Fights That Didn't Look Right To You

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 23 Jan 2008, 15:59

Ambling Alp wrote:Well I'm glad that you agree about Pryor. I would like to add that At the time that Leonard retired, Pryor had yet to fight Arguello. Pryor was only the Jr Welterweight champion for about a year and half before Leonard had to retire with the eye injury. Leonard fought Duran, Hearns and even won the Jr Middleweight title.
During this time, Pryor fought Danny Myers, Gaetan Hart, Lennox Blackmore, Dujuan Johnson. That doesn't entitle you to be claiming that Ray Leonard must be ducking you.
Wrong or right, a fighter in a lower division is expected to move up if he wants to challenge a fighter in higher weight class. Pryor didn't do this.
There was no reason for Leonard to fight Pryor.

How can I say that cut that Benitez had didn't affect his performance? Becasue it didn't obstuct his vision. It was under control. I have seen this fight many times. It never even occurred to me that anyone would think it was a problem becasue it wasn't. I have read about this fight. I have never heard people talk about it. I have never once heard a word that the cut was a factor. Now all of the sudden it is. Anything to taint a big win of Leonards.

Leonard could have Hagler 5 years before he did? Am I the only one who remembers that Leonard had a detached retina and was told not to fight again? That was in 1982. Leonard was set to defend his welterweight title against Roger Stafford. If he had not had the eye injury, he wasn't going to be moving up to middleweight any time soon. He probably would have moved to Jr Middleweight for a couple of years. He certainly wasn't going to move up to middleweight for a while. The earliest that he possibly could have fought Hagler would have been 1985.
He did fight again in 1984, but decided to quit again. How can he possibly be blamed for this?

I am so sick of the won't give rematches nonsense about Leonard. Ezzard you are smart guy, why can't you figure this out? Look at the facts. they don't support this at all.
Leonard did fight Duran 3 times, Hearns twice, Hagler, Benitez. He did this despite missing probably the best 5 years of his prime.

No one ever applies the same standard to the other fighters.
Benitez never gave Duran a rematch.
Hearns never gave Duran or Benitez a rematch.
Hagler never gave Duran or Hearns a rematch.
Duran never gave Buchanan or Barkley a rematch.

I'm sure there are valid reasons for some of these rematches not happening, however can we some reasoning when it come to Leonard?

Of the fights featuring two of Leonard, Duran, Hagler,Hearns, and Benitez, who had the most?
Leonard. Despite the fact that the other guys had 5 more years than he did. Yet he is the one accused of not fighting people.

How many times was Leonard supposed to fight each of these guys in the shortened career that he had?

Would 3 times each against Duran,Hagler,Hearns,Benitez, and now I guess Pryor been enough?

He had more major fights than any of these guys, despite missing almost 5 years. How many major fights should have had to have fought?
I would really like to know the number.

What happened was that Leonard had the chance to fight those guys again, each one of them at the moment and he did not...Plus the fights like with Benitez, Duran and Hearns SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE for rematches because the people wanted it them and plus, NOBODY got mad when Leonard asked for Duran a rematch so soon. But when it came for a rubber match, he said "the heck with it"...Now, he gives Duran a third fight 9 years later? That did not seem right.

Zale and Graziano fought 3 times in between in 2 years and the public came out SATISFIED.

SO did Pep vs Saddler series
so did Ketchel vs Papke
so did McLarnin vs Ross

Leonard could have given a rematch to Hearns, too, but he said he would not until Tommy admitted that he could not continue int the 14th round of their fight....That for a lot of people is took like you are not REAL FIGHTER. Then he gives Hearns a rematch 8 years LATER because in HIS MIND HE THOUGHT THAT HEARNS WAS WASHED UP.

REAL FIGHTERS GIVE REMATCHES when the public demands it RIGHT AWAY...Sugar Ray, great fighter in my view, NEVER DID THAT, and I think that is a RESENTMENT to a lot of people...If Benitez and Hearns would have beaten Leonard, they would have give Leonard a rematch...NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 23 Jan 2008, 17:29

Elmer, I like how you sometimes say Leonard was one your favorite fighters, yet here you imply that he wasn't a "real fighter".

As I have pointed out numerous times before, Benitez, Duran, and Hearns all moved up in weight immdiately after losing to Leonard. It's revisonist history to say they wanted immediate rematches. They didn't.
If any of them would have stayed at welterweight, they would have gotton another shot at Leonard and they knew that. They chose to move out of the welterweight division, away from Leonard. If anything, they could be accused of running from Leonard.

