Wilfred Benitez vs Roberto Duran: 40 Years Later

[elmersalsa]

Did he quit?

Yes, so what?

Did he kicked Sugar Ray's ass? Yes!
Coming from Lightweight? Yes!
Was Sugar Ray faster, bigger and stronger? Yes!
In his prime? Yes!
Was Duran the ONLY ONE to beat him in his prime? Yes!
Did you saw Sugar Ray's face before and after the fight? I guess yes, but you don't want to admit that it was an ass whupping.

Anything else?

[hhaehre]

No I don't. The only one that I ever use of the ones that you mentioned is the top one about Ali's exile. Obviously a guy can't be off for 3 and half years and come back and be the same.

But a guy can prepare for a fight by partying and he will be just as good? Can't you see that not preparing is a valid explanation for a poor performance? It's no excuse as it is entirely on Duran, but it does explain his embarrassing performance wouldn't you say?

[Ambling Alp II]

Did he quit?

Yes, so what?

Did he kicked Sugar Ray's ass? Yes!
Coming from Lightweight? Yes!
Was Sugar Ray faster, bigger and stronger? Yes!
In his prime? Yes!
Was Duran the ONLY ONE to beat him in his prime? Yes!
Did you saw Sugar Ray's face before and after the fight? I guess yes, but you don't want to admit that it was an ass whupping.

Anything else?

Did he kick Leonard's a$$ ? No. You had Duran winning by three points.
Coming from light weight? Yes, once upon a time Duran was lightweight. He was a welterweight when they fought, and had been for quite a while.
Bigger, stronger, faster? I'm sure there is point in there somewhere.
Are you really dumb? Yes.
Only one to beat Leonard in his prime? Yes I agree with that. Only thing you have said that makes sense.
Yes I saw Leonard's face? Ever see Ezzard Charles face after he easily beat Joe Louis?

Winning by three points (on your own card) is not an a$$ whupping.
You could argue that a TKO8 is.

[Ambling Alp II]

No I don't. The only one that I ever use of the ones that you mentioned is the top one about Ali's exile. Obviously a guy can't be off for 3 and half years and come back and be the same.

But a guy can prepare for a fight by partying and he will be just as good? Can't you see that not preparing is a valid explanation for a poor performance? It's no excuse as it is entirely on Duran, but it does explain his embarrassing performance wouldn't you say?

He lost because Leonard was too good and Duran struggled with boxers.
"The partying for 5 months against the best fighter he ever fought" is the possibly the lamest excuse in the history of boxing.

[hhaehre]

No I don't. The only one that I ever use of the ones that you mentioned is the top one about Ali's exile. Obviously a guy can't be off for 3 and half years and come back and be the same.

But a guy can prepare for a fight by partying and he will be just as good? Can't you see that not preparing is a valid explanation for a poor performance? It's no excuse as it is entirely on Duran, but it does explain his embarrassing performance wouldn't you say?

He lost because Leonard was too good and Duran struggled with boxers.
"The partying for 5 months against the best fighter he ever fought" is the possibly the lamest excuse in the history of boxing.

Are you saying he didn't party? Are you saying he trained hard and prepared for the fight?

[elmersalsa]

Did he quit?

Yes, so what?

Did he kicked Sugar Ray's ass? Yes!
Coming from Lightweight? Yes!
Was Sugar Ray faster, bigger and stronger? Yes!
In his prime? Yes!
Was Duran the ONLY ONE to beat him in his prime? Yes!
Did you saw Sugar Ray's face before and after the fight? I guess yes, but you don't want to admit that it was an ass whupping.

Anything else?

Did he kick Leonard's a$$ ? No. You had Duran winning by three points.
Coming from light weight? Yes, once upon a time Duran was lightweight. He was a welterweight when they fought, and had been for quite a while.
Bigger, stronger, faster? I'm sure there is point in there somewhere.
Are you really dumb? Yes.
Only one to beat Leonard in his prime? Yes I agree with that. Only thing you have said that makes sense.
Yes I saw Leonard's face? Ever see Ezzard Charles face after he easily beat Joe Louis?

