BoxRec

Here's an excuse (second fight): Leonard made Duran fight before he was ready. Unfair!

I heard that Leonard's people (Dundee/Trainer) forced/pressured Duran back into he ring in only five months because they knew he had crawled inside a bottle of Chivas and was driving his new Mercedes around in circles (it was Duran's first really big money). Duran needed another month of drinking and driving and then three more months after that to get ready; they should have fought ten months later not five.

(Of course this could be just another one of Angelo Dundee's self aggrandizing stories, he use to do that.)

The 'pressure' they used: for the first fight Duran got one million; second fight Duran got eight million. Leonard threaten to go elsewhere if Duran didn't meet his date. With eight million dangling in front of him Duran, being Duran, didn't hesitate to act against his own best-interest.

And yea, of course it is not an excuse; Duran blew his chance to step over Benny Leonard on the ATG list.

Second note: one of my former student's father was a local fight promoter (Miami), he was, for a short while, partnered up with Duran. Duran was staying at the family home in Hiaheah (circa 2005) when she (the student) told me that Duran had told them the reason he quit that night was because his stomach was actually sour and he suddenly became scared to death that he would, in front of millions of people, defecate. I don't know if Duran was just spinning stories to make the family laugh (the girl said Duran was a hoot to be around and made them laugh all the time) or if he was serious.

Funny one doesn't think of Duran as being the life of the party but that's how she described him. Eventually the father and Duran fell out, almost coming to blows. (She added later that Duran was very frightening when angry; that sounds more like Duran.)

Sorry, I guess that was all just gossip.

The father did let me and my kids attend a fight gratis though, that was nice.

Alp's not wrong in my mind...just two different ways to look at it I guess.

I just don't see how the second fight is as much of a test of performance potentials as the first.

So Alp's and my definition of "significance" is different. They are equally significant in there documentation aspects...on paper. But...I see a difference when it comes to performance related assessments.

The only real difference is that when Duran was losing, he quit like a dog.

Ambling Alp II wrote:The only real difference is that when Duran was losing, he quit like a dog.

Yeah, that wasn't pretty. But his career didn't end there...so, seems he learned from it, and that dog didn't show it's face again.

There are also some circumstances which have been discussed....which may (or may not) have played a role.

E.G...if Ray was about to beat the literal "crap" out of him and he picked his poison. Be humiliated...or be humiliated. And he chose to be humiliated on his own terms possibly.

I've often thought their might be another explanation other than your "dog" scenario.....he never really showed anything like that before or after that event.

Might want to withhold judgment and just leave it as a mystery.

golden oldie wrote:You just have to laugh at the Leonard fanboys. They are like the gift that keeps on giving. REALITY. Leonard was TOTALLY in his prime, at his optimum weight when he met Duran in Montreal. Duran on the other hand had a history of blowing up between title fights at his optimum weight which was 135, was 4 years older, and was dismissed out of hand, particularly by Leonard and his big mouthed even bigger egotist Dundee, and the media.

Rematches are NEVER as important as the original fights, and as far as Duran was concerned the only interest was the $8 million. America's golden boy was comprehensively beaten by a blown up Lightweight, who didn't even show them the courtesy of speaking English. Duran won the fight that mattered, the one which the boxing world was clamouring to see. End of story, unless you are a rather sad Leonard fanboy.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET US ALL FREE!

golden oldie wrote:You just have to laugh at the Leonard fanboys. They are like the gift that keeps on giving. REALITY. Leonard was TOTALLY in his prime, at his optimum weight when he met Duran in Montreal. Duran on the other hand had a history of blowing up between title fights at his optimum weight which was 135, was 4 years older, and was dismissed out of hand, particularly by Leonard and his big mouthed even bigger egotist Dundee, and the media.

Rematches are NEVER as important as the original fights, and as far as Duran was concerned the only interest was the $8 million. America's golden boy was comprehensively beaten by a blown up Lightweight, who didn't even show them the courtesy of speaking English. Duran won the fight that mattered, the one which the boxing world was clamouring to see. End of story, unless you are a rather sad Leonard fanboy.

Duran was 4 years older, but he was still just 29. His optimum weight was 135? Yes Roberto Duran the only fighter whoever moved up in weight. He had been fighting over 135 for years before he fought Leonard. How come moving up in weight doesn't matter when Leonard beat Hagler or a million other fights? Poor Roberto, the only fighter whoever moved up in weight.

Blowing up between fights? Why is that Leonard's problem?
So yeah, all that crap should be dismissed out of hand.

