Roberto Duran vs Ray Leonard II, no Mas.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 08 Aug 2005, 23:43

I remember reading possibly as early as 1980, that Duran was ballooning up to 180 between fights, when he was a Lightweight ! He'd just eat everything in sight and keep away from the gym for weeks. Staying in shape for your chosen profession is a fighter's responsibility, and only a fool signs a contract to fight a top opponent at a weight he has serious difficulty making.

Leonard used the wrong strategy in the first bout with Duran, and said as much, and even then he lost by only 1,1 and 2 points on the scorecards. Had Ray put a little more distance between himself and Duran in the first fight then I think it's a pretty good bet he's 3-0 against Cholo.

jsc1973 · Post by **jsc1973** » 09 Aug 2005, 00:01

The official scorecards in that first Leonard-Duran fight were laughable, one of many cases of judges scoring anything in Leonard's favor they could. I had that fight 11 rounds to four for Duran, or 146-139. Leonard was clearly winning the second fight when Duran quit, and the third one doesn't even bear mentioning here because Duran wasn't worth a d@mn at 168 pounds.

The only real defeat on his career was against Duran.

Not true. I agree that we can throw out the Norris and Camacho losses, but he lost the rematch to Hearns, no matter what two blind judges said, and that one matters.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 09 Aug 2005, 01:16

Ahhh...the "No Mas".....The fight that all Ray Leonard fans bring up. Roberto beat Ray's ass the first fight....like most boxing "in the know" people knew would happen. The second fight Roberto didn't have a chance. He could have knocked Leonard down every round and he would have lost a decision. Ray was America's baby. Now the reality of the 2nd fight is that the fight, was close. 4-2 with one even, for Leonard. Duran I believe just said enough, if this guy won't fight, then neither will I. Leonard didn't want to fight, or even box. He was clowning it up.....not boxing. It takes 2 guys to fight, if one guy doesn't want to, you won't have a fight. If I were Duran, I would have quit too.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 09 Aug 2005, 04:32

Seamus wrote: Leonard used the wrong strategy in the first bout with Duran, and said as much, and even then he lost by only 1,1 and 2 points on the scorecards. Had Ray put a little more distance between himself and Duran in the first fight then I think it's a pretty good bet he's 3-0 against Cholo.

Hi Seamus

I'm not so sure... I think Duran out psyched Leonard in the first fight and a combination of the psychological warfare he employed, his movement, fitness and skill forced Ray to fight in that way. The rematch was always going to be a harder fight and I think Duran just underestimated Leonard.

Once in the ring he realised that he was unprepared. If Ray had gone toe-to-toe again in the rematch he would have won because Duran wasn't ready for him on that night. I think Duran expected there to be an immediate return, but Leonard would not have agreed to that.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 09 Aug 2005, 11:22

It's almost humorous the way Duran fans argue there man's superiority over Sugar Ray Leonard, while at the same time insisting that 2 out of there 3 bouts be dismissed from consideration. Plain and simple Duran quit in the second fight because he was getting humiliated. Then in Leonard-Duran III I got to hear plenty from all quarters (two of my best friends loved Duran and hated Leonard) how Duran had waited 9 years to get revenge on the man who had embarassed him in New Orleans. Well as we all know, nearly a decade of pent up rage and the chance to erase the memories of New Orleans couldn't carry Duran to victory. So after Sugar Ray picked him apart again, we then had to hear that it wasen't Durans's best weight and that he was too old. Yet earlier the same year I was hearing about Duran's magnificent victory over Iran Barkley at a weight that wasen't much different. Duran was 156 and a quarter for Barkley and 158 for Leonard, while Barkley was 159 and Leonard 160.

Roberto Duran was DEFINITELY a great fighter, but at the same time he was dirty (Buchanan, Moore etc) an ungracious winner (after KO'ing Ray Lampkin he said "If I had really been in shape he'd be going to the graveyard instead of the hospital) and has probably had more excuses than any top fighter I've ever known of. Leonard III was the wrong weight, Hearns was too big, v Gonzalez, Minchillo, Benitez, Laing and Batten he just wasen't motivated. The list goes on.

