Jones/Nunn/Hopkins/Toney vs Hagler/Hearns/Leonard/Duran

Replace Nunn with McClellan and Duran would end up an unconscious rag doll even quicker than he was against Hearns.

 

Here's the Problem, Brother X...

Duran Lovers CONSISTENTLY Burn the Candle from BOTH Ends...But You CAN'T Praise Him for the Wins Over Leonard, Moore, Barkley, or for "Hanging In There" w/Hagler, While Completely GLOSSING OVER the Losses to Leonard, Hearns, Benitez, Laing, etc...

Surely, You've Heard the LITTANY of Excuses for Duran's Losses???...

Duran Lovers CONSISTENTLY Try to Have the Shit BOTH Ways & to a MUCH Higher Degree than Any Other Sect of Boxing Fans Attempt It...REED is Pretty Sure THAT's Where Sly's Take On This is Coming From...





REED:kidcool:

 

The latter.

As said earlier, Duran at 135 and Leonard at 147 are about as good as it gets. Let's say you put Jones in his prime up there, that's still 2-1 for the latter half. Let's say you have Hopkins and Hagler at the same level, then you've got Hearns left with Nunn & Toney. As much talent as Nunn & Toney had (and squandered), look at how great Hearns was, specifically at 147-154. At 147-154, Hearns had arguably the best mix of speed, power, and range ever. Certainly up there. Extremely hard to outbox at long range (as Leonard and Benitez found out), he had speed, and one of the most devastating right hands ever.

 

Just so add, I find it sometimes tough to gauge "talent" since there's different aspects of it. Some fighters just pick up on things quicker, I remember Petronelli saying Hagler was a fast learner. There's physical gifts, but there's also people that just have a "talent" for certain things. Larry Bird had okay speed at best before his back injuries made him slow, but was always praised for his sharp mind and seeing things happen on the court basically ahead of time, he could see what was playing out on the court so intuitively. Many other players who were faster and jumped higher didn't have this sort of mind, although they had lots of experience in basketball too. Bird had brilliant hand-eye coordination too. What made him more talented that say, Dominique Wilkins, who was faster and could jump out of the gym, but no matter how much he played, wouldn't possess the basketball IQ or court vision that Bird had?


George Foreman wasn't the most graceful of fighters, nor was he possessed with much speed. He had the gift of freakishly heavy hands, strength, size (for that era). I may be wrong, but I think he started boxing at age 16 or something. 3 years later he was the Olympic Gold medal winner, and 4 and a half years later he was 38-0 and the HW champion of the world. Doesn't that suggest a real talent for boxing, to do so much in a short time? Or Dwight Qawi, who had physical gifts like strength and pretty heavy hands. He also started boxing at a very advanced age when he was locked up in Rahway and was champion in a very good LHW era just a few years later. He was short and squat which, while you can turn into an advantage if you know how to, it's pretty much agreed upon that a fighter has the edge if he's taller and has a longer wingspan.

Floyd Mayweather and Roy Jones were trained since little kids to be boxers. Mike Tyson was groomed since age 13 specifically to be the heavyweight champion of the world. Mayweather trains extremely hard, other fighters like Duran, Benitez, Toney were known to be inconsistent in training. Freddie Roach said Toney was the most talented fighter he'd worked with, but it helps that Toney consistently got his ass kicked in the Kronk before improving and practicing Bill Miller's moves to the point that the defensive maneuvers and countering probably just became a reflex and second nature to him.

I may be looking into this too much and I'm all over the place and intoxicated but my point is that I have trouble at times gauging what exactly is "talent". Technical skills are easy to gauge, but talent often is not. I do think there are different types of talent, there's physical gifts, and there's also just having more of a feel for boxing. Amir Khan may be fast, tall, and rangy, but I feel confident saying he doesn't have the "feel for boxing" that a lot of other, more successful, slower boxers do.

 

What about being the best fighter of the 1970s?

 

Oh no you didn't!? :wtf1:

 

::

 

i don't get why we can't give him credit for the leonard, moore and barkley wins. and also gloss over the losses. why is that, "having it both ways?"

 

It IS What it IS...

Yes, Duran was the Best Fighter of the 70's, but w/Out his Exploits @ HIGHER Weights, He's NOT Regarded by Most as Top 3-5 (@ the ABSOLUTE Worst), All Time...Top 5-10???...Sure, Why Not...But Not Arguably THE Best to Ever Lace 'em Up, as he Is Today...

It's What Duran Did @ '47, '54 and '60 (Where he Also Fought BETTER Opponents than he Did @ '35) that SEALED his Fate, in that Regard...





REED:kidcool:

 

Because he Had Bad, Sometimes EMBARRASSING Losses Interspersed With his Signature Wins of the 80's...

Beat Leonard, In what Just about ANY Duran Fan Will PROUDLY Claim was his FINEST Singular Achievement, then LOST to Leonard 5 Months Later...Lost CONVINCINGLY to Benitez, 3 Fights Later, THEN Lost to Laing...Beat Cuevas and Moore in Consecutive Fights, LOST to Hagler and Hearns in Consecutive Fights...& the Hagler Fight is Damn Near Treated as a WIN by Duran Fans...Beats Iran Barkley 4 1/2 Years After the Hearns Beatdown...

Sorry, but that's Called INCONSISTENCY, the 1 Word that's Getting Duran Fans BENT Out of Shape in this Thread...Soooooo, If You Want to PRAISE Duran for his 80's Exploits, You HAVE to Also Point Out his INCONSISTENCY During that Period...

