BoxRec

Granny, you misunderstand my post again. I wasnt trying to get involved in your petty argument about who fought each other 3 times and whether it was consecutive, I was saying that generally you talk horseshit on this forum. Your last post proves this again, as do 99% of your posts on here.

dr_devious wrote:Granny, you misunderstand my post again. I wasnt trying to get involved in your petty argument about who fought each other 3 times and whether it was consecutive, I was saying that generally you talk horseshit on this forum. Your last post proves this again, as do 99% of your posts on here.

Poor devious whines that he is "misunderstood."

You aren't misunderstood at all, devious.

You whining and your use of juvenile attempts at insults

shows you are understood only too well.

It is not "petty" that you are ignorant of the most basic parts of boxing history,

and yet you pose on this forum as another self-proclaimed "expert."

When Jimmy McLarnin died no US newspaper ran an obituary.

According to the present day US sports "experts", Jimmy McLarnin never existed.

The past history of boxing has been WIPED OUT.

And devious complains bitterly when someone points out the ignorance and stupidity on display by the current crew of clueless, self-proclaimed "experts" on the subject.

Go whine to the "mods," devious.

Complain that I posted a half dozen examples of three time title fights that anyone with an genuine interest in boxing would know off the top of his head.

Tell them it pains you that Tony Zale and Rocky Graziano fought for the title three times--

that Floyd Patterson and Johanssen fought for the title three times

that Jimmy McLarnin and Barney Ross fought for the title three times

that Stanley Ketchel and Billy Papke fought for the title three times

and that no one should be allowed to post such information on this site.

Because it upsets you.

LOL

Woteva!

Ambling Alp wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Seamus- For whatever reason, some people don't like Leonard and are incapable of judging him fairly. Some people aren't able to judge a fighter by how good he was and leave out whether they like him or not.
We have all heard the same old BS.
-Duran was old (yet he just turned 29 before their first fight)
-Duran somehow wasn't a natural welterweight. He already had 7 fights at the weight before fighting Leonard, and moved up in weight after fighting Leonard.
-Leonard always got gift decsions. (He won a grand total of 2 decisons in title fights in his entire career)
etc.etc.

As for elmer salsa, he now says that Leonard should have fought Duran again 5 months after their 2nd fight. Thats interesting for a couple of reasons:
1. Duran had 5 months between the 1st and 2nd fights, which elmer salsahe said previously somehow wasn't enough time for Duran between fights.

2. It was Duran who jumped weight classes. He was the one who moved up to Jr middleweight. Had he stuck around at welterweight and beat a couple of contenders, Duran would have gotten another shot at Leonard after Leonard beat Hearns. He eventually would have been the mandatory #1 contender. Instead, Duran got out of the weight class.
Imagine what the Leonard detractors would say if Leonard would have moved up in weight class after losing a fight.

Elmer made another interesting comment "That fight Duran won by 3 points in my scorecard and it was not that close like people think".

Well on Elmer's own scorecard, he only had Duran winning by 3 points. In a 15 round fight, thats pretty close.

The 2nd fight was close? If it really was so close, Duran never would have given up. (Imagine what Leonard's detractors would saying if Leonard would have given up. I'm sure they would have bought an excuse like Leonard wasn't in shape).
The 2nd fight wasn't as close as the first. An immediate third fight wouldn't have been that marketable. Most people weren't going to pay huge money for Duran-Leonard III anytime soon after Duran quit in the second fight.

Yeah, it was PERFECT for Sugar Ray to ge a rematch but for Duran, now the figh is not marketable. It seems to me tha you probably wa in Sugar Ray's plan of marketability and industry. A third fight would have bring lots of money. Now, Duran has to restablish himself for a rematch, but Sugar Ray did not have to be restablish after the ass whupping he took in Montreal. THAT fight SEEMS CLOSE TO YOU, but watch it again from the first round and Ray was getting his ass kick. He was holding Duran THE ENTIRE FIGHT SO THAT HE SHOULD NOT GET MORE ASS KICKINGS. HE WAS IN THE VERGE OF BEING KO'D not only once, but twice, and the fight was close? Gimmie a break.

Why there wasnot a third fight right away? Because it was POLITICS. STRICTLY POLITICS. They could not see Ray lose to a lightweight. Yes, he was a lightweight that kick his ass and embarrassed him in the last round with "hit my chin, hit my chin". That is why Ray had to do that bolo fake in the rematch.

Now, the excuse that Ray got was I did not fight my fight. But he was stronger, bigger, faster and younger than Duran and in his own weight class. I cannot see no featherweight in history take the title from the Hands of Stone...do you?

When both were in their best shape, who won the fight? Duran won it. And like I said, IT WAS NOT CLOSE like people think. Let's watch it again. Probably you was believing Howard Cossell or something.

How often do two fighters fight each other 3 times in a row for a title?It's happened but its very rare. There are other fighters who should get a chance. Certainly when one guys quits so easily he doesn't deserve an immediate rematch.
As mentioned before, it was Duran who moved out of the welterweight division after the 2nd fight with Leonard, up to Jr Middleweight. You can't can't fight for the welterweight title if you are a Jr Middleweight. Had he stayed a welterweight, he surely would have gotten another shot at Leonard, by 1982 and he had to have known that.

As mentioned before, it doesn't make sense for you to say that the first Duran-Leonard fight wasn't close, when you yourself had Duran winning by only 3 points in a 15 round fight.

As mentioned before Duran, wasn't a lightweight when he fought Leonard. He hadn't been a lightweight for some time. He had already had 7 fights at welterweight before he fought Leonard. He was used to the weight and had naturally grown into it. Fighters move up in weight all of the time. Few fighters in the lower weight classes stay int the same weight classes their entire career. In fact, he moved up to a weight class higher than welterweight after he fought Leonard. Was Holyfield a cruiserweight when he fought Bowe,Tyson, and Lewis? No, he was a heavyweight. When a fighter moves up in that weight, he is no longer the weight he used to be, he is the weight that he moved up to.

The Duran wasn't in shape excuse is about as lame as you can get. You could use that excuse for the losing fighter in every fight.

It seems that you never got the facts straight, Alp. Leonard never wanted to give him a rematch, with the SORRY EXCUSE that Duran had to restablish himself. That is a bunch of HOG WASH AND BALONEY. Duran is not going to beg all his life for a third match. He asked for a third fight RIGHT AWAY and Leonard did not wanted to fight him then. What is Duran supposed to do? Cry an kiss Leonard's ass for a rematch?