ELA · Post by **ELA** » 09 Aug 2005, 15:52

I agrre with Seamus!!!!

Leonard had done a complete job of outboxing Duran. Duran was not use being being dis-respected and humiliated. I read Duran was extremely dis-respectful to Sugar Rays family and especially his wife in the months leading up to this fight, So I think Duran got what he deserved.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Aug 2005, 00:22

mr. cool breeze wrote

SUGAR RAY LEONARD WAS THE BEST WELTERWEIGHT EVER! Period Thumbs Up

woa there buddy, arnt u forgetting the greatest fighter of all time sugar ray robinson??? robinson is greatest welterweight ever PERIOD. leonard is 2nd best welter of all time. and if u disagree feel free to give ur reasons.

how bout both duran and leonard were all time greats and both fights were classic battles. i see too much disrespect givin on both fighters becuase you dont like leonard or duran. whether u like them or not, neither are overated and both are all time greats.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 10 Aug 2005, 04:37

I don't consider myself to be anti Ray or Roberto. I think they were both truly great fighters who could have fought in any era and could have beaten anyone on their day. I just think the media and boxing history have been very kind to Ray. The second bout was obviously going Leonard's way and he was going to win whatever tactic he chose. Duran was not properly prepared (and that's his own fault, nobody else's).

Here, in your quote, is an example of my point...

Seamus wrote: Roberto Duran was DEFINITELY a great fighter, but at the same time he was dirty (Buchanan, Moore etc) an ungracious winner.

Yes, Duran was dirty but so was Leonard. I'm not holding this against either of them, you do what you need to do to win, but Duran is flagged as dirty whilst Leonard isn't. Watch his fights, hitting on the break, after the bell, low blows, excessive holding... Ray was not a squeaky clean fighter as Hagler was quick to point out in his commentary on the second Hearns fight. And as for ungracious winner Ray was never prepared to give anyone a rematch.

I'm just trying to get across the fact that this whole Leonard-Duran rivalry is painted in black and white and it is much more complex than that.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 10 Aug 2005, 07:47

Duran always has excuses for most of his losses.

He had an excuse for when he got poleaxed by Hearns too!

What was his excuse for his less well known 'No Mas' against Pat Lawler in 1991?

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 12 Aug 2005, 17:17

Syntax Error wrote:Duran always has excuses for most of his losses.

He had an excuse for when he got poleaxed by Hearns too!

What was his excuse for his less well known 'No Mas' against Pat Lawler in 1991?

Every fighter has excuses. Tell me a fighter in history that NEVER HAD EXCUSES???

I watched the 2 fights (Duran-Leonard I & II), and I saw a not so sure Sugar Ray in the first fight. I have Never seen a NOT SO SURE Leonard. He looked like he had doubts of winning against Duran the first fight. I saw a very CONFIDENT Duran in the first fight. You could see it in his eyes that he was READY, MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY.

For the second fight, I saw a much more MATURED AND CONFIDENT Leonard and a DOUBTFUL Duran. I could see it in his eyes that SOMETHING IN DURAN'S MIND WAS NOT THERE. He was not ready physically and mentally. Probably he did not had ENOUGH TIME to get ready. But I think that it was Duran's FAULT at not being ready and not Leonard's.
Duran should have known that he needed time to heal after a GRUELING FIRST FIGHT and to shed those pounds of partying hard after that gerat victory. I don't think he was frustrated...I think that HE KNEW BEFORE THE SECOND FIGHT THAT HE WAS NOT IN IT AT ALL. JUST LOOK AT THE TAPES. I do not see that UNDERRATED HEAD MOVEMENT like in the first fight when Leonard missed more punches than ever before. But in this fight in New Orleans, Sugar Ray was able to connect more effective blows??? C'mon, I do not buy that.

And even at that, until the time of the stoppage, it seems that the second fight was gonna be better than the original. IT WAS A CLOSE FIGHT.
A third fight would have been LIKE A THRILLA IN MANILA TYPE OF BOUT, but Sugar Ray knew that a 3rd fight with Roberto would have been UGLIER. He was never the type to give IMMEDIATE REMATCHES. He NEVER gave Benitez a rematch. He NEVER gave Hearns a rematch. He gave Hearns a rematch 8 years later??? He fought Duran 9 years after that??? C'mon.