Winning by three points (on your own card) is not an a$$ whupping.
You could argue that a TKO8 is.

Now, you want to call me dumb and that I don't make sense at all. That is happening to people like you that are irked that a man that came from the Lightweight division to get a decent fight at Welterweight, WHUPPED THE GOLDEN BOY!

CLOSE FIGHT MY ASS!

And the next time, you call me a name. Just be prepared, o'right, boy? You church choir boy mother fuucker!

You are as stupid as the American media that want people to believe what it didn't happen.

Everytime I am whupping your sorry ass you want to call someone a name. Grow up, boy! Be a man!

[elmersalsa]

No I don't. The only one that I ever use of the ones that you mentioned is the top one about Ali's exile. Obviously a guy can't be off for 3 and half years and come back and be the same.

But a guy can prepare for a fight by partying and he will be just as good? Can't you see that not preparing is a valid explanation for a poor performance? It's no excuse as it is entirely on Duran, but it does explain his embarrassing performance wouldn't you say?

He lost because Leonard was too good and Duran struggled with boxers.
"The partying for 5 months against the best fighter he ever fought" is the possibly the lamest excuse in the history of boxing.

When BOTH WERE AT THEIR VERY BEST, DURAN KICKED HIS ASS! END OF STORY!

[Ambling Alp II]

You think when your guy wins, it counts. When your loses, it doesn't. Says more about you than anything.
Never called you a name. You called me one.

Winning by three points on your own card is not an a$$ whipping.

[Ambling Alp II]

But a guy can prepare for a fight by partying and he will be just as good? Can't you see that not preparing is a valid explanation for a poor performance? It's no excuse as it is entirely on Duran, but it does explain his embarrassing performance wouldn't you say?

He lost because Leonard was too good and Duran struggled with boxers.
"The partying for 5 months against the best fighter he ever fought" is the possibly the lamest excuse in the history of boxing.

Are you saying he didn't party? Are you saying he trained hard and prepared for the fight?

For five months? Umm, no.
Don't know how much partying and how much preparation he did and neither do any of us. We aren't with these guys on a daily basis, or at all for that matter.
Is not preparing is a valid explanation for a poor performance? No. At all. Whether it's true or not it's true, you can't get any more lame.
Ray Arcel (Duran's own trainer) didn't even buy into the crybaby excuses for Duran.

You have to take the crybaby excuses with a grain of salt. If you are going to accept this excuse, then you have to accept literally any excuse anyone ever gives for any fight. So then nothing counts.

[Jaywheel]

An ass whupping is De la Hoya coming up in weight to destroy Chavez in 4. That was an ugly face.

[elmersalsa]

You think when your guy wins, it counts. When your loses, it doesn't. Says more about you than anything.
Never called you a name. You called me one.

Winning by three points on your own card is not an a$$ whipping.

You called me dumb. I don't appreciate that, boy!

My guy lost to Esteban de Jesus. That was the ONLY LEGIT loss that I see in Duran's prime.

Sugar Ray Robinson lost 3 times in his prime
Muhammad Ali lost once in his prime.
Sugar Ray Leonard lost once in his prime.
Thomas Hearns lost twice in his prime.

That's what I am talking about.

That "No Mas" fight was nothing but a NATIONALISTIC PLOT to get the title back to America. Quickly, if they can.

American boxing and their Golden Boy got embarrassed and humiliated, big time!

A Latin guy from Panama whupped Sugar Ray's ass from post to post. Just look at Leonard's face before and after the fight. It looked like an ass whupping to me. Just like I am kicking your ass now in these posts.

The rematch had to be done as quickly as possible. American boxing and their hero got to be redeemed. At any cost.

And it worked the $8 million dollars for the stupid and greedy management team of Duran's. They didn't care about their fighter's interests, but theirs and fell for the trap.

If Leonard was so good, why he didn't give Duran time? And why he never gave the man a rematch like Duran gave him one?

