BoxRec

Ambling Alp II wrote:Sorry that you are so upset Ezzard. I have always liked you and thought that you were a good poster. We just have never agrreed at all about Leonard and Duran.

I think it is a cry baby excuse that Duran was really a lightweight. He had naturally moved up in weight. It was not like it was his first fight at welterweight and he suddenly bulked up. Like almost everyone, he gradually got bigger as he matured in his 20s. Doesn't mean he can't be as good. I thought he fought as well as a welterweight as he did as a lightweight; he just didn't do it as long.

I disagree with your argument that fighters aren't as good when they move up. I think it's normal for a fighter in a lower weight class to fight in 3 or more weight classes and be just as good in the 2nd and 3rd weight classes.
You mentioned Archie Moore. He actually fought as a middleweight for several years before he was a lightheavyweight. He was a better lightheavyweight. Michael Spinks went from 175 to 200 from one fight to the next when he was older. That is quite different than gradually going from 135-147 over the period of several years, fighting several fights at 147 and then fighting for the title.
Mickey Walker was a better middleweight than he was a welterweight. Many other fighters were about the same.

I am not making excuses for Leonard losing the first fight. I don't think there should be excuses for Duran losing the 2nd either. That is really my main point. I give Duran a lot of credit for winning the first fight; I think Leonard should get equal credit for winning the 2nd.

Il Duce wrote:Mr. A-Alp,

You don't really believe that Roberto Duran was as 'good' at Welterweight {Age; 29} as
he was at Lightweight {Age 21 thru 27}.

Want To Buy A Bridge ?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Greater accomplishments? Umm, no.
Duran didn't win the head to head.
Leonard was better against common opponents.
Leonard beat better opposition.
Leonard lost less often. Leonard's only loss when close to his prime was to Leonard. Duran lost to Leonard, but also lost to DeJesus, Benitez and Lang.

This is the criteria I always use when rating fighters when I am rating fighters, whether I like one of them better or not. Sometimes, the guy I like better comes out better, sometimes not.

Duran doesn't come out better in any area.

The only excuses I make for a fighter are such things as age and/or wear and tear, long layoffs, injuries or being too inexperienced. I make those allowances for fighters whether I like like them, despise them, or anywhere in between.I think this is reasonable and most others do the same. For example I don't give factor in the 3rd Leonard-Duran fight when rating either Duran or Leonard.
If you can come up with specific instances when I made excuses for other reasons, point them out.
I don't buy excuses regarding things like a fighter supposedly being unmotivated, having personal problems etc.

There is no legitimate reason that Leonard wasn't at his physical best when he fought Duran the first time. It was not the best fight that he ever fought. He has no legitimate excuse for losing.
There is no legitimate reason that Duran wasn't at his physical best when he fought Leonard the 2nd time. It was not the best fight that he ever fought either. He had no legitimate excuse for losing.

Your criteria always involves whom do you prefer to the highest extent. It's hysterical that you consider yourself objective. Leonard couldn't take a piss without shrugging off your face.

I mean you say that Duran didn't win head to head and later you say the third fight doesn't factor in. How does that happen? Oh yeah, in your sad little retarded world. You're a clown to the utmost degree.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Greater accomplishments? Umm, no.
Duran didn't win the head to head.
Leonard was better against common opponents.
Leonard beat better opposition.
Leonard lost less often. Leonard's only loss when close to his prime was to Leonard. Duran lost to Leonard, but also lost to DeJesus, Benitez and Lang.

This is the criteria I always use when rating fighters when I am rating fighters, whether I like one of them better or not. Sometimes, the guy I like better comes out better, sometimes not.

Duran doesn't come out better in any area.

The only excuses I make for a fighter are such things as age and/or wear and tear, long layoffs, injuries or being too inexperienced. I make those allowances for fighters whether I like like them, despise them, or anywhere in between.I think this is reasonable and most others do the same. For example I don't give factor in the 3rd Leonard-Duran fight when rating either Duran or Leonard.
If you can come up with specific instances when I made excuses for other reasons, point them out.
I don't buy excuses regarding things like a fighter supposedly being unmotivated, having personal problems etc.

