Roberto Duran - Some unanswered questions ??

Just some random questions.............Not looking for an argument........But maybe someone other than Haz can clean it up for me..

1. Why does he get a free ride for quitting against Leonard ??......Don Curry quit like a dog when the DOCTOR pulled him out against Honey !!

2. If Leonard lost by a point fighting the wrong fight....Why do some posters believe Duran lost the second because he wasn't motivated ??..When Leonard fought the right fight ??

3. Barkley-Duran was a split decision and many including myself, KO magazine and other publications/journalists had it for Barkley.........Why isn't that fight ever a robbery or contentious ??

4. If Duran lost to Hearns because he was too big at 154 and 6ft 1.......(Forget the fact he couldn't slip a jab and tried to fight a 6ft guy on the outside).......Why did he BEAT!!....A "6ft 1 and 160 pound" Barkley...

5. Why doesn't he come under the same scrutiny as any other fighters of his day on here ??

6. Does he get a free ride because he's not American ??

No idiots please........These are fair questions ....

To be fair TRUSS Duran was ripped to shreads after the no mas fight by his own people. He took a lot of stick which he only shook off after slapping Moore about.

1. He doesn't, it's seen as one of the most infamous moments in modern boxing history.
2. Because there was more to it than just 'fighting the right fight'. The first fight had both guys coming into it in peak condition and motivation, the second did not.
3. It is contentious, just not sufficiently so to be considered a 'robbery', even in the boxing forum world where that word is one of the most over-used out there.
4. Because Barkley wasn't anywhere near as good as Hearns, an ATG, despite Boxrec saying otherwise.
5. He does, you just hate that he gets lauded also (though to a much lesser extent than you do PBF).
6. Do you mean in comparison to the people you give free rides because they ARE American?

Duran is often mentioned as a fighter's fighter.

but the fact he was Latin might go some way to explain why he gets a free ride TRUSS.

Yes but It hardly impacts his legacy ONETWO..........I mean the guy has more excuses handed to him than soft Michael.....

"But Duran say's he wasn't motivated for Leonard 2".........

"Hearns was a 154er".......Yet Barkley and Hagler were 160 pounders !!

Leonard 1 was contentious and a lot of people thought Barkley was a robbery.......

Yet not on here.......Where Leonard supposedly ripped off Hagler !!

It's amusing.........He's like Stalin in Russia in 1945 ..You only hear the good stuff..

That's just my opinion though Mate....It's all fairplay

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Duran is often mentioned as a fighter's fighter.

but the fact he was Latin might go some way to explain why he gets a free ride TRUSS.

I agree the fact he's blue collar...Anti-establishment.....and Exciting......probably helps..

Non-American helps too.........

Great fighter but he is the Rollo Tomasi of Boxing.....The guy who gets away with it.

TopHat24/7 wrote:5. He does, you just hate that he gets lauded also (though to a much lesser extent than you do PBF).
6. Do you mean in comparison to the people you give free rides because they ARE American?

The crux of it....

1. Duran was crucified.
2. Done to death. Even Leonard admits he took Duran early as he knew he wouldn't be in the same physical and mental shape (which he clearly wasn't).
3. Evidence?
4. Duran's form was patchy post lightweight (as you have regularly pointed out). He turned up against some opponents and not others. He was a riddle.
5. ?
6. ?

1. He doesn't get a free ride , dont see many making excuses for him.

2. Leonard apologists believe this, complete myth. Duran dragged him
Into his fight and beat him fair and square, with an unbelievable performance.

3. It's contentious that's it , how many fights in history are contentious ?

4. Barkley and Hearns are a different kettle of fish completely, why did Haye beat 7foot Valuev , but fought a stinker against 6foot 7 Wlad ? Silly question

5 He does , you put him under scrutiny every other week, he had a remarkable career full of risks which outweigh the bad.

6 Nobody gives a rats ass about nationality Truss. You're an adult you need to grow out of this biased nationality chip on your shoulder mate.

Cheers Rodders

Oh dear.
 
He's going to need an alias to come back from this...

1 - He got fed up at having to play with a fool instead of quitting when the going got tough ala Curry's tame deference to the doctor.

