Even if REED MISquoted U, that Doesn't Make YOUR Statement Any LESS LUDICROUS, Bro...U May as Well Say "Duran CRUSHES Hearns @ 147", if U HONESTLY Think he Does Likewise to Benitez...There's NATHAN to Suggest that Duran Would Do that to Benitez, OTHER than Duran FANDOM... REED:Lok:
A 10-5 smoking. With one guy at their career best form & peak of their motivation and confidence, another both past prime & in a serious career slump. With one guy at a weight he was entirely built for and comfortable with, the other not. It's a great win, nobody takes it away from Benitez. And Benitez was a great fighter. But it wasn't a fight between great fighters at their career bests, or close. Duran was never a great junior middleweight and he wasn't a great fighter by 1982. These aren't excuses, they're observed realities of their career arcs. I hate when people try to make boxing simple. It's far too interesting for this boring small, close minded mode of thinking some people want to apply to it. Prime for prime at 140 or even 147 it's a different fight & you know it. Still a very close fight because Bentiez was, on his day, an elite great fighter, and not necessarily one Duran wins, but it's different.
You are completely correct that boxing is not that simple, but to be able to discuss it in any plausible way you must neglect some factors. Maybe Ken Buchanan would have beaten Duran if he had slept better the night before, maybe he had problem with his gloves, what if he had punched Duran low on purpose early on, what if he had other things in his mind during the fight? All these are, in real world, factors deciding the outcome of a fight and if they had been different, then perhaps it would have ended differently, you never know. The thing is, if you want to compare fighters and make assumptions on how they would do head to head, you can't take all this to account. Sure, Duran might not have been at his best, might have trained wrong or whatever, but that doesn't automatically mean that he'd ever beat Benitez. In real world the only fight between them ended in a lopsided victory in favor of Benitez. Also, the excuse that the other fighter spoiled the fight is ludicrous, it is usually given by a fighter who is outboxed (remember George Foreman's You can't win by running -quote). In boxing, you don't get points for avoiding fighting or running. Leonard was ahead according to everybody, that means that he fought better that night, under boxing rules
My good friend, everybody who calls themselves a Duran fan takes that fight away from Benitez, much as youve endeavoured here to take away what Leomard forced Duran to do in their second fight, and even laud him for producing one of the most singularly despicable quitjobs in history.
You are perpetually lancing straw man opinions that I never seem to see anybody actually express, mate. It's a great win for Benitez. His BEST win. Is it a battle between two peak, prime greats? No. Is it a great win? Yes. The two aren't mutually exclusive observations. Again, boxing is a rich, complicated business. Frazier gets credit for beating Ali. Was Ali still absolutely at his best? Most people don't think so. Does that acknowledgement take the win away from Frazier? Only in a strange black and white world.
I agree it is a great win for Benitez and his best win. I don't take anything away from Benitez, who I am a fan of. "Crush" might be hyperbole but I do believe that Duran beats him prime for prime.
If all the fights you named can be used to CRITICIZE Duran's resume, LOADEDGLOVES NEVER EVER Wants to Hear ANYBODY Say that Roy Jones was "Shot" when Bernard Hopkins Beat him [in the rematch]... I seriously have NO idea what fight you were watching, Kessler got dominated from start to finish, Calzaghe made him look like an amateur. Like you said about Duran, that wasn't exactly a golden era of Light Heavyweights. Michael Spinks > RJJ imo.
:Thumbs: I'll continue to courageously lead the public awareness campaign against disgusting clown rings 'til my dying day. DURAN! DURAN! DURAN! DURAN!:hammert:
