Page 5 of 5
Posted: 09 Feb 2006, 21:28
by theone
You can spin it any way you want, the loss to Laing is an emabarrassing mark on Duran career.
This natural weight thing is a copout. Countless other fighters move up in weight as they mature. It's the rule, not the exception. Most guys don't stay at these lower weights their whole career.
It's silly to not hold defeats that guy has just because he moved up in weight class. Are you going to do that with everyone else, or just Duran?
For example Holyfield was a cruiserweight. He was undefeated at that weight class. When ranking all time fighters, (including all weight classes) are you only going to count his wins at heavyweight but not his losses? He gets credit for beating Bowe, but it doesn't count that he lost to him twice? His win over Tyson counts, but none of his losses to anyone count?
If you just judge him by the criteria that many Duran fans judge Duran, than you could make a serious case that Holyfield was the greatest fighter of all time. After all he never "really" lost, and he beat Qawi, Bowe, Tyson, etc.
Of course that arguement is silly, (Holyfield was great but not that great)but that is essentially the arguement that many Duran fans often make.
The Leonard win, counts, but the loss doesn't. Nor do the losses to Benetiz, Hearns or the great Laing.
There are many other fighters that you could make this arguement with, not just Holyfield.
When you move up in weight, you face the consequences. Both the wins and the losses count.
Amp, perfectly put. No better argument can or need be made.
Posted: 10 Feb 2006, 05:19
by Ezzard
Ambling Alp wrote:
This natural weight thing is a copout. Countless other fighters move up in weight as they mature. It's the rule, not the exception. Most guys don't stay at these lower weights their whole career.
It's silly to not hold defeats that guy has just because he moved up in weight class. Are you going to do that with everyone else, or just Duran?
For example Holyfield was a cruiserweight. He was undefeated at that weight class. When ranking all time fighters, (including all weight classes) are you only going to count his wins at heavyweight but not his losses? He gets credit for beating Bowe, but it doesn't count that he lost to him twice? His win over Tyson counts, but none of his losses to anyone count?
If you just judge him by the criteria that many Duran fans judge Duran, than you could make a serious case that Holyfield was the greatest fighter of all time. After all he never "really" lost, and he beat Qawi, Bowe, Tyson, etc.
Of course that arguement is silly, (Holyfield was great but not that great)but that is essentially the arguement that many Duran fans often make.
The Leonard win, counts, but the loss doesn't. Nor do the losses to Benetiz, Hearns or the great Laing.
There are many other fighters that you could make this arguement with, not just Holyfield.
When you move up in weight, you face the consequences. Both the wins and the losses count.
That's not the point in question here. Duran's win over Leonard means more in P4P terms than Leonard's win over Duran simply because of the natural weight differences. This is self-evident in the definition of P4P.
As for Holyfield a lot depends upon whether it's a P4P comparison or a HW comparison. Of course losses count. All the greats lost fights though. I think victories and achievement count too.
Posted: 13 Feb 2006, 12:01
by elmersalsa
Ambling Alp wrote:I will answer your question (even though you still haven't answered my question of why you keep saying Benitez wasn't a natural welterweight when Leonard beat him. I have asked you atleast twice).
Do I think Leonard at 33, would beat Hearns at 26? Probably not. However Leonard would probably go the distance, and certainly wouldn't be crushed in 2 rounds like Duran was when fought Hearns.
Please answer me these questions -
When Duran was 31, he lost to Kirkland Laing.
Do you think Leonard at 31, would have beaten Kirkland Laing?
When Duran was in his prime, he lost to Esteban DeJesus.
Do you think in his prime, Leonard would have lost to Esteban DeJesus?
Who do you think came out on top in Leonard and Duran's head to head battles? (We won't count the 3rd one that Leonard won).
Duran, who won a tough 15 round decision in their first fight, or Leonard who won by a 8th round TKO in their second fight?
Putting aside Leonard and Duran's head to heads fights, answer me this question;
Were the best fighters that Duran beat (Palomino, DeJesus, and Buchanan) were even close to the level of the best guys that Leonard beat (Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler)?
Some questions that you have put in order does not have nothing to do with the Hagler-Leonard-Duran-Hearns circle.
You KNOW DEEPLY IN YOUR HEART THAT LEONARD AT 33 WOULD HAVE NEVER BEAT TOMMY AT 154, in his prime and 26 years of age, Alp.
That Leonard at 33 would've been gone in less than 3 rounds. And that was just 7 pounds out of his natural weight.
So I imagine a Leonard at 33, 20 pounds heavier, fighting someone like Marvin Johnson, Michael Spinks or Dwight Muhammad Qawi??? Natural 175 pounders??? Oh my Yah!!!
You also mentioned if Leoanrd at 31 would have lost to Kirkland Laing??? Tha was just 7 pounds out of his limit. Second of all, Laing that night that he beat Duran could have had a great chance of beating a 31 year old Leonard. Leonard at 31 was washed up. That happens to many fighters when they reach 30 and above. They are not the same. Well, there are some exceptions like Bernard Hopkins, Rocky Marciano and Carlos Monzon that fought very well past 30...Not even Sugar Ray Robinson, the greatest P4p was the same after 30.
