BoxRec

Leonard won his share of rounds. But he was certainly beat up and close to being stopped.

Benitez would have his back on the ropes for 15 rounds of Duran mauling him on the inside. Not gonna last and he isn't going to win.

Hearns brought way more to the table then Benitez. That would always be a tough night. But it wouldn't have been 2 rounds and Duran may well have won.

Benitez wasn't as good as Leonard,Hearns or Duran at 147. He was always the 4th guy and it was for a reason. The other 3 were better.

I didn't forget anything about Benitez. You seem to have forgotten everything about Roberto Duran that happened prior to No Mas.

Nationalism is a wonderful thing.

I imagine Trinidad would be too tough for Hearns as well?

Hearns destroys Trinidad about as easy as he did Duran. As easily as he would have done to Duran in Montreal as well.

I disagree that it would have been easy. But I wouldn't argue too much that Duran loses to Hearns every fight.

But Benitez is a far cry from Hearns.

Leonard,Hearns & Duran alldestroy Tito. Benitez more then likely outboxes him as well.

Leonard,Hearns & Duran alldestroy Tito. Benitez more then likely outboxes him as well.

With this at least I cant argue.

I like Sweat pea in this one. To fast, to clever, to hard to hit.

Benitez was fun to watch and is always a talented man, but I think Pernell wins.

kym

theone wrote:

Nationalism is a wonderful thing.

I imagine Trinidad would be too tough for Hearns as well?

Hearns destroys Trinidad about as easy as he did Duran. As easily as he would have done to Duran in Montreal as well.

Bullshit...I cannot see a Thomas Hearn knocking out Duran at 147...Specially in that night in Montreal would have been a different story with Duran's arms held high on victory.

theone wrote:

Benitez is a great fighter, but I could not see him beat a Duran of circa 1976-80. He would have eaten Benitez for dinner. I do not take Benitez credit. He fought a good fight that night, but with a Duran that did not have it ever since the "No Mas".

On what exactly do you base this opinion that Duran would have "eaten Benitez for dinner"? What fight did Duran have in his prime where he beat a fighter of Benitez's style and caliber that easily?

Put Benitez in that night in Montreal and you would see a different story, my friend...

See, based in your anti-Duran politics, it looks that you have not seen Duran at his very best yet. Many people think of Duran as a fighter that does not have no technique at all, a bully, a rush and ambush fighter with no defense, etc, etc, etc. But DURAN'S MOST UNDERRATED ASSET was not his body punching, was not his defense...It was his speed. Duran was as quick as any fighter in memory that adapted to counter punching giving opponents different angles. Watch Duran-DeJesus III or Duran-Leonard I, when he was at his very best technically, Leonard could not cope with his technique and speed. In New Orleans, Duran was slow of foot and hand, could not move like he wanted to, and in almost no time at all, did not jumped from side to side. All that victory of Benitez at 154 was a victory against someone that first, could not adapt to the weight, whic was too big for him and second, his speed was not there at all neither could have pep in his punches. Benitez was accostumed to the weight way before Duran was, is taller than Duran, which means that could carry the weight better and was faster than Duran at 154. At 147 or 140??? DIFFERENT STORY.

I do not see Leonard as fast at 147 as in 168 or 175...did you???

Borinken25 wrote:

markl wrote:So the better fighter would have zero chance of ever pulling a rabbitt out of the hat?

It's nothing but bias. I have said on several occasions that Benitez was more consistent and I would always favor him at 54.

You telling me that if Duran faced the 17yr old Benitez at 40 10 times. He would lose them all is pure bias.

Most would give Duran a better chance against Robinson then you give him against Benitez. Wilfred was much more of a pocket defender then a mover anyway.

He was one of my favorites growing up. But he gets beatdown in Montreal. No if's ands or buts.

Edit: Why you keep comparing Benitez and Leonard is odd. Leonard was bigger,faster and stronger then Benitez and Duran abused him 1 out of 3.