There is no legitimate reason that Leonard wasn't at his physical best when he fought Duran the first time. It was not the best fight that he ever fought. He has no legitimate excuse for losing.
There is no legitimate reason that Duran wasn't at his physical best when he fought Leonard the 2nd time. It was not the best fight that he ever fought either. He had no legitimate excuse for losing.

Your criteria always involves whom do you prefer to the highest extent. It's hysterical that you consider yourself objective. Leonard couldn't take a piss without shrugging off your face.

I mean you say that Duran didn't win head to head and later you say the third fight doesn't factor in. How does that happen? Oh yeah, in your sad little retarded world. You're a clown to the utmost degree.

Still going with the old standby? About time you go some new material.
I'd rather be a clown that the pathetic human being that you are.
Seriously, you couldn't figure out that Duran still didn't win the head to head if you don't count the 3rd fight? Wow. You see, if you win one fight, and lose the second, you are 1-1. That's even. That means that you didn't win the head to series. Sorry if this modern math is confusing you. Maybe it's the drugs again.

I am using the same criteria as I always do. Duran ties on one factor and loses on all the rest. Had he won both fights, then maybe you could argue that was enough to override everything else. However, he didn't. Therefore Leonard should be rated higher.

Name any other two fighters and I will compare them the same way. Been doing that for several years. Just because your guy loses out to someone you hate doesn't make me biased. (I don't really care about total wins or total knockouts. We all know that any decent fighter can always find easy wins that don't really matter.) Of course it's always better if they fought each other and had common opponents. If that didn't happen, then you still can look at their quality wins vs losses/poor performances.

elmersalsa wrote:The more I hear about it, "Sugar Ray did not fight his fight", the more dumber it sounds through the years. I used to believe that bunch of hogwash back in the day. But as I saw the two fights closely many times through the years, the TRUTH was that Duran beat the crap out of Leonard on the first one. Something that many posters here cannot accept.

I believe even if Leonard would have gone toe to toe with Duran in the second fight, he would have won, anyway. He was quicker and faster. Even in the inside exchanges, he was outpunching Duran. Duran did not had it that night. HE KNEW IT... The fight was lost from the opening bell. Leonard CAUGHT DURAN IN AN OFF NIGHT. HE NEVER BEAT DURAN AT DURAN'S BEST....END OF STORY.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Sorry that you are so upset Ezzard. I have always liked you and thought that you were a good poster. We just have never agrreed at all about Leonard and Duran.

I think it is a cry baby excuse that Duran was really a lightweight. He had naturally moved up in weight. It was not like it was his first fight at welterweight and he suddenly bulked up. Like almost everyone, he gradually got bigger as he matured in his 20s. Doesn't mean he can't be as good. I thought he fought as well as a welterweight as he did as a lightweight; he just didn't do it as long.

I disagree with your argument that fighters aren't as good when they move up. I think it's normal for a fighter in a lower weight class to fight in 3 or more weight classes and be just as good in the 2nd and 3rd weight classes.
You mentioned Archie Moore. He actually fought as a middleweight for several years before he was a lightheavyweight. He was a better lightheavyweight. Michael Spinks went from 175 to 200 from one fight to the next when he was older. That is quite different than gradually going from 135-147 over the period of several years, fighting several fights at 147 and then fighting for the title.
Mickey Walker was a better middleweight than he was a welterweight. Many other fighters were about the same.

I am not making excuses for Leonard losing the first fight. I don't think there should be excuses for Duran losing the 2nd either. That is really my main point. I give Duran a lot of credit for winning the first fight; I think Leonard should get equal credit for winning the 2nd.

Seamus wrote:Ray beat the guys Duran couldn't, and 2 of those 3 he stopped when they were champions. That's one of the reasons I rate him higher alltime.

