the win that got Duran into the top 10?

[Flea Man]

Originally Posted by NWS

You go like this?

SRL
Marcel
Buchanan
Barkley
DeJesus


Or Barkley third based on circumstances?

Yeah that probably seems right but swap Marcel for Buchanan and put Barkley third

[McGrain]

But if you take away almost any fighter's best win up at the sharp end, he drops like a rock. If Robinson goes 1-1 with Gavilan he's compromised. Gans is huge for Langford. Imagine Fitz without Corbett? If Charles loses to Louis or goes 2-1 with Moore, I bet his standing is hit up pretty badly. I think this one qualifies.

[lora]

I'd rather take away Duran's talent than his best win.The man was a cunt and we'd have been better off seeing him beat into the ground by Marcel and Buchanan.

No top ten for him then.

[Flea Man]

He's on one tonight

[KuRuPT]

Lora is taking up Mag's place just more ruthless!!

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by kingfisher3

leonard makes him top ten i reckon

I have always said, if Ray made Duran top 10, then what does that make Ray in the p4p rating? He has to be the best ever then, otherwise beating Ray cannot make Duran top 10. You guys already know what I think here. Ray beat Duran twice easily after the first fight when Ray became a better fighter. Manuevering Duran to become 1-10 and making the Leonard win more than it was cannot make it right. The win was good but not that great. Ray fought his fight and won the next two fights easily when Ray became a more complete fighter. And I think most of you guys know that Ray did become a more complete fighter after the first Duran fight.

[TBooze]

The Barkley fight was the final bit of redemption Duran needed to crack the top 10, after LeonardII.

[kingfisher3]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

I have always said, if Ray made Duran top 10, then what does that make Ray in the p4p rating? He has to be the best ever then, otherwise beating Ray cannot make Duran top 10. You guys already know what I think here. Ray beat Duran twice easily after the first fight when Ray became a better fighter. Manuevering Duran to become 1-10 and making the Leonard win more than it was cannot make it right. The win was good but not that great. Ray fought his fight and won the next two fights easily when Ray became a more complete fighter. And I think most of you guys know that Ray did become a more complete fighter after the first Duran fight.

i meant leonard plus everything before, but then i posted again anyway, and for me p4p includes beating bigger men, which ray was

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by lora

Leonard isn't that good that one fight should seperate how you rate two great and closely matched fighters like that.That kind of thinking implies you see Whitaker as the superior fighter.

If you think whitaker was better, rate him higher.It's called having balls and the courage of your convictions.

Besides Duran shouldn't be any kind of lock for a top ten anyway.

MAG knows.

Originally Posted by turbotime

MAG in 3...2...1...

I try to avoid the Duran threads as much as I can, but it almost seems like they are now made to draw me in . The thread title assumes Duran is top 10. It isn't even a question in the thread title. Duran is great no doubt. I never said he wasn't. Lightweight reign and longevity and fighting the best he could. He fought everyone he could and he gets credit. Fought in a tough era also, but his lack of wins over fellow legends is what prevents him from being top 10. I am not sure why people think that is an insult. A guy is top 25 p4p and somehow I am insulting him because I don't think he is top 10. How is top 25 an insult? Simply put, I just don't see how his wins equal top 10. He should have been able to duplicate the Ray win and beat Benitez and Hearns.. But he lost to all those guys not close but onesided in divisions he had won titles.

[NWS]

Originally Posted by lora

Leonard isn't that good that one fight should seperate how you rate two great and closely matched fighters like that.That kind of thinking implies you see Whitaker as the superior fighter.

If you think whitaker was better, rate him higher.It's called having balls and the courage of your convictions.

Besides Duran shouldn't be any kind of lock for a top ten anyway.

MAG knows.

Knew I was gonna regret that, and now feel like a human pretzel. Fuck you, lora.

I just couldn't say that with any conviction. There isn't another WW I'd be inclined to favor over SRL aside from Robinson and certainly nobody who had their hey day campaigning at lightweight, which puts it right up there as arguably the greatest win of all-time or thereabouts for me. Whitaker never got the opportunity to prove his greatness at that type of level despite JCC being a marvelous fighter in his own right, though he's every bit his equal in terms of ability for me. I guess it comes down to me believing Leonard was that good, which is an unpopular opinion here.