Btw, the public certainly wasn't demanding that Leonard fight these guys right away. After Leonard beat Benitez convincingly, the public didn't want him to fight Benitez again. They wanted to see him fight Duran.
After Leonard beat duran easily, no one wanted to see a 3rd fight. they wanted to see him fight Hearns.

After Willie Pep lost to Saddler, he didn't move out the featherweight class forever. He fought as a featherweight again because he wanted to fight Saddler again.
After Zale lost to Graziano, he didn't leave the middleweight division.
After Papke lost Ketchel, he didn't move out of the middleweight class.
After McClarnin lost to Ross, he didn't move out of the welterweight class.

My challenge to Ezzard and elmer or any one else:
Please list who Leonard should have fought, when he should have fought them and at what weight class.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 23 Jan 2008, 18:02

As was mentioned earlier, Walcott looked capable of standing up before the count of 10 in the second bout with Marciano. Jeff Harding looked like he easily could have beaten the count in the 2nd fight with Andries, and though it's not comparable to any other fights mentioned, Mark Young went down for the count from a punch that never landed against Tyson.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 24 Jan 2008, 05:48

Ambling Alp wrote:Well I'm glad that you agree about Pryor. I would like to add that At the time that Leonard retired, Pryor had yet to fight Arguello. Pryor was only the Jr Welterweight champion for about a year and half before Leonard had to retire with the eye injury. Leonard fought Duran, Hearns and even won the Jr Middleweight title.
During this time, Pryor fought Danny Myers, Gaetan Hart, Lennox Blackmore, Dujuan Johnson. That doesn't entitle you to be claiming that Ray Leonard must be ducking you.
Wrong or right, a fighter in a lower division is expected to move up if he wants to challenge a fighter in higher weight class. Pryor didn't do this.
There was no reason for Leonard to fight Pryor.

How can I say that cut that Benitez had didn't affect his performance? Becasue it didn't obstuct his vision. It was under control. I have seen this fight many times. It never even occurred to me that anyone would think it was a problem becasue it wasn't. I have read about this fight. I have never heard people talk about it. I have never once heard a word that the cut was a factor. Now all of the sudden it is. Anything to taint a big win of Leonards.

Leonard could have Hagler 5 years before he did? Am I the only one who remembers that Leonard had a detached retina and was told not to fight again? That was in 1982. Leonard was set to defend his welterweight title against Roger Stafford. If he had not had the eye injury, he wasn't going to be moving up to middleweight any time soon. He probably would have moved to Jr Middleweight for a couple of years. He certainly wasn't going to move up to middleweight for a while. The earliest that he possibly could have fought Hagler would have been 1985.
He did fight again in 1984, but decided to quit again. How can he possibly be blamed for this?

I am so sick of the won't give rematches nonsense about Leonard. Ezzard you are smart guy, why can't you figure this out? Look at the facts. they don't support this at all.
Leonard did fight Duran 3 times, Hearns twice, Hagler, Benitez. He did this despite missing probably the best 5 years of his prime.

No one ever applies the same standard to the other fighters.
Benitez never gave Duran a rematch.
Hearns never gave Duran or Benitez a rematch.
Hagler never gave Duran or Hearns a rematch.
Duran never gave Buchanan or Barkley a rematch.

I'm sure there are valid reasons for some of these rematches not happening, however can we some reasoning when it come to Leonard?

Of the fights featuring two of Leonard, Duran, Hagler,Hearns, and Benitez, who had the most?
Leonard. Despite the fact that the other guys had 5 more years than he did. Yet he is the one accused of not fighting people.

How many times was Leonard supposed to fight each of these guys in the shortened career that he had?

Would 3 times each against Duran,Hagler,Hearns,Benitez, and now I guess Pryor been enough?

He had more major fights than any of these guys, despite missing almost 5 years. How many major fights should have had to have fought?
I would really like to know the number.

This is the rub... If he had a detached retina and didn't want to fight then that's fine. But he had a detached retina and came back once against Howard and then Hagler and then on and on. So any validity to the excuse has gone.

Leonard versus Hearns is a fight I could watch every day of the week. They could have fought immediately after the first fight. They could have fought every year from 82 to 2007 at any weight and it would be a fight.

In the press conference Hearns asks for a rematch. Leonard waves him away and says that he's proved himself and isn't interested.

He doesn't have to fight any more to be considered great. He is a great fighter but IMO from post Hagler onwards it became apparent that Ray was pulling strings in a way that seemed unfair (The Lalonde fight being a prime example).

Why didn't he fight Hagler in 84, 85, 86? Why 87?

IMO the reason why so many people argue regarding Leonard's management of his career is as Buzz once said (I can't remember the exact quote so I'll try my best to get the sentiment of the great man): Ray has the wins but in terms of the bragging rights things are much closer than the record suggests.

What about you, Alp? You don't think Leonard had all the advantages fighting a guy who spent the 70s at lightweight, and you don't think a cut on the forehead is an issue in a fight. Surely you must see that this smacks of favouritism.

You don't agree with any of these points, I know, but you must see they are valid criticisms. I'm not going on like that Elton John character who thinks Terry Norris was a better fighter than Leonard. I don't think Leonard ducked Pryor. I don't think Hagler beat Leonard. I think Leonard-Hearns II was a close fight (though I think Hearns won)... I'm not throwing all the usual cirticisms around...

IKSRTFO · Post by **IKSRTFO** » 24 Jan 2008, 08:09

Ezzard wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:Well I'm glad that you agree about Pryor. I would like to add that At the time that Leonard retired, Pryor had yet to fight Arguello. Pryor was only the Jr Welterweight champion for about a year and half before Leonard had to retire with the eye injury. Leonard fought Duran, Hearns and even won the Jr Middleweight title.
During this time, Pryor fought Danny Myers, Gaetan Hart, Lennox Blackmore, Dujuan Johnson. That doesn't entitle you to be claiming that Ray Leonard must be ducking you.
Wrong or right, a fighter in a lower division is expected to move up if he wants to challenge a fighter in higher weight class. Pryor didn't do this.
There was no reason for Leonard to fight Pryor.

How can I say that cut that Benitez had didn't affect his performance? Becasue it didn't obstuct his vision. It was under control. I have seen this fight many times. It never even occurred to me that anyone would think it was a problem becasue it wasn't. I have read about this fight. I have never heard people talk about it. I have never once heard a word that the cut was a factor. Now all of the sudden it is. Anything to taint a big win of Leonards.

Leonard could have Hagler 5 years before he did? Am I the only one who remembers that Leonard had a detached retina and was told not to fight again? That was in 1982. Leonard was set to defend his welterweight title against Roger Stafford. If he had not had the eye injury, he wasn't going to be moving up to middleweight any time soon. He probably would have moved to Jr Middleweight for a couple of years. He certainly wasn't going to move up to middleweight for a while. The earliest that he possibly could have fought Hagler would have been 1985.
He did fight again in 1984, but decided to quit again. How can he possibly be blamed for this?

I am so sick of the won't give rematches nonsense about Leonard. Ezzard you are smart guy, why can't you figure this out? Look at the facts. they don't support this at all.
Leonard did fight Duran 3 times, Hearns twice, Hagler, Benitez. He did this despite missing probably the best 5 years of his prime.

No one ever applies the same standard to the other fighters.
Benitez never gave Duran a rematch.
Hearns never gave Duran or Benitez a rematch.
Hagler never gave Duran or Hearns a rematch.
Duran never gave Buchanan or Barkley a rematch.

I'm sure there are valid reasons for some of these rematches not happening, however can we some reasoning when it come to Leonard?

Of the fights featuring two of Leonard, Duran, Hagler,Hearns, and Benitez, who had the most?
Leonard. Despite the fact that the other guys had 5 more years than he did. Yet he is the one accused of not fighting people.

How many times was Leonard supposed to fight each of these guys in the shortened career that he had?

Would 3 times each against Duran,Hagler,Hearns,Benitez, and now I guess Pryor been enough?

He had more major fights than any of these guys, despite missing almost 5 years. How many major fights should have had to have fought?
I would really like to know the number.
This is the rub... If he had a detached retina and didn't want to fight then that's fine. But he had a detached retina and came back once against Howard and then Hagler and then on and on. So any validity to the excuse has gone.

Leonard versus Hearns is a fight I could watch every day of the week. They could have fought immediately after the first fight. They could have fought every year from 82 to 2007 at any weight and it would be a fight.

In the press conference Hearns asks for a rematch. Leonard waves him away and says that he's proved himself and isn't interested.

He doesn't have to fight any more to be considered great. He is a great fighter but IMO from post Hagler onwards it became apparent that Ray was pulling strings in a way that seemed unfair (The Lalonde fight being a prime example).

Why didn't he fight Hagler in 84, 85, 86? Why 87?

IMO the reason why so many people argue regarding Leonard's management of his career is as Buzz once said (I can't remember the exact quote so I'll try my best to get the sentiment of the great man): Ray has the wins but in terms of the bragging rights things are much closer than the record suggests.

What about you, Alp? You don't think Leonard had all the advantages fighting a guy who spent the 70s at lightweight, and you don't think a cut on the forehead is an issue in a fight. Surely you must see that this smacks of favouritism.

You don't agree with any of these points, I know, but you must see they are valid criticisms. I'm not going on like that Elton John character who thinks Terry Norris was a better fighter than Leonard. I don't think Leonard ducked Pryor. I don't think Hagler beat Leonard. I think Leonard-Hearns II was a close fight (though I think Hearns won)... I'm not throwing all the usual cirticisms around...

Yes Leonard had a detached retina, but so did Pryor late in his career and he kept on fighting with it so it would be even. Still with a detached retina, Pryor only loss once.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 24 Jan 2008, 10:51

Ezzard,
Leonard was told in 1982 that he shouldn't fight again because of the detached retna. Against doctors recommendations he came back. He had surgeries which improved his condition somewhat. Obviously he was also going back and forth whether to fight again or not.

You really expect Leonard to fight Hagler in 1984?

I can't believe that people really think that Leonard didn't fight Hagler until 1987 just so that he would have the advantage because Hagler would have have gotten old. That is mindboggling.
Taking 3 years off isn't the ideal way to prepare for Marvin Hagler. Do I really have to explain this? You get rusty when you aren't active. You lose your speed, your timing, your reflexes etc.
Throughout boxing history, fighters that have comeback from that long of a layoff aren't as good, and certainly don't look in their first fight back.
As I have asked before (and never get an ananswer) name another fighter in more than 100 years history who was out for 3 years and won the title back in his first fight back?
Secondly, Hagler was only 32 when he fought Leonard. He was no old man. Leonard was 30 himself.

The bottom line is that it was Hagler who had a huge advantage that the fight wasn't until 1987.

I really don't want to get into the Roberto Duran is always a lightweight thing anymore. I think it's ridiculaus and have said why many times.

As for Benitez, yes he had a cut on his forehead. Again, someone brings something likes up and now we will be hearing about this from now on because it's anti-Leonard. Where has this arguement been for the last 28 years? The bottom line is that it's didn't hurt his vision. It wasn't a handicap whatsoever. There was never any controversy about this because there is nothing to it. So no, that doesn't smack of favoritism.

Leonard didn't fight Hearns in 1982 because he was still a welterweight and Hearns never fought at welterweight again after to losing to Leonard. Don't blame Leonard for not fighting him then. Leonard was out of action in until 1987, when he fought Hagler. He did fight Hearns again in 1989.

What do you think would have happened if Leonard never had his eye problems? Do you really think that he would have spent the 5 years fighting tomato cans and not fought Benitez,Duran, or Hearns in that period?
Do you really believe that?

Leonard called the shot in his post Hagler fights? What are we really talking about here? Does the Donny Lalonde fight bother you that much?

How did he call the shots against Duran in the 3rd fight? How about the 2nd Hearns fight? Was that really to Leonard's advantage that both fighters could fight at 164? (Tthey each fought at 162).

I don't think you are bad as some people about Leonard but it's obvious that you don't like him and aren't able to judge him like you would someone else.

It really bothers that people try to taint Leonard's wins. (Duran had a tummyache,Hagler got robbed, Hearns legs were too skinny,and now I guess we are coming up with Benitez's forehead.)

People can say what they want about Leonard the facts on are on his side. He fought and beat the best more often than anyone else during his era.
I could constantly write posts ripping Duran for things as well. He doesn't get 1/10 of the criticism on this forum that Leonard gets.

What I am asking is that Leonard should be criticized for things that no else is. Also he should be given credit for things that if another fighter had achieved they would get credit. Why is that so unreasonable?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 24 Jan 2008, 14:00

Wasn't the reason Hagler took the fight (besides the good payday) was that he was going to enjoy giving Ray a good beatdown?

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 25 Jan 2008, 01:49

Ambling Alp wrote:Elmer, I like how you sometimes say Leonard was one your favorite fighters, yet here you imply that he wasn't a "real fighter".

As I have pointed out numerous times before, Benitez, Duran, and Hearns all moved up in weight immdiately after losing to Leonard. It's revisonist history to say they wanted immediate rematches. They didn't.
If any of them would have stayed at welterweight, they would have gotton another shot at Leonard and they knew that. They chose to move out of the welterweight division, away from Leonard. If anything, they could be accused of running from Leonard.

