental mind game, but physciall Duran did nothing to dictate the SYTLE of fight. Leonard willingly went toe to toe for 12 out of 15 rounds. My friends play the tape, and fastforward to rounds 5-7. Do you see a Leonard that for 3 rounds boxed Duran, kept the fight in the center of the ring, used simple not extravagent but simply lateral movement of avoid backing up to the ropes. and started of rounds 5 & 6 with beautiful left hooks. I ask that before making mention of what Duran forced Leonard to do, look at any movement in the other 12 rouns by Ray to attempt to use Lateral movment. Any Movemet at all. There was non, not at the beginning of the fight round or anywhere else in the fight where a boxer who wants to box is being cut off. Leonard simply chose the wrong strategy in 12 of the 15 rounds and lost. Also for those that know the scoring. Tell us who won most of the rounds on every single scorecard after rounds 4? Do the math if Duran (who did not land a single head shot in round 1 but was awared round 1 on 2 of the 3 scorecards??? hmmmm) won the 1st 4 rounds but only ended up winning by 1 point on 2 cards and 2 points on another, hmmmmm do the math.

Carry this over to New Orleans and the Leonard detractors who every single Leonard victory they want to make excuses as to why Leonard won. Hmmmm 73 fights before his one by Duran and he always shows up, and won every single one except one and it was very close. Duran was only 29, Know months in advance of this fight coming up in Nov. Hmmmmm.. He always had to struggle to make weight at 135, now at 147 it is a big issue? Hmmmm however before the fight you hear nothing but Duran was in the best shape, he was going to Knock Leoanrd out this time. Hmmmmm During the replays you never ever see Duran whence from pain, no discussion in the corner, non. Immediately after he quit, he is not doubled over in pain as it should have been to quit, he was in a fighting position to fight Roger leoanrd, who was madd at Duran for attempting to steal Rays thunder by not being man enought to accept that Leonard was easily outboxing him.

It is simple. Leonard beats Duran every single time that he elects to box. He outboxed him in Montreal in the rounds he showed even the slightest of movement, even to the point that Duran was frustereate and began to mock Leonard. If Leonard fought Duran style of fight, I am not so sure at 147 he would have lost the 2nd time, as even in Montreal Ray came on in the later rounds and was giving as good as he got, and many simply believe since Rays back was on the ropes he was getting the worse of the exchange. I think they both fought a great fight, and that the style and the auro of the night belonged to Duran.

Stop making weak excuses for everytime Ray beat a great fighter. Beneitz, he didnt train, Duran he was not motivated or over ate, Hagler he was old, Hearns he was weakened and leoanrd got lucky, Wow.....Just face it he was beating Duran in New Orleans fair and square and Duran could not handle it and he quit. That simplle. Ray arcel his manger even said this immediately after the fight. Leonard on the other hand stood up to all Duran had to offer a 29 year old Duran (who for any other fighter is well consider in their peak years, but since Leonard beat him, now he was considered old) and it was a very close fight. Regardless of opinions the scorecard had it only 1 round difference on 2 judges cards..Hmmmmmm What about that 1st round?

I say this with 100% belief that the Ray leonard that emerged from the stool after the 4th round, was a different Ray Leonard than had entered the fight. The Ray leonard that lost that fight that night became because of that fight the 2nd best Welterweight in history. Before that fight, he was simply a great fighter, talent that even he admitted was not completley sure of his talents and lacked the confidence it took to come on and beat Tommy Hearns. Had it not been for the toughness he got in Montreal he loses to Tommy. I also believe that the toughness he got in Montreal and the mental toughness to ultize HIS strategy, allows him to beat Duran at 147, 9 times out of 10. Now pound per pound is a dffernet story.

[walshb]

But you started this thread about who was better at Welterweight, Duran or Leonard, and you never bothered to do even a preliminary amount of research to find out that Duran was fighting at Welterweight for 2 years prior to his bout with Leonard?

You never bothered to look at Duran's record?

Jeez before the age of the internet, if I didn't have a copy of the Ring record book handy, I would be similarly crippled. But with Boxrec and every other source at one's fingertips, well I personally think it might be helpful, to do that basic research prior to drawing a conclusion as to who was better than who.

