Leonard/Duran III - Is It Overlooked?

"Leonard-Duran 3" sucked pole.......... It was a high profile "Sparring" match for 12 rds.......... I fully expected more.... Jesus Christ, BOTH Leonard and Duran looked and fought much tougher in their previous bouts of '89 against "Barkley & Hearns."

Roberto Duran was a slob at 180 pounds in August of '89 during an exhibition fight on the undercard of "Barkley-Nunn." But Ray Leonard kept his composure and physique throughout the year...... However, Ray Leonard fought against Duran like Duran was KING KONG..... The rubber match sucked.....

MR.BILL:verysad

 

The hell?:shock:

MR.BILL

 

Totally agree Mr Bill, there is a reason this fight is so overlooked and its because it sucked. :yep

 

Put it this way, had Duran won the fight, it would be one of the most popular fights at ESB. :good

 

The fight was indeed a disappointment, but at the same time, Leonard was unduly blamed for the match not living up to the hype. His critics accussed him of running and circling Duran rather than making an effort to engage him and land more meaningful shots to make it a more competitive contest.

I for one, did not share these sentiments on the match. Although neither man performed particulrly well ( and understandably so, given their ages ), I felt Leonard won the fight in decisive enough fashion. It was sort of like Hopkins - Calzaghe in its own way. Not very crowd pleasing, but the winner was apparent to me.......

 

Duran phoned the fight in, as did Leonard really.It was nothing more than a payday for both of them.

Cynical garbage imo.

 

leonard basically showboated throughout the fight and duran was freezing

duran summed it up well

they was better prepared they had a towel

 

I purposely missed this fight knowing full well how it would turn out

leonard never looked better and made a fool of Duran with sparkling combinations and breathtaking movement. I dont think Duran even won one minute let alone one round of the fight. Midway thru, Ray scored heavily with a jab that almost went thru the back of Duran's head. Listen to the commentary!

Ironically, the following year, Leonard would get the same humiliating treatment from a young up and coming legend, only worse.

Leonard loses only to the best.

 

Yet, still won the fight. A sign of greatness when you're losing a lot of rounds with your eye closing and staring defeat in the face.

Leonard only beats the best you mean?

 

No, I meant Leonard loses to the best. Simply put, the slower the opponent, the better he does. The faster the opponent, the worse he does.

And there is no better example of that than watching those back to back performances as concrete proof.

 

Most fighters will have an easier time with slower fighters than faster fighters. Although punch resistance, style, strategy, power, and many other things come into the equation. Hagler went 15 rounds with Duran, but demolished the taller, faster, and more powerful Hearns inside 3 rounds. If Hagler fought Hearns in a similar manner to how he did with Duran, then speed and other factors would have beaten him along with a poor strategic judgement.

...........................

 

I'll make this short. The Hagler in the Duran fight was not the Hagler of earlier fights where he had a demanding opponent before him. More like an icon who he respected. I think hagler may have been holding back out of respect for Duran, somthing which Hearns did not do.

Hearns was much more formidable than Duran and unlike Duran, was on the upswing, in fact, at the very pinnacle of his powers. Like Sibson, hearns was a threat, but Duran wasn't.

As for Leonard, you saw in his two back to back performances the difference when confronted by a sloth and the other, a young, fast, hungry, couragous, ready to fight, black man-a true threat and Leonard couldnt handle it.