Why? Because it was already PREMEDITATED by the Sugar Ray agenda: bigger ring, get Duran to fight now, don't give a rematch, don't give him time. Fight running this time because he ain't gonna be in shape to catch you, Ray.

That's why the majority of fight fans love Duran more than Ray. Because Duran was a real fighter that fought everybody at any weight and time. Even with a "No Mas" that he didn't say, but by Sugar Ray's nuthugger Howard Cossell that never liked Duran.

Sugar Ray? He always had to had to be calculated. He always had to have the edge. He Always had to come with STIPULATIONS. His way or no way. A cherry picker at the end of his career.

Debate without name calling. Because that's your only way. Be a man, boy!

Or you want to start a name-calling post between you and me? I am ready.

[Jaywheel]

As if Duran didn't benefit from the bigger gloves he requested in 1980.

[Ambling Alp II]

[Ambling Alp II]

You think when your guy wins, it counts. When your loses, it doesn't. Says more about you than anything.
Never called you a name. You called me one.

Winning by three points on your own card is not an a$$ whipping.

You called me dumb. I don't appreciate that, boy!

My guy lost to Esteban de Jesus. That was the ONLY LEGIT loss that I see in Duran's prime.

Sugar Ray Robinson lost 3 times in his prime
Muhammad Ali lost once in his prime.
Sugar Ray Leonard lost once in his prime.
Thomas Hearns lost twice in his prime.

That's what I am talking about.

That "No Mas" fight was nothing but a NATIONALISTIC PLOT to get the title back to America. Quickly, if they can.

American boxing and their Golden Boy got embarrassed and humiliated, big time!

A Latin guy from Panama whupped Sugar Ray's ass from post to post. Just look at Leonard's face before and after the fight. It looked like an ass whupping to me. Just like I am kicking your ass now in these posts.

The rematch had to be done as quickly as possible. American boxing and their hero got to be redeemed. At any cost.

And it worked the $8 million dollars for the stupid and greedy management team of Duran's. They didn't care about their fighter's interests, but theirs and fell for the trap.

If Leonard was so good, why he didn't give Duran time? And why he never gave the man a rematch like Duran gave him one?

Why? Because it was already PREMEDITATED by the Sugar Ray agenda: bigger ring, get Duran to fight now, don't give a rematch, don't give him time. Fight running this time because he ain't gonna be in shape to catch you, Ray.

That's why the majority of fight fans love Duran more than Ray. Because Duran was a real fighter that fought everybody at any weight and time. Even with a "No Mas" that he didn't say, but by Sugar Ray's nuthugger Howard Cossell that never liked Duran.

Sugar Ray? He always had to had to be calculated. He always had to have the edge. He Always had to come with STIPULATIONS. His way or no way. A cherry picker at the end of his career.

Debate without name calling. Because that's your only way. Be a man, boy!

Or you want to start a name-calling post between you and me? I am ready.

No. Just no.

[hhaehre]

Is not preparing is a valid explanation for a poor performance? No. At all.

Of course it is, why wouldn't it be? If a fighter comes in fat and out of shape it's very much a valid reason for a poor performance. It's no excuse, but coming in out of shape is the reason for soooo many poor performances.

Did you for example think Ali looked good against Jimmy Young? I didn't, in fact I thought he lost the fight and the reason was clearly that he hadn't bothered to prepare properly. It's no excuse, but it explains the sub-par performance.

[elmersalsa]

You think when your guy wins, it counts. When your loses, it doesn't. Says more about you than anything.
Never called you a name. You called me one.

Winning by three points on your own card is not an a$$ whipping.

You called me dumb. I don't appreciate that, boy!

My guy lost to Esteban de Jesus. That was the ONLY LEGIT loss that I see in Duran's prime.

Sugar Ray Robinson lost 3 times in his prime
Muhammad Ali lost once in his prime.
Sugar Ray Leonard lost once in his prime.
Thomas Hearns lost twice in his prime.

That's what I am talking about.

That "No Mas" fight was nothing but a NATIONALISTIC PLOT to get the title back to America. Quickly, if they can.

American boxing and their Golden Boy got embarrassed and humiliated, big time!

