Ambling Alp wrote:I am at a complete loss why elmer can't understand my point about 3 fights in a row.
It would have been a very rare situation for Leonard to have fought Duran immediately after their first two fights. A fighter who just regained the title isn't expected to fight the guy he just beat immediately. Other fighters deserve as shot as well. there were other welterweights besides Duran and Leonard.Historically, the fighter in Duran's situation (who lost the second fight) doesn't get another shot right away. Hence, Leonard shouldn't getted ripped for fighting other guys just because Duran supposedly wanted another shot. Almost all other fighters in Leonard's situation fought some else first.
I have explained this over and over and over.
Certainly a guy who quit like Duran isn't deserving of a title shot more than other worthy contenders.
Are you ever going to respond to this point: Why if Duran wanted a 3rd fight so badly, didn't he stay a welterweight, and beat a couple of welterweight contenders?He had to know he would have gotten another chance against Leonard eventually.
Yes I did answer your question about the first fights. I said that Duran did some of the holding. I also said that he did have some success hitting Duran. If he didn't, why did you only have Duran winning by 3 points?
The guys that I mentioned moved up in weight and didn't lost most of the time like you keep saying. In fact they were very successful. Several of them beat all time greats at upper weights.
Yes Sugar Ray Robinson was better at welter than middleweight, but he was also much older when he was a middleweight. He still had a lot of success at middleweight.
Griffith was arguably better against middleweights than welterweights. He beat Dick Tiger and several other good middleweights.
Walker was a better middleweight than welterweight. Moore was a better lightheavyweight than a middleweight. Jimmy Ellis was an ordinary middleweight and then went on to win the WBA heavyweight title.
Fitzsimmons is another expample of a guy that was very successful when he moved up. You certainly could make the case that he was a better heavyweight than middleweight. You are now ripping on Tom Sharkey (whom Fitzsimmons beat) who somehow you seem to never have heard of before.
Sharkey wasn't in Corbett or Wills class? I wouldn't rank him as high as Corbett or Wills but he was a very good heavyweight. By the way, Sharkey did beat Corbett. More importantly, Fitzsimmons, who elmer seems to think wasn't successful as a heavyweight, beat Corbett for the title.
Just because you "associate" Canzoneri as a lightweight doesn't mean he was just a "natural" lightweight. He fought for several years below lightweight and then like most fighters (like Duran) he naturally grew out of a lower weight and moved up. And yes, I do count Canzoneri's losses at lightweight against him. I also give him a lot of credit for some great wins, like I do with Duran. I am not trying to have it both ways like you alwasys want to with Duran.
Some guys are successful when they move up, and some like Bob Foster aren't. Just stop saying that Duran is the only one to do it and that his losses at higher weights shouldn't count.
I don't make Duran an exception when counting losses after a fighter moves up in weight. Fighters in the lower weight classes move up in weight all of the time. Assuming it's not their first fight at the weight or they are way over the hill, I usually do count it.
If you are going to say that Leonard didn't beat Duran at his best, then stop saying that Duran beat Leonard when he was at his best. That certainly wasn't Leonard's best fight. No, he didn't try everything. He used very little lateral footwork against Duran, and he fought Duran's fight. In the second fight he did, and guess what? Duran had no answer for it and quit.
Why do I belittle Duran for quitting? Because he deserves it. He should have been a man and hung in there even though things weren't going well. Countless other fighters didn't give up in much more difficult circumstances.
If Leonard did so much holding in their first fight, and missed so many punches how did he land enough punches so that he only lost by 3 points on your own scorecard?
Leonard deserves some criticism for not fighting a smart fight in the first fight and Duran deserves credit for a great performance.
Leonard deserves credit for fighting a great fight in the 2nd fight and duran deserves to be ripped for quitting.
I count the first fight as a win for Duran and the second as a win for Leonard. I don't want to have it both ways. You do.
Maybe you bet on Duran and when he lost, now you want to denounce him for quitting. This conversation is OVER FOR ME AS FAR AS AM CONCERNED...I am Duran..."NO MAS, NO MAS"
Now I want to know who said "No Mas"? It was all in the industry of the Leonard-Cossell-Trainer-Dundee connection?