Can't Have it BOTH Ways...NO Other Fighter in History is Afforded that Luxury...





REED:nono:

 

What was that one fight where Duran quit like a bitch?

Hint: This is a trick question.

 

Pat Lawlor?

 

At middleweight or generally? In the second case the answer is obvious, in the first case not

 

Reed is 100% correct in his assessment. No further comments, your honour. The prosecution rests.

 

how is it having anything both ways? Ali gets and deserves credit for pulling out great wins vs foreman, shavers and lyle after his prime while his losses and near losses in the 70s are rightfully weighted by the fact that he was diminshed. There isn't the slightest inconsistency anywhere in that.

 

Are you equating Ali's close competitive losses to Frazier and Norton with Duran's destruction at the hands of Hearns, domination by Benitez and Laing and quit job against Leonard? Is that what we're doing here?

 

Second point is that no one uses the 70s version of Ali in MMs to beat the other great Heavies...but Welterweight Duran and Jnr Middleweight Duran and even Middle weight Duran usually reigns supreme in MMs.

 

Im analogising between the decline of two fighters from their peak. Since Ali hadnt moved up 3, 4 weight classes by 1975 he doesn't really have a fight you can equate to duran-hearns, no

 

Montreal Duran would beat MOST welterweights in history. It's hardly overrating Duran to say that.

Junior middleweight, not so much. There's a fair amount of guys in history who beat Duran at 154.

 

History has proven that you can't go by one fight, you have to go by a body of work. You can't limit your opinion of Duran's welterweight prowess on the first Ray Leonard fight or else when talking about heavyweights we should place "Tokyo Douglas" among the best of all time. Some guys are particularly inspired for one night and all the circumstances and intangibles are set up in their favour. Consistency is the only true assessment.

 

Duran-Leonard 1 is like a mythical Ali vs Marciano fight. If Ali elected to stand up and slug it out with Marciano it's conceivable that he loses a decision. That was marcianos game and Ali wasn't a one punch KO hitter. However if Ali got on his toes and stuck to his dancing boxing game Marciano is thoroughly outboxed and possibly cut to shreds. So if Ali did fight Marciano in a slugfest and rocky won, many would be saying the same shot about how that version of Marciano would beat blah blah blah.

Duran beat a slickster that foolishly slugged it out with him. When he fought slicksters who boxed him: Benitez , hearns, Laing and Leonard in the rematch he lost. So in evaluating Duran above lightweight we have to be honest and realistic and look at the trend and not the one off

 

I always find it hilarious when people say Duran beat Leonard because Leonard "didn't fight his usual fight". Ummm, yes he did. Look at ANY previous Leonard fight before Duran. Ray was never a dancer/mover prior to the No Mas fight. He was always a guy who stood in range, and tried to do damage - just as he fought in the Montreal fight.

Duran beat a prime Leonard, get over it. He did more in one night than a certain somebody did in an 18-year career. That must burn you inside.

 

What's hilarious is that Duran was such a weak-minded pussy that he quit like a bitch in the rematch even though he was doing okay.

We need a Lokism to describe what Leonard did to Duran in that fight.

 

Bullshit. Even the commentary in that fight proves you wrong. rthe commentators were saying that Leonard is fighting Duran's fight and that it's risky and that he should be doing his usual boxing....and if he continues this way he could lose. They were saying that as early as the 2nd round. Why would they say that if what you said is true? Listen to the commentary again.

 

LOL @ the Mayweather references again. What burns you inside is that Floyd retired undefeated and proved consistency over 5 weight classes, a ridiculous number of title fights and over quite a few future HOF opponents.

 

Lol, the commentary... Get real

 

one of the points the commenators kept making in the first duran/srl fight was that srl needed to get close because he was getting hurt when he was outside. i think his corner was telling him the same thing.

 

What? WHAT?!?!

The commentary is very relevant. The announcers were expressing shock, over and over at Leonard's "flat footed" strategy. They said they thought he'd have come out sticking and moving and shouldn't be fighting Duran's fight.

IF, as Xplosive and other Duran fans claim is true...that Leonard always fought that way up to that point, it would be NONSENSICAL for the commentators to be saying that. Logic 101

You would have never heard a Mike Tyson commentator say "Tyson should be sticking and moving and not playing Holyfield's aggressive game".

Pay attention and take heed onto the wisdom of he that is Sly and you shall learn something. ;)

 

The commentators did express surprise that Leonard was flat-footed. He definitely fought flat-footed more often than not but it doesn't mean he never used his legs and danced. The commentators (that asshole Ferdie Pacheco) probably thought it was in Leonard's best interest to use his legs more and be fleet-footed against Duran. And it was.

Someone as versatile as Leonard or Hagler isn't going to give you the same look every single time, every single round. There's gonna be some variation. Leonard's usual style was flat-footed, and he largely fought flat-footed in his most notable fight up to that point (Benitez), but that doesn't mean he NEVER showed the ability to use a lot of movement.

 

THIS...

And Regarding the Duran Fight SPECIFICALLY, Leonard's Spoken OPENLY About Duran's Pre-Fight Tactics and Taunts and How it GOADED Him Into WANTING to Out-Man Duran, As Opposed to Outpointing Him...

To Suggest Leonard Fought in his CUSTOMARY Manner, in Montreal, is Disingenuous...





REED:hammert: