BoxRec

Terence wrote:
I have the original broadcast and it was a Leonard love-in, Gil Clancy went down in my eyes when he overlooked everything Hagler did and spent the last round eulogising Ray.

Gil is one of the all time greats, both as a trainer and a commentator. His old commentating partner was Marv Albert ( NBC I think ) and they were just about the best boxing TV team there ever was.

Still, you can't blame Gil - probably both him and 95% of the boxing world was expecting to see Ray get hammered inside 6 rounds.

Duran's genius was in infuriating Leonard and forcing him to try and outmacho duran. Our own Mr McNeilly wrote a marvellous piece on this fight in the ill-feted uppercut magazine. I've probably still got a boxfull or 50 lying around if anyone wants to read it.

I can remember someone talking to Hagler a few years back, when he was commentating for BBC. Someone who was chairing the panel of pundits asked him 'So Marvin, who do you consider the real champion right now.'

Marvin replied "Well, I am...."
The interviewer laughed, "Well of course, you're the champ Marvin.....but"
"No, I'm still the champion" said Marvin "As far as I'm concerned I never lost my title in the ring, and that makes me the champion, nobody beat me, I'm deadly serious"

And you know what, he was deadly serious. The interviewer became rather nervous at that point, as you could see all the bitterness rising in him and he might begin pumelling someone.

stujones wrote:Oh and here come those wonderful "excuses" regarding any wrong doing / poor performances that Roberto has had. I know you (KO JOE especially) say its was of Roberto's own doing, but please can the opponent have a little more credit..

Stu, I'm not trying to make "wonderful excuses" for Duran all I am doing is stating my opinion on the matter from what I have read, seen and heard about the subject. All I was saying was they were both in shape for the first fan and Duran won to my eyes a close but clear points victory. In the rematch I believe Duran wasn't in shape and that was mostly down to Duran partying non stop after fights which he often did and ballooned in weight. 'IF' Duran had turned up in great shape for the rematch I still see it as a 50/50 fight. As I believe they a BOTH great fighters.

stujones wrote:We have had the "not in shape for fight 2" arguement before, we recently had the "Duran threw the Hearns fight and didn't train" arguement for the Hearns loss, plus the "Ken Buchanon was looking for the DQ" argument concerning Duran's title win..

I believe Duran got KO'd fair and square against Hearns. (no excuses there). As for the Buchanan fight Kenny was a tremendous fighter but Duran would have beaten him every night of the week. Wether Kenny or his father was looking for a DQ makes no difference to me as Duran was laying a beating on him that night and would have won reagardless of the method.

stujones wrote:Can someone enlighten this wanabee internet boxing writer on the real reason's why Duran lost to De Jesus, Kirklaind Laing, Wilfred Benetez, and Robbie Simms.

Stu, I've never called you or thought of you as a "wanabee internet boxing writer" that's not the sort of person I am, but seeing as YOU called me out on this matter I will give my opinions and defend them.

Duran was a great fighter but for most of his career was very unprofessional with regards to training and lifestyle etc. He was a nautral Lightweight who moved up in weight and lost a few fights to good and great fighters over a very long career, that's Boxing.

Losing a very close fight to a prime Esteban De Jesus is no disgrace and Duran got a savage revenge in the rematches. Also losing to Wilfred Benitez at Light-Middleweight is no disgrace either.


Duran was a great fighter but wasn't unbeatable, he was close to that at Lightweight but as he got older and moved up in weight losing to some very fine fighters is not a real shock is it?

Terence wrote:

Andy Mac wrote:

bennie wrote: First...doesn't merit a reply.

Second...Duran not that big a hitter? Jesus.

Third...Leonard gave Duran a rematch in 1989, Typically, he made Duran, who had just won the WBC middleweight title, fight at super-middleweight.

Fourth...Leonard is a control freak.

As i dont speak Spanish i do not know what "manos de piedra" means which is next to durans name in his record on this site. However i have heard hundreds of people refer to him as hands of stone. Now i understand he is getting on a bit, but i'm sure that doesn't mean his hands are fossills.

