Originally Posted by Fellonblackdays
I agree with what you say very popular figher but not a top 10 ATG. Destruction at the hands of hearns proves that.
I see what you are saying. I don't even think losing to Hearns proved much about Duran since knockouts happen to most greats, what is proves to me is that Tommy knocked out a lot of people and was the real deal. Tommy Hearns punched harder than Leonard or Benitez or Hagler or anyone Duran ever fought,and it showed.
As for Duran and his legacy, Duran should have been able to duplicate his win over Ray. And then beat eitehr Benitez or Hearns at 154 since he could win a title against Moore in 1983 which most people mention as proving how great Duran is, even though Moore had 11 fights at the time. But if he can win a title and be dominant in that fight, why couldn't he against the elites? At least beat Ray and then another legend at 154 which he did not, and the fact is he fought at 154 as early as 1978 before Hearns or Leonard or Benitez ever did.
And he always had the same excuse that he never trained when he lost, as though he would train for Moore and Barkley but not for Hearns and Benitez or Leonard. That kind of logic is ridiculous- Train for the mediocre fighters and not for the greats. If that is the case maybe he knew deep down inside he could not beat those guys. They were too great.
He was a great fighter and had a great lightweight reign, but no real ATG fighters at 135.. So what people are saying is his lightweight reign and the beating Ray the first time , but losing easily to Hearns,Benitez and Leonard and then giving Hagler what they say was a good fight but still losing, and then winning titles against Moore and Barkley gives him a top 10 ATG ranking. If we study the facts how can this be top 10 ATG? Top 25 fine, but not top 10, which is what my point always was. He was a great dominant fighter who had a weakness to a great fighter with speed who used the whole ring.