Leonard vs. Duran--Under Perfect Conditions

[cross_trainer]

Who wins this if Leonard comes in with the right gameplan and Duran doesn't have a tummyache?

[smokin joe]

duran it all ready happened, the first fight, the first fight is always bigger and more important

[SgrRyLeonard]

Leonard. He fought the wrong fight the first time.

[laxpdx]

Well, this one is too damn good to end in a KO. However, I call it Leonard by close decision.

[smokin joe]

Leonard. He fought the wrong fight the first time.
leanord fought the best fight of his carrer the first time

[robert ungurean]

Duran.
He is simply the better fighter.

[JohnThomas1]

Leonard by decision in a tough match.

[Duodenum]

If Duran had duplicated his degree of conditioning and motivation for Montreal in New Orleans, then I believe his aggression would have resulted in another decision win, albeit closer than their first match. With SRL on his toes, Duran would have been charging Ray, as he did Joseph Nsubuga (in the match which made Montreal a viable promotion). SRL was a tough nut, as he demonstrated in Canada, so Duran would not have taken him out. But when SRL went to his toes, Roberto's rushes would have disintegrated Ray's plan into a full fledged retreat, with Duran pursuing in a wild chase, until or unless SRL put on the brakes to try making a stand (and stem the tide). SRL was never able to hurt Duran, while Roberto stunned Ray for three rounds (by SRL's own admission) with a single early bomb over the top in their first meeting. SRL telegraphed too much, and prime Duran was too defensively skilled for Ray to overcome that deficiency, no matter how fired up and confident he would have been.

[JohnThomas1]

If Duran had duplicated his degree of conditioning and motivation for Montreal in New Orleans, then I believe his aggression would have resulted in another decision win, albeit closer than their first match.

It wouldn't want to be too much closer, he won by a single point on two cards and just two points on the third. Not much room for a closer fight that is still won by Duran.

[Duodenum]

It wouldn't want to be too much closer, he won by a single point on two cards and just two points on the third. Not much room for a closer fight that is still won by Duran.

What I mean is that Duran would not have this match won on the scorecards after nine or ten rounds (as he announced to his corner in Montreal). This time, the scoring would be settled during the championship stretch. Like Holmes against Norton, Duran completely dominated the early scoring in Canada. (I agreed with Arthur Mercante that Holmes should have had the Norton match sewed up with the judges after ten rounds, and I was pulling for Norton in that one.) In New Orleans, a peak Duran would have needed to come from behind to overtake SRL on points late, and I believe he would have succeeded, thanks in some part to his bruising body attack.

[JohnThomas1]

What I mean is that Duran would not have this match won on the scorecards after nine or ten rounds (as he announced to his corner in Montreal). This time, the scoring would be settled during the championship stretch. Like Holmes against Norton, Duran completely dominated the early scoring in Canada. (I agreed with Arthur Mercante that Holmes should have had the Norton match sewed up with the judges after ten rounds, and I was pulling for Norton in that one.) In New Orleans, a peak Duran would have needed to come from behind to overtake SRL on points late, and I believe he would have succeeded, thanks in some part to his bruising body attack.

No worries, we'll have to agree to disagree. Duran fought his best in the first fight and even then his body attack hadn't slowed down a slugging SRL later in the match very much at all. The oddsmakers definitely agreed Leonard's gameplan played right into Duran's hands, installing him favourite for the rematch even after the first rubber.

[JohnThomas1]

He was the superior welterweight in every regard.
Oh for sure, much faster hands and feet than Leonard

:lol:

[JohnThomas1]

Leonard's hand speed is wildly exaggerated by those who lick his toilet clean. He flurried but it was meaningless.

Leonard's footwork was nothing like, say, Ali's. Leonard's footwork was like Tunney's. Both moved laterally in a circular motion. There is nothing particularly special about it.

Duran didn't need to employ amateur tactics in the professional ring. He could block, slip, and cut off the ring expertly. There's no comparison in terms of skill. Duran is a master. Leonard is not a master.

Like i said, please don't ever change, or god help us, leave

:lol:

[dmt]

Leonard was a harder hitter at welter and could survive the bombs of Tommy meaning he's more durable then Duran

[JohnThomas1]

Leonard was a harder hitter at welter and could survive the bombs of Tommy meaning he's more durable then Duran

Fair points.

[dmt]

How was Duran more durable? Could Duran ever survive Hearns at welter?

I do rate Duran higher p4p but Leonard was more durable

[Duodenum]

No worries, we'll have to agree to disagree. Duran fought his best in the first fight and even then his body attack hadn't slowed down a slugging SRL later in the match very much at all. The oddsmakers definitely agreed Leonard's gameplan played right into Duran's hands, installing him favourite for the rematch even after the first rubber.SRL certainly was as rugged as any when it came to taking it downstairs, and his torso was discolored at the end of that introductory fracas. But Roberto's attack would garner points nonetheless, at least in the eyes of competent judges. As you already made clear, no worries.

