View Single Post
Old 12-06-2012, 04:06 AM   #81
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 41,960
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Is Roberto Duran a top-10 All Time Great?

Originally Posted by Senya13 View Post
Achievement-wise, only the first fight between them really mattered. The 2nd and the 3rd was between two "has-beens", of a lot less significance.
Nah, you can't say that really. Ali would become the HW champion of the world for 2 and was the HW champion of the world for 3. Past his best? Yeah. A has been? No. The third fight has great significance. It was contested between two past-prime HW's for sure, but is arguably the most beloved HW title fight in history. Winning this fight is a signficant achievment, and beating a past-prime but highly charged Frazier was also a significant achievment.
Norton was still seen as a poor boxer in 1981
No he was not. Don't be so ridiculous. He might have been seen as an underwhelmig champion having won his strap during legal wranglings, but to say he was labelled a "poor boxer" is ludicrous.

A quick rummage in google newspapers sees him labelled "a major force" by The Pittsburgh Press (1979). He entered the ring a prohibitive favourite to beat Earnie SHavers (who presumably was regarded as some sort of joke fighter having pushed Ali all the way and nearly having stopped Larry Holmes the year before?). He's a "good boxer" (not a poor one) according to the The Montreal Gazette (1974), and "the toughest man I ever met...better than anybody I have fought" according to Muhammad Ali himself.

"Not a great fighter? Perhaps, but he was a good fighter." That's the Star News from the year you claim he was viewed as a "poor boxer", 1981. That's pish Senya. You're confusing a poll that writes him off as a poor champion and his being viewed as a poor boxer. It doesn't seem to have been true at all.

Bet Pepe could come up with some quotes for you if you wanted though

Glen Johnson was a journeyman, good fighter, but not great.
There is a huge swathe of categorisation between j"ourneyman" and "great" that you seem to want to ignore. I don't agree with you that Johnson was a journeyman, and neither would most boxing fans.

Norton lost to Holmes. If you want to praise fighters based on Holmes winning very closely or even controversially over them, that'd make a lot of 1980s heavyweight tomato cans ATGs.
You need to read what i'm writing. I'm not claiming any kind of ATG status for Norton. I'm saying that your insisting he wasn't seen as that good BEFORE he fought all the most important fights of in his career saying that he wasn't that great is a stupid thing to do.

And it inarguably is. Of course he wasn't seen as that good before he did anything good. To me, the Holmes Norton contest taken in tandem with his fights against Ali prove that Norton was excellent. Not that he was ATG. Beating Ali and going life-and-death with Holmes means the results protect each-other. It is harder to write both of them off. That's obvious.

Norton's win over Young was a robbery.
Accordomg to you, of course it was.

"Norton put himself in the driver's seat by concentrating his attack on the body and by keeping cool...[in his] hard fought win over Young."

No mention of controversy at all.

"Ken Norton overcame the slight of hand of Jimmy Young with a blasting body attack that carried him to a fifteen round decision...[h]e closed out the fight with a tremendous body attack as the crowd openly rooted for Young....the associated press had it 143-142 for Norton."

This was a close fight that could have gone either way, not some "robbery". Please don't waste my time with bull**** Senya.

Whenever Ali chose to dance around on his toes, Norton was clueless at what to do. It's only that Ali could not keep moving the whole fight, only had done these during several rounds, that made the fights close. This lack of ring generalship on the part of Norton makes me confident that younger Ali would have gained an easy victory over Norton.
You think that Ali would have beaten Norton in his prime? That's an astonishing piece of detective work given that he beat him twice when past-prime. Norton beat Ali once, could have won twice. You can't change that and it speaks highly for him. On film Norton looks absolutely superb against two of the greatest fighters in history. Your attempts to paint him as a "poor boxer" who robbed Young are pathetic, and beneath you as a poster.

Yes, for P4P (ie ATG, regardless of weight) ratings I compare fighters not only for how great they were at some particular division, but who has more depth overall, who beat better opponents and in much greater quantities. Limiting the rating to heavyweight division, Ali is a great, same as the other names you mentioned. But compared to a lot of ATG smaller fighters Louis and Ali are light years behind, like I said. Had Louis beaten Jeffries, Ali and Lewis, he would have deserved to join the company of Gans and Leonard. But the guys he had beaten are laughable compared to the guys both these lightweights had beaten. To put Ali above them is a horrible disgrace. Head to head both were also much better than Ali.
You have your criteria, I have mine.

Head to head all-time I rank Ali above Gans and Leonard both.

You saw the words "head to head" right? You quoted them. What are you bringing Duran's and Ali's resumes for? Head to head, make Ali a lightweight, or Duran a heavyweight, while keeping their styles and fighting qualities, I'd bet my house on Duran.
What you would bet on a mythical match up between a HW and a LW were they magically transformed into the same division means literally absolutely nothing to me.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote