Sugar Ray Leonard deserves more credit for his win over dura

[elmersalsa]

The reason that there wasn't a 3rd fight immediately was because there wasn't much interest.
Duran's reputation went way down after he quit.
Leonard was afraid of losing to Duran? That makes no sense.

Why on earth would he be afraid. In the rematch he fought a smarter a fight and won easily. There is no reason to think a 3rd fight would have been much different except maybe Duran wouldn't quit again.
If Duran really wanted another fight with Leonard, he could have stayed in the welterweight divison and beat a couple of contenders. Eventually Leonard would have to fight him again. Instead Duran moved up in weight and out of Leonard's division.
If anything it was Duran who didn't want to fight Leonard again.

5 months wasn't enough time for Duran to get ready for the 2nd fight with Leonard? How much time does he need? Didn't Leonard have the same amount of time?

How do you mean that his reputation went sown after he quit? It was Leonard the one that opted not to fight him again. The strategy was to win back the title and do not give Duran a rematch. That was the STRATEGY FROM THE GET GO.

Duran want it to fght him right away after that. Why Sugar did not want to give him a rematch in 5 months? He knew better. He was afraid to lose his title back. And you're saying that he was winning the fight easier this time? What type of fight you was watching? The fight was only 2 points in 2 of the judges scorecards and 1 point with the other judge. All with Duran not being in shape.

I do not believe that crap that Leonard was better than him and that Leonard would have won every time after that. The mastery that I saw in Montreal, Duran had an answer for everything that Leonard did that night. Watch that fight again. Leonard missed so many punches it was unbelievable. That fight duran won by 3 points in my scorecard, and it was not that close like people think. Watch the fight again...I mean, both fights.

A well prepared Roberto Duran, like in Montreal, gives Leonard nightmares, and Sugar Ray knew it. I would not give him a rematch either.

[Your mental superior]

Lol, he shouldn't have lost to a fat lightweight in the first place.

[granberry]

Lol, he shouldn't have lost to a fat lightweight in the first place.

CORRECTION

He shouldn't have lost to a fat OLD lightweight.

[ringsider]

Fat and old? That is a bit harsh. Duran just turned 30 years old for the first fight. That hardly qualifies as old in the WW division.

He was a man, SRL was a small boy.

[granberry]

Fat and old? That is a bit harsh. Duran just turned 30 years old for the first fight. That hardly qualifies as old in the WW division.

He was a man, SRL was a small boy.

CORRECTION

SRL was a small boy whom the ABCTV operation had installed as their replacement for the now worn out Ali.

They had invested too much in him for him to lose a second time to fat old lightweight Duran.

[Seamus]

I've heard excuses for at least 8 of Sugar Ray Leonard's victories, which means you guys only need to come up with 28 more.

What next, Leonard's handlers only took the bout with Armando Muniz after learning he had tendonitis, and Dick Ecklund didn't really trip SRL, it was a clear knockdown.

[Ambling Alp]

Seamus- For whatever reason, some people don't like Leonard and are incapable of judging him fairly. Some people aren't able to judge a fighter by how good he was and leave out whether they like him or not.
We have all heard the same old BS.
-Duran was old (yet he just turned 29 before their first fight)
-Duran somehow wasn't a natural welterweight. He already had 7 fights at the weight before fighting Leonard, and moved up in weight after fighting Leonard.
-Leonard always got gift decsions. (He won a grand total of 2 decisons in title fights in his entire career)
etc.etc.

As for elmer salsa, he now says that Leonard should have fought Duran again 5 months after their 2nd fight. Thats interesting for a couple of reasons:
1. Duran had 5 months between the 1st and 2nd fights, which elmer salsahe said previously somehow wasn't enough time for Duran between fights.

2. It was Duran who jumped weight classes. He was the one who moved up to Jr middleweight. Had he stuck around at welterweight and beat a couple of contenders, Duran would have gotten another shot at Leonard after Leonard beat Hearns. He eventually would have been the mandatory #1 contender. Instead, Duran got out of the weight class.
Imagine what the Leonard detractors would say if Leonard would have moved up in weight class after losing a fight.