ThatOne wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:The more I hear about it, "Sugar Ray did not fight his fight", the more dumber it sounds through the years. I used to believe that bunch of hogwash back in the day. But as I saw the two fights closely many times through the years, the TRUTH was that Duran beat the crap out of Leonard on the first one. Something that many posters here cannot accept.

I believe even if Leonard would have gone toe to toe with Duran in the second fight, he would have won, anyway. He was quicker and faster. Even in the inside exchanges, he was outpunching Duran. Duran did not had it that night. HE KNEW IT... The fight was lost from the opening bell. Leonard CAUGHT DURAN IN AN OFF NIGHT. HE NEVER BEAT DURAN AT DURAN'S BEST....END OF STORY.

Does it seem fair to you that Fighter B's victory should be tarnished because Fighter A didn't come to fight?

elmersalsa wrote:

Seamus wrote:Ray beat the guys Duran couldn't, and 2 of those 3 he stopped when they were champions. That's one of the reasons I rate him higher alltime.

He beat them in his prime... You think Ray would have beaten the greats Thomas Hearns and Marvin Hagler or even the great Wilfred Benitez in his 30s? Because by his 30s, Leonard was not the same guy.

elmersalsa wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:The more I hear about it, "Sugar Ray did not fight his fight", the more dumber it sounds through the years. I used to believe that bunch of hogwash back in the day. But as I saw the two fights closely many times through the years, the TRUTH was that Duran beat the crap out of Leonard on the first one. Something that many posters here cannot accept.

I believe even if Leonard would have gone toe to toe with Duran in the second fight, he would have won, anyway. He was quicker and faster. Even in the inside exchanges, he was outpunching Duran. Duran did not had it that night. HE KNEW IT... The fight was lost from the opening bell. Leonard CAUGHT DURAN IN AN OFF NIGHT. HE NEVER BEAT DURAN AT DURAN'S BEST....END OF STORY.

Does it seem fair to you that Fighter B's victory should be tarnished because Fighter A didn't come to fight?

In a lot of ways, Leonard's victory was kind of tarnished due to the fact that Duran quit, according to the media. Do you believe that that was the same Duran in Montreal? Really? Do you believe that Leonard, now "fought his fight" in New Orleans? Do you believe that Duran was at his very best? Really?

Anybody that thinks that that was the same Duran in Montreal is either delusional or need glasses or both.

Ezzard wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Sorry that you are so upset Ezzard. I have always liked you and thought that you were a good poster. We just have never agrreed at all about Leonard and Duran.

I think it is a cry baby excuse that Duran was really a lightweight. He had naturally moved up in weight. It was not like it was his first fight at welterweight and he suddenly bulked up. Like almost everyone, he gradually got bigger as he matured in his 20s. Doesn't mean he can't be as good. I thought he fought as well as a welterweight as he did as a lightweight; he just didn't do it as long.

I disagree with your argument that fighters aren't as good when they move up. I think it's normal for a fighter in a lower weight class to fight in 3 or more weight classes and be just as good in the 2nd and 3rd weight classes.
You mentioned Archie Moore. He actually fought as a middleweight for several years before he was a lightheavyweight. He was a better lightheavyweight. Michael Spinks went from 175 to 200 from one fight to the next when he was older. That is quite different than gradually going from 135-147 over the period of several years, fighting several fights at 147 and then fighting for the title.
Mickey Walker was a better middleweight than he was a welterweight. Many other fighters were about the same.

I am not making excuses for Leonard losing the first fight. I don't think there should be excuses for Duran losing the 2nd either. That is really my main point. I give Duran a lot of credit for winning the first fight; I think Leonard should get equal credit for winning the 2nd.

Moore did not dominate at Middle. Walker did not dominate at Welter. Duran did dominate at Lightweight. And many people then believe he became a better fighter at welter...which meant changing his style...think about it...he was a better fighter against boxers who were bigger, stronger and more powerful...