[la-califa]

The Ali-Frazier of the Welterwieghts. If they fought 10 times there would only be a few points seperating them. The Leonard that fought Hearns was better than the one in Montreal. Leonard was still a little green in Montreal & Duran was a seasoned pro. True Benitez was a big fight, But This was the biggest NonHeavywieght fight in history at the time. A lot of pressure for the young Welterweight.

[istmeno]

has anyone taken into consideration leonards actions leading up to the second fight. where by his own admission, he stated that he knew thet duran would be unable to get into top shape in the timeframe he had to train.

his words lead me to believe that there were doubts in his mind as to how much of a chance he stood against a well prepared duran.

[Duodenum]

has anyone taken into consideration leonards actions leading up to the second fight. where by his own admission, he stated that he knew thet duran would be unable to get into top shape in the timeframe he had to train.

his words lead me to believe that there were doubts in his mind as to how much of a chance he stood against a well prepared duran.It's a rational inference. In his final match befor Montreal, Ray completely put out Dave Green's lights, with the most perfect uppercut/hook combination imaginable, a result so devastating that it frightened SRL as much as Foster's hook against Mike Quarry did Bob, or Patterson's title recapturing hook against Ingo scared Floyd.

SRL went from the awesome peak of the Green performance to a situation where nothing he tried in the trenches was able to deter his smaller and older opponent, a circumstance which Arguello admits broke his fighting spirit against Pryor. ("I hit him with good shots, and nothing happens.") We'd already seen that, with both in peak condition, Duran could hurt SRL, but the reverse wasn't true. I'm sure Ray was banking on Duran's infamous appetite (a major side story in the days leading up to Montreal), and the fact of his being sated by conquest in their first go-around, would result in Roberto's being less than fully motivated. Sure enough, Duran was only in it for the money this time. He took the eight million dollar payoff and ran. This is the real reason he deserves to be reviled for New Orleans. At the time he quit, he'd already proved once again that he was somehow impervious to SRL's punishment. This makes his despicable behavior even more egregious.

For his part, Ray disingenuously attempted to take full credit for this sordid outcome. For all of Mike Tyson's contemptible behavior, the most honorable thing he did in boxing, was to declare in his post fight conference following the Bonecrusher Smith debacle, that Smith didn't deserve to get paid. SRL should have made the same statement about Duran, in what really did turn out to be "The Big Easy" for him that night. (Tyson garnered a massive amount of respect for his comments about Bonecrusher's walking tank job. Too bad he had to blow it all with such stupid choices later.)

[rekcutnevets]

Ray tried to prove he could out fight Duran toe to toe in the first fight. He couldn't then, and wouldn't be able to at any time probably. He did come close that way, though. The second time he used his advantages over Duran. Duran may have made him work harder under perfect conditions, but I don't think he can ever catch up to Ray, when Ray fights like he did in their rematch.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Tough call. Of course, on one hand the Montreal fight was ideal conditions and Duran won that one fair and square. But bookmakers still made Leonard favourite for the rematch, so they likely figured that he'd gained valuable experience- and would adopt a different approach. Hmm, I don't know which way to vote really. I do believe Leonard would win more than he lost if he fought Duran at welterweight, but Roberto did win the first one (always the best one to win I feel because there's always the level playing field).


This scenario is a bit like two other rivalries that occured around this time. Coe vs Ovett in athletics and Borg-McEnroe in tennis. When Ovett won the 800 metres in Moscow, in which Coe was favourite, Coe seemed more determined when they raced in the 1500 (in which Ovett was unbeaten for ages). It was always going to be 1-1. Same with Borg beating Mac at Wimbledon in 1980, Mac's revenge the year later. The loser had far more motivation in the rematch. I honestly think Duran vs Leonard was always going to end 1-1 in 1980 and whoever lost the first would win the 2nd. So, I'm not going to vote. :p

[JohnThomas1]

The Ali-Frazier of the Welterwieghts. If they fought 10 times there would only be a few points seperating them. The Leonard that fought Hearns was better than the one in Montreal. Leonard was still a little green in Montreal & Duran was a seasoned pro. True Benitez was a big fight, But This was the biggest NonHeavywieght fight in history at the time. A lot of pressure for the young Welterweight.

Agreed, Leonard was just hitting his absolute peak at 147 when he retired IMO.

[Duodenum]

Tough call. Of course, on one hand the Montreal fight was ideal conditions and Duran won that one fair and square. But bookmakers still made Leonard favourite for the rematch, so they likely figured that he'd gained valuable experience- and would adopt a different approach. Hmm, I don't know which way to vote really. I do believe Leonard would win more than he lost if he fought Duran at welterweight, but Roberto did win the first one (always the best one to win I feel because there's always the level playing field).


This scenario is a bit like two other rivalries that occured around this time. Coe vs Ovett in athletics and Borg-McEnroe in tennis. When Ovett won the 800 metres in Moscow, in which Coe was favourite, Coe seemed more determined when they raced in the 1500 (in which Ovett was unbeaten for ages). It was always going to be 1-1. Same with Borg beating Mac at Wimbledon in 1980, Mac's revenge the year later. The loser had far more motivation in the rematch. I honestly think Duran vs Leonard was always going to end 1-1 in 1980 and whoever lost the first would win the 2nd. So, I'm not going to vote. :pBefore you finally choose not to decide, I would suggest you consider who would have prevailed between the Duran of Montreal, and the SRL of New Orleans, or the first match with Hearns. As one who leans towards Duran, it appears to me that you might favor Ray. Who do you think was better at their very best?

[NickHudson]

Yep, agree totally with all this MDWC.

On the other hand, every now and then a sportsmen emerges who sustains incredible winning streaks despite the usual losses in motivation (e.g. Carl Lewis 4 consecutive LJ Olympic golds, also 4 golds in 1 Olympics in 1984, and a 10 year unbeaten streak in the LJ outside of the Olympic victories).

Duran held it together for 8 years which is exceptional, but i would have loved to see a couple more...


Tough call. Of course, on one hand the Montreal fight was ideal conditions and Duran won that one fair and square. But bookmakers still made Leonard favourite for the rematch, so they likely figured that he'd gained valuable experience- and would adopt a different approach. Hmm, I don't know which way to vote really. I do believe Leonard would win more than he lost if he fought Duran at welterweight, but Roberto did win the first one (always the best one to win I feel because there's always the level playing field).


This scenario is a bit like two other rivalries that occured around this time. Coe vs Ovett in athletics and Borg-McEnroe in tennis. When Ovett won the 800 metres in Moscow, in which Coe was favourite, Coe seemed more determined when they raced in the 1500 (in which Ovett was unbeaten for ages). It was always going to be 1-1. Same with Borg beating Mac at Wimbledon in 1980, Mac's revenge the year later. The loser had far more motivation in the rematch. I honestly think Duran vs Leonard was always going to end 1-1 in 1980 and whoever lost the first would win the 2nd. So, I'm not going to vote. :p

[Stonehands89]

New Orleans' Leonard vs. Montreal Duran.

I think it is almost as close to a toss-up as you can find. Leonard was a beautiful boxwer -rythym & coordination, speed, power, timing, a lion heart, all combined with serious skill. Duran is Duran.

Leonard's edge was his youth, size & reach, and speed. Duran's was in experience, skill, and yes, durability (the Duran->Hearns<-Leonard analogy is representative of nothing. Different Durans).

I'd also give Duran the edge in power, but Duran respected Leonard's power and this can be seen in the fact that he was not averse to disdaining defense at all, even in the rushes. Duran did exercise caution with Leonard because of the speed. He fought Cuevas less carefully than he did Leonard, which suggest how Duran himself viewed their comparative dangerousness.

An inspired, peak or near-peak Duran was incredibly hard to beat. He never was beaten when in that kind of mental-emotional-physical condition. Duran would need to be in that kind of condition to ever beat Leonard. IMO, post-1980, Duran never would have beaten Leonard again.

Duran by SD over 15. This close because although Duran was the greater and better fighter, he was still a bit past his prime and fighting one of the top 2 or 3 elite WWs ATG.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Before you finally choose not to decide, I would suggest you consider who would have prevailed between the Duran of Montreal, and the SRL of New Orleans, or the first match with Hearns. As one who leans towards Duran, it appears to me that you might favor Ray. Who do you think was better at their very best?



I think Duran was better at their best, but at welter I think Leonard would have beaten more great fighters. To be honest, I think if I had to bet my house on New Orleans Ray vs Montreal Roberto, I'd go with Leonard.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Yep, agree totally with all this MDWC.

On the other hand, every now and then a sportsmen emerges who sustains incredible winning streaks despite the usual losses in motivation (e.g. Carl Lewis 4 consecutive LJ Olympic golds, also 4 golds in 1 Olympics in 1984, and a 10 year unbeaten streak in the LJ outside of the Olympic victories).

Duran held it together for 8 years which is exceptional, but i would have loved to see a couple more...


Thanks mate. Yes, there's also the athlete who dominates. I remember McEnroe talking about that great 1980 Final and he said when the game entered a 5th set "How could he (Borg) possibly want to win this more than me". Referring to the fact that Borg had won the previous 4, but some sportsman, like Lewis, are never content and want to win everything. Duran struck me as a fighter who'd considered job done after Montreal and it was time to enjoy the fruits of his labour. Leonard was never going to lose the rematch really.

[unitas]

perfect conditions are hard to find here. leonard was a natural welter, duran a lightweight.

so to be somewhat fair, youd have to make it at jr welter.


in this playing field i pick duran.