Btw, the public certainly wasn't demanding that Leonard fight these guys right away. After Leonard beat Benitez convincingly, the public didn't want him to fight Benitez again. They wanted to see him fight Duran.
After Leonard beat duran easily, no one wanted to see a 3rd fight. they wanted to see him fight Hearns.

After Willie Pep lost to Saddler, he didn't move out the featherweight class forever. He fought as a featherweight again because he wanted to fight Saddler again.
After Zale lost to Graziano, he didn't leave the middleweight division.
After Papke lost Ketchel, he didn't move out of the middleweight class.
After McClarnin lost to Ross, he didn't move out of the welterweight class.

My challenge to Ezzard and elmer or any one else:
Please list who Leonard should have fought, when he should have fought them and at what weight class.

You got to give the rematch when it counts...Not 8 or 9 years later, Alp. You said that Leonard beat Benitez easily? I guess I was probably blind that night because I was criyng in why he did not put Benitez away QUICKLY like the rest of the other fighters he faced before the title. Benitez gave him too much problems in that night.

You said that Leonard beat Duran easily? The scorecards were only up to 2 points in round 8. You are talking like if Leonard won every round. He was fighting a guy that was not in his best shape. What happened in the first fight when the Hands of Stone was as sharp as he could ever be? Leonard COULD NOT COPE WITH HIM...Duran gave him an ass whipping from start to finish, and at least, he won by 5 points, that fight was NOT EVEN CLOSE AT ALL. It LOOKED close because of Leonard's CLUCHING AND GRABBING for a fear of a KO loss.

Now, why Duran gave him a rematch in 5 months, but Leonard cannot give none of these guys a rematch in 5 months?

Why he did Hearns like this?
Why he did Duran like this?
Why he did Benitez like this?

They all deserved a immediate rematch...Leonard chose not to. You are saying that they moved up in weight, but they ASKED FOR A REMATCH FIRST...THEY DID NOT GET ONE.

But when Leonard loses, all of the sudden he wanted a rematch so quick that Duran did not had the chance to enjoy his title, neither make a title defense against a tomato can...It was all the media POLITICS of the time...That is all.

Ali gave Liston a rematch right away...That is a REAL FIGHTER to me.
Robinson gave Gavilan a rematch
Zale gave Graziano a rematch
McLarnin gave Ross a rematch, he did not do the Leonard thing.

Duran gave Leonard a rematch right away...He did not gave no stipulations...I know you may throw that Ken Buchanan in there in why he did not gave Ken a rematch, but Duran was the FIRST to admit, he was too good and he was scared to give him one. At least he admitted that Ken was so good to give him a rematch.

You asked when Leonard should have give a rematch at what time?

At least with Hearns, he should have give him a rematch in February of 1982 than INSTEAD fighting a BUM like Bruce Finch, don't you think? The fight should have been at 147 or 154.

Since you are saying that a third fight with Duran was not "available"...If Duran would have won the second fight, he was going after Hearns, another big fight, and then probably Hagler, Pipino Cuevas or Benitez. So Sugar Ray was not the ONLY ONE that had to fight all those guys in a time span.

Sugar Ray was a great fighter, NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT, BUT GIVING BACK REMATCHES, HE WAS THE ULTIMATE CAREFUL DUCKER.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 25 Jan 2008, 10:36

- I didn't say Leonard beat Benitez easily, I said convincingly. There is a difference. It wasn't one-sided, but there was no question that Leonard was the better man.

-The official scorecards may have had it fairly close, but Leonard was certainly winning that fight. It ended in a 8th round TKO. I really don't give a damn about the poor Roberto wasn't in shape excuse. That's not Leonard's problem, even if it wasd true. Fighters that quit don't deserve immediate rematches. Other fighter should get a chance at the title first.

The 1st Leonard-Duran fight wasn't even close? An ass kicking? Well maybe in your fantasy world. You yourself (who is about as pro Duran and anti-Leonard as they come), said previously on another thread that Duran won by 3 points. 3 point is very close in a 15 round fight. That fight was certainly closer than the Leonard-Benitez fight.

As I mentioned in my last post and many times before, Duran, Benitez, and Hearns all left the welterweight division for good after losing to Leonard. How do you know they really wanted rematch with Leonard? They sure didn't act like it. Had they stayed in the division they would have got a title shot and they knew it.
Benitez fought at Jr Middleweight only 4 months after losing to Leonard. (March of 1980)
Hearns fought at Jr Middleweight only 3 months after losing to Leonard. (November of 1981)
If anything, they were running from Leonard.