2. Because everyone and their mother knew he was, but mostly because leonard kept on saying how he outsmarted duran and deliberately targeted the fight so Duran would be out of shape and weight drained. Whether it was his inferiority complex (Milky Analysis) or He didn't have a clue and he was wise after the fact I don't know. But if you yourself are gloating about how clever you are by getting a fighter at much less than his best then you can't blame anyone else for thinking less of the win

3. Well, you were wrong and so were they, Barkley landed clean a couple of times but Duran landed the biggest and the hardest - plus more visible punches to his head. Rocked him a few times. The bulk of Barkley's work was body shots and despite a couple of hairy moments Duran walked through his head shots and landed counter after counter.

4. The difference between styles and physical attributes as speed and power. Exceptional boxer with exceptional power vs A tough fighter with decent power. A Great big fighter will likely beat a great smaller fighter however a great smaller fighter might upset the apple-cart when he fights a big fighter less skilled than himself.

5. He does - hence his descent from nailed on top 5 to top 10 or outside top 10

6. Hahahahahahahahaahahahaa

I do you're right Rod...I scrutinise him.....No one else does...

Hearns was too big apparently.....But the bigger Barkley wsn't..

No one on here talks about Barkley- Duran being contentious...Or Leonard 1...Yet you go on about Castillo - Mayweather...Or any close Oscar fight..

Duran quits........Curry doesn't and one is a coward...

Stand by my comments....In the thread..

Double standards..

Tophat ......I said no idiots..

Surely even the most objective posters on here.........Acknowledge he gets a free ride...

Hearns was a little more than being squashed by a bigger fighter..It was pitiful.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Non-American helps too.........

?

Rodney wrote:1. He doesn't get a free ride , dont see many making excuses for him.

2. Leonard apologists believe this, complete myth. Duran dragged him
Into his fight and beat him fair and square, with an unbelievable performance.

3. It's contentious that's it , how many fights in history are contentious ?

4. Barkley and Hearns are a different kettle of fish completely, why did Haye beat 7foot Valuev , but fought a stinker against 6foot 7 Wlad ? Silly question

5 He does , you put him under scrutiny every other week, he had a remarkable career full of risks which outweigh the bad.

6 Nobody gives a rats ass about nationality Truss. You're an adult you need to grow out of this biased nationality chip on your shoulder mate.

Cheers Rodders

Not got a chip on my shoulder...

I'm more than happy to have the heritage in the sport I've got..

Boxtthis wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Non-American helps too.........

?

Talking about pitiful offerings..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Non-American helps too.........

?

Talking about pitiful offerings..

You have made a ridiculous statement here. And everyone thinks it. Not one person here sees any type of value in the whole American/Non-American thing you bring up in point 6.

Everything this guy posts is agenda driven and an attempt -- no matter how tenuous or ridiculous -- to fluff up the careers of his three favourite fighters: Ali, Leonard and Mayweather (hence his constant railing against Louis, Duran, Hagler and Pacquiao).

I'd expect more from a child.

Boxtthis wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Non-American helps too.........

?

Talking about pitiful offerings..

You have made a ridiculous statement here. And everyone thinks it. Not one person here sees any type of value in the whole American/Non-American thing you bring up in point 6.

Kind of figured you'd be back after "Pitiful offering"

But thanks for your opinion.......I'ts noted....

Haz did you read the OP ??....Not debating you.....It ends in tears..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Tophat ......I said no idiots..

Stop setting yourself up with your own crass ignorance then.

I already put forward sensible answers, which accord with much else that has been said on this thread.

Basically you'll full of Poopie as always. No point the thread continuing really.

Back to the thread.......

it's interesting how KO scored Hagler -Leonard for Leonard 118-111......and all you hear is rip off.......

Yet scores 116-113 for Barkley and NOT ONE poster apart from me mentions it was contentious..

Not one poster apart from me mentions the fact...Duran was impotent against Hearns jab and tried to fight a 6fter on the outside....."Too big" Is the excuse.....

Not one poster on here holds NO MAS against him....

I'm objective.......He's top 15 in my list...

But no Top 10 great fighter should be humiliated like he was......That was a disgrace !!

But he had a wonderful career.........and he has wonderful fans.

Not looking for an argument just wondering why he isn't scrutinized.

Take the thread in the spirit it was meant........I come in peace..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Non-American helps too.........

?

Talking about pitiful offerings..

You have made a ridiculous statement here. And everyone thinks it. Not one person here sees any type of value in the whole American/Non-American thing you bring up in point 6.

