BoxRec

I don't know which fighter had the better career but it is logically dubious to suggest that Roberto Duran was a better boxer than Sugar Ray Leonard based on their trilogy.

The were 1-1 at welter... What am I supposed to say?

Obviously Leonard achieved more at the weight.

Ezzard wrote:The were 1-1 at welter... What am I supposed to say?

Obviously Leonard achieved more at the weight.

So then the best we can say is that they were even.

I see a lot of "Ray can never be even or better than Duran because Duran didn't show up for the second fight and only the first fight should count."

Not in my post you didn't.

Ezzard wrote:Not in my post you didn't.

No, Ezzard, not you, but others.

It wasn't Ray's fault Duran quit.

Yes it was. He humiliated him. He made him look the fool he was.

Duran beat one of the greatest fighters there will ever be. And he was still high off it on the rematch. Leonard taught him a lesson.

But all the nonsense we’ve seen since. Morons like Roy Jones…now this clown Broner…much of it stems from that fight. A victory by humiliation had a massive effect on all the generations who came after it.

Of course Leonard was a different class to those jokers.

Leonard went on to beat the men that Duran could not. No version of Duran gets by Hearns.

And Duran beat the man who beat them.

best account I ever read.

http://www.thesweetscience.com/news/art ... my-version

ThatOne wrote:

Ezzard wrote:The were 1-1 at welter... What am I supposed to say?

Obviously Leonard achieved more at the weight.

So then the best we can say is that they were even.

I see a lot of "Ray can never be even or better than Duran because Duran didn't show up for the second fight and only the first fight should count."

Who said that? It's like you guys are inventing excuses that aren't even there. A lot of it? I never hear that. Some people put more credence in the first fight because it was great. Leonard himself says that he knew Duran was out of shape so he wanted to rush him into the ring. You can't blame people for reciting what he admits too. That isn't his fault, I always considered it a flat 1-1, both at their best I think Duran wins.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

Ezzard wrote:The were 1-1 at welter... What am I supposed to say?

Obviously Leonard achieved more at the weight.

So then the best we can say is that they were even.

I see a lot of "Ray can never be even or better than Duran because Duran didn't show up for the second fight and only the first fight should count."

Who said that? It's like you guys are inventing excuses that aren't even there. A lot of it? I never hear that. Some people put more credence in the first fight because it was great. Leonard himself says that he knew Duran was out of shape so he wanted to rush him into the ring. You can't blame people for reciting what he admits too. That isn't his fault, I always considered it a flat 1-1, both at their best I think Duran wins.

"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."

-elmersalsa

"When I think about the "No Mas Fight," though, I always feel a twinge of sadness. That's because from seeing all I saw from Leonard, I believe he would have won that night, regardless of what condition Duran came into the ring in. The Leonard of that night would have beaten the Duran who showed up in Montreal five months earlier."

-Randy Gordon

Who knows? I do think the opinion of a a journalist who was a fist hand witness to both fights , the run ups to both fights, and an intimate of both combatants would have his account deemed credible by any logical and objective person .

http://www.thesweetscience.com/news/art ... my-version

I am content to not get into subjective arguments like "best nights" , "he fought the wrong fight" and other extraneous matter and let the results of the trilogy speak for themselves.

I don't pay much attention to Elmer. So 1 person = predominant opinion? That's silly. As for Gordon I completely disagree. I don't think there is anything Leonard could have done to win in Montreal.

As for "trilogy", nobody should be talking about that third fight as a barometer of anything.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I don't pay much attention to Elmer. So 1 person = predominant opinion? That's silly. As for Gordon I completely disagree. I don't think there is anything Leonard could have done to win in Montreal.

As for "trilogy", nobody should be talking about that third fight as a barometer of anything.

I never used the "he fought the wrong fight" excuse as much as I wanted because I realize it's a two edged sword.

ThatOne wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I don't pay much attention to Elmer. So 1 person = predominant opinion? That's silly. As for Gordon I completely disagree. I don't think there is anything Leonard could have done to win in Montreal.

As for "trilogy", nobody should be talking about that third fight as a barometer of anything.

I never used the "he fought the wrong fight" excuse as much as I wanted because I realize it's a two edged sword.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but ok.

ThatOne wrote:

"When I think about the "No Mas Fight," though, I always feel a twinge of sadness. That's because from seeing all I saw from Leonard, I believe he would have won that night, regardless of what condition Duran came into the ring in. The Leonard of that night would have beaten the Duran who showed up in Montreal five months earlier."

-Randy Gordon

Who knows? I do think the opinion of a a journalist who was a fist hand witness to both fights and the run ups to both fights would have his account deemed credible by any logical and objective person .

http://www.thesweetscience.com/news/art ... my-version

I am content to not get into subjective arguments like "best nights" , "he fought the wrong fight" and other extraneous matter and let the results of the trilogy speak for themselves.

