BoxRec

Duran's best obviously wasn't at 154. But that was definitely a legitimate win. I don't think benitez beats duran in Montreal if he trades places with Leonard. Nor would I pick him if they met at 140.

Pound –for-pound is for forums and bar room debate. There is no pound-for-pound in the ring as Pac will discover when he gets in with Mayweather.

I’ll stand by my belief that Whittaker was not especially entertaining. I also would not place him above Leonard or Hearns. And had he met Benitez at 154 then he’d have probably had all he could handle. And if he’d have fought Hagler I don’t believe he’d have heard the final bell.

A boxer with the defensive intelligence of a Pernell or a Mayweather can fight at the top for a much longer time than an aggressive fighter.

Whittaker was a consistent genius. Duran was an inconsistent genius who scaled higher heights when in his pomp.

Who knows who would have won had they met. Either man could have won on any given night. I’d go with Montreal Duran to take Pernell at his best. But if they fought ten times over the course of their careers from 135-168 it would be close.

I disagree that P4P Sweet Pea is the best Duran would've fought.

Duran beats Arguello and Pernell. Pernell beats Arguello.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Adamj1987 wrote:why didnt this fight happen did arguello not want to move up or was the money not enough? i have a mag from 84 saying it was a posibility and a pic of duran holding a photo of arguello up

Vilomar Fernandez is why it didn't happen. He beat Arguello in a Lightweight tune up and Duran was struggling to make Lightweight so he moved up for good.

cheers

i'm not too well up on the ins and outs of before i was born and only have about 20 mags from the 80s so i dont have many contempory reports

Anytime, the Fernandez upset was one of the more shocking ones of my time watching the sport. I was 9 or 10 years old and couldn't believe it. If it was televised I didn't see it. Saw it in one of my magazines a couple months later.

arguello schools duran,and pernell is not even in the same league,arguello was a master at his trade,he is perhaps the finest overall boxer to fight in the divisions he boxed in

mrshot wrote:arguello schools duran,and pernell is not even in the same league,arguello was a master at his trade,he is perhaps the finest overall boxer to fight in the divisions he boxed in

You are not just shot. You are, "Mr. Shot"

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

mrshot wrote:arguello schools duran,and pernell is not even in the same league,arguello was a master at his trade,he is perhaps the finest overall boxer to fight in the divisions he boxed in

You are not just shot. You are, "Mr. Shot"

It's always good to see another Duran fan around these parts.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

mrshot wrote:arguello schools duran,and pernell is not even in the same league,arguello was a master at his trade,he is perhaps the finest overall boxer to fight in the divisions he boxed in

You are not just shot. You are, "Mr. Shot"

yes i am,and it is nice to meet you too,i hope you gain knowledge through my very to understand insight posts

your "very to understand insight posts" are an inspiration!

Perhaps the first and only "very to understand insight posts" to ever appear in this forum.

mrshot wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

mrshot wrote:arguello schools duran,and pernell is not even in the same league,arguello was a master at his trade,he is perhaps the finest overall boxer to fight in the divisions he boxed in

You are not just shot. You are, "Mr. Shot"

yes i am,and it is nice to meet you too,i hope you gain knowledge through my very to understand insight posts

I already have. I now know Arguello'd have schooled Duran.

Idisagree wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Whittaker's fights were rarely entertaining and whilst he was one of the greatest ever (best fighter of the 90s for me) he never had a performance to match the best of the generation that came before him. Duran was better than anyone he ever faced. Pernell would not be the best fighter Duran ever faced.

Whittaker beats Arguello. Styles are wrong for Alexis and he was simply too small.

Pound-for-pound, Whitaker would be the best Duran ever faced, for mine (though it's certainly arguable, & it wouldn't be by much at all), though Duran would unquestionably would be Whitaker's best opponent.

I found Sweet Pea plenty entertaining. When do you see a fighter do those things, at that high a level of competition? It was like watching Mozart compose music. You knew you were watching a genius at work. I get much the same feeling observing Benitez (who, though it is illegal to mention, made a complete fool of Duran).

That is an excellent point and I agree 100%. Most people argue that Duran was past his best, but I don’t buy that. I think more likely was that Duran struggle with his style.

Duran lost to or should I say quit against Leonard because Leonard gave him angles that he couldn’t find an answer for.