Duran beats him, and he does not have to restablish himself, but as soon Duran loses, he got to be restablish. That right there tells me that he did not wanted no part of Duran. Two fights with the Hands of Stone is enough. The STRATEGY WAS, ask for a rematch, catch Roberto Duran off guard while he is doing all the partying, and then, do not give him a third fight. That was the strategy from the get go. If you do not want to accept that, fine, I could live with that, you do not have to agree. But you must AGREE that Leonard got beat up by lightweight, no matter how many fights he had before fighting him. He was a NATURAL LIGHTWEIGHT. That is what Duran is associated with. Lightweight great...Leonard is associated with the welterweights...Welterweight great.

Holyfield is a heavyweight, even when he was a cruiserweight. What was the ORIGINAL weight classification for heavyweights? 175 and up. So Holyfield is a heavyweight, even though he was a cruiserweight. But Duran, a lightweight that was not as dominant at welterweight mainly because it was 12 pounds heavier, the opponents are bigger, and lastly, he could not hit as hard as when he was a lightweight, beat a STRONGER, FASTER, TALLER and YOUNGER opponent in his own weight class, that has to tell us a lot about Duran. He beat a NATURAL WELTERWEIGHT and NOBODY, even Sugar Ray cannot erase that.

Duran was not in shape, Alp. You know that is not an excuse. Those are facts. Did you see at one time Duran slipping punches like in the first fight??? What happened when the two were in their top shape in Montreal in their biggest fight outside the heavyweights? Who won? Was not Montreal Sugar Rays's adopted home? What happened? He had to clutch and grab like a sissy so that he could not get knocked out by a lightweight?

And is a FACT that a smaller great fighter loses against a bigger great fighter 90% of the time. Everybody knows that the Duran of 20 pounds heavier at 154 is NOT GOING TO BE THE SAME like in his natural weight.

I will ask you this: Did Sugar Ray Leonard would have beaten the likes of Michael Spinks and Matthew Saad Muhammads? It would be 20 pounds heavier for Sugar Ray...would have he beaten those guys in his 30s? I DON'T THINK SO.

I give Leonard CREDIT for coming back, but he NEVER BEAT A PRIME AND IN GREAT SHAPE DURAN. HE ONLY BEAT THE NAME...THAT'S ALL.

And for fighters to fight 3 straight times for the title IT WAS NEVER RARE...Granberry gave you many examples...Need more, Alp, need more???

John Ruiz vs Evander Holyfield

Emile Griffith vs Nino Benvenutti

Terry Norris vs Luis Santana...According to your logic, nobody would have paid to see this fight for the second or third times, but somehow they fought 3 times in a row for the title...What a COINCIDENCE, I FORGOT that Norris is AMERICAN, JUST LIKE SUGAR RAY LEONARD.

Duilio Loi vs Carlos Ortiz...Hello!!!

Ruben Olivares vs Chucho Castillo

Manuel Ortiz vs Luis Castillo

So a third fight in boxing history between the 2 would have not been RARE at all. You probably was in SRL promotional team with Mike Trainer or listening too much to Howard Cossell.

In the first fight Leonard held his ground, fought like a man and took his lose like a man. In the rematch Duran saw Leonard wasn't going to fight his fight, realized he wasn't going to win and quit like a bitch. Duran quit the way he did so there could always be a question mark on Leonard's victory.
Screw him; he didn't deserve a third fight.

theone wrote:In the first fight Leonard held his ground, fought like a man and took his lose like a man. In the rematch Duran saw Leonard wasn't going to fight his fight, realized he wasn't going to win and quit like a bitch. Duran quit the way he did so there could always be a question mark on Leonard's victory.
Screw him; he didn't deserve a third fight.

I'm a big fan of Duran and, looking at his overall career the quitting against Leonard, while significant, was probably an aberation and certainly doesn't define him i my eyes.

However, I tend to agree that Duran's actions that night pretty much ensured he didn't deserve a rematch.

The examples given by Crankberry and Elmer are also a little misleading as I don't believe any of the losers in the 2nd fight of those trilogies had let themselves and the fans down as badly as Duran did.

theone wrote:In the first fight Leonard held his ground, fought like a man and took his lose like a man. In the rematch Duran saw Leonard wasn't going to fight his fight, realized he wasn't going to win and quit like a bitch. Duran quit the way he did so there could always be a question mark on Leonard's victory.
Screw him; he didn't deserve a third fight.

Duran's haters, mostly Puerto Ricans will always rejoice of the "No Mas"...It is a big shame. Maybe Leonard was Puerto Rican like the one

elmersalsa wrote:

theone wrote:In the first fight Leonard held his ground, fought like a man and took his lose like a man. In the rematch Duran saw Leonard wasn't going to fight his fight, realized he wasn't going to win and quit like a bitch. Duran quit the way he did so there could always be a question mark on Leonard's victory.
Screw him; he didn't deserve a third fight.

Duran's haters, mostly Puerto Ricans will always rejoice of the "No Mas"...It is a big shame. Maybe Leonard was Puerto Rican like the one

Come on, elmer, you know better than that. Sure, we all have our favourites but try to be a little objective about Leonard. He was a great fighter. You are actually belitting Duran's fantastic victory in the first fight by downplaying just how good a fighter Leonard was. The only people who can't see that he was, are clowns like Crankberry.

I reckon Duran deserves much more credit for beating Leonard in their first fight than Leonard deserves for his subsequent defeats of Duran. Prime lightweight beats prime welterweight, surely that's a much more meaningful feat than a welterweight beating a lightweight

bollox wrote:I reckon Duran deserves much more credit for beating Leonard in their first fight than Leonard deserves for his subsequent defeats of Duran. Prime lightweight beats prime welterweight, surely that's a much more meaningful feat than a welterweight beating a lightweight

Absolutely, it was a great win for Duran and acclaimed as such at the time.

That's the main reason the fans felt so cheated in the rematch. Opinion was closely divided in the build-up on whether Leonard could learn from the loss or whether Duran was perhaps the best fighter we'd ever seen for some time and would always be too good for Leonard.

Time dims peoles memories and also people who weren't fans at the time start try to re-write history but, as I recall there was no great demand from the boxing public for duran to get a third fight without first redeeming himself.

Duran's haters, mostly Puerto Ricans will always rejoice of the "No Mas"...It is a big shame. Maybe Leonard was Puerto Rican like the one

You're constant accusation that I hate Duran because I happen to be of Puerto Rican descent is downright stupid. So what if some Puerto ricans hated Duran because of his rivarly with Dejesus? My father,uncles, and alot of puerto rican men ive known all my life, were big time Duran fans, and considered him more latino than Panamanian anyway.
I was born and raised in NY, been to P.R. only a twice in my life, and never considered a Puerto Rican fighter as my favorite. Julio Cesar Chavez is my favorite fighter of all time, and he's Mexican. Puerto Rican fans have always had a much bigger rivalry with Mexican fans when it comes to fighters than they ever had with Panamanians.