Well you probably you are right and I exaggerated a little bit. Duran would’ve had more than a zero chance, but I firmly believe that Benitez just had Duran’s number. In a five fights series I’ll give Duran 1 out 5 and 2 out 10.

You must have forgotten that Benitez at 17 won his first would title against a great fighter like Cervantes. Granted Cervantes is no Duran, but the style of Benitez was factor that has to be taken into consideration.

Replace Leonard with Hearns and you tell me who would’ve won in Montreal? Of course, there is always if’s and buts.

I didn’t compare Benitez to Leonard. I compare the style that they use to fight Duran of movement and angles. The fight in Montreal was a close fight and if you tell me that was a beat down then you are the one in complete denial and will truly show bias. Again Leonard lost because he fell into Duran’s trap and fought toe to toe. Leonard try to over power Duran and he couldn’t. On the other hand in the rematch Leonard use his boxing skills, movement, and defense and was able to dominate the fight because Duran found no answer to that style. The very same style that Benitez use is his fight against Duran.

Do not pay attention to this Puerto Rican, markl. Please... This guy borinken is a bunch of hogwash and baloney...He believes everything that Howard Cossell or what the media says without watching a fight or sudying boxing videos. This is the same guy that said that Tito Trinidad would have blast the great Carmen Basilio in 5 rounds when in REALITY, TITO COULD NOT CARRY BASILIO'S JOCKSTRAP NOR EVEN IS IN BASILIO'S CLASS.

BORINKEN IS THE SAME GUY THAT SAYS THAT TITO WOULD HAVE BLAST THOMAS HEARNS, just like the rest of his countrymen.

This is the same guy (borinken) that says that Leonard was better than Duran with no having no clue of watching the complete fight. He only saw the clips of the seventh and eight rounds. He does not know that in time of the quitting, THE FIGHT WAS CLOSE IN JUDGES SCORECARDS. To him, Leonard was giving Duran a boxing lesson against a Duran, according to him, was the same as in the night in Montreal.

The fight in Montreal was not even close. Leonard made it looked close by clutching and grabbing the whole entire fight. Duran won by 5 points maximum and by minimum, in my scorecard, he won by 3 points. WATCH THE FIGHT AGAIN, borinken.

Then he says that Leonard abandoned his boxing skills. I have watched Leonard fight and always Leonard fought the best going forward. He always fought that way. And even if he would have stick to moving and running like a chicken in Montreal, he would have lost also. He was outboxed by Duran in evey facet of the game. He was losing the fight against Hearns by running, and when he came forward, he had a better chance and knocked Hearns out. He was losing when he thought he was running and outboxing Hearns. So what make this guy think that Leonard by boxing would have had a better night? Ken Buchanan and Vilomar Fernandez tried to run and failed.

LEONARD failed to see how Duran nullified his hand and foot speed. He MISSED IN THAT NIGHT MORE THAN ANY NIGHT I HAVE SEEN HIM MISS.

Meanwhile, this same Benitez was dropped by Bruce Curry, a guy that is not in Duran's or Leonard's league. He was dropped in the third round by Leonard with a JAB FOR CRIPE'S SAKE!!!

THE fight in Puerto Rico with Cervantes and the other with Palomino were split decisions. I imagine if the fight would have been in Colombia or Los Angeles??? Different outcomes!!!

Then he says that Benitez's style was so difficult that he bets that Duran had a better chance with the great Sugar Ray Robinson???

I would rather take a shit in the middle of the street with a Heineken in my hands.

elmersalsa wrote:

Borinken25 wrote:

markl wrote:So the better fighter would have zero chance of ever pulling a rabbitt out of the hat?

It's nothing but bias. I have said on several occasions that Benitez was more consistent and I would always favor him at 54.

You telling me that if Duran faced the 17yr old Benitez at 40 10 times. He would lose them all is pure bias.