I do not know what really happened in New Orleans. Only Duran and the Almighty knows what really happened. To me, it is still a MYSTERY. :( :( :(

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 12 Aug 2005, 20:59

I always thought it was pretty obvious...he quit...period...

Lots of guys quit...It's just so unexpected from a legend like Duran...

Does anyone anywhere think he was going to come back to win that fight? I sure don't...

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 13 Aug 2005, 10:01

elmersalsa wrote:
Syntax Error wrote:Duran always has excuses for most of his losses.

He had an excuse for when he got poleaxed by Hearns too!

What was his excuse for his less well known 'No Mas' against Pat Lawler in 1991?

Every fighter has excuses. Tell me a fighter in history that NEVER HAD EXCUSES???

I watched the 2 fights (Duran-Leonard I & II), and I saw a not so sure Sugar Ray in the first fight. I have Never seen a NOT SO SURE Leonard. He looked like he had doubts of winning against Duran the first fight. I saw a very CONFIDENT Duran in the first fight. You could see it in his eyes that he was READY, MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY.

For the second fight, I saw a much more MATURED AND CONFIDENT Leonard and a DOUBTFUL Duran. I could see it in his eyes that SOMETHING IN DURAN'S MIND WAS NOT THERE. He was not ready physically and mentally. Probably he did not had ENOUGH TIME to get ready. But I think that it was Duran's FAULT at not being ready and not Leonard's.
Duran should have known that he needed time to heal after a GRUELING FIRST FIGHT and to shed those pounds of partying hard after that gerat victory. I don't think he was frustrated...I think that HE KNEW BEFORE THE SECOND FIGHT THAT HE WAS NOT IN IT AT ALL. JUST LOOK AT THE TAPES. I do not see that UNDERRATED HEAD MOVEMENT like in the first fight when Leonard missed more punches than ever before. But in this fight in New Orleans, Sugar Ray was able to connect more effective blows??? C'mon, I do not buy that.

And even at that, until the time of the stoppage, it seems that the second fight was gonna be better than the original. IT WAS A CLOSE FIGHT.
A third fight would have been LIKE A THRILLA IN MANILA TYPE OF BOUT, but Sugar Ray knew that a 3rd fight with Roberto would have been UGLIER. He was never the type to give IMMEDIATE REMATCHES. He NEVER gave Benitez a rematch. He NEVER gave Hearns a rematch. He gave Hearns a rematch 8 years later??? He fought Duran 9 years after that??? C'mon.

I do not know what really happened in New Orleans. Only Duran and the Almighty knows what really happened. To me, it is still a MYSTERY. :( :( :(

OK, what would you have said if SRL had of said 'No Mas' in the first fight because he couldn't subdue Duran? What would you have said if he had said 'No Mas' against Hearns, when he was gettuing pummelled by that jab?

I bet you wouldn't be so understanding of SRL in those instances

My point is, Duran seems to be forgiven for doing a 'No Mas' on more than 1 occasion, yet Leonard gets slated for fights that didn't even happen!

What's that all about?

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 13 Aug 2005, 11:34

Did Oscar DeLaHoya quit when Pernell Whitaker played his I'll drop my hands and you try and hit me game in the later rounds of there bout ?

lumpymo · Post by **lumpymo** » 14 Aug 2005, 00:09

Seamus wrote:It's almost humorous the way Duran fans argue there man's superiority over Sugar Ray Leonard, while at the same time insisting that 2 out of there 3 bouts be dismissed from consideration. Plain and simple Duran quit in the second fight because he was getting humiliated. Then in Leonard-Duran III I got to hear plenty from all quarters (two of my best friends loved Duran and hated Leonard) how Duran had waited 9 years to get revenge on the man who had embarassed him in New Orleans. Well as we all know, nearly a decade of pent up rage and the chance to erase the memories of New Orleans couldn't carry Duran to victory. So after Sugar Ray picked him apart again, we then had to hear that it wasen't Durans's best weight and that he was too old. Yet earlier the same year I was hearing about Duran's magnificent victory over Iran Barkley at a weight that wasen't much different. Duran was 156 and a quarter for Barkley and 158 for Leonard, while Barkley was 159 and Leonard 160.