For me stylistically Benitez was a nightmare for Duran.

Head to head, both at their best, I will always pick Benitez to beat Duran. Not because he was the better fighter, but because style make fights.

Style wise Whitaker has the tools to defeat Duran. That is why I make this fight a 50/50.

agree very strongly RE: Benitez-Duran. a fight everyone seems to downplay what i saw as Wiflred's total stylistic dominance in

Not for me…

This is how I see it.

Take Joe Gans, Benny Leonard and Pernell Whittaker. Three defensive masters and three of the greatest boxers ever. All three are in with a shout at the P4P top 30 (and I feel that might be conservative).

At 135 Duran has a great chance against them. Great defending counter punchers hate swarming punching machines. Duran can also stand off and counter-punch. His outside fighting against Leonard in Montreal was exemplary. His reflexes matched Leonard’s (who was like a leopard at times). He has a great chance to beat them in his prime. It wouldn’t be easy. All would be close fights.

After his prime, and above his best weight, his athleticism waned. This is partly due to him fighting too far North of his best weight, partly because he got old (and his earlier style of fighting will age a boxer fast) and, yes, partly because he was not properly applying himself in training. He could still go on to beat men with size and strength advantages as long as they came to him. He even almost managed to do it to an elite Middle like Hagler. He could do it because of his skill level and his chin. To beat crafty boxers he needed the skill, the chin and the athleticism. He no longer had it.

It’s still a good win for Benitez. But who you bet on if they had fought for Benitez’s welterweight title in 1979?

BoxBuzz wrote:your "very to understand insight posts" are an inspiration!

Perhaps the first and only "very to understand insight posts" to ever appear in this forum.

im flattered,i think by making my posts in this manner it gives some fans an insight from another angle,

Ezzard wrote:Not for me…

This is how I see it.

Take Joe Gans, Benny Leonard and Pernell Whittaker. Three defensive masters and three of the greatest boxers ever. All three are in with a shout at the P4P top 30 (and I feel that might be conservative).

At 135 Duran has a great chance against them. Great defending counter punchers hate swarming punching machines. Duran can also stand off and counter-punch. His outside fighting against Leonard in Montreal was exemplary. His reflexes matched Leonard’s (who was like a leopard at times). He has a great chance to beat them in his prime. It wouldn’t be easy. All would be close fights.

After his prime, and above his best weight, his athleticism waned. This is partly due to him fighting too far North of his best weight, partly because he got old (and his earlier style of fighting will age a boxer fast) and, yes, partly because he was not properly applying himself in training. He could still go on to beat men with size and strength advantages as long as they came to him. He even almost managed to do it to an elite Middle like Hagler. He could do it because of his skill level and his chin. To beat crafty boxers he needed the skill, the chin and the athleticism. He no longer had it.

It’s still a good win for Benitez. But who you bet on if they had fought for Benitez’s welterweight title in 1979?

This is how I see it. The Montreal Duran was a monster no doubt about that. However, I fault Leonard for that fight. He totally tried to go toe to toe vs Duran and was betting on his speed and size to beat Duran. In other words he fought Duran fight. Something that I don’t think Benitez would’ve done because that is not his style. Benitez would’ve fought like always relying on his defense first. Leonard totally abandoned his defense and relied more on his offense and he found out the hard way that Duran had a great chin in addition to his skills.

On the second fight Leonard use his skills more and his defense more rather than his offense and we all know what happen. Duran simply quit because he found no answer for Leonard’s angles and defense. In other words Leonard forces Duran to fight his fight.

I think Benitez style would always pose tons of problems for Duran. At their best I pick Benitez to take two out of three decisions. Close all of them of course. Again not because Benitez was the better fighter, but because of Benitez style.

Idisagree wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Not for me…

This is how I see it.

Take Joe Gans, Benny Leonard and Pernell Whittaker. Three defensive masters and three of the greatest boxers ever. All three are in with a shout at the P4P top 30 (and I feel that might be conservative).

At 135 Duran has a great chance against them. Great defending counter punchers hate swarming punching machines. Duran can also stand off and counter-punch. His outside fighting against Leonard in Montreal was exemplary. His reflexes matched Leonard’s (who was like a leopard at times). He has a great chance to beat them in his prime. It wouldn’t be easy. All would be close fights.