A Latin guy from Panama whupped Sugar Ray's ass from post to post. Just look at Leonard's face before and after the fight. It looked like an ass whupping to me. Just like I am kicking your ass now in these posts.

The rematch had to be done as quickly as possible. American boxing and their hero got to be redeemed. At any cost.

And it worked the $8 million dollars for the stupid and greedy management team of Duran's. They didn't care about their fighter's interests, but theirs and fell for the trap.

If Leonard was so good, why he didn't give Duran time? And why he never gave the man a rematch like Duran gave him one?

Why? Because it was already PREMEDITATED by the Sugar Ray agenda: bigger ring, get Duran to fight now, don't give a rematch, don't give him time. Fight running this time because he ain't gonna be in shape to catch you, Ray.

That's why the majority of fight fans love Duran more than Ray. Because Duran was a real fighter that fought everybody at any weight and time. Even with a "No Mas" that he didn't say, but by Sugar Ray's nuthugger Howard Cossell that never liked Duran.

Sugar Ray? He always had to had to be calculated. He always had to have the edge. He Always had to come with STIPULATIONS. His way or no way. A cherry picker at the end of his career.

Debate without name calling. Because that's your only way. Be a man, boy!

Or you want to start a name-calling post between you and me? I am ready.

No. Just no.

Okay, then. Just watch your writing.

[Ambling Alp II]

Is not preparing is a valid explanation for a poor performance? No. At all.

Of course it is, why wouldn't it be? If a fighter comes in fat and out of shape it's very much a valid reason for a poor performance. It's no excuse, but coming in out of shape is the reason for soooo many poor performances.

Did you for example think Ali looked good against Jimmy Young? I didn't, in fact I thought he lost the fight and the reason was clearly that he hadn't bothered to prepare properly. It's no excuse, but it explains the sub-par performance.

First of all, in Duran's case we don't even know that he didn't rain much. Urban legends and tales from the gym are usually BS.
How can any reasonable person seriously believe that Duran "partied" for 150 straight days and hardly trained? For the best opponent of his career. Come on.

More importantly, it's entirely within his control. And it used as an excuse (elmer for one, obviously uses in in this case. He needs an excuse for a Duran's loss and will take anything)

Did Ali look good against Young? Of course not. (Young fought like crap himself, but that is another issue). To a very limited degree, that subpar performance should be held against Ali. Obviously Ali (unlike Duran) was clearly past his prime so you wouldn't expect him to perform like he used to.

There are obvious problems with the crybaby excuses. (as opposed to legitimate ones)
-The fighter who gets the excuse (in this case Duran) will get rated too highly.
-The opponent that beat him (in this case Leonard) won't get credit for the his win, and will be rated lower than he should.
-It even affects other fighters who fought one of them. (i.e. DeJesus gets rated a little too high by some because of the idiotic idea that he was the "only one" that beat a prime Duran.
- Since the crybaby excuse thing is used selectively, fighters that get the benefit of the crybaby excuse tend to get rated too highly by the excuse makers, and those that don't, get lower in comparison.

[elmersalsa]

Is not preparing is a valid explanation for a poor performance? No. At all.

Of course it is, why wouldn't it be? If a fighter comes in fat and out of shape it's very much a valid reason for a poor performance. It's no excuse, but coming in out of shape is the reason for soooo many poor performances.

Did you for example think Ali looked good against Jimmy Young? I didn't, in fact I thought he lost the fight and the reason was clearly that he hadn't bothered to prepare properly. It's no excuse, but it explains the sub-par performance.

First of all, in Duran's case we don't even know that he didn't rain much. Urban legends and tales from the gym are usually BS.
How can any reasonable person seriously believe that Duran "partied" for 150 straight days and hardly trained? For the best opponent of his career. Come on.

More importantly, it's entirely within his control. And it used as an excuse (elmer for one, obviously uses in in this case. He needs an excuse for a Duran's loss and will take anything)

Did Ali look good against Young? Of course not. (Young fought like crap himself, but that is another issue). To a very limited degree, that subpar performance should be held against Ali. Obviously Ali (unlike Duran) was clearly past his prime so you wouldn't expect him to perform like he used to.