Rematches are never as important as the first fight? How dumb is that. The fight that mattered? Whatever.
Always love the "fanboy" comments. Nobody ever seems to think they are a "fanboy" of someone they like.

Alp, I agree with you that Ray earned his Hagler win 100% I like Ray and he did his job on that night.

First fights tend to draw more attention from the general sports fan; it takes fans like us appreciate a rematch; with rematches the absence of novelty often causes the general sports fan's enthusiasm to wain. (Not meant to be a statement on importance.)

Question: If we take ten great fights with rematches, do we find the rematches measuring up for excitement?

Both Duran-Leonard rematches were dogs. You can blame Duran for the second fight; but you have to blame both the third time out. (In fact I still want my money back on that one.)

Dempsey-Tunney II argues one way; Louis-Conn II the other way. Bramble-Mancini I & II argues both can be equally exciting.

I don't know if we took 10 great fights, how often the second one matches up. I guess it depends on which 10.
Sometimes the anticpation is so great for the rematch that people are overly critical of it.
I certainly can find several cases where the rematch was better.
The example of Louis-Conn is deceiving; that was 5 years later when they were both past it. It's not like the rematch happened 5 months after the first.

I thought the 3rd Leonard-Duran fight was a dog as well. Leonard was past and Duran was further past it. That is why I (or most fans for that matter) don't talk much about it.
As for the second fight, it wasn't as competitive as the first. That is mostly because Leonard in the second fight performed better than Duran did in the first, and Leonard performed better in the first than Duran did in the second.

Leonard fought a great fight in the rematch. And of course Duran quitting like that marred the fight. However, it should not detract from Leonard's performance. If anything is more evidence of Leonard's superiority as a fighter.

Leonard at his best won a 8th round TKO, while Duran could only win a competitive 15-round decision.
Leonard at his worst managed to go 15 rounds and give Duran a tough fight. Duran at his worst thought the fight was so hopeless that he actually quit.

I have never in my life heard anyone say that the first fight is always more significant. I have heard people say the second is more important. The rationale being that fighters will make the necessary adjustments and are more likely fight to the best of their ability.

I usually count both fights the same as far as significance regardless of the fighters involved.. There are rare exceptions such as the rematch many years way after the first and one or both fighters are way past their best.

The first fight was the fight that really mattered. Duran was THE SUPERIOR FIGHTER, stepping up in weight and beating an extraordinary boxer like Leonard.

That second fight was a fight that Leonard planned, calculated and studied. He got Duran OFF GUARD. HE BEAT DURAN IN AN OFF NIGHT and it was shown way before the opening bell. You gotta be at your very best in order to fight any of the Fab 4 + the great Wilfred Benitez.

But, when it was said and done, skill for skill, and at the stage for all the marbles, it was all Roberto Duran! And that is what matters.

Thank you for yet another thought provoking, unbiased, and eloquent post.

As a side note, please everyone ignore the 2nd and 3rd Duran-DeJesus fights.
DeJesus won the first fight and that is all that matters. He "whupped Duran" and showed he was the superior fighter. Please rank Esteban DeJesus ahead of Duran in your all time rankings.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Thank you for yet another thought provoking, unbiased, and eloquent post.

As a side note, please everyone ignore the 2nd and 3rd Duran-DeJesus fights.
DeJesus won the first fight and that is all that matters. He "whupped Duran" and showed he was the superior fighter. Please rank Esteban DeJesus ahead of Duran in your all time rankings.

The DIFFERENCE between Duran (for Leonard) and DeJesus (for Duran) in their second fights or rematches, was that DeJesus was well prepared and trained for the 3 fights. Duran was not even near the man in Montreal when the rematch with Leonard came. He just trained to lose weight.

I give Esteban MUCH MORE CREDIT by beating Duran than Leonard. He was the ONLY MAN that beat Duran at his very, very best. Leonard did not do that. End of story.

Well of course DeJesus was well-prepared for Duran. Duran's opponent's were always at the tip their game when they fought him. They never had injuries, personal problems, trouble making weight, trouble getting motivated, or anything like that when they fought Duran. Only Duran ever had those kinds of problems.

Duran on the other hand, almost always had something had wrong with him when lost.

He only had a mere 5 months to train for the Leonard rematch. Too much partying, whcih can't be held against him. He was the first fighter ever to move up in weight. He just wasn't the real Duran.
Against Benitez, he just had to move up too much in weight.
Against Robbie Sims, he just wasn't motivated.
Against Kirkland Laing, Duran's pet hamster had just died and Duran just wan't emotionally ready.