Most would give Duran a better chance against Robinson then you give him against Benitez. Wilfred was much more of a pocket defender then a mover anyway.

He was one of my favorites growing up. But he gets beatdown in Montreal. No if's ands or buts.

Edit: Why you keep comparing Benitez and Leonard is odd. Leonard was bigger,faster and stronger then Benitez and Duran abused him 1 out of 3.

Well you probably you are right and I exaggerated a little bit. Duran would’ve had more than a zero chance, but I firmly believe that Benitez just had Duran’s number. In a five fights series I’ll give Duran 1 out 5 and 2 out 10.

You must have forgotten that Benitez at 17 won his first would title against a great fighter like Cervantes. Granted Cervantes is no Duran, but the style of Benitez was factor that has to be taken into consideration.

Replace Leonard with Hearns and you tell me who would’ve won in Montreal? Of course, there is always if’s and buts.

I didn’t compare Benitez to Leonard. I compare the style that they use to fight Duran of movement and angles. The fight in Montreal was a close fight and if you tell me that was a beat down then you are the one in complete denial and will truly show bias. Again Leonard lost because he fell into Duran’s trap and fought toe to toe. Leonard try to over power Duran and he couldn’t. On the other hand in the rematch Leonard use his boxing skills, movement, and defense and was able to dominate the fight because Duran found no answer to that style. The very same style that Benitez use is his fight against Duran.

Do not pay attention to this Puerto Rican, markl. Please... This guy borinken is a bunch of hogwash and baloney...He believes everything that Howard Cossell or what the media says without watching a fight or sudying boxing videos. This is the same guy that said that Tito Trinidad would have blast the great Carmen Basilio in 5 rounds when in REALITY, TITO COULD NOT CARRY BASILIO'S JOCKSTRAP NOR EVEN IS IN BASILIO'S CLASS.

BORINKEN IS THE SAME GUY THAT SAYS THAT TITO WOULD HAVE BLAST THOMAS HEARNS, just like the rest of his countrymen.

This is the same guy (borinken) that says that Leonard was better than Duran with no having no clue of watching the complete fight. He only saw the clips of the seventh and eight rounds. He does not know that in time of the quitting, THE FIGHT WAS CLOSE IN JUDGES SCORECARDS. To him, Leonard was giving Duran a boxing lesson against a Duran, according to him, was the same as in the night in Montreal.

The fight in Montreal was not even close. Leonard made it looked close by clutching and grabbing the whole entire fight. Duran won by 5 points maximum and by minimum, in my scorecard, he won by 3 points. WATCH THE FIGHT AGAIN, borinken.

Then he says that Leonard abandoned his boxing skills. I have watched Leonard fight and always Leonard fought the best going forward. He always fought that way. And even if he would have stick to moving and running like a chicken in Montreal, he would have lost also. He was outboxed by Duran in evey facet of the game. He was losing the fight against Hearns by running, and when he came forward, he had a better chance and knocked Hearns out. He was losing when he thought he was running and outboxing Hearns. So what make this guy think that Leonard by boxing would have had a better night? Ken Buchanan and Vilomar Fernandez tried to run and failed.

LEONARD failed to see how Duran nullified his hand and foot speed. He MISSED IN THAT NIGHT MORE THAN ANY NIGHT I HAVE SEEN HIM MISS.

Meanwhile, this same Benitez was dropped by Bruce Curry, a guy that is not in Duran's or Leonard's league. He was dropped in the third round by Leonard with a JAB FOR CRIPE'S SAKE!!!

THE fight in Puerto Rico with Cervantes and the other with Palomino were split decisions. I imagine if the fight would have been in Colombia or Los Angeles??? Different outcomes!!!

Then he says that Benitez's style was so difficult that he bets that Duran had a better chance with the great Sugar Ray Robinson???

I would rather take a shit in the middle of the street with a Heineken in my hands.

