Pryor-Duran?

100% serious

 

Source?

 

Channeling bladerunner.

 

Duran beats the cheater!

Aaron Pryor is a cheat, and he should'nt be brought up in mythical matchup threads against true greats like Duran!

 

No he doesnt. But what does annoy me is how people make out duran to have great defence, when in that fight he just stood straight up in the air as if he hadnt thought AT ALL about defensive technique

 

Do you always suck durans dick so much?

 

What dya mean? Deliberately sabotaging as oft-repeated a thread as I can think of. BladeRunner and I do have a good old ***** sometimestogether, we've never argued.

 

For once I have to say Duranimal has made a very valid case.

Do you always hate on Duran/suck Chavez off???

 

duran wins late stoppage .i dont think the hawk could take durans shot's for fifteen rounds and i think pryor would choose to box after around ten rounds of a war.duran would find pryor's style to his liking .

 

Duran was one of the greatest boxers in ring history. I recognize that the savage way he often fought overshadows the extraordinary skill he displayed, but it does not negate it. A natural lightweight getting inside on Hagler. A lightweight outboxing a big strong middleweight like Iran Barkley. Watch the clinic Duran puts on against Palomino, an excellent boxer. DeJesus was a fine boxer, as well.

Duran was a master.

 

Duran was not a master boxer. I'd save that for the likes of Hearns and Holmes. And he never got inside on Hagler. It was the other way around, Hagler got inside on Duran. And Duran never out-boxed Barkley. Sometimes he boxed, sometimes he fought, but he never out-boxed him. And he outfought Palamino.

The boxing ability Duran had enchanced him to be more complete. However, he wasn't a master boxer.

If your generalising things, you could also say that Tyson and Trinidad were also master boxers. Any fighter who's great could be termed a master boxer. Because thats what everyone is who steps into the ring, a boxer.

 

Robbi: Gotto disagree with yer here, it's the definition of whats a "Master" boxer here that needs straightning, what do you define as a Master boxer & what disquifies you? I see where your'e coming from i think, you recken the MASTER tag as in boxing purist, jab, stick & move & don't brawl ect, OK maybe:yep but in real terms & legacy you don't hold a title for 7 years & win 3 more without earning the title MASTER BOXER as you've got too be one 2 achieve all ov the above, it's just 2 