Elmer made another interesting comment "That fight Duran won by 3 points in my scorecard and it was not that close like people think".

Well on Elmer's own scorecard, he only had Duran winning by 3 points. In a 15 round fight, thats pretty close.

The 2nd fight was close? If it really was so close, Duran never would have given up. (Imagine what Leonard's detractors would saying if Leonard would have given up. I'm sure they would have bought an excuse like Leonard wasn't in shape).
The 2nd fight wasn't as close as the first. An immediate third fight wouldn't have been that marketable. Most people weren't going to pay huge money for Duran-Leonard III anytime soon after Duran quit in the second fight.

[granberry]

The second "fight" wasn't a fight.

It was a fake.

Leonard did everything except run up and down the aisles of the arena away from Duran.

When Duran caught Leonard in a corner several times, Leonard immediately "fell down" to the floor.

That is cause for loss on disqualification in amateur boxing in many locales.

Then Duran walked away in the middle of a round in this farce

and Leonard is credited with a "knockout" in the record books.

Talk about horsesh*t.

[Seamus]

From an article by Barry Green.

According to Ray Arcel, interviewed in Ring in 1983, Duran did not once complain about his belly and also years later Roberto's close friend and personal translator Luis Henriquez, said he was asked to invent a story by the defeated fighter immediately after the bout.

Henriquez asked Duran if he'd been injured and the Panamanian replied that his stomach bothered him somewhat. Henriquez then dreamed up the cramps story, saying: "Roberto didn't have any stomach cramps, he just quit and that was it." Freddie Brown confirmed this by saying: "We had to say that or they'd have killed him back in Panama".

[elmersalsa]

Seamus- For whatever reason, some people don't like Leonard and are incapable of judging him fairly. Some people aren't able to judge a fighter by how good he was and leave out whether they like him or not.
We have all heard the same old BS.
-Duran was old (yet he just turned 29 before their first fight)
-Duran somehow wasn't a natural welterweight. He already had 7 fights at the weight before fighting Leonard, and moved up in weight after fighting Leonard.
-Leonard always got gift decsions. (He won a grand total of 2 decisons in title fights in his entire career)
etc.etc.

As for elmer salsa, he now says that Leonard should have fought Duran again 5 months after their 2nd fight. Thats interesting for a couple of reasons:
1. Duran had 5 months between the 1st and 2nd fights, which elmer salsahe said previously somehow wasn't enough time for Duran between fights.

2. It was Duran who jumped weight classes. He was the one who moved up to Jr middleweight. Had he stuck around at welterweight and beat a couple of contenders, Duran would have gotten another shot at Leonard after Leonard beat Hearns. He eventually would have been the mandatory #1 contender. Instead, Duran got out of the weight class.
Imagine what the Leonard detractors would say if Leonard would have moved up in weight class after losing a fight.

Elmer made another interesting comment "That fight Duran won by 3 points in my scorecard and it was not that close like people think".

Well on Elmer's own scorecard, he only had Duran winning by 3 points. In a 15 round fight, thats pretty close.

The 2nd fight was close? If it really was so close, Duran never would have given up. (Imagine what Leonard's detractors would saying if Leonard would have given up. I'm sure they would have bought an excuse like Leonard wasn't in shape).
The 2nd fight wasn't as close as the first. An immediate third fight wouldn't have been that marketable. Most people weren't going to pay huge money for Duran-Leonard III anytime soon after Duran quit in the second fight.

Yeah, it was PERFECT for Sugar Ray to ge a rematch but for Duran, now the figh is not marketable. It seems to me tha you probably wa in Sugar Ray's plan of marketability and industry. A third fight would have bring lots of money. Now, Duran has to restablish himself for a rematch, but Sugar Ray did not have to be restablish after the ass whupping he took in Montreal. THAT fight SEEMS CLOSE TO YOU, but watch it again from the first round and Ray was getting his ass kick. He was holding Duran THE ENTIRE FIGHT SO THAT HE SHOULD NOT GET MORE ASS KICKINGS. HE WAS IN THE VERGE OF BEING KO'D not only once, but twice, and the fight was close? Gimmie a break.

Why there wasnot a third fight right away? Because it was POLITICS. STRICTLY POLITICS. They could not see Ray lose to a lightweight. Yes, he was a lightweight that kick his ass and embarrassed him in the last round with "hit my chin, hit my chin". That is why Ray had to do that bolo fake in the rematch.

Now, the excuse that Ray got was I did not fight my fight. But he was stronger, bigger, faster and younger than Duran and in his own weight class. I cannot see no featherweight in history take the title from the Hands of Stone...do you?

When both were in their best shape, who won the fight? Duran won it. And like I said, IT WAS NOT CLOSE like people think. Let's watch it again. Probably you was believing Howard Cossell or something.

[ringsider]

Probably you was believing Howard Cossell or something.

Man there is blast from the past. Cosell was the worst, and a Sugar Ray Leonard nuthugger.

[granberry]

[quote="Seamus"]From an article by Barry Green.

According to Ray Arcel, interviewed in Ring in 1983, Duran did not once complain about his belly and also years later Roberto's close friend and personal translator Luis Henriquez, said he was asked to invent a story by the defeated fighter immediately after the bout.

Henriquez asked Duran if he'd been injured and the Panamanian replied that his stomach bothered him somewhat. Henriquez then dreamed up the cramps story, saying: "Roberto didn't have any stomach cramps, he just quit and that was it." Freddie Brown confirmed this by saying: "We

Who the hell is Barry Green?

Why should I believe anything he writes?

What is your Barry Green selling?

He wouldn't be a Sugar Ray Leonard salesman, would he?

Of course not.

LOL

[granberry]

Probably you was believing Howard Cossell or something.

Man there is blast from the past. Cosell was the worst, and a Sugar Ray Leonard nuthugger.

Cosell was the mouthpiece for the Ali industry.

He didn't have a clue what was going on right in front of his nose.

A perfect choice for the media sales pitch for Ali and then Leonard.

Cosell was also a well known drunk who once threw up on fellow announcer Don Meredith's cowboy boots during a monday night football game broadcast.

As Cosell's boss at ABC Jim Spence, tells in a book he wrote, they had to constantly cover up for Cosell's being drunk on the air by putting out a press release that he had "a reaction to medication."

Spence tells how Cosell's wife would often call him up at the beginning of a monday night football broadcast, and beg Spence to make sure they got Cosell back to his hotel safely, since she could tell he was drunk again from his opening words.

Cosell himself later wrote a book where he strongly criticized his bosses at ABC TV.

He was fired immediately.

And ended up trying to write for the newspapers he had always sneered at as inferior to his position as a TV broadcaster.

What a piece of garbage Cosell was.

And of course he is the "face" of the phony ABCTV-Sports Illustrated big media "sell" of Ali and Ali's replacement, Leonard.

Cosell never had a clue what was going on in boxing.

And since then he has been replaced by a long line of Larry Merchants, Jim Lampleys, etc.

What a nauseating crew of sycophants.

[Ambling Alp]

Seamus- For whatever reason, some people don't like Leonard and are incapable of judging him fairly. Some people aren't able to judge a fighter by how good he was and leave out whether they like him or not.
We have all heard the same old BS.
-Duran was old (yet he just turned 29 before their first fight)
-Duran somehow wasn't a natural welterweight. He already had 7 fights at the weight before fighting Leonard, and moved up in weight after fighting Leonard.
-Leonard always got gift decsions. (He won a grand total of 2 decisons in title fights in his entire career)
etc.etc.

As for elmer salsa, he now says that Leonard should have fought Duran again 5 months after their 2nd fight. Thats interesting for a couple of reasons:
1. Duran had 5 months between the 1st and 2nd fights, which elmer salsahe said previously somehow wasn't enough time for Duran between fights.