I don't know why he didn't give Duran a rematch after they fought I also don't know why he didn't give Hearns and Hagler a rematch maybe someone can help me out..

Will the myth ever be cleared up ? Roberto Duran DID NOT move up to Welterweight to fight Sugar Ray Leonard. He ate his way out of the LW division and had been at WW for 2 years. With Duran fans, his weight problems are a no lose situation. Any success above LW is considered amazing, while any disappointing performances are written off because he was fighting above his so called natural weight. Yet at the same time, anyone who suggests he should have gone back down to his "natural" weight for perhaps a superfight with Alexis Arguello is just being plain silly.

Leonard was afraid to give Duran a rematch after No Mas ? That's possible. Maybe he was so afraid of facing Duran that he avoided him by KO'ing an underrated undefeated Ayub Kalule for the JMW title (success above your natural weight doesn't count when Ray does it) and then coming back to WW and stopping one of the hardest punchers in the division's history.

Victor*KC wrote:I don't know why he didn't give Duran a rematch after they fought I also don't know why he didn't give Hearns and Hagler a rematch maybe someone can help me out..

Why not read some source material from the times? That might help you understand.

Though some people can't understand even if they read the source documents, watch the fights and listen to people who were fans at the time.

You aren't one of those clowns like Crankberry are you Victor?

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

elmersalsa wrote: Yeah, it was PERFECT for Sugar Ray to ge a rematch but for Duran, now the figh is not marketable. It seems to me tha you probably wa in Sugar Ray's plan of marketability and industry. A third fight would have bring lots of money. Now, Duran has to restablish himself for a rematch, but Sugar Ray did not have to be restablish after the ass whupping he took in Montreal. THAT fight SEEMS CLOSE TO YOU, but watch it again from the first round and Ray was getting his ass kick. He was holding Duran THE ENTIRE FIGHT SO THAT HE SHOULD NOT GET MORE ASS KICKINGS. HE WAS IN THE VERGE OF BEING KO'D not only once, but twice, and the fight was close? Gimmie a break.

Why there wasnot a third fight right away? Because it was POLITICS. STRICTLY POLITICS. They could not see Ray lose to a lightweight. Yes, he was a lightweight that kick his ass and embarrassed him in the last round with "hit my chin, hit my chin". That is why Ray had to do that bolo fake in the rematch.

Now, the excuse that Ray got was I did not fight my fight. But he was stronger, bigger, faster and younger than Duran and in his own weight class. I cannot see no featherweight in history take the title from the Hands of Stone...do you?

When both were in their best shape, who won the fight? Duran won it. And like I said, IT WAS NOT CLOSE like people think. Let's watch it again. Probably you was believing Howard Cossell or something.

How often do two fighters fight each other 3 times in a row for a title?It's happened but its very rare. There are other fighters who should get a chance. Certainly when one guys quits so easily he doesn't deserve an immediate rematch.
As mentioned before, it was Duran who moved out of the welterweight division after the 2nd fight with Leonard, up to Jr Middleweight. You can't can't fight for the welterweight title if you are a Jr Middleweight. Had he stayed a welterweight, he surely would have gotten another shot at Leonard, by 1982 and he had to have known that.

As mentioned before, it doesn't make sense for you to say that the first Duran-Leonard fight wasn't close, when you yourself had Duran winning by only 3 points in a 15 round fight.

As mentioned before Duran, wasn't a lightweight when he fought Leonard. He hadn't been a lightweight for some time. He had already had 7 fights at welterweight before he fought Leonard. He was used to the weight and had naturally grown into it. Fighters move up in weight all of the time. Few fighters in the lower weight classes stay int the same weight classes their entire career. In fact, he moved up to a weight class higher than welterweight after he fought Leonard. Was Holyfield a cruiserweight when he fought Bowe,Tyson, and Lewis? No, he was a heavyweight. When a fighter moves up in that weight, he is no longer the weight he used to be, he is the weight that he moved up to.

The Duran wasn't in shape excuse is about as lame as you can get. You could use that excuse for the losing fighter in every fight.

It seems that you never got the facts straight, Alp. Leonard never wanted to give him a rematch, with the SORRY EXCUSE that Duran had to restablish himself. That is a bunch of HOG WASH AND BALONEY. Duran is not going to beg all his life for a third match. He asked for a third fight RIGHT AWAY and Leonard did not wanted to fight him then. What is Duran supposed to do? Cry an kiss Leonard's ass for a rematch?

Duran beats him, and he does not have to restablish himself, but as soon Duran loses, he got to be restablish. That right there tells me that he did not wanted no part of Duran. Two fights with the Hands of Stone is enough. The STRATEGY WAS, ask for a rematch, catch Roberto Duran off guard while he is doing all the partying, and then, do not give him a third fight. That was the strategy from the get go. If you do not want to accept that, fine, I could live with that, you do not have to agree. But you must AGREE that Leonard got beat up by lightweight, no matter how many fights he had before fighting him. He was a NATURAL LIGHTWEIGHT. That is what Duran is associated with. Lightweight great...Leonard is associated with the welterweights...Welterweight great.

Holyfield is a heavyweight, even when he was a cruiserweight. What was the ORIGINAL weight classification for heavyweights? 175 and up. So Holyfield is a heavyweight, even though he was a cruiserweight. But Duran, a lightweight that was not as dominant at welterweight mainly because it was 12 pounds heavier, the opponents are bigger, and lastly, he could not hit as hard as when he was a lightweight, beat a STRONGER, FASTER, TALLER and YOUNGER opponent in his own weight class, that has to tell us a lot about Duran. He beat a NATURAL WELTERWEIGHT and NOBODY, even Sugar Ray cannot erase that.

Duran was not in shape, Alp. You know that is not an excuse. Those are facts. Did you see at one time Duran slipping punches like in the first fight??? What happened when the two were in their top shape in Montreal in their biggest fight outside the heavyweights? Who won? Was not Montreal Sugar Rays's adopted home? What happened? He had to clutch and grab like a sissy so that he could not get knocked out by a lightweight?

And is a FACT that a smaller great fighter loses against a bigger great fighter 90% of the time. Everybody knows that the Duran of 20 pounds heavier at 154 is NOT GOING TO BE THE SAME like in his natural weight.

I will ask you this: Did Sugar Ray Leonard would have beaten the likes of Michael Spinks and Matthew Saad Muhammads? It would be 20 pounds heavier for Sugar Ray...would have he beaten those guys in his 30s? I DON'T THINK SO.