Originally Posted by McGrain

But if you take away almost any fighter's best win up at the sharp end, he drops like a rock. If Robinson goes 1-1 with Gavilan he's compromised. Gans is huge for Langford. Imagine Fitz without Corbett? If Charles loses to Louis or goes 2-1 with Moore, I bet his standing is hit up pretty badly. I think this one qualifies.

Amongst the fighters most often listed as top ten material, I don't know if anybody is affected as much as taking away Duran's Montreal triumph, primarily because guys like Greb, Langford, Armstrong, Charles, et al. have deeper pockets than Duran to begin with. It does make a bigger negative impact turning them into L's rather than removing them altogether though.

[-GhettoWizard-]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

I try to avoid the Duran threads as much as I can, but it almost seems like they are now made to draw me in . The thread title assumes Duran is top 10. It isn't even a question in the thread title. Duran is great no doubt. I never said he wasn't. Lightweight reign and longevity and fighting the best he could. He fought everyone he could and he gets credit. Fought in a tough era also, but his lack of wins over fellow legends is what prevents him from being top 10. I am not sure why people think that is an insult. A guy is top 25 p4p and somehow I am insulting him because I don't think he is top 10. How is top 25 an insult? Simply put, I just don't see how his wins equal top 10. He should have been able to duplicate the Ray win and beat Benitez and Hearns.. But he lost to all those guys not close but onesided in divisions he had won titles.

good post tbf.

[-GhettoWizard-]

Originally Posted by McGrain

But if you take away almost any fighter's best win up at the sharp end, he drops like a rock. If Robinson goes 1-1 with Gavilan he's compromised. Gans is huge for Langford. Imagine Fitz without Corbett? If Charles loses to Louis or goes 2-1 with Moore, I bet his standing is hit up pretty badly. I think this one qualifies.

a lot of them have the rematch W over the others you just listed though. losses don't count for that much imo especially if a return is won handily.

[KuRuPT]

Mag.. maybe the REASON why Duran didn't do so good against the other fellow greats he faced was because he had ALREADY BEEN FIGHTING FOR A DECADE OR MORE before he met them? Maybe because he was well past his best weight will fighting fighters IN THEIR PRIME AT THEIR BEST WEIGHT. Those are key factors you miss and continue to miss. But hey.. at least he waxed barkley.. the same person that curb stomped hearns on two occasions.

[Clinton]

You try to avoid Duran threads as much as you can? You're NOTORIOUS for making threads about other fighters into Duran threads.

Originally Posted by MAG1965

I try to avoid the Duran threads as much as I can, but it almost seems like they are now made to draw me in . The thread title assumes Duran is top 10. It isn't even a question in the thread title. Duran is great no doubt. I never said he wasn't. Lightweight reign and longevity and fighting the best he could. He fought everyone he could and he gets credit. Fought in a tough era also, but his lack of wins over fellow legends is what prevents him from being top 10. I am not sure why people think that is an insult. A guy is top 25 p4p and somehow I am insulting him because I don't think he is top 10. How is top 25 an insult? Simply put, I just don't see how his wins equal top 10. He should have been able to duplicate the Ray win and beat Benitez and Hearns.. But he lost to all those guys not close but onesided in divisions he had won titles.

[anj]

MAG, that was a good post. I do think you have somewhat of a point.

I guess it's because Duran is probably the greatest lightweight of all time, a skill level on par with the likes of Pernell Whitaker.
Duran also had issues with making weight all the time. He used to balloon in weight and by the time he reached Leonard, he had a big ring age. He was no longer prime when facing the likes of Benitez and Hearns - both difficult styles for Duran anyways.
Hearns is not just a regular fighter, he's a guy that you're just not going to outpoint. You'd have to knock him out, there's no outpointing Hearns.

One thing I acknowledged though after watching Montreal - The win over SRL was was the worst SRL I'll ever see. SRL evolved as a fighter from that fight and to be frank, excuses aside, SRL-Duran 2 just proved that.
HAVING SAID THAT, let's not pretend that this is at Duran's prime weight...it certainly isn't.

Leonard 1, Marcel, Buchanan, Palomino, De Jesus x 2, Barkley - that's great.

Why is no one mentioning his borderline shot surge against Hagler?