[Duodenum]

perfect conditions are hard to find here. leonard was a natural welter, duran a lightweight.

so to be somewhat fair, youd have to make it at jr welter.


in this playing field i pick duran.So would I. Ray would probably be too weakened from making weight, hardly a perfect condition for him. (Keep in mind that SRL never in his entire pro career boxed below 141, and that was in his second bout, when rawhide tough Fireball Rodriguez wobbled Ray more than anybody else, until Duran himself in Montreal.) In a real world context, Montreal was a close to a perfect condition as both participants could factually have obtained. Looking at Ray's performance off the Green kayo, it may not have occurred to him that he wouldn't be able to drop Roberto as LW DeJesus had done twice before. Palomino could hit, but he didn't have the sort of speed SRL did. Being the bigger, younger man, it wouldn't have necessarily seemed a foolhardy plan to Ray for him to take on Duran in the trenches as he decided to going in. The idea of Duran controlling the exchanges of strength and power might have been considered as absurd as SRR bulling and battering Joey Maxim about.

[Duodenum]

I think Duran was better at their best, but at welter I think Leonard would have beaten more great fighters. To be honest, I think if I had to bet my house on New Orleans Ray vs Montreal Roberto, I'd go with Leonard.All right then! For you, SRL it is!

[hdog]

Leonard of New Orleans beats the Duran of Montreal.

[la-califa]

NO one would have beaten the Duran of Montreal. He was a long time Champion & felt slighted that the young Champion was the superstar. He was at the top of his game and was like a madman possesed. There was no way he was going to be denied that night.

[Titan1]

Who wins this if Leonard comes in with the right gameplan and Duran doesn't have a tummyache?


Ray would pull off a majority 15 round decision, Shame Duran didn't come into shape for the second fight.

[Duodenum]

For Ray, the "perfect" condition always would have been a rematch, not a first time encounter. As I pointed out when this thread was created over three years ago, SRL reasonably expected that he could hurt Duran after the lethal knockout of Green. By the time he discovered otherwise, he was in the same situation Tunney was in during his opening loss to Greb, figuring out how to defeat his conqueror in a rematch.

Randy Shields claimed that Ray telegraphed his punches, but most fighters are not as defensively skilled as he. Benitez did frustrate him and make him miss often though, then Duran lent further credence to Randy's claims, making SRL miss even more in Montreal. (This is a key difference in why Hearns was able to hurt him where Ray never could. Roberto always saw SRL's punches coming, but not Tommy's.) El Cholo's early stunner proved decisive in the final scoring. Going into New Orleans, Ray knew to respect Duran's power in a way he may not have in Canada.

A pure, true peak for peak pairing was never possible, but for whatever it's worth, I do take the 26 year old Duran of DeJesus III over the 25 year old SRL of Finch via UD in a first time bout on neutral turf. (It must be acknowledged that Ray's detached retina and original retirement deprived us of learning how good he might have ultimately become. Had he remained in continual action, he may have peaked in 1983.)

[Bill Butcher]

Leonard would win a close but clear unanimous decision.

There were very, very few more complete & skilled fighters than Roberto Duran at his best in boxing history but Sugar Ray Leonard at his best may very well be one of them.
Ray did far, far better in the 1st fight than Duran did in the 2nd fight & thats the versions Id be using because I truly believe that that was the very best of both men.
The movement & speed - particularly the lateral movement - would frustrate Duran, not to the point of quitting but to the point of lunging forward, getting countered & flurried on, I see a 9-6 job in SRLs favour with Ray finishing the stronger in the last 3 rds.

I expect Duran to win the voting tho.

[ripcity]

Leonard, every time.

[Bill Butcher]

Duran.
He is simply the better fighter.

No he is not.... & even if you believe Duran is a `better` fighter (as opposed to `greater`) then there is definitely nothing simply about it.

[Bill Butcher]

perfect conditions are hard to find here. leonard was a natural welter, duran a lightweight.

so to be somewhat fair, youd have to make it at jr welter.


in this playing field i pick duran.

The best Ive EVER seen Duran is Leonard I, Palomino & Dejesus III, two of those were at WW & the Dejesus fight was Duran`s very last at LW as he couldnt make the weight anymore... he had more than enough fights at WW to become a full 147 lber by the time he fought Leonard.

A WW fight using the Montreal Duran & the New Orleans Leonard is no doubt about it, the best of both men... no need for 140 lbs in this one IMO.

[Longhhorn71]

Leonard had the perfect game plan in the first fight.....he was trying to win.

Second fight Duran only down 1-2 points when Roberto bailed out.

Best Duran beats best SRL at 147 lbs.

[laxpdx]

Now I take the best version of Duran (Montreal) to win anytime. He was too fired up.

[JohnThomas1]

Leonard had the perfect game plan in the first fight.....he was trying to win.


:lol:

[Sardu]

If Duran had duplicated his degree of conditioning and motivation for Montreal in New Orleans, then I believe his aggression would have resulted in another decision win, albeit closer than their first match. With SRL on his toes, Duran would have been charging Ray, as he did Joseph Nsubuga (in the match which made Montreal a viable promotion). SRL was a tough nut, as he demonstrated in Canada, so Duran would not have taken him out. But when SRL went to his toes, Roberto's rushes would have disintegrated Ray's plan into a full fledged retreat, with Duran pursuing in a wild chase, until or unless SRL put on the brakes to try making a stand (and stem the tide). SRL was never able to hurt Duran, while Roberto stunned Ray for three rounds (by SRL's own admission) with a single early bomb over the top in their first meeting. SRL telegraphed too much, and prime Duran was too defensively skilled for Ray to overcome that deficiency, no matter how fired up and confident he would have been.


Didn't one judge in Montreal have it 145-144 for Duran with like 10 rounds or so even? Leonard seemed to be coming on late but perhaps Duran knew he had put a lot of earlier rounds in the bank.

[Bokaj]

Several here has said that the first fight always is the most significant, but I don't agree. I think the second (and possible subsequent ones) shows which fighter is able to adapt the best.

You will always run the risk of having the wrong gameplan and/or mindset when meeting someone the first time. It's the subsequent fights that shows if the other guy has your number, or if it was a one off - that you can adapt and show that your qualities are superior to the opponent's.

For example, if Holyfield had managed to box his way to a decision win in the rubber match against Bowe, it would have satisfied me that he had learned from the first fight and shown himself to probably have Bowe's number.

[Stevie G]

If Duran had duplicated his degree of conditioning and motivation for Montreal in New Orleans, then I believe his aggression would have resulted in another decision win, albeit closer than their first match. With SRL on his toes, Duran would have been charging Ray, as he did Joseph Nsubuga (in the match which made Montreal a viable promotion). SRL was a tough nut, as he demonstrated in Canada, so Duran would not have taken him out. But when SRL went to his toes, Roberto's rushes would have disintegrated Ray's plan into a full fledged retreat, with Duran pursuing in a wild chase, until or unless SRL put on the brakes to try making a stand (and stem the tide). SRL was never able to hurt Duran, while Roberto stunned Ray for three rounds (by SRL's own admission) with a single early bomb over the top in their first meeting. SRL telegraphed too much, and prime Duran was too defensively skilled for Ray to overcome that deficiency, no matter how fired up and confident he would have been.
I agree with this. Duran was a force of nature in Montreal,and he'd win under this thread's scenario too.

[Duodenum]

Didn't one judge in Montreal have it 145-144 for Duran with like 10 rounds or so even? Leonard seemed to be coming on late but perhaps Duran knew he had put a lot of earlier rounds in the bank.Yes, and Sports Illustrated famously denounced Angelo Poletti's card as "a monument to indecision." I compared my own card with that of a dozen co-workers who also scored it the next day. Ten of us agreed with Duran and the official scoring that Roberto won it in the first ten rounds. (Half of those were SRL partisans, making that early dominance all the more impressive.)

In Boston, WCVB-TV sportscaster Don Gillis read the live detailed report by UPI during his segment on the 11 p.m. news that Duran had won nine of the first ten rounds in disbelief, repeatedly emphasizing that it was "unofficial." But it was just at that moment in Montreal that El Cholo returned to his corner and announced to his seconds that he had clinched it on the cards. As it turned out, both he and the UPI ringside reporter were entirely correct. Duran did know he had it in the bank, said as much at the time, so Ray's subsequent rally was meaningless, making the final result misleadingly close. In reality, SRL didn't do much better over the first ten than Palomino had. (Carlos did touch down, but was never seriously hurt, while the long left hook which staggered Ray and left his head ringing for three rounds connected with 1:26 left in round two.)

At the time, the notion that SRL could lose nine of ten rounds to anybody, even Duran, was shocking. The wipe out of Green, and boxing lesson Ray handed Benitez was still fresh in everybody's mind. The idea that Ray fought the wrong fight in Montreal is strictly revisionism. Watch him stop Chiaverini, Ranzany, Price, Benitez and Green. Take a look at him dealing with big, strong middleweight Marcos Geraldo. How is it that he wouldn't be expected to successfully stand up to an older and smaller lightweight, even as great as Duran? Watch the first ten rounds of Montreal, score them, then tell me Ray did "much better" in New Orleans than Duran did in Canada, because it's only that first ten rounds out of 15 that truly matter in their initial bout. After seven rounds, Ray was only up by two or three points in New Orleans against a dreadfully unprepared and motivated Duran.

Janks Morton was at least one principal in Ray's camp who did not believe SRL would have won a rematch with the Duran of Montreal, and has admitted as much on camera.

[PowerPuncher]

Leonard fights mobile, defensive, picking his battles and Duran just can't get his best shots off on him and gets outpointed. In the first fight Leonard was on queer street for a few rounds after Duran clocked him in the 2nd round a cautious clever Leonard doesn't get caught and outboxes Duran

[PowerPuncher]

duran it all ready happened, the first fight, the first fight is always bigger and more important

Ah so DeJesus got the better of Duran in their trilogy, glad we cleared that up :yep

[Duodenum]

Leonard fights mobile, defensive, picking his battles and Duran just can't get his best shots off on him and gets outpointed. In the first fight Leonard was on queer street for a few rounds after Duran clocked him in the 2nd round a cautious clever Leonard doesn't get caught and outboxes DuranWell, again, that's just it. Can Ray know enough to be that cautious and clever without first experiencing Duran's power, skill and saavy in an initial bout?