Kind of figured you'd be back after "Pitiful offering"

But thanks for your opinion.......I'ts noted....

Haz did you read the OP ??....Not debating you.....It ends in tears..

Synonym: 'me getting owned'.

There must be other posters you can stalk Toppy ??

Could you please go away ??........

hazharrison wrote:Everything this guy posts is agenda driven and an attempt -- no matter how tenuous or ridiculous -- to fluff up the careers of his three favourite fighters: Ali, Leonard and Mayweather (hence his constant railing against Louis, Duran, Hagler and Pacquiao).

I'd expect more from a child.

It ruins a good part of the appeal of these boards for me, but I (bizarrely) find myself reading and occasionally getting riled by some threads.

On that note, I'm off. I'll be back to talk boxing one of these days - as opposed to this sort of 'arguing-for-leisure' under the guise of a boxing discussion.

Boxtthis wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Everything this guy posts is agenda driven and an attempt -- no matter how tenuous or ridiculous -- to fluff up the careers of his three favourite fighters: Ali, Leonard and Mayweather (hence his constant railing against Louis, Duran, Hagler and Pacquiao).

I'd expect more from a child.

It ruins a good part of the appeal of these boards for me, but I (bizarrely) find myself reading and occasionally getting riled by some threads.

On that note, I'm off. I'll be back to talk boxing one of these days - as opposed to this sort of 'arguing-for-leisure' under the guise of a boxing discussion.

Don't comment on my stuff then both of you...

Geez.....What a couple of losers..

No one is asking people to comment on here..

1) He doesn't. It's almost universally regarded as the most disappointing and ignominious moment of his career. He had to become a recluse in Panama because many of his former fanatics were disgusted with him. I think you’re concentrating too much on the fringe element, much like people do when they say stuff like, “Mayweather got no credit for beating Alvarez.” You need to differentiate between the sensible majority and the daft minority with an agenda. Sadly, it’s only the latter which gets attention and makes waves. Mayweather got plenty of credit for beating Alvarez, just as Duran gets plenty of deserved stick for ‘No Mas.’
 
2) I agree that Leonard made the necessary changes to have won a rematch whatever the weather. That said (and I’m not trying to take anything away from Leonard’s win, as I often argue that he doesn’t get enough credit for it from some of his critics), all you need is a working pair of eyes to see that Duran wasn’t fully on his game in New Orleans, particularly if you compare it to the Duran of Montreal, who fought with phenomenal intensity, style and will. Now in fairness, performances like Duran’s in Montreal tend to only come around once in a career if you’re lucky, so you could argue that he’d never have been able to repeat that kind of showing in any case, which would be fair enough. But that doesn’t mean that Duran couldn’t still have been better than he was for the rematch, and he really should have been. But again, let me stress, you can’t deduct Leonard any points for that in my opinion, and I believe Ray would have won in any case.
 
3) You, KO Magazine and many other publications had Barkley edging Duran. Me, the Associated Press and many other publications had Duran winning it. It isn’t referred to as a robbery because it simply wasn’t. What would your reaction be if everyone started saying that Mayweather-Castillo I was a robbery, Truss, in light of the fact that you had Mayweather edging it, even though just as many will say Castillo deserved the nod? Close fight (and a great one). I’ll happily do a round by round with anyone and explain why I think Duran won it, and I’m sure you and others would be happy to do the same for Barkley. Two of the three judges just happened to lead towards Duran, albeit the 118-112 card was outrageous.
 
4) It’s a fair point, Truss. But what is your reaction when people slate Oscar for losing the majority of his big, defining fights? Usually (and understandably) you point out that Oscar could have stayed at the lower weights for years if he wanted, but he deserves respect for instead chasing the bigger (literally) challenges at higher weights and testing himself. Imagine if Duran and Hearns had never fought and we were discussing it as a hypothetical fight thirty years later – what do you think people would be saying? I reckon most would be picking Hearns to win it big, and I’m pretty sure they’d be picking him on the basis of him being way too big and way too powerful for Duran. Incidentally, which career Lightweight would have a prayer against Duran, for you?
 
I fully appreciate what you’re saying about Barkley in this case, but that’s another fight where Duran wasn’t expected to win, for largely the same reasons he wasn’t expected to beat Hearns. The fact is that Duran WAS giving away a lot of advantages to guys like Hearns and Barkley, so you can’t ignore this regardless of whether he wins or loses. It doesn’t mean he can’t take a bit of a shoeing for losing to Tommy, but it does make it a lot more understandable and less harmful to his legacy. Likewise, beating Barkley for most wouldn’t be considered a great win, but in Duran’s case the aforementioned circumstances mean that it does become something a bit special. Similarly, while Mayweather has beaten better fighters in a pound for pound sense than Felix Sturm, if he were to beat Sturm at 160 it’d be a better singular win in context than many of his victories from 130-147. Likewise, if he was then knocked out cleanly by Golovkin afterwards, it’d take a little from his lustre and couldn’t be totally ignored – but for me, it’d be nowhere near as harmful to his legacy as losing to someone like Corrales or Judah at the lower weights which were more natural to him would have been.
 
The final two points are just red herrings for me, really. But enough (more than enough in fact, sorry for rambling on!) above for you to pick the bones out of, beester!

Thank you Chris..........

You make good points.........

I accept Mayweather-Castillo was contentious......Do posters on here accept Barkley-Duran was..Nope !!

Do posters accept Leonard-Duran 1 was contentious ??

There is a very big fringe element on here Chris...Haz often comments duran wasn't motivated for Leonard 2..

But you make good observations..and they are fair enough..

There are threads with few or no comments on this board...Why feel the need to p**s on mine !! Unless YOU have an agenda....

Stop trying to bully ole Trussman..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:There must be other posters you can stalk Toppy ??

Could you please go away ??........

I'll stop posting on your threads (by 'threads' I mean the same 5 or 6 you repeat ad nauseum every couple of months) when you stop writing them. Or simply write something original. Not sure which is the biggest ask.....

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:There must be other posters you can stalk Toppy ??

Could you please go away ??........

I'll stop posting on your threads (by 'threads' I mean the same 5 or 6 you repeat ad nauseum every couple of months) when you stop writing them.  Or simply write something original.  Not sure which is the biggest ask.....

Can someone have a word with this guy...It's getting very uncomfortable now...

So Chris gets a 'thank-you' for saying the same as everyone else, just with 10 times the words?? (no offence Chris)

Have a word with yourself, son.

1. He generally doesn't but other than that one blemish he fought against the best and generally gave a good account of himself.

2. SRL has continually pointed to the fact he fought him when he wasn't going to be at his best. Not really the best thing to do if you want people to really rate that fight.

3. Not sure, maybe people see someone who had no real right to be fighting at that weight giving his all. Similar I guess to his fight against Hagler, he lost the fight but gave a good account for himself at too high a weight.

4. Hearns was a different fighter to Barkley and a much better one, their skill sets obviously come into it.

5. He had a great career and does come under a huge amount of scrutiny. Maybe the fact that you are so against him and belittle him so much makes people want to defend him more as well (on here). Similar to the Mayweather / Pacquiao debates where certain people would go on about one of them so much you actually find yourself hoping the other one wins.

6. Hahahahaha what a load of nonsense. Obviously as British people we hate the yanks so much there were none in the 606v2 ATG P4P list.....

TopHat24/7 wrote:So Chris gets a 'thank-you' for saying the same as everyone else, just with 10 times the words?? (no offence Chris)

Have a word with yourself, son.

Ha! Comment of the year!

huw wrote:1. He generally doesn't but other than that one blemish he fought against the best and generally gave a good account of himself.

2. SRL has continually pointed to the fact he fought him when he wasn't going to be at his best. Not really the best thing to do if you want people to really rate that fight.

3. Not sure, maybe people see someone who had no real right to be fighting at that weight giving his all. Similar I guess to his fight against Hagler, he lost the fight but gave a good account for himself at too high a weight.

4. Hearns was a different fighter to Barkley and a much better one, their skill sets obviously come into it.

5. He had a great career and does come under a huge amount of scrutiny. Maybe the fact that you are so against him and belittle him so much makes people want to defend him more as well (on here). Similar to the Mayweather / Pacquiao debates where certain people would go on about one of them so much you actually find yourself hoping the other one wins.

6. Hahahahaha what a load of nonsense. Obviously as British people we hate the yanks so much there were none in the 606v2 ATG P4P list.....

Fairplay to you Huw for attempting to answer the questions.......

