What's the greatest win in Boxing history?

Virgil Hill. LOL
That's all.

 

I have a hard time rating him. I just don't know. I think he is overrated for sures by most people if he is in the top 10 ATG list. I see his domination against guys he should have beaten and was better than, but I also think his career has fights with some of the greatest fighters yet losses. And his win over Ray is overrated by his fans to give him a higher ranking. That has to be a big thing, because it is the biggest win he had against a legend. And I symbolize someone who does not really accept that as a really great win, which then means I lower his legacy to them. This is not about a personality contest. Ray is the greatest of the fab 4. The rest is a matter of opinion. I cannot rate Hagler at the top he lost to Ray and he never went out of his comfort zone. Hearns lost to two of them and Duran lost to all of them but beat one when I think Ray was still not elite. So I am not sure what that means.

 

That is very dismissive of a pretty good career. I suppose now with some people it is seen like that but back in 1991 Hill was calling out Hearns every chance he got.. And people were thinking of him as a possible elite fighter. The fact that he was basically a one handed fighter with great leg movement, shows how good HIll was with that hand. You cannot discount his career. Hall of fame for sure. It would have been better had he fought his better fights earlier in his career. The fact he lost to a 32 year old Hearns hurt his legacy. But he fought Leslie Steward, Bobby Czyz, Thomas Hearns, Frank Tate, Roy Jones Jr, Donny Lalonde, Maske, Mormeck, Tiozzo, Michalzewski, But take this into consideration. Hill had more individual title fights than Hearns,Hagler and Leonard and Duran had individually. I think Hill had near 30 title fights, now I could be wrong. Hagler had 15 title fights, Leonard had 13 title fights. Duran had 22 title fights and Hearns had 19 title fights. Most guys would love that LOL type of career.

 

LOL! I don't even like Duran and was extremely critical of him when i first came to the forum. I was that dumbo who didn't have his head around his lightweight career and the obstacles he faced in moving up to face bigger younger ATG's. Thankfully i learned and found balance, unlike some.

You don't buy the massage excuse but you sure bring it up all the time

Size and long term weight class aren't an excuse, they are factual. This is why despite a few losses to bigger ATG's Duran still makes an enormous amount of top 10 lists. This is why guys like Hearns, SRR and 10 000 others get so much P4P traction for their weight scaling achievements.

You continually bring up the steak and water excuses yet i have not mentioned them. Stop trying to put not only supposed Duran excuses into my mouth, but supposed responses when the convo doesn't exist.

I give some leeway to many fighters. Hearns was not the finished article when he fought Leonard whilst Leonard was utter peak etc

You seldom if ever bring up good points about Duran in all your ramblings. You wouldn't know a Duran fact if it hit you on top of the head - this has been shown endlessly. You couldn't even get your facts right when claiming/lying that Benitez fought at 154 prior to Duran.

Ray was not yet an elite but had beat one in Benitez, please lmao. I have posted many times Leonard was not absolute peak but lets not be pitiful and claim he wasn't "elite". For gods sake.

I have no idea whether Ray could have implemented another strategy and even assuming he could Duran still put a psychological clinic on him that left no chance he was going to box anyway!! Credit where it is due! Sometimes important blows can be landed pre-fight.

I have no idea whether Ray would have won (assuming again that he could have boxed) if he chose to box and nor do you. Who knows 100% beyond doubt he could have, who knows even if he could whether it makes a difference. Blind assumptions forever.

Probably partly a combination of their greatness and the differences in Duran multiple divisions up. Buchanan and De Jesus were damn good fighters but a hater would never admit that. Duran was a different beast late at 135 tho he was still sensational at 147.

Who is perfect when they move up multiple divisions after spending more than half a decade in a lower one against multiple top shelf ATG's in their finest divisions near their peaks? How do you think Hearns would have went against guys like Michael Spinks? Actually don't answer that LOL

I don't believe i said it's the best ever win but it sure is up there. Multiple posters that tower way above your good self have mentioned it. It's all about balance, something you have no idea about whatsoever in your obsessive quest to disparage Duran.

Man you are one confusing soul. He was a kid as an amateur and this has zero bearing comparative Duran moving up in his late 20's. ZERO, If you knew Hearns you'd know he didn't just gain power suddenly from reaching a certain weight.

You place immense importance on Duran having a one off fight over 147 against a nobody yet ignore Hearns three fights in a row post Leonard of which two were technically at light heavyweight given his opponents weights. Hearns was a middle for two of them. He actually moved to 154 because he couldn't secure a SRL rematch. He said he could still make welter for a rematch at the time. So they chased championships well before you ever realized.

Yes it would probably have some sort of effect going up and down. Some Duran fans use his bloating between fights as an excuse. That's between them, Duran and you.

The good old chestnut Duran looked as big as Hagler hahaha. Luckily we have your beloved facts to revert to. We know Duran spend an eternity making 135. We know Duran jumped up from 154 where he fought previously. We know Hagler had a 2 /12' height advantage and a massive 9' reach advantage. Duran also came in at 156 1/2'.