Here, I'm reiterating my assertion again that for SRL, the "perfect" condition would always have to be a rematch. What evidence is there that a first time meeting with both in prime condition could have gone his way? My hard core contention is that Ray would always have to lose to him before being able to defeat him.

[PowerPuncher]

Well, again, that's just it. Can Ray know enough to be that cautious and clever without first experiencing Duran's power, skill and saavy in an initial bout?

Here, I'm reiterating my assertion again that for SRL, the "perfect" condition would always have to be a rematch. What evidence is there that a first time meeting with both in prime condition could have gone his way? My hard core contention is that Ray would always have to lose to him before being able to defeat him.

Thats a good question, I feel Leonard got better as a result of Montreal learning about his strengths and weaknesses as a boxer and gaining modesty/fear, which helps a boxer to not over estimate themselves

Either way I was assuming the question was 'If both were at their absolute best they could be'

[Duodenum]

Ah so DeJesus got the better of Duran in their trilogy, glad we cleared that up :yepThat does raise an interesting question though. Would Vita have been able to win a first time match in a title fight over the championship distance? Duran was at a different level in his defenses than he was in non-title affairs. (It's still a testimonial to the prowess of his lightweight prime that even some of his non-title fights were broadcast on network television. He had 23 non-title fights between Buchanan and DeJesus III to keep him occupied and the public entertained. Just another reason today's lighter weight champions suck, and retire with a piddling number of total bouts.)

[Duodenum]

That's a good question, I feel Leonard got better as a result of Montreal learning about his strengths and weaknesses as a boxer and gaining modesty/fear, which helps a boxer to not over estimate themselves

Either way I was assuming the question was 'If both were at their absolute best they could be'You did interpret cross_trainer's original question correctly. He asked if Ray came in with the right game plan. As I see it, that does require him to compete in a rematch. For Duran, that means no eight million dollar guarantee, but that the much larger purse goes to the winner, period, which would probably take away that stomach ache. After seven rounds in New Orleans, an ill prepared Duran was only trailing by two points on two cards, and three on a third card. Eight rounds remained. If an ill prepared Duran was still in the thick of the scoring with over half the match remaining, what happens if he remains in Montreal trim? (He really should have maintained his lightweight practice of competing between title bouts, to sustain that conditioning and sharpness.)

[PowerPuncher]

You did interpret cross_trainer's original question correctly. He asked if Ray came in with the right game plan. As I see it, that does require him to compete in a rematch. For Duran, that means no eight million dollar guarantee, but that the much larger purse goes to the winner, period, which would probably take away that stomach ache. After seven rounds in New Orleans, an ill prepared Duran was only trailing by two points on two cards, and three on a third card. Eight rounds remained. If an ill prepared Duran was still in the thick of the scoring with over half the match remaining, what happens if he remains in Montreal trim? (He really should have maintained his lightweight practice of competing between title bouts, to sustain that conditioning and sharpness.)

I personally always thought Leonard was in control in the rematch, I thought both fighters bossed each fight even though some saw either fight as 'close' I didn't.

Thats the problem, both wins were so clear that it always begs the question 'well what was the huge difference between the 2 fights'. Some answer 'Duran wasn't near his best in the rematch' some will answer 'Leonard fought the wrong fight in the first'. And usually it boils down to who you're a fan of, I think there's elements of both

[Duodenum]

I personally always thought Leonard was in control in the rematch, I thought both fighters bossed each fight even though some saw either fight as 'close' I didn't.

That's the problem, both wins were so clear that it always begs the question 'well what was the huge difference between the 2 fights'. Some answer 'Duran wasn't near his best in the rematch' some will answer 'Leonard fought the wrong fight in the first'. And usually it boils down to who you're a fan of, I think there's elements of bothAnd that's the whole essence of what makes this such a compelling question.

For supporters of Duran, of course that argument is that Montreal is when both competitors where closest to their best. As El Cholo was the smaller, older man, Montreal has huge P4P ATG ramifications. (A secondary argument is that Roberto would have defeated Hagler first if the rule set for SRL-Hagler in 1987 had been in place for Duran in 1983. Also, Hagler was obviously far better for Duran than he was for Ray.)

If "Big Easy Ray" had been in Montreal, does he outmaneuver Roberto, or get run out of the ring? I think I may review Vilomar Fernandez shortly to further consider this. For 12 rounds, he flew around the ring with Duran in pursuit, before getting felled with body blows. Ray could take those punches. It wasn't SRL's most natural style, but he was certainly more than capable of executing it with his wheels. (One of his sparring partners said, "His legs are like steel bands!" Sparring with him was not a pleasant experience, according to some who knew. He wasn't the easy going punching bag Ali was.)

