BoxRec

Ambling Alp II wrote:Agreed. Not really that funny anymore.
He actually believes his BS.
He has no comprehension skills whatsoever.
Saying the same dumba$$ things over and over and ignoring other people's comments doesn't make someone right.

YOU CANNOT HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Chuck1052 wrote:Roberto Duran was a lightweight during his prime. As a result, I thought Duran was slightly past his peak when he beat Sugar Ray Leonard.

- Chuck Johnston

I agree, but I think that Duran is probably still a top 5 all time as welterweight.

elmersalsa wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

elmersalsa wrote: Sugar Ray Leonard would ONLY have the great Thomas Hearns.

Only? ONLY?!? ONLY??!?!?!?!?!?!? ONLY THOMAS HEARNS? AT WELTERWEIGHT!!?!?!? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Really? REALLY???

No, I am not kidding. That is the ONLY TRUE WELTERWEIGHT LEONARD FACED. Duran and Benitez came up.

Put Alexis Arguello and Wilftedo Gomez at 135lbs to challenge Duran's crown and it would be THE EQUIVALENT of Benitez and Duran fighting at 147.

Am I right, people? You know it is that way.

Didn't Benitez beat Duran? I mean, that's a fact isn't it....have we to discount this too. Leonard beat three fighters who beat Duran. He beat Duran 2-1. It's obvious by these facts that Duran was far superior to Leonard, isn't it? By virtue of one very close win....

superbantamweight Wilfredo Gomez would not have beaten Duran at lightweight, therefore Duran was better than Leonard.

we're through the looking-glass here, people.

Counter-puncher wrote:superbantamweight Wilfredo Gomez would not have beaten Duran at lightweight, therefore Duran was better than Leonard.

we're through the looking-glass here, people.

It reminds me of the kind of logic Hunter S Thompson used to use.

I don't understand why some people in here are so frustrated?

elmersalsa wrote:I don't understand why some people in here are so frustrated?

Just answer my questions.

Did Leonard lose to anyone of Dejesus' quality at Welter?

[quote="keithmoonhangover]superbantamweight Wilfredo Gomez would not have beaten Duran at lightweight, therefore Duran was better than Leonard.

we're through the looking-glass here, people.[/quote]


You questioned Duran quality of opposition at lightweight and said that it was poor. First, you don't know what are you talking about. His opponents at lightweight were excellent.

Second, you want to ignore the fact that Benitez a jr welter, and Duran, a lightweight, came up to welterweight. That is THE SAME THING if Arguello, a jr.lightweight, and Gomez a super bantamweight, step up in class and fight at lightweight. Unfortunately, they did not. Leonard had the blessing and luxury to have those fighters IN HIS WEIGHT CLASS. DURAN NEVER HAD THAT LUXURY.

Take Benitez and Duran off the PICTURE and all Leonard will have is Hearns. That would have been a POORER ledger than what Duran fought at lightweight. Only Hearns?

elmersalsa wrote:[quote="keithmoonhangover]superbantamweight Wilfredo Gomez would not have beaten Duran at lightweight, therefore Duran was better than Leonard.

we're through the looking-glass here, people.

You questioned Duran quality of opposition at lightweight and said that it was poor. First, you don't know what are you talking about. His opponents at lightweight were excellent.

Second, you want to ignore the fact that Benitez a jr welter, and Duran, a lightweight, came up to welterweight. That is THE SAME THING if Arguello, a jr.lightweight, and Gomez a super bantamweight, step up in class and fight at lightweight. Unfortunately, they did not. Leonard had the blessing and luxury to have those fighters IN HIS WEIGHT CLASS. DURAN NEVER HAD THAT LUXURY.

Take Benitez and Duran off the PICTURE and all Leonard will have is Hearns. That would have been a POORER ledger than what Duran fought at lightweight. Only Hearns?[/quote][/quote]

Did Leonard lose to anyone of Dejesus' quality at Welter?

keithmoonhangover wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:[quote="keithmoonhangover]superbantamweight Wilfredo Gomez would not have beaten Duran at lightweight, therefore Duran was better than Leonard.

we're through the looking-glass here, people.

You questioned Duran quality of opposition at lightweight and said that it was poor. First, you don't know what are you talking about. His opponents at lightweight were excellent.

Second, you want to ignore the fact that Benitez a jr welter, and Duran, a lightweight, came up to welterweight. That is THE SAME THING if Arguello, a jr.lightweight, and Gomez a super bantamweight, step up in class and fight at lightweight. Unfortunately, they did not. Leonard had the blessing and luxury to have those fighters IN HIS WEIGHT CLASS. DURAN NEVER HAD THAT LUXURY.