After his prime, and above his best weight, his athleticism waned. This is partly due to him fighting too far North of his best weight, partly because he got old (and his earlier style of fighting will age a boxer fast) and, yes, partly because he was not properly applying himself in training. He could still go on to beat men with size and strength advantages as long as they came to him. He even almost managed to do it to an elite Middle like Hagler. He could do it because of his skill level and his chin. To beat crafty boxers he needed the skill, the chin and the athleticism. He no longer had it.

It’s still a good win for Benitez. But who you bet on if they had fought for Benitez’s welterweight title in 1979?

This is how I see it. The Montreal Duran was a monster no doubt about that. However, I fault Leonard for that fight. He totally tried to go toe to toe vs Duran and was betting on his speed and size to beat Duran. In other words he fought Duran fight. Something that I don’t think Benitez would’ve done because that is not his style. Benitez would’ve fought like always relying on his defense first. Leonard totally abandoned his defense and relied more on his offense and he found out the hard way that Duran had a great chin in addition to his skills.

On the second fight Leonard use his skills more and his defense more rather than his offense and we all know what happen. Duran simply quit because he found no answer for Leonard’s angles and defense. In other words Leonard forces Duran to fight his fight.

I think Benitez style would always pose tons of problems for Duran. At their best I pick Benitez to take two out of three decisions. Close all of them of course. Again not because Benitez was the better fighter, but because of Benitez style.

i think you are basing these assumptions on hunches not actual facts

mrshot wrote:

Idisagree wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Not for me…

This is how I see it.

Take Joe Gans, Benny Leonard and Pernell Whittaker. Three defensive masters and three of the greatest boxers ever. All three are in with a shout at the P4P top 30 (and I feel that might be conservative).

At 135 Duran has a great chance against them. Great defending counter punchers hate swarming punching machines. Duran can also stand off and counter-punch. His outside fighting against Leonard in Montreal was exemplary. His reflexes matched Leonard’s (who was like a leopard at times). He has a great chance to beat them in his prime. It wouldn’t be easy. All would be close fights.

After his prime, and above his best weight, his athleticism waned. This is partly due to him fighting too far North of his best weight, partly because he got old (and his earlier style of fighting will age a boxer fast) and, yes, partly because he was not properly applying himself in training. He could still go on to beat men with size and strength advantages as long as they came to him. He even almost managed to do it to an elite Middle like Hagler. He could do it because of his skill level and his chin. To beat crafty boxers he needed the skill, the chin and the athleticism. He no longer had it.

It’s still a good win for Benitez. But who you bet on if they had fought for Benitez’s welterweight title in 1979?

This is how I see it. The Montreal Duran was a monster no doubt about that. However, I fault Leonard for that fight. He totally tried to go toe to toe vs Duran and was betting on his speed and size to beat Duran. In other words he fought Duran fight. Something that I don’t think Benitez would’ve done because that is not his style. Benitez would’ve fought like always relying on his defense first. Leonard totally abandoned his defense and relied more on his offense and he found out the hard way that Duran had a great chin in addition to his skills.

On the second fight Leonard use his skills more and his defense more rather than his offense and we all know what happen. Duran simply quit because he found no answer for Leonard’s angles and defense. In other words Leonard forces Duran to fight his fight.

I think Benitez style would always pose tons of problems for Duran. At their best I pick Benitez to take two out of three decisions. Close all of them of course. Again not because Benitez was the better fighter, but because of Benitez style.

i think you are basing these assumptions on hunches not actual facts

If I based this on actual facts then Benitez wins every time because that is a fact

Idisagree wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Not for me…

This is how I see it.

Take Joe Gans, Benny Leonard and Pernell Whittaker. Three defensive masters and three of the greatest boxers ever. All three are in with a shout at the P4P top 30 (and I feel that might be conservative).

At 135 Duran has a great chance against them. Great defending counter punchers hate swarming punching machines. Duran can also stand off and counter-punch. His outside fighting against Leonard in Montreal was exemplary. His reflexes matched Leonard’s (who was like a leopard at times). He has a great chance to beat them in his prime. It wouldn’t be easy. All would be close fights.