[duranimal]

Yes, and Sports Illustrated famously denounced Angelo Poletti's card as "a monument to indecision." I compared my own card with that of a dozen co-workers who also scored it the next day. Ten of us agreed with Duran and the official scoring that Roberto won it in the first ten rounds. (Half of those were SRL partisans, making that early dominance all the more impressive.)

In Boston, WCVB-TV sportscaster Don Gillis read the live detailed report by UPI during his segment on the 11 p.m. news that Duran had won nine of the first ten rounds in disbelief, repeatedly emphasizing that it was "unofficial." But it was just at that moment in Montreal that El Cholo returned to his corner and announced to his seconds that he had clinched it on the cards. As it turned out, both he and the UPI ringside reporter were entirely correct. Duran did know he had it in the bank, said as much at the time, so Ray's subsequent rally was meaningless, making the final result misleadingly close. In reality, SRL didn't do much better over the first ten than Palomino had. (Carlos did touch down, but was never seriously hurt, while the long left hook which staggered Ray and left his head ringing for three rounds connected with 1:26 left in round two.)

At the time, the notion that SRL could lose nine of ten rounds to anybody, even Duran, was shocking. The wipe out of Green, and boxing lesson Ray handed Benitez was still fresh in everybody's mind. The idea that Ray fought the wrong fight in Montreal is strictly revisionism. Watch him stop Chiaverini, Ranzany, Price, Benitez and Green. Take a look at him dealing with big, strong middleweight Marcos Geraldo. How is it that he wouldn't be expected to successfully stand up to an older and smaller lightweight, even as great as Duran? Watch the first ten rounds of Montreal, score them, then tell me Ray did "much better" in New Orleans than Duran did in Canada, because it's only that first ten rounds out of 15 that truly matter in their initial bout. After seven rounds, Ray was only up by two or three points in New Orleans against a dreadfully unprepared and motivated Duran.

Janks Morton was at least one principal in Ray's camp who did not believe SRL would have won a rematch with the Duran of Montreal, and has admitted as much on camera.

You've covered this subject brilliantly:yep

With the regard to the scoring i also could'nt believe my eyes & score totals back then that Duran had in effect romped & dominated the fight in a sense with ease. I'am actually guilty of the fact that back then i went & watched it again & again just too convince myself that Leonard won more rounds than he actually did & forced myself to agree with the shocking & phycophantic Leonard commentry teams to just reduce the point deficite to a more respectible level:oops:

But i've watched this fight again with my son about 3 times this last 18 months & it's just a hard fought dominating all the way through by Duran & i'am back to the score of 10/3/2 & i really just can't give Leonard anymore rounds as he just did'nt win them, he finished 2nd pracaticly all the way through the fight & no matter what he tried or attempted always fell short or was superseeded by a superior Duran counter.

It's one of those fights that people remember for the end part & forget what went earlier, true it was an absolute classic hard fought match up all the way to the end but it was Duran who did just more of everything in them. Looked a close tough fight from the nueteral standpoint but on a round 4 round scoring basis i just can't see Leonard winning more than 3 OK lets give him the even rounds & he's still a 5 round loser & in reality he was beat handsomely & thats the shock as this is Sugar Ray Leonard having his arse handed to him & i wonder if this went through the minds of the judges that night in that they too could'nt believe what they were seeing.

It's one of those conundrums that gets thrown up every now & again what with scoring a wide decision gives the impression of a stroll when as we know in reality it ai'nt, but under the 10 point system i can't for the life of me see how anyone can Leonard 3/4/5 rounds max & thats being generous........I've argued this for years that Duran outfought/outthought & OUTBOXED Leonard at his best on an equal playing field, well not so equal as Ray said i'am bigger/younger/stronger & faster than Duran....AGREED......but he's not the better Boxer & that was proven that night in Montreal:deal

Same goes for the New Orleans re-match as Leonards tentitive approuch & performence in that fight gets him no where against the Duran of Montreal & not the sluggish plodder that turned up for the $8Million & would again has chased Leonard all over the ring & won a UD, as you said up till Duran jumped ship it was 2/2/1 & that was with Leonard doing nothing & Duran less.

There's no escape from it that Leonard loses on an equal playing field 2nd time around. He failed the 1st time & there's no escape the 2nd time.

I applaud every one of your excellent & superb postes:clap:

[The Morlocks]

You've covered this subject brilliantly:yep

With the regard to the scoring i also could'nt believe my eyes & score totals back then that Duran had in effect romped & dominated the fight in a sense with ease. I'am actually guilty of the fact that back then i went & watched it again & again just too convince myself that Leonard won more rounds than he actually did & forced myself to agree with the shocking & phycophantic Leonard commentry teams to just reduce the point deficite to a more respectible level:oops:

But i've watched this fight again with my son about 3 times this last 18 months & it's just a hard fought dominating all the way through by Duran & i'am back to the score of 10/3/2 & i really just can't give Leonard anymore rounds as he just did'nt win them, he finished 2nd pracaticly all the way through the fight & no matter what he tried or attempted always fell short or was superseeded by a superior Duran counter.