Wow do you really hate Puerto Ricans. First you are lying. I did say and I repeated; Trinidad by KO inside of 9 rounds vs Basilio. Basilio was tailor made for Trinidad. Basilio was not a defensive fighter. He was the very definition of the type of fighter that Trinidad feasted on. Style makes fights and Basilio would’ve been stop by Trinidad.

Again you are confusing an honest opinion with nationality. Does everything you do is based on nationality?

Again I caught you in another lie. I never said that Trinidad was going to blast Hearns. What I said was, what if Tito connects his left hook first? Are you going to tell me that Tito did not have a punchers chance against Hearns? If you do then you don’t know anything about boxing and only based your assumption in pure bias. Who was the better fighter? Hearns by far, but Tito does have a punchers chance, especially with someone with a suspect chin like Hearns.

You just mad because Hearns KO Duran into another planet and that is a fact. On the other hand you could only assume that he is going to KO Trinidad. Keep dreaming and using the nationality excuse.

If I tell you that Trinidad would’ve KO Hagler, then I’m delusional and pure bias, but not with Hearns.

And again style makes fights and I believe that Benitez style is a nightmare for Duran and in a five fight series Duran probably wins one out five. And the fact remains that Benitez school Duran and won on their only fight and that is a fact that you can’t refute.

See, based in your anti-Duran politics, it looks that you have not seen Duran at his very best yet.

First of all you prejudice, ignorant troll, I am not anti Duran.

Do I believe that Duran was an all-time great? Absolutely.

Do I believe Duran was the greatest Lightweight who ever lived? Based on accomplishments...yes. Head to head i believe Armstrong and perhaps Whitaker beat him.

Do I think that Duran was indestructible, unbeatable and that all of his loses can be explained away and thus ignored. Absolutely not. Thats what you have a problem with.

I can respect the opinion, although i may not agree with it, that Duran at his best would have beaten Benitez; but as easily as you insist he would, thats just retarded.

You're so blinded by your Duran worship you cant see how differently Leonard fought in the second fight. In the first fight he stood his ground, traded with Duran and hardly used any lateral movement. in the second fight he fought smarter, stayed on his toes and used effective lateral movement throughout.

Yeah, I can buy the fact that Duran ballooning in weight between fights was a factor somewhat, but overall the dominant factor in that fight was Leonard fighting the way he was supposed to.

Also saying Trinidad couldn't carry Basillio jock strap shows how ignorant you are. And this...
[
quote]Bullshit...I cannot see a Thomas Hearn knocking out Duran at 147...Specially in that night in Montreal would have been a different story with Duran's arms held high on victory.[/quote]

Is another example of stupid shit you say with out backing it up with any logical arguments.

theone wrote:

See, based in your anti-Duran politics, it looks that you have not seen Duran at his very best yet.

First of all you prejudice, ignorant troll, I am not anti Duran.

Do I believe that Duran was an all-time great? Absolutely.

Do I believe Duran was the greatest Lightweight who ever lived? Based on accomplishments...yes. Head to head i believe Armstrong and perhaps Whitaker beat him.

Do I think that Duran was indestructible, unbeatable and that all of his loses can be explained away and thus ignored. Absolutely not. Thats what you have a problem with.

I can respect the opinion, although i may not agree with it, that Duran at his best would have beaten Benitez; but as easily as you insist he would, thats just retarded.

You're so blinded by your Duran worship you cant see how differently Leonard fought in the second fight. In the first fight he stood his ground, traded with Duran and hardly used any lateral movement. in the second fight he fought smarter, stayed on his toes and used effective lateral movement throughout.

Yeah, I can buy the fact that Duran ballooning in weight between fights was a factor somewhat, but overall the dominant factor in that fight was Leonard fighting the way he was supposed to.

Also saying Trinidad couldn't carry Basillio jock strap shows how ignorant you are. And this...
[
quote]Bullshit...I cannot see a Thomas Hearn knocking out Duran at 147...Specially in that night in Montreal would have been a different story with Duran's arms held high on victory.

