Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

[Hands of Iron]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

that is an excuse for Duran. Duran gets school by Laing when he is still only 30 and he was washed up? Because he lost he was washed up not because anyone beat him. Benitez beat Duran easily when Duran was only 30 years old and had 20 more years of boxing left. I think Duran fought 50 more times after Benitez.
I think to say Benitez is overrated then people definitely have to say so is Duran. Benitez beat Cervantes and Duran, and Duran beat Leonard. But Leonard then outclassed Duran and so did Benitez. I would even say Benitez best win was Duran. Duran knew what was in front of him and he had a belt there to win and that was not a Kirkland Laing situation. We can throw the Laing fight out and say Duran knew Benitez was an important fight. He just couldn't deal with the speed.
. And then you have to take into consideration Benitez being the youngest man ever to win a belt. 3 title reigns. Beating Weston,Shields,Duran,Cervantes,Curry, Palominio and fighting Leonard and Hearns. I don't think he is overrated. The record shows he beat Curry. I would even say that I think Benitez best reign was 154.
Benitez ranked because of his era? Perhaps a little. When you fight Hearns,Leonard and Duran in that era and beat Duran you are going to get some mention, and he is a big footnote to the careers of Leonard and Hearns since those two guys won their 147 for Leonard and 154 pound title for Hearns.

How can you manage to fit so much bullshit into one post?

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by Hands of Iron

How can you manage to fit so much bullshit into one post?

you want me to fit it into one sentence?

[ushvinder]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

that is an excuse for Duran. Duran gets school by Laing when he is still only 30 and he was washed up? Because he lost he was washed up not because anyone beat him. Benitez beat Duran easily when Duran was only 30 years old and had 20 more years of boxing left. I think Duran fought 50 more times after Benitez.
I think to say Benitez is overrated then people definitely have to say so is Duran. Benitez beat Cervantes and Duran, and Duran beat Leonard. But Leonard then outclassed Duran and so did Benitez. I would even say Benitez best win was Duran. Duran knew what was in front of him and he had a belt there to win and that was not a Kirkland Laing situation. We can throw the Laing fight out and say Duran knew Benitez was an important fight. He just couldn't deal with the speed.
. And then you have to take into consideration Benitez being the youngest man ever to win a belt. 3 title reigns. Beating Weston,Shields,Duran,Cervantes,Curry, Palominio and fighting Leonard and Hearns. I don't think he is overrated. The record shows he beat Curry. I would even say that I think Benitez best reign was 154.
Benitez ranked because of his era? Perhaps a little. When you fight Hearns,Leonard and Duran in that era and beat Duran you are going to get some mention, and he is a big footnote to the careers of Leonard and Hearns since those two guys won their 147 for Leonard and 154 pound title for Hearns.

The record shows he beat curry, how about you actually watch the fight. I saw it as a Clear 6-4 or even 7-3 win for Bruce. The puerto ricans in the crowd booed loudly when benitez was given his christmas gift. Not to mention that i just finished watching the fight with palomino and this was far from a clear cut win, hell i saw the fight as even. Benitez regularly fought to the level of his opposition, not an all timer. Then again you are a fab 4 mark, so its expected.

[ushvinder]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

The Barkley fight to Hearns is like the Duran fight to Laing. No one cares that much. The totality of the fighters careers is what we look at. Hearns beat greats and was in superfights and Duran beat a great and was in superfights. Barkley and Laing beat them. I do think Hearns would have beaten Kalambay if anyone could it was Hearns with his jab. Hearns didn't fight McCallum because he had Hagler and Duran. Beating those guys would cement Hearns legacy more than McCallum would have and he beat Duran and lost to Hagler. It happens. The McCallum fight is what people mention now, but back in 1984-1986 not many guys mentioned that. They were talking about the fab 4 fighting each other and those other guys like McCallum fighting Curry.
The Hearns fight cemented Hagler's legacy which then makes Duran look better because Duran went 15 with him and then Hearns knocks out Duran which cements his legacy, so the fab 4 sort of build each other up. Duran never fought Kalambay or McCallum or Graham and Hagler didn't either. I don't think legacies are built on that so much as long as they have legacies to count on. In the 1980s Duran,Hearns,Hagler and Leonard with Benitez sort of are remembered more than the McCallum,Curry,Kalambay,Nunn fighters. Those 4 could have beaten some of the fab 4 I am sure, but that really doesn't matter much at this point. The famous group has an advantage in history. As wrong as it is.

Wait you consider his win over duran as some legacy building fight? Duran was a 15 year pro with 5 losses in a 3 year span, he was shot. Hearns built his legacy by beating an old duran and then he fought an ancient leonard in 1989.

If hagler would have fought and defeated mccallum, kalambay and graham, his resume would have been stronger than monzons and he would rank higher, he didnt and thats why he generally ranks lower than monzon on all time lists.

[Hands of Iron]

Duran at 154+ resembles almost nothing of the force he'd previously been. His physical person couldn't even create an illusion. Slow as molasses, straight up and rigid, uncanny reflexes and fluid movement all but gone, hand speed completely compromised, on and on. Totally different fighter several, several levels below what he'd previously been. It's irrelevant how many more years or fights he had. His technique and skill allowed for that... To expect him to beat ATG's far younger and far more natural to the weights these fights took place is just beyond comprehension. I'd hardly even consider him part of the "Fab 4", really. He put his work in during the 70s and beat the odds to top out with one of the best wins of all-time, within the first six months of 1980.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by ushvinder

Wait you consider his win over duran as some legacy building fight? Duran was a 15 year pro with 5 losses in a 3 year span, he was shot. Hearns built his legacy by beating an old duran and then he fought an ancient leonard in 1989.

If hagler would have fought and defeated mccallum, kalambay and graham, his resume would have been stronger than monzons and he would rank higher, he didnt and thats why he generally ranks lower than monzon on all time lists.

Duran was an old man at 32?? The same age Hearns was when he beat Virgil Hill more weight classes up than Duran had gone to 154?
Certainly it was a legacy building fight. No one to that point had stopped Duran in this fashion let alone stopped Duran at all and anyone who says Hearns did not build his legacy stopping a guy who was fellow champion in 1984 is making Duran a great excuse again.
. Hearns win over Duran was better than any fight Duran won post Leonard in 1980. Duran was champion in 1984 when he fought Hearns, and to Duran's fans own words he almost beat Hagler. I never saw the almost part, but if they can say that they can awknowledge that a man who fought Hearns at the mid point of his boxing career (1984 was 17 years into his career, and he fought until 2001. ) that he was not this washed up little fighter who was slow. He fought another 35-40 times after Hearns. More than Hearns did after that. Hearns fought another 30 or so times.
And the ancient Leonard thing is funny since Ray picked Tommy because he thought Tommy was washed up. He was wrong. So when was Duran was washed up fighter? When did it start? in Nov. of 1980? And then he somehow was great when he beat Moore and Barkley ,but was washed up in all the other fights he lost. This is why Duran gets too many excuses. He was not old when he fought in the fab 4 era and since he was considered one of them, you would have to think he was a threat to beat any of them.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by Hands of Iron

Duran at 154+ resembles almost nothing of the force he'd previously been. His physical person couldn't even create an illusion. Slow as molasses, straight up and rigid, uncanny reflexes and fluid movement all but gone, hand speed completely compromised, on and on. Totally different fighter several, several levels below what he'd previously been. It's irrelevant how many more years or fights he had. His technique and skill allowed for that... To expect him to beat ATG's far younger and far more natural to the weights these fights took place is just beyond comprehension. I'd hardly even consider him part of the "Fab 4", really. He put his work in during the 70s and beat the odds to top out with one of the best wins of all-time, within the first six months of 1980.

when Duran was losing he never resembled Duran of the past since when he was younger he was winning, although his quality of opposition was not as great. I think you would admit he never beat a Hearns,Hagler,Leonard,Benitez level fighter at 135. So really the problem is when he stepped up in weight (a weight he fought at before Leonard,Hearns and Duran fought there) he had the excuse that he was past him prime and fighting too heavy, something other fighters to not have the luxury to use as an excuse. Why can't other fighters lose and people say well he was out of shape and didn't train or he was older at 29-32 years old or other ones. Most greats below heavyweight moved up and fought at higher divisions. Marvin Hagler who stays at his weight and never moves up is a rare thing. I never said Duran was not great, but he should have to take more responsibility to losing to ATG fighters. And the excuse he did not train is a poor one. He owed it to his fans to train as hard as he could especially for Hearns, Benitez, Hagler and Leonard.

[Hands of Iron]

Nah, he didn't ever resemble Duran of the past even against the mediocre guys he was fighting, much less 'the greats'. Not against Moore or Barkley, either. It was much more to do with his own erosion than any step up in opposition. You keep mentioning his age, yet he had more fights than any of those guys would go on to over the entirety of their careers before he even fought Leonard the first time.