After his prime, and above his best weight, his athleticism waned. This is partly due to him fighting too far North of his best weight, partly because he got old (and his earlier style of fighting will age a boxer fast) and, yes, partly because he was not properly applying himself in training. He could still go on to beat men with size and strength advantages as long as they came to him. He even almost managed to do it to an elite Middle like Hagler. He could do it because of his skill level and his chin. To beat crafty boxers he needed the skill, the chin and the athleticism. He no longer had it.

It’s still a good win for Benitez. But who you bet on if they had fought for Benitez’s welterweight title in 1979?

This is how I see it. The Montreal Duran was a monster no doubt about that. However, I fault Leonard for that fight. He totally tried to go toe to toe vs Duran and was betting on his speed and size to beat Duran. In other words he fought Duran fight. Something that I don’t think Benitez would’ve done because that is not his style. Benitez would’ve fought like always relying on his defense first. Leonard totally abandoned his defense and relied more on his offense and he found out the hard way that Duran had a great chin in addition to his skills.

On the second fight Leonard use his skills more and his defense more rather than his offense and we all know what happen. Duran simply quit because he found no answer for Leonard’s angles and defense. In other words Leonard forces Duran to fight his fight.

I think Benitez style would always pose tons of problems for Duran. At their best I pick Benitez to take two out of three decisions. Close all of them of course. Again not because Benitez was the better fighter, but because of Benitez style.

Sacrilage, even with the disclaimer at the end.

...& I agree 100%.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Idisagree wrote:
This is how I see it. The Montreal Duran was a monster no doubt about that. However, I fault Leonard for that fight. He totally tried to go toe to toe vs Duran and was betting on his speed and size to beat Duran. In other words he fought Duran fight. Something that I don’t think Benitez would’ve done because that is not his style. Benitez would’ve fought like always relying on his defense first. Leonard totally abandoned his defense and relied more on his offense and he found out the hard way that Duran had a great chin in addition to his skills.

On the second fight Leonard use his skills more and his defense more rather than his offense and we all know what happen. Duran simply quit because he found no answer for Leonard’s angles and defense. In other words Leonard forces Duran to fight his fight.

I think Benitez style would always pose tons of problems for Duran. At their best I pick Benitez to take two out of three decisions. Close all of them of course. Again not because Benitez was the better fighter, but because of Benitez style.

Sacrilage, even with the disclaimer at the end.

...& I agree 100%.

yup, i agree with idisagree.

i believe that Benitez would have every chance of taking 2 from 3 against Duran for exactly the reasons given above.

whilst Duran had lost a clear beat or two athletically when they fought, what strikes me in that fight is the way Benitez is able to control him via feints, anticipation, setting traps, and basically getting into duran's fighting mind in a similar way to how Duran got in SRL's mind and disrupted his gameplan.

Ezzard wrote:Not for me…

This is how I see it.

Take Joe Gans, Benny Leonard and Pernell Whittaker. Three defensive masters and three of the greatest boxers ever. All three are in with a shout at the P4P top 30 (and I feel that might be conservative).

At 135 Duran has a great chance against them. Great defending counter punchers hate swarming punching machines. Duran can also stand off and counter-punch. His outside fighting against Leonard in Montreal was exemplary. His reflexes matched Leonard’s (who was like a leopard at times). He has a great chance to beat them in his prime. It wouldn’t be easy. All would be close fights.

After his prime, and above his best weight, his athleticism waned. This is partly due to him fighting too far North of his best weight, partly because he got old (and his earlier style of fighting will age a boxer fast) and, yes, partly because he was not properly applying himself in training. He could still go on to beat men with size and strength advantages as long as they came to him. He even almost managed to do it to an elite Middle like Hagler. He could do it because of his skill level and his chin. To beat crafty boxers he needed the skill, the chin and the athleticism. He no longer had it.

It’s still a good win for Benitez. But who you bet on if they had fought for Benitez’s welterweight title in 1979?

I love this guy, Ezzard. May Yah bless him...He has said, all the things that I wanted to say about Duran. Pre-1980, Duran had plenty of UNDERRATED speed and head movement. After the second Leonard fight, Duran never again had those qualities when fighting elusive guys. Kirkland Laing was an example. All the factors about Duran losing that fight came into play: Age, fighting 20 pounds above his best weight, lack of speed, and not properly appying himself in training hurt him in the 80s. THAT HAPPENS TO EVERY BOXER.