I give Leonard CREDIT for coming back, but he NEVER BEAT A PRIME AND IN GREAT SHAPE DURAN. HE ONLY BEAT THE NAME...THAT'S ALL.

And for fighters to fight 3 straight times for the title IT WAS NEVER RARE...Granberry gave you many examples...Need more, Alp, need more???

John Ruiz vs Evander Holyfield

Emile Griffith vs Nino Benvenutti

Terry Norris vs Luis Santana...According to your logic, nobody would have paid to see this fight for the second or third times, but somehow they fought 3 times in a row for the title...What a COINCIDENCE, I FORGOT that Norris is AMERICAN, JUST LIKE SUGAR RAY LEONARD.

Duilio Loi vs Carlos Ortiz...Hello!!!

Ruben Olivares vs Chucho Castillo

Manuel Ortiz vs Luis Castillo

So a third fight in boxing history between the 2 would have not been RARE at all. You probably was in SRL promotional team with Mike Trainer or listening too much to Howard Cossell.

First of all, a 3rd fight immediately after their 2nd would have been rare.
Apparently you don't undertand my ealier statement "How often do two fighters fight each other 3 times in a row for the title"
By this I mean neither fighter can fight anyone else (weather their fights against others are non-title fights or not) during the period that these fighters are having their 3 title fights.
Ruiz-Holyfield (which was for a paper title)is the only example that you gave that would fit this category. Johannson-Patterson is another. I'm sure there are a few others but it's very rare. More than 99% of the time this doesn't happen.
Other fighters deserve title shots as well. It's not asking too much for a fighter to restablish himself after quitting.
Duran shouldn't have to beg for a third fight? Well as mentioned twice previously, Duran would have gotten another title shot soon enough if he would have beaten a couple of welterweight contenders. Instead duran fled to a higher weight class.
Elmer why don't you ever address this?

Don't like the Holyfield example because cruiserweight wasn't an "Original" weight class.
Do any of Jimmy Ellis' losses at heavyweight count? After all,he started out as a middleweight?
Do any Archie Moores losses at lightheavyweight count, since he stated out at middleweight?
Do any of Mickey Walker's losses above welterweight count?
I can come up with dozens of more examples.

Enough with the natural lightweight baloney. Fighters move up all the time. That is natural.
If a fighter steps up in class and had never fought in that weight class and fights the champion right away, than you can make an arguement. However as has been pointed out many times, Duran had several fights at welterweight before he fought Leonard. He had grown into a welterweight. That is natural.

Enough with the out of shape excuse. If a fighter isn't in shape for a world title fight, don't go crying if you don't get an immediate rematch.
Duran was older? He just turned 29. Is that supposed to be old?

To say that Leonard was a sissy in the first fight is just stupid. He fought toe to toe with Duran for 15 rounds. Still waiting for Elmer salsa to answer my question why if you think Duran won easily you only had him winning by points?

Yes Duran deserves credit for winning the first fight.
Yes Duran deserves to be ripped for quitting in the second.
No, he didn't deserve an immediate 3rd fight.
Yes he would have fought Leonard again if he wouldn't have fled the
welterweight class and beaten a couple of welterweight contenders while Leonard was fighting Hearns and others.

Collins2000 wrote:

Victor*KC wrote:I don't know why he didn't give Duran a rematch after they fought I also don't know why he didn't give Hearns and Hagler a rematch maybe someone can help me out..

Why not read some source material from the times? That might help you understand.

Though some people can't understand even if they read the source documents, watch the fights and listen to people who were fans at the time.

You aren't one of those clowns like Crankberry are you Victor?

No it was just a joke pointing out how Leonard never gave anyone a rematch...

Ambling Alp wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote: How often do two fighters fight each other 3 times in a row for a title?It's happened but its very rare. There are other fighters who should get a chance. Certainly when one guys quits so easily he doesn't deserve an immediate rematch.
As mentioned before, it was Duran who moved out of the welterweight division after the 2nd fight with Leonard, up to Jr Middleweight. You can't can't fight for the welterweight title if you are a Jr Middleweight. Had he stayed a welterweight, he surely would have gotten another shot at Leonard, by 1982 and he had to have known that.

As mentioned before, it doesn't make sense for you to say that the first Duran-Leonard fight wasn't close, when you yourself had Duran winning by only 3 points in a 15 round fight.

As mentioned before Duran, wasn't a lightweight when he fought Leonard. He hadn't been a lightweight for some time. He had already had 7 fights at welterweight before he fought Leonard. He was used to the weight and had naturally grown into it. Fighters move up in weight all of the time. Few fighters in the lower weight classes stay int the same weight classes their entire career. In fact, he moved up to a weight class higher than welterweight after he fought Leonard. Was Holyfield a cruiserweight when he fought Bowe,Tyson, and Lewis? No, he was a heavyweight. When a fighter moves up in that weight, he is no longer the weight he used to be, he is the weight that he moved up to.

The Duran wasn't in shape excuse is about as lame as you can get. You could use that excuse for the losing fighter in every fight.

It seems that you never got the facts straight, Alp. Leonard never wanted to give him a rematch, with the SORRY EXCUSE that Duran had to restablish himself. That is a bunch of HOG WASH AND BALONEY. Duran is not going to beg all his life for a third match. He asked for a third fight RIGHT AWAY and Leonard did not wanted to fight him then. What is Duran supposed to do? Cry an kiss Leonard's ass for a rematch?

Duran beats him, and he does not have to restablish himself, but as soon Duran loses, he got to be restablish. That right there tells me that he did not wanted no part of Duran. Two fights with the Hands of Stone is enough. The STRATEGY WAS, ask for a rematch, catch Roberto Duran off guard while he is doing all the partying, and then, do not give him a third fight. That was the strategy from the get go. If you do not want to accept that, fine, I could live with that, you do not have to agree. But you must AGREE that Leonard got beat up by lightweight, no matter how many fights he had before fighting him. He was a NATURAL LIGHTWEIGHT. That is what Duran is associated with. Lightweight great...Leonard is associated with the welterweights...Welterweight great.

Holyfield is a heavyweight, even when he was a cruiserweight. What was the ORIGINAL weight classification for heavyweights? 175 and up. So Holyfield is a heavyweight, even though he was a cruiserweight. But Duran, a lightweight that was not as dominant at welterweight mainly because it was 12 pounds heavier, the opponents are bigger, and lastly, he could not hit as hard as when he was a lightweight, beat a STRONGER, FASTER, TALLER and YOUNGER opponent in his own weight class, that has to tell us a lot about Duran. He beat a NATURAL WELTERWEIGHT and NOBODY, even Sugar Ray cannot erase that.