Take Benitez and Duran off the PICTURE and all Leonard will have is Hearns. That would have been a POORER ledger than what Duran fought at lightweight. Only Hearns?

[/quote]

Did Leonard lose to anyone of Dejesus' quality at Welter?[/quote][/quote][/quote]

No. But it wouldn't be a shame if he did lose to Esteban. Esteban DeJesus was AN EXCELLENT FIGHTER.

DeJesus is THE ONLY MAN THAT BEAT DURAN AT HIS VERY BEST....NO EXCUSES!

elmersalsa wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:[quote="keithmoonhangover]superbantamweight Wilfredo Gomez would not have beaten Duran at lightweight, therefore Duran was better than Leonard.

we're through the looking-glass here, people.

You questioned Duran quality of opposition at lightweight and said that it was poor. First, you don't know what are you talking about. His opponents at lightweight were excellent.

Second, you want to ignore the fact that Benitez a jr welter, and Duran, a lightweight, came up to welterweight. That is THE SAME THING if Arguello, a jr.lightweight, and Gomez a super bantamweight, step up in class and fight at lightweight. Unfortunately, they did not. Leonard had the blessing and luxury to have those fighters IN HIS WEIGHT CLASS. DURAN NEVER HAD THAT LUXURY.

Take Benitez and Duran off the PICTURE and all Leonard will have is Hearns. That would have been a POORER ledger than what Duran fought at lightweight. Only Hearns?

Did Leonard lose to anyone of Dejesus' quality at Welter?[/quote][/quote][/quote]

No. But it wouldn't be a shame if he did lose to Esteban. Esteban DeJesus was AN EXCELLENT FIGHTER.

DeJesus is THE ONLY MAN THAT BEAT DURAN AT HIS VERY BEST....NO EXCUSES![/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

One more question. Who was a tougher opponent, the Dejesus that lost to Duran or the Duran that beat Leonard?

keithmoonhangover wrote: One more question. Who was a tougher opponent, the Dejesus that lost to Duran or the Duran that beat Leonard?

The Duran that WHUPPED Leonard, TO ME, IS UNBEATABLE. Put any version of Leonard against that Duran in Montreal and Leonard loses 10 out 10 times.

Just like the great Joe Frazier @ the Fight of the Century, IN THAT NIGHT, TO ME, NO HEAVYWEIGHT IN HIS TONY BEATS HIM.
He beats any version of the great Muhammad Ali, ten out if ten times that night.

And the Esteban DeJesus who beat Duran in there first bout, beats any Lightweight who ever lived, that night Actually, I thought Edwin Viruet also beat Duran, the first time they fought. I know 2 other BoxRec posters also thought Viruet won.

Seamus wrote:And the Esteban DeJesus who beat Duran in there first bout, beats any Lightweight who ever lived, that night Actually, I thought Edwin Viruet also beat Duran, the first time they fought. I know 2 other BoxRec posters also thought Viruet won.

What? That Edwin Viruet beat Duran? I thought Duran won the fight? Didn't he?

Why cannot Esteban beat any Lightweight in history? He beat Duran FAIR AND SQUARE

elmersalsa wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: One more question. Who was a tougher opponent, the Dejesus that lost to Duran or the Duran that beat Leonard?

The Duran that WHUPPED Leonard, TO ME, IS UNBEATABLE. Put any version of Leonard against that Duran in Montreal and Leonard loses 10 out 10 times.

Just like the great Joe Frazier @ the Fight of the Century, IN THAT NIGHT, TO ME, NO HEAVYWEIGHT IN HIS TONY BEATS HIM.
He beats any version of the great Muhammad Ali, ten out if ten times that night.

In your own words, Leonard and Duran both lost to boxers in their prime. Duran lost to Dejesus and Leonard lost to Duran. You are saying that Leonard lost to a better boxer. So Duran lost to a lesser fighter in Dejesus. You also state that Duran is better than Dejesus because he beat him in a rematch. Is all of this right so far?

Listen to the crowd when Duran get's the decision at the 40:40 mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1as7CLtAulo they thought Viruet won. Now , that certainly isn't the only argument, I had it 5-3-2 for Viruet, which under the scoring sytem would have been 5-3. The judges had Duran winning by 4, 3, and 1pt. In fairness to Duran he won the rematch which was a title bout, by a wide margin, but I still believe Edwin deserved to win the 10 rounder.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: One more question. Who was a tougher opponent, the Dejesus that lost to Duran or the Duran that beat Leonard?

The Duran that WHUPPED Leonard, TO ME, IS UNBEATABLE. Put any version of Leonard against that Duran in Montreal and Leonard loses 10 out 10 times.

Just like the great Joe Frazier @ the Fight of the Century, IN THAT NIGHT, TO ME, NO HEAVYWEIGHT IN HIS TONY BEATS HIM.
He beats any version of the great Muhammad Ali, ten out if ten times that night.

In your own words, Leonard and Duran both lost to boxers in their prime. Duran lost to Dejesus and Leonard lost to Duran. You are saying that Leonard lost to a better boxer. So Duran lost to a lesser fighter in Dejesus. You also state that Duran is better than Dejesus because he beat him in a rematch. Is all of this right so far?

Duran beat DeJesus twice when both were at their A game.
DeJesus BEAT DURAN in Duran's A game.
Leonard NEVER BEAT Duran at Duran's A game. Anyone that thinks that that was the same Duran o Montreal when he lost in New Orleans got to be DELUSIONAL, BAD MINDED or a Leonard biased

elmersalsa wrote: Duran beat DeJesus twice when both were at their A game.
DeJesus BEAT DURAN in Duran's A game.
Leonard NEVER BEAT Duran at Duran's A game. Anyone that thinks that that was the same Duran o Montreal when he lost in New Orleans got to be DELUSIONAL, BAD MINDED or a Leonard biased

Elmo, I'd like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass.

elmersalsa wrote:
Duran beat DeJesus twice when both were at their A game.
DeJesus BEAT DURAN in Duran's A game.
Leonard NEVER BEAT Duran at Duran's A game. Anyone that thinks that that was the same Duran o Montreal when he lost in New Orleans got to be DELUSIONAL, BAD MINDED or a Leonard biased

Duran and his fans always have an excuse, as to why FIVE MONTHS LATER, Duran was allegedly a shell of his former self. That's bullsh1t. He came, he saw, he quit.

Leonard beat better opponents than Duran (Benitez, Hearns and Hagler - all of which beat Duran), had better boxing skills than Duran (hand speed, foot speed and more will power) and after years of retirement, drug edition and eye damage, came back, while many years past his prime, to beat the best fighter in a division he'd never fought in.

That's the difference between Leonard and Duran. Duran went from beating Leonard to finished in FIVE MONTHS. Leonard licked his wounds and found a way to win. Duran found a way to quit.

Scypion wrote:

Chuck1052 wrote:Roberto Duran was a lightweight during his prime. As a result, I thought Duran was slightly past his peak when he beat Sugar Ray Leonard.

- Chuck Johnston

I agree, but I think that Duran is probably still a top 5 all time as welterweight.

I would have Robinson the best at welterweight. After that, in no particular order, Duran, Leonard, Gavilan, Hearns, Griffith, Basilio, Armstrong,and Napoles. I am sure that there are others that belong that I don't know about, have forgotten, or are before my time.

elmersalsa wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: One more question. Who was a tougher opponent, the Dejesus that lost to Duran or the Duran that beat Leonard?

The Duran that WHUPPED Leonard, TO ME, IS UNBEATABLE. Put any version of Leonard against that Duran in Montreal and Leonard loses 10 out 10 times.

Just like the great Joe Frazier @ the Fight of the Century, IN THAT NIGHT, TO ME, NO HEAVYWEIGHT IN HIS TONY BEATS HIM.
He beats any version of the great Muhammad Ali, ten out if ten times that night.

I don't see a 10 out of 10 result in either of the above scenarios, but I sincerely believe it to be a solid 7 out of 10 for both Duran and Frazier.

elmersalsa wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: One more question. Who was a tougher opponent, the Dejesus that lost to Duran or the Duran that beat Leonard?

The Duran that WHUPPED Leonard, TO ME, IS UNBEATABLE. Put any version of Leonard against that Duran in Montreal and Leonard loses 10 out 10 times.

Just like the great Joe Frazier @ the Fight of the Century, IN THAT NIGHT, TO ME, NO HEAVYWEIGHT IN HIS TONY BEATS HIM.
He beats any version of the great Muhammad Ali, ten out if ten times that night.

Please tell me how Frazier fro FOTC beats Foreman from Jamaica.

TryingRickey Hattton's hero to decide what is the funniest thing n this thread.
There is Elmer thinking that who Ricky Hatton's idol is is important was pretty good.