Idisagree wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Not for me…

This is how I see it.

Take Joe Gans, Benny Leonard and Pernell Whittaker. Three defensive masters and three of the greatest boxers ever. All three are in with a shout at the P4P top 30 (and I feel that might be conservative).

At 135 Duran has a great chance against them. Great defending counter punchers hate swarming punching machines. Duran can also stand off and counter-punch. His outside fighting against Leonard in Montreal was exemplary. His reflexes matched Leonard’s (who was like a leopard at times). He has a great chance to beat them in his prime. It wouldn’t be easy. All would be close fights.

After his prime, and above his best weight, his athleticism waned. This is partly due to him fighting too far North of his best weight, partly because he got old (and his earlier style of fighting will age a boxer fast) and, yes, partly because he was not properly applying himself in training. He could still go on to beat men with size and strength advantages as long as they came to him. He even almost managed to do it to an elite Middle like Hagler. He could do it because of his skill level and his chin. To beat crafty boxers he needed the skill, the chin and the athleticism. He no longer had it.

It’s still a good win for Benitez. But who you bet on if they had fought for Benitez’s welterweight title in 1979?

This is how I see it. The Montreal Duran was a monster no doubt about that. However, I fault Leonard for that fight. He totally tried to go toe to toe vs Duran and was betting on his speed and size to beat Duran. In other words he fought Duran fight. Something that I don’t think Benitez would’ve done because that is not his style. Benitez would’ve fought like always relying on his defense first. Leonard totally abandoned his defense and relied more on his offense and he found out the hard way that Duran had a great chin in addition to his skills.

On the second fight Leonard use his skills more and his defense more rather than his offense and we all know what happen. Duran simply quit because he found no answer for Leonard’s angles and defense. In other words Leonard forces Duran to fight his fight.

I think Benitez style would always pose tons of problems for Duran. At their best I pick Benitez to take two out of three decisions. Close all of them of course. Again not because Benitez was the better fighter, but because of Benitez style.

That is nonsense...Leonard always fought that way in all his fights. Duran was the better man that night, period. Even if Leonard would've chosen to go in circles and ran away like he did in New Orleans, in Montreal, he would have lost the same way. Leonard was a better fighter going forward, not running around like a rabbit. I think he caught Duran in an OFF NIGHT in New Orleans, in which I believe that he (Duran) did not had enough time to train and focus for the rematch. He could not even enjoy his title. THE MISTAKE was made by Duran's handlers. They should have had a tune up fight first, before the rematch with Leonard, and then take on Leonard on full force.

In the first fight in Montreal, Leonard was very surprised of Duran's skill and quickness. Duran even surprised me on that. How he made Leonard miss, how many angles he gave Sugar Ray. Sugar Ray was not able to cope with that, much less fighting in the inside, which was Duran's best game. But Duran was not gonna be outbox nor denied in Montreal. When Sugar Ray tried to box, Duran box. When Sugar Ray tried to use his speed, Duran countered. Duran bobbed and weaved beautifully in the first fight. Second fight? Duran was a stationary target. Almost everything Sugar Ray threw at him, Duran received it at the other end.

The Duran that fought Esteban DeJesus in the third fight in 1978 was another example of this great fighter underrated speed and skill. De Jesus was not able to cope with Duran's counterpunching. Duran later in that year was supposed to fight Benitez and then Arguello, but, both fights did not come through. If Duran, a focused Duran, fights Benitez then, no doubt in my mind would have been a different story. Duran was a true fighting machine.

elmersalsa wrote: That is nonsense...Leonard always fought that way in all his fights. Duran was the better man that night, period. Even if Leonard would've chosen to go in circles and ran away like he did in New Orleans, in Montreal, he would have lost the same way. Leonard was a better fighter going forward, not running around like a rabbit. I think he caught Duran in an OFF NIGHT in New Orleans, in which I believe that he (Duran) did not had enough time to train and focus for the rematch. He could not even enjoy his title. THE MISTAKE was made by Duran's handlers. They should have had a tune up fight first, before the rematch with Leonard, and then take on Leonard on full force.

