BoxRec

bump

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

Mr. Elmer let me school you in something that you have absolutely no clue of what you are taking about. First I was born and raised in Puerto Rico until I was 24 years old so I’m qualified to talk about how we Puerto Rican’s feel or don’t feel. Second your assumption that “most Puerto Rican’s rejoice with the no mas” is way off the mark. Duran losing that way hurt as much as the loss of Gomez to Sanchez. You have no clue of what you are taking about. When Duran defeated Leonard on their first fight we party like it was one of our own and we hug, jump, and dance of happiness and nobody told me this, because I was there and I experienced. When Duran lost on the second fight most of us felt so bad that you will think somebody die that night. So stop blaming Puerto Rican’s for Duran loss. He lost to a better fighter and that ends the story.


Now that brings me to another point; According to you when Duran fought Benitez he was Washed up, so what make you think that he would have defeated Leonard in a rematch? Accepted Leonard was the better fighter. Have a good day.

theone wrote:

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'm a full fledge Puerto Rican born and raised in Puerto Rico and I'll tell you Elmer ignorance could not be any bigger. I think the only hater in here is him. He wants to claim that Duran was washed up when he fought Benitez and he will give Benitez no credit for defeating Duran, but in a rematch Duran would have defeated Leonard. Please his bias is obvious, and the only excuse he can come up with is that Puerto Rican’s hate Duran.

I like Duran a lot, he's one of my favorite fighters, but I agree.

Leonard is a boxer. That's his style. If you don't like it, don't watch his fights. Leonard showed his toughness in the first fight, fighting Duran's fight and making it close. Second time around he fought his own fight and he won. That's boxing; you have to go with your strengths.

Also, don't criticize Leonard for taunting Duran in the second fight. Duran taunted Leonard in the first fight.

Ambling Alp wrote: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?

My examples that I gave you for two guys that fought 3 times in a row WERE VERY CLEAR. AGAIN, WE ARE TALKING 3 TIMES IN A ROW FOR THE SAME TITLE. And again, granberry and I gave you MANY, TOO MANY EXAMPLES.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE FOR Ampling alp: Carmen Basilio vs Johnny Saxton if fighting for the title 3 times is rare, then we got to say that your logic of this argument is FALSE. I see 2 fighters fighting each other 3 TIMES IN A ROW RARE, WHEN THEY ARE NOT FIGHTING FOR A NON TITLE FIGHT...THAT IS RARE.

But through the course of boxing history, fighting 3 times in a row for the same title is not rare nor an excuse. Secondly, you must have to phrase it : "How many times 2 fighters fight each other 3 times in a row" That is the correct statement. But for the title? in a row? There are MANY EXAMPLES.

Now, to show people that this is POLITICS and never had nothing to do with Duran's quitting, Tyson was going to fight Holyfield for the third time, but got suspended. The PUBLIC wanted the fight. Ask the Black Community. They wanted Tyson vs Holyfield for the third time. This is POLITICS, Ampling Alp.

Terry Norris got to fight a third fight with Luis Santana after losing 2 times by disqualification...According to your logic that Duran should not get a third fight in a row with Sugar Ray is FALSE again. I see, American politics are in the way. Luis Santana, a guy from the Dominican Republic should give a MANDATORY REMATCH to the American Norris...I wonder if Santana would have lost 2 times in a row by disqualification, would he would have had a third meeting with Terry. Heck, he would have not been in the jr middleweight rankings. Now, a legend like Duran shall not get a third fight with Leonard. I bet you if it were the other way around, we got a third fight. But what we see is:

1. Leonard is the media darling...He is the money. It was an embarrassment for the American press and media and the politics for their cut clean image pretty boy lose to a LATINO fighter, specially if he was smaller than him.

2. It was all American nationalism for the second fight from the get go. They had to bring the great Ray Charles to sing the national anthem. If Ruben Blades sings the Panamanian national anthem in that same fight with Leonard in Panama City, then Howard Cossell would have called it a NATIONALISTIC ATMOSPHERE.

3. Bring the title back to America, catch him off guard while he is doing all the partying, and do not give him the third fight, no matter what. It was PREMEDITATED in Leonard's view.


Now the statement that is totally false by Ampling Alp:

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.