2. It was Duran who jumped weight classes. He was the one who moved up to Jr middleweight. Had he stuck around at welterweight and beat a couple of contenders, Duran would have gotten another shot at Leonard after Leonard beat Hearns. He eventually would have been the mandatory #1 contender. Instead, Duran got out of the weight class.
Imagine what the Leonard detractors would say if Leonard would have moved up in weight class after losing a fight.

Elmer made another interesting comment "That fight Duran won by 3 points in my scorecard and it was not that close like people think".

Well on Elmer's own scorecard, he only had Duran winning by 3 points. In a 15 round fight, thats pretty close.

The 2nd fight was close? If it really was so close, Duran never would have given up. (Imagine what Leonard's detractors would saying if Leonard would have given up. I'm sure they would have bought an excuse like Leonard wasn't in shape).
The 2nd fight wasn't as close as the first. An immediate third fight wouldn't have been that marketable. Most people weren't going to pay huge money for Duran-Leonard III anytime soon after Duran quit in the second fight.

Yeah, it was PERFECT for Sugar Ray to ge a rematch but for Duran, now the figh is not marketable. It seems to me tha you probably wa in Sugar Ray's plan of marketability and industry. A third fight would have bring lots of money. Now, Duran has to restablish himself for a rematch, but Sugar Ray did not have to be restablish after the ass whupping he took in Montreal. THAT fight SEEMS CLOSE TO YOU, but watch it again from the first round and Ray was getting his ass kick. He was holding Duran THE ENTIRE FIGHT SO THAT HE SHOULD NOT GET MORE ASS KICKINGS. HE WAS IN THE VERGE OF BEING KO'D not only once, but twice, and the fight was close? Gimmie a break.

Why there wasnot a third fight right away? Because it was POLITICS. STRICTLY POLITICS. They could not see Ray lose to a lightweight. Yes, he was a lightweight that kick his ass and embarrassed him in the last round with "hit my chin, hit my chin". That is why Ray had to do that bolo fake in the rematch.

Now, the excuse that Ray got was I did not fight my fight. But he was stronger, bigger, faster and younger than Duran and in his own weight class. I cannot see no featherweight in history take the title from the Hands of Stone...do you?

When both were in their best shape, who won the fight? Duran won it. And like I said, IT WAS NOT CLOSE like people think. Let's watch it again. Probably you was believing Howard Cossell or something.

How often do two fighters fight each other 3 times in a row for a title?It's happened but its very rare. There are other fighters who should get a chance. Certainly when one guys quits so easily he doesn't deserve an immediate rematch.
As mentioned before, it was Duran who moved out of the welterweight division after the 2nd fight with Leonard, up to Jr Middleweight. You can't can't fight for the welterweight title if you are a Jr Middleweight. Had he stayed a welterweight, he surely would have gotten another shot at Leonard, by 1982 and he had to have known that.

As mentioned before, it doesn't make sense for you to say that the first Duran-Leonard fight wasn't close, when you yourself had Duran winning by only 3 points in a 15 round fight.

As mentioned before Duran, wasn't a lightweight when he fought Leonard. He hadn't been a lightweight for some time. He had already had 7 fights at welterweight before he fought Leonard. He was used to the weight and had naturally grown into it. Fighters move up in weight all of the time. Few fighters in the lower weight classes stay int the same weight classes their entire career. In fact, he moved up to a weight class higher than welterweight after he fought Leonard. Was Holyfield a cruiserweight when he fought Bowe,Tyson, and Lewis? No, he was a heavyweight. When a fighter moves up in that weight, he is no longer the weight he used to be, he is the weight that he moved up to.

The Duran wasn't in shape excuse is about as lame as you can get. You could use that excuse for the losing fighter in every fight.

[granberry]

How often do two fighters fight each other 3 times in a row for a title?

Ask Tony Zale and Rocky Graziano

Jimmy McLarnin and Barney Ross

Floyd Patterson and Ingemar Johansson

Archie Moore and Joey Maxim

Jack Britton and Kid Ted Lewis

Stanley Ketchel and Billy Papke

Willie Pep and Sandy Saddler

That's just for starters.

