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

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by ushvinder

Duran and Leonard were not middleweights when hagler fought them, mugabi was also fighting at 154, try again. All it does is dimish hearns, because he could have beaten a great fighter in hisprime hade he fought mccallum, not smaller fighters like benitez or old has beens, the theme of tomy's career.

Well if Duran and Leonard were not middleweight then Hearns was not either. What is your point on that? I didn't see what you were responding to.
Tommy didn't need to fight any more greats. He fought probably as much or more than most ATG fighters fight. Cuevas,Benitez,Hill,Duran,Hagler,Leonard 6 ATG fighters. Not all wins but a great resume. I answered the comments about Mike McCallum in an earlier post. I could rewrite them but look back about 4 posts if you like. Tommy fighting Benitez was a great fighter fighting another great. Benitez was champion ( a guy who easily beat Duran the Jan. previous to Hearns beating him in 1982-incidentally 30 years ago yesterday).

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by ushvinder

Duran and Leonard were not middleweights when hagler fought them, mugabi was also fighting at 154, try again. All it does is dimish hearns, because he could have beaten a great fighter in hisprime hade he fought mccallum, not smaller fighters like benitez or old has beens, the theme of tomy's career.

As a matter of fact. Tommy theme was that he beat more HOF fighters than most. If you look at Duran the theme was beat average guys and do well-devastating, and then lose to the elites and make excuses. That is not exactly a theme any greater than Hearns, but like I said Duran was great if you look at the totality of his career and his lightweight reign. But no way is he top 10 ATG.

[ushvinder]

Cuevas and Hill are all time great fighters but the guys duran beat arent? WTF is this. Hearns did not get the better of his big fights, he came up short, hes viewed as the underachiever, duran is viewed as the great. Beating leonard in 89 and duran in 84 means fuck all, oh wait you only go by judges scorecards, so he didn even beat lonard, lol.

Cuevas and Virgil Hill are not all time greats, you are getting desperate. Sugar Ray Leonard wasnt even top 10 p4p in 1989, duran was not in the p4p rankings in 84, hearns theme is he chocked his big fights and has a glass jaw.

You want to hold all of durans loses against him but excuse hearns for choking againnst hagler, he lasted 3 fuckin rounds in his prime, got knocked out by baarkley when he was 29, thats so young, lol.

[Hands of Iron]

Yeah, now Cuevas is Elite too but Marcel, Buchanan and DeJesus still aren't. Duran wiped the floor with Cuevas when he was only 25 years old. He clearly wasn't past prime. What a Greaaat Win!

I don't even mention that shit.

[Hands of Iron]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

I'd say Duran was Benitez best win.

Originally Posted by MAG1965

Duran never beat anyone elite.

Originally Posted by MAG1965

Benitez is great.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by ushvinder

Cuevas and Hill are all time great fighters but the guys duran beat arent? WTF is this. Hearns did not get the better of his big fights, he came up short, hes viewed as the underachiever, duran is viewed as the great. Beating leonard in 89 and duran in 84 means fuck all, oh wait you only go by judges scorecards, so he didn even beat lonard, lol.

Cuevas and Virgil Hill are not all time greats, you are getting desperate.

You want to hold all of durans loses against him but excuse hearns for choking againnst hagler, he lasted 3 fuckin rounds in his prime, got knocked out by baarkley when he was 29, thats so young, lol.

Cuevas and Hill are probably underrated. Cuevas got diminished for losing to Hearns in 2 rounds and Hill losing to Hearns and Jones devalued him. Fighting Hearns is never great for many guys legacies. But Hill has 25 title defenses on 4 reigns at 175 and 190. If Duran would have beaten Hill his fans would have said it was the greatest win in the history of boxing. Hearns does it, and Hill is overrated. The fact is Hearns beat greater HOF fighters than Duran did.
I am not holding Duran's losses against him, I am just wondering how the wins he had makes him a top 10 ATG as people say, yet his losses have excuses. Fact is everytime he lost to an ATG fighters he had an excuse that he didn't train-and he lost all those fights. He trained for the lesser quality guys and won and didn't for the high quality. That proves it was just an excuse. That is easy to see, the fact people bought it is surprising. I remember when Livingstone Bramble lost to Edwin Rosario and said he was thumbed. Larry Merchant just said "Thank you Livingstone" like saying ok whatever. And Livingstone did take a thumb when Rosario landed a nice counter uppercut, but that is not an excuse. The fact is a punch landed and Bramble lost. Same with Duran and his excuses. If he could not beat guys at a weight he fought at before they fought at that weight and he was 29-32 and had a title at that weight, I am not sure the excuses are valid.