In the first fight in Montreal, Leonard was very surprised of Duran's skill and quickness. Duran even surprised me on that. How he made Leonard miss, how many angles he gave Sugar Ray. Sugar Ray was not able to cope with that, much less fighting in the inside, which was Duran's best game. But Duran was not gonna be outbox nor denied in Montreal. When Sugar Ray tried to box, Duran box. When Sugar Ray tried to use his speed, Duran countered. Duran bobbed and weaved beautifully in the first fight. Second fight? Duran was a stationary target. Almost everything Sugar Ray threw at him, Duran received it at the other end.

The Duran that fought Esteban DeJesus in the third fight in 1978 was another example of this great fighter underrated speed and skill. De Jesus was not able to cope with Duran's counterpunching. Duran later in that year was supposed to fight Benitez and then Arguello, but, both fights did not come through. If Duran, a focused Duran, fights Benitez then, no doubt in my mind would have been a different story. Duran was a true fighting machine.

Yes Elemer I'm well aware of your love for Duran. You can throw any excuse you want for Duran losing, but that is not going to change the fact that Benitez won their only fight. The same for Leonard, of course, when Duran wins he is at his best. But when he loses is because XYZ factors not because the other fighter was better. That is the only nonsense in here. It is funny that for every loss Duran a different excuse is made, he had to go to the bathroom, he did not have time to do this or do that, that was not his best weight, his was not focus, and on and on.....

I could say the same, Leonard was not focus on the first fight, Leonard had bad advice from the corner, and on and on... But of course, that would be absolutely nonsense because I’ll be making excuses for Leonard and that is not permitted. The only one allowed for excuses is the great Duran.
For me the facts are very clear when Leonard fought Duran's fight he lost. When he force Duran to fight his fight he won. Could not be more clearer than that and based on that in my book Benitez wins more than he loses to Duran at their best. Benitez one and only style was a nightmare for Duran.

I have never met a fighter with more excuses than Duran when he lost. Most fighters in history when they lost, they lost. But for Duran there is always an excuse to be made. Duran is no doubt one of the all-time greats but he was human. Styles makes fights for me and I firmly believe that Duran loses more often to Benitez than he wins.

So where does this logic lead?..... Duran and Leonard would always go 50/50. Benitez always Beats Duran, Hearns Always beats Duran, Leonard always beats Hagler.....and of course Leonard would never lose to Hearns.

A theory supported by assemblage of all the facts....yet seemingly flawed.

Just my take.

Was it Kaszmerik that scored that second fight for Ray? How many others do you suppose really agreed with him?

BoxBuzz wrote:So where does this logic lead?..... Duran and Leonard would always go 50/50. Benitez always Beats Duran, Hearns Always beats Duran, Leonard always beats Hagler.....and of course Leonard would never lose to Hearns.

A theory supported by assemblage of all the facts....yet seemingly flawed.

Just my take.

Was it Kaszmerik that scored that second fight for Ray? How many others do you suppose really agreed with him?

"Duran and Leonard would always go 50/50" (No Leonard would always beat Duran 2 out 3)

"Benitez always Beats Duran" Yes since apparently you did not read this (At their best I pick Benitez to take two out of three decisions or that Duran loses more often to Benitez than he wins. Of course that means always )

"Hearns Always beats Duran" - Yes that is a fact

"Leonard always beats Hagler" - That is debatable, their one and only fight could have gone either way.

"Leonard would never lose to Hearns" - he did on the second fight. Leonard got a gift draw on that fight.

Boxbuzz you are losing it.

Losing it by reading your post? Not so! Simply mulling it. lol.

Well one things for sure....you like Ol Ray bunches! And so do a lot of folks including myself.

However I'm thinkin' Duran beats Benitez more times than not. (Though I can produce no evidence)

I think Hagler beats Ray far more often than not (Though I have no evidence) And you feel it's "debatable", as is just about everything.

I think Duran goes about 50/50 with Hearns (No evidence)

I think Duran goes about 60/40 with Ray (Evidence supports 50/50)

I think Hearns and Ray go about 50/50....and though you may agree with me the evidence points to a Ray landslide.

I think Barkley goes about 50/50 with Hearns yet the evidence shows a one sided Barkley history.

How bout Ray and Camacho? Is that really lopsided toward Hector? The record seems to indicate such is the case. And yet I'll bet we would both push back on that one.


I think the one clear thought you shared was "It's debatable". And to that bit of brilliance I raise my glass sir!