 

It must be sheer torment trying to play down Barkley because Duran beat him but also remembering that he ko'd Tommy the very fight before. Talk about a juggling act.

I never said he was not big enough. One has to factor in where he came from as well. Dick Tiger was short but he was a genuine middleweight. Qawi was short but a genuine Light Heavyweight. Both were built like tanks. Duran was a genuine lightweight. Informed posters would know the difference. It's like Tyson and Wilder. Both were always genuine heavyweights.

I think most would agree Duran was a bit down on what he was for the first fight and Leonard primed. It's Duran's job to be in top shape and there are a few conflicting reports so i don't get too overexcited about it. Duran quit and Leonard won. Leonard was the better man that night whilst Duran was the better man prior. The conflicting reports make it hard to prop up an excuse unlike say Lewis - Rahman where it was factual Lewis didn't acclimatize properly and was doing other stuff. Joe Louis losing to Schmeling also had plenty of factual anecdote evidence etc

 

Are you telling me Hill is an ATG? Why am i not surprised.

Imaginary conversations again? Who said Ray was great because he won a gold medal? Is Tyrell Biggs even comparable to SRL? Was Tyrell Biggs considered the best fighter in the world in his division? Was he even considered top 5? Had Tyrell Biggs beaten an ATG prior to fighting Tyson? Was Tyrell Biggs the lineal champion? A champion of any sort? Do you see how stupid that was?

Hopkins had beaten nobody when Jones beat him. Leonard had not only beaten Benitez but a host of solid contenders. Jesus Christ man. Balanced posters hold Hopkins up as a good win but certainly not an earth shattering one.

He was probably a bit lesser than he was in the first fight. I don't have any problem when, say, Kevin brings up strong articles and quotes that imply he was not as bad as made out. He may have had a bit less fire. Leonard may have thwarted that? Who knows. I give Leonard basically full credit. Others don't.

You said Duran claimed not to have trained in all his losses to the elites. I remember zero claims he said he didn't train hard (or the like) for Benitez and Hagler. Fess up.

 

Sure i did hahaha

You can have center stage now as I've derailed JC's thread enough. Balance is totally wasted on you anyway. You are obsessed with casting shade on Duran and have been for a decade.

 

Holy crap this is bad... JT laid it all out clearly and it still flew over ur head. Duran was still fighting when Roy and Hopkins were... guess what... he fought at 160 before them. You say different eras as if that takes away how ridiculous it is for you to say. What's worse and even makes it comical, you don't even get that then Duran starting in 68, is from a "different era". Maybe that explains why it was more difficult to move up and fight naturally bigger men in their prime. Maybe. Anyways, JT has already owned enough, I need say no more.

 

Well i'm glad someone got it lol. I was hoping it came across quite simple and clear. I'm trying to be balanced with the whole show. There's a little bit of wriggle room on the how bad was Duran for the second fight compared to the first, why exactly did he quit, did SRL fight Duran's fight in the first or would he not have had a choice etc. Some feel incredibly strongly about it all one way or another.

There are some things tho that are simple fact and logic.

 

ray is clearly NOT the greatest of the 4. how do I know? new footage of the Hagler fight shows him outscored in 10/12 rounds

therefore, it is Hagler at the top

Next, you can say it is matter of opinion

even tho Duran never had the talents of Hearns or Leonard, he did go 72-1 while outpointing leonard

the way I see it, a truly great fighter must consistently turn back the competition the way Hagler did, the way Duran did

Hearns & Leonard not nearly as successful in defenses

Leonard may have been involved in 13 title fights but lost 5 of them (Duran, Hagler, Norris, Camacho, Hearns 2)

 

I have to spend an hour or so responding to all these comments. 10 rounds 12? . Hagler is not on top he was the guy who stayed at middleweight and didn't compromise his weight. You know what I think about this. Duran did not fight a Leonard who knew the whole game. Hearns was always looking for new challenges and had them. I am not sure the same rules apply. I am not sure how to respond to this. The Hagler winning 10 rounds to 12 is too outrageous.

 

I don't buy the massage excuse because I don't accept excuses too much-even with my favorite fighter, within reason. I do say when people mention Hearns looking bad with Kinchen, that he was moving up and down a lot at the time and I think that was part of it since I do believe that had Hearns been at middleweight or supermiddleweight more consistently he would have done better with Kinchen. This is not reaching or some imaginary excuses you guys come up with, Hearns really did move up and down from 1986 March to Nov. of 1988 in rather extreme fashion. That is why I mention the massage, and Hearns looking bad with Kinchen.

If you are looking for facts Duran was having tuneup fights and moving up to welterweight for years an had many fights at welterweight before fight Leonard. He was very natural at welterweight after years struggling to make weight at lightweight. He was a guy who could handle weight. At one point people complain that he gained too much weight and had to lose, and at another point he was this small guy who could not handle the weights. There is a lot of hypocrisy and unfairness when it comes to Duran. And I think his fans know that what I say has truth to it, or they would just ignore it.