? I think you need to patent the drugs you are on

Eyes of stone more like, the guy looked like a shark with those black eyes of his.

As for Duran-Leonard I, no matter how talented you are if you take a guy on in the area he has mastered you will lose, you might make it close but you will be constantly disadvantaged.

Thanx for the business / medical advise Terry. lol As for the comment on Leonard / Duran 1 i totally agree, the trick was in getting SRL to try to out macho roberto. The rematch showed the reverse when Leonard out psyched Duran.

KOJOE90 wrote:

stujones wrote:Oh and here come those wonderful "excuses" regarding any wrong doing / poor performances that Roberto has had. I know you (KO JOE especially) say its was of Roberto's own doing, but please can the opponent have a little more credit..

Stu, I'm not trying to make "wonderful excuses" for Duran all I am doing is stating my opinion on the matter from what I have read, seen and heard about the subject. All I was saying was they were both in shape for the first fan and Duran won to my eyes a close but clear points victory. In the rematch I believe Duran wasn't in shape and that was mostly down to Duran partying non stop after fights which he often did and ballooned in weight. 'IF' Duran had turned up in great shape for the rematch I still see it as a 50/50 fight. As I believe they a BOTH great fighters.

stujones wrote:We have had the "not in shape for fight 2" arguement before, we recently had the "Duran threw the Hearns fight and didn't train" arguement for the Hearns loss, plus the "Ken Buchanon was looking for the DQ" argument concerning Duran's title win..

I believe Duran got KO'd fair and square against Hearns. (no excuses there). As for the Buchanan fight Kenny was a tremendous fighter but Duran would have beaten him every night of the week. Wether Kenny or his father was looking for a DQ makes no difference to me as Duran was laying a beating on him that night and would have won reagardless of the method.

stujones wrote:Can someone enlighten this wanabee internet boxing writer on the real reason's why Duran lost to De Jesus, Kirklaind Laing, Wilfred Benetez, and Robbie Simms.

Stu, I've never called you or thought of you as a "wanabee internet boxing writer" that's not the sort of person I am, but seeing as YOU called me out on this matter I will give my opinions and defend them.

Duran was a great fighter but for most of his career was very unprofessional with regards to training and lifestyle etc. He was a nautral Lightweight who moved up in weight and lost a few fights to good and great fighters over a very long career, that's Boxing.

Losing a very close fight to a prime Esteban De Jesus is no disgrace and Duran got a savage revenge in the rematches. Also losing to Wilfred Benitez at Light-Middleweight is no disgrace either.


Duran was a great fighter but wasn't unbeatable, he was close to that at Lightweight but as he got older and moved up in weight losing to some very fine fighters is not a real shock is it?

Good post, I actually or meant (not sure how it came about) is that at least you are saying Duran coming out of shape was no fault but his own - I am glad you agree that no matter how great Duran was, he was beatable. Leonard was also beatable, Duran beat him, Thomas Hearns gave him fits, Wilfred Benetez gave him a tough fight.

So appologies if my post was deemed a bit nasty, I shouldn't have mentioned any names. Just get a little angered when people do a "Tyson" when it comes to his defeats.

Yes, Duran beat up Buchanon and in some ways I am glad the DQ wasn't called (cause the better man wouldn't have won) - but did Buchanon look for it..... No chance.

I cannot believe the new argument that it was the fact that Duran fought at Super Middle was his downfall vs Ray in the 3rd fight. I (a Leonard fan) discount the 3rd fight as "geniune", cause it was clear that Duran was aging and not in shape. However, why "blame" Leonard for the fight being at Super Middle. Will people "blame" Jesus Chavez if he fights Barrera at Lightweight?..... Why should Ray lose weight to meet Duran at Middle, he was the Super Middle champ. Surely the lure of making history was as big for Duran (becoming a five weight world champion) as it was just to settle the score at Middle.

The irony is, is that for large parts after the Leonard rematch, Duran campaigned at Super Middle.... so he won some fights, no problems with Duran fighting at the weight then (with the Duran fights). However, cause it was Leonard major problems.

No, I know you wouldn't respond to any personal digs (insults they are not, some excellent internet writers). I'm just glad that some known print journalists have agreed that Leonard vs Duran one wasn't a "one sided beating".

Duran was practically unbeatable as a Lightweight (no shame losing to De Jesus).... but not higher up, still good but much slower and wasn't carrying the power aswell. He is my number 1 Lightweight of all time, although I have Hagler and Leonard higher than him in general all time stakes.

Terence wrote: I have the original broadcast and it was a Leonard love-in, Gil Clancy went down in my eyes when he overlooked everything Hagler did and spent the last round eulogising Ray.:

The ITV original broadcast (I have both) was even "worse" at least Clancy said it was very close (but scored it for Ray). Watt thought Hagler lost by a margin and Reg couldn't understand why Hagler thought he won it.

Gill was more frustrated with Hagler than being in love with Ray. He clearly expected Hagler to win and knew the way Hagler should have gone about it.

Yes, towards the end of the commentary he was pro Leonard - but because he proved himself so wrong early. He said in Round 4 or 5 (a big Hagler round, where he hurt Ray) - "Oh, he's got him now", "There is no way back for Ray now, he cannot kid his way out of this". The SECOND round, Clancy noted Leonard holding with his mouth open and was saying "its too early for him to be this tired".

All, according to Clancy, Hagler needed to do was fight as Southpaw and he would have won the fight. I agree, Leonard took many shots vs Kalule and had struggled in sparring vs Southpaws in the bild up. Leonard naturally moves the wrong way for Southpaws.

Pretty much EVERY round Hagler made a conserted effort as a Southpaw he won.... but he would get cocky and try to beat Leonard as an authodox - and would lose. By the end, Clancy was getting so pissed off with Hagler than he was almost willing Leonard to win by the end.

For me, its one of THE great commentaries..... Just my take.

stujones wrote:

KOJOE90 wrote:

stujones wrote:Oh and here come those wonderful "excuses" regarding any wrong doing / poor performances that Roberto has had. I know you (KO JOE especially) say its was of Roberto's own doing, but please can the opponent have a little more credit..

Stu, I'm not trying to make "wonderful excuses" for Duran all I am doing is stating my opinion on the matter from what I have read, seen and heard about the subject. All I was saying was they were both in shape for the first fan and Duran won to my eyes a close but clear points victory. In the rematch I believe Duran wasn't in shape and that was mostly down to Duran partying non stop after fights which he often did and ballooned in weight. 'IF' Duran had turned up in great shape for the rematch I still see it as a 50/50 fight. As I believe they a BOTH great fighters.

stujones wrote:We have had the "not in shape for fight 2" arguement before, we recently had the "Duran threw the Hearns fight and didn't train" arguement for the Hearns loss, plus the "Ken Buchanon was looking for the DQ" argument concerning Duran's title win..

I believe Duran got KO'd fair and square against Hearns. (no excuses there). As for the Buchanan fight Kenny was a tremendous fighter but Duran would have beaten him every night of the week. Wether Kenny or his father was looking for a DQ makes no difference to me as Duran was laying a beating on him that night and would have won reagardless of the method.

stujones wrote:Can someone enlighten this wanabee internet boxing writer on the real reason's why Duran lost to De Jesus, Kirklaind Laing, Wilfred Benetez, and Robbie Simms.

Stu, I've never called you or thought of you as a "wanabee internet boxing writer" that's not the sort of person I am, but seeing as YOU called me out on this matter I will give my opinions and defend them.

Duran was a great fighter but for most of his career was very unprofessional with regards to training and lifestyle etc. He was a nautral Lightweight who moved up in weight and lost a few fights to good and great fighters over a very long career, that's Boxing.

Losing a very close fight to a prime Esteban De Jesus is no disgrace and Duran got a savage revenge in the rematches. Also losing to Wilfred Benitez at Light-Middleweight is no disgrace either.


Duran was a great fighter but wasn't unbeatable, he was close to that at Lightweight but as he got older and moved up in weight losing to some very fine fighters is not a real shock is it?