Roberto Duran was DEFINITELY a great fighter, but at the same time he was dirty (Buchanan, Moore etc) an ungracious winner (after KO'ing Ray Lampkin he said "If I had really been in shape he'd be going to the graveyard instead of the hospital) and has probably had more excuses than any top fighter I've ever known of. Leonard III was the wrong weight, Hearns was too big, v Gonzalez, Minchillo, Benitez, Laing and Batten he just wasen't motivated. The list goes on.

Your an idiot!

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 14 Aug 2005, 01:47

lumpymo wrote:
Seamus wrote:It's almost humorous the way Duran fans argue there man's superiority over Sugar Ray Leonard, while at the same time insisting that 2 out of there 3 bouts be dismissed from consideration. Plain and simple Duran quit in the second fight because he was getting humiliated. Then in Leonard-Duran III I got to hear plenty from all quarters (two of my best friends loved Duran and hated Leonard) how Duran had waited 9 years to get revenge on the man who had embarassed him in New Orleans. Well as we all know, nearly a decade of pent up rage and the chance to erase the memories of New Orleans couldn't carry Duran to victory. So after Sugar Ray picked him apart again, we then had to hear that it wasen't Durans's best weight and that he was too old. Yet earlier the same year I was hearing about Duran's magnificent victory over Iran Barkley at a weight that wasen't much different. Duran was 156 and a quarter for Barkley and 158 for Leonard, while Barkley was 159 and Leonard 160.

Roberto Duran was DEFINITELY a great fighter, but at the same time he was dirty (Buchanan, Moore etc) an ungracious winner (after KO'ing Ray Lampkin he said "If I had really been in shape he'd be going to the graveyard instead of the hospital) and has probably had more excuses than any top fighter I've ever known of. Leonard III was the wrong weight, Hearns was too big, v Gonzalez, Minchillo, Benitez, Laing and Batten he just wasen't motivated. The list goes on.
Your an idiot!

Why is he an idiot? :(

Because he dares to speak the truth? :(

It's amazing how Duran's fans can forgive him for not one but TWO 'No Mas' incidents, yet you can be assured that had Leonard quit against him or any other fighter, SRL would not get the same excuses made for him!

Duran was a great fighter; probably the best of the 1970's, but he is a quitter, plain & simple & that is unforgivable IMO.

lumpymo · Post by **lumpymo** » 17 Aug 2005, 19:08

Syntax Error wrote:
lumpymo wrote:
Seamus wrote:It's almost humorous the way Duran fans argue there man's superiority over Sugar Ray Leonard, while at the same time insisting that 2 out of there 3 bouts be dismissed from consideration. Plain and simple Duran quit in the second fight because he was getting humiliated. Then in Leonard-Duran III I got to hear plenty from all quarters (two of my best friends loved Duran and hated Leonard) how Duran had waited 9 years to get revenge on the man who had embarassed him in New Orleans. Well as we all know, nearly a decade of pent up rage and the chance to erase the memories of New Orleans couldn't carry Duran to victory. So after Sugar Ray picked him apart again, we then had to hear that it wasen't Durans's best weight and that he was too old. Yet earlier the same year I was hearing about Duran's magnificent victory over Iran Barkley at a weight that wasen't much different. Duran was 156 and a quarter for Barkley and 158 for Leonard, while Barkley was 159 and Leonard 160.

Roberto Duran was DEFINITELY a great fighter, but at the same time he was dirty (Buchanan, Moore etc) an ungracious winner (after KO'ing Ray Lampkin he said "If I had really been in shape he'd be going to the graveyard instead of the hospital) and has probably had more excuses than any top fighter I've ever known of. Leonard III was the wrong weight, Hearns was too big, v Gonzalez, Minchillo, Benitez, Laing and Batten he just wasen't motivated. The list goes on.
Your an idiot!
Why is he an idiot? :(

Because he dares to speak the truth? :(

It's amazing how Duran's fans can forgive him for not one but TWO 'No Mas' incidents, yet you can be assured that had Leonard quit against him or any other fighter, SRL would not get the same excuses made for him!

