View Single Post
Old 02-10-2013, 09:08 AM   #53
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,269
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Should Archie Moore rank higher than Duran?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa View Post
I particularly like this. I may use it - with the proper credits, of course:

Fear not, those Hagler and Barkley (and Buchanan) jibes were just illustrative. Those form some of the constituent that is Duran's top ten placing.

I'm sure Duran hit fairly hard at middleweight, although I would contend the notion that he was a pound-for-pound better hitter than Moore - not that you were implying this - due to Moore's numerous stoppages of boxers (some decent, some shit) of 200lbs+.

You know I've been appreciative of Duran's skills (even if I think Ike Williams handles him, at least in the initial encounter; but we've been there before). In fact, he's long been one of my favourites. Duran holds the place in my head for 'most aesthetically and functionally perfect' for the Palomino performance. Not many can rival Duran's level of skill around that time. Jose Napoles and Archie Moore pulled off some stuff at the same level but not as consistently in one fight. Saying that, I don't know now, but either way, Duran's skills were truly elite.

Add those to a man who skips from a crouch and you have one of the best ever.

Rewriting history I'd start Duran in 1940 in a time zone more suited to his tenacity. I'd see his record take a beating but have faith in him pulling out a case for the #1, ever.
Duran in the 40s... against LWs and WWs and fighting middles in the 50s. That looks a thread. Funny thing is, he's have Arcel and Brown anyway.

I count Duran as a great composite puncher, but Moore is out of his reach.

"Skips from a crouch"--? A la Dempsey? Would you mind explaining that a bit? It's an interesting point.
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote