Is it a lock no matter how good you are.. Someone will have your #?

[Mintcar923]

You need to watch Ray Leonard's pre-first retirement fights. He was a classic boxer-puncher (ie how he fought Duran the first time) not a slick boxer. The second Duran fight was very much an aberration. It was Howard Cosell that started that myth about Leonard being "coerced" into fighting differently.

Poet

I somewhat agree with you on what you're saying. However, it was his ability to fight in various modes that made him successful depending on the fighter he fought. He grew as a fighter as he gained experience and fought very smart. I think he does deserve credit for twice avenging his loss to Duran. And, it's not Leonard's fault Duran came in underprepared in the second fight. I don't know about the Cosell thing, but Sugar Ray will tell you himself he used the wrong strategy in the first fight.

[BennyST]

Boxing wasn't Leonard's style? Are you kidding me?! He boxed his way to victory against Hagler. He mixed up both boxing and fighting against Hearns. Everyone who knows about classic boxing knows Leonard was co-ersed into a macho brawl with Duran the first time. As far as the third fight, Duran was having a good year as he had stunningly defeated Iran Barkely in his previous fight. Had Duran won fight III would you consider it a legit win?

What utter nonsense. I'm surprised this myth still exists. First: It was Angelo Dundee's original game plan to fight to Leonard's strengths. He was the welterweight and it was actually thought he would be the harder puncher, faster, bigger, stronger guy. Dundee had been saying for years that Duran wouldn't be able to fight going backwards and that Leonard needed to push Duran back, and go to his body (because Dundee thought he couldn't handle it to the body) and win that way. He wasn't drawn into anything. That was his original game plan, which has now been revised.

What people ignore is this: Leonard never fought the way he did against Duran in the rematch before or again except for the Hagler fight. Even against Hagler he stood more and traded. The reason it looked like he stood more than usual was because Duran was the only guy able to slip his jab, counter him, and get inside and win the exchanges. He got hurt early, and then hammered to the body for about three or four straight rounds.

That's how Leonard always fought. Duran was just able to beat him like that, so he needed to change his normal style.

What everyone who knows about classic boxing is this: Leonard wasn't a classic boxer. He was a classic boxer/puncher and that's exactly how he fought throughout his career.

This myth is always perpetuated by those who haven't seen much of Leonard apart from his major fights against Duran, Hearns and Hagler. If it was Duran in against Leonard when he fought Hearns it would have looked exactly the same. He hardly boxed at all. Hearns was boxing, Leonard was fighting. He fights as he does against Duran in every fight leading up to Duran II. He then fights like that again up to the Hagler fight.

[Capaedia]

Never found Ray Robinson's

[Anthony342]

Interesting, never knew that was a myth. Do any of you guys here watch Ringside? Or did any of you when it used to be on? In the Sugar Ray Leonard episode, he also furthered this myth by saying that he fought Duran wrong and was lured into a brawl because of the insults Duran hurled at him and his wife at the time. He then said he was told to box, but ignored his corner and decided to brawl in the hopes of getting a stoppage. I would say with the strategy he used, on that particular night, at least mentally, Leonard seemed to have Duran's number.

But haven't there also been fighters who were unbeatable in their era during their prime and didn't seem to meet that tough an opponent until they were past it or even well past their prime? If so, who would they be? Robinson? Ali perhaps?

[Sugarj]

Leonard didn't have Duran's number, you can't just say 'when he decided to box him' because that wasn't Leonard's usual style, when Duran turned up in great shape he clearly won against Leonard, when Duran wasn't in such good shape and Leonard changed to boxing and clowning around Duran still gave him a decent fight before quitting, I don't see how he had his number to be honest, unless you're countng the 3rd fight as some kind of legit win ?. Both of them in great shape and fighting as usual - Duran won clearly - Leonard has his number, what ?.

Duran didn't win 'clearly' over Leonard. One round on two judges cards and two points on the other. That fight was a hare's whisker from a draw.

For what its worth Duran deserved it though.

If the Leonard from fight two had turned up for the same Duran from the first fight who would have won that one? My guess would be Leonard.......by a hare's whisker.

[Sugarj]

What utter nonsense. I'm surprised this myth still exists. First: It was Angelo Dundee's original game plan to fight to Leonard's strengths. He was the welterweight and it was actually thought he would be the harder puncher, faster, bigger, stronger guy. Dundee had been saying for years that Duran wouldn't be able to fight going backwards and that Leonard needed to push Duran back, and go to his body (because Dundee thought he couldn't handle it to the body) and win that way. He wasn't drawn into anything. That was his original game plan, which has now been revised.