Also loved him giving credit to Duran for Wilfred Gomez not moving up from Super Bantam to challenge Duran for the lightweight title. Gomez won the Super bantam title in May of 1977. Duran last lightweight title defense in January of 1978. So Gomez had 8 months to jump three weight classes to challenge Duran. Shocking that Gomez did not fight Duran.
To elmer, Gomez not fighting Duran is equal to Leonard actually fighting beating Duran and Benitez.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:
Duran beat DeJesus twice when both were at their A game.
DeJesus BEAT DURAN in Duran's A game.
Leonard NEVER BEAT Duran at Duran's A game. Anyone that thinks that that was the same Duran o Montreal when he lost in New Orleans got to be DELUSIONAL, BAD MINDED or a Leonard biased

Duran and his fans always have an excuse, as to why FIVE MONTHS LATER, Duran was allegedly a shell of his former self. That's bullsh1t. He came, he saw, he quit.

Leonard beat better opponents than Duran (Benitez, Hearns and Hagler - all of which beat Duran), had better boxing skills than Duran (hand speed, foot speed and more will power) and after years of retirement, drug edition and eye damage, came back, while many years past his prime, to beat the best fighter in a division he'd never fought in.

That's the difference between Leonard and Duran. Duran went from beating Leonard to finished in FIVE MONTHS. Leonard licked his wounds and found a way to win. Duran found a way to quit.

Yeah, Leonard beat Duran. In an OFF NIGHT, though. I saw the replay of the first fight and Duran that night was at the very best of his game. Who would have beaten him that night? No one. There was nothing that Leonard could do different to beat him. Even if he ran all night. Put the Leonard of the second fight against that Duran in Montreal, and STILL, DURAN WILL COME VICTORIOUS.
Watch that fight, people. Watch that Duran's mastery.

Of guys that I don't see losing a fight according to their performance:
The Joe Frazier of FOTC
The Duran in Montreal and also of third DeJesus fight
The great Salvador Sanchez of the Wilfredo Gomez fight
The Carlos Monzon of the Jose Napoles fight
The Thomas Hearns at 154lbs that destroyed Duran and Fred Hutchins

Those are super performances. Put each one of them at their night, I can't see them lose at no time at all.

elmersalsa wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:
Duran beat DeJesus twice when both were at their A game.
DeJesus BEAT DURAN in Duran's A game.
Leonard NEVER BEAT Duran at Duran's A game. Anyone that thinks that that was the same Duran o Montreal when he lost in New Orleans got to be DELUSIONAL, BAD MINDED or a Leonard biased

Duran and his fans always have an excuse, as to why FIVE MONTHS LATER, Duran was allegedly a shell of his former self. That's bullsh1t. He came, he saw, he quit.

Leonard beat better opponents than Duran (Benitez, Hearns and Hagler - all of which beat Duran), had better boxing skills than Duran (hand speed, foot speed and more will power) and after years of retirement, drug edition and eye damage, came back, while many years past his prime, to beat the best fighter in a division he'd never fought in.

That's the difference between Leonard and Duran. Duran went from beating Leonard to finished in FIVE MONTHS. Leonard licked his wounds and found a way to win. Duran found a way to quit.

Yeah, Leonard beat Duran. In an OFF NIGHT, though. I saw the replay of the first fight and Duran that night was at the very best of his game. Who would have beaten him that night? No one. There was nothing that Leonard could do different to beat him. Even if he ran all night. Put the Leonard of the second fight against that Duran in Montreal, and STILL, DURAN WILL COME VICTORIOUS.
Watch that fight, people. Watch that Duran's mastery.

Of guys that I don't see losing a fight according to their performance:
The Joe Frazier of FOTC
The Duran in Montreal and also of third DeJesus fight
The great Salvador Sanchez of the Wilfredo Gomez fight
The Carlos Monzon of the Jose Napoles fight
The Thomas Hearns at 154lbs that destroyed Duran and Fred Hutchins

Those are super performances. Put each one of them at their night, I can't see them lose at no time at all.

I watched the fight again last night and Duran fought a great fight. Leonard fought the wrong fight and slugged more instead of using his fot movement. Now Leonard only himself to blame for that.

5 months later, Leonard boxed the right fight and won. Duran quit and his fans insist he wasn't prepared properly Now Duran only has himself to blame for that.

If Leonard had boxed like that in the first fight, I believe he would have beaten Duran, you don't, that's your opinion. The facts are as follows...

Leonard lost a close decision in the first fight, Duran quit like spoilt kid in the second fight.

Leonard beat better opponents, Duran, Hagler, Hearns and Benitez.

Leonard had faster feet, faster hands and more will power.