So what if he quit? What happened in the first fight? He should get the privilege. Terry Norris had it. Oh, I am sorry, he is AMERICAN!!!
I showed you many examples of fighters fighting each other for the same title 3 times in a row...For the title.


And the lame excuse, you want to call it lame? Explain to me the head movement and the slipping of punches in the first fight, and the second fight was not even there. It requires physical strengtht and condition to slip and counter attack like Duran did against him in Montreal. That is not an excuse. He was not the same fighter. If Leonard would have beaten the same guy in Montreal then fine, BUT HE DID NOT BEAT HIM AT HIS VERY BEST. I got 3 questions for you:

1. Explain to me when both were at their very best, LEONARD LOST. Explain to me why his hand and foot speed were TOTALLY NULLIFIED in Montreal?

2.Explain to me how a guy that slips punches and make the other fighter missed so much in the first fight, and now in the second fight there was none of that?

3. Explain to me how clutching and grabbing you call that "trading punches" when CLEARLY LEONARD DID ALL THE CLUTCHING AGAINST A SMALLER FIGHTER.


Now, I gave you examples of the guys you mentioned that above their NATURAL WEIGHT CLASS, WERE NOT THE SAME FIGHTERS. THEY WERE NOT AS SUCCESSFUL. THEY MIGHT HAVE SOME SUCCESS, BUT NOT AS WHEN THEY WERE IN THEIR NATURAL WEIGHT.

The ONLY 2 you could only come up was Fitzsimmons and Canzoneri, when both of them, ABOVE THEIR NATURAL WEIGHT CLASS, could not beat a guy EQUALLY IN SKILL. You want to say that Canzoneri started at 118 and was successful at other weight classes when we look at his ledger, he lost the majority of his fights with men equally in skill, BUT BIGGER. His NATURAL WEIGHT CLASS was lightweight. That is the weight class that Canzoneri did almost all his fights of his career. He is associated with the lightweight class. Not 126, not 118, but 135. What happended when Canzoneri went up? He loses to Barney Ross, a Natural Jr welterweight. And even so, at 135 he lost a whole bunch of fights, could it be because of slowing down or age.

Bob Fitzsimmons was not as successful heavyweight as when he was a middleweight. And that is LOGICAL. Who the hell is Tom Sharkey? Who is Maher? They are not Jack Johnson nor Jim Jeffries.

And if you want to bring up that Canzoneri started up at 118, then what make you think about Duran starting his career at 118 and finishing his career fighting middleweights? That is more stunning and surprising. A guy that started at 118 beats an all time great at 147. But I do not call it remarkable, because 118 is not DURAN'S NATURAL WEIGHT CLASS, but 135.

Now the others like Robinson, you could not give me an example about him, because outside of his weight class which was 147, HE WAS NOT THAT SUCCESSFUL as when he was on his own. That happens to every fighter in history jumping to other weight classes that are not their own. THEY MUST LOSE. IT HAPPENS TO ALL OF THEM.

Duran quit the second fight. But LEONARD could not forget that he lost to a lightweight...No matter how many years he was fighting then.

Now you asked this question and I would not duck it:

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

Of course quitting in the 8th round is worse. The first fight if you look at it again, NOBODY IS SAYING THAT COULD HAVE GONE EITHER WAY. DURAN WON CLEARLY AND DECISIVELY WITH BOTH MEN BEING IN THEIR TOP SHAPE AND PRIMES. It was the biggest and most anticipated fight in history outside the heavyweight division. If you look at this fight closely, Sugar lost at least by 3 points, maybe 5. That is not close. Close is Hagler-Duran or Ali-Norton III...That is close. And that's because Sugar was doing the clutching and grabbing like a sissy when he was TALLER, FASTER, YOUNGER, STRONGER AND IN HIS OWN WEIGHT CLASS.

Borinken25 wrote:

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

Mr. Elmer let me school you in something that you have absolutely no clue of what you are taking about. First I was born and raised in Puerto Rico until I was 24 years old so I’m qualified to talk about how we Puerto Rican’s feel or don’t feel. Second your assumption that “most Puerto Rican’s rejoice with the no mas” is way off the mark. Duran losing that way hurt as much as the loss of Gomez to Sanchez. You have no clue of what you are taking about. When Duran defeated Leonard on their first fight we party like it was one of our own and we hug, jump, and dance of happiness and nobody told me this, because I was there and I experienced. When Duran lost on the second fight most of us felt so bad that you will think somebody die that night. So stop blaming Puerto Rican’s for Duran loss. He lost to a better fighter and that ends the story.


