BoxRec

BoxBuzz wrote: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!

Boxbuzz, I like your style and good post.

However, we are just going to have to disagree with Benitez vs Duran.

For instance, you said "However I'm thinkin' Duran beats Benitez more times than not. (Though I can produce no evidence)"
My reply to that is I’m thinking Benitez beats Duran more times than not. (Though I do can produce evidence) Benitez did defeated Duran in their only fight and that is evidence enough for me.

That was not Duran best weight but yet he beat the crap out Davey Moore at the same weight class. At the same time he lost to Laing in a fight that he should have not lost.

I could argue the same for Benitez. That was not Benitez best weight class either.

Duran was not prime (he lost some athleticism). Benitez was not prime either (he too was losing some athleticism).

So you see I could make excuses too.

As for Duran vs Hearns – Prime or no prime I see Hearns beating Duran every single time (10 out 10 for me).

Camacho vs Leonard everyone knows that was a joke. Leonard was probably 10% of his true ability. Prime Leonard destroys Camacho 10 out 10 in my book.

People often pick the better fighter which in this case is Duran. However, you do have to take into account styles and I believe that Benitez style was all wrong for Duran. Benitez would have never been a stationary target like most of Duran opponents. Leonard was stationary target on the first fight trying to overpower Duran and he couldn’t. When he decided to move and give angles to Duran he made him quit in frustration. I suggest you take a look at the evidence and then make a judgment. Try not to make the judgment based solely on who the better fighter was, analyze the style that gave Duran problems .

[/quote]


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.[/quote]

I gotta disagree like your name. How in the world a guy that made you miss so many punches in the first meeting, and in the second meeting, everything the other guy throws, Duran gets it. In the second fight, I did not see Duran made Leonard miss a single punch. Everybody knows that Ray CAUGHT DURAN IN AN OFF NIGHT. Just like Ken Norton caught the great Muhammad Ali for an example.

I agree with you that there is not a fighter that has more excuses than Duran when he loses, but, look at those tapes again. Duran's foot and body movement in New Orleans, was way far inferior than the Duran in Montreal. Duran bobbed and weaved all the majority of Leonard's punches in the first fight. When Leonard tried to box, Duran boxed. When Leonard tried to use speed, Duran countered beautifully.

Leonard was SURPRISED of Duran's underrated quickness. I was surprised, too. I never thought that Duran was gonna give that kind of performance. First, because it was 12 pounds his best weight. Second, on the fights leading up to the Leonard fight, he looked SLOW. He looked SLOW with Carlos Palomino in 1979. If that fighter was Leonard, I truly believed that Leonard would have beaten THE CRAP OF that Duran that fought Palomino and Monroe Brooks. Duran did not even looked impressive with Zeferino Gonzalez. I thought that if Leonard or Benitez would have been in Gonzalez' shoes that night, there would be no doubt in my mind that they would have beaten that Duran. But the Duran in Montreal? I don't see too many welterweights beating him that night. He was really on. He was sharp in foot and head movement, not to say about his quickness of hands. He had Leonard in trouble many times. Sugar Ray was fighting for SURVIVAL CLUTCHING LIKE A LITTLE SISSY. If he was bigger and stronger than Duran, FIGHT!!! Don't clutch and grab for survival. But you called it a MISTAKE in Leonard's PART just like the old crappy Howard Cossell and the media... Like if Duran was not supposed to win the fight anyway. But here comes the second fight, Sugar Ray outboxed him, and according to Leonard's followers, "Duran was in shape". I DON'T BUY THAT.

The Duran that fought Benitez was not even in the fight. First, he was not accostumed of the 154lbs class. Duran is 5'7". A natural lightweight. He looked slowed even in the Davey Moore fight. He was way passed his prime. Every fighter has a prime. Second, you cannot have a prime forever. The 70s was all Duran's. It is time for the 80s for someone elses. Was Leonard in his prime in the 90s? What happened. He got whupped in his old age against Terry Norris. A fighter that cannot carry Sugar Ray's jockstrap.
And Third, Benitez was only 23 years old. Duran was 30. At 30, you become to lose some speed. Ask Ali. Ask Leonard. Ask Thomas Hearns. Ask Marvin Hagler. Ask Julio Cesar Chavez. Benitez was accostumed to the weight class. He's 5'10" and was young. What happened to the great Bob Foster when he moved up? He got smacked around by the BIG DOGS, THE HEAVYWEIGHTS.

I would have love to see Duran vs Benitez in '78 or '79 or in '80 at jr. welterweight or welterweight. Then, let's see if Benitez would have won. In my view, he better not come in the same way he fought Bruce Curry. If it was Duran that night?

I do believe that Duran could Slip Tommy's punches and carve out a win. Not all that differently than Barkley did. The idea that Tommy was the antidote to Duran seems nonsensical. I understand the Benitez explanation, however I think both of those outcomes had some flukish aspects.

Good debates, and the "evidence" is to the contrary as you point out.....and of course was the entire reason for my statements. There is also no evidence that Tyson could ever beat Douglas. Or McBride. (I'm not drawing comparisons, just pointing out that real time outcomes are pretty good evidence.)

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.

That’s not really what happened.

In the first fight they spend 2 rounds boxing on the outside. Duran catches Leonard with a counter and Ray loses his legs. In Leonard’s own words by the time he got his equilibrium back it was round 5 and he’d been beaten up.

Watch the fight. Leonard’s success is all on the inside. He has no success at all fighting on the outside.

Leonard was an offensive fighter. He moved around and then planted his feet and sat down on his shots. He was flat-footed against Hearns.

In the second fight Leonard adjusted his game plan and won. But he’d have won that fight even if he’d have stood and slugged. The way Leonard fought against Hagler and Duran (second fight) was something he could do because he was so super-skilled but it was not how he usually fought. And he was nothing like Benitez.

As great as Agruello was Duran was greater and better in pretty much every department.

I see Duran outboxing Arguello for the first few rds then pickiing it up to get a stoppage win late in the fight.