What were your thoughts going into Duran-Moore

When it comes to Duran people are ridiculous. Moore was not elite and somehow the talk is this was so impressive. No, beating an elite like this would have been, but he never did. And if someone gets a free pass to become the best ever for never beating one then it bothers me. Other guys have better wins and are not even in the hall of fame. Donald Curry beat Milton and Starling, and they were better than Moore. They talk about how Duran beat up Davey Moore a guy who had 11 fights,,, and wow he was so good, and then Hearns demolished him when he fought a real elite. When he fought real elites he didn't look so good. That is how a guy impresses when he can go in there and at the high level win. How Hearns beat Duran or Benitez or Cuevas when they were all champs. Elites.. Guys who are Hall of Fame. Holyfield vs. Tyson and Bowe. Leonard vs. Duran 2, Hagler, Hearns, Benitez..

 

Good analysis^^^^.

 

Why thank you

 

In the 3rd and 4th lines you wrote,"Beating an elite would have been, but he never did. And if someone gets a pass to become the best ever for never beating one then it bothers me." Leonard isn't elite? Really? You keep repeating the same thing over and over again concerning Duran. Duran lost to Kirkland Laing at 154. Simple yes/no question for you. Is Laing a better p4p fighter than Duran?

 

There is no proof of this. Mayweather and Pernell beat NOBODY on the same level as Duran or Leonard, but Duran did beat Leonard, who was clearly a welter a level above Pea. And before you (once again) claim the same tired nonsense that Leonard fought Duran's fight in their 1st, watch Leonard fight Hearns and Benitez and watch him ko them by fighting flatfooted.

 

You know whats really hilarious about this post? Moore stopped Benitez a year after Duran stopped Moore, another fact you always ignore. Who is being ridiculous?

 

Was there some injury to Benitez, and was it a year later or two and a half years later after Benitez lost to Hearns and then moved up one weight too much to fight Hamsho.. He was great at 154 his first time around, went up and Hamsho diminished him. For Hearns and Duran in 1982 he was good. So who is ridiculous now. When Benitez was champ he beat Duran easily over 15 rounds.

 

What have I written that isn't correct? What have I written down that isn't a fact. Answer that as well. You still haven't answered the other ones I posed to you. You're the one being ridiculous. No doubt. I do have my facts straight. You need to get yours straight. You wrote that Hamsho diminished Benitez, but have always implied Duran lost to Tommy because Tommy was elite, but deny that Duran was diminished even though he had already lost to Laing lol. Your anti Duran bias is glaring and you are still avoiding the question I posed to you. So you're claiming that Benitez was past his best when he fought Moore, but Duran WASNT past his best when he fought Hearns? Is that your claim?

 

the fights which matter are the elite vs. elite fights.. We can mention Kirkland Laing, yet that was not for a title. Duran still beat Minchillo in 1981 who gave Hearns and McCallum tough fights. Duran needed a guy in front of him to do well, and when he had an elite who was faster with skill he did not win. If Davey Moore could beat Benitez in the summer of 1984 is still something Duran could not do when Benitez was champ in Jan. of 1982. AntiDuran would be if I am not making facts, but he really did not beat elite fighters. He lost to Leonard,Benitez,Hagler and Hearns in that order as far as elites. And saying Moore beat Benitez two and a half years after Benitez beat Duran when they fought for Wilfredo's title does not give Duran a win over more elites. Benitez beat Duran when it mattered. Duran fought at 154 as early as 1978 before Leonard,Benitez or Hearns fought at 154, which eliminates the excuse Duran was the smaller fighter. He fought many tuneups because of weight issues, which is why he had so many fights when he fought Ray. So the thing about Duran is. Say he was diminished so he has an excuse to losing to Leonard, Benitez and Hearns at 147 and 154, but say he is great because he beat Moore for the title at 154 and Barkley at 160 in 1989 5 years after Hearns? If he is so diminished he cannot beat an elite (yet up to that point before 147 he never beat an elite at 135), when he moved up he was suddenly diminished for an excuse to the point he cannot beat elites. That is the ridiculous excuse for Duran. But then the Duran fans say but since he was diminished, he was so great to beat Moore and Barkley for titles. If he was near the best ever, he should have been able to beat more elites than he did regardless of any age or weight, yet I already stated he was at 154 as early as 1978. That is a fact.

 