Now that brings me to another point; According to you when Duran fought Benitez he was Washed up, so what make you think that he would have defeated Leonard in a rematch? Accepted Leonard was the better fighter. Have a good day.

Nobody is talking about Benitez here. How can you come that Leonard was the BETTER FIGHTER when in Montreal was schooled against a lightweigt? He beat Sugar Ray in all the areas of boxing, in his COMPLETE AND YOUNG PRIME, and was on the verge of being KO'd, not once BUT twice?

See the fight again, Mr Borinken.

I got a song for you: "Busca la gasolina"

elmersalsa wrote:ANOTHER EXAMPLE FOR Ampling alp: Carmen Basilio vs Johnny Saxton if fighting for the title 3 times is rare, then we got to say that your logic of this argument is FALSE. I see 2 fighters fighting each other 3 TIMES IN A ROW RARE, WHEN THEY ARE NOT FIGHTING FOR A NON TITLE FIGHT...THAT IS RARE.

Sorry, but this is not an example of what Alp originally stated. Not sure why this so hard for some to grasp. Alp was talking about two fighters fighting each other for the title in three consecutive fights. Maybe there is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word consecutive, but if Basilio and Saxton would have fought three consecutive times for the title, Saxton’s record would look like this:

vs Basilio
vs Basilio
vs Basilio

Instead of his actual record which looks like this:

vs Basilio
vs Basilio
vs Williams
vs Allison
vs Turner
vs Basilio

Please notice that there are three fights on Saxton’s record between the first and second Basilio fight. Two fighters fighting each other for the title in three consecutive fights is pretty rare, and considering how few actual examples have been offered helps substantiate Alps claim.

The Great John L wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:ANOTHER EXAMPLE FOR Ampling alp: Carmen Basilio vs Johnny Saxton if fighting for the title 3 times is rare, then we got to say that your logic of this argument is FALSE. I see 2 fighters fighting each other 3 TIMES IN A ROW RARE, WHEN THEY ARE NOT FIGHTING FOR A NON TITLE FIGHT...THAT IS RARE.

Sorry, but this is not an example of what Alp originally stated. Not sure why this so hard for some to grasp. Alp was talking about two fighters fighting each other for the title in three consecutive fights. Maybe there is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word consecutive, but if Basilio and Saxton would have fought three consecutive times for the title, Saxton’s record would look like this:

vs Basilio
vs Basilio
vs Basilio

Instead of his actual record which looks like this:

vs Basilio
vs Basilio
vs Williams
vs Allison
vs Turner
vs Basilio

Please notice that there are three fights on Saxton’s record between the first and second Basilio fight. Two fighters fighting each other for the title in three consecutive fights is pretty rare, and considering how few actual examples have been offered helps substantiate Alps claim.

I am not talking about 2 fighters fighting 3 times in a row. Which it should be the right statement. 2 fighters fighting each other 3 times in a row is RARE, but not for the title. That is what I mean...For the title.

elmersalsa wrote:I am not talking about 2 fighters fighting 3 times in a row. Which it should be the right statement. 2 fighters fighting each other 3 times in a row is RARE, but not for the title. That is what I mean...For the title.

You were directing your comment towards Alp, and Alps original statement was that for SRL to grant an immediate rematch to Duran would have caused them to fight each other for the title in three consecutive fights, which would have been a rare occurrence in boxing history. I originally got involved in this when the forum troll, cranberry posted a multitude of examples that he said proved that wasn’t a rare occurrence, but I think there were actually only one or two of these examples that actually were of 2 fighters fighting each other for the title in three consecutive fights. Your example of Basilio-Saxton also did not fit, and provided more evidence to substantiate Alps original claim.

Besides, Duran in no way deserved a title fight after quitting in a fight that was still competitive. I do agree that SRL should have granted more rematches during his career, but certainly Duran is a poor example of someone that deserved a rematch.

John L understands what I mean by 3 times in a row but apparently elmer doesn't. I have said this from the beginning on April 2, and I have explained this over and over,given specific examples but he just doesn't get it. He keeps coming up with examples that don't fit.
Your'e right, Saxton-Basilio don't fit either.
Saxton fought Gil Turner,Barry allison and Don Williams between the 1st and 2nd fight with Basilio.
There was nothing strange at all about Leonard fighting someone else right away after their 2nd fight.
I have also repeatedly pointed out that Duran would have eventually gotten another title shot if he would have just beaten a couple of welterweight contenders. Instead Duran left the welterweight division. That was his choice. elmer never addresses that point.

Norris-Santana is a rare example of two fighters fighting for the title 3 times in a row. That means neither guy can fight anyone else between the 1st and second fights and the 2nd and third fights).

Both the first and second Norris-Santana fights were controversial. Many people don't think that Norris should have been disqualifed.

If you think about it makes sense that 2 fighters don't often fight 3 times in a row for the title. There are other challengers who deserve a chance.


Regarding the first fight, Duran certainly did some holding. Leonard didn't use his footspeed enough (and deserves to be criticized for it), but he certainly had some success with his handspeed.
Yes Elmer a 3 point win (on your unbiased scorecard no less) in a 15 round fight is fairly close. Are you that bad at math?
The first Leonard-Duran fight was as close as the Duran-Hagler fight. I have never heard anyone argue that Duran won that fight. Are you seriously going to argue that?
As for Duran wasn't in shape excuse, what more needs to be said? Even if it's true, it's not Leonard's problem. It's still a loss for Duran. What are you 10 years old, I only lost because I didn't try my best?

I really like how how it was planned for the 2nd duran-Leonard fight to be right after Duran was "partying". Somehow it's other people's fault (previously he has even blamed Leonard !)that Duran supposedly was partying right before a huge fight.
Hello... first of all no one forced Duran to be partying. Second, the fight was signed months in advance before the fight took place. Somehow "they" knew that Duran would be partying those exact day.

I love how elmer says Tony Canzoneri is a natural lightweight so his losses at lightweight count but Duran's losses at higher weights don't. Talk about your double standards. Well, Canzoneri had over 70 fights in weight classes below lightweight. He had a draw in a fight for the bantamweight title and he won the featherweight title.

Regarding Bob Fitzsimmons, earlier I mentioned some heavyweights that Fitzsimmons beat. (Fitzsimmons was one of many fighters that I hadmentioned who were very successful in moving up in weight. elmer seems to think Duran is the only one who was) elmer replies" who the hell is Tom Sharkey?"
He said that Sharkey was not James Jeffries. True, but you might try to do some research on Sharkey. for staters I will tell you that Sharkey gave Jeffries 2 grueling fights. He also beat Corbett, Choynski and Ruhlin.

Elmer seems to want it both ways with Duran. The first fight with Leonard was a huge win for Duran, the 2nd fight doesn't count because Duran wasn't in shape. (Can we use that excuse for other fighters? Is Tony Tubbs then undefeated because he was out of shape for his losses?)

Duran's losses above lightweight don't count because he was a "natural lightweight". Of course when other fighters who move up their losses count.
Only Duran's big wins above lightweight are evidence that a fighter moves up and can get a big win. When other fighters (I mentioned several of them) do this, he mentions that also lost at the higher weight, so they weren't that successful. Of course even though Duran lost to Leonard,Benitez, Hearns etc they don't count because they were "bigger men".

elmersalsa wrote:Who the hell is Tom Sharkey? Who is Maher?

Tom Sharkey was one of the best HWs to never win a title, and Maher was one of the hardest punching HWs in history. But I’m sure you already knew that… right?

The Great John L wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:I am not talking about 2 fighters fighting 3 times in a row. Which it should be the right statement. 2 fighters fighting each other 3 times in a row is RARE, but not for the title. That is what I mean...For the title.

You were directing your comment towards Alp, and Alps original statement was that for SRL to grant an immediate rematch to Duran would have caused them to fight each other for the title in three consecutive fights, which would have been a rare occurrence in boxing history. I originally got involved in this when the forum troll, cranberry posted a multitude of examples that he said proved that wasn’t a rare occurrence, but I think there were actually only one or two of these examples that actually were of 2 fighters fighting each other for the title in three consecutive fights. Your example of Basilio-Saxton also did not fit, and provided more evidence to substantiate Alps original claim.