But if you accept that opinion... and I don't have an issue with that... Then what about the facts that Gordon actually observed... Duran unprepared... The stomach cramps and crap he took in the dressing room after the fight? Will you accept that too? Seems like you either go with Randy on this or you don't?

Leonard was given the chance to get himself 100% ready to avenge his defeat. He was ready for everything and anything that was coming at him. And even if Roberto had been ready I think Leonard would have beaten him because he really had to win the rematch. And Ray was made of stern stuff.

But...

What if Duran had been given the chance to pour all of the bitterness of no mas into preparing himself for a third consecutive meeting? Ray admitted to McIlvaney that he couldn't get 'up' for rematches...once he'd won it was over for him...then what? A fully motivated Duran and a Ray Leonard who was off the boil?

This could have been a see-saw battle for many fights to come...

Il Duce wrote:Ray Leonard

May have been at his 'absolute' best against Roberto Duran in the June 1980 Championship Bout, and was 'beaten'.

Age; 24 years, 1 Month {Lightning fast and great legs}.

Plus, Ray had defeated several 'strong' Light Middleweights up to this point.
* Tony Chiaverini
* Fernand Marcotte
* Marcos Geraldo

Marcos Geraldo was the 'beginning of the end' in a way for Leonard.

Leonard said that Geraldo hurt him with virtually every punch & it might have been the moment that started the process which eventually led to Leonard's retina becoming detached a few years later.

Ezzard wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

"When I think about the "No Mas Fight," though, I always feel a twinge of sadness. That's because from seeing all I saw from Leonard, I believe he would have won that night, regardless of what condition Duran came into the ring in. The Leonard of that night would have beaten the Duran who showed up in Montreal five months earlier."

-Randy Gordon

Who knows? I do think the opinion of a a journalist who was a fist hand witness to both fights and the run ups to both fights would have his account deemed credible by any logical and objective person .

http://www.thesweetscience.com/news/art ... my-version

I am content to not get into subjective arguments like "best nights" , "he fought the wrong fight" and other extraneous matter and let the results of the trilogy speak for themselves.

But if you accept that opinion... and I don't have an issue with that... Then what about the facts that Gordon actually observed... Duran unprepared... The stomach cramps and crap he took in the dressing room after the fight? Will you accept that too? Seems like you either go with Randy on this or you don't?

Leonard was given the chance to get himself 100% ready to avenge his defeat. He was ready for everything and anything that was coming at him. And even if Roberto had been ready I think Leonard would have beaten him because he really had to win the rematch. And Ray was made of stern stuff.

But...

What if Duran had been given the chance to pour all of the bitterness of no mas into preparing himself for a third consecutive meeting? Ray admitted to McIlvaney that he couldn't get 'up' for rematches...once he'd won it was over for him...then what? A fully motivated Duran and a Ray Leonard who was off the boil?

This could have been a see-saw battle for many fights to come...

I will try to answer precisely and clearly.

Sugar Ray Leonard and Robert Duran fought twice in a six month period. Duran won the first fight in a majority decision. Leonard won the rematch by a technical knock out or a retired on the stool. (no pun intended). Boxers like other professional athletes owe it to the paying public to be in the best shape possible when they are engaged in their sport. If they aren't and perform poorly as a result it is their fault and their fault only. If a trolley driver was out drinking the night before, shows up to work still inebriated, and wrecks his trolley it's not the fault of the trolley.


As for an immediate Leonard-Duran rematch , if the money was there I believe Leonard would have taken it.

Geraldo gave Hagler a solid fight too, Tommy massacred him.

ThatOne wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

ThatOne wrote:
Who knows? I do think the opinion of a a journalist who was a fist hand witness to both fights and the run ups to both fights would have his account deemed credible by any logical and objective person .

http://www.thesweetscience.com/news/art ... my-version

I am content to not get into subjective arguments like "best nights" , "he fought the wrong fight" and other extraneous matter and let the results of the trilogy speak for themselves.

But if you accept that opinion... and I don't have an issue with that... Then what about the facts that Gordon actually observed... Duran unprepared... The stomach cramps and crap he took in the dressing room after the fight? Will you accept that too? Seems like you either go with Randy on this or you don't?

Leonard was given the chance to get himself 100% ready to avenge his defeat. He was ready for everything and anything that was coming at him. And even if Roberto had been ready I think Leonard would have beaten him because he really had to win the rematch. And Ray was made of stern stuff.

But...

What if Duran had been given the chance to pour all of the bitterness of no mas into preparing himself for a third consecutive meeting? Ray admitted to McIlvaney that he couldn't get 'up' for rematches...once he'd won it was over for him...then what? A fully motivated Duran and a Ray Leonard who was off the boil?

This could have been a see-saw battle for many fights to come...

As for an immediate Leonard-Duran rematch , if the money was there I believe Leonard would have taken it.

There would always be money in that fight and he would have gotten the majority of it. Leonard didn't do immediate rematches when he won. Not with hearns, not with Hagler, Benitez or Duran. It wasn't the way he worked. While the guy was all balls in the ring, he was very calculating outside of it and when he beat guys like that he didn't want to risk losing in a return tilt.

