[Clinton]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

I like your points also, and this is just our different opinions. I think of all those losses Duran had past his prime when when he fought the greats- i think they were significant, because that is when he fought greats. And he still could win titles, which shows he was not this washed up guy. He could always punch and always loved boxing and had great skills.
But beating fellow greats. That is how I determine greatness. People think it is about Duran and that I am not impressed with his career much or don't like him much, no I like Duran, but I always thought about level of the guys someone beats makes him great. Duran never beat that level consistently. Look at Evander. regardless of older he beat Foreman, Tyson, drew with Lennox, beat Bowe. He beat some big names and didn't lose. Now had he lost and said well I was not in shape, would that have been as good as beating them? I don't think so. The fighters who would have beaten him deserved respect.

Had he fought greats as a lightweight then we would have the wins to show how great he was. I know that is not everything, but in the way I think about it beating greats show a fighter can fight at that high level. Losing to Hearns and Leonard and Benitez and then beating Buchanan and Moore is not the same thing. Cannot be. Fighting at a high level and winning is sort of like the NBA and winning championships- it shows a player is great.

See I don't see the win over Leonard as very meaningful because of timing. What is significant is that it taught Leonard to fight his fight and to learn that winning a fight is also before the fight and psychological. I see that Ray was still green and in his second defense of his first title.

The fact he fought Duran's fight to beat him at his own game shows how immature and not yet really prime Ray was. Ray really would have been prime about late 1982 or 1983, but not in 1980. He beat Duran fighting his own fight in the rematch and outclassed him, didn't just beat him. That is significant. No way a fighter of Duran's level is going to be outclassed like that, and then he excuses it away as being out of shape. I think the best win of all the 9 fights as you say is Leonard over Hearns and Hearns over Duran and Hearns over Benitez. Hagler over Hearns was impressive, but that was more a brawl where the natural middleweight with the better chin won. They are all great. Even Benitez over Duran because of how impressive Wilfred was.

I would say Leonard over Duran 2 and Leonard over Hearns was teh most significant because it showcased his greatness and his domination over his era. Not total dominance, but he did beat all of them. Duran beat one, and then lost to that fighter again and the other 3 greats he fought. Duran loses to all of them, yet his fight he wins is the most significant? I cannot see that. Ray was the one who beat them all, so it has to be his fights he won which was the most important.

Mag's irrational obsession with denying Duran's being past prime at 154 continues as he turns yet another thread which didn't even mention Duran into just that.I'm going to fill you in on a little secret, Mag. No matter how many time you write the same stuff, you're never going to convince anyone otherwise. Cheers