[Bokaj]

To me DeJesus skills seemed to be more or less on the level of Benitez'. That he couldn't attain the same level of greatness might just be because Roberto was in his way.

In their rematch I do think DeJesus showed the superior boxing skills - but that Duran's superiorty in strength, power and stamina just got to be too much for him. Against Benitez at 154 he lacked that physical superiorty.

In the rubber against DeJesus, however, I remember it as Duran being just superior overall, though.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

peak no. no way. He still did not put together the mental and physical aspects of the fight. Duran taught him to stick with a gameplan which will win you the fight the easiest way you can. I think Ray before the first Duran fight was 75 percent of the 100 percent he was after. Yes I believe Ray improved 25 percent just on what Duran showed him. You can be great, but if you fight the wrong fight you will lose.

Well I see your point but I believe the variable in each fight was Duran.

When he turned up in shape, he won.

[redrooster]

Originally Posted by ushvinder

He beat duran after leonard made him quit and right after this fight kirklaind laing schooled him, he was past his prime, dont make it sound like this is an all time legacy win, its not.

Im aware of what benitez did in his career, but no sorry he really doesnt have the overall accomplishments to be ranked as a top 75 all time boxing great and his longevity is complete and utter crap. If he doesnt fight leonard or hearns, his all time ranking would drop by 50 spots rather easily. This forum loves the fab 4 era and thats the only reason he remains relevant on this site while other fighters like luis manuel rodriguez, curtis cokes, bill graham, and others are rarely talked about. Benitez is mentioned beacause of his era.

You want to ignore his shortcomings against moore, hamsho, and the gift against bruce curry, but mention all of his accomplishments. Wilfred can be in the hall of fame, but hes not an all time great. If i make a top 100 list, he would be at the bottom of it. Im not going to rank him 20-30 spots higher just because he is the peer of hearns and leonard.

[ushvinder]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

Duran was an old man at 32?? The same age Hearns was when he beat Virgil Hill more weight classes up than Duran had gone to 154?
Certainly it was a legacy building fight. No one to that point had stopped Duran in this fashion let alone stopped Duran at all and anyone who says Hearns did not build his legacy stopping a guy who was fellow champion in 1984 is making Duran a great excuse again.
. Hearns win over Duran was better than any fight Duran won post Leonard in 1980. Duran was champion in 1984 when he fought Hearns, and to Duran's fans own words he almost beat Hagler. I never saw the almost part, but if they can say that they can awknowledge that a man who fought Hearns at the mid point of his boxing career (1984 was 17 years into his career, and he fought until 2001. ) that he was not this washed up little fighter who was slow. He fought another 35-40 times after Hearns. More than Hearns did after that. Hearns fought another 30 or so times.
And the ancient Leonard thing is funny since Ray picked Tommy because he thought Tommy was washed up. He was wrong. So when was Duran was washed up fighter? When did it start? in Nov. of 1980? And then he somehow was great when he beat Moore and Barkley ,but was washed up in all the other fights he lost. This is why Duran gets too many excuses. He was not old when he fought in the fab 4 era and since he was considered one of them, you would have to think he was a threat to beat any of them.

Oh yeah duran and leonard were in thier peaks in 1984 and 1989

[KuRuPT]

Is MAG still spewing idiocy on Duran. What is so hard to comprehend about a guy NOT being in his prime.. past his prime weight class AND AND facing guys who WERE IN THEIR PRIME and IN THEIR PRIME WEIGHT CLASS. How on God's Green Earth Mag can't understand this point is beyond me. Hearns never beat a prime duran nor a duran in his prime weight class. He beat a past his best Duran, well best his best weight class. A good victory more because of the fashion it was done than anything. Duran was a solid fighter but he wasnt' a great fighter by then. A solid victory but nothing more.

[Bogotazo]

Duran, Leonard, 5 pages...knew it was MAG's doing.

[redrooster]

Originally Posted by KuRuPT

Is MAG still spewing idiocy on Duran. What is so hard to comprehend about a guy NOT being in his prime.. past his prime weight class AND AND facing guys who WERE IN THEIR PRIME and IN THEIR PRIME WEIGHT CLASS. How on God's Green Earth Mag can't understand this point is beyond me. Hearns never beat a prime duran nor a duran in his prime weight class. He beat a past his best Duran, well best his best weight class. A good victory more because of the fashion it was done than anything. Duran was a solid fighter but he wasnt' a great fighter by then. A solid victory but nothing more.

Even at 154 Duran looked like a roly poly doll. a long way from the mid 70s version. check out his fight with Leo Ortiz. that is prime Duran