The welterweight Leonard shouldn't have to move up to 154 just fight a guy that he just stopped at 147. If the loser wants a rematch so badly, he should stay at the 147.

I love this comment of yours: "I know you may throw that Ken Buchanan in there in why he did not gave Ken a rematch, but Duran was the FIRST to admit, he was too good and he was scared to give him one. At least he admitted that Ken was so good to give him a rematch."
Boy, that really says a lot about Duran.

Scared of Ken Buchanan.

Elmer, I am going to ask you something and it would be nice for a change if you would give me an answer (since I respond your comments):

What do you really think would have happened had Duran, Benitez, and Hearns would have all stayed at 147 ? Do you really believe that Leonard would have ducked them and just fought tomato cans?

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 25 Jan 2008, 11:10

Ambling Alp wrote:- I didn't say Leonard beat Benitez easily, I said convincingly. There is a difference. It wasn't one-sided, but there was no question that Leonard was the better man.

-The official scorecards may have had it fairly close, but Leonard was certainly winning that fight. It ended in a 8th round TKO. I really don't give a damn about the poor Roberto wasn't in shape excuse. That's not Leonard's problem, even if it wasd true. Fighters that quit don't deserve immediate rematches. Other fighter should get a chance at the title first.

The 1st Leonard-Duran fight wasn't even close? An ass kicking? Well maybe in your fantasy world. You yourself (who is about as pro Duran and anti-Leonard as they come), said previously on another thread that Duran won by 3 points. 3 point is very close in a 15 round fight. That fight was certainly closer than the Leonard-Benitez fight.

As I mentioned in my last post and many times before, Duran, Benitez, and Hearns all left the welterweight division for good after losing to Leonard. How do you know they really wanted rematch with Leonard? They sure didn't act like it. Had they stayed in the division they would have got a title shot and they knew it.
Benitez fought at Jr Middleweight only 4 months after losing to Leonard. (March of 1980)
Hearns fought at Jr Middleweight only 3 months after losing to Leonard. (November of 1981)
If anything, they were running from Leonard.

The welterweight Leonard shouldn't have to move up to 154 just fight a guy that he just stopped at 147. If the loser wants a rematch so badly, he should stay at the 147.

I love this comment of yours: "I know you may throw that Ken Buchanan in there in why he did not gave Ken a rematch, but Duran was the FIRST to admit, he was too good and he was scared to give him one. At least he admitted that Ken was so good to give him a rematch."
Boy, that really says a lot about Duran. Scared of Ken Buchanan.

Elmer, I am going to ask you something and it would be nice for a change if you would give me an answer (since I respond your comments):

What do you really think would have happened had Duran, Benitez, and Hearns would have all stayed at 147 ? Do you really believe that Leonard would have ducked them and just fought tomato cans?

Convincingly was the way Duran WHUPPED your fighter in Montreal...The fight was NOT AS CLOSE AS PEOPLE THINK. I watch that fight many times, and to put it in my cards 3 points at least for Duran was a GIFT for Leonard. Watching every round, I could say that Leonard CLEARLY WON at least 3, the rest it was all Roberto Duran!!!...and I am not in a DREAM WORLD MY MAN, WATCH THE FIGHT AGAIN.

Leonard "made it look" close... CLUTCHING, GRABBING AND SURVIVING LIKE A SISSY INSTEAD OF FIGHTING LIKE A REAL MAN might be a lot of great respect and admiration to you for Leonard, that is OK.

I went to other forums, and many are saying the same thing: Duran whupped him by at least 5 points....I am not the ONLY ONE saying it.

The second fight? You know that Duran was not in the best of shape. He came back too soon. It was Duran's FAULT, I ADMITTED, and he did not had the TIME, THE TIME, to enjoy his title.

You may say that Duran did not deserved a rematch after the NO MAS, that is FINE with you...I could live with that. But when BOTH WERE IN THEIR BEST SHAPES OF THEIR ABILITIES, WHEN BOTH WERE AT THEIR PEAK IN MONTREAL, LEONARD GOT BEAT BY A LIGHTWEIGHT....AN EXCEPTIONAL LIGHTWEIGHT. You can come with the "He did not fight his fight" EXCUSE and all that bull...HE GOT HIS ASS KICKED BY A LIGHTWEIGHT.