Duran was a great fighter; probably the best of the 1970's, but he is a quitter, plain & simple & that is unforgivable IMO.

Dumb and dumber...

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 18 Aug 2005, 06:01

lumpymo wrote:
Syntax Error wrote:
lumpymo wrote: Your an idiot!
Why is he an idiot? :(

Because he dares to speak the truth? :(

It's amazing how Duran's fans can forgive him for not one but TWO 'No Mas' incidents, yet you can be assured that had Leonard quit against him or any other fighter, SRL would not get the same excuses made for him!

Duran was a great fighter; probably the best of the 1970's, but he is a quitter, plain & simple & that is unforgivable IMO.
Dumb and dumber...

Looks like you've done a No Mas too!

You can't face the truth, so you throw a strop, like a spoilt child & start insulting people!

Are you Roberto Duran?

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 19 Aug 2005, 12:27

Syntax Error wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:
Syntax Error wrote:Duran always has excuses for most of his losses.

He had an excuse for when he got poleaxed by Hearns too!

What was his excuse for his less well known 'No Mas' against Pat Lawler in 1991?

Every fighter has excuses. Tell me a fighter in history that NEVER HAD EXCUSES???

I watched the 2 fights (Duran-Leonard I & II), and I saw a not so sure Sugar Ray in the first fight. I have Never seen a NOT SO SURE Leonard. He looked like he had doubts of winning against Duran the first fight. I saw a very CONFIDENT Duran in the first fight. You could see it in his eyes that he was READY, MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY.

For the second fight, I saw a much more MATURED AND CONFIDENT Leonard and a DOUBTFUL Duran. I could see it in his eyes that SOMETHING IN DURAN'S MIND WAS NOT THERE. He was not ready physically and mentally. Probably he did not had ENOUGH TIME to get ready. But I think that it was Duran's FAULT at not being ready and not Leonard's.
Duran should have known that he needed time to heal after a GRUELING FIRST FIGHT and to shed those pounds of partying hard after that gerat victory. I don't think he was frustrated...I think that HE KNEW BEFORE THE SECOND FIGHT THAT HE WAS NOT IN IT AT ALL. JUST LOOK AT THE TAPES. I do not see that UNDERRATED HEAD MOVEMENT like in the first fight when Leonard missed more punches than ever before. But in this fight in New Orleans, Sugar Ray was able to connect more effective blows??? C'mon, I do not buy that.

And even at that, until the time of the stoppage, it seems that the second fight was gonna be better than the original. IT WAS A CLOSE FIGHT.
A third fight would have been LIKE A THRILLA IN MANILA TYPE OF BOUT, but Sugar Ray knew that a 3rd fight with Roberto would have been UGLIER. He was never the type to give IMMEDIATE REMATCHES. He NEVER gave Benitez a rematch. He NEVER gave Hearns a rematch. He gave Hearns a rematch 8 years later??? He fought Duran 9 years after that??? C'mon.

I do not know what really happened in New Orleans. Only Duran and the Almighty knows what really happened. To me, it is still a MYSTERY. :( :( :(
OK, what would you have said if SRL had of said 'No Mas' in the first fight because he couldn't subdue Duran? What would you have said if he had said 'No Mas' against Hearns, when he was gettuing pummelled by that jab?

I bet you wouldn't be so understanding of SRL in those instances

My point is, Duran seems to be forgiven for doing a 'No Mas' on more than 1 occasion, yet Leonard gets slated for fights that didn't even happen!

What's that all about?

I told the people in my earlier post that it was Duran's FAULT in not getting ready for their second meeting. All that partying and stuff after a big fight like that one, is IMPOSSIBLE and HARD to get back in shape after an EMOTIONAL AND GRUELING VICTORY.

Leonard took the loss as a MOTIVATION for their next meeting. Duran???

Well, that was his fault. He at least could have said gimmie more time to prepare or cancel the fight, but he was in a lot of pressure from Don King and the fight went on.