I can't think of anyone else who did this.

I'm not offering any excuses... I view their achievements through the lens of which division they started in...which division they made their own...and which division they ended up in...

And "cry baby"...really? Do you really want to be posting that?

elmersalsa wrote:Leonard NEVER beat Duran at Duran's very best and Leonard knows it. That is why is irking him after all these years.

Leonard "did not fight his fight in Montreal" LOL

Ambling Alp II wrote:
I know Moore at middleweight and that Walker didn't dominate at welterweight. That is my point. They moved up in weight and were better at the higher weight. Other fighters have done the same thing. Many move up and are at about the same level. Obviously it's not a perfect comparison with Duran the welterweight and Duran the lightweight. Duran was at lightweight for a much longer time. However, judging by the fights he had at welter there is no reason to say he wasn't as good.

Ezzard wrote:
But your point is irrelevant. Compare Moore at Middle to Duran at Feather…then Moore at 175 ad Duran at 135…where they both dominated and owned the division…then Duran at welter and Archie at Heavy… Archie was not as good at Heavy as he was at 175.

It just astounds me that weight divisions somehow don’t count.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Duran did defeat bigger and stronger fighters in the welterweight division than he did in the lightweight division. However, Duran himself was bigger and stronger than he had been. You act as if he was weighing 135 to Leonard's 147.

Ezzard wrote:
No I’m not. You’re lurching to the extreme. And making things up again.

On average welterweights have longer reaches, are taller, have better punch resistance and hit harder… small advantages add up. When Leonard fought Kalule he was at a slight disadvantage…but he was so much better it had no bearing on the result of the fight.

If you put on 10 pounds of muscle you are stronger but not in the same way as someone who is naturally 10 pounds bigger than you. It’s diminishing returns.

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Other fighters dominated a weight class, moved up and were about as good. Henry Armstrong, Alexis Arguello, Barney Ross. Armstrong and Ross actually beat great fighters who were much bigger than themselves.

Ezzard wrote:
Armstrong is arguably the greatest fighter who ever lived… So yes…great example of how truly amazing it was of Duran.

Ross was a great Jr Welter.

Arguello really dominated 130 and whilst still great at 135 he made hard work of Ramirez and Mancini who were not in his league. He was clearly better at 130.

These examples prove my point.

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Btw, there are a several lightweights from other eras who would have dominated at 135 during Duran's era.

Ezzard wrote:
What’s that got to do with anything? Objectivity?

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Leonard lost Duran fair and square. Duran lost to Leonard fair and square. He wasn't old, and he weighed about the same as Leonard. As for the "crybaby" term, no I am not calling you a crybaby. Yes I think it's a crybaby excuse to say Duran was the smaller man. He wasn't. Other excuses that others have made such as he only had 5 months to prepare for the defense or the made up stomach problems that his own trainer said was BS are crybaby excuses as well.

Ezzard wrote:
Just find it really hard to believe that “cry baby” is a phrase you would use. I’ve got kids who’d sneer at that…

Leonard was already, in a physical sense, a Boxing God when he fought Duran. But possibly…probably…he was only 99% there mentally…he allowed Duran to intimidate him…perhaps the homosexuality that has since come to light was behind this… Perhaps Ray was confused and when Duran questioned his manhood it just hit the wrong/right buttons. I don’t know but its been clearly documented that Ray was worried going in.

Maybe this is the circumstance that effected Ray in the first fight. I think there is probably something in this.

Ray faced his demons…came out of the defeat with his head held high…

Duran could no longer pull his old stunts between fights. He got over confident and didn’t train to fight but trained to lose weight. He wasn’t as physically prepared as he should have been.

That’s it.

At welterweight they were even. But as Duran spent most of his career at a lower weight then it’s pretty obvious to most that he would get the higher p4p ranking.

Feather: Duran
Light: Duran
Welter: Even
Jr Middle: Leonard
Middle: Leonard
Super Middle: Leonard