Syntax Error wrote:

Il Duce wrote:Ray Leonard

May have been at his 'absolute' best against Roberto Duran in the June 1980 Championship Bout, and was 'beaten'.

Age; 24 years, 1 Month {Lightning fast and great legs}.

Plus, Ray had defeated several 'strong' Light Middleweights up to this point.
* Tony Chiaverini
* Fernand Marcotte
* Marcos Geraldo

Marcos Geraldo was the 'beginning of the end' in a way for Leonard.

Leonard said that Geraldo hurt him with virtually every punch & it might have been the moment that started the process which eventually led to Leonard's retina becoming detached a few years later.

A detached retina ended Leotis Martin's career. That kind of saddened me because he was one of my favorite fighters of that era.
My uncle had a detached retina, had surgery done, was warned not to fight again, ignored the warning and lost his sight in that eye.

When SRL was making one of his comebacks my uncle wrote a letter to the New York Times about his experience that was published. I used to be able to find it online but no more.

ThatOne wrote:
Sugar Ray Leonard and Robert Duran fought twice in a six month period. Duran won the first fight in a majority decision. Leonard won the rematch by a technical knock out or a retired on the stool. (no pun intended). Boxers like other professional athletes owe it to the paying public to be in the best shape possible when they are engaged in their sport. If they aren't and perform poorly as a result it is their fault and their fault only. If a trolley driver was out drinking the night before, shows up to work still inebriated, and wrecks his trolley it's not the fault of the trolley.


As for an immediate Leonard-Duran rematch , if the money was there I believe Leonard would have taken it.

Odd one that TO...

Didn't expect you to answer the questions...just debate points was all they were...

But then you gave an answer that didn't answer any of them...

You know, there's no need for anyone to take sides. They were both great boxers.

Ezzard wrote:

ThatOne wrote:
Sugar Ray Leonard and Robert Duran fought twice in a six month period. Duran won the first fight in a majority decision. Leonard won the rematch by a technical knock out or a retired on the stool. (no pun intended). Boxers like other professional athletes owe it to the paying public to be in the best shape possible when they are engaged in their sport. If they aren't and perform poorly as a result it is their fault and their fault only. If a trolley driver was out drinking the night before, shows up to work still inebriated, and wrecks his trolley it's not the fault of the trolley.


As for an immediate Leonard-Duran rematch , if the money was there I believe Leonard would have taken it.

Odd one that TO...

Didn't expect you to answer the questions...just debate points was all they were...




But then you gave an answer that didn't answer any of them...

You know, there's no need for anyone to take sides. They were both great boxers.

I'll try again.

I'm trying not to take sides but the desire to do so is immense. Ray is one of my favorite fighters. The Duran Leonard faced in New Orleans was a physical mess but a mess of his own making.

I would have loved for them to have fought five or six times like Jake LaMotta and Sugar Ray Robinson. IMHO, SRL like his namesake would have won the lion's share of those matches. I don't know if the paying public would have shared my enthusiasm.

ThatOne wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:

Il Duce wrote:Ray Leonard

May have been at his 'absolute' best against Roberto Duran in the June 1980 Championship Bout, and was 'beaten'.

Age; 24 years, 1 Month {Lightning fast and great legs}.

Plus, Ray had defeated several 'strong' Light Middleweights up to this point.
* Tony Chiaverini
* Fernand Marcotte
* Marcos Geraldo

Marcos Geraldo was the 'beginning of the end' in a way for Leonard.

Leonard said that Geraldo hurt him with virtually every punch & it might have been the moment that started the process which eventually led to Leonard's retina becoming detached a few years later.

A detached retina ended Leotis Martin's career. That kind of saddened me because he was one of my favorite fighters of that era.
My uncle had a detached retina, had surgery done, was warned not to fight again, ignored the warning and lost his sight in that eye.

When SRL was making one of his comebacks my uncle wrote a letter to the New York Times about his experience that was published. I used to be able to find it online but no more.

Wesley Mouzon & Eddie Booker are two examples of detached retinas ending ATG caliber careers too soon.

ThatOne wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

ThatOne wrote:
Sugar Ray Leonard and Robert Duran fought twice in a six month period. Duran won the first fight in a majority decision. Leonard won the rematch by a technical knock out or a retired on the stool. (no pun intended). Boxers like other professional athletes owe it to the paying public to be in the best shape possible when they are engaged in their sport. If they aren't and perform poorly as a result it is their fault and their fault only. If a trolley driver was out drinking the night before, shows up to work still inebriated, and wrecks his trolley it's not the fault of the trolley.


As for an immediate Leonard-Duran rematch , if the money was there I believe Leonard would have taken it.

Odd one that TO...

Didn't expect you to answer the questions...just debate points was all they were...




But then you gave an answer that didn't answer any of them...

You know, there's no need for anyone to take sides. They were both great boxers.

I don't know if the paying public would have shared my enthusiasm.

They most certainly would have.