But I got to question that fight in which Duran did not had that HEAD MOVEMENT like in the first fight in which Leonard MISSED A LOT, and now in their second meeting almost everything Leonard throws finds the target???

C'mon???

You CANNOT QUESTION Duran's heart. Jumping from lightweight all the way to supermiddleweight, fighting the best fighters out there that were TALLER, BIGGER, STRONGER, YOUNGER, FASTER and FEEL COMFORTABLE IN THEIR OWN WEIGHT...That is heart.

Duran had great victories after being CONSIDERED WASHED UP. Tell me a fighter in histroy, CONSIDERED WASHED UP and coming from DEVASTATING LOSSES like Duran had, win 2 more world titles??? NOT MANY.

Leonard had EXCUSES of why he lost to Duran, right??? He and all his supporters said that the reason why he lost against "The Cholo" was because he FOUGHT DURAN'S FIGHT, which to me was a bunch of bullshit and baloney. Like if Duran was not supposed to win. Duran WHUPPED HIM and there was nothing else to add to it.

And the reason they forget him was because, first, he beat Leonard. And second, this was Duran, the legend, the greatest fighter of his time, the man that was larger than life after the VICTORY in Montreal.

Leonard NEVER fought guys jumping up to 25 pounds. Duran did. Oh, I'm sorry, Leonard "JUMPED" and fought a MEDIOCRE Donny Lalonde???. Gimmie a break.

My question is, Syntax Error: What do you mean that Leonard get slated for fights that did not happened???

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 20 Aug 2005, 02:16

elmersalsa wrote: Like if Duran was not supposed to win. Duran WHUPPED HIM and there was nothing else to add to it.[/b]

As a kid I was a huge Leonard fan. I still think he's a great fighter but the above quote sums up his career and the media's response to it. When I watch his fights again the commentary is so biased towards Ray. In the first Hearns fight it's all about Ray doing the wrong things and there's very little about Tommy fighting smart. In the Duran fight all the commentators are talking about is how great Ray is. I think that making yourself a marketale fighter has a huge impact on the way your skills are viewed

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 20 Aug 2005, 09:04

elmersalsa wrote:
Syntax Error wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:
Every fighter has excuses. Tell me a fighter in history that NEVER HAD EXCUSES???

I watched the 2 fights (Duran-Leonard I & II), and I saw a not so sure Sugar Ray in the first fight. I have Never seen a NOT SO SURE Leonard. He looked like he had doubts of winning against Duran the first fight. I saw a very CONFIDENT Duran in the first fight. You could see it in his eyes that he was READY, MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY.

For the second fight, I saw a much more MATURED AND CONFIDENT Leonard and a DOUBTFUL Duran. I could see it in his eyes that SOMETHING IN DURAN'S MIND WAS NOT THERE. He was not ready physically and mentally. Probably he did not had ENOUGH TIME to get ready. But I think that it was Duran's FAULT at not being ready and not Leonard's.
Duran should have known that he needed time to heal after a GRUELING FIRST FIGHT and to shed those pounds of partying hard after that gerat victory. I don't think he was frustrated...I think that HE KNEW BEFORE THE SECOND FIGHT THAT HE WAS NOT IN IT AT ALL. JUST LOOK AT THE TAPES. I do not see that UNDERRATED HEAD MOVEMENT like in the first fight when Leonard missed more punches than ever before. But in this fight in New Orleans, Sugar Ray was able to connect more effective blows??? C'mon, I do not buy that.

And even at that, until the time of the stoppage, it seems that the second fight was gonna be better than the original. IT WAS A CLOSE FIGHT.
A third fight would have been LIKE A THRILLA IN MANILA TYPE OF BOUT, but Sugar Ray knew that a 3rd fight with Roberto would have been UGLIER. He was never the type to give IMMEDIATE REMATCHES. He NEVER gave Benitez a rematch. He NEVER gave Hearns a rematch. He gave Hearns a rematch 8 years later??? He fought Duran 9 years after that??? C'mon.

I do not know what really happened in New Orleans. Only Duran and the Almighty knows what really happened. To me, it is still a MYSTERY. :( :( :(
OK, what would you have said if SRL had of said 'No Mas' in the first fight because he couldn't subdue Duran? What would you have said if he had said 'No Mas' against Hearns, when he was gettuing pummelled by that jab?

I bet you wouldn't be so understanding of SRL in those instances

My point is, Duran seems to be forgiven for doing a 'No Mas' on more than 1 occasion, yet Leonard gets slated for fights that didn't even happen!

What's that all about?

I told the people in my earlier post that it was Duran's FAULT in not getting ready for their second meeting. All that partying and stuff after a big fight like that one, is IMPOSSIBLE and HARD to get back in shape after an EMOTIONAL AND GRUELING VICTORY.

Leonard took the loss as a MOTIVATION for their next meeting. Duran??? Well, that was his fault. He at least could have said gimmie more time to prepare or cancel the fight, but he was in a lot of pressure from Don King and the fight went on.

But I got to question that fight in which Duran did not had that HEAD MOVEMENT like in the first fight in which Leonard MISSED A LOT, and now in their second meeting almost everything Leonard throws finds the target??? C'mon???

You CANNOT QUESTION Duran's heart. Jumping from lightweight all the way to supermiddleweight, fighting the best fighters out there that were TALLER, BIGGER, STRONGER, YOUNGER, FASTER and FEEL COMFORTABLE IN THEIR OWN WEIGHT...That is heart.
Duran had great victories after being CONSIDERED WASHED UP. Tell me a fighter in histroy, CONSIDERED WASHED UP and coming from DEVASTATING LOSSES like Duran had, win 2 more world titles??? NOT MANY.

Leonard had EXCUSES of why he lost to Duran, right??? He and all his supporters said that the reason why he lost against "The Cholo" was because he FOUGHT DURAN'S FIGHT, which to me was a bunch of bullshit and baloney. Like if Duran was not supposed to win. Duran WHUPPED HIM and there was nothing else to add to it.

And the reason they forget him was because, first, he beat Leonard. And second, this was Duran, the legend, the greatest fighter of his time, the man that was larger than life after the VICTORY in Montreal.

Leonard NEVER fought guys jumping up to 25 pounds. Duran did. Oh, I'm sorry, Leonard "JUMPED" and fought a MEDIOCRE Donny Lalonde???. Gimmie a break.

My question is, Syntax Error: What do you mean that Leonard get slated for fights that did not happened???

Leonard gets slated for not having immediate rematches with opponents.

He beats someone & rather than give him credit for his victory, a lot of people say, "well he didn't give so & so a rematch!"

Where do you draw the line with rematches?

Leonard against Duran, Hearns & Hagler were always going to be close fights, as they are all great fighters, so when do you stop all the rematches?

When you get a result favourable to yourself, maybe?

jyuza · Post by **jyuza** » 22 Aug 2005, 05:40

Maybe i will pass for a moron but whatever...my english will be perfect someday ;)

But what does "No mas" mean ??

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 22 Aug 2005, 06:35

Ray Leonard - egotistical arsehole beaten by a lightweight

He needs to apologise to the boxing public for all the self serving demands he made on opponents throughout his career. Nothing like a level playing field, is there Ray? :x

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 22 Aug 2005, 09:32

It seems to me that no fight series splits fight fans like this one. Just by looking at the posts here I see that there are a lot of emotional arguments in both camps. There is something intrinsic in their personalities which makes this such a provocative subject.

which do we feel is the greater achievement: Duran stepping up to ebat Leonard or Leonard stepping up to beat Hagler?

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 22 Aug 2005, 14:32

Syntax Error wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:
Syntax Error wrote: OK, what would you have said if SRL had of said 'No Mas' in the first fight because he couldn't subdue Duran? What would you have said if he had said 'No Mas' against Hearns, when he was gettuing pummelled by that jab?

I bet you wouldn't be so understanding of SRL in those instances

My point is, Duran seems to be forgiven for doing a 'No Mas' on more than 1 occasion, yet Leonard gets slated for fights that didn't even happen!

What's that all about?

I told the people in my earlier post that it was Duran's FAULT in not getting ready for their second meeting. All that partying and stuff after a big fight like that one, is IMPOSSIBLE and HARD to get back in shape after an EMOTIONAL AND GRUELING VICTORY.

Leonard took the loss as a MOTIVATION for their next meeting. Duran??? Well, that was his fault. He at least could have said gimmie more time to prepare or cancel the fight, but he was in a lot of pressure from Don King and the fight went on.

But I got to question that fight in which Duran did not had that HEAD MOVEMENT like in the first fight in which Leonard MISSED A LOT, and now in their second meeting almost everything Leonard throws finds the target??? C'mon???

You CANNOT QUESTION Duran's heart. Jumping from lightweight all the way to supermiddleweight, fighting the best fighters out there that were TALLER, BIGGER, STRONGER, YOUNGER, FASTER and FEEL COMFORTABLE IN THEIR OWN WEIGHT...That is heart.
Duran had great victories after being CONSIDERED WASHED UP. Tell me a fighter in histroy, CONSIDERED WASHED UP and coming from DEVASTATING LOSSES like Duran had, win 2 more world titles??? NOT MANY.

Leonard had EXCUSES of why he lost to Duran, right??? He and all his supporters said that the reason why he lost against "The Cholo" was because he FOUGHT DURAN'S FIGHT, which to me was a bunch of bullshit and baloney. Like if Duran was not supposed to win. Duran WHUPPED HIM and there was nothing else to add to it.

And the reason they forget him was because, first, he beat Leonard. And second, this was Duran, the legend, the greatest fighter of his time, the man that was larger than life after the VICTORY in Montreal.

Leonard NEVER fought guys jumping up to 25 pounds. Duran did. Oh, I'm sorry, Leonard "JUMPED" and fought a MEDIOCRE Donny Lalonde???. Gimmie a break.

My question is, Syntax Error: What do you mean that Leonard get slated for fights that did not happened???
Leonard gets slated for not having immediate rematches with opponents.

He beats someone & rather than give him credit for his victory, a lot of people say, "well he didn't give so & so a rematch!"

Where do you draw the line with rematches?

Leonard against Duran, Hearns & Hagler were always going to be close fights, as they are all great fighters, so when do you stop all the rematches?

When you get a result favourable to yourself, maybe?

I have NEVER QUESTIONED LEONARD'S GREATNESS IN BOXING HISTORY. To me, he was one of the most talented and great fighters that I have ever seen...I even thought at one time that he was the best fighter that I have ever seen, BUT THROUGH THE YEARS WATCHING TAPES AGAIN OF FIGHTERS, TO ME, (AND THAT IS MY OPINION NOW) IS THAT DURAN WAS THE GREATEST FIGHTER THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN

Just by watching that "Brawl in Montreal" it convinced me that Duran was the better fighter being Sugar Ray at his very best. Duran made him missed like nobody ever did, and even Leonard said that Duran schooled him.
Leonard got his WISH in a rematch with Duran. But when Duran wanted a 3rd fight, Leonard DECLINED??? What is that??? Is that a sign of a TRUE FIGHTER???
Why could not he give him a rematch right then when Duran asked for one more meeting??? It would have been a CLASSIC THIRD MEETING maybe around June 1981. It would have been probably another Thrilla in Manila and would have been more $$$$$$$ ont the table.

The reason??? Ray said that Duran needed to reestablish himself, WHICH WAS A TOTAL GARBAGE AND BULLSHIT. With Hearns, I betcha if Hearns would have won, he would have given Ray a rematch right away, just like Duran did.

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 22 Aug 2005, 16:24

Ezzard wrote:It seems to me that no fight series splits fight fans like this one. Just by looking at the posts here I see that there are a lot of emotional arguments in both camps. There is something intrinsic in their personalities which makes this such a provocative subject.

which do we feel is the greater achievement: Duran stepping up to ebat Leonard or Leonard stepping up to beat Hagler?

Duran beating Leonard was a far greater achievement than Leonard beating Hagler. By going to welterweight Duran was putting himself at a huge disadvantage against a close to prime Leonard. Leonard against Hagler - the fact it was Hagler's last fight virtually says it all