It sure is easier to back up your position, if you have something to go on.

Hawk

Guess we are not all as well read as you Hawk. Gotta get back to that research just in case you catch me out again.

Regardless of my little slip, I still think the thread is very debatable and I still feel Leonard is the better fighter at Welter than Duran and would beat him every time after Montreal

[walshb]

I do not see how one can answer who the best was at welter with a fight, at welter, between the two, excluded from consideration.

I don't think we are excluding the fight. It's just that I always felt that it was Duran's absolute best effort and I feel Ray would beat him every time after this fight because Ray had more at Welter than what he showed in Montreal. In Montreal Duran beat Ray by a close decision. A lot of the rds were close and Leonard actually finished the stronger. 1-0 to Duran, but 9 fights later I see it 9-1 to Ray

[wpink]

Lions den includes far more than odds. It also covers the old champ fighting the new pedigreed up and comer. Lots of old champions won't even do this & not many that do come out with the win.

It also can include being a road warrior and fighting in the other guys back yard or it can be fighting the guy with the huge and powerful promotional ties.

Hmmmm old champ. Duran was only 29 and Leonard was the champ. It always amazes me the false statments people make regarding every great win leonard had or in this case the montreal fight. I honestly do not believe there is another fighter out there that has as many haters as ray did, or as many people the throw darts at every single victory he had.

Name another fighter at age 29 that was considered old? One more thing duran fought with out a amateur career, thus is a reason for the number of fights he had, while leonard had 150 fights as an amateur and turned pro at a later age but still during the teenage years he was boxing. Am I saying that Leonard amateur careers compares to Durans early pro career, no, but I am saying Duran was fighting during his teens as was Ray, and Duran simply was a professinal and Leonard an amateur. So please do not continue to say this false rhetoric that Duran as old. I guess Mayweather is old now too! Duran may not have been at his optimal weight, he may have had a lot of fights, but he was far from old. As for Ray one could argue the case that at age 24 he was still green. I am not going to argue that, because I think he was prime physically, but not mentally until after the Duran fight.

[walshb]

Regardless of Duran's age, in Montreal he was at his Welter peak, so Ray was facing possibly the best Duran ever at 147...

[Sharkey]

What about a theory that Duran learns from their rematch (and his own cavalier attitude) and wins a third fight, becuase if he trains and fights as he did in Montreal he wins...thus restoring the accurate account of how they ought to be judged...prompting an offering that "Leonard was never better than in their rematch". It is roughly the same thinking but giving Duran the option of building on his win, rather than Ray building on his.

Or another that Duran from the first fight faced the best Leonard ever... and in their rematch, Duran was down.

Lots of theories can be applied. I for one believe the second bout holds no more weight than the first one.... Leonard would do better against the field of other Welters probably.

[hawk5ins]

Looking at Duran's RECORD, makes me Well read?

Sheesh!

I guess I'm a scholar!

Hawk

[10-8]

I have a difficult time believing Leonard was at his best going into the first Duran fight when he had fought a grand total of only two title fights. His experience and ring generalship was still being developed. Compared to Duran's experience he was a novice. Also, according to the New York Times report from June 18, 1980 Leonard was suffering from a virus going into the fight.

Leonard Suffers From Mild Virus

MONTREAL, June 17--Sugar Ray Leonard said today that he has been suffering from a virus and sore throat "about a week now," but that it would not affect him Friday night when he defends the World Boxing Council welterweight title against Roberto Duran.

It's interesting that Leonard never used this as an excuse for losing, as it was known and reported to the press. Like other great fighters before him, Leonard learned from the loss, adjusted his strategy and won the rematch.

As for Duran quitting, I'll take Ray Arcel's word for it that the stomach cramp theory was a fabricated story designed to do damage control. Duran displayed no signs of discomfort at any time during the fight in the ring or in his corner. If Duran's stomach cramps were so bad, and crippling enough that he couldn't fight, not only should he have been showing some signs of discomfort during the action, he shouldn't have even been competitive. The truth is Duran was very competitive, and showed no signs of stomach discomfort at any time.

In New Orleans it was much the same Duran as Montreal but a much different Leonard.