DURAN the GREAT..31 years ago TODAY

A lightweight reign Duran had was not against the best ever. The best of the 1970's perhaps. Guys like Lampkin and Viruet will never be Hearns and Leonard. Dejesus was good, but you cannot make him into a Mayweather or Whitaker, who both would have outboxed Duran at lightweight.
Duran would never beat Ray Leonard at any weight once Ray fought Duran in June of 1980. Ray would not have fought Duran's fight again.

30 year old blown up lightweight? He was 28 and fighting 7 pounds over the welt. limit for 2 years previous to moving up. Marv and Hearns obviously could not box Duran at lightweight, but putting other guys who have decent speed and fundamentals in against Duran like Whitaker and Mayweather, he would have lost wide decisions. Too bad we cannot ever match Whitaker and Mayweather against Duran in some time machine. The result would be a rather easy decision win. Yet you put Duran in the ring against Miguel Cotto who fought Mosley or Margarito and Duran destroys him. Duran destroys Judah. Margarito. Yeah all those guys, but then put him in with a fast fighter like Winky Wright and he loses. It is the style of the fighters which helped or hurt Duran, and the caliber. Not as much weight and age, which is what you guys want to focus on since if you don't, then Duran doesn't look as effective.

 

Hearns fought for 14 years when he fought Virgil Hill. The same could be asked of Tommy 30 pounds above 175? Why would he beat them? Because he is the best ever as people say about Duran. Hearns did it, why couldn't Duran?
And Hearns was 30 pounds above welt. Duran was at a weight where he fought before Hearns,Benitez and Leonard ever fought there.

 

you think virgil hill is on the same level as hagler?

160 is four weight classes (25 pounds) above 135. 175 is four weight classes (28 pounds) above 147.

the difference between 25 pounds and 28 pounds is negligible. the difference between virgil hill and marvin hagler is considerable.

 

Oh right. It is now clear to me. Whittaker and mayweather both beat duran easily at lightweight.

End thread.

 

if this is really what you think, fair enough. personally, when watching him on film and looking at his record, this isn't the conclusion i draw. but for the record, i couldn't give a sh*t about duran. i don't know him, and based on what i've read about him, i don't find him particularly endearing either (far less so than hearns in fact). i understand that you have a certain opinion on him, but it should be noted that not everyone who disagrees with you is biased. it is possible to interpret the same information in different ways without bias.

 

I think mag is a very loyal fan of hearns. It's something I have no empathy for because I view boxing differently.

He clearly views hearns as a top ten or so great and is clearly mystified why noone shares his opinion.

He can't look beyond duran of the 80's and i've wasted enough of my time on this subject. As goat says, duran isn't really someone I care to much about and certainly not enough to expend this much effort.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if he genuinely believes duran is not top 15 of the last 30 years then we're at polar opposites of the scale and this need not continue.

 

mag is a broken record!

 

I didn't say that. But Hearns won the fight vs. Virgil Hill. Duran lost against Hagler and Hearns. I don't think I ever said Virgil Hill was as good as Hagler.

 

you guys are changing words a little. Wide decision win. rather easy win. on points. I probably didn't use the best wording. I think Duran would have a hard time winning rounds with guys that quick who used boxing fundamentals and angles. I did say he would beat good guys like Cotto and Margarito. It was all about styles for Duran. The elite top level fast guys he lost to. In todays boxing the welt and jr middleweight Duran would do great. Even at middleweight I think he would do well. Guys now do not have the boxing fundamentals they did in the old days, nor the experience. I admit the Duran who beat Barkley would beat Chavez Jr. easily. And I give him a 50/50 chance to beat Strum.

 

I think he was great and dominant against the guys he fought at lightweight, but not against the elite. Whether he was lightweight or not, the fact is Duran did not fight elite until he moved up to welt.

 

fair enough. I really was not about Hearns, it was about Duran. The thing which impressed me about Hearns is he beat ATG fighters either by punching or boxing. both. I do admit that most people will not view Hearns as a top 10 because of his losses to Hagler and Leonard. Which is justified. He had the chance to win those fights and he lost big time, especially to Hagler.

 

i know you didn't say that. i was just making a comparison to highlight the significance of those fights. they were parallel fights. in my opinion, duran's performance against hagler was more impressive than hearns' against hill, because of the quality of the opposition.

fair enough. i think we just have different ways of assessing records. we give different weightings to circumstances.

 

I see your point, although I always see a win by UD a better performance than a loss when Hagler was fighting tentatively. My point in all this is Duran and that he had the chance to be at the top of the ATG list had he beat the elite guys. Like I said, nowadays he would do well. I doubt Ortiz and Berto would have been champions in the era of the early 1980s. Duran vs. Ortiz would have been Duran easily. And a small guy like Pacman would not be able to beat tall 154 pound guys like Hearns and McCallum who used boxing fundamentals. That era was a little more skilled than now, which is why Hopkins and Pacman can beat the guys they beat and look unbeatable being smaller and older. I am going away from the topic, but it all links together. For a guy now to be ATG he has to do much more than guys of Hearns and Duran or Benitez era.

 

duran would not beat ortiz easily!!! wrong again mag.

 

and this is where we disagree, but that's cool. i could go into detail about how duran made hagler fight like that, but i'm pretty tired.

agreed. pacquiao would lose to williams at 154 and martinez at 160. he wouldn't do better than duran did against hearns at 154 and hagler at 160, at similar ages, and at similar points in their career curves. pacquiao is a truly great fighter, but therein lies what is special about duran.

i say it the whole time, i want to see pacquiao fight mayweather at 147 and then the two guys mentioned above. it's a shame that stuff like that just doesn't happen these days.