It's one of those fights that people remember for the end part & forget what went earlier, true it was an absolute classic hard fought match up all the way to the end but it was Duran who did just more of everything in them. Looked a close tough fight from the nueteral standpoint but on a round 4 round scoring basis i just can't see Leonard winning more than 3 OK lets give him the even rounds & he's still a 5 round loser & in reality he was beat handsomely & thats the shock as this is Sugar Ray Leonard having his arse handed to him & i wonder if this went through the minds of the judges that night in that they too could'nt believe what they were seeing.

It's one of those conundrums that gets thrown up every now & again what with scoring a wide decision gives the impression of a stroll when as we know in reality it ai'nt, but under the 10 point system i can't for the life of me see how anyone can Leonard 3/4/5 rounds max & thats being generous........I've argued this for years that Duran outfought/outthought & OUTBOXED Leonard at his best on an equal playing field, well not so equal as Ray said i'am bigger/younger/stronger & faster than Duran....AGREED......but he's not the better Boxer & that was proven that night in Montreal:deal

Same goes for the New Orleans re-match as Leonards tentitive approuch & performence in that fight gets him no where against the Duran of Montreal & not the sluggish plodder that turned up for the $8Million & would again has chased Leonard all over the ring & won a UD, as you said up till Duran jumped ship it was 2/2/1 & that was with Leonard doing nothing & Duran less.

There's no escape from it that Leonard loses on an equal playing field 2nd time around. He failed the 1st time & there's no escape the 2nd time.

I applaud every one of your excellent & superb postes:clap:
good post I had Duran by 11-4 and felt he won most of the late rounds. Palomino said it best when he said he could tell when Duran took off his robe in New O that he was in nowhere near the shape as Montreal and that he would prob. lose.

[stonehammerjack]

And that's the whole essence of what makes this such a compelling question.

For supporters of Duran, of course that argument is that Montreal is when both competitors where closest to their best. As El Cholo was the smaller, older man, Montreal has huge P4P ATG ramifications. (A secondary argument is that Roberto would have defeated Hagler first if the rule set for SRL-Hagler in 1987 had been in place for Duran in 1983. Also, Hagler was obviously far better for Duran than he was for Ray.)

If "Big Easy Ray" had been in Montreal, does he outmaneuver Roberto, or get run out of the ring? I think I may review Vilomar Fernandez shortly to further consider this. For 12 rounds, he flew around the ring with Duran in pursuit, before getting felled with body blows. Ray could take those punches. It wasn't SRL's most natural style, but he was certainly more than capable of executing it with his wheels. (One of his sparring partners said, "His legs are like steel bands!" Sparring with him was not a pleasant experience, according to some who knew. He wasn't the easy going punching bag Ali was.)
Hagler himself said that Duran hit him with more rights in 83 than Sugar Ray in 87. He thought Duran was a much harder fight than Leonard.

[ripcity]

Leonard would win every time. He is the more skilled boxer as well as strategiest than Duran. Hart and will are good things to have but they only get you so far. This is assuming that Duran has any hart or spine for that matter. He did not have a tummy ache or shoulder injury when he quit against Leonard. He has no hart. Leonard exposed this in their second fight.

[PetethePrince]

Well, again, that's just it. Can Ray know enough to be that cautious and clever without first experiencing Duran's power, skill and saavy in an initial bout?

Here, I'm reiterating my assertion again that for SRL, the "perfect" condition would always have to be a rematch. What evidence is there that a first time meeting with both in prime condition could have gone his way? My hard core contention is that Ray would always have to lose to him before being able to defeat him.

Always struck by your intellectual objectivity Duodenum.

[PetethePrince]

Am I wrong in assuming that if these are under the most perfect conditions that Ray would've had that ideal experience of fighting Duran even without having fought him? Duran also would be at his ultimate best as a WW like in Montreal where he won. In a sense, this seems to distort the actuality of history by giving the benefit of the doubt for needing that experience of having fought Duran in order to beat Duran. So the question begs does Leonard need to be at his ultimate best, or for his ultimate best for someone like Duran. I think the distinction is important. If we could quantify all this in million parallel universes we could have the answer. Unfortunately we don't. I think time is that fragic were if two ATGs like these fought 100 times it would be just a bit different each time... with something more dramatic or less dramatic occurring at a different point in time than in a previous contest.

Without getting overly philosophical about the whole question I think you have to honestly slightly favor Duran. Just slightly... he did do it under great conditions the first time out. In the end that's all that really matters.

[skidd1]

Leonard had his number after the first fight. Beat him easily in the second and would do in a rematch
Duran quit and would do so again .,You can score the first fight as widely as you like but in the second Duran made it easy

[Bokaj]

Ah so DeJesus got the better of Duran in their trilogy, glad we cleared that up :yep

Yeah, it's funny how selective that is. The same people who play down the fact that Ali won his trilogy with Frazier and Leonard his with Duran, saying the first fight really was the telling one, seldom claim Schmeling got the better of Louis overall or that DeJesus got the better of Duran.