There are obvious problems with the crybaby excuses. (as opposed to legitimate ones)
-The fighter who gets the excuse (in this case Duran) will get rated too highly.
-The opponent that beat him (in this case Leonard) won't get credit for the his win, and will be rated lower than he should.
-It even affects other fighters who fought one of them. (i.e. DeJesus gets rated a little too high by some because of the idiotic idea that he was the "only one" that beat a prime Duran.
- Since the crybaby excuse thing is used selectively, fighters that get the benefit of the crybaby excuse tend to get rated too highly by the excuse makers, and those that don't, get lower in comparison.

The proof was in the pudding. Esteban De Jesus win over Roberto Duran was more LEGIT than Sugar Ray's manipulative win of the No Mas. Plain and simple.

Duran lost in his prime against De Jesus. At his very best. We can't say that about the Leonard win. And why?

For starters, it was true that Duran was not in his best shape in fight #2. Anybody that believes that Duran was at his very best is in an idiotic belief of the American agenda, which was to get the title back from a man that could not speak English well, is Latino, and whupped their Golden Boy from post to post....Bad!

Second, by no means, Duran could not be #1. That was the agenda. Get the title back at any cost, quickly if they can.

Third, plain and simple, THE BEST FIGHTER WON, in the biggest stage, at the most anticipated fight outside the heavyweight division, Duran kicked Sugar Ray's ass. It's not a lie. Look at Sugar Ray's face before and after the fight. His own mother didn't recognize him.

Does Wilfred Benitez beat Duran? It's obvious that is on tape that Duran lost. But, does that make Benitez beat 10 out of 10 against him? To believe that, then we must believe that Ken Norton beats Muhammad Ali at every stage in Ali's career, even in Ali's prime.

Duran whupped Leonard. And it happened when BOTH were ready. When BOTH were at their primes. When BOTH were at their very best. End of story.

[Ambling Alp II]

I'm almost afraid to ask, but I have a couple of questions for you elmer.

1. You mentioned earlier that Robinson lost three times in his prime (While Duran supposedly only lost one)
What are the three losses that Robinson lost in his prime?

2. You mentioned earlier than Hearns had two losses in his prime. What are these two losses
(I'm not even going to get into Ali)

3. You also made this point "Does Wilfred Benitez beat Duran? It's obvious that is on tape that Duran lost. But, does that make Benitez beat 10 out of 10 against him? "
With that great logic, we aren't supposed to count Duran's loss to Benitez.

Isn't it just as justifiable to say " Does Duran's win over Leonard mean that Duran would beat Leonard 10 times out of 10?"
So following your own logic, were aren't supposed to count Leonard's loss to Duran, are we?

[elmersalsa]

I'm almost afraid to ask, but I have a couple of questions for you elmer.

1. You mentioned earlier that Robinson lost three times in his prime (While Duran supposedly only lost one)
What are the three losses that Robinson lost in his prime?

2. You mentioned earlier than Hearns had two losses in his prime. What are these two losses
(I'm not even going to get into Ali)

3. You also made this point "Does Wilfred Benitez beat Duran? It's obvious that is on tape that Duran lost. But, does that make Benitez beat 10 out of 10 against him? "
With that great logic, we aren't supposed to count Duran's loss to Benitez.

Isn't it just as justifiable to say " Does Duran's win over Leonard mean that Duran would beat Leonard 10 times out of 10?"
So following your own logic, were aren't supposed to count Leonard's loss to Duran, are we?

To answer your questions:
Yes, Sugar Ray Robinson lost 3 fights in HIS PRIME after 130-something fights.
L10 Jake LaMotta in 1943
L15 Randy Turpin in 1951
LTKO13 Joey Maxim in 1952
The Maxim fight was the last fight of Robinson's prime. Robinson's prime was a long one. From 1942 to 1952, he was in his prime.