4. Hearns was too big for Duran.........Is the common excuse.......I'm pointing out that Barkley was the same size....So in essence Hearns outboxed him........Something no one on here will admit..

2. Leonard admitted to wanting a quick rematch but duran made the weight !!

6. Was tongue in cheek..

I don't dislike him...Just want him to be scrutinised like everyone else..

cheers..

This thread is only one of thirty on this page...........You guys can post on..

Try playing the ball and not the Man !!

I'm the only guy with an agenda on here.........apparently..

Wow, Huw gets a 'fair play' too, even without the wordy answers.

#pickingfavourites

Two words FOE BUTTON

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Duran is often mentioned as a fighter's fighter.

but the fact he was Latin might go some way to explain why he gets a free ride TRUSS.

Only with some..Onetwo....

Some good posters on here..........Tend to overlook his shortcomings which is fair enough..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I don't dislike him...Just want him to be scrutinised like everyone else..

..other than Floyd Mayweather Jr who, whenever 'scrutinised', makes me have a massive hissy fit and through my toys out the pram.

Rowley wrote:Two words FOE BUTTON

I just tried that. Got the following

You cannot add Rowley to your ignore-list because he belongs to the forum Administrators or Moderators groups

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Rowley wrote:Two words FOE BUTTON

I just tried that.  Got the following

You cannot add Rowley to your ignore-list because he belongs to the forum Administrators or Moderators groups

    

I wrote this thread in good faith Rowley...........

Haz and Toppy have no self esteem...........and If you've seen pictures of them both like I have..

You'll know why..

Never started any of this again !!

How can I be ruining a board when It's my thread and they can ignore it ??

It's very un-British old boy...I say - Very Un-British !!

By the way...I've written a piece in the Off topic section...You are all welcome to comment on.....

Even my fans..  

88Chris05 wrote:1) He doesn't. It's almost universally regarded as the most disappointing and ignominious moment of his career. He had to become a recluse in Panama because many of his former fanatics were disgusted with him. I think you’re concentrating too much on the fringe element, much like people do when they say stuff like, “Mayweather got no credit for beating Alvarez.” You need to differentiate between the sensible majority and the daft minority with an agenda. Sadly, it’s only the latter which gets attention and makes waves. Mayweather got plenty of credit for beating Alvarez, just as Duran gets plenty of deserved stick for ‘No Mas.’
 
2) I agree that Leonard made the necessary changes to have won a rematch whatever the weather. That said (and I’m not trying to take anything away from Leonard’s win, as I often argue that he doesn’t get enough credit for it from some of his critics), all you need is a working pair of eyes to see that Duran wasn’t fully on his game in New Orleans, particularly if you compare it to the Duran of Montreal, who fought with phenomenal intensity, style and will. Now in fairness, performances like Duran’s in Montreal tend to only come around once in a career if you’re lucky, so you could argue that he’d never have been able to repeat that kind of showing in any case, which would be fair enough. But that doesn’t mean that Duran couldn’t still have been better than he was for the rematch, and he really should have been. But again, let me stress, you can’t deduct Leonard any points for that in my opinion, and I believe Ray would have won in any case.
 
3) You, KO Magazine and many other publications had Barkley edging Duran. Me, the Associated Press and many other publications had Duran winning it. It isn’t referred to as a robbery because it simply wasn’t. What would your reaction be if everyone started saying that Mayweather-Castillo I was a robbery, Truss, in light of the fact that you had Mayweather edging it, even though just as many will say Castillo deserved the nod? Close fight (and a great one). I’ll happily do a round by round with anyone and explain why I think Duran won it, and I’m sure you and others would be happy to do the same for Barkley. Two of the three judges just happened to lead towards Duran, albeit the 118-112 card was outrageous.
 
4) It’s a fair point, Truss. But what is your reaction when people slate Oscar for losing the majority of his big, defining fights? Usually (and understandably) you point out that Oscar could have stayed at the lower weights for years if he wanted, but he deserves respect for instead chasing the bigger (literally) challenges at higher weights and testing himself. Imagine if Duran and Hearns had never fought and we were discussing it as a hypothetical fight thirty years later – what do you think people would be saying? I reckon most would be picking Hearns to win it big, and I’m pretty sure they’d be picking him on the basis of him being way too big and way too powerful for Duran. Incidentally, which career Lightweight would have a prayer against Duran, for you?
 