Duran was not in shape, Alp. You know that is not an excuse. Those are facts. Did you see at one time Duran slipping punches like in the first fight??? What happened when the two were in their top shape in Montreal in their biggest fight outside the heavyweights? Who won? Was not Montreal Sugar Rays's adopted home? What happened? He had to clutch and grab like a sissy so that he could not get knocked out by a lightweight?

And is a FACT that a smaller great fighter loses against a bigger great fighter 90% of the time. Everybody knows that the Duran of 20 pounds heavier at 154 is NOT GOING TO BE THE SAME like in his natural weight.

I will ask you this: Did Sugar Ray Leonard would have beaten the likes of Michael Spinks and Matthew Saad Muhammads? It would be 20 pounds heavier for Sugar Ray...would have he beaten those guys in his 30s? I DON'T THINK SO.

I give Leonard CREDIT for coming back, but he NEVER BEAT A PRIME AND IN GREAT SHAPE DURAN. HE ONLY BEAT THE NAME...THAT'S ALL.

And for fighters to fight 3 straight times for the title IT WAS NEVER RARE...Granberry gave you many examples...Need more, Alp, need more???

John Ruiz vs Evander Holyfield

Emile Griffith vs Nino Benvenutti

Terry Norris vs Luis Santana...According to your logic, nobody would have paid to see this fight for the second or third times, but somehow they fought 3 times in a row for the title...What a COINCIDENCE, I FORGOT that Norris is AMERICAN, JUST LIKE SUGAR RAY LEONARD.

Duilio Loi vs Carlos Ortiz...Hello!!!

Ruben Olivares vs Chucho Castillo

Manuel Ortiz vs Luis Castillo

So a third fight in boxing history between the 2 would have not been RARE at all. You probably was in SRL promotional team with Mike Trainer or listening too much to Howard Cossell.

First of all, a 3rd fight immediately after their 2nd would have been rare.
Apparently you don't undertand my ealier statement "How often do two fighters fight each other 3 times in a row for the title"
By this I mean neither fighter can fight anyone else (weather their fights against others are non-title fights or not) during the period that these fighters are having their 3 title fights.
Ruiz-Holyfield (which was for a paper title)is the only example that you gave that would fit this category. Johannson-Patterson is another. I'm sure there are a few others but it's very rare. More than 99% of the time this doesn't happen.
Other fighters deserve title shots as well. It's not asking too much for a fighter to restablish himself after quitting.
Duran shouldn't have to beg for a third fight? Well as mentioned twice previously, Duran would have gotten another title shot soon enough if he would have beaten a couple of welterweight contenders. Instead duran fled to a higher weight class.
Elmer why don't you ever address this?

Don't like the Holyfield example because cruiserweight wasn't an "Original" weight class.
Do any of Jimmy Ellis' losses at heavyweight count? After all,he started out as a middleweight?
Do any Archie Moores losses at lightheavyweight count, since he stated out at middleweight?
Do any of Mickey Walker's losses above welterweight count?
I can come up with dozens of more examples.

Enough with the natural lightweight baloney. Fighters move up all the time. That is natural.
If a fighter steps up in class and had never fought in that weight class and fights the champion right away, than you can make an arguement. However as has been pointed out many times, Duran had several fights at welterweight before he fought Leonard. He had grown into a welterweight. That is natural.

Enough with the out of shape excuse. If a fighter isn't in shape for a world title fight, don't go crying if you don't get an immediate rematch.
Duran was older? He just turned 29. Is that supposed to be old?

To say that Leonard was a sissy in the first fight is just stupid. He fought toe to toe with Duran for 15 rounds. Still waiting for Elmer salsa to answer my question why if you think Duran won easily you only had him winning by points?

Yes Duran deserves credit for winning the first fight.
Yes Duran deserves to be ripped for quitting in the second.
No, he didn't deserve an immediate 3rd fight.
Yes he would have fought Leonard again if he wouldn't have fled the
welterweight class and beaten a couple of welterweight contenders while Leonard was fighting Hearns and others.

See, I gave you 6 other more examples of title fights fought in a row. You asked, how many times 2 figthters fight for the title 3 times in a row, now you want to refute granberry's and mine answers. It does not matter if those fighters had non title bouts in between, it was not for the title. A MAN FIGHTING ANOTHER FOR THE THIRD TIME FOR THE SAME TITLE WAS NOT RARE. YOU WANT TO MAKE IT RARE.

SO Ray does not need a fight with another contender for Duran in their second fight, BUT DURAN HAS TO RESTABLISH HIMSELF? THAT IS BALONEY! THAT IS POLITICS!!!

A third fight would have been marketable, no matter what. It was Leonard who thought that it was not marketable for good reason...It was all for his advantage.

The RULE is a smaller and great fighter almost loses 90% against a great and bigger fighter. Duran, even though he was fighting as a welterweight in 2 years, STILL WAS NOT THE SAME AS A LIGHTWEIGHT. It cost him harder to KO people above his NATURAL WEIGHT CLASS and it showed...It also was LOGICAL. If that is not the case, why Bob Foster could not beat heavyweights? He was AWESOME at 175, but 5 of his 8 losses were against heavyweights.

Why Sugar Ray could get a rematch right away, and Duran now has to prove to fight other welterweights??? That is unfair. That is politics. That is American politics and system. That is American way for Leonard but not for Duran. I bet you if Duran was American, or the media darling, he would have gotten a third fight. No question about that.

See, you do not have the facts straight. Duran asked for a immediate rematch. 10 months later, he had to move to 154, a weight class that is not his. HE GOT TIRED OF BEGGING. WHY SHOULD HE BEG? Leonard then fights Ayub Kalule for the 154 title? Why then did he not fight Duran instead at 154 for a 10 rounder or something?

I give credit for Leonard for what he did in boxing. But he knows that he lost to a lightweight in the biggest night of Leonard's life. No matter how many years Duran had at 147, he was not the same, and still beat him. Where was the head movement in the second fight Alp? Something that Duran was so underrated. Duran did not had the speed, the power, nor the head movement. Why? Because he did not had the PROPER TIME to train. Most of the time he was partying, and Sugar Ray confessed that he caught the Hands of Stone off guard. Maybe he had the stomach cramps. Why it cannot be believable? None of us are inside his body. You may not believe it, I could live with that. But when both were in their top shape, DURAN WON. LEONARD NEVER BEAT A DURAN IN TOP SHAPE...That is something that irks a lot of people.