Good post, I actually or meant (not sure how it came about) is that at least you are saying Duran coming out of shape was no fault but his own - I am glad you agree that no matter how great Duran was, he was beatable. Leonard was also beatable, Duran beat him, Thomas Hearns gave him fits, Wilfred Benetez gave him a tough fight.

So appologies if my post was deemed a bit nasty, I shouldn't have mentioned any names. Just get a little angered when people do a "Tyson" when it comes to his defeats.

Yes, Duran beat up Buchanon and in some ways I am glad the DQ wasn't called (cause the better man wouldn't have won) - but did Buchanon look for it..... No chance.

I cannot believe the new argument that it was the fact that Duran fought at Super Middle was his downfall vs Ray in the 3rd fight. I (a Leonard fan) discount the 3rd fight as "geniune", cause it was clear that Duran was aging and not in shape. However, why "blame" Leonard for the fight being at Super Middle. Will people "blame" Jesus Chavez if he fights Barrera at Lightweight?..... Why should Ray lose weight to meet Duran at Middle, he was the Super Middle champ. Surely the lure of making history was as big for Duran (becoming a five weight world champion) as it was just to settle the score at Middle.

The irony is, is that for large parts after the Leonard rematch, Duran campaigned at Super Middle.... so he won some fights, no problems with Duran fighting at the weight then (with the Duran fights). However, cause it was Leonard major problems.

No, I know you wouldn't respond to any personal digs (insults they are not, some excellent internet writers). I'm just glad that some known print journalists have agreed that Leonard vs Duran one wasn't a "one sided beating".

Duran was practically unbeatable as a Lightweight (no shame losing to De Jesus).... but not higher up, still good but much slower and wasn't carrying the power aswell. He is my number 1 Lightweight of all time, although I have Hagler and Leonard higher than him in general all time stakes.

I think the reason some people get carried away with the first fight saying it was a one sided beating was because it was a fight duran was not expected to win. He was the Lightweight moving up, Leonard was a godlike super smooth p4p #1 who would show Duran up to be the uncouth brawler, blah blah blah. Well the underdog won and that upsets a lot of so called experts and Durans fans revelled in the win so much that it was elevated to a one sided beating. As for the super middle / middle garbage its all irrelevant as both weighed in as middles anyway.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:I haven't seen all of Durans fights, but never saw him having 1 devastating punch in all the fights I've see n - only seen 3 at lightweight, SRL fights, Hearns, Benitez, Hagler. Hes more of at a Hatton type puncher than a Tyszu/Corrales devastating puncher

Could you see Corrales moving up to Middleweight and decking Jermain Taylor?

I couldnt.

Duran decked Iran Barkely then WBC 160lb champion.

Watch Durans fights from 1970 - 1978. Watch his fight with Ray Lampkin

Duran was a harder hitter than Corrales ever was.

Prior to the Hearns loss, Durans record was 77wins - 5 defeats with 58 KO's. He had been fighting in world class for 14 years at that stage.

Not a hard puncher, you must be joking.

MightyWarrior wrote:Old Ray has the patience of a saint in that clip, he should've given Junior a slap round the head.

And the first Duran fight was pretty close IMO, I imagine the punch stats would have been fairly close - both were throwing hell for leather for 15 long rounds.
OK he lost, but the pretty boy showed the world he could brawl with the BEST of them that night.

I made him winner in the Hagler fight too, but yes Marv deserved a rematch.

Leonard gets stick for that, but it seems modern great Barrera gets a pass. He calls for a Juarez rematch, to settle unfinished business, but where's the Pac Man rematch?

Your MAB/SRL comparison isn't quite accurate though. Leonard beat Hearns and Hagler but never gave them a rematch (well, immediately). Barrera LOST to Pacquiao..... Barrera has given rematches when he has won controvesially (Juarez, after Morales II). He has also recieved rematches to two of the fighters he lost too (Morales and Jones).

He has DONE what Sugar Ray Leonard didn't, isn't it down more to Pacquiao to offer Barrera a rematch. Everyone knows Barrera was out of sorts in preperation to Pac Man.... It takes two to tango and Barrera needs the rematch more than Pac Man. So should the criticism be labelled more at Pac Man. We don't know the ins and out, all we know is that BOTH have expressed a desire to fight again.

Pac Man has done what Sugar Ray Leonard didn't when it comes to Morales, but not when it comes to MAB.

stujones wrote:Pretty much EVERY round Hagler made a conserted effort as a Southpaw he won....

I agree. like many here I am a huge Hagler fan and think he was one of the very best Middleweights of all time, but like everyother fighter was not perfect.

To me Haglers biggest flaw was that he sometimes got his tactics wrong and the Leonard fight was an example of this. You could also make the same argument for Haglers first fight with Vito Antuofermo and his fight with Roberto Duran.

Having said all that if Hagler had fought Leonard as a southpaw it would still have been a close fight as Leonard was such a special fighter. Haglers camp also screwed up allowing the fight to be over 12 rounds and I believe the use of bigger gloves. This of course was due to the fact that Hagler had been 'chewing at the bit' for years trying to get a fight with Leonard as I think Hagler had always felt somewhat in Rays shadow. Hence another reason Hagler tries to beat Leonard at his own game once he got him in the ring (back to my point above).

I sometimes feel that Hagler felt undervalued as a fighter and constantly had to prove himself by beating fighters at there own game i.e. Counterpunching the master counterpuncher (Duran) outboxing the master boxer (Leonard). These fighters were tough enough to beat without trying to beat them at their own game. I'm not trying to make excuses for Hagler it's just an observation/theory.

Like I said Hagler is one of the greatest fighters ever at Middleweight but I still believe the likes of Monzon, Robinson, Tiger and Emile Griffith are right up there with him and on a given night??? Who really knows???

Glad to see you mentioned Griffith.... He is one of my favourites

stujones wrote:Glad to see you mentioned Griffith.... He is one of my favourites

Stu, have you read piece from July 2006?

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/0001-lipton1.html

KOJOE90 wrote:

stujones wrote:Glad to see you mentioned Griffith.... He is one of my favourites

Stu, have you read piece from July 2006?

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/0001-lipton1.html

I didn't realise he was suffering from pugilsta dimentia, the article suggested he had paid the price, but Wikipedia confirms this.

There was a documentary on him in 2003 on ESPN classics, and he seemed sharp.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: :) :) . Our own Mr McNeilly wrote a marvellous piece on this fight in the ill-feted uppercut magazine. I've probably still got a boxfull or 50 lying around if anyone wants to read it.

I'll take you up on that offer, as I actually bought a copy, and would like to complete my collection.

KO Artist wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:I haven't seen all of Durans fights, but never saw him having 1 devastating punch in all the fights I've see n - only seen 3 at lightweight, SRL fights, Hearns, Benitez, Hagler. Hes more of at a Hatton type puncher than a Tyszu/Corrales devastating puncher

Could you see Corrales moving up to Middleweight and decking Jermain Taylor?

I couldnt.

Duran decked Iran Barkely then WBC 160lb champion.

Watch Durans fights from 1970 - 1978. Watch his fight with Ray Lampkin

Duran was a harder hitter than Corrales ever was.

Prior to the Hearns loss, Durans record was 77wins - 5 defeats with 58 KO's. He had been fighting in world class for 14 years at that stage.

Not a hard puncher, you must be joking.

I never sawthe Barkley fight, was it a 1punch KO - I doubt it was. Durans punches simply don't have as much torque/body thrown into them. Corrales hits harder than Duran. Could Corrales move upto MW deck Barkley? If he landed his shots yes - it just depends if he lands those shots.

I aren't talking about whether Duran was elite or not. Based on your criteria Barrera/Morales/PBF must be massive punchers too

Kevo wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote: :) :) . Our own Mr McNeilly wrote a marvellous piece on this fight in the ill-feted uppercut magazine. I've probably still got a boxfull or 50 lying around if anyone wants to read it.

I'll take you up on that offer, as I actually bought a copy, and would like to complete my collection.

You poor soul! Only kidding. Which issue DIDN'T you have, was it the Danny Williams cover, I think that's the one.