Is another example of stupid shit you say with out backing it up with any logical arguments.[/quote]


Well, do I think that Leonard was an all time great??? absolutely. At his best, did he beat Duran? He did not right? You saw the fight, IGNORANT PUERTO RICAN

We all know that Tito was not in Carmen Basilio's league. Just look at Carmen's fights fighting with guys with way better technique than Tito's and how he came up on top. And many in here would agree with me that Tito CANNOT CARRY CARMEN BASILIO'S JOCKSTRAP...Or maybe your Puerto Rican heritage would say something else. Comparing Basilio and Tito is like comparing a Cadillac with a Lamborghini or a Ferrari. Is like comparing a Babe Ruth with Roberto Clemente.

Now, let's talk about how Duran magnificently beat Leonard. And if Duran would have come up the same way in like he did in Montreal, Duran would have won with all the running Leonard did. I saw how he fought different the second time around, I have seen the fight many times, both of them back to back, round by round, and all that talking that Leonard did not made his fight the first time around is all NONSENSE AND BALONEY. HE ALWAYS FOUGHT AT HIS BEST GOING FORWARD.

What Leonard found out about Duran was that Duran was as fast as he was. It was not his defense nor his punching power that Leonard was more impressed. It was Duran's speed. Speed is the KEY for almost all sports. He could not cope with the speed and defense and pressure that Duran was giving him in Montreal. To have some pressure, you cannot be SLOW, you gotta be fast. In New Orleans, I did not see Duran with the same speed and same attitude of winning the fight. Duran KNEW HIMSELF BEFORE THE OPENING BELL THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO WIN THE FIGHT. Just look at the body language. He knew for beating Leonard this time, he had to knock him out, he did not, and he quit. He KNEW THAT HE DID NOT HAVE IT. I always said that if Leonard would have stayed and trade with Duran in New Orleans, HE WOULD HAVE WON ANYWAY. Duran did not have the speed nor the reflexes to counter punch. Leonard would have won the fight without running like a chicken. Leonard in New Orleans was better than Duran in all angles, not because he was better or "fought his fight", it was because Duran did not have it and something was wrong with him...check the body languaguages of both fights.

And trying to DEFEND Duran's losses against Benitez, Hearns and Hagler is cleary seen that they did beat a man that was not in his prime, up in weight, in his 30s, NOT FAST, no head movement, nor even carried the punch. The evidences are clear when he fought Nino Gonzalez, Luigi Minchillo before the Benitez fight that he was through. HE DID NOT HAVE IT. Then he loses to Benitez in a DISMAL PERFORMANCE, which is understandable, not because Benitez was better. He beat someone not at his best. Then, look how he loses in his next fight???? KIRKLAND LAING??? WHERE IS HE NOW??? Then he wins againts Jimmy Batten in another dismal performance. He beats Davey Moore, which was his best performance at 154, but not the same performance of his standards when he beat Buchanan, DeJesus or Leoanard. He loses to Hagler in a close fight, but his speed is not there. He just fought out of instinct. And now Hearns almost decapitate him. Not taking away credit of Hearns, he did what he supposed to do, but I wonder if the fight was at 147??? The same night that he beat Leonard would have been a different story. Hearns would have not cope with Duran's pressure just like Hearns could not cope with Hagler's pressure. This is not Pipino Cuevas here. This is Duran, the legend.

I have never said that at his best, Duran would have beaten Benitez easily. Nobody else beat Benitez easily. I said that both at their very best, Duran would have eaten him for dinner. That is not saying that it was a easy fight. The only loss that I can see that Duran lost at his very best, was against your fellow country man: Esteban DeJesus. NO EXCUSES!!! DURAN TRAINED FOR THE FIGHT AND LOST. All other losses, there got to be an explanation. Because how come, you beat a great fighter like Leonard in spectacular fashion, and beat him in all facets of boxing, and then you looked like you do not know how to fight in the return match?

Now, you never answer me if Leonard was as effective at 168 and 175? Was his speed the same?

And yes, you got a problem with Duran. I see it in your posts. I do not have a problem with Puerto Ricans nor with Leonard nor with Puerto Rican fighters. In fact, I defend Puerto Rican fighters more than anybody in this forum.

We all know that Tito was not in Carmen Basilio's league. Just look at Carmen's fights fighting with guys with way better technique than Tito's and how he came up on top. And many in here would agree with me that Tito CANNOT CARRY CARMEN BASILIO'S JOCKSTRAP...Or maybe your Puerto Rican heritage would say something else. Comparing Basilio and Tito is like comparing a Cadillac with a Lamborghini or a Ferrari. Is like comparing a Babe Ruth with Roberto Clemente.

Again, spouting stupid shit without a logical argument.

I have never said that at his best, Duran would have beaten Benitez easily. Nobody else beat Benitez easily. I said that both at their very best, Duran would have eaten him for dinner.

Huh?! So eating him for dinner doesn't translate to beating him easily? Damn, your stupid.

And yes, you got a problem with Duran. I see it in your posts. I do not have a problem with Puerto Ricans nor with Leonard nor with Puerto Rican fighters. In fact, I defend Puerto Rican fighters more than anybody in this forum.

You don't have a problem with Puerto Ricans buy you stereotype every Puerto Rican as a Duran hater because of what he did to Dejesus? And you state you defend Puerto Rican fighters more than everyone in this forum but I defend only two and that makes me biased towards them just because i happen to be Puerto Rican?

I take it back...you aren't stupid. You're downright retarded.

Basilio/Trinidad is a toss up imo. Tito was one dimensional, but Carmen would play right into that dimension.

They are neck and neck in the ring and in accomplishments at the weight. Basilio faced the tougher opp. But tito never lost.

elmersalsa wrote:
Well, do I think that Leonard was an all time great??? absolutely. At his best, did he beat Duran? He did not right? You saw the fight, IGNORANT PUERTO RICAN

First: I take offense to that and the only narrow minded stupid ignorant is you. That is a racist comment you ignorant fool. You want to disagree, fine do it, but why are you including the word Puerto Rican. What does his ethnicity have to do with the disagreement? You are always bringing my nationality as an excuse because we happen to disagree with you. I don’t think and will never think that Duran was unbeatable like you.

Second: You find an excuse for all Duran losses, that wasn’t Duran, he was fat, he was washed up, he wasn’t in his prime, blah, blah, blah. Do you ever stop to think that it is a possibility that because he step up in class he met his matches?

Third: If Tito “CANNOT CARRY CARMEN BASILIO'S JOCKSTRAP...”
The Duran CANNOT CARRY HEARNS, LEONARD, HAGLER AND BENITEZ JOCKSTRAP...
Leonard school him on the second fight and the fight was not even close, not to mention their third fight. DURAN QUIT ‘NO MAS’ and he quit because he knew the fight was not even close. Hearns KO him into another planet and would’ve done it in any weight class, and Benitez made him look like a fool.

Fourth: “All other losses, there got to be an explanation. Because how come, you beat a great fighter like Leonard in spectacular fashion, and beat him in all facets of boxing, and then you looked like you do not know how to fight in the return match?”

What fight were you watching? The scores were 145-144, 148-147, and 146-144. Your scores must be 150-135 for Duran? Duran beat Leonard in a close fight and then we did find out who the better fighter was. Just like De Jesus beat Duran in a close fight and then we did find out who the better fighter was. STOP USING SO MANY EXCUSES. The second fight Leonard use his better boxing skills along with his head and completely dominated Duran end of the story.

Fifth: “ Duran KNEW HIMSELF BEFORE THE OPENING BELL THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO WIN THE FIGHT.” “He KNEW THAT HE DID NOT HAVE IT”

How do you know that Duran knew that before the fight? Do you really believe all the nonsense that you are posting here? Probably I’m wrong, you are not an ignorant, YOU ARE CRAZY. Perhaps you are completely blind to the fact that DURAN WAS NOT INVINCIBLE OR UNBEATABLE.

markl wrote:Basilio/Trinidad is a toss up imo. Tito was one dimensional, but Carmen would play right into that dimension.

They are neck and neck in the ring and in accomplishments at the weight. Basilio faced the tougher opp. But tito never lost.

That my friend is the way I see it. Basilio's was a great fighter and not taken anything away from him. But he was just tailor made for Tito. This have nothing to do with nationality, this has to do with an honest opinion and I just don't see Basilio defeating Tito. Trinidad's height advantage couple with his power would've been too much for Basilio to overcome in my opinion.

Leonard was my favourite boxer in the 1980s in his first career.

There are so many misconceptions about the Leonard-Duran rivalry, and so much bad journalism, and so much polarisation of opinion on these 2 great fighters and great characters, that it's almost impossible to have a reasonable assessment of them both.

Duran was a great fighter, but not a great character. His unsportsmanlike behaviour is well documented.

Seamus wrote:Duran was a great fighter, but not a great character. His unsportsmanlike behaviour is well documented.

You could say the same about Leonard.

WRONG, Leonard was always polite and personable and didn't talk about killing people, or making obscene gestures to wives etc.

Seamus wrote:WRONG, Leonard was always polite and personable and didn't talk about killing people, or making obscene gestures to wives etc.

Leonard was a drug addicted wife beater who took pleasure in taunting men in the ring.

At least Duran was man enough to do it in the public eye. It's worse imo to do your 7 up commercial with your son, stuff down a couple lines, and go home and smack the shit out of your wife.

theone wrote:

Huh?! So eating him for dinner doesn't translate to beating him easily? Damn, your stupid.

Maybe I am retarded. Maybe I am stupid. But you do not know your spelling???

I guess I AM NOT AS STUPID AND RETARDED AS YOU ARE, PUERTO RICAN....

BUSCA LA GASOLINA AND PUT IN YOUR ASS, MOTHER fornicator

Borinken25 wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:
Well, do I think that Leonard was an all time great??? absolutely. At his best, did he beat Duran? He did not right? You saw the fight, IGNORANT PUERTO RICAN

First: I take offense to that and the only narrow minded stupid ignorant is you. That is a racist comment you ignorant fool. You want to disagree, fine do it, but why are you including the word Puerto Rican. What does his ethnicity have to do with the disagreement? You are always bringing my nationality as an excuse because we happen to disagree with you. I don’t think and will never think that Duran was unbeatable like you.

Second: You find an excuse for all Duran losses, that wasn’t Duran, he was fat, he was washed up, he wasn’t in his prime, blah, blah, blah. Do you ever stop to think that it is a possibility that because he step up in class he met his matches?


Fourth: “All other losses, there got to be an explanation. Because how come, you beat a great fighter like Leonard in spectacular fashion, and beat him in all facets of boxing, and then you looked like you do not know how to fight in the return match?”

What fight were you watching? The scores were 145-144, 148-147, and 146-144. Your scores must be 150-135 for Duran? Duran beat Leonard in a close fight and then we did find out who the better fighter was. Just like De Jesus beat Duran in a close fight and then we did find out who the better fighter was. STOP USING SO MANY EXCUSES. The second fight Leonard use his better boxing skills along with his head and completely dominated Duran end of the story.


I go to ignore IGNORANTS like this one right here....Saying that Leonard used his boxing skills on the second fight and that is why he won shows me that he only saw the 7th and 8th round, regardless. Or maybe he read too much of Howard Cossell or Sugar Ray Leonard's autobiography.

Saying that Tito is NOT IN CARMEN BASILIO'S CLASS, IT OFFENDED THIS PUERTO RICANS...WHAT A SHAME.

