Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-04-2012, 10:23 PM   #121
MAG1965
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Dallas,Texas.
Posts: 17,399
vCash: 1010
Default Re: Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
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.
I respond to questions put to me. But the one thing is I keep it respectful and I stay on topic. I don't say things like "listen here you troll". I keep it respectful which anyone on this board will tell you. Doesn't bother me much, but when a person talks in that manner, but it makes me feel I wasted all my comments. Then it feels like an ego argument happened. Not a discussion. I like boxing discussion.

By the way, you don't read what people post to you do you, which is the basis for a message board and discussion. You say Hearns stopped fighting p4p fighters once he got his ass beat by Hagler? What was Virgil Hill? Best lightheavyweight at the time. Hearns beat more p4p fighters from those years 1986-1994 than any of his fellow fab 4. Duran last beat a p4p fighter 21 years before he last retired. Just on the Virgil Hill win Hearns outshines all of them in those later years by the way. That was 1991. Saying Jones would have beaten Hearns is an opinion and not fact. Similar to most of your comments. I am answering them all and you are not responding to them.
Saying Duran is more accomplished. It is an opinion. He was a more accomplished lightweight and had a more accomplished career in one division, but as a guy who moved up and down and fought everyone. I think Hearns will be remembered as exciting and rare. Combination height reach power speed but mainly excitement.
If you look at Hearns belts and wins and resume, when people look back at boxing in 100 years Tommy will be fondly remembered more than people think because of resume, but mainly I think his fight with Hagler will outlast Leonard and Duran a little, Which is ironic that one fight and 3 rounds will assure Marvin and Tommy of immortality.
MAG1965 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 12-04-2012, 10:29 PM   #122
ushvinder
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Default Re: Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAG1965 View Post
I respond to questions put to me. But the one thing is I keep it respectful and I stay on topic. I don't say things like "listen here you troll". I keep it respectful which anyone on this board will tell you. Doesn't bother me much, but when a person talks in that manner it makes me feel I wasted all my comments. I like discussion.

By the way, you don't read what people post to you do you, which is the basis for a message board and discussion. You say Hearns stopped fighting p4p fighters once he got his ass beat by Hagler? What was Virgil Hill? Best lightheavyweight at the time. Hearns beat more p4p fighters from those years 1986-1994 than any of his fellow fab 4. Duran last beat a p4p fighter 21 years before he last retired. Just on the Virgil Hill win Hearns outshines all of them in those later years by the way. That was 1991. Saying Jones would have beaten Hearns is an opinion and not fact. Similar to most of your comments. I am answering them all and you are not responding to them.
Saying Duran is more accomplished. It is an opinion. He was a more accomplished lightweight and had a more accomplished career in one division, but as a guy who moved up and down and fought everyone. I think Hearns will be remembered as exciting and rare. Combination height reach power speed but mainly excitement.
If you look at Hearns belts and wins and resume, when people look back at boxing in 100 years Tommy will be fondly remembered more than people think because of resume, but mainly I think his fight with Hagler will outlast Leonard and Duran a little, Which is ironic that one fight and 3 rounds will assure Marvin and Tommy of immortality.
Oh yeah im sure its an opinion to suggest duran is more accomplished between the two. You fail to look at context and decide to overrate cuevas and hill as a way to make hearns look better.

When there was a thread for best post 1980 fighters, Leonard and Whitaker almost unanimously took the top 2 spots on most people's list. Very few people had hearns in thier top 3. You can overrate Hearns as much as you want, he will never rank alongside leonard and duran on most respectable all time lists.

Yeah sure its easy to sit here and say roy jones beating tommy is an opinion, but its also common sense. I dont really care either way. Duran from age 29-32 fought Leonard, prime hagler, prime hearns. Now tell me, who was hearns fighting at 29-32? Oh yeah a washed up leonard and getting his butt kicked by barkley.
ushvinder is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 10:33 PM   #123
Hands of Iron
#MSE
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 7,356
vCash: 75
Default Re: Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Oh yeah im sure its an opinion to suggest duran is more accomplished between the two. You fail to look at context and decide to overrate cuevas and hill as a way to make hearns look better.

