revisionist bullshit Hagler had beaten almost all of the world's top Middleweights before he ever even got a shot at the title once he won it, he hammered every worthy challenger out there... what Middleweight did Hagler duck? what middleweight did he not emphatically defeat, leaving no doubt as to his supremacy? How the fuck can some guy like you who knows so little of boxing from that era that he was not even aware of who Juan LaPorte (a former champion who fought just about every big name fighter from 126-140 in his career) was actually dare to offer an opinion on this? Its ridiculous if you've seen anything other than Hagler/Hearns, I'd be amazed
hold on a second... the first Duran fight was EXTREMELY competetive and fought entirely at close quarters against maybe the best close quarters fighter in history... Duran was proven as a welterweight, he had absolutely hammered the hell out of Carlos Palomino, a very strong welterweight... you think the Oscar that Floyd fought can in any way be compared to that young, fresh, peak Roberto Duran?? You act like Duran beat the holy hell out of him... the fight was very close, that was part of what made it so great... and the rematch somehow doesnt count? Secondly, LOL at Hearns beating Leonard to a pulp... Jeez, I hate Leonard as much as anybody, but the guy stopped in that fight was Tommy... the guy who needed to change his gameplan in order to survive was Tommy... there's a reason he started jabbing and moving so beautifully like he did, and its because in the mid rounds Leonard was smashing him against the ropes... who won that fight again??? Leonard won that fight... again, I ask, who the hell did Floyd fight that is anywhere near that level? Floyd has looked like a virtuoso (although hardly did against DLH or Castillo) in those fights, true, but the opponents arent in the same league as the ones Leonard was faced with the rest of the stuff about retirments and manipulation and all of that could just as easily be brought up in regards to Floyd, Im a little surprised you'd go there given that it is Mayweather of all people as the opponent here... Nevertheless, that stuff is irrelevant here anyway... we are talking about Leonard at 147 as a young man... I dont care what he did later, its irrelevant when we are discussing what he did at this prime weight... Clear cut win over Benitez, a great classic battle with Duran and redemption in the rematch, and the ultimate proof of the guy's fighting substance in his stoppage of Hearns, complete ass kickings of every other Welterweight he fought... it doesnt matter what he did later, doesnt matter what a disingenuous asshole he is, in the ring at 147, few have ever been on his level
Too bad nobody knows who any of those guys are. Floyd has a resume of opponents who will be remembered for decades.
Duran was a lightweight moving up two weight classes. Oscar was a 154lb champ, and Floyd was coming up from 147, a weight he was already small at. And he won. No brainer.
If you say so. Like I said, it's just my take. Duran was so much better at Welter on his best night than that version of De La Hoya (much as I love one, & dislike the other) it more than makes up any ground.
people who are actually familiar with the sport of boxing know who the following fighters are: Bennie Briscoe, Willie Monroe, Bobby Watts, Cyclone Hart, Vito Antuofermo. Alan Minter, Mustafa Hamsho, Juan Roldan, John Mugabi they also are quite familiar with that "little guy" Tommy Hearns, who Hagler stopped in three rounds, the same one who twice won Light Heavyweight titles (15 pounds north of Hagler's highest weight) I know that someone of about 13 or 14 years of age like yourself doesnt know who those guys are, but that doesnt mean that we grown ups arent aware of them or that they werent all fine fighters in their own right
OScar was an old, disinterested man coming DOWN in weight Duran was at the aboslute peak of his formidable powers, fresh as a daisy and already hammered a terrific welterweight prior to facing Leonard He was THE BEST FIGHTER IN THE WORLD De La Hoya was officially 2-2 in his previous four fights before facing Mayweather (though anyone who saw DLH/Sturm knows DLH was actually 1-3 in his previous 4) with the one real win being a stoppage of human target Ricardo Mayorga (the same one Trinidad had already bludgeoned 2 fights earlier) and he followed his decidedly competetive bout with Mayweather by struggling to decision STEVE FORBES, a bloated former JUNIOR LIGHTWEIGHT paper champion so let's see... one one hand, you have Duran, the pound for pound king at the time, who had looked nearly invincible for about 7 years... on the other you have, De La Hoya, who had looked vulnerable, noticeably slower, somewhat lazy and unmotivated for about three years and who had essentially lost 3 of his last 4 fights yes, its easy to see why you would have the opinion you have
Let's revise this so that it is correct... YOU don't know who Haglers' opposition was because you don't know anything about the sport from more than a few years ago.