But let's talk about boxing. How come a guy like Tito, that got ouboxed ONLY WITH THE JAB against Winky Wright would beat an outstanding fighter like Carmen Basilio that fought maybe in the best era in boxing of welterweights and middleweights with the likes of Kid Gavilan, Billy Graham, Johnny Saxton, Gil Turner, Gene Fullmer, Art Aragon, and Sugar Ray Robinson and came up on top in almost all those fights?

People, let's look at this, for cripe's sake. Can you guys imagine Tito fighting Billy Graham? Sugar Ray Robinson? Gil Turner? Kid Gavilan? Would Tito win at least one fight against these?

Let's talk reality now. He was undefeated fighting in a weak era. I imagine him fighting at least Don Jordan or Benny Kid Paret would he come up on top? Only Puerto Ricans would think so.


Now let's get back at Duran. It seems like Duran like Ali and Leonard, cause a lot of emotions here. Like any other fighter, he is beloved and hated. Like any other fighter, Duran loses like any one else. But Duran Haters cannot see the fact and consideration while Duran was fighting after the "No Mas", he was not the same fighter, but these guys want to make him that he was the same fighter of the 70s

It reminded me of Ali in a way. Ali could never do wrong or right. When he lost to Ken Norton (twice), Jimmy Young, Leon Spinks, Earnie Shavers and Joe Frazier, was he at his very best? They gave him the decisions in many of his fights that he lost. The same with Sugar Ray Robinson. They expect him to win every fight even when he was not at his very best.

It was a great victory for Leonard against Duran. No doubt about that. But did he beat the great Duran at his very best? What happened in Montreal whe both of them came in shape, were at their very best, and in one of the biggest nights in boxing, who won?...Duran ahniliate every thing that Leonard threw at him. If Leonard jab, Duran jab. If Leonard went to the body, Duran did the same. If Leonard box, Duran boxed. There was nothing in that fight that Leonard could not do.

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT DURAN WAS UNBEATABLE. Hey, I have even said that Pernell Whitaker at lightweight would have beaten him. Carlos Ortiz would have beaten him also. EVERYBODY LOSES.

Now, look what this ignorant Puerto Rican is saying:

Third: If Tito “CANNOT CARRY CARMEN BASILIO'S JOCKSTRAP...”
The Duran CANNOT CARRY HEARNS, LEONARD, HAGLER AND BENITEZ JOCKSTRAP...
Leonard school him on the second fight and the fight was not even close, not to mention their third fight. DURAN QUIT ‘NO MAS’ and he quit because he knew the fight was not even close. Hearns KO him into another planet and would’ve done it in any weight class, and Benitez made him look like a fool.

This come out fornicating frustration. Every body in here knows that Tito is not in Basilio's league, nor even carry Basilio's jockstrap. But I was accused of being stupid and ignorant. More ignorant is to say that Tito would have blasted Basilio or Hearns. He also did not see the fight of Duran-Leonard II... I know why. He was a little baby at the time. He does not have no clue of that fight, what happened or how it evolved...NO CLUE!!!

Now saying that Duran could not carry Benitez, Leonard nor Hearns jockstrap, that is STUPID...YOU SEE WHAT YOUR COUNTRYMAN IS SAYING, THE ONE?

Tell me a fighter that has won against top and great opposition going up in weight...Not too many fighters. Leonard did not do it against Hagler, many peoples said that they gave it to him. You cannot compare the great victory of Duran in Montreal with Leonard's against Hagler. Duran in Montreal was so magnificent that he would have stayed with any welterweight in history, including the original Sugar Ray...Just look at the fight. Maybe you will learn something....PUERTO RICAN!!!!

Seamus wrote:Duran was a great fighter, but not a great character. His unsportsmanlike behaviour is well documented.

Neither of them were the kind of guy you'd want your daughter to bring home but I meant 'character' as in the way they were defined by their personalities. Both men bring about strong emotions.