common opinions you disagree with

[Ezzard]

This Duran-Leonard one will always rumble on.

Leonard was an aggressive fighter, who planted his feet and went looking for the other guy. He moved well, sure…

In the first fight they stand off one another early on. Duran wins the long range duel. He almost floors Leonard in round 2 and then beats him up for the next few rounds.

Leonard moved up close because he was safest there. Because on the outside he was losing. Watch the fight. Duran nails him early. The next 4-5 rounds are about survival. Duran was ahead on the cards. Leonard had to do two things (1) be more aggressive to try and close the gap on the scorecards and (2) avoid standing off because Duran was picking him off.

At this point Duran was a counter-punching swarmer…not some kind of crude swinging whirling dervish. Leonard was an exciting, come forward boxer puncher, not a dancer who looked to jab and clutch his way to points decisions.

Saying Ray fought the wrong fight is fine, if you also accept Duran fought the wrong fight in the rematch.

I like Leonard and can't stand Duran, any you are vice versa, so we will seldom find common ground here.

I disagree with much of this. First, Leonard was much more effective fighting at long range. Sure, Duran will still have his moments when Leonard fought from the outside, and sure Leonard will occasionally have his fighting on the inside. However, generally Leonard is much better off fighting from long range. He could use his speed, reach, and clean punching advantages there.

I don't accept that Duran fought the "wrong" fight the 2nd time. He tried to do what he did in the first fight and what he tried to do in most of his fights. However, Leonard fought a completely different fight and more like he normally did. The result was that Leonard handled him much easier. Had they fought a 3rd time six months or a year later, the result would have been similar to the 2nd fight except Duran probably would not have quit again; he would have lost a lopsided decision.

There is a reason that Roberto "Forever a Lightweight" Duran never fought as a welterweight again and moved out of Leonard's weight class. He was not going to beat Leonard again and he knew it.

I like them both.

Leonard wasn't as effective at long range in the first fight. Duran was winning it at range. But if you're talking generally, yes, I agree. But in that first fight, no.

Leonard was always an aggressive fighter. He changed his style more for the second fight than he did the first. Duran could change styles too...and would have...

The final para is beneath you. Duran fought Hagler, Hearns, much bigger men, often when he was out of shape (his fault)...but he wasn't scared of defeat. He didn't do himself justice in the second fight, lost his fan base and aura...hit the party scene hard and was a poor trainer...that's not about boxing...that's about who he was as a man. He was flawed. Leonard was flawed too. Both men have acted badly in their lives. but there's no doubt that of all his old opponents that Leonard likes and liked Duran the most.

You don't like Duran, fine. But belittling such a great fighter is for other forum members.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You are making too much sense for the haters.
When rating Leonard, I think he should get criticized for not fighting a smart fight the first time. It cost him. In the 2nd fight, he fought a smart fight and won.He should get a lot of credit for that.
People can make all the excuses they want, but at the end of the day that is what it amounts to; excuses.

Classic Alp, an excuse filled post pointing the finger at others making excuses. You're the best.

[keithmoonhangover]

You are making too much sense for the haters.
When rating Leonard, I think he should get criticized for not fighting a smart fight the first time. It cost him. In the 2nd fight, he fought a smart fight and won.He should get a lot of credit for that.
People can make all the excuses they want, but at the end of the day that is what it amounts to; excuses.

Classic Alp, an excuse filled post pointing the finger at others making excuses. You're the best.

He makes sense compared to you. Someone presents you with a fact (on this occasion, it's that Leonard chose not to dance) and you lose the ability to type.

[elmersalsa]

Leonard went toe to toe because he had no choice. Duran wouldn't let him fight any other way and Padilla wasn't going to break when Roberto was fighting in the clinch. Ray could have had any game plan he wanted and he would have ended up going toe to toe or getting run out of the ring.

I thought it was one of Ray's best performances. The guy he was facing was a fighting machine. The biggest problem for Ray wasn't that he slugged it out, it was that Duran was significantly better defensively and quicker with his feet.

Yo, man. I got to give you a five star post on this one Saad. Just like I did with Ezzard, Il Dulce and I think Boxbuzz.

See the problem that many people got with Duran is that many of them do not know that Duran was as quick with his hands and feet just like Leonard. That he was as smart just like Leonard and that he could box just like Leonard.

Fights 1 and 2 are two different Durans. One in full speed. The second one, he was slow motion. JAH Bless

[elmersalsa]

You are making too much sense for the haters.
When rating Leonard, I think he should get criticized for not fighting a smart fight the first time. It cost him. In the 2nd fight, he fought a smart fight and won.He should get a lot of credit for that.
People can make all the excuses they want, but at the end of the day that is what it amounts to; excuses.

He fought a smart fight yes, but the smart fight was done OUTSIDE THE RING. Leonard KNEW that Duran was not gonna be in shape mentally for the bout. Duran fought a smart fight in the first, don't you agree. It was not that Leonard fought a wrong fight. You are underestimating the skills and abilities of the great Roberto Duran.

[elmersalsa]

I've seen the fight many times, that has nothing to do with my point anyway. Duran's pressure and closing speed in that fight was impervious to backward movement. Watch the fight again and you'll see.

I watched it yesterday and Leonard chose to stand and trade, that is a fact. You thinking it wouldn't have mattered if he had gone on his toes, is just opinion.

It wouldn't had mattered if Leonard had gone on his toes. Duran would have beaten him that night. He was not gonna be denied. He was devil possesed and in the greatest shape of his life.

To me, Duran was the better fighter. It was proven in fight #1.

[keithmoonhangover]

I've seen the fight many times, that has nothing to do with my point anyway. Duran's pressure and closing speed in that fight was impervious to backward movement. Watch the fight again and you'll see.

I watched it yesterday and Leonard chose to stand and trade, that is a fact. You thinking it wouldn't have mattered if he had gone on his toes, is just opinion.

It wouldn't had mattered if Leonard had gone on his toes. Duran would have beaten him that night. He was not gonna be denied. He was devil possesed and in the greatest shape of his life.

To me, Duran was the better fighter. It was proven in fight #1.

That's just your opinion. Mine is, that if Leonard had boxed smart he would have won or Duran may have quit.

[elmersalsa]

Please! Then you don't know the skills and abilities of the great Roberto Duran

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You are making too much sense for the haters.
When rating Leonard, I think he should get criticized for not fighting a smart fight the first time. It cost him. In the 2nd fight, he fought a smart fight and won.He should get a lot of credit for that.
People can make all the excuses they want, but at the end of the day that is what it amounts to; excuses.

Classic Alp, an excuse filled post pointing the finger at others making excuses. You're the best.

He makes sense compared to you. Someone presents you with a fact (on this occasion, it's that Leonard chose not to dance) and you lose the ability to type.

You think everything you type is a fact. You bore me Keith, not doing pages with you.Alp is more obsessed with Leonard than you are with me. None of it is worth the time.

You think Leonard wanted to get beat up, I think Duran forced his hand. The only fact is that Leonard got beat up. Someday you'll have to accept that, like I have that Duran lost the rematch. But don't worry, you still have your cockamamie Tyson posts to crank out.

[elmersalsa]

Another opinion I disagree is: Sugar Ray Robinson was the most complete and perfect fighter ever. I disagree with that with a lot of passion. Any debates about that?

[Giancarlo]

Another opinion I disagree is: Sugar Ray Robinson was the most complete and perfect fighter ever. I disagree with that with a lot of passion. Any debates about that?

Absolutely, Elmo!

I agree with you, with a passion, that Robinson wasn't fit to carry Ryan Rhodes' jockstrap.

Jesus bless.

[man]

Please! Then you don't know the skills and abilities of the great Roberto Duran

i have no idea whether duran had won in any case, but i
am damned sure leonard went into the first fight with the
plan to show the lightweight that he can fight him toe to
toe.

[bollox]

I disagree that Michael Olajide was infact, the boxing version of Michael Jackson

[SamWise72]

You are making too much sense for the haters.
When rating Leonard, I think he should get criticized for not fighting a smart fight the first time. It cost him. In the 2nd fight, he fought a smart fight and won.He should get a lot of credit for that.
People can make all the excuses they want, but at the end of the day that is what it amounts to; excuses.

He fought a smart fight yes, but the smart fight was done OUTSIDE THE RING. Leonard KNEW that Duran was not gonna be in shape mentally for the bout. Duran fought a smart fight in the first, don't you agree. It was not that Leonard fought a wrong fight. You are underestimating the skills and abilities of the great Roberto Duran.

I think both things are true. Duran was on top form that night, and Leonard didn't fight the smartest fight he could have. Am I sure he would have won if he'd got on his bike? No. But I suspect it, and I'd like to have seen it.

[SamWise72]

He did. I'd just like to see the alternative play out. It was a wonderful fight between two amazing fighters at their absolute peak, and the result went the right way. In the rematch, one man wasn't at his absolute peak. I'd like to know how that approach would have played out if he was, that's all.

There are a lot of fights I feel like that about; I think Herol Graham could have beaten Mike McCallum if he'd been 20% more on his bike than he was. I don't know for sure I'm right, and I'd like to be able to tweak that variable, and see it again. As far as the popular opinion thing, I thought everyone felt that Duran Leonard I was close. If they don't, then that's one I disagree with.

[Ambling Alp II]

You are making too much sense for the haters.
When rating Leonard, I think he should get criticized for not fighting a smart fight the first time. It cost him. In the 2nd fight, he fought a smart fight and won.He should get a lot of credit for that.
People can make all the excuses they want, but at the end of the day that is what it amounts to; excuses.

Classic Alp, an excuse filled post pointing the finger at others making excuses. You're the best.

He makes sense compared to you. Someone presents you with a fact (on this occasion, it's that Leonard chose not to dance) and you lose the ability to type.

What are you talking about? I agree that Leonard chose not move around in the first fight. It was not a wise decision and I said so. I never made any excuses for Leonard whatsoever.

I was saying that the constant lame excuses that people make for Duran are BS. (He was only a lightweight, he was drinking too much, eating too much etc.)

It should be as simple Duran won the first fight, Leonard won the 2nd.
My main objection is people giving Duran a ton of credit for winning the first, but making excuses for Duran in the 2nd fight and not giving Leonard credit for winning the 2nd.

[Ezzard]

It should be as simple Duran won the first fight, Leonard won the 2nd.

That's exactly it.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

It should be as simple Duran won the first fight, Leonard won the 2nd.

That's exactly it.

[man]

i'm in neither camp. both ATGs. to me their first two
meetings are close and controversial, the last meaningless.

i dislike the tactics leonard used in the second, though
they proved effective. in the first i am convinced SRL
used wrong strategy, which does not mean he would
have won had he chosen otherwise. but that he chose
the wrong is completely clear for everyone who has no
agenda.

in the second duran came down in weight too quickly and
was psyched out on top of that. both issues pretty stupid
and stunning mistakes by a veteran like he was one even
back then.

i for one find their story completely dissatisfying. leonard
should have given a rematch after no mas. that would
have been both fair and terrific, because then the two meet
in their primes without leonard making a IMHO stupid tactical
mistake and without duran performing a stupid blowing up in
weight stunt.

leonard not giving this rematch is for me on the same level of
unfairness as ali not giving it to foreman. both incidents are
for me the big black dots on both fighters' careers.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

[SenorPipino]

Please! Then you don't know the skills and abilities of the great Roberto Duran

i have no idea whether duran had won in any case, but i
am damned sure leonard went into the first fight with the
plan to show the lightweight that he can fight him toe to
toe.

If his skills and abilities were so great on that June night (and they were) how could those skills dissipate so much just 5 months later?
Could it be because Leonard employed a different strategy that neutralized Duran's aggressiveness?
Leonard fought the fight he wanted to in Montreal. It didn't work. He then fought the fight he wanted to in New Orleans. That time his plan was a success.

[keithmoonhangover]

What are you talking about? I agree that Leonard chose not move around in the first fight. It was not a wise decision and I said so. I never made any excuses for Leonard whatsoever.

I was saying that the constant lame excuses that people make for Duran are BS. (He was only a lightweight, he was drinking too much, eating too much etc.)

It should be as simple Duran won the first fight, Leonard won the 2nd.
My main objection is people giving Duran a ton of credit for winning the first, but making excuses for Duran in the 2nd fight and not giving Leonard credit for winning the 2nd.

What I said was aimed at Saad mate. I agree with you.

Leonard fought the wrong fight and lost. When he fought the right fight, Duran quit like a three year old.

[CrazyHorse]

All the Sugar Ray haters make it seem like he was just another average Joe. Guy went 85-2 as an amateur and went on to pile up a record of 35-0 until his first pro loss to Jame LaMotta at 21 years old and went on do defeat Jake in the trilogy. His next pro loss never came until he was about 29 years old. Many young people probably look at Sugar Ray and think "Oh my gosh he has 19 losses....he is nothing compared to Mayweather who is undefeated". Uncle Roger even said he thinks Ray Ray would beat his nephew. Have to realize it was different back then. Sugar Ray would fight almost every month or so. When you fight every few weeks you are not coming in 100% or at your "peak" if you say. Could you imagine if he was able to be 100% and ready for a right with a complete 6 weeks training camp? Fighting 3-4 times a year with the right training regimes? Guys back then fought to often to put food on the table and weren't paid a whole lot. Try watching old tape of Sugar Ray Robinson would also help as well. He was something else...But I am more convinced most people who talk boxing or old time boxers never watched the likes of Sugar Ray, Louis, and even Ali.

[BoxBuzz]

All the Sugar Ray haters make it seem like he was just another average Joe. Guy went 85-2 as an amateur and went on to pile up a record of 35-0 until his first pro loss to Jame LaMotta at 21 years old and went on do defeat Jake in the trilogy. His next pro loss never came until he was about 29 years old. Many young people probably look at Sugar Ray and think "Oh my gosh he has 19 losses....he is nothing compared to Mayweather who is undefeated". Uncle Roger even said he thinks Ray Ray would beat his nephew. Have to realize it was different back then. Sugar Ray would fight almost every month or so. When you fight every few weeks you are not coming in 100% or at your "peak" if you say. Could you imagine if he was able to be 100% and ready for a right with a complete 6 weeks training camp? Fighting 3-4 times a year with the right training regimes? Guys back then fought to often to put food on the table and weren't paid a whole lot. Try watching old tape of Sugar Ray Robinson would also help as well. He was something else...But I am more convinced most people who talk boxing or old time boxers never watched the likes of Sugar Ray, Louis, and even Ali.

Based on this, I'm not sure you are all that crazy. But the moniker "SensibleHorse" might not be as catchy...so don't go changin' it.

[SamWise72]

I'm totally going to find a use for the name SensibleHorse. IMO it's up there with Electric Landlady in terms of internet genius.