I fully appreciate what you’re saying about Barkley in this case, but that’s another fight where Duran wasn’t expected to win, for largely the same reasons he wasn’t expected to beat Hearns. The fact is that Duran WAS giving away a lot of advantages to guys like Hearns and Barkley, so you can’t ignore this regardless of whether he wins or loses. It doesn’t mean he can’t take a bit of a shoeing for losing to Tommy, but it does make it a lot more understandable and less harmful to his legacy. Likewise, beating Barkley for most wouldn’t be considered a great win, but in Duran’s case the aforementioned circumstances mean that it does become something a bit special. Similarly, while Mayweather has beaten better fighters in a pound for pound sense than Felix Sturm, if he were to beat Sturm at 160 it’d be a better singular win in context than many of his victories from 130-147. Likewise, if he was then knocked out cleanly by Golovkin afterwards, it’d take a little from his lustre and couldn’t be totally ignored – but for me, it’d be nowhere near as harmful to his legacy as losing to someone like Corrales or Judah at the lower weights which were more natural to him would have been.
 
The final two points are just red herrings for me, really. But enough (more than enough in fact, sorry for rambling on!) above for you to pick the bones out of, beester!

This is rebuttal...

This is what i was looking for.....I don't agree with it all........

But it's very good...

But it says the same as:

TopHat24/7 wrote:1. He doesn't, it's seen as one of the most infamous moments in modern boxing history.
2. Because there was more to it than just 'fighting the right fight'. The first fight had both guys coming into it in peak condition and motivation, the second did not.
3. It is contentious, just not sufficiently so to be considered a 'robbery', even in the boxing forum world where that word is one of the most over-used out there.
4. Because Barkley wasn't anywhere near as good as Hearns, an ATG, despite Boxrec saying otherwise.
5. He does, you just hate that he gets lauded also (though to a much lesser extent than you do PBF).
6. Do you mean in comparison to the people you give free rides because they ARE American?

And:

hazharrison wrote:1. Duran was crucified.
2. Done to death. Even Leonard admits he took Duran early as he knew he wouldn't be in the same physical and mental shape (which he clearly wasn't).
3. Evidence?
4. Duran's form was patchy post lightweight (as you have regularly pointed out). He turned up against some opponents and not others. He was a riddle.
5. ?
6. ?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:By the way...I've written a piece in the Off topic section...You are all welcome to comment on.....

Even my fans..  

But it's rubbish, no offence, but the whole OT section has been pants since we've been banned talking about anything interesting. Only positive is it means less of C_make it up as I go along_D.

I would that point six is why this thread has been written because he's not American.

Once you've been the greatest lightweight of all time who's stepped up to beat Leonard via Palomino then what comes after doesn't mean a lot. This is one thing I agree with Haz on, he reached the absolute zenith that night in Montreal, there was very little left for him to do.

No mas does go against him but it doesn't erase the fact he'd reached true greatness the fight before.

If it's done to death don't comment on it ??

There are 30 other topics on this page.......Most of which have been done to death....

I'll raise WTF I like.......

Duran made the weight for the rematch.........Curry gets hammered today for Honey, Duran doesn't for Leonard !!.....No one brings up the fact Barkley was contentious...Or that Hearns couldn't miss with the jab..

Valid article........

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I would that point six is why this thread has been written because he's not American.

Once you've been the greatest lightweight of all time who's stepped up to beat Leonard via Palomino then what comes after doesn't mean a lot. This is one thing I agree with Haz on, he reached the absolute zenith that night in Montreal, there was very little left for him to do.

No mas does go against him but it doesn't erase the fact he'd reached true greatness the fight before.

You are the one that states Hearns was too big Hammer.........Palomino was no great shakes..

But your opinion is welcome.....

Hearns was too good for Duran to overcome the size difference, Barkley was just bigger than him. There's no comparison between the two, it's easier to beat somebody bigger you're better than.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hearns was too good for Duran to overcome the size difference, Barkley was just bigger than him. There's no comparison between the two, it's easier to beat somebody bigger you're better than.

So you are saying he was outclassed ??.............Which is good.........Hearns was bigger than a lot of guys............who put up better shows..

Cuevas and Duran were pitiful..........

Not sure which was worse......

He's a great version of Chisora.........Nothing ever sticks......Because he's anti establishment.........and a perceived outsider..

In my opinion..