Thomas Hearns lost 2 fights in his prime
LTKO14 Sugar Ray Leonard
LTKO3 Marvelous Marvin Hagler
After losing to Hagler, Hearns was still good but not as good as from 1979-85.

Muhammad Ali lost against the great Joe Frazier in his prime. He was 29-0, and still great. People are saying that he was not prime in 1971 because of the layoff, but I don't buy it. I believe that his prime ended in 1972, a couple of fights before when he faced Ken Norton when Norton beat him twice in my view. Ali's prime for me, was from 1964 to 1972. I don't buy that the exile hurt him. He probably would have lost to Frazier earlier with less fanfare than in the Fight of the Century.

I have never said that Duran beat Leonard 10 out of 10. But, if it's a well prepared Duran in New Orleans like he was in Montreal I don't think that he would have lost to Leonard.

To me, Leonard best chance to beat Duran would be at 154lbs and above. Where Duran was not in his best weight. Even if Duran comes in great shape, I don't think that he beats Sugar Ray at 154lbs and above.

[Ambling Alp II]

Wow. Ok.
Well Duran "Forever a lightweight" loses above lightweight, it doesn't count.
Even though he weighed 146.5 vs Leonard. Leonard weighed 146. Duran already have 14 fights where he weighed 140 or more. He had more fights above 135 than, Leonard. But we somehow can't count it because Duran is always a lightweight.

Then we can't count Hearn's loss to Hagler because it was at middleweight. Hearns was always a welterweight, remember?

When Ray Robinson lost to LaMotta, he really was still a welterweight. He didn't gradually bulk up and get used to the weight like Duran did with Leonard.
Robinson weighed 144.5 vs LaMotta. LaMotta weighed over 160. So guess what, we can't count it.

Robinson weighed 157.5 vs Joey Maxim. Maxim weighed 173. Guess what, we can't count it.
Robinson was a middleweight when he lost to Turpin. But remember Robins was once a welterweight champion. Therefore, we can't can't his loss to Turpin because it was a middleweight.

Using your own logic to make excuses for Duran, You can't count any of Hearns's losses except for the one to Leonard.
Can't count any of Robinsons losses. (He was always a welterweight)
Just using your own criteria.

[elmersalsa]

Wow. Ok.
Well Duran "Forever a lightweight" loses above lightweight, it doesn't count.
Even though he weighed 146.5 vs Leonard. Leonard weighed 146. Duran already have 14 fights where he weighed 140 or more. He had more fights above 135 than, Leonard. But we somehow can't count it because Duran is always a lightweight.

Then we can't count Hearn's loss to Hagler because it was at middleweight. Hearns was always a welterweight, remember?

When Ray Robinson lost to LaMotta, he really was still a welterweight. He didn't gradually bulk up and get used to the weight like Duran did with Leonard.
Robinson weighed 144.5 vs LaMotta. LaMotta weighed over 160. So guess what, we can't count it.

Robinson weighed 157.5 vs Joey Maxim. Maxim weighed 173. Guess what, we can't count it.
Robinson was a middleweight when he lost to Turpin. But remember Robins was once a welterweight champion. Therefore, we can't can't his loss to Turpin because it was a middleweight.

Using your own logic to make excuses for Duran, You can't count any of Hearns's losses except for the one to Leonard.
Can't count any of Robinsons losses. (He was always a welterweight)
Just using your own criteria.

And that's where you lose the whole point.

Sugar Ray Robinson lost IN HIS PRIME against the great Jake LaMotta being Robinson a welter and LaMotta a middleweight. You FORGOT that LaMotta lost to Robinson the fight before. Still, a Welterweight beat a middleweight in the middleweight prime. Plus, Robinson was tall, 5'11". It was his WEIGHT RANGE. Duran's WEIGHT RANGE was from 126 to 147lbs. Anything above 147lbs for Duran was SUICIDAL. And it showed. He was slow, couldn't move with ease, his reflexes were fading and was getting to an age of boxing when you got to consider retirement. Most boxers by REAL NATURAL STANDARDS, are DONE by the age of 30. The proof is in the pudding.