Leonard is a sissy in a lot of ways when it comes to Duran. He knew that Duran was his biggest obstacle for greatness, not Hearns. He had to clutch and grab and hold for 15 rounds. Watch the fight again and see who was doing all the holding. Then we give him "credit" that he fought toe to toe with Duran. That was a bunch of baloney. A bigger fighter has to grab and clutch a lightweight or blown lightweight and still lost the fight. Now, he loses, and the experts say he trade with Duran. He did more clutching to me than trading. He was afraid of being KO'd.

The other excuse is that Leonard did not fought his fight. Against a lightweight? He has to run and move?...FIGHT LIKE A MAN!!!

Every cruiserweight in history is a HEAVYWEIGHT. Like it or not. That was a heavyweight class. Marciano today or Ezzard Charles would have been called cruiserweights. The same with Floyd Patterson. They did not passed over 195 pounds.

Elmer, your mind is obviously closed on this matter. The fact that you can't see any difference in Leonard's loss in the first fight and Duran's loss in the second confirms this.

As someone said there is reason and then there is faith. And you can't argue with faith.

Elmer salsa, I will try to explain what I said about 3 times in a row one more time. Please read carefully. It has to be in a row. Consecutively. That means that neither guy can fight anyone else in that time.

Your only example that would fit Norris and Santana. They fought each other in title fights 3 times in a row. That was a unique situation because both the first and fight was very controversial.

None of your other examples work.
Griffith-Bevenuti
Griffith fought Bevenuti on 4/17/1967
Griffith fought Bevenuti on 9/29/1967
Griffith fought Remo Golfarini on 12/15/1967
Griffith then fought Bevenuti on 3/4/1968

Benvenuti fought Griffith on 4/17/1967
Benvenuti fought Griffith on 9/29/1967
Benvenuti fought Charley Austin on 1/19/1968
Benvenuti then fought Griffith on 3/4/1968

Loi fought Ortiz on 6/15/1960
Loi fought Ortiz on 9/1/1960
Loi fought Auzel on 11/25/1960
Loi then fought Ortiz on 5/10/1961

Ortiz fought Loi on 6/15/1960
Ortiz fought Loi on 9/1/1960
Ortiz fought Cisco Andrade on 2/2/1961
Ortiz then fought Loi on 5/10/1961

Do you get the picture? It's the same with Olivares-Castillo and Ortiz -Castillo. Olivares fought 3 times between his first and 2nd fights with Castillo. L Ortiz fought 7 times between his 2nd and third fights with Castillo. Castillo had 12 fights between his second and third fight with Ortiz.

They didn't fight each other 3 times in a row. Look it up.

It's very rare for 2 fighters to fight each other 3 times in a row, without fighting other fighters for a title. (It has happended a few other times but is rare)
Certainly a fighter who quit like Duran shouldn't expect an immediate rematch. This has nothing to do with Duran not being from the United States. If the situation was reversed Leonard wouldn't have gotten a rematch right away either.
A champion who regains his title usually isn't expected to fight the guy he won it back from right away. If that other fighter beats others fighters and establishes himself as the top contender then he should get another shot.
Other fighters in duran's situation almost always have to wins some other fights before getting another shot. After Duran's disgraceful quitting in the second fight he certainly didn't deserve a title shot. He should have to beat other welterweight contenders before getting another chance.
You also have to consider that their are other contenders who also deserve title shots as well. This is one reason why it makes sense that 2 guys don't often fight 3 times in a row in title fights.

As for Duran begging for a rematch for 10 months, well he should have tried fighting for 10 months instead.
Duran certainly would have eventually gotten another title shot if he would have beaten some welterweight contenders. Instead he got out of the welterweight division.

Should Leonard have fought Duran in a 10 round fight at 154 instead of Kalue? If he beat Duran at 154, you would have complained that it wasn't Duran's natural weight.

As for your excuses about Duran not being a real welterweight and your using Bob Foster as example of a fighter moving up in weight and weren't successful, that's not a great example. Lightheavyweights usually struggle more in moving up because it's a bigger jump in weight. Here are some examples of other fighters who moved up in weight class and were very successful:
Canzoneri,Dixon,Fitzsimmons,McGovern,Ross,Walker,Arguello,Armstrong,Basilio,Griffith,Harada,Jofre,Olivares,Robinson, Tiger,Mayweather, De La Hoya, Moseley,Hearns and of course Leonard himself to name a few.

It can be done. Fighters in lower weight classes routinely move up in weight. If they aren't too old and have naturally grown into the higher weight class (like Duran) then they don't really have an excuse when they lose.

As for the Duran wasn't in shape crap, well even if it's true that not Leonard's problem. That's Duran's own fault. thats the kind of excuse that little kids make. I could have beat you, but I didn't try hard. Do you think we shouldn't count any of Tony Tubbs' losses because he wasn't in shape?

The dumbest remark is about Leonard being a "sissy". That is just stupid. What was Duran when he quit in their second fight? Courageous? How about an answer for once, instead of sidestepping the question.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:people unfairly make duran out to be some sickly way out of shape on his death bed fighter that night, they make too many exuses for duran

Dead right.

Duran wimped out of the fight & that is plain & simple.

Imagine the furore if SRL had quit in the 1st fight because he could not subdue the relentless Duran?

Ambling Alp wrote:Elmer salsa, I will try to explain what I said about 3 times in a row one more time. Please read carefully. It has to be in a row. Consecutively. That means that neither guy can fight anyone else in that time.

Your only example that would fit Norris and Santana. They fought each other in title fights 3 times in a row. That was a unique situation because both the first and fight was very controversial.

None of your other examples work.
Griffith-Bevenuti
Griffith fought Bevenuti on 4/17/1967
Griffith fought Bevenuti on 9/29/1967
Griffith fought Remo Golfarini on 12/15/1967
Griffith then fought Bevenuti on 3/4/1968

Benvenuti fought Griffith on 4/17/1967
Benvenuti fought Griffith on 9/29/1967
Benvenuti fought Charley Austin on 1/19/1968
Benvenuti then fought Griffith on 3/4/1968

Loi fought Ortiz on 6/15/1960
Loi fought Ortiz on 9/1/1960
Loi fought Auzel on 11/25/1960
Loi then fought Ortiz on 5/10/1961

Ortiz fought Loi on 6/15/1960
Ortiz fought Loi on 9/1/1960
Ortiz fought Cisco Andrade on 2/2/1961
Ortiz then fought Loi on 5/10/1961

Do you get the picture? It's the same with Olivares-Castillo and Ortiz -Castillo. Olivares fought 3 times between his first and 2nd fights with Castillo. L Ortiz fought 7 times between his 2nd and third fights with Castillo. Castillo had 12 fights between his second and third fight with Ortiz.

They didn't fight each other 3 times in a row. Look it up.