Besides, Duran in no way deserved a title fight after quitting in a fight that was still competitive. I do agree that SRL should have granted more rematches during his career, but certainly Duran is a poor example of someone that deserved a rematch.

What do you mean that it does not fit? 3 times in title fights in a row, has never been RARE. I mean for the title. I do not care if one of the fighters fought someone else in between. Many examples had been given. I guess you do not understand my point and I do not understand yours

The Great John L wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Who the hell is Tom Sharkey? Who is Maher?

Tom Sharkey was one of the best HWs to never win a title, and Maher was one of the hardest punching HWs in history. But I’m sure you already knew that… right?

They do not fit Jack Johnson nor Jim Jeffries class. They probably could not be in the same league as James J. Corbett or Harry Wills.

elmersalsa wrote:What do you mean that it does not fit? 3 times in title fights in a row, has never been RARE. I mean for the title. I do not care if one of the fighters fought someone else in between. Many examples had been given. I guess you do not understand my point and I do not understand yours

I have no point. I was simply trying to explain Alps statement which I guess you understand, but choose to ignore. NO ONE said that 2 fighters fighting each other for the title 3 times is rare. Alp was absolutely correct with his statement, you just want to change his statement by saying that you don’t care about the specifics of his point, which makes no sense. As I have explained, the examples you gave were not relevant to Alps statement, but I guess they are relevant to some point you are trying to make with yourself. Yes, it’s not that uncommon for 2 fighters to fight each other 3 times for the title, but it is VERY uncommon to occur in three consecutive fights.

Ambling Alp wrote:John L understands what I mean by 3 times in a row but apparently elmer doesn't. I have said this from the beginning on April 2, and I have explained this over and over,given specific examples but he just doesn't get it. He keeps coming up with examples that don't fit.
Your'e right, Saxton-Basilio don't fit either.
Saxton fought Gil Turner,Barry allison and Don Williams between the 1st and 2nd fight with Basilio.
There was nothing strange at all about Leonard fighting someone else right away after their 2nd fight.
I have also repeatedly pointed out that Duran would have eventually gotten another title shot if he would have just beaten a couple of welterweight contenders. Instead Duran left the welterweight division. That was his choice. elmer never addresses that point.

Norris-Santana is a rare example of two fighters fighting for the title 3 times in a row. That means neither guy can fight anyone else between the 1st and second fights and the 2nd and third fights).

Both the first and second Norris-Santana fights were controversial. Many people don't think that Norris should have been disqualifed.

If you think about it makes sense that 2 fighters don't often fight 3 times in a row for the title. There are other challengers who deserve a chance.


Regarding the first fight, Duran certainly did some holding. Leonard didn't use his footspeed enough (and deserves to be criticized for it), but he certainly had some success with his handspeed.
Yes Elmer a 3 point win (on your unbiased scorecard no less) in a 15 round fight is fairly close. Are you that bad at math?
The first Leonard-Duran fight was as close as the Duran-Hagler fight. I have never heard anyone argue that Duran won that fight. Are you seriously going to argue that?
As for Duran wasn't in shape excuse, what more needs to be said? Even if it's true, it's not Leonard's problem. It's still a loss for Duran. What are you 10 years old, I only lost because I didn't try my best?

I really like how how it was planned for the 2nd duran-Leonard fight to be right after Duran was "partying". Somehow it's other people's fault (previously he has even blamed Leonard !)that Duran supposedly was partying right before a huge fight.
Hello... first of all no one forced Duran to be partying. Second, the fight was signed months in advance before the fight took place. Somehow "they" knew that Duran would be partying those exact day.

I love how elmer says Tony Canzoneri is a natural lightweight so his losses at lightweight count but Duran's losses at higher weights don't. Talk about your double standards. Well, Canzoneri had over 70 fights in weight classes below lightweight. He had a draw in a fight for the bantamweight title and he won the featherweight title.

Regarding Bob Fitzsimmons, earlier I mentioned some heavyweights that Fitzsimmons beat. (Fitzsimmons was one of many fighters that I hadmentioned who were very successful in moving up in weight. elmer seems to think Duran is the only one who was) elmer replies" who the hell is Tom Sharkey?"
He said that Sharkey was not James Jeffries. True, but you might try to do some research on Sharkey. for staters I will tell you that Sharkey gave Jeffries 2 grueling fights. He also beat Corbett, Choynski and Ruhlin.