But since DeJesus whupped Duran at Duran's very best, (and rematches don't count) we now can be rest assured that Esteban DeJesus was better than Duran. End of story.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Well of course DeJesus was well-prepared for Duran. Duran's opponent's were always at the tip their game when they fought him. They never had injuries, personal problems, trouble making weight, trouble getting motivated, or anything like that when they fought Duran. Only Duran ever had those kinds of problems.

Duran on the other hand, almost always had something had wrong with him when lost.

He only had a mere 5 months to train for the Leonard rematch. Too much partying, whcih can't be held against him. He was the first fighter ever to move up in weight. He just wasn't the real Duran.
Against Benitez, he just had to move up too much in weight.
Against Robbie Sims, he just wasn't motivated.
Against Kirkland Laing, Duran's pet hamster had just died and Duran just wan't emotionally ready.

But since DeJesus whupped Duran at Duran's very best, (and rematches don't count) we now can be rest assured that Esteban DeJesus was better than Duran. End of story.

Duran proved that he was the better fighter against DeJesus 2nd and 3rd fights. All three fights, they were at their very best. No excuses on the loser in the three bouts. Esteban won the first one. The ONLY MAN who really beat Duran at his very best. In Duran's prime. They fought 3 times, at their very best. One had to win 2 out of 3 and that was The Hands of Stone.

While Duran vs Leonard was not so. Only one fight was when both were in their very best. Duran won and whupped him, and that was the end of story.

I see a difference.....of a different sort.



Ray was very smart, and he cared about perceptions.....and was smart enough to take the second fight very seriously.

Duran may well have been the better fighter when at their mutual best...and perhaps pound for pound..BUT

Duran allowing himself to get out of shape, and going in less prepared means something in their overall careers. And should not be overly discounted.


Joe Frazier beat Ali and Duran beat Ray at their best......can't take that back....and Ali got his revenge in the same way Ray did


Ray and Ali had smarter careers than the two greats they lost to in their initial encounters......

No Ali was not at his best when he fought Frazier. Not even close.
Leonard physically was at his best when he fought Duran. He didn't fight his best fight the first time; but that is on him. Same with Duran in the rematch; it's on him. Except it's worse since he quit like a dog.

Ambling Alp II wrote:No Ali was not at his best when he fought Frazier. Not even close.
Leonard physically was at his best when he fought Duran. He didn't fight his best fight the first time; but that is on him. Same with Duran in the rematch; it's on him. Except it's worse since he quit like a dog.

Smokin' Joe would have beaten the version of The Greatest circa 1964-67. With that performance at the FOTC in '71 I would not be shocked to see Frazier beating him. Frazier was off the chain and on point. It was the greatest performance ever by a boxer bar none. No doubt.

Leonard fought his fight against Duran and lost when BOTH WERE AT THEIR VERY BEST. The evidence was clear of who was the better fighter.

Ali never beat Frazier at his very best.
Sugar Ray never beat Duran at his very best. He beat the great Thomas Hearns at his very best. He beat the great Wilfred Benitez at his very best. But, he never beat Duran at his very best.

BoxBuzz wrote:I see a difference.....of a different sort.



Ray was very smart, and he cared about perceptions.....and was smart enough to take the second fight very seriously.

Duran may well have been the better fighter when at their mutual best...and perhaps pound for pound..BUT

Duran allowing himself to get out of shape, and going in less prepared means something in their overall careers. And should not be overly discounted.


Joe Frazier beat Ali and Duran beat Ray at their best......can't take that back....and Ali got his revenge in the same way Ray did


Ray and Ali had smarter careers than the two greats they lost to in their initial encounters......

I agree on almost everything you have said above, except that phrase that Ali got his revenge the same way Leonard did. Ali didn't calculate for the rematch. It took 3 years later. By the time they fought again both were past their very best. Ali had more miles on than Frazier. Smokin' Joe was coming from a brutal loss from Big George.

Well they each got their 2:1 ratio of wins. And that counts for something.

Also.....it was purely goofy that Duran didn't take that second fight seriously.....and it's on him, plain and simple. Including justifying every thing that Alp and so many others take away from those two exchanges. I completely undestand their opinions. Though I don't agree. Duran had no one to blame but himself....and is accountable for it. Ray was smarter....even if he wasn't better at their mutual peaks. At least Joe's excuse didn't have anything to do with him not giving his best. Duran and his team can't say the same for themselves. And that aint pretty.