[The Great John L]

How often do two fighters fight each other 3 times in a row for a title?

Ask Tony Zale and Rocky Graziano

Jimmy McLarnin and Barney Ross

Floyd Patterson and Ingemar Johansson

Archie Moore and Joey Maxim

Jack Britton and Kid Ted Lewis

Stanley Ketchel and Billy Papke

Willie Pep and Sandy Saddler

That's just for starters.

I don't think you understood the question sherlock...

[granberry]

How often do two fighters fight each other 3 times in a row for a title?

Ask Tony Zale and Rocky Graziano

Jimmy McLarnin and Barney Ross

Floyd Patterson and Ingemar Johansson

Archie Moore and Joey Maxim

Jack Britton and Kid Ted Lewis

Stanley Ketchel and Billy Papke

Willie Pep and Sandy Saddler

That's just for starters.

I don't think you understood the question sherlock...

It's obvious you can't comprehend what the number 3 is, John L.

.

[The Great John L]

Ask Tony Zale and Rocky Graziano

Jimmy McLarnin and Barney Ross

Floyd Patterson and Ingemar Johansson

Archie Moore and Joey Maxim

Jack Britton and Kid Ted Lewis

Stanley Ketchel and Billy Papke

Willie Pep and Sandy Saddler

That's just for starters.

I don't think you understood the question sherlock...

It's obvious you can't comprehend what the number 3 is, John L.

.

Ahem.

Why don't you tell us then how all of the examples you gave fit the description posed by Alp -- "fight each other 3 times in a row for a title"? Not too good at reading comprehension are you?

It’s almost painful to see someone continually embarrass themselves the way that you do on this forum. Of course, it’s also quite amusing…

[granberry]

I don't think you understood the question sherlock...

It's obvious you can't comprehend what the number 3 is, John L.

.

Ahem.

Why don't you tell us then how all of the examples you gave fit the description posed by Alp -- "fight each other 3 times in a row for a title"? Not too good at reading comprehension are you?

It’s almost painful to see someone continually embarrass themselves the way that you do on this forum. Of course, it’s also quite amusing…

Boxing "expert" John L has just established the fact that



Tony Zale and Rocky Graziano DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Jimmy McLarnin and Barney Ross DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Floyd Patterson and Ingemar Johansson DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Archie Moore and Joey Maxim DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Jack Britton and Kid Ted Lewis DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Stanley Ketchel and Billy Papke DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Willie Pep and Sandy Saddler DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.


Boxing "expert" John L has just made a major revision to the entire history of boxing.

CONGRATULATIONS, John L.

[The Great John L]

It's obvious you can't comprehend what the number 3 is, John L.

.

Ahem.

Why don't you tell us then how all of the examples you gave fit the description posed by Alp -- "fight each other 3 times in a row for a title"? Not too good at reading comprehension are you?

It’s almost painful to see someone continually embarrass themselves the way that you do on this forum. Of course, it’s also quite amusing…

Boxing "expert" John L has just established the fact that



Tony Zale and Rocky Graziano DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Jimmy McLarnin and Barney Ross DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Floyd Patterson and Ingemar Johansson DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Archie Moore and Joey Maxim DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Jack Britton and Kid Ted Lewis DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Stanley Ketchel and Billy Papke DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Willie Pep and Sandy Saddler DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.


Boxing "expert" John L has just made a major revision to the entire history of boxing.

CONGRATULATIONS, John L.

You just keep digging yourself in deeper mate.

No historical revisions, I’m just trying to educate a witless worm.

Alp posed the question: ” How often do two fighters fight each other 3 times in a row for a title”? In a row means consecutively. That means three consecutive fights against each other with a title at stake. Do you know what the word consecutive means?

You really need to learn when it’s better to exit gracefully…

[granberry]

Ahem.