Yes, yes and yes. Spot on. I hate Leonard as much as anyone, but I don't see any reason to revise history to make him anything less than he really was. Nice response to Trplsec's creative spin on Leonard's career.::
he could have trained 50 times as hard and it still wouldnt hjave made him anywhere near the fighter that Roberto Duran was in 1980
:atu: Funniest thing I've read in a while. I've been relegated to troll status based on an imaginary prediction that an undefeated fighter who is recognized as one of the greatest fighters of this generation would beat Ray Leonard. You truly are in a different class of elitism, sir.
The only thing funnier than these elitist spewing their oft-repeated propaganda they usurped from some boxing historian, is that when it comes to making predictions on fights that would actually happen, they are nowhere to be found. Wouldn't want to ruin the mystique that you actually know what the hell you are talking about, eh? :atu:
No i think you're trolling since all your answers are 1 or 2, deliberately provocative lines. You're stirring. I've read your MMA posts and you aren't as stupid or clueless as your responses in this thread.
you are relegated to troll status because no one can imagine anybody being this stupid you actually think that Floyd Mayweather narrowly decisioning Oscar De La Hoya is a superior feat to Leonard going to war with and narrowly losing to Roberto Duran at his absolute best and then defeating him in a rematch a few months later... the only way someone actually believes that is if they are either INCREDIBLY STUPID or if they are being provocative I tend to think its the latter, since you have made no attempt to actually debate the points that are directed at you when you make these silly statements... instead you do classic troll behavior like "its my opinion" ... the type of responses that you know will irritate people
Personally I favor a win over a loss regardless of the opponent. But I respect your opinion. Please don't try the BoxRec bullshit with me. I've watched boxing for 40 years. That's longer than most guys on this site have been alive. And the 70's and 80's were the absolutely peak of my 'fandom'. And the one thing BoxRec won't tell you about 'that night in Canada' is that Leonard fought a stupid, ego-fueled fight against Duran. He fought Duran at Duran's game and lost. He honestly thought he would beat down the 'little' Duran coming up from 135. He was dead wrong. So you can go on and on about how good Duran was that night. He was an amazing fighter. However, Leonard lost clearly, and he lost because of his own terrible strategy far more than because of Duran's brilliance. If you doubt that, just pop in a tape of Duran-Leonard II and you might notice a slight change in his game plan.::
I seriously don't get how you can get more credit for LOSING a fight, then winning. The whole sport is derived on wins and losses.
No shit.. Like the gap between say Mosley and Duran is so wide that losing to Duran is somehow a bigger accomplishment than beating the shit out of Shane.
Well, explain to me how losing to a guy that moved up two weight classes in a fight that you are FAVORED to win is an accomplishment? Again, I don't care if the opponent is Duran or Jimmy the kid in the wheelchair down the street. Beating them will always be better than fighting well and losing.
If something is, "always" the case, there is no room for explanation to the counter, when you think about it.
Well, somethings aren't really open for debate unless you're trying extra hard to prove an invalid point. I imagine there is some scenario, in some sport, wherein losing in a close contest is better than winning. I can't think of one myself, but I'm sure it exist. That being said, I'm pretty sure Leonard would have preferred to beat Duran in their first fight. I haven't asked him. That is just a guess on my part. But it's a guess I feel relatively confident with.
which is better? let's say Mayweather fights Pac-Man and loses a close decision in a classic fight where he shows bravery, toughness, skill, will, all of it or he uncomfortably defeats Carlos Hernandez with a busted hand by decision in a dreadfully boring fight which one of those is BETTER for the man's legacy?
