Is it Possible we Overrate Duran?

Right, right. Had he defeated Hagler, he would have been breathing down Robinson's neck. Old heads in the boxing world were saying as much before the fight and Freddie Brown actually thought Duran could beat Hagler. Brown said something like Duran being stronger than Antuofermo and/or better inside.

That loss is second only to the Leonard win in terms of proving how great he was. Barkley was third.

But again, boxing 'experts' have skewed hindsight when it comes to Duran. He was not considered any better than Ike Williams in ~1978 by most observers at the time. Duran proved his greatness only after his lightweight prime -almost had to after Leonard II and suddenly guys feel good saying he was the greatest lightweight of all time. No, he wasn't. Dejesus was no Tendler!

 

Duran was beaten widely by Hagler and mostly fought to frustrate and survive in that fight.If he'd got the decision for that performance, even allowing for him actually legitimately winning two rounds more...it would probably be seen by now as one of the most crooked decisions in boxing history and a black mark on the sport.It would have been hugely controversial at the time even, far more than Leonard vs Hagler.

Let's keep things grounded here.Anybody that suddenly let that performance or the Barkley one be what finally made them comfortable about considering him a great lightweight or in rating him above Ike Williams when comparing both at lightweight is imo a sub-par, dithering ****yser of the sport.

Being impressed with them in the sense of further consolidating his place in the sport as an all-time great is a different matter.The Barkley and Hagler fights should have about as much relevance to his strict lightweight ranking as any of his sub-par 80s efforts do.Which is to say...not a lot.

 

Christ, you have ten odd years of fights to study by the time Duran quits against Leonard.

i would have suggested anyone unsure as to his worth as a lightweight, go back and actually watch the FIGHTS HE HAD AT THAT WEIGHT, and come to a conclusion based on study of them and the other lightweight greats, instead of needing a good\great performance or two at much higher weights be what makes them comfortable thinking of him as a great lightweight, or rating him above X great lightweight of the past.

 

I think he was in with fighters who were bigger, younger and definitely quicker at that point in their respective careers. Duran just couldn`t catch them. Not sure if you can point to a lack of ring IQ as a reason for those losses. Not to mention that both of those boxers were great fighters in their own right.

Ali got outboxed by Kenny Norton at least 2x in their series but I don`t think anyone would say Ali lacked a top flight ring IQ.

 

A pretty good comparison when you figure that Ali fought Norton 13 years and 16 years after he turned pro; Duran fought Leonard 13 years after he turned pro and Benitez 15 years after he turned pro. Ali and Duran were also over 10 pounds heavier than they won the title, Ali 11 Pounds Duran 13 and 20.

 

This - ESPECIALLY the first sentence. I've always held this view, but it seems to have become lost over the mists of time, almost an unfashionable view.

I remember watching Hagler-Duran at the time (on TV which admittedly, which does give a different perspective) and being astonished that the judges scored the fight so closely, I thought MMH won clearly.

No wonder Marvin was sceptical of Vegas judges...

 

I am a huge Hagler fan as everybody knows but the judges were right. by the time the end of the 13th rang, I felt Hagler was in serious danger of losing his crown. I had Duran ahead as well as the judges (Duran scored more cleanly, Hagler scored arm punches)

 

Hagler to this day still say's Duran was the cleverest best fighter he ever fought. Duran was the first man ever to bust his face up like that an take him 15 rounds. Hagler toiled with Durans ring smarts.

 

The 2nd Leonard fight he nothing to do with ring IQ and much more to do with training IQ. Duran simply wasn't in shape for the rematch, of that there's no dispute, even then the scorecards at the time of the stoppage were surprising close.

Benitez is a different story entirely. He trained hard for that fight, but he simply was beaten by the better fighter that night. That said, for whatever reason Duran wasn't throwing combinations or dictating the pace in that fight for whatever reason. And that reason could very well have been due to Benitez excellent skills.

We should remember that Mayweather is 47-0 and Duran was about 73-2 at the time. It's awfully had not to have the occasional sub par fights when you fight this many fights. Especially when it gives distractors and reason to question your career achievements. The reason I bring up their records is that if Mayweather were to have fought as often as Duran, he very might well have several losses on his record as well.

 

I agree with your first statement. Hagler probably should`ve won by a couple more points than he did.

On the other hand Duran certainly didn`t fight to survive. He stood in there and threw punches at Hagler for 15 rounds. He landed some strong right hands and got Hagler`s respect. Hagler had an iron chin and he needed it that night. Duran landed punches that woud`ve hurt a lesser man.

 

What are the total championship fight numbers? Mayweather moved fast because he entered the pros after a worldclass am career.

 

I'm not sure, nor do I think it particularly matters. Save to say, Duran had far more fights at this point in time in his career than Mayweather can even dream of.

And If Duran was simply set on collecting belts he could have had a belt at 130 since he fought Buchanan at 132, and he could very likely have had a belt at 140, but he completely skipped this weight class, plus he had numerous non title fights at light heavy while he was champ. But in general collecting belts is close to a meaningless exercise, fighting the best is always what it's about.

 

Except the Kirkland Laing loss was at 154 wasn't it? Where he supposedly was great again against Cuevas and Moore

Duran's conditioning wasn't consistent and he probably wasn't that fit hence worked better with opponents who didn't move too much.

 

Where he came up short somewhat

 

Hagler himself disagreed with you. It was a close fight and that's how it was. NO two ways about it. Sure, one could say Hagler was more timid than he could've been, and had he not, he would've won going away. Okay, great. Problem is that isn't the fight we have in front of us, the fight we do was close.