It's very rare for 2 fighters to fight each other 3 times in a row, without fighting other fighters for a title. (It has happended a few other times but is rare)
Certainly a fighter who quit like Duran shouldn't expect an immediate rematch. This has nothing to do with Duran not being from the United States. If the situation was reversed Leonard wouldn't have gotten a rematch right away either.
A champion who regains his title usually isn't expected to fight the guy he won it back from right away. If that other fighter beats others fighters and establishes himself as the top contender then he should get another shot.
Other fighters in duran's situation almost always have to wins some other fights before getting another shot. After Duran's disgraceful quitting in the second fight he certainly didn't deserve a title shot. He should have to beat other welterweight contenders before getting another chance.
You also have to consider that their are other contenders who also deserve title shots as well. This is one reason why it makes sense that 2 guys don't often fight 3 times in a row in title fights.

As for Duran begging for a rematch for 10 months, well he should have tried fighting for 10 months instead.
Duran certainly would have eventually gotten another title shot if he would have beaten some welterweight contenders. Instead he got out of the welterweight division.

Should Leonard have fought Duran in a 10 round fight at 154 instead of Kalue? If he beat Duran at 154, you would have complained that it wasn't Duran's natural weight.

As for your excuses about Duran not being a real welterweight and your using Bob Foster as example of a fighter moving up in weight and weren't successful, that's not a great example. Lightheavyweights usually struggle more in moving up because it's a bigger jump in weight. Here are some examples of other fighters who moved up in weight class and were very successful:
Canzoneri,Dixon,Fitzsimmons,McGovern,Ross,Walker,Arguello,Armstrong,Basilio,Griffith,Harada,Jofre,Olivares,Robinson, Tiger,Mayweather, De La Hoya, Moseley,Hearns and of course Leonard himself to name a few.

It can be done. Fighters in lower weight classes routinely move up in weight. If they aren't too old and have naturally grown into the higher weight class (like Duran) then they don't really have an excuse when they lose.

As for the Duran wasn't in shape crap, well even if it's true that not Leonard's problem. That's Duran's own fault. thats the kind of excuse that little kids make. I could have beat you, but I didn't try hard. Do you think we shouldn't count any of Tony Tubbs' losses because he wasn't in shape?

The dumbest remark is about Leonard being a "sissy". That is just stupid. What was Duran when he quit in their second fight? Courageous? How about an answer for once, instead of sidestepping the question.

Fighting for the title 3 times is not rare. Now, you want to come up with fights in between in non title fights. We are not talking about fights in between. We are talking about title fights in a row in the same order. Forget about fights in between. Granberry and I gave you MANY EXAMPLES. Well, if you refute that, that is fine with me. I could live with that too.

But you know, in the biggest night of Leonard's life, he lost IN SHAPE against another guy that was in shape. The SMALLER GUY BEAT HIM...THAT IS A FACT. A LIGHTWEIGHT...THAT IS A FACT. Now matter how you downplay this.
Duran depends on head movement and speed to win against any formidable opponent. That night in New Orleans, WE ALL KNOW, THAT WAS NOT THE REAL DURAN...LET'S LOOK AT THE TAPE...SHALL WE??

It was a big difference between Montreal and New Orleans. Duran looked like night and day. No head movement, no jumping, no speed, no pep in his punches. Every thing that SRL threw was on target, but in Montreal Ray missed so much like never before. There's gotta be an explanation...There gotta be. How come a guy in the first fight make you miss, beat you in all the areas, nullify your hand speed, and had an answer for everything you tried in Montreal, and now in New Orleans there is none of that? Explain me that? OOOhhhhh Now Leonard is a sharpshooter and more accurate puncher? HE FOUGHT HIS FIGHT! HE FOUGHT HIS FIGHT! HE FOUGHT HIS FIGHT!

Now you call trading blows holding and clutching? Then Zeferino Garcia did the same with Duran for 10 rounds. You gotta give Garcia CREDIT.
All night Ray was doing all the holding like a sissy. Fight like Carlos Palomino did. Fight like Hagler vs Hearns did. Fight like DeJesus did...Do not clutch and grab a lightweight....Fight!!!

Second fight, more clutching and grabbing, but this time, HE IS FIGHTING HIS FIGHT AGAINST AN OUT OF SHAPE OPPONENT. That is what happened. If Duran was in shape, then kudos for Ray. But Ray did not do that.

Now, you want to change the verse from 3 fights in title fights in a row, to 3 fghts in a row no matter if is title fight or non title fights. Great Psychology, but it did not work. We are talking about 3 fights in a row in title fights. Title fights. THAT IS NOT RARE.

Now, why did not Ray restablished himself after losing to Duran? Because it was POLITICS. It was necessary for Ray to win back the title at any cost. Then, avoid Duran for a 3rd meeting. That was the plan. Maybe, you do not want to believe it, then it is fine with me. I BELIEVE IT.

Forget about a man that quits. He won the first fight. He should get a chance to redeemed himself against the guy that beat him just like Ray redeemed himself.


Now, you are using these guys as examples:

Canzoneri,Dixon,Fitzsimmons,McGovern,Ross,Walker,Arguello,Armstrong,Basilio,Griffith,Harada,Jofre,Olivares,Robinson, Tiger,Mayweather, De La Hoya, Moseley,Hearns and of course Leonard himself to name a few.


And it is a fact, that a fighter who dominated his NATURAL WEIGHT CLASS is harder for him to beat a fighter his equal, ESPECIALLY, WHEN THE FIGHTER IS BIGGER THAN YOU. ALL THOSE FIGHTERS YOU MENTIONED ABOVE, were not that successful moving up.

Basilio lost his title back to a bigger man.

Armstrong look great at 147, but his challengers were not top class. He lost to Lou Ambers, a guy his equal, but BIGGER THAN HIM.

Jofre beat a washed up Saldivar.

Harada got KO'd by Johnny Famechon

Griffith IMMEDIATLEY lost it to Benvenutti. Benvenutti proved that he was BIGGER fighting a blown welterweight. Monzon beat him twice.

Hearns lost to a formidable Marvin Hagler. Another sensational fighter that is bigger and in his natural weight class. Virgil Hill is not Hagler nor Leonard, nor Bob Foster.

McGovern: got whupped by someone his equal in Young Corbett III. The problem here is that is not McGovern's class.

Canzoneri??? Every body beat him up above his natural weight class. He got 9 losses in title fights. More than any other fighter in history.

Fitzsimmons??? What happened? He was getting outboxed by a bigger man, won it by a solar plexus punch. It is OK. But Jack Johnson, a giant, almost killed him in 3 rounds and another giant, Jim J Jeffries put him out of the heavyweight picture. That is why Bob had to go down to 175.