Why don't you tell us then how all of the examples you gave fit the description posed by Alp -- "fight each other 3 times in a row for a title"? Not too good at reading comprehension are you?

It’s almost painful to see someone continually embarrass themselves the way that you do on this forum. Of course, it’s also quite amusing…

Boxing "expert" John L has just established the fact that



Tony Zale and Rocky Graziano DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Jimmy McLarnin and Barney Ross DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Floyd Patterson and Ingemar Johansson DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Archie Moore and Joey Maxim DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Jack Britton and Kid Ted Lewis DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Stanley Ketchel and Billy Papke DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Willie Pep and Sandy Saddler DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.


Boxing "expert" John L has just made a major revision to the entire history of boxing.

CONGRATULATIONS, John L.

You just keep digging yourself in deeper mate.

No historical revisions, I’m just trying to educate a witless worm.

Alp posed the question: ” How often do two fighters fight each other 3 times in a row for a title”? In a row means consecutively. That means three consecutive fights against each other with a title at stake. Do you know what the word consecutive means?

You really need to learn when it’s better to exit gracefully…

Witless boxing "expert" John L thinks that

Floyd Patterson and Johanssen DID NOT not fight each other three times consecutively for the title.

What is it that witless John does not understand about the number three?

[The Great John L]

Boxing "expert" John L has just established the fact that



Tony Zale and Rocky Graziano DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Jimmy McLarnin and Barney Ross DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Floyd Patterson and Ingemar Johansson DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Archie Moore and Joey Maxim DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Jack Britton and Kid Ted Lewis DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Stanley Ketchel and Billy Papke DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.

Willie Pep and Sandy Saddler DID NOT fight each other three times in a row for the title.


Boxing "expert" John L has just made a major revision to the entire history of boxing.

CONGRATULATIONS, John L.

You just keep digging yourself in deeper mate.

No historical revisions, I’m just trying to educate a witless worm.

Alp posed the question: ” How often do two fighters fight each other 3 times in a row for a title”? In a row means consecutively. That means three consecutive fights against each other with a title at stake. Do you know what the word consecutive means?

You really need to learn when it’s better to exit gracefully…

Witless boxing "expert" John L thinks that

Floyd Patterson and Johanssen DID NOT not fight each other three times consecutively for the title.

What is it that witless John does not understand about the number three?

Yes, we all know that one. Please verify a few of your other great examples and report back to all of us with what you discover.

You really should try harder not to draw attention to yourself.

[granberry]

You just keep digging yourself in deeper mate.

No historical revisions, I’m just trying to educate a witless worm.

Alp posed the question: ” How often do two fighters fight each other 3 times in a row for a title”? In a row means consecutively. That means three consecutive fights against each other with a title at stake. Do you know what the word consecutive means?

You really need to learn when it’s better to exit gracefully…

Witless boxing "expert" John L thinks that

Floyd Patterson and Johanssen DID NOT not fight each other three times consecutively for the title.

What is it that witless John does not understand about the number three?

Yes, we all know that one. Please verify a few of your other great examples and report back to all of us with what you discover.

You really should try harder not to draw attention to yourself.

Witless John will jabber to the end of time.

Witless John is a boxing "expert" who has never heard of Barney Ross, Jimmy McLarnin, Jack Britton, Kid Ted Lewis, Willie Pep, Sandy Saddler, Arechie Moore, Joey Maxim.

But he suddenly makes the claim he has heard of Patterson and Johansson.

CONGRATULATIONS, witless John.

[dr_devious]

Talk about horsesh*t.

Well, thats all you seem to do on this forum Granny

[granberry]

Talk about horsesh*t.

Well, thats all you seem to do on this forum Granny

How many title fights did Abe Attell and George Dixon have, Mr. boxing "expert" ?

Tell us all about them from your vast fund of boxing knowledge.

LOL

What did Abe Attell say he learned from George Dixon in the three fights they had?

I know that as a boxing "expert" you and your fellow boxing "experts" here are SO interested in the techniques of boxing.

Tell us all about it.

LOL