Elmer seems to want it both ways with Duran. The first fight with Leonard was a huge win for Duran, the 2nd fight doesn't count because Duran wasn't in shape. (Can we use that excuse for other fighters? Is Tony Tubbs then undefeated because he was out of shape for his losses?)

Duran's losses above lightweight don't count because he was a "natural lightweight". Of course when other fighters who move up their losses count.
Only Duran's big wins above lightweight are evidence that a fighter moves up and can get a big win. When other fighters (I mentioned several of them) do this, he mentions that also lost at the higher weight, so they weren't that successful. Of course even though Duran lost to Leonard,Benitez, Hearns etc they don't count because they were "bigger men".

Maybe you misunderstood what we are trying to grasp on fighters going up in weight. The majority of the fighters you mentioned, were greats in their own weight class, but when they go up, THEY LOSE MUST OF THE TIME.

Sugar Ray Robinson was a big example

Bob Foster too.

The same applies to Bob Fitzsimmons, Sugar Ray Leonard, Wilfredo Gomez, Roberto Duran and others. You could not have the same success as your natural weight class. Ask Felix "Tito" Trinidad. Awesome at 147. But beyond 147? Not as good as his natural weight. Then why Roberto Duran should be the exception in losing to bigger men? Every body loses to great and bigger men.

But you have not answer me the 3 questions that I asked you. How come a guy that meake you miss for 15 rounds now cannot make you miss in half a fight? YOU DID NOT ANSWER ME.

Explain to me SRL foot and hand speed being nullified?

That takes physical condition for it. I give Ray credit for the way he came back and it was Duran's fault, but even when Duran lost or quit like you want to belittle him, the press were more asking questions about Duran's behavior than a great win for Leonard. That bothered Leonard a lot, even though he denies it.

You are deviating totally from the point. We got to have an excuse for Duran after he won so extraordinary the first time. It is not lame excuse. I did not see one type of head and body movement from Duran who was a master in adept counterpunching giving you all kinds of angles. I did not see that in New Orleans. He came out of a great and emotional win, and partied like hell, ballooning to 200 pounds. IT WAS HIS FAULT. AND NOT LEONARD'S, BUT HE NEVER BEAT DURAN AT HIS VERY BEST. THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING.

TONY TUBBS COULD TRAIN FOR A YEAR AND COULD NEVER BEAT AN OUT SHAPE MUHAMMAD ALI OR MIKE TYSON. So do not come with Tubbs analogy.

And you missed the point of what I am saying about the great Canzoneri, too. He lost many times at 135, even though that it was his natural weight class. That is the weight class that Tony did most of his fighting and is dfined by. He is not associated with feathers, he is not associated with bantams, and he is not associated with jr welters... Canzoneri is a lightweight great, just like Leonard is a welterweight great and Duran is a lightweight great.

The Leonard-Duran fight could never be as close as the Hager-Duran fight. Leonard made it "look" close with clutching and grabbing. Why you do not watch the tape again? Look at Duran's movement and eagerness in the first fight. Look at his motion. Every time Leonard tried something new, DURAN HAD THE ANSWER FOR IT. No matter what Ray did. The second fight was as different story.


Now you come with the silly statement in saying that I said this:

Duran's losses above lightweight don't count because he was a "natural lightweight". Of course when other fighters who move up their losses count.

Never said nothing like that out this forum. I understand when a fighter step up in class is a big challenge in all areas, specially, when the fighter moving up is fighting an exceptional fighter. It requires great conditioning. We all know that he would not have the same speed as when he was in his NATURAL WEIGHT CLASS, but got to rely in other stuffs like skill and guts. Punching power might not have it going up.

Gomez lost to Sanchez was because he is going up after someone as skilled as he. The PROBLEM was that Sanchez was stronger in his own weight class and that is logical.

The same happened to Mickey Walker with Harry Greb.
Ike Williams with Kid Gavilan.
Greb with Gene Tunney.
Willie Pep with Sammy Angott
Manuel Ortiz with Pep., ect, etc, etc.


I give credit for Leonard by beating Duran...But not at his very best.