You wrote the fights that matter are the elite v elite fights. Really? So discussing elites v anyone else doesnt matter? No wonder Tommy's losing twice to Barkley isn't discussed by you as much as Duran's losing to Leonard, Benitez etc. SO WHAT Duran fought at 154 a few years before? That does not make that his natural weight. Here is the 4th question that you will refuse to answer. Are you aware that Duran had practically identical physical proportions as Chavez Sr, i.e. height, weight, reach etc? Here's the 5th question for you: are you denying that Benitez, Hearns and Leonard were all naturally bigger than Duran even though they all were taller than Duran, had longer reaches, larger physical dimensions and started their careers at heavier weights? As far as beating elites is concerned, Duran beat an elite in Leonard at 147. And before you claim that Leonard fought Duran's fight, Leonard utilized that flat footed style in stopping both Benitez and Hearns. Had Leonard continued to box from the outside against Tommy, he would have lost a decision. Also I never claimed Duran's beating of Moore constituted an elite win. Get your facts straight. I wrote that Moore stopped Benitez a year after Duran stopped Moore. Duran was clearly elite at 147. He beat Leonard and Palomino there. But anything above 154, he was completely hit or miss. Quite frankly at 154, Duran had problems with guys like Laing, Batten and Nino Gonzalez. It's clear he was past his best at that weight. Are you denying that as well? You still haven't answered the initial question. Laing beat Duran at 154. If Duran is suited to that weight, does that make Laing better p4p than Duran? As far as the Moore and Barkley title winning fights are concerned, people are shocked that he won those titles because he looked so average against the Battens, Laings and Gonzalezes of the world and looked close to being done. And quite frankly, Moore and Barkley were obviously much bigger than Duran. And nobody says Duran is the greatest fighter ever. I don't remember seeing that on these boards. What some, obviously not all, write is he's the greatest LIVING fighter. Big difference. I'm going to bed. Try answering some of the questions I posed to you.

 

Btw are you writing that age and weight aren't big factors because you wrote that he should have been able to to beat more elites than he did regardless of any age or weight? You denying age and weight are factors in this sport? Ffs, man, are you joking?

 

Beating elites is what makes you great. That is why we are so interested in GGG vs. Canelo on Saturday. You are beating the unbeatable guy which makes you great, not beating mediocres guys at 135. Well Tommy lost to Barkley when he was about to knock him out and get a TKO in round 4. It was not that important really, except Tommy getting sloppy. Duran was comfortable at the weight at 154, so that was not the issues. he fought as high as 168 and as late as 2001.. I don't think Hearns,Benitez of Leonard were that much bigger than Duran. The issues was speed and not size. They were from smaller weights also and Tommy fought in Duran's weights for the whole decade of the 1980s. As a matter of fact on the night Tommy defended his 154 pound title as the headliner against Mark Medal in 1986, Duran fought Robbie Sims at 160 on the undercard. So much for Duran being so much smaller, he fought at all the same weights in the same years. No Duran beating Moore or Barkley was not elite. So what makes him the best ever or near it? Duran is elite according to you guys when he does not lose to the elites, but when he loses he is not elite anymore and diminished. Yet he wins and there is the great Duran again. I do not think that is logical thinking. If he was diminished as early as Jan of 1982 when he was only 30 against Benitez, then why give him credit for anything he does after that unless you say he lost legit. to Hearns, Benitez and Leonard. Arum wanted him to fight Marvin in 1983 after they did a commercial together and he noticed how Duran was not much smaller. I was not shocked. I picked Duran to beat Barkley. Barkley was an ESPN fighter who had a great wins over a legend and he sure went far with those wins, but he was not great and Duran beating him was not great. Benn still knocked him down 3 times in one round and won. He is not the greatest living fighter since Ray is greater than him by beating real elites.. That is simple. Not much argument there. I answered all your questions.. Longer reaches don't mean much as weaknesses. Tyson had a shorter reach than most I think 71 inches, and beat many guys. Duran had 67 inches, which is only 3 less than GGG.. Ray fought Duran from the get go flat footed. Put the June fight 1980 against the Nov. fight and see the difference in Ray.. Duran is fighting the same. Ray fought Benitez that way since that was not Benitez fight, and Hearns? Ray sure didn't fight that way early in the fight, he did later when Hearns was moving. Yet that didn't work well with Hearns in 1989 when Tommy was much more experience than Ray. Duran was always past his best when he lost, and great when he won regardless of weight, and that part of it is rather ridiculous.

 

Well if he does not have wins over elites when he was at 135, and you say he was diminished 147 or above or 154 or above. When does he have the wins over elites?? He has to get them sometime, and according to your time table it would have to be when he was diminished. Yet when he was beaten by the elites he was older, so the excuse is there.

 

You are lying in this post. I didn't say he was diminished at 147. I said he was at 154, and the proof is that he lost to Laing and had trouble with guys like Batten and Gonzalez. At 147, he had a victory over an elite named Ray Leonard. Besides beating Duran, who was clearly diminished at 154, what elites did Benitez ever beat? Why are you lying when you wrote I said he was diminished at 147? Why are you lying?

 

Canelo is an elite? At middleweight? He barely beat Lara at 154 and past it Cotto at Caneloweight. Well, I guess he is elite if there is nobody else for him to fight at 160. I find it rather interesting that you refer to Canelo as an elite, especially as a middleweight. Btw, Tommy also lost a decision to Iran at 175. I'm still waiting for your excuse about that one. And of course Duran was "comfortable" at 154. He was fleshy at that weight and fat at 160 and above. Look at his body when he fought at those weights. When he loses to a guy like Laing, that proves he wasn't suited there. And in 86, Duran lost to Sims at 160. Is Sims a better p4p fighter than Duran, because he beat him as well? I don't know why you brought the Sims fight up because that only further proves my point. Benitez was 30 when he lost to Moore and you mention that Duran was only 30 when he lost to Benitez. That even proves my point more. No you haven't answered all my questions as you keep avoiding them and writing more nonsense. I wrote Duran was hit or miss above 147. You are Mag 1965, aren't you?