When there was a thread for best post 1980 fighters, Leonard and Whitaker almost unanimously took the top 2 spots on most people's list. Very few people had hearns in thier top 3. You can overrate Hearns as much as you want, he will never rank alongside leonard and duran on most respectable all time lists.
Benitez too, pass off Duran being anywhere near his prime, writes off Hearns loss to Leonard as being green, etc.
Hands of Iron is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 10:34 PM   #124
MAG1965
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Dallas,Texas.
Posts: 17,399
vCash: 1010
Default Re: Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Oh yeah im sure its an opinion to suggest duran is more accomplished between the two. You fail to look at context and decide to overrate cuevas and hill as a way to make hearns look better.

When there was a thread for best post 1980 fighters, Leonard and Whitaker almost unanimously took the top 2 spots on most people's list. Very few people had hearns in thier top 3. You can overrate Hearns as much as you want, he will never rank alongside leonard and duran on most respectable all time lists.

Yeah sure its easy to sit here and say roy jones beating tommy is an opinion, but its also common sense. I dont really care either way. Duran from age 29-32 fought Leonard, prime hagler, prime hearns. Now tell me, who was hearns fighting at 29-32? Oh yeah a washed up leonard and getting his butt kicked by barkley.
it is my opinion. Duran has been overrated. Now how bad is overrating a fighter top 10 ATG and top 25? top 25 is still pretty good. Hearns is ranked very well, and the fact is if you had a significance rating he might be top 3. He was the reason for the fab 4 being exciting. And as far as Duran on the ATG list, he will go down somewhat in the next 20 years when people inspect his record more. There is a consensus that he did not beat a really great fighter in his career? Now does beating Leonard make him top 10? Well if Leonard is top 1 or 2 ATG it would, and if he stopped him. But he didn't. And he lost the rematch easily.
MAG1965 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 10:36 PM   #125
MAG1965
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Dallas,Texas.
Posts: 17,399
vCash: 1010
Default Re: Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands of Iron View Post
Benitez too, pass off Duran being anywhere near his prime, writes off Hearns loss to Leonard as being green, etc.
not a write off, but to say Hearns was a complete fighter in Sept of 1981 is not accurate. He had heart but he did not hold and did not know how to dictate the pace like he did with Benitez in Dec. of 1982. Some of you guys on the board think because a great fighter has the name and was in a big fight it means they were the all around great they would have been later. Being great is a progression.
MAG1965 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 10:49 PM   #126
Hands of Iron
#MSE
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 7,356
vCash: 75
Default Re: Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAG1965 View Post
Some of you guys on the board think because a great fighter has the name and was in a big fight it means they were the all around great they would have been later.
Or Had Been. At lower weights.
Hands of Iron is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 10:55 PM   #127
SugarAli
newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8
vCash: 500
Default Re: Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAG1965 View Post
Duran lost to elite fights when he fought them. Regardless of age or weight he lost..
I keep wonder how this bum Duran managed to get that win over Ray Leonard. Sugar Ray not elite fighter I guess. Pretty weird how these elite fighters like Benitez , Hearns and Hagler did not manage to beat Ray.

I agree with you though. As a natural lightweight being the only guy to whip probably the 2nd best welter of all time in the 80's is not that impressive since he lost the other 2. Losing the 89 one is crucial for me.

I feel the same way about Greb losing those rematches with Tunney. Winning the first one was not that impressive. Somehow I have Greb as the naturally bigger man aswell. Same with Frazier beating Ali. Who cares about FOTC. The 74 one is the fight for me.

You keep twisting things around pretty obvious facts. In the 80's Duran was the older, smaller guy in the fab4 or 5 if you will. It was not prime lightweight Duran figthing smaller, older elite fighters past their prime moving up. And it was not only being the smaller guy moving up. It was moving up against guys some have as the 2nd best welter of all time , the best 154 and maybe the best at 160 ever.

Can you answer me if you think Duran is as good above 147 as he was there or at 135? You dont see a difference in speed, stamina , power etc?

How many bigger, younger elite fighters did Benitez, Hagler , Ray or Hearns manage to beat after they turned 30?


Maybe you should use the same standard for all fighters in the fab4? Duran lost to prime Hagler and thats it. Nothign else to say then.

You must be a huge fan of Mayweather the last few years after he stopped taking on any real challenges. He wins and thats it.
SugarAli is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 10:56 PM   #128
MAG1965
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Dallas,Texas.
Posts: 17,399
vCash: 1010
Default Re: Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands of Iron View Post
Or Had Been. At lower weights.
Well if the legacy of that fighter is that he had not yet really beat an elite fighter, then finally fighting elites is more significant. Dejesus,Marcel, Buchanan, Palomino will never be regarded as a Hearns or Benitez level. What did it mean when Holmes lost to Tyson? Not much. But Duran as great as he was younger, had winnable fights when he got older. Hearns had his weaknesses as did Benitez. Certainly the fellow who said Benitez was washed up at 24 the year he fought Duran has to probably think that Duran should have beaten Benitez, and what a feather in Duran's cap that would have been. As it turned out Benitez was not washed up and Duran still had a chance to beat him on paper as a great champion vs. a great champ. But Duran never did handle speed well which also shows me how Pernell Whitaker would have probably beaten Duran relatively easy.
MAG1965 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 11:07 PM   #129
MAG1965
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Dallas,Texas.
Posts: 17,399
vCash: 1010
Default Re: Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SugarAli View Post
I keep wonder how this bum Duran managed to get that win over Ray Leonard. Sugar Ray not elite fighter I guess. Pretty weird how these elite fighters like Benitez , Hearns and Hagler did not manage to beat Ray.

I agree with you though. As a natural lightweight being the only guy to whip probably the 2nd best welter of all time in the 80's is not that impressive since he lost the other 2. Losing the 89 one is crucial for me.

I feel the same way about Greb losing those rematches with Tunney. Winning the first one was not that impressive. Same with Frazier. Who cares about FOTC. The 74 one is the fight for me.

You keep twisting things around pretty obvious facts. In the 80's Duran was the older, smaller guy in the fab4 or 5 if you will. It was not prime lightweight Duran figthing smaller, older elite fighters past their prime moving up. And it was not only being the smaller guy moving up. It was moving up against guys some have as the 2nd best welter of all time , the best 154 and maybe the best at 160 ever.

Can you answer me if you think Duran is as good above 147 as he was there or at 135? You dont see a difference in speed, stamina , power etc?

How many bigger, younger elite fighters did Benitez, Hagler , Ray or Hearns manage to beat after they turned 30?


Maybe you should use the same standard for all fighters in the fab4? Duran lost to prime Hagler and thats it. Nothign else to say then.

You must be a huge fan of Mayweather the last few years after he stopped taking on any real challenges. He wins and thats it.
I have stated many times how I think Duran beat a Leonard which was beatable. A young Leonard, who needed that fight with Duran to teach him to fight his fight. Learn discipline and the whole game. Hearns had that fight with Leonard. All great fighters need that loss to get better. Even McGirt, who was not great, but he learned how to beat a guy named Frankie ****** who beat him up the first time.
Like I have stated before Duran fought at 154 for the first time in 1978, Before Hearns,Leonard and Benitez ever fought that high. The excuse that he was this little guy moving up was always that, and he is the only one of the fab 4 who ever go to 260 pounds when he retired. Significance of that? He could hold the weight.
At 147 I think he was comparable. I think he fought a higher level of opposition, and when people saw how Ray beat him with speed they got the blueprint of how to beat him. Sort of like after Hagler beat Hearns by getting close and throwing punches to affect his leverage and rhythm, many guys started to try that with Hearns. At 135 he never fought an elite the level of Hearns,Leonard or Benitez.

Well since Duran only beat one elite great in his life, he was only 29 then. So he never beat an elite fighter past 30.. and Hearns beat Virgil Hill when Tommy was 32 and Virgil Hill 26. Virgil an underrated fighter. at the time 10 title defenses and undefeated at a weight 30 pounds above Hearns starting weight of 147 when he won his title. I sound like a broken record. But you asked the question. Ray beat Hagler when he was past 30 and Hagler beat Hearns at 30.

Actually I am not a fan of Floyd. He handpicks and does not fight the best. What I argue about Duran is he has not beaten elites, regardless of excuses. Floyd has been different he avoids the challenges. Duran did not avoid the challenges, but he makes excuses when he lost. Why would Duran not train when he fought the elites and then train and fight Moore and Barkley?
MAG1965 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 11:32 PM   #130
SugarAli
newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8
vCash: 500
Default Re: Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAG1965 View Post
I have stated many times how I think Duran beat a Leonard which was beatable. A young Leonard, who needed that fight with Duran to teach him to fight his fight. Learn discipline and the whole game. Hearns had that fight with Leonard. All great fighters need that loss to get better. Even McGirt, who was not great, but he learned how to beat a guy named Frankie ****** who beat him up the first time.
Like I have stated before Duran fought at 154 for the first time in 1978, Before Hearns,Leonard and Benitez ever fought that high. The excuse that he was this little guy moving up was always that, and he is the only one of the fab 4 who ever go to 260 pounds when he retired. Significance of that? He could hold the weight.
At 147 I think he was comparable. I think he fought a higher level of opposition, and when people saw how Ray beat him with speed they got the blueprint of how to beat him. Sort of like after Hagler beat Hearns by getting close and throwing punches to affect his leverage and rhythm, many guys started to try that with Hearns. At 135 he never fought an elite the level of Hearns,Leonard or Benitez.