Arguello? He beats a good fighter in Alfredo Escalera. But Escalera is not Ruben Olivares nor Roberto Duran nor Aaron Pryor nor Ray Leonard. Neither is Jim Watt. Pryor proved TOO STRONG FOR HIM BECAUSE OF THE WEIGHT. IT IS LOGICAL, YOU MUST LOSE.

Robinson??? at 147, he is sensational. Nobody cannot beat him at 147. How did he get his first loss? Against a middleweight. 18 of his 19 losses were ABOVE HIS NATURAL WEIGHT CLASS. THAT IS A RULE. HE WAS NOT THE EXCEPTION EITHER.

Dick Tiger? Is Jose "Chegui" Torres sensational? Bob Foster BLEW HIM OUT IN 4. He had to go back to middleweight because that is not his NATURAL WEIGHT CLASS.

Floyd Mayweather??? What fighter of caliber has he beaten, or someone his equal in skill??? Nobody yet. Tyszu was the real test. He did not fight him. Now he is fighting a probably WASHED UP DELAHOYA.

DeLaHoya??? Has never beaten a sensational boxer outside his natural weight class. He lost to Tito, OK, a fight that I saw DLH win, but he could not even beat a washed up Pernell Whitaker, and forget about the Bernard Hopkins fiasco.

Olivares??? at 118, he was awesome. Forget about 126.

Mosely??? lost twice to a guy his equal, but the problem here is that his equal is a natural welterweight. We all know what happened when he fought twice Winky Wright at 154.

Adding more to this:


And Leonard? He got the decision against somebody that MANY IN THIS FORUM AND AROUND THE WORLD THOUGHT HE LOST. Beating Donny Lalonde nor Ayub Kalule gets you nowhere, even though they were bigger than you, they were not even in Iran Barkley's or Davey Moore's class. Only fights ond fight at 160, 1 fight at supposedly 175, which was a fake, (Lalonde had to come down a catchweight) and we saw how a bigger and stronger Hearns this time put him to eat dust twice in the ground...Another fight he lost.

Willie Pep? awesome at 126. But sees THE REALITY CHECK when he loses to a stronger lightweight in Sammy Angott.


So the theory of smaller fighters that were AWESOME in their own weight
class like Bob Foster, Ray Robinson, Roberto Duran, Wilfredo Gomez, Ruben Olivares, Alexis Arguello, and even the same Sugar Ray Leonard, were not as successful like when they are going up fighting men equally in skill. Just ask Mantequilla Napoles.

So Duran, being a lightweight and not in shape, gotta lose at some point. The thing is that Leonard NEVER beat him at his very best. But Duran did beat him at his very best...Cry all you want to that he did not fight his fight against a lightweight.

elmer salsa- On April 2, I said that "How often do two fighters fight each three times in a row for a title". You then kept bringing up fighters that fought 3 times but not in a row. I explained again that it had to be in a row. Go back on this thread and you will see that. I said in a row from the beginning.

I was making a point, which you don't seem to be able to grasp, but I will try again. It's extremely rare for two fighters to fight each other 3 times in a row for a title which would have been the case if Duran and Leonard would have fought a third fight immediately. Historically the fighter who lost the 2nd fight usually had to beat someone else before getting another shot while the champion fought someone else. You want Duran to get special priviledges that most fighters in his position usually don't get. And those guys didn't quit. Duran was lucky that he didn't get suspended for quitting against Leonard, much less get another title shot right away.

Other fighters deserve a chance. Imagine that you are the #2 contender. The champion if defending the title against the #1 contender. Several months later they fight again for the title. Then several months after that they fight a third time for the title. That isn't fair to other contenders.

No I'm not going to forget that Duran quit. People pay good money to see a fight. Other fighters who don't quit deserve a chance before a fighter that quits. Duran should have to prove himself again.
And he could have done so and he would eventually have gotten another title shot. Instead, he fled to the Jr Middleweight division.

As for all the guys that you mentioned that "weren't that successful"
Sure, they all eventually lost. But every single one of them were good enough to win the title at a higher weight, so they were successful.

It's hard to say which of your examples is the most ridiculaus, but your examples of Fitzimmons and Canzoneri are probably the winners.

Fitzsimmons wasn't successful at heavyweight? Yes he did lose to great champions like Jeffries and Johnson. Fitzsimmons was almost 36 when he lost to Jeffries and was 44 when he lost to Johnson. He not only beat Corbett for the heavyweight title, but also heavyweight contenders Ruhlin,Sharkey and Maher. Fitzsimmons did win the lightheavyweight after losing to Jeffries, at the age of 40! Remember he started out as a middleweight!
Using Bob Fitzsimmons as an example of a guy who wasn't successful at fighting in a higher weight class is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

Tony Canzoneri? Wasn't successful at higher weights? He started off as a bantamweight, won the featherweight title, and won the lightweight tile. He beat Jack Kid Berg, Kid Chocolate,Billy Petrolle, Lou Ambers, and Jimmy McClarnin at lightweight. Ever heard of these guys? He was very successful when he moved up in weight.

As mentioned all of these guys that I had brought up in the earlier post had success when they moved in weight. When they did lose, they rarely quit, and never as easily as Duran did. I could easily come up with an excuse for their losses that are just as good as the lame "Duran wasn't in shape excuse" that you use constantly.

Still calling Leonard a sissy? Fine, whatever. Not worth talking about anymore. What do you call a guy who quits, makes excuses why he lost, won't fight top contenders so that he will be in line for another shot against the guy that he wants so badly, then moves out of the division of the guy that he wants to fight again so badly?

I'm sure you will duck this question, but I will ask it anyway;
Whats worse, losing a 15 round decison (in a fight that you yourself said that Duran only won by 3 points) or quitting in the 8th round?

this is another futile post-an attempt to help bolster leonard's meager career accomplishments. If anyone holds excuses it's Ray Leonard fans.

Everytime he loses they got one ready ie; he didn't box, he got old, he was shot, he wasn't ready, his calf was hurting, he was going thru a divorce, he was on cocaine-all of them bullshit.

Never mind all the times he was floored, staggered and for the most part was completely outboxed by the hitman and had no idea how to deal with a moving target.

No wonder he was hesitant to give a rematch.

Does anyone in their right mind really think that performance was more than marginal?? If anything his rubber match with Duran was the most impressive to date-the first time he actually won against a major fighter with NO debate. That is until his next fight which saw him get a long overdue slap down.

If this guy were as great as some of you let on, there wouldn't be all the debate, controversial questions and if the man (I use that term loosely) had an ounce of pride in him would never hesitate to give a rematch.

But since he didn't, I can see why it would take him 8 or 9 years to get around to it.

bump