[ushvinder]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

Cuevas and Hill are probably underrated. Cuevas got diminished for losing to Hearns in 2 rounds and Hill losing to Hearns and Jones devalued him. Fighting Hearns is never great for many guys legacies. But Hill has 25 title defenses on 4 reigns at 175 and 190. If Duran would have beaten Hill his fans would have said it was the greatest win in the history of boxing. Hearns does it, and Hill is overrated. The fact is Hearns beat greater HOF fighters than Duran did.
I am not holding Duran's losses against him, I am just wondering how the wins he had makes him a top 10 ATG as people say, yet his losses have excuses. Fact is everytime he lost to an ATG fighters he had an excuse that he didn't train-and he lost all those fights. He trained for the lesser quality guys and won and didn't for the high quality. That proves it was just an excuse. That is easy to see, the fact people bought it is surprising. I remember when Livingstone Bramble lost to Edwin Rosario and said he was thumbed. Larry Merchant just said "Thank you Livingstone" like saying ok whatever. And Livingstone did take a thumb when Rosario landed a nice counter uppercut, but that is not an excuse. The fact is a punch landed and Bramble lost. Same with Duran and his excuses. If he could not beat guys at a weight he fought at before they fought at that weight and he was 29-32 and had a title at that weight, I am not sure the excuses are valid.

Cuevas and Hill were good fghters, far from great. The fact you are putting them on this pedastol but dismissing fighters like buchanon, de jesus, marcel or even kobayashi and mamby is just beyond stupidity. Duran beat leonard when it mattered the most, hearns win over duran MEANS NOTHING.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by Hands of Iron

Yeah, now Cuevas is Elite too but Marcel, Buchanan and DeJesus still aren't. Duran wiped the floor with Cuevas when he was only 25 years old. He clearly wasn't past prime. What a Greaaat Win!

I don't even mention that shit.

Well Duran won when he had to win. Actually a pretty good fight and that Duran the shot at Moore. Duran fought well at 154 when he had the right style in front of him, but Cuevas or Moore were never Thomas Hearns level. As for Pipini, Cuevas had 11 title defenses 11-0 (10). Then Hearns knocks him out in 2 rounds. Then Benitez had one loss when he fought Hearns. Duran never was stopped. Hill undefeated and 10 title defenses. If someone is going to say a person fought old washed up guys, he should at least have the facts straight. The record of Hearns speaks for itself. As for Tommy. And Duran has a respectable record. The question is the elites he fought. And excuse each time he loses, and he lost easily those times.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by ushvinder

Cuevas and Hill were good fghters, far from great. The fact you are putting them on this pedastol but dismissing fighters like buchanon, de jesus, marcel or even kobayashi and mamby is just beyond stupidity. Duran beat leonard when it mattered the most, hearns win over duran MEANS NOTHING.

it means more than what Duran fans want to think. Duran was champion at 154 in the WBA when Hearns knocked him out And when people talk about best knockout ever, that fight comes to mind immediately. Although many people refer to it as a one punch knockout, it was not that at all.


Duran beating Ray? By decision when Ray fought his fight? A good win, but in light of the fact Ray beat him easily in the rematch nullifies that fight. And watch the fight, Ray was starting to land to the head and body in rounds 7 and 8 and Duran quits. Duran actually quit and turned his back as Ray was landing a body punch. Had Duran quit as Ray was backing up I could see that Duran quit because he was being taunted, but he quit because he was being hit harder and Ray was taking over physically as well as earlier mentally. I always see it like this Ray's fight with Duran was not Tommy's with Ray. Tommy was much more complete when he fought Benitez ass was Ray in the rematch. Ray learned do not fight the other guys fight to prove something, The fact Duran could not stop Ray when Ray fought him is significant.

[ushvinder]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

Well Duran won when he had to win. Actually a pretty good fight and that Duran the shot at Moore. Duran fought well at 154 when he had the right style in front of him, but Cuevas or Moore were never Thomas Hearns level. As for Pipini, Cuevas had 11 title defenses 11-0 (10). Then Hearns knocks him out in 2 rounds. Then Benitez had one loss when he fought Hearns. Duran never was stopped. Hill undefeated and 10 title defenses. If someone is going to say a person fought old washed up guys, he should at least have the facts straight. The record of Hearns speaks for itself. As for Tommy. And Duran has a respectable record. The question is the elites he fought. And excuse each time he loses, and he lost easily those times.

You sure like to make your own criteria for what an elite fighter is. Cuevas and Hill are but the guys duran beat at lightweight aren't, just laughable.

Listen you troll, if Hearns in his 30's decided to fight elite fighters like mccalum, roy jones, toney, michael nunn and whoever else, his resume would have been littered with losses. Saying duran lost to elie fighters when he was in hhis 30's is laughable. When Hearns turned 30-34 he didnt even enter the thought of fighting micael nunn, james toney, roy jones, mike mcccallum. He instead fought an old ray leonard. Duran hadthe balls to fight guys in thier primes at higher weights when he was past the age of30, Hearns became a cherry picker after Hagler buried him. Had he continued to fight guyson that level, his resume would have been filled with losses.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by ushvinder

Listen you troll, .

Duran lost to elite fights when he fought them. Regardless of age or weight he lost. And you say I am the troll and I have 15,000 posts and you have a few hundred. I keep things respectful out here. Which makes me anything but a troll. If you get wound up or upset on a message board about boxing, why even post.

[ushvinder]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

Duran lost to elite fights when he fought them. Regardless of age or weight he lost. And you say I am the troll and I have 15,000 posts and you have a few hundred. I keep things respectful out here. Which makes me anything but a troll. If you get wound up or upset on a message board about boxing, why even post.

Really, your the one who quotes me when I was talking to red rooster, so dont play the 'why do u post' card, your the one who acknowledges what i write. You are blind to consider the age at which duran fought guys. Once hearns got his butt whooped by hagler, he refused to fight prime fighters. Nunn, Mccallum, Toney, Roy Jones, etc. These guys would have blasted a 30-35 year old hearns, i really dont know what you keep preaching.

Hearns fought barkley twice and he blew it both times, dont care how old he was.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by ushvinder

Really, your the one who quotes me when I was talking to red rooster, so dont play the 'why do u post' card, your the one who acknowledges what i write. You are blind to consider the age at which duran fought guys. Once hearns got his butt whooped by hagler, he refused to fight prime fighters. Nunn, Mccallum, Toney, Roy Jones, etc. These guys would have blasted a 30-35 year old hearns, i really dont know what you keep preaching.

Hearns fought barkley twice and he blew it both times, dont care how old he was.

Yeah I acknowledge what people type. This is an open message board. I don't mind if people comment on what I say, as long as they stay respectful.

The age of Duran? 29-32? And he fought until he was 50. That is not an excuse at all. And he is given credit for beating Moore and Barkley at 32 and 37. He gets credit for wins and excuses for losses.

And those same fighters who were prime? Toney? He became champ at middleweight in 1991 and Hearns was fighting at 175. Jones? Hearns wanted to fight Jones and Jones said if he stopped Hearns people would blame him for hurting a legend who was past his prime, and really they never fought at the same division until 1997. Nunn? Fight almost happened but that was not a ducking on Hearns part. Again Hearns was moving up to fight Leonard when Nunn was IBF champion. Who else? I already went over McCallum . I am answering all your comment sentence by sentence. You want to ask the question, but you are not reading my answers. Hearns would have had a great chance to beat Jones, and the guy you mention all the time Mike McCallum said so after he fought him. Look that up if you don't believe me. Nunn? That is a pickem fight in 1990. Toney? He was Tommy's friend, I don't see them fighting. Did you know that Toney as a young man before being a professional was taken to Hearns house, and Hearns was the one who gave him advice and to stay focused? Toney and Hearns respect each other. That fight wouldn't have happened.

Yeah he lost to Barkley. Duran lost to Laing. Styles make fights. Stilll Hearns beat Hill.

[JeanPaulValley]

Duran fought at Welterweight way before he fought SRL.

[ushvinder]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

Yeah I acknowledge what people type. This is an open message board. I don't mind if people comment on what I say, as long as they stay respectful.

The age of Duran? 29-32? And he fought until he was 50. That is not an excuse at all. And he is given credit for beating Moore and Barkley at 32 and 37. He gets credit for wins and excuses for losses.

And those same fighters who were prime? Toney? He became champ at middleweight in 1991 and Hearns was fighting at 175. Jones? Hearns wanted to fight Jones and Jones said if he stopped Hearns people would blame him for hurting a legend who was past his prime, and really they never fought at the same division until 1997. Nunn? Fight almost happened but that was not a ducking on Hearns part. Again Hearns was moving up to fight Leonard when Nunn was IBF champion. Who else? I already went over McCallum . I am answering all your comment sentence by sentence. You want to ask the question, but you are not reading my answers. Hearns would have had a great chance to beat Jones, and the guy you mention all the time Mike McCallum said so after he fought him. Look that up if you don't believe me. Nunn? That is a pickem fight in 1990. Toney? He was Tommy's friend, I don't see them fighting. Did you know that Toney as a young man before being a professional was taken to Hearns house, and Hearns was the one who gave him advice and to stay focused? Toney and Hearns respect each other. That fight wouldn't have happened.

Yeah he lost to Barkley. Duran lost to Laing. Styles make fights. Stilll Hearns beat Hill.

Look you can keep replying to me as much as you want. Hearns stopped fighting p4p fighters once he got his ass beat by Hagler. You have no answer for that. Duran kept moving up and up in weight. If Hearns wanted to keep facing elite p4p level guys from 1986-1994, his resume would be loaded with losses. Roy Jones would have mopped the floor with hearns. Duran was 33 when he fought hearns, nice way to twist thier age.

Either way Duran is a more accomplished fighter than Hearns and is universally recognized as such so your lectures have no meaning behind it.