Duran came to Miami on National TV after the fight and asked for a REMATCH...What did your boy do and say? "He got to reindivicate himself"....But he did not had to REINDIVICATE when he was ON THE LOSING SIDE AFTER THE WHIPPING IN MONTREAL, RIGHT?
He almost RETIRED, because his ego was bruised...Duran gave him a CHANCE to redeemed himself, but now, he cannot redeemed himself for Leonard, a third fight? That is why the people is so MAD at Leonard...He did not give rematches RIGHT AWAY just like other REAL FIGHTERS DID:

Ali gave rematch to Liston
Ross gave rematch to McLarnin
Liston gave rematch to Patterson
Britton gave rematch to Kid Lewis
Holyfield gave rematch to Tyson

Those are signs that real fighters fight any body, any time, any where and how many times...Leonard could HARDLY CLAIM that he did those things but fight them once...If I win, no second fight...If I lose...Immediate rematch...And that was Sugar Ray's philosophy, my man, like it or not.

Hearns went up, but that did not meant he could not come down or call Leonard to fight him at 154...Ain't Leonard went to 154 to fight Ayub Kalule?...Ohhh, but it's Tommy Hearns, right.....Thomas "The Hitman" Hearns HAD ALL THE RIGHT FOR AN IMMEDIATE REMATCH AGAINST THE SUGAR MAN...AT ANY WEIGHT, AT ANY TIME BEFORE LEONARD'S FIRST RETIREMENT, HE DID HAD THE RIGHT. DID HE GOT WHAT HE WANTED?...........NO!!!

Saying that those guys RAN FROM LEONARD and not stayed at 147 is VERY STUPID ARGUMENT AND VERY ABSURD...You know better.

Leonard could have fight all those guys, especially with a THIRD AND FINAL MATCH with Duran. But you know why he did not wanted a third fight Alp? He KNEW that Duran was the OBSTACLE for other big money fights. As long as Duran is not in the picture, the better, and it worked, it worked...Mind games inside and outside the ring.

What is wrong for Duran to admit that he was scared to give Buchanan a rematch? Ain't Foreman and Ali admitted their fears about Frazier and Liston respectively?

We all are humans, you know.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 25 Jan 2008, 11:14

Now, the "No Mas" that fight did not looked right to me from the start. Duran never fights that way...Duran in Montreal and Duran in New Orleans, 2 different fighters in every sense.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 25 Jan 2008, 11:31

You didn't answer my question so I'm not answering your responding to your comments. Most of them I have answered many times before anyway.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Jan 2008, 12:57

elmersalsa wrote:Now, the "No Mas" that fight did not looked right to me from the start. Duran never fights that way...Duran in Montreal and Duran in New Orleans, 2 different fighters in every sense.

Well I think that's because Duran was partying from the time he beat Ray until he stepped back into the ring with him. OK not literally but you know what I mean here.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 25 Jan 2008, 14:21

The Leonard-Duran fake ("fight" #2)

where Leonard ran for his life and then Duran quit,

was a disqualification loss for Duran.

Yet it appears in the records as a "KO" for Leonard.

Typical of the garbage that goes on with Leonard (and Ali).

I once asked a promoter

"What if a fight took place in your city,

and halfway through the fight where nothing significant had happened

one of the two fighters quit in the middle of a round---just walked back to corner and said he wasn't going to fight any more?"

"He would be disqualified," said the promoter. "And his purse would be held up. And he would never fight here again--or probably anywhere else."

"Then what about the second Leonard-Duran fight," I said.

Leonard is credited with a "knockout" win--not a disqualification.

And Duran's purse was not held up."

"Well, you know what goes on with Leonard," the promoter said.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 25 Jan 2008, 14:32

Wasn't the official ruling a TKO? If a fighter quits on his stool, that's not a DQ. That's a TKO.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Jan 2008, 14:42

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Wasn't the official ruling a TKO? If a fighter quits on his stool, that's not a DQ. That's a TKO.

Lookie here, if granberry says it's suppose to be a DQ...Then Dairy Queen it is. Actually much of this sounds right to me....except for the part about not letting Duran fight again. granberry will likely tell you Duran was only allowed to fight again in order to fall down for Hearns on cue in order to make Ray look even better.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 25 Jan 2008, 14:51

BoxBuzz wrote:
Goodnight, Irene wrote:Wasn't the official ruling a TKO? If a fighter quits on his stool, that's not a DQ. That's a TKO.
Lookie here, if granberry says it's suppose to be a DQ...Then Dairy Queen it is. Actually much of this sounds right to me....except for the part about not letting Duran fight again. granberry will likely tell you Duran was only allowed to fight again in order to fall down for Hearns on cue in order to make Ray look even better.

Anyone competent knows that is a disqualification.

Buzz doesn't know that.

Color buzz incompetent.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 25 Jan 2008, 14:56

Was Liston disqualified in his first fight with Ali? Was Ali in turn disqualified against Holmes? What about Cooper against Foreman?

If you quit in the corner, you're not disqualified. I'm just trying to source what you're saying in regards to Leonard-Duran II.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 25 Jan 2008, 15:11

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Was Liston disqualified in his first fight with Ali? Was Ali in turn disqualified against Holmes? What about Cooper against Foreman?

If you quit in the corner, you're not disqualified. I'm just trying to source what you're saying in regards to Leonard-Duran II.

Irene doesn't know that in the Leonard-Duran fake (#2)

Duran walked away IN THE MIDDLE OF A ROUND.

Color Irene incompetent.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 25 Jan 2008, 16:11

granberry wrote:
Goodnight, Irene wrote:Was Liston disqualified in his first fight with Ali? Was Ali in turn disqualified against Holmes? What about Cooper against Foreman?

If you quit in the corner, you're not disqualified. I'm just trying to source what you're saying in regards to Leonard-Duran II.
Irene doesn't know that in the Leonard-Duran fake (#2)

Duran walked away IN THE MIDDLE OF A ROUND.

Color Irene incompetent.

I gotta go with granberry here. Why are people bringing up the quitting on stool scenario?

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 25 Jan 2008, 16:14

Collins2000 wrote:
granberry wrote:
Goodnight, Irene wrote:Was Liston disqualified in his first fight with Ali? Was Ali in turn disqualified against Holmes? What about Cooper against Foreman?

If you quit in the corner, you're not disqualified. I'm just trying to source what you're saying in regards to Leonard-Duran II.
Irene doesn't know that in the Leonard-Duran fake (#2)

Duran walked away IN THE MIDDLE OF A ROUND.

Color Irene incompetent.
I gotta go with granberry here. Why are people bringing up the quitting on stool scenario?

Because they are incompetent.

.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Jan 2008, 17:43

granberry wrote:
Collins2000 wrote:
granberry wrote: Irene doesn't know that in the Leonard-Duran fake (#2)

Duran walked away IN THE MIDDLE OF A ROUND.

Color Irene incompetent.
I gotta go with granberry here. Why are people bringing up the quitting on stool scenario?
Because they are incompetent.

.

granberry....you do know that I agreed with you on that....and yet you have colored me incompetent.

So now in turn I must reach into the old paintbox and color you "nincompoopish".....or a slight shade brighter perhaps.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 25 Jan 2008, 21:18

granberry wrote:
Goodnight, Irene wrote:Was Liston disqualified in his first fight with Ali? Was Ali in turn disqualified against Holmes? What about Cooper against Foreman?

If you quit in the corner, you're not disqualified. I'm just trying to source what you're saying in regards to Leonard-Duran II.
Irene doesn't know that in the Leonard-Duran fake (#2)

Duran walked away IN THE MIDDLE OF A ROUND.

Color Irene incompetent.

"Billy Conn broke his hand fighting his brother." - Granberry

"Dempsey was down three times against Flynn." - Granberry

Colour Gran a light shade of red.

Incompetence is an inability to seperate personal feelings from objective data. You are a slave to your bias like few others, & I suspect you know it, but for whatever reason, cannot stomach Ali & Leonard, & submit to your hatred warping your takes.

Who wants to step up & argue this is not the definition of incompetence?

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 25 Jan 2008, 21:31

Collins2000 wrote:
granberry wrote:
Goodnight, Irene wrote:Was Liston disqualified in his first fight with Ali? Was Ali in turn disqualified against Holmes? What about Cooper against Foreman?

If you quit in the corner, you're not disqualified. I'm just trying to source what you're saying in regards to Leonard-Duran II.
Irene doesn't know that in the Leonard-Duran fake (#2)

Duran walked away IN THE MIDDLE OF A ROUND.

Color Irene incompetent.
I gotta go with granberry here. Why are people bringing up the quitting on stool scenario?

Duran quit. When a fighter quits, it's a TKO, irrespective of where in the ring they are at the time they make the decision.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 25 Jan 2008, 21:59

Guys -please- granberry is f-cking idiot. When a fighter quits, in the middle of a round or otherwise, it's always a TKO. I can name two right off the top of my head, De La Hoya vs. Genaro Hernandez and Cotto vs. Branco. Those were not disqualifications, those were also TKO's. When an opponent quits, its a TKO. I suppose dingleberry just doesn't 'comprehend the rules of boxing.' It had nothing to do with who Leonard was. I find it appalling the way people let themselves get suckered into his conspiracy theory bullshit.