No Mas Redux

[Ambling Alp II]

One of the many reasons why I (and many others) like Leonard better. Many people don't like crybaby excuses or quitters. Duran even complained about the decision in the 3rd fight.
Leonard > Duran career wise.

Really? Why? What is your reasoning for why Duran should be rated higher? The "asswhipping"? Come on.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

One of the many reasons why I (and many others) like Leonard better. Many people don't like crybaby excuses or quitters. Duran even complained about the decision in the 3rd fight.
Leonard > Duran career wise.

Really? Why? What is your reasoning for why Duran should be rated higher? The "asswhipping"? Come on.

He had greater accomplishments, the same reason I have for any ratings. Granted the greatest one was beating Leonard. It is what it is, I wouldn't call rating Ray higher ridiculous, but it's far from a common opinion.

My laughter was at the "cry baby" shit. You make as many excuses as anyone. Unless you're of the opinion that in Montreal Duran beat Leonard when they were both at their best. I don't recall ever reading that from you.

[Ambling Alp II]

Greater accomplishments? Umm, no.
Duran didn't win the head to head.
Leonard was better against common opponents.
Leonard beat better opposition.
Leonard lost less often. Leonard's only loss when close to his prime was to Leonard. Duran lost to Leonard, but also lost to DeJesus, Benitez and Lang.

This is the criteria I always use when rating fighters when I am rating fighters, whether I like one of them better or not. Sometimes, the guy I like better comes out better, sometimes not.

Duran doesn't come out better in any area.

The only excuses I make for a fighter are such things as age and/or wear and tear, long layoffs, injuries or being too inexperienced. I make those allowances for fighters whether I like like them, despise them, or anywhere in between.I think this is reasonable and most others do the same. For example I don't give factor in the 3rd Leonard-Duran fight when rating either Duran or Leonard.
If you can come up with specific instances when I made excuses for other reasons, point them out.
I don't buy excuses regarding things like a fighter supposedly being unmotivated, having personal problems etc.

There is no legitimate reason that Leonard wasn't at his physical best when he fought Duran the first time. It was not the best fight that he ever fought. He has no legitimate excuse for losing.
There is no legitimate reason that Duran wasn't at his physical best when he fought Leonard the 2nd time. It was not the best fight that he ever fought either. He had no legitimate excuse for losing.

[ThatOne]

Let's be honest with ourselves. In this whole "No Mas" brouhaha only one of the combatants made a cockamamie excuse.

Fighters make excuses all the time. Leonard fans constantly say "fought the wrong fight" and bitch about excuses of Duran not being in optimum condition.

Well, yeah, but you have to agree Duran has never come up with a satisfactory explanation for his quitting. He evidently got frustrated It's like the Don Henley song, "New York Minute"... That's how quickly a life or career can turn. I'm sure Duran would like to have that minute back. Leonard like Ali loved to clown around in the ring, James Tony too... Duran should have just stuck to his plans.

But I don't like make excuses for my guy because it encourages the guy I'm arguing/discussing/debating with to make excuses for their guy.

[elmersalsa]

Greater accomplishments? Umm, no.
Duran didn't win the head to head.
Leonard was better against common opponents.
Leonard beat better opposition.
Leonard lost less often. Leonard's only loss when close to his prime was to Leonard. Duran lost to Leonard, but also lost to DeJesus, Benitez and Lang.

This is the criteria I always use when rating fighters when I am rating fighters, whether I like one of them better or not. Sometimes, the guy I like better comes out better, sometimes not.

Duran doesn't come out better in any area.

The only excuses I make for a fighter are such things as age and/or wear and tear, long layoffs, injuries or being too inexperienced. I make those allowances for fighters whether I like like them, despise them, or anywhere in between.I think this is reasonable and most others do the same. For example I don't give factor in the 3rd Leonard-Duran fight when rating either Duran or Leonard.
If you can come up with specific instances when I made excuses for other reasons, point them out.
I don't buy excuses regarding things like a fighter supposedly being unmotivated, having personal problems etc.

There is no legitimate reason that Leonard wasn't at his physical best when he fought Duran the first time. It was not the best fight that he ever fought. He has no legitimate excuse for losing.
There is no legitimate reason that Duran wasn't at his physical best when he fought Leonard the 2nd time. It was not the best fight that he ever fought either. He had no legitimate excuse for losing.

The great Hands of Stone had more accomplishments over the great Sugar Ray in all the areas, my friend, with the exception of quality of opposition. Leonard beat them in his total prime. Duran was out of prime when he fought them, simply as that.


But, who had more fights? Duran
More longevity? Duran
Who was better champion at their respective weight class? Duran
Who had more title defenses? Duran
Who had more KOs? Duran
Who won the fight when both were in the top of their shapes? Duran. If he would have retired after the night in Montreal and never come back, he would have been in the pantheon of the 5 greatest fighters ever, maybe better than Sugar Ray Robinson.
More years in his prime? Duran

I mean, Duran overwhelm Leonard in almost all categories. No contest.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Greater accomplishments? Umm, no.
Duran didn't win the head to head.
Leonard was better against common opponents.
Leonard beat better opposition.
Leonard lost less often. Leonard's only loss when close to his prime was to Leonard. Duran lost to Leonard, but also lost to DeJesus, Benitez and Lang.

This is the criteria I always use when rating fighters when I am rating fighters, whether I like one of them better or not. Sometimes, the guy I like better comes out better, sometimes not.

Duran doesn't come out better in any area.

The only excuses I make for a fighter are such things as age and/or wear and tear, long layoffs, injuries or being too inexperienced. I make those allowances for fighters whether I like like them, despise them, or anywhere in between.I think this is reasonable and most others do the same. For example I don't give factor in the 3rd Leonard-Duran fight when rating either Duran or Leonard.
If you can come up with specific instances when I made excuses for other reasons, point them out.
I don't buy excuses regarding things like a fighter supposedly being unmotivated, having personal problems etc.

There is no legitimate reason that Leonard wasn't at his physical best when he fought Duran the first time. It was not the best fight that he ever fought. He has no legitimate excuse for losing.
There is no legitimate reason that Duran wasn't at his physical best when he fought Leonard the 2nd time. It was not the best fight that he ever fought either. He had no legitimate excuse for losing.

Your criteria always involves whom do you prefer to the highest extent. It's hysterical that you consider yourself objective. Leonard couldn't take a piss without shrugging off your face.

I mean you say that Duran didn't win head to head and later you say the third fight doesn't factor in. How does that happen? Oh yeah, in your sad little retarded world. You're a clown to the utmost degree.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Let's be honest with ourselves. In this whole "No Mas" brouhaha only one of the combatants made a cockamamie excuse.

Fighters make excuses all the time. Leonard fans constantly say "fought the wrong fight" and bitch about excuses of Duran not being in optimum condition.

Well, yeah, but you have to agree Duran has never come up with a satisfactory explanation for his quitting. He evidently got frustrated It's like the Don Henley song, "New York Minute"... That's how quickly a life or career can turn. I'm sure Duran would like to have that minute back. Leonard like Ali loved to clown around in the ring, James Tony too... Duran should have just stuck to his plans.

But I don't like make excuses for my guy because it encourages the guy I'm arguing/discussing/debating with to make excuses for their guy.

I don't need an explanation, he quit and Leonard won.

[Ezzard]

So we are back to the Roberto " Forever a Lightweight" Duran? Guess what Roberto Duran, is not the the only fighter to ever move up in weight class. The vast majority of fighters do this and most have little problem handling it. Hearns did it. Benitez did it, easy to come up with dozens of other examples.

Roberto Duran had been fighting outside of the lightweight class for years. Not that comparable to Leonard-Hagler. Leonard had never weighed that much for fight before. More importantly, Leonard had a fight in 3 years.

Guess what, some of us just don't buy the argument that is a valid excuse for every fight that Duran lost. (Of course we just are supposed assume that his opponents were always at 100%)

Duran-Leonard I was a fair fight and Duran won by 15 round decision.
Duran-Leonard II was a fair fight and Leonard won by 8th round TKO.
Enough of the crybaby excuses.

Tell you what...find one of your "cry baby" excuses in my post? The only people who use "cry baby" are cry babies...

Bigger fighters have an advantage. Fighters who move up are at a disadvantage...always have been throughout history...

Robinson didn't do as well at 160 as he did at 147... Moore was better at 175 than heavy... As was Mike Spinks... As were many, many others... Leonard was a better welter... Occasionally a guy wins a title early...doesn't hang around in the division too long and matures into a higher division. There are cases... Like when Duran stopped off at feather...matured into a Lightweight...

You used to say you preferred Leonard because Duran was not a nice guy. See you've changed your tune on that one.

Honestly, I don't even care who you like most. I'm not even interested. I just don't like being accused of things I didn't do.

[Ezzard]

So we are back to the Roberto " Forever a Lightweight" Duran? Guess what Roberto Duran, is not the the only fighter to ever move up in weight class. The vast majority of fighters do this and most have little problem handling it. Hearns did it. Benitez did it, easy to come up with dozens of other examples.

Roberto Duran had been fighting outside of the lightweight class for years. Not that comparable to Leonard-Hagler. Leonard had never weighed that much for fight before. More importantly, Leonard had a fight in 3 years.

Guess what, some of us just don't buy the argument that is a valid excuse for every fight that Duran lost. (Of course we just are supposed assume that his opponents were always at 100%)

Duran-Leonard I was a fair fight and Duran won by 15 round decision.
Duran-Leonard II was a fair fight and Leonard won by 8th round TKO.
Enough of the crybaby excuses.

Tell you what...find one of your "cry baby" excuses in my post?

You can't in all honesty throw around terms like "cry baby" and claim objectivity...

Anyway...

Bigger fighters have an advantage. Fighters who move up are at a disadvantage...always have been throughout history...

Robinson didn't do as well at 160 as he did at 147... Moore was better at 175 than heavy... As was Mike Spinks... As were many, many others... Leonard was a better welter... Occasionally a guy wins a title early...doesn't hang around in the division too long and matures into a higher division. There are cases... Like when Duran stopped off at feather...matured into a Lightweight...

Honestly, I don't even care who you like most. I'm not even interested. I just don't like being accused of things I didn't do.

[Ambling Alp II]

Sorry that you are so upset Ezzard. I have always liked you and thought that you were a good poster. We just have never agrreed at all about Leonard and Duran.

I think it is a cry baby excuse that Duran was really a lightweight. He had naturally moved up in weight. It was not like it was his first fight at welterweight and he suddenly bulked up. Like almost everyone, he gradually got bigger as he matured in his 20s. Doesn't mean he can't be as good. I thought he fought as well as a welterweight as he did as a lightweight; he just didn't do it as long.

I disagree with your argument that fighters aren't as good when they move up. I think it's normal for a fighter in a lower weight class to fight in 3 or more weight classes and be just as good in the 2nd and 3rd weight classes.
You mentioned Archie Moore. He actually fought as a middleweight for several years before he was a lightheavyweight. He was a better lightheavyweight. Michael Spinks went from 175 to 200 from one fight to the next when he was older. That is quite different than gradually going from 135-147 over the period of several years, fighting several fights at 147 and then fighting for the title.
Mickey Walker was a better middleweight than he was a welterweight. Many other fighters were about the same.

I am not making excuses for Leonard losing the first fight. I don't think there should be excuses for Duran losing the 2nd either. That is really my main point. I give Duran a lot of credit for winning the first fight; I think Leonard should get equal credit for winning the 2nd.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Sorry that you are so upset Ezzard. I have always liked you and thought that you were a good poster. We just have never agrreed at all about Leonard and Duran.

I think it is a cry baby excuse that Duran was really a lightweight. He had naturally moved up in weight. It was not like it was his first fight at welterweight and he suddenly bulked up. Like almost everyone, he gradually got bigger as he matured in his 20s. Doesn't mean he can't be as good. I thought he fought as well as a welterweight as he did as a lightweight; he just didn't do it as long.

I disagree with your argument that fighters aren't as good when they move up. I think it's normal for a fighter in a lower weight class to fight in 3 or more weight classes and be just as good in the 2nd and 3rd weight classes.
You mentioned Archie Moore. He actually fought as a middleweight for several years before he was a lightheavyweight. He was a better lightheavyweight. Michael Spinks went from 175 to 200 from one fight to the next when he was older. That is quite different than gradually going from 135-147 over the period of several years, fighting several fights at 147 and then fighting for the title.
Mickey Walker was a better middleweight than he was a welterweight. Many other fighters were about the same.

I am not making excuses for Leonard losing the first fight. I don't think there should be excuses for Duran losing the 2nd either. That is really my main point. I give Duran a lot of credit for winning the first fight; I think Leonard should get equal credit for winning the 2nd.

Nobody is making excuses for Duran, you're just pointing fingers like you always do. Anything after Duran moved up to Jr Middleweight is just icing on the cake. None of those losses hurt his standing. That isn't Duran specific, every great fighter reaches that point.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Mr. A-Alp,

You don't really believe that Roberto Duran was as 'good' at Welterweight {Age; 29} as
he was at Lightweight {Age 21 thru 27}.

Want To Buy A Bridge ?

I do

[Ambling Alp II]

Greater accomplishments? Umm, no.
Duran didn't win the head to head.
Leonard was better against common opponents.
Leonard beat better opposition.
Leonard lost less often. Leonard's only loss when close to his prime was to Leonard. Duran lost to Leonard, but also lost to DeJesus, Benitez and Lang.

This is the criteria I always use when rating fighters when I am rating fighters, whether I like one of them better or not. Sometimes, the guy I like better comes out better, sometimes not.

Duran doesn't come out better in any area.

The only excuses I make for a fighter are such things as age and/or wear and tear, long layoffs, injuries or being too inexperienced. I make those allowances for fighters whether I like like them, despise them, or anywhere in between.I think this is reasonable and most others do the same. For example I don't give factor in the 3rd Leonard-Duran fight when rating either Duran or Leonard.
If you can come up with specific instances when I made excuses for other reasons, point them out.
I don't buy excuses regarding things like a fighter supposedly being unmotivated, having personal problems etc.

There is no legitimate reason that Leonard wasn't at his physical best when he fought Duran the first time. It was not the best fight that he ever fought. He has no legitimate excuse for losing.
There is no legitimate reason that Duran wasn't at his physical best when he fought Leonard the 2nd time. It was not the best fight that he ever fought either. He had no legitimate excuse for losing.

Your criteria always involves whom do you prefer to the highest extent. It's hysterical that you consider yourself objective. Leonard couldn't take a piss without shrugging off your face.

I mean you say that Duran didn't win head to head and later you say the third fight doesn't factor in. How does that happen? Oh yeah, in your sad little retarded world. You're a clown to the utmost degree.

Still going with the old standby? About time you go some new material.
I'd rather be a clown that the pathetic human being that you are.
Seriously, you couldn't figure out that Duran still didn't win the head to head if you don't count the 3rd fight? Wow. You see, if you win one fight, and lose the second, you are 1-1. That's even. That means that you didn't win the head to series. Sorry if this modern math is confusing you. Maybe it's the drugs again.

I am using the same criteria as I always do. Duran ties on one factor and loses on all the rest. Had he won both fights, then maybe you could argue that was enough to override everything else. However, he didn't. Therefore Leonard should be rated higher.

Name any other two fighters and I will compare them the same way. Been doing that for several years. Just because your guy loses out to someone you hate doesn't make me biased. (I don't really care about total wins or total knockouts. We all know that any decent fighter can always find easy wins that don't really matter.) Of course it's always better if they fought each other and had common opponents. If that didn't happen, then you still can look at their quality wins vs losses/poor performances.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Greater accomplishments? Umm, no.
Duran didn't win the head to head.
Leonard was better against common opponents.
Leonard beat better opposition.
Leonard lost less often. Leonard's only loss when close to his prime was to Leonard. Duran lost to Leonard, but also lost to DeJesus, Benitez and Lang.

This is the criteria I always use when rating fighters when I am rating fighters, whether I like one of them better or not. Sometimes, the guy I like better comes out better, sometimes not.

Duran doesn't come out better in any area.

The only excuses I make for a fighter are such things as age and/or wear and tear, long layoffs, injuries or being too inexperienced. I make those allowances for fighters whether I like like them, despise them, or anywhere in between.I think this is reasonable and most others do the same. For example I don't give factor in the 3rd Leonard-Duran fight when rating either Duran or Leonard.
If you can come up with specific instances when I made excuses for other reasons, point them out.
I don't buy excuses regarding things like a fighter supposedly being unmotivated, having personal problems etc.

There is no legitimate reason that Leonard wasn't at his physical best when he fought Duran the first time. It was not the best fight that he ever fought. He has no legitimate excuse for losing.
There is no legitimate reason that Duran wasn't at his physical best when he fought Leonard the 2nd time. It was not the best fight that he ever fought either. He had no legitimate excuse for losing.

Your criteria always involves whom do you prefer to the highest extent. It's hysterical that you consider yourself objective. Leonard couldn't take a piss without shrugging off your face.

I mean you say that Duran didn't win head to head and later you say the third fight doesn't factor in. How does that happen? Oh yeah, in your sad little retarded world. You're a clown to the utmost degree.

Still going with the old standby? About time you go some new material.
I'd rather be a clown that the pathetic human being that you are.
Seriously, you couldn't figure out that Duran still didn't win the head to head if you don't count the 3rd fight? Wow. You see, if you win one fight, and lose the second, you are 1-1. That's even. That means that you didn't win the head to series. Sorry if this modern math is confusing you. Maybe it's the drugs again.

I am using the same criteria as I always do. Duran ties on one factor and loses on all the rest. Had he won both fights, then maybe you could argue that was enough to override everything else. However, he didn't. Therefore Leonard should be rated higher.

Name any other two fighters and I will compare them the same way. Been doing that for several years. Just because your guy loses out to someone you hate doesn't make me biased. (I don't really care about total wins or total knockouts. We all know that any decent fighter can always find easy wins that don't really matter.) Of course it's always better if they fought each other and had common opponents. If that didn't happen, then you still can look at their quality wins vs losses/poor performances.

I laugh when something is funny, your posts often fit that description.

As for pathetic, that describes your claims in this thread. I never said Duran won the h2h, i called it 1-1 in this very thread. But of course you didn't read that, just went on with your claims of bias while you dream of getting on your knees to sample some Sugar.

I know you're using the same criteria you always do, talking up your boy and getting creative to make it come out how you want it too.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Unlike you, I don't rate fighters on emotion.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yeah right. Mr. Impartiality.
You asked how does it work that I could claim that Duran did not win the head to head if you don't count the 3rd fight. I then explained why. Maybe you should try hooked on phonics, I hear it's a great program. Try doing this sober. That may help as well. Stay off the drugs. Just say no.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Awww, now the nuthugger is upset. Boo-hoo, poor little Alp.

[elmersalsa]

The more I hear about it, "Sugar Ray did not fight his fight", the more dumber it sounds through the years. I used to believe that bunch of hogwash back in the day. But as I saw the two fights closely many times through the years, the TRUTH was that Duran beat the crap out of Leonard on the first one. Something that many posters here cannot accept.

I believe even if Leonard would have gone toe to toe with Duran in the second fight, he would have won, anyway. He was quicker and faster. Even in the inside exchanges, he was outpunching Duran. Duran did not had it that night. HE KNEW IT... The fight was lost from the opening bell. Leonard CAUGHT DURAN IN AN OFF NIGHT. HE NEVER BEAT DURAN AT DURAN'S BEST....END OF STORY.

[ThatOne]

The more I hear about it, "Sugar Ray did not fight his fight", the more dumber it sounds through the years. I used to believe that bunch of hogwash back in the day. But as I saw the two fights closely many times through the years, the TRUTH was that Duran beat the crap out of Leonard on the first one. Something that many posters here cannot accept.

I believe even if Leonard would have gone toe to toe with Duran in the second fight, he would have won, anyway. He was quicker and faster. Even in the inside exchanges, he was outpunching Duran. Duran did not had it that night. HE KNEW IT... The fight was lost from the opening bell. Leonard CAUGHT DURAN IN AN OFF NIGHT. HE NEVER BEAT DURAN AT DURAN'S BEST....END OF STORY.

Does it seem fair to you that Fighter B's victory should be tarnished because Fighter A didn't come to fight?

[Ezzard]

Sorry that you are so upset Ezzard. I have always liked you and thought that you were a good poster. We just have never agrreed at all about Leonard and Duran.

I think it is a cry baby excuse that Duran was really a lightweight. He had naturally moved up in weight. It was not like it was his first fight at welterweight and he suddenly bulked up. Like almost everyone, he gradually got bigger as he matured in his 20s. Doesn't mean he can't be as good. I thought he fought as well as a welterweight as he did as a lightweight; he just didn't do it as long.

I disagree with your argument that fighters aren't as good when they move up. I think it's normal for a fighter in a lower weight class to fight in 3 or more weight classes and be just as good in the 2nd and 3rd weight classes.
You mentioned Archie Moore. He actually fought as a middleweight for several years before he was a lightheavyweight. He was a better lightheavyweight. Michael Spinks went from 175 to 200 from one fight to the next when he was older. That is quite different than gradually going from 135-147 over the period of several years, fighting several fights at 147 and then fighting for the title.
Mickey Walker was a better middleweight than he was a welterweight. Many other fighters were about the same.

I am not making excuses for Leonard losing the first fight. I don't think there should be excuses for Duran losing the 2nd either. That is really my main point. I give Duran a lot of credit for winning the first fight; I think Leonard should get equal credit for winning the 2nd.

Moore did not dominate at Middle. Walker did not dominate at Welter. Duran did dominate at Lightweight. And many people then believe he became a better fighter at welter...which meant changing his style...think about it...he was a better fighter against boxers who were bigger, stronger and more powerful...

I can't think of anyone else who did this.

I'm not offering any excuses... I view their achievements through the lens of which division they started in...which division they made their own...and which division they ended up in...

And "cry baby"...really? Do you really want to be posting that?

[ThatOne]

Jimmy Ellis came up as a middleweight. He even lost to the Hurricane. But that was before he hooked up with the GOAT trainer.

[Seamus]

Ray beat the guys Duran couldn't, and 2 of those 3 he stopped when they were champions. That's one of the reasons I rate him higher alltime.

[elmersalsa]

Ray beat the guys Duran couldn't, and 2 of those 3 he stopped when they were champions. That's one of the reasons I rate him higher alltime.

He beat them in his prime... You think Ray would have beaten the greats Thomas Hearns and Marvin Hagler or even the great Wilfred Benitez in his 30s? Because by his 30s, Leonard was not the same guy.

[elmersalsa]

The more I hear about it, "Sugar Ray did not fight his fight", the more dumber it sounds through the years. I used to believe that bunch of hogwash back in the day. But as I saw the two fights closely many times through the years, the TRUTH was that Duran beat the crap out of Leonard on the first one. Something that many posters here cannot accept.

I believe even if Leonard would have gone toe to toe with Duran in the second fight, he would have won, anyway. He was quicker and faster. Even in the inside exchanges, he was outpunching Duran. Duran did not had it that night. HE KNEW IT... The fight was lost from the opening bell. Leonard CAUGHT DURAN IN AN OFF NIGHT. HE NEVER BEAT DURAN AT DURAN'S BEST....END OF STORY.

Does it seem fair to you that Fighter B's victory should be tarnished because Fighter A didn't come to fight?

In a lot of ways, Leonard's victory was kind of tarnished due to the fact that Duran quit, according to the media. Do you believe that that was the same Duran in Montreal? Really? Do you believe that Leonard, now "fought his fight" in New Orleans? Do you believe that Duran was at his very best? Really?

Anybody that thinks that that was the same Duran in Montreal is either delusional or need glasses or both.

[ThatOne]

Ray beat the guys Duran couldn't, and 2 of those 3 he stopped when they were champions. That's one of the reasons I rate him higher alltime.

He beat them in his prime... You think Ray would have beaten the greats Thomas Hearns and Marvin Hagler or even the great Wilfred Benitez in his 30s? Because by his 30s, Leonard was not the same guy.

Ray was 31 when he whupped Hagler and had fought a total of nine rounds in previous five years.