Robinson was in his prime, at 160lbs when he lost to Randy Turpin. No excuses. Turpin kicked his ass! Robinson was ACCUSTOMED TO THE WEIGHT CLASS. Duran had to accustom to the weight class to fight Leonard. Big difference.

Robinson lost to Joey Maxim at light-heavyweight. No excuses. Robinson was prime. He challenged someone bigger and stronger than he, with 0 fights at 175lbs. It was a big mistake for Robinson's part. He didn't get accustomed to the weight and he lost. Just like Duran didn't get accustomed at 154lbs with Wilfred Benitez. The DIFFERENCE between Duran and Robinson was that Duran was not in his prime nor weight against Benitez. Robinson? at least he was in his prime.

Thomas Hearns lost TWICE in his prime. In the 2 biggest fights of his career, he lost in his prime. Even if you want to come with that logic that he was a welterweight, Hearns was still PRIME. Duran against Benitez, Marvelous nor Hearns was in his prime nor in at his best weight class. That's the DIFFERENCE between Duran and Robinson.

[Ezzard]

Hi Elmer, I love your passion for Roberto Duran. What a great fighter. I really respect too that you bring up his fight with Benitez. Despite being a great fan you are happy to discuss his defeats.

In many ways this is his most disappointing result. Stuck in a career and emotional nadir post New Orleans, there was no spark in any of his performances. The win over Cuevas a year later marked a turning point in his fortunes. But Duran would always be hot and cold for the rest of his career.

[Wee Tommy]

Wow. Ok.
Well Duran "Forever a lightweight" loses above lightweight, it doesn't count.
Even though he weighed 146.5 vs Leonard. Leonard weighed 146. Duran already have 14 fights where he weighed 140 or more. He had more fights above 135 than, Leonard. But we somehow can't count it because Duran is always a lightweight.

Then we can't count Hearn's loss to Hagler because it was at middleweight. Hearns was always a welterweight, remember?

When Ray Robinson lost to LaMotta, he really was still a welterweight. He didn't gradually bulk up and get used to the weight like Duran did with Leonard.
Robinson weighed 144.5 vs LaMotta. LaMotta weighed over 160. So guess what, we can't count it.

Robinson weighed 157.5 vs Joey Maxim. Maxim weighed 173. Guess what, we can't count it.
Robinson was a middleweight when he lost to Turpin. But remember Robins was once a welterweight champion. Therefore, we can't can't his loss to Turpin because it was a middleweight.

Using your own logic to make excuses for Duran, You can't count any of Hearns's losses except for the one to Leonard.
Can't count any of Robinsons losses. (He was always a welterweight)
Just using your own criteria.

And that's where you lose the whole point.

Sugar Ray Robinson lost IN HIS PRIME against the great Jake LaMotta being Robinson a welter and LaMotta a middleweight. You FORGOT that LaMotta lost to Robinson the fight before. Still, a Welterweight beat a middleweight in the middleweight prime. Plus, Robinson was tall, 5'11". It was his WEIGHT RANGE. Duran's WEIGHT RANGE was from 126 to 147lbs. Anything above 147lbs for Duran was SUICIDAL. And it showed. He was slow, couldn't move with ease, his reflexes were fading and was getting to an age of boxing when you got to consider retirement. Most boxers by REAL NATURAL STANDARDS, are DONE by the age of 30. The proof is in the pudding.

Robinson was in his prime, at 160lbs when he lost to Randy Turpin. No excuses. Turpin kicked his ass! Robinson was ACCUSTOMED TO THE WEIGHT CLASS. Duran had to accustom to the weight class to fight Leonard. Big difference.

Robinson lost to Joey Maxim at light-heavyweight. No excuses. Robinson was prime. He challenged someone bigger and stronger than he, with 0 fights at 175lbs. It was a big mistake for Robinson's part. He didn't get accustomed to the weight and he lost. Just like Duran didn't get accustomed at 154lbs with Wilfred Benitez. The DIFFERENCE between Duran and Robinson was that Duran was not in his prime nor weight against Benitez. Robinson? at least he was in his prime.