Well since Duran only beat one elite great in his life, he was only 29 then. So he never beat an elite fighter past 30.. and Hearns beat Virgil Hill when Tommy was 32 and Virgil Hill 26. Virgil an underrated fighter. at the time 10 title defenses and undefeated at a weight 30 pounds above Hearns starting weight of 147 when he won his title. I sound like a broken record. But you asked the question. Ray beat Hagler when he was past 30 and Hagler beat Hearns at 30.

Actually I am not a fan of Floyd. He handpicks and does not fight the best. What I argue about Duran is he has not beaten elites, regardless of excuses. Floyd has been different he avoids the challenges. Duran did not avoid the challenges, but he makes excuses when he lost. Why would Duran not train when he fought the elites and then train and fight Moore and Barkley?
You are the one who brush off Duran because he did not beat all those elite fighters after he turned 30 against bigger younger ATG fighters at their best weight. So I would guess it was pretty damn normal to have a few of those kind of wins for your elite fighters. And I don't know if you know this but Hill is no Hagler, Leonard or Hearns.

The fact that Duran beat Moore and Barkley has something to do with style and that they were no Hagler or Leonard. So Duran beat them becasue he was more skilled. Pretty good wins but how does the fact that he beat them change the fact that he was the smaller , older guy facing prime fighters at their best weight in Leonard, Hearns and Hagler? I dont give a f**k about the traing part. Its about some obvious facts. Duran was not the same fighter above 147.

You think Cotto looked faster against Trout than he did in lower weightclasses aswell I guess.

Duran he has some good wins over 147 when the fighters style was right for him does not mean he was at his best there. But sure, Duran fought at 154 before Hearns so he was the bigger man. Its only my eyes that cant see this.
SugarAli is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 11:35 PM   #131
ushvinder
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Default Re: Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAG1965 View Post
Well if the legacy of that fighter is that he had not yet really beat an elite fighter, then finally fighting elites is more significant. Dejesus,Marcel, Buchanan, Palomino will never be regarded as a Hearns or Benitez level. What did it mean when Holmes lost to Tyson? Not much. But Duran as great as he was younger, had winnable fights when he got older. Hearns had his weaknesses as did Benitez. Certainly the fellow who said Benitez was washed up at 24 the year he fought Duran has to probably think that Duran should have beaten Benitez, and what a feather in Duran's cap that would have been. As it turned out Benitez was not washed up and Duran still had a chance to beat him on paper as a great champion vs. a great champ. But Duran never did handle speed well which also shows me how Pernell Whitaker would have probably beaten Duran relatively easy.
Marcel and Buchanon will never be at benitez's level. Like do you say this shit with a straight face? Palomino will never be regarded on benitez's level even though he arguably beat him.
ushvinder is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 11:43 PM   #132
MAG1965
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Dallas,Texas.
Posts: 17,399
vCash: 1010
Default Re: Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SugarAli View Post
You are the one who brush off Duran because he did not beat all those elite fighters after he turned 30 against bigger younger ATG fighters at their best weight. So I would guess it was pretty damn normal to have a few of those kind of wins for your elite fighters. And I don't know if you know this but Hill is no Hagler, Leonard or Hearns.

The fact that Duran beat Moore and Barkley has something to do with style and that they were no Hagler or Leonard. So Duran beat them becasue he was more skilled. Pretty good wins but how does the fact that he beat them change the fact that he was the smaller , older guy facing prime fighters at their best weight in Leonard, Hearns and Hagler? I dont give a f**k about the traing part. Its about some obvious facts. Duran was not the same fighter above 147.

You think Cotto looked faster against Trout than he did in lower weightclasses aswell I guess.

