|
|
||||||||
|
| View Poll Results: Roberto Duran's ranking as an ATG | |||
| 1-5 |
|
24 | 29.63% |
| 6-10 |
|
26 | 32.10% |
| 10-25 |
|
20 | 24.69% |
| Not top 25 |
|
11 | 13.58% |
| Voters: 81. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
|
#32 |
|
Belt holder
ESB Addict
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,590
vCash: 500 |
Top 10 Lock for sure. Where he places within that, is dependent on the mood I'm in.
how on God's green earth could somebody have him outside the top 20 or 25 is beyond me. |
|
|
|
#34 | |
|
GolovKING
East Side Guru
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 8,132
vCash: 2577 |
Quote:
So who's part of the DKSAB Crew? |
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Belt holder
ESB Addict
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,839
vCash: 1000 |
depends on who u have in your top ten.
the way i see it, he gained experience at 135 but none of those challengers were anything big. everyone from Lampkin to Fernandez. In fact, Bizarro was about the worst challenger I've ever seen fight for a title. His opposition improved once he moved up but unfortunately he slowed with age & added weight. Too erratic at higher weights but I ca see he slowed like everyone else. happened to Ali. happened to Hagler. Happened to Liston. Happened to DLH. Happened to Camacho. happened to Hearns. Happened to Roy Jones Personally I didnt like him at 154 which is too much weight for him to carry. the hagler fight did wonders for his reputation and made him look like a superman. but then came crashing don in his next fight, an almost too easy KO loss to Hitman |
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Belt holder
ESB Addict
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salisbury, MD
Posts: 3,710
vCash: 1000 |
I would say he is a lock for top 20, perhaps even 15, which if I remember correct I had him in the 11-15 range myself....Some could depend on where you rank him as a light weight....He is a narrow consensus # 1 over, B. leonard & j. Gans....If you have him rated as the top LW, combined w/ his other accomplishments you can make a legitimate top 10 case for him....
I give a slight edge to Leonard and go back and forth between Gans and Duran....So for me he falls just short.....Anything outside of top 20 I would like to here explained, not sure I understand the reasoning behind that? |
|
|
|
#37 |
|
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,711
vCash: 330 |
I used to always say yes.
Now I'm not so sure. I have him number 2 at lw clearly behind Leonard. But then he has one of the greatest victories in history plus top class victories over palomino, Cuevas, Barkley and Moore. His titles are a bit misleading and had he beaten Benitez, hearns, Hagler or Sumbu I'd say absolutely. Top 20 lock. Top 10 debatable. |
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Belt holder
ESB Addict
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Russia
Posts: 3,300
vCash: 1210 |
The heavyweight division was always awful. Foreman was somewhere at the level of Dal Hawkins as a fighter. Liston is grossly overrated, he looks good on film, but his achievements are rather poor and he struggled against even mediocre opposition; maybe Jack Blackburn level of fighter. Frazier beat Ali the first time, the only fight that mattered between them. He is also overrated, because he only had one meaningful win - first fight with Ali. Other than that, he beat fighters of Kid McPartland or Dave Holly level. Norton, I'm tired to even speak about him. He was a journeyman of Henry Cooper level, basically. Somewhere between mediocre and good. Patterson - was past prime and a cripple when Ali beat him. If you look at either Gans' or Leonard's eras, they were ten times deeper and richer with talent than Ali's epoch at heavyweight.
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 63,252
vCash: 1000 |
It's not as deep as lightweight, but writing it of as "awful" is obviously a bit silly. But your viewpoint on that division probably explains the difference in our perceptions.
I disagree with most of your other opinions which are pretty extreme in many cases. |
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Belt holder
ESB Addict
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Russia
Posts: 3,300
vCash: 1210 |
This is not just my viewpoint, this is an opinion shared by a whole lot of contemporary (for each era) experts. I pointed out before, that Ken Norton, for example, was seen as the 5th worst heavyweight titlist of all time in 1981. Jimmy Ellis, who is also often brought up as one of the better contenders, was voted 7th worst, Ernie Terrell - 8th, Leon Spinks - 4th. Ie, 4 titlists from Ali's career were voted among the 9 worst of all time. A fair assessment, in my opinion.
Start reading Ring magazines, years by year, decade by decade, they are moaning that the heavyweight division is bad-bad-bad. |
|
|
|
#43 | |
|
GolovKING
East Side Guru
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 8,132
vCash: 2577 |
Quote:
Here's what the 'experts' believed back in 2006, per IBRO: Updated September 2006** 1. Sugar Ray Robinson 2. Harry Greb 3. Henry Armstrong 4. Muhammad Ali (Tie) 4. Joe Louis (Tie) 6. Sam Langford 7. Roberto Duran 8. Benny Leonard 9. Willie Pep 10. Bob Fitzsimmons 11. Joe Gans 12. Ezzard Charles (Tie) 12. Sugar Ray Leonard (Tie) 14. Jimmy Wilde 15. Eder Jofre 16. Mickey Walker 17. Archie Moore 118. Jack Dempsey 119. Jack Johnson 20. Gene Tunney Just missing the cut: Stanley Ketchel, Barbados Joe Walcott, Rocky Marciano, Tony Canzoneri, Barney Ross, Ike Williams, George Dixon, Sandy Saddler, Roy Jones Jr., and Larry Holmes. |
|
|
|
|
#44 | |
|
Awesomeizationism!
East Side Guru
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,991
vCash: 1000 |
Quote:
- Roberto Duran You got one, buddy! You got one!
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|