What people ignore is this: Leonard never fought the way he did against Duran in the rematch before or again except for the Hagler fight. Even against Hagler he stood more and traded. The reason it looked like he stood more than usual was because Duran was the only guy able to slip his jab, counter him, and get inside and win the exchanges. He got hurt early, and then hammered to the body for about three or four straight rounds.

That's how Leonard always fought. Duran was just able to beat him like that, so he needed to change his normal style.

What everyone who knows about classic boxing is this: Leonard wasn't a classic boxer. He was a classic boxer/puncher and that's exactly how he fought throughout his career.

This myth is always perpetuated by those who haven't seen much of Leonard apart from his major fights against Duran, Hearns and Hagler. If it was Duran in against Leonard when he fought Hearns it would have looked exactly the same. He hardly boxed at all. Hearns was boxing, Leonard was fighting. He fights as he does against Duran in every fight leading up to Duran II. He then fights like that again up to the Hagler fight.

No, Leonard danced and moved alot more in fights after Duran 2. Alot early in the first Thomas Hearns fight.....before finding out that it wasn't winning him the fight. As you say the Hagler fight too, but there was plenty in the Lalonde fight, the second Hearns fight and the final Duran fight.

Leonard's amateur style was very much like this too.

[Sugarj]

I somewhat agree with you on what you're saying. However, it was his ability to fight in various modes that made him successful depending on the fighter he fought. He grew as a fighter as he gained experience and fought very smart. I think he does deserve credit for twice avenging his loss to Duran. And, it's not Leonard's fault Duran came in underprepared in the second fight. I don't know about the Cosell thing, but Sugar Ray will tell you himself he used the wrong strategy in the first fight.

Theres no two ways about it, Leonard's strategy for the first fight was wrong. But the strategy he attempted would have probably been the same even if Duran was gentlemanly on the run up to the fight.

The problem was; Leonard was a damned strong, super fast, hard hitting, large welterwight in his prime with a ridiculous wealth of amateur experience. He quite simply did not believe that a lightweight coming up in weight would be anything like as strong as him, Duran was perceived as a little post prime back then in 1980 too. He'd been world class for nearly a decade!

Leonard's amateur style was quite mobile, check out some of the Olympics. But his pro style prior to Duran 2 was surprisingly not fleetfooted. His talent was such that he could beat most opponents without needing to 'get on his bike'.

He really needed to lose that first fight to Duran, if he hadn't he'd have gone into the first Hearns fight flat footed. He needed to be very mobile early on in the Hearns fight to draw Tommy's sting before closing the fight flat footed (not that it would have been Dundee's plan to do so!). I get the impression that the strategy was to be mobile for the entire fight against Hearn's. Leonard had to adapt when Tommy got on his own bike in the middle rounds and started being the boxer.

[NChristo]

Duran didn't win 'clearly' over Leonard. One round on two judges cards and two points on the other. That fight was a hare's whisker from a draw.

For what its worth Duran deserved it though.

If the Leonard from fight two had turned up for the same Duran from the first fight who would have won that one? My guess would be Leonard.......by a hare's whisker.

Yes, yes he did win clearly, It was hardly by a hare's whisker, the fight was obviously competitive but I personally can't see how Leonard came close too winning the fight or even a draw. No way the cards should of been that close.

Going by scorecards though, Leonard was only winning the 2nd fight by 1 or 2 points on all 3 cards by the time Duran quit, you don't think a Duran in the same shape and with the same attitude as the 1st fight would do more then he did while out of shape ?, because that would leave the fight in at least a draw, no ?.

[greynotsoold]

No matter who you are, or how good you are, there is always somebody that can beat you. there is no perfect fighter, nobody is unbeatable. You may never fight the guy, or may never fight him again...By that i mean...
A lot of people assume that because fighter A beats fighter B that he will always beat him. Fighters know different. For example, tunney was nearly killed by Greb in their first fight, but, he said later, in the 8th round, he figured out how to beat Greb. And fighters know that, on some days, just about every fighter is unbeatable.

[IronDanHamza]

Boxing wasn't Leonard's style? Are you kidding me?! He boxed his way to victory against Hagler. He mixed up both boxing and fighting against Hearns. Everyone who knows about classic boxing knows Leonard was co-ersed into a macho brawl with Duran the first time. As far as the third fight, Duran was having a good year as he had stunningly defeated Iran Barkely in his previous fight. Had Duran won fight III would you consider it a legit win?

Like Benny said, I'm surprised this myth still exists.