BoxBuzz wrote:Well they each got their 2:1 ratio of wins. And that counts for something.

Also.....it was purely goofy that Duran didn't take that second fight seriously.....and it's on him, plain and simple. Including justifying every thing that Alp and so many others take away from those two exchanges. I completely undestand their opinions. Though I don't agree. Duran had no one to blame but himself....and is accountable for it. Ray was smarter....even if he wasn't better at their mutual peaks. At least Joe's excuse didn't have anything to do with him not giving his best. Duran and his team can't say the same for themselves. And that aint pretty.

I agree with you. It was Duran's fault for not preparing himself well in the rematch. He could only blame himself. Sugar Ray was beating him yi the punch even in the inside exchanges. Even if Leonard would have gone toe to toe like he did in the first fight, he would have beaten Duran anyway. Duran didn't show nothing that would indicate that he could have win that fight. The fight was lost before the opening bell. You could see it in his eyes that he didn't want to be in that ring in New Orleans. He didn't had the same intensity like in Montreal. I'm not saying that Leonard would have never beaten Duran at his very best. That is foolish to say. But, he never beat Duran at his very best. I would have love to see the Duran in Montreal vs the Leonard in New Orleans. It would have been a greater fight.

golden oldie wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

golden oldie wrote:You just have to laugh at the Leonard fanboys. They are like the gift that keeps on giving. REALITY. Leonard was TOTALLY in his prime, at his optimum weight when he met Duran in Montreal. Duran on the other hand had a history of blowing up between title fights at his optimum weight which was 135, was 4 years older, and was dismissed out of hand, particularly by Leonard and his big mouthed even bigger egotist Dundee, and the media.

Rematches are NEVER as important as the original fights, and as far as Duran was concerned the only interest was the $8 million. America's golden boy was comprehensively beaten by a blown up Lightweight, who didn't even show them the courtesy of speaking English. Duran won the fight that mattered, the one which the boxing world was clamouring to see. End of story, unless you are a rather sad Leonard fanboy.

Duran was 4 years older, but he was still just 29. His optimum weight was 135? Yes Roberto Duran the only fighter whoever moved up in weight. He had been fighting over 135 for years before he fought Leonard. How come moving up in weight doesn't matter when Leonard beat Hagler or a million other fights? Poor Roberto, the only fighter whoever moved up in weight.

Blowing up between fights? Why is that Leonard's problem?
So yeah, all that crap should be dismissed out of hand.

Rematches are never as important as the first fight? How dumb is that. The fight that mattered? Whatever.
Always love the "fanboy" comments. Nobody ever seems to think they are a "fanboy" of someone they like.

You really are not too clever at this are you?

Duran walked away from the Lightweight division in January 78. He then had 8 fights over 2 years and 2 months beating one A class fighter in Palomino, who was in fact coming off a loss to Benitez. So much for his years of experience at Welter.In fact out of the 72 fights he had prior to meeting Leonard in only 35 of them had he been heavier than 135. Interestingly enough though out of those 35 fights he only weighed over 140 in 10 of them. So to be even considered to be a Welter he'd had 10 out of 72, compared to Leonard's 27 at the weight

I have less than zero interest in the opinions of Leonard fanboys, I prefer to stick to reality, which was merely a case of dejavu. Montreal June 80, was almost an exact copy of Madison Square Garden exactly 8 years earlier. Duran facing the taller guy with the longer reach considered to be the better " boxer " who he simply bullied and pressured out of their comfort zones.

Umm, yes he had quite a bit of experience at welterweight. Only 35 fights were above 135? Only 10 were above 140? How much experience does he need? Only two years of fighting and training at 147? Is that supposed to be a serious argument? Countless other fighters have moved up in weight and won a big fight with much less experience at the higher weight.

How much experience did Leonard have at 160 before beating Hagler?

Buchanan and Leonard fight were exactly the same fight ? huh? Buchanan simply to simply tried to suruvive. Leonard was trying to win and did give Duran a tough dight even thouh he fought Duran's game. Pressured out of his comfort zone? He constantly went inside the whole fight on his own. Again, that not an excuse. That's on Leonard. The loss hurts his overall rating.

Well Leonard won the rematch, didn't he? And yes in the real world the 2nd fight counts as much as the first.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

golden oldie wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Duran was 4 years older, but he was still just 29. His optimum weight was 135? Yes Roberto Duran the only fighter whoever moved up in weight. He had been fighting over 135 for years before he fought Leonard. How come moving up in weight doesn't matter when Leonard beat Hagler or a million other fights? Poor Roberto, the only fighter whoever moved up in weight.

Blowing up between fights? Why is that Leonard's problem?
So yeah, all that crap should be dismissed out of hand.

Rematches are never as important as the first fight? How dumb is that. The fight that mattered? Whatever.
Always love the "fanboy" comments. Nobody ever seems to think they are a "fanboy" of someone they like.

You really are not too clever at this are you?

Duran walked away from the Lightweight division in January 78. He then had 8 fights over 2 years and 2 months beating one A class fighter in Palomino, who was in fact coming off a loss to Benitez. So much for his years of experience at Welter.In fact out of the 72 fights he had prior to meeting Leonard in only 35 of them had he been heavier than 135. Interestingly enough though out of those 35 fights he only weighed over 140 in 10 of them. So to be even considered to be a Welter he'd had 10 out of 72, compared to Leonard's 27 at the weight

I have less than zero interest in the opinions of Leonard fanboys, I prefer to stick to reality, which was merely a case of dejavu. Montreal June 80, was almost an exact copy of Madison Square Garden exactly 8 years earlier. Duran facing the taller guy with the longer reach considered to be the better " boxer " who he simply bullied and pressured out of their comfort zones.

Umm, yes he had quite a bit of experience at welterweight. Only 35 fights were above 135? Only 10 were above 140? How much experience does he need? Only two years of fighting and training at 147? Is that supposed to be a serious argument? Countless other fighters have moved up in weight and won a big fight with much less experience at the higher weight.

How much experience did Leonard have at 160 before beating Hagler?

Buchanan and Leonard fight were exactly the same fight ? huh? Buchanan simply to simply tried to suruvive. Leonard was trying to win and did give Duran a tough dight even thouh he fought Duran's game. Pressured out of his comfort zone? He constantly went inside the whole fight on his own. Again, that not an excuse. That's on Leonard. The loss hurts his overall rating.

Well Leonard won the rematch, didn't he? And yes in the real world the 2nd fight counts as much as the first.

Sugar Ray CLUTCHED AND GRABBED FOR SURVIVAL and still, got his ass whupped. If he really fought toe to toe a la Esteban Dejesus or Ray Lampkin, Leonard would have been knocked out.

golden oldie wrote:All the excuses count for nothing. In fact it was Leonard and Dundee who came out with the lame " my guy fought the other guys fight " excuse which is where his silly fanboys got it from and latch onto like limpets.

The simple reality is when BOTH were at their physical best and trained to the highest level of fitness they could possibly attain, Leonard LOST.

No further discussion required.

The TRUTH always set the people free. I accept everything you have said above.

Leonard lost so bad in Montreal that the 3 judges had him losing by a combined 4 pts, a panel of NY Times sportswriters had Leonard winning by 2 (it's on the BoxRec site) Ferdie Pacheco had Leonard winning by 1, and some sportswriter on the West Coast who's name escapes me at the moment had Leonard winning as well. I remember a Boxing magazine at the time that mentioned several people on hand who scored it for Leonard. Now does that mean that SRL actually won, not quite, but I'll say without the slighest doubt, had Leonard gotten a UD in Montreal, it wouldn't exactly have made the top 500 worst decisions of alltime.

Seamus wrote:Leonard lost so bad in Montreal that the 3 judges had him losing by a combined 4 pts, a panel of NY Times sportswriters had Leonard winning by 2 (it's on the BoxRec site) Ferdie Pacheco had Leonard winning by 1, and some sportswriter on the West Coast who's name escapes me at the moment had Leonard winning as well. I remember a Boxing magazine at the time that mentioned several people on hand who scored it for Leonard. Now does that mean that SRL actually won, not quite, but I'll say without the slighest doubt, had Leonard gotten a UD in Montreal, it wouldn't exactly have made the top 500 worst decisions of alltime.

Here is a completely unscientific reply: Leonard UD? - It just didn't feel that way when it was happening; when it was over you felt like Duran had won. I suspect you understand (not necessarily agree) with what I am saying; how you can feel that way about a fight.

Leonard seemed at bay most of the fight; Duran was only occasionally effective but was always pushing the boxing into fighting and Leonard always seemed to be trying to restart himself only to deal with another Duran assault. This may sound way too simple but on one level Duran simply out-hustled Leonard. I also had this odd feeling that Duran was fighting scared, scared of being out boxed, so he kept closing the distance in front of him quickly and much grabbing, not enough punching ensued.