Well, he beat Hearns at his very best. He beat Benitez at his very best. But LOST TO DURAN when BOTH were at their very best.

Duran was not a Lightweight who put on 10 lbs so he could fight Leonard for the WW title. With a bout with SRL or not, Duran was finished with the LW division because he could no longer make the weight. For that he deserves special credit ??? When Duran held the LW belt his weight between fights was often heavier than SRL's between fights at WW, I read reports in the 70's of Duran being 180 or more when he was a LW ! If Duran should be called a LW for his bouts with Leonard at WW, than Young Stribling should be called a Featherweight (since that's where he began his pro career) for his HW title bout vs Max Schmeling.

I am at a complete loss why elmer can't understand my point about 3 fights in a row.
It would have been a very rare situation for Leonard to have fought Duran immediately after their first two fights. A fighter who just regained the title isn't expected to fight the guy he just beat immediately. Other fighters deserve as shot as well. there were other welterweights besides Duran and Leonard.Historically, the fighter in Duran's situation (who lost the second fight) doesn't get another shot right away. Hence, Leonard shouldn't getted ripped for fighting other guys just because Duran supposedly wanted another shot. Almost all other fighters in Leonard's situation fought some else first.
I have explained this over and over and over.

Certainly a guy who quit like Duran isn't deserving of a title shot more than other worthy contenders.

Are you ever going to respond to this point: Why if Duran wanted a 3rd fight so badly, didn't he stay a welterweight, and beat a couple of welterweight contenders?He had to know he would have gotten another chance against Leonard eventually.
Yes I did answer your question about the first fights. I said that Duran did some of the holding. I also said that he did have some success hitting Duran. If he didn't, why did you only have Duran winning by 3 points?

The guys that I mentioned moved up in weight and didn't lost most of the time like you keep saying. In fact they were very successful. Several of them beat all time greats at upper weights.

Yes Sugar Ray Robinson was better at welter than middleweight, but he was also much older when he was a middleweight. He still had a lot of success at middleweight.
Griffith was arguably better against middleweights than welterweights. He beat Dick Tiger and several other good middleweights.
Walker was a better middleweight than welterweight. Moore was a better lightheavyweight than a middleweight. Jimmy Ellis was an ordinary middleweight and then went on to win the WBA heavyweight title.

Fitzsimmons is another expample of a guy that was very successful when he moved up. You certainly could make the case that he was a better heavyweight than middleweight. You are now ripping on Tom Sharkey (whom Fitzsimmons beat) who somehow you seem to never have heard of before.
Sharkey wasn't in Corbett or Wills class? I wouldn't rank him as high as Corbett or Wills but he was a very good heavyweight. By the way, Sharkey did beat Corbett. More importantly, Fitzsimmons, who elmer seems to think wasn't successful as a heavyweight, beat Corbett for the title.

Just because you "associate" Canzoneri as a lightweight doesn't mean he was just a "natural" lightweight. He fought for several years below lightweight and then like most fighters (like Duran) he naturally grew out of a lower weight and moved up. And yes, I do count Canzoneri's losses at lightweight against him. I also give him a lot of credit for some great wins, like I do with Duran. I am not trying to have it both ways like you alwasys want to with Duran.
Some guys are successful when they move up, and some like Bob Foster aren't. Just stop saying that Duran is the only one to do it and that his losses at higher weights shouldn't count.

I don't make Duran an exception when counting losses after a fighter moves up in weight. Fighters in the lower weight classes move up in weight all of the time. Assuming it's not their first fight at the weight or they are way over the hill, I usually do count it.

If you are going to say that Leonard didn't beat Duran at his best, then stop saying that Duran beat Leonard when he was at his best. That certainly wasn't Leonard's best fight. No, he didn't try everything. He used very little lateral footwork against Duran, and he fought Duran's fight. In the second fight he did, and guess what? Duran had no answer for it and quit.

Why do I belittle Duran for quitting? Because he deserves it. He should have been a man and hung in there even though things weren't going well. Countless other fighters didn't give up in much more difficult circumstances.

If Leonard did so much holding in their first fight, and missed so many punches how did he land enough punches so that he only lost by 3 points on your own scorecard?