You also mentioned if DeJesus would have beaten a Leonard??? If Leonard was a 135 pounder probably Esteban would have beat him too!!!
DeJesus ONLY lost 2 fights at 135. And that was against Duran, which like I said before, he should not be ashamed of that.
You mentioned the No Mas fiasco as if the fight was Leonard winning by a landslide. The judges had it by 2 points in 2 of the scorecards and 1 point in the third scorecard at the time of the stoppage. Duran QUIT, no question about that, he QUIT, but I do not think that was the SAME Duran in Montreal. Duran had no head movement, no fire in his eyes, no pep in his punches, and did not make Leonard miss like the first fight...He lost the fight before the initial bell.
Then you asked me if Buchanan, Palomino and DeJesus were at the same level of Hagler, Benitez and Hearns.
First, do you forgot how special Ken Buchanan was??? Skill wise, Ken can be compared to the Haglers, Benitez' and Hearns and with the same Leonard, if you ask me. We never know how great Buchanan could have been if he jumped weight to fight Cervantes and then challenge Napoles. He probably would come victorious or maybe not. But I will tell you something, Buchanan would have give them a run for their money. Probably Buchanan would have beaten a 17 year old Benitez, maybe not. BUCHANAN NEVER WENT UP. They (DeJesus and Buchanan) were lightweights fighting against probably the most awesome lightweight in history. That is like saying if Benitez and Hearns could cope with Sugar Ray Robinson of the 1940s at 147. Probably Hearns nor Benitez would have get far winning 3 or more titles...Different times, different folks, different strokes. Well Alp, I tell you. Leonard beat better fighters. Duran fought the Hearns and the Benitez at 154, not at 147...Would have been a different story??? Perhaps yes, perhaps no
Posted: 14 Feb 2006, 14:43
by Ambling Alp
Well, Elmer Salsa, I guess we are going in circles.
Your opinons:
-Leonard at 33, would be gone in less than 3 rounds against Hearns.
-Kirkland Laing would have had a great chance of beating a 31 year old Leonard.
-DeJesus at 135 would probably have beaten Leonard at 135.
-The lame excuse about Duran not being the same Duran in the 2nd fight. (No mention that Leonard fought a much different fight himself.)
-The comparison regrding coping with Duran at lightweight was like coping with Ray Robinson at welterweight in the 1940's.
-And my favorite, Buchanan's skill level was comparable to Hagler, Hearns, Benitez and Leonard.
All I will say about these opinions is this that I strongly disagree with each of them. I don't think it's worth going into detail why; I doubt it would make any difference to you.
We simply aren't on the same page.
I think that we are so far apart in judging how good someone is, (Atleast many of the fighters that we have mentioned ) that it's not worth beating the Leonard-Duran discussion to death anymore.
Maybe we will agree on other subjects in the future, time will tell.
Posted: 15 Feb 2006, 09:22
by elmersalsa
Cmon Alp:
We cannot ignore the quality of Ken Buchanan. He was an excellent fighter that can hang in boxing skills with the Hearns, Leonards and Benitezes. Are you saying that Buchanan was not that good???
What I am saying is, both of them, Duran and Leonard, beat extremely great opposition in their weight classes. Duran did it at 135 and Leonard at 147.
It is a fact that Leonard beat the Durans, Hearns and Benitezses in his 20s, in his PRIME, IN HIS WEIGHT CLASS.
So did Duran beat the Buchanans, DeJesus, the Leonards and the Palominos and the Marcels in his PRIME, IN HIS WEIGHT CLASS (with the exception of Leonard and Marcel) and in his 20s
You are mentioning the fact that Leonard beat better fighters than Duran and Duran lost to the guys Leonard beat. That it is in the point of view how you coming from and how you are viewing it
You do not think that Sugar Ray Robinson or Kid Gavilan would have lost to the Hearns, Benitez, Haglers and Leonards in their 30s at 154 or 160??? I think he would have lost to them too. Once a fighter hits 30 and has to go up to different weight classes, his skills are not the same. A fighter hitting 30 might be smarter, but slower and with less motivation than when he was in his full strenght and in his 20s and in his weight class.
Leonard being 30 or above COULD HAVE NEVER BEAT A PRIME Hearns nor Hagler nor Benitez nor the Spinks nor Qawis, specially if he had to go up 10 or more pounds out of his NATURAL WEIGHT CLASS which was 147.
In regarding the 2nd fight with Leonard, I ask you this Alp: When did you see in that fight that Duran made Leonard miss like in the first fight???
Don't tell me that it was Sugar Rays change of strategy, please, I don't buy that at all. Sugar Ray could have won that fight EVEN IF HE WOULD HAVE WENT TOE TO TOE WITH DURAN THAT NIGHT, AND THAT WAS THE COMPLETE TRUTH. Like you have said, I am not going to respond another post of this subject. I have already gave my views 