I have said for years, if you ignore his moving up which it seems you are saying we should have excuse losing to Ray and Marvin and Tommy and Wilfred. You insinuate that he makes other people's top 10, so you are endorsing the fact I would think that he is top 10 all time great. Saying this, does his lightweight reign provide us with a top 10 resume? How many of the guys he fought are in the top 10 atg list either all time or even at lightweight? Buchanan? Dejesus? There are a lot of great fighters at lightweight over the years.

Size and long term weight class means a lot if you are going to be given a top 10 ranking as an ATG. Certainly. That has always been my point. Has he done enough for all these rankings? And people say I am this hater, but Duran gets credit for things far from what they are. The Barkley win? Eliminate Hearns from Barkley's career and what do you have? One title and losses to most top guys. I think we went away from the meaning of the thread which was about greatest win ever, and I think I provided enough evidence (rather old and redundant on my part) to demonstrate it was not the greatest win ever. A lot of things about Duran are a little overrated. Not a lot but overrated.

I have complimented Duran in the past, even recently. You looked up my comment on Taylor vs. Pryor from the past, look up my comments on Duran. And I gave him compliment which I think is accurate. I said basically that he was of the greatest instinctive/natural inside fighters ever. That is an insult?
But I explained, if a guy could stay on the outside and dictate with speed they could avoid that. His foot positioning was a little wide which prevented him from cutting of the ring as effectively as say Chavez, yet on the inside he was better than Chavez.

I think it pitiful to explain to me what I think is the truth. If you think Ray was elite yet in 1980 then that is your claim. I never rushed to think a guy was elite or great too early. People are doing that with Spence and Crawford, and that is not the case. They look good now but there is still more to be proven before we can say two elite guys are going to fight a superfight. Maybe my definition of elite is different from you guys. Elite to me is at the top of their game mentally and physically so when they fight the best will fight the best of both. This is not about winning arguments because Duran needs it.

I will never change my mind on the fact Ray was the better fighter head to head and he beat better and greater guys with different styles. Duran was a dominant guy who some might call a frontrunner. If he had the advantages he ran with it, but when things are not so clear cut he struggles and blames other things. I don't like excuses. I never did. You said give credit where it is due. Did Duran? When he said he did not train all those times did he give credit to the opponents who literally destroyed him, or did we hear excuses for why he lost when the Leonard fight and Benitez fight and Hearns fight show that he had trouble with elite speed. And the 154 comment was significant. He fought there since 1978 and the excuses are he was this little guy who was up against big guys. It is ridiculous and for some reason he gets the excuses.

And I think the people here on this site are being unfair to Mikey Garcia, when he really moved up against a bigger guy.

Hearns against Spinks? Probably would not have gone well for Hearns, but Hearns wanted it after Hagler. He said it, and said I wonder how Spinks will feel about my jab when he feels it. So he considered it. I would have been interested in seeing Hearns fight Spinks or Qawi or Marvin Johnson or Leslie Stewart, the later 1980s guys who cleaned up after Spinks. But Hearns did beat Virgil Hill the best of the late 1980s/earlyl 1990s guys.

I am aware of Hearns and getting his knockout punch as a professional and as a amatuer he was I think 155-8.. And Emanuel said he only had a few knockouts which Hearns said he had more. I don't know how many knockouts he had as an amateur. Which shows us the the top quality of the amateurs back in the 1970s. Emanuel was making a comment about Hearns and divisions. That was regarding his corner being on top of his weight in a way I was showing Duran's people obviously didn't, and either used it as an excuse or worse let him do what he wanted. But it should affect his legacy.

Hearns wanted to get back to the top of the title fight picture. He fought Singletary at middleweight in December and Geraldo in Feb. Then I think in July he fought Jeff McCracken ( who was undefeated) and then Wilfred in Dec. He wanted a title and I don't think that route demonstrates championship chasing. He could have gone after Davey Moore of the WBA but he chose a guy who I think was a bigger challenge. Although some will say Moore beat Benitez. Yet later on.. Fact is Benitez is a greater win than Davey Moore.

Singletary was less than 3 months after the Leonard fight. Whether he moved up because Ray would not fight him or not, Tommy was always going to move up and fight at the higher weights with his frame. Not to say he was always a natural at those higher weights. He took too many chances moving up and down and relying on his skills to win him fights even at a disadvantage. Yet, when he stayed at 154 in 1984 and had 3 title defenses he started to look really good and then he moves up and gets out of his rhythm.

He was scheduled to fight Hagler in May of 1982. He was in a rush to get back to the top, but realized Hagler was a bit too much and decided on Benitez. I still say that was good move.

Duran came in at 156. Hagler at times came in light for some of the fights. I remember in one fight he came in at 157. I forget which one. What was he for Ray 32 years ago tonight? 158?

And the fight with Duran came about as many of you know because of some commercial of some sort where Marvin and Duran were together and they were seen as close in size. As it turned out Duran held his own with Hagler. So if you want facts, I would say hanging in there with Hagler and manhandling Moore shows Duran could handled these weights. Then the Barkley fight in 1989.

 

The worst. He couldn't hold Joey Gamache jockstrap