Duran he has some good wins over 147 when the fighters style was right for him does not mean he was at his best there. But sure, Duran fought at 154 before Hearns so he was the bigger man. Its only my eyes that cant see this.
Well Virgil Hill is better than anyone Duran beat past 30 years of age, and it was 30 pounds above Hearns starting weight of 147 and Hearns was 32. And I mentioned that every fab 4 guy except Duran beat an elite or HOF fighter.
Sugar Ali, you are not the alt of ushvinder are you? No offense, but you respond to posts and cuss the way he did . And you don't seem to read the post. You ask a question and then don't listen to what is answered, and you go onto the next question same as he does. And I am answering all the question you and ushvinder are asking. I will answer them regardless who asks, but if you don't listen what is the point of asking?
I think as good as Cotto was when he was younger, he is a guy who never could deal with speed,and his stamina is suspect. Are you comparing Duran and Cotto?
Well Duran was not a small 154 pound fighter. He fought there enough to be comfortable at the weight and he did fight there before Hearns/Leonard/ and Duran, since I think you said he moved up and fought bigger guys. He did not move up at all.
MAG1965 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 11:48 PM   #133
ushvinder
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Default Re: Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAG1965 View Post
Well Virgil Hill is better than anyone Duran beat past 30 years of age, and it was 30 pounds above Hearns starting weight of 147 and Hearns was 32. And I mentioned that every fab 4 guy except Duran beat an elite or HOF fighter.
Sugar Ali, you are not the alt of ushvinder are you? No offense, but you respond to posts and cuss the way he did . And you don't seem to read the post. You ask a question and then don't listen to what is answered, and you go onto the next question same as he does. And I am answering all the question you and ushvinder are asking. I will answer them regardless who asks, but if you don't listen what is the point of asking?
I think as good as Cotto was when he was younger, he is a guy who never could deal with speed,and his stamina is suspect. Are you comparing Duran and Cotto?
Well Duran was not a small 154 pound fighter. He fought there enough to be comfortable at the weight and he did fight there before Hearns/Leonard/ and Duran, since I think you said he moved up and fought bigger guys. He did not move up at all.
Ray Leonard, Palomino, Cuevas, Buchanon are all in the IBHOF. Esteban de Jesus is in the world boxing hall of fame.

Nope hes not my alt, hes just another guy that disagrees with you, boy thats a surprise.
ushvinder is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 11:54 PM   #134
PernellSweetPea
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,215
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

What a surprise. Mag talking about Duran and the fab 4!!!! I wouldnt waste your time Ushvinder!!! Mag will just go on and on!!!! He has been talking about this subject for years and years!
PernellSweetPea is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 12:00 AM   #135
SugarAli
newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8
vCash: 500
Default Re: Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAG1965 View Post
Well Virgil Hill is better than anyone Duran beat past 30 years of age, and it was 30 pounds above Hearns starting weight of 147 and Hearns was 32. And I mentioned that every fab 4 guy except Duran beat an elite or HOF fighter.
Sugar Ali, you are not the alt of ushvinder are you? No offense, but you respond to posts and cuss the way he did . And you don't seem to read the post. You ask a question and then don't listen to what is answered, and you go onto the next question same as he does. And I am answering all the question you and ushvinder are asking. I will answer them regardless who asks, but if you don't listen what is the point of asking?
I think as good as Cotto was when he was younger, he is a guy who never could deal with speed,and his stamina is suspect. Are you comparing Duran and Cotto?
Well Duran was not a small 154 pound fighter. He fought there enough to be comfortable at the weight and he did fight there before Hearns/Leonard/ and Duran, since I think you said he moved up and fought bigger guys. He did not move up at all.
No I mention Cotto becasue i wonder if you are able to see that fighters have weights that they are at their best at. Duran was clearly not at his best above 147 and you a few posts ago wrote something like Duran lost to all elite fighters he fought regardless of weight.

Which is also a lie obvoiously since he as others say great fighters as lighweight and he beat Leonard.

Its pretty funny how you expect others to read your post and suddenly agree with you. It seems like 99 out 100 here disagree with oyu on this matter and NOTHING anyone says makes you move and inch. I read your post but I find them weird as you are one of very few that seem to rate Hearns beating Hill as better than Duran winning in Montreal. But still manages to use the rematch and the 89 fight to fit iinto your world where Duran is not as great as most around here feel.
SugarAli is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013