Thomas Hearns lost TWICE in his prime. In the 2 biggest fights of his career, he lost in his prime. Even if you want to come with that logic that he was a welterweight, Hearns was still PRIME. Duran against Benitez, Marvelous nor Hearns was in his prime nor in at his best weight class. That's the DIFFERENCE between Duran and Robinson.

“Thus, as the bout entered the late rounds, Sugar Ray had given a virtuoso performance and Maxim needed a knockout to win. He didn’t score one; instead the stupendous heat did. It was so bad, numerous spectators had already passed out. In the ring, under all the lights, the temperature soared to 105 degrees Fahrenheit. It was as if Maxim and Robinson were fighting for the title in hell. At the end of round ten the referee collapsed and had to be replaced. And in rounds 11 and 12, Robinson finally showed signs of exhaustion: moving less, missing more, having difficulty maintaining his balance, but still exerting more energy than the patient, plodding Maxim.


Sugar Ray on the canvas after missing a punch.
As round 13 began, Robinson was clearly losing his equilibrium, and yet he never altered his tactics. Still using movement and speed of foot to outbox the champion, his legs failed him and he began lurching around the ring like a drunk at closing time. Near the end of the round, Ray missed by a mile with a wild right hand and fell flat on his face. He rose and kept slinging punches though it was obvious now he had nothing left. At the bell, he reeled away from Maxim — his legs buckling, his mouth wide open — and, disoriented, searched in vain for his corner. His trainers got to him just as he finally collapsed and dragged him to his stool.

That was it. The challenger couldn’t continue and Maxim retained his title. It would be the only time in over 200 professional fights that Sugar Ray would lose inside the distance. They later weighed Robinson and discovered he had been drained of 16 pounds during the fight; Maxim had lost ten.”


It’s a bit different than getting knocked clean out of your socks by Tommy Hearns, Elmer.

Hearns had Durans number at any weight because Roberto couldn’t handle the power. He managed just fine with Hagler the fight before so the weight had nothing to do with it.

[elmersalsa]

Hi Elmer, I love your passion for Roberto Duran. What a great fighter. I really respect too that you bring up his fight with Benitez. Despite being a great fan you are happy to discuss his defeats.

In many ways this is his most disappointing result. Stuck in a career and emotional nadir post New Orleans, there was no spark in any of his performances. The win over Cuevas a year later marked a turning point in his fortunes. But Duran would always be hot and cold for the rest of his career.

Everyone passes through some professional and emotional crisis. Thanks Ezzard for your response.

Duran went through an EMOTIONAL LOW after the No Mas fight. He didn't want to fight anymore. His countrymen looked down on him, vandalized his mother's house and made fun of him. His "closest of friends" abandoned him.

This No Mas fight taught me from early that when you're on top, everyone loves you, you are the king, nobody can beat you.

But, when you get to this low point, everybody desert you like a dog. You are not good anymore. Your best "friends" leave you now that you're down. Only THE TRUE FRIENDS stay with you.

Duran went into hibernation for almost 9 months. He gained weight and started to fight in a weight class not favourable for him at 154lbs. He didn't look good against Nino Gonzalez. And just merely a little better against Luigi Minchillo. Two guys that lasted the distance with him. Put those 2 guys at Welterweight with Duran and they don't survive past 5 rounds, let alone a fight at Lightweight.

I believe that Wilfred Benitez won. He fought magnificently that night of January 30, 1982 at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas, NV. I don't take nothing away from him. He did what he had to do. It was Benitez' last great win.

But, to say that Benitez beats Duran every time at every weight is not a good sentiment when he could not beat Sugar Ray Leonard and couldn't beat Davey Moore, which are 2 of Duran's victims.

Duran's mistake was to go after Benitez that fast. He should have take time to get ACCUSTOMED TO THE WEIGHT, fighting about 3 more fights and then fight Benitez. But, the time gap window was closing. He had to get at Benitez to get a third fight with Leonard. He didn't ask for a rematch against Benitez. There was not a real reason for that. He wanted Leonard, the one that embarrassed him in New Orleans.