What were your thoughts going into Duran-Moore

It was more the general consensus of people who say Duran was his best at 135 and somehow was no good when he moved up, which is why he lost. Yes Ray is the only elite he beat at 147 or really in his career, if you consider Cuevas was 3 years from his title loss to Hearns.

 

Canelo is an elite fighter regardless of weight. All elites struggle in fights, but an elite is judged by the whole body of work. Canelo beat Mosley, Cotto, and fought Mayweather, since fighting them seems to count for something. Tommy losing to Iran Barkley? He lost to a guy who had a good style for him , which is backed up by Barkley's win record against other elites and good fighters. Which is not good. I do not hold Duran's losses against Laing or Sims against him, I just think he struggled a bit like Tommy did with Barkley. But Tommy also beat Cuevas,Benitez,Duran and Hill. Tommy was not too muscled even when he fought Olajide at 168 if you compare him to Leonard at 162 in 1989, a year before so what does flabby have to do with it. Duran looked great against Barkley in 1989 and was relatively toned and hurt Barkley in round one. So he was not this little guy if he could hurt Iran.. All fighters move up and Spinks beat Holmes, Hearns beat Hill. Benitez fell apart after Hamsho who knows why the style. Hamsho was awkward and Benitez fought his best at 154. why he moved up to 160 I do not know. Wanted Hagler.. That took a lot of his confidence and it was all downhill until Matthew Hilton sort of put an end to him as even a contender. I brought up Sims to point out that he was fighting above Hearns on the same card in 1986, meaning he was not this little guy moving up and fighting all the big guys. He fought many guys Hearns fought. Cuevas,Leonard, Benitez. Hagler, Minchillo, Barkley. And somehow he is this little guy who couldn't handle the higher weights and and he and Hearns fought the same guys in different division and each other when both were champs at 154.. . Canelo now is considered elite by most people in that he fights and wins titles by different styles and ways. Brawls with Kirkland, boxes with Chavez and picks him apart, and edges Cotto.

 

Mag, if you are denying that Barkley is a much bigger man than Duran, and I do mean MUCH BIGGER, then God bless you. You keep denying that Duran is CLEARLY SMALLER than the rest of the fab 4, God bless you. You cant take Duran's **** poor performances against the likes of Laing, Batten, Gonzalez as considerations that obviously Duran was past his best at 154, then God bless you. You infer Duran was close to peak at 30, but claim Benitez was diminished at 30(the Benitez part I agree with, but at least give the same consideration to Duran) then God bless you. Youre in denial. Its gets no simpler than that. Canelo beat Mosely when Shane was in his 40s, beat best weight 140-147 pound Cotto ( a fighter he was clearly bigger than) at 155 caneloweight and lost to Mayweather, and you give out about Duran's resume?. Kirkland and Chavez are useless. Dont even know why you brought those up. They dont help your case at all. Youre beating yourself up.

 

Mag, I completely agree Duran was at his best at 135. But I also wrote Duran was elite at 147 because he beat Leonard and Palomino at that weight. I also wrote he was past it at 154 because he was over 30, had well over 70 fights and looked crappy against Laing, Batten and Gonzalez. My judgement was made through what actually happened. I dont know what consensus youre referring to because its obviously different than what I wrote. Another thing, stop writing Duran's comp below 147 was mediocre. Buchanan, Marcel and DeJesus may not be elites (although some consider Marcel elite at 126-130 where Duran fought him) but they were great fighters when Duran fought them. At least you came clean when you finally admitted that Duran beat an elite at 147 in Leonard after denying that he beat an elite at 147 on other contris.

 

you refer to me as MAG regardless if I am or not, well that is your prerogative. I would have responded yesterday but I have some sort of flu.. I want it to get better by fight night. Barkley was bigger so what, he was open and made for Duran. I knew when it was signed that Duran would win. Duran was not that small a guy at 160... Who is denying, I think the smaller part is an excuse. He fought at 154 as early as 1978. I don't think Duran lost at 154 or higher because of being old, I think he fought better guys and it was tougher for him. He had a wide stance which hurt him if guys were faster than him. Canelo is still elite and his resume shows that and his defenses, same as GGG. this is an elite fight..Kirkland and Chavez are styles and Canelo beat them. I am not totally convinced GGG and Canelo are fab 4 level guys, but they are good fighters. They don't have the versatility of some of the greats o the past, but we will see who backs up and can box to win the fight. Someone is going to have to backup or be knocked out.

 

Duran was at his best at 135, but his competition was not his best at 135. Sure, you say Duran was elite at 147 because he beat Ray in June, but somehow you and other Duran fans will say he somehow diminished in November and later against Benitez. Which diminishes Benitez, who was great at 154.. Too bad Benitez had to fight Hearns in 1982,, he might have kept that title awhile. Those guys were not great at 135.. no one Duran fought at 135 was great no insult on Marcel or Buchanan or Esteban..They were good, but he was a very good fighter, although a bit of a front runner. He beat an elite name like I said Canelo beat Shane an elite name. I just do not believe Ray was his top self in June. He was influenced by the press conference. Which taught him to always fight him fight. Duran taught him his best lesson.

 

If you want to take away from Marcel, DeJesus and Buchanan, feel free. We are all entitled to our opinions. But Canelo beat Shane when Shane was shot and his his 40s. Are you denying that?

 

Mag, you contradicted yourself with Canelo. Duran's resume is obviously better. I cant believe that you are even bringing up Kirkland's name up because he had been kod before including once by a lightpunching Japanese lad. However, so what Duran fought at 154 in 78. That is irrelevant here because he was easily able to get back down to 147 after that and look great in beating a terrific Palomino and an atg Leonard. However, he looked great in beating Leonard at 147, permanently moved up to 154 and looked like crap againat clearly inferior opposition in Batten, Gonzalez and Laing. The Duran that beat Leonard would have crushed those fellows. All we can say here is A. Duran was passed his best because he looked far worse against inferior opposition to Leonard. B. He was fighting above his best weight. C. A combination of the 2. There is simply no other logical explanation.

 

Milton and Marlon weren't that much better than Davey, and I feared for them had they had to fight him if they moved up. Davey was a warrior, and if certain things hadn't happened, he would've beaten Duran. And Donald too.

 

What sort of things are you thinking? I'm thinking maybe if Duran broke his leg walking to the ring or similar.

 

Palomino, Buchanan,marcel, dejeus thompson
Not elite fighters ?

 

Davey would have beaten duran but a certain something ? Wtf? If Moore came in the ring with a bat he was gonna get his ass kicked.stop trying to rewrite boxing history

 

After no mas i would call duran kicking moores ass great an elite win.

 

And hearns didnt shrug off barkely punches thats for sure

 

I am not going to give them credit they don't deserve just to make Duran great, as I won't make Moore and 11 fight experience, and Barkley who lost to everyone except Hearns more than they were to make Duran great. It is about rating guys fairly.