Leonard deserves some criticism for not fighting a smart fight in the first fight and Duran deserves credit for a great performance.
Leonard deserves credit for fighting a great fight in the 2nd fight and duran deserves to be ripped for quitting.
I count the first fight as a win for Duran and the second as a win for Leonard. I don't want to have it both ways. You do.

Nobody is talking about Benitez here. How can you come that Leonard was the BETTER FIGHTER when in Montreal was schooled against a lightweigt? He beat Sugar Ray in all the areas of boxing, in his COMPLETE AND YOUNG PRIME, and was on the verge of being KO'd, not once BUT twice?

I know nobody is talking about Benitez here, this argument was in another thread that you and I had. You claimed that Duran was Washed up and now you want to argue that Duran was not washed up and that he would have defeated Leonard in a third fight. Do pigs fly were you live? Very convenient for you to dismiss the statement like that. You still didn’t answer the question and the question still stands. Was Duran Washed up after the second fight with Leonard? This is what you claimed in the other thread and that is why according to you Benitez should get no credit for defeating and schooling Duran. The first fight between Leonard and Duran was as close as they come and for you to claim that Leonard was schooled is completely absurd and irrational. Duran was making his 70+ fight and Leonard was only on his 27 fight and Leonard fell for his trap, but still the fight was very close. But in the second fight Leonard used his head and did schooled Duran. Accepted Duran lost and not only did he lost he quit and it was Leonard who made him quit. Probably Duran thought that he was at Burger King were he can have it his way and when things didn’t go his way he quit like a spoil brat.

I don't agree with this thread.

Leonard got plenty of credit for his win. He beat a naturally smaller man in his home country! The boxing encyclopedias all claim that Leonard proved hismelf the better fighter despite losing the first fight.

At 147 Leonard and Duran are evenly matched fighters.

Who is Maher?

Joe Gans called Peter Maher the greatest right hand puncher he ever saw.

Jack Johnson said the same thing.

That's who Maher was.

Apparently Maher didn't have Bert Sugar, Thomas Hauser, Larry Merchant, Howard Cosell and ABCTV working for him as some others did.

So Maher doesn't exist any more.

Just like Jimmy McLarnin, who never existed, based on the fact that not a single national US newspaper ran an obituary on him when he died.

Nor did any so-called US "sportswriter."

Tony Canzoneri's two losses to Barney Ross were both highly disputed.
Many argued strongly that Canzoneri did not lose either fight to Ross.

Ross was a "connected" fighter. (Ever hear of Al Capone?)
Ross did not lose "decisions."

Canzoneri, never bigger than a lightweight, beat former welterweight champion Jimmy McLarnin thoroughly in their first fight. He was a weight class smaller than McLarnin.

Canzoneri knocked out Kid Chocolate for a count of ten.

Canzoneri knocked out Jack Kid Berg for a count of ten.

Canzoneri won the lightweight title with a first round knockout over Al Singer.

Canzoneri was a great, great fighter.

I give Sugar credit. The more out of shape Duran was, Leonard did better each time.

The only time it really counted though, Duran delivered the win.

Still, Ray was a great competitor.

Ambling Alp wrote:I am at a complete loss why elmer can't understand my point about 3 fights in a row.

Alp, I think he admitted that he understood, but simply said that he doesn’t care. And then he went on to argue about what he wants to argue about.

I think I’m done with the discussion, but if you choose to keep trying, I wish you luck.

.....

Dec,
First of all, you have to remember that Leonard certainly didn't plan on retiring in 1982. He wouldn't have if it wasn't for the eye injury. Duran certainly couldn't have known that Leonard would have to retire so soon. Look at Duran's choices after he lost to Leonard in 1980. The most logical thing for him do if he really wanted to fight Leonard agains so bad would be to stay in the welterweight division. Had Duran could have won a few fights against welterweight contenders, he would have been in line for a shot in 1982. If for no other reason than because the "governing bodies" would have demanded it.

In hindsight, he may not have gotten another fight with Leonard because of Leonard's eye injury. However, there was no way for Duran to have known in 1980 that Leonard would injure his eye.

I don't think Pryor was a factor yet. He really wouldn't be a factor until he beat Arguello, which was after Leonard had already retired.

If Leonard hadn't injured his eye and retired, it is very likely that he would have fought Pryor in 1983 or early 1984.