Duran never claimed to say those words.
Which is the CORRECT STATEMENT of Ampling Alp:
"How often 2 fighters fight 3 times for the title?"
"How often 2 fighters fight 3 times in a row for the title?"
"How often 2 fighters fight 3 times in a row?"
The third statement is the MORE RARE of the three. If Duran had to fight some contenders and then get a shot at Leonard for the third time, why did Leonard did not fight some welter contenders befored their second meeting? I KNOW THE ANSWER: SPECIAL PRIVILEGES FOR AMERICAN PRETTY BOY.
Then he says:
It would have been a very rare situation for Leonard to have fought Duran immediately after their first two fights. A fighter who just regained the title isn't expected to fight the guy he just beat immediately..
Who invented that rule? What facts you come up with?
Barney Ross and Jimmy McLarnin fought 3 times straight for the title. Oh, I see, Ross is a Jewish American, so he got to have his rematch but Duran cannot. Duran does not fit as an American.
Terry Norris and Luis Santana fought 3 times for the title...I guess Norris got the privileges after losing two times by DQ. It is the same a DQ like Duran's quitting.
Now he says:
Historically, the fighter in Duran's situation (who lost the second fight) doesn't get another shot right away.
Do you have to lie to prove a point? Historically?
Another statement:
Are you ever going to respond to this point: Why if Duran wanted a 3rd fight so badly, didn't he stay a welterweight, and beat a couple of welterweight contenders?[/b]He had to know he would have gotten another chance against Leonard eventually.
Yes I did answer your question about the first fights. I said that Duran did some of the holding. I also said that he did have some success hitting Duran. If he didn't, why did you only have Duran winning by 3 points?
He could not stay at welter because he gained weight. He came to Miami, FL in the postfight interview with Cossell and demanded a rematch right away. Leonard did not wanted no part of this. He went up in weight after 6 months absence in which many thought he retired. He did not get a rematch then, the ONLY FIGHT HE WANTED THAT MATTERED, he did not get it, it was dissapointed for him, so he contemplated retirement. Then he gained all this weight and fought at 154 in 1981, making a comeback which he looked awful in that weight.
You wan to defend that Duran did some of the holding? Watch the fight again. Leonard clutch and grabbed 135 times. In round 6, he clutched Duran more than 15 times. I was like, Come on now. Fight and stop that wrestling match. I do not know if Leonard that night was Hulk Hogan, Tim Austin or Duran's wife, or wanted to slow dance with the Hands of Stone. I had the fight by 3 points. That is not close as the fight looked. He made it look close by his sissy grabbing techniques. Hagler did not hold Duran. DeJesus did not hold Duran. Neither did Palomino...But a fighter like Leonard clutching and grabbing, and do not called it trading. Trading is Hagler vs Hearns, or Duran vs Barkley or something like that, but Duran vs Leonard I was not trading in no type of form.
Another point by Alp:
Yes Sugar Ray Robinson was better at welter than middleweight, but he was also much older when he was a middleweight. He still had a lot of success at middleweight.
Griffith was arguably better against middleweights than welterweights. He beat Dick Tiger and several other good middleweights.
Walker was a better middleweight than welterweight. Moore was a better lightheavyweight than a middleweight. Jimmy Ellis was an ordinary middleweight and then went on to win the WBA heavyweight title.
Fitzsimmons is another expample of a guy that was very successful when he moved up. You certainly could make the case that he was a better heavyweight than middleweight. You are now ripping on Tom Sharkey (whom Fitzsimmons beat) who somehow you seem to never have heard of before.
Sharkey wasn't in Corbett or Wills class? I wouldn't rank him as high as Corbett or Wills but he was a very good heavyweight. By the way, Sharkey did beat Corbett. More importantly, Fitzsimmons, who elmer seems to think wasn't successful as a heavyweight, beat Corbett for the title.
Just because you "associate" Canzoneri as a lightweight doesn't mean he was just a "natural" lightweight. He fought for several years below lightweight and then like most fighters (like Duran) he naturally grew out of a lower weight and moved up. And yes, I do count Canzoneri's losses at lightweight against him. I also give him a lot of credit for some great wins, like I do with Duran. I am not trying to have it both ways like you alwasys want to with Duran.
Some guys are successful when they move up, and some like Bob Foster aren't. Just stop saying that Duran is the only one to do it and that his losses at higher weights shouldn't count.
First of all, I have never said that Duran's losses beyond lightweight should not count. Second of all, Sugar Ray Robinson was NOT VERY SUCCESSFUL BEYOND WELTERWEIGHT. AT welterweight, Robinson beat the best crop of fighters of his time with an unbelievable record of more than 90 wins and only one defeat. 17 of his 19 losses were against middleweights. That is not successful. You mentioned that he was past his prime in the 50s, we all know that, well, ain't Duran was not past his prime after the "No Mas"? Ain't Duran was in his 30s and washed up fighting bigger men? He lost to Kirkland Laing for cripes sake! I could see if Duran had all those losses in his prime, but it did not happened, in his prime, Duran was 72-1 with 13 years in the ring with 2 world titles under his belt.
Griffith was better with middleweights??? What kind of lie is that? He lost 2 fights with Nino Benvenutti, lost 2 fights with Monzon. Well, that proves my point again that being smaller and in your 30s fighting bigger men, YOU MUST LOSE. Griffith and Robinson nor Duran are exeptions. Their boxing skills got to deteriorate after 30. That happens to all fighters, specially moving up. But we count greatness most of the time when fighters are in their primes, and beyond their primes, they are judged how well they do in some fights.
Archie Moore was not a natural middleweight. He started at middleweight. Duran started at bantamweight, so that makes Duran a natural bantam? NO...Moore most of his career fought at 175, just like Duran did at 135.
Bob Fitzsimmons was a natural middleweight. That is the weight class that he fought most of his career. And it proved my point right there that moving up, fighting bigger men, and past your prime and in your 30s, Fitz lost to guys equally in skill, but bigger and younger. He had more SUCCESS at 160.
Mickey Walker was successful at 147 as 160. But what happened at 160??? He was not as great. He lost to Harry Greb and the fight with Tiger Flowers many callled it a robbery. He moved to heavyweight and what happened to Mickey? Is he as successful like 147 or 160? Being in his 30s too? past his prime?
Jimmy Ellis started as a middleweight just like Duran started as a bantam. He has more fights at heavy than middleweight and lighheavyweight combined, and still got his ass whupped by the best heavys.
Another statement by Ampling Alp:
If you are going to say that Leonard didn't beat Duran at his best, then stop saying that Duran beat Leonard when he was at his best. That certainly wasn't Leonard's best fight. No, he didn't try everything. He used very little lateral footwork against Duran, and he fought Duran's fight. In the second fight he did, and guess what? Duran had no answer for it and quit.
But you did not looked at the fight? Weren't both in the best shapes of their lives? Even if Leonard would have run in Montreal like he did in New Orleans, what makes you think that he would have won? See, believing Howard Cossell again. Leonard fought better going forward than running backwards. He did run against Hearns the very few rounds and was losing, and now he would have won in Montreal against a man in great shape, that knew how to cut off the ring brilliantly, and nothing was going to be denied? Did you see how many punches he missed against a great shape Duran?
FIRST FIGHT: OOOhhh he fought Duran's fight.
REMATCH: Oooh he fought the perfect fight...But nobody has excuses for Duran's loss. I guess both sides have their EXCUSES. ONE LOST BECAUSE HE DID NOT FIGHT HIS FIGHT AND THE OTHER IN THE REMATCH WAS NOT IN SHAPE.
YOU NEVER EXPLAINED WHY LEONARD'S HAND SPEED AND FOOT WORK WAS TOTALLY NULLIFIED. Do not tell me because he did not run like in the second fight. Ken Buchanan, Edwin Viruet and Vilomar Fernandez ran against Duran and were not successful. Oh, I forgot, Sugar Ray had a 20' by 20' ring. Maybe in Montreal he needed the whole coliseum to run like a chicken.
Every body loses more going up in weight...That is a fact of the sweet science. Worse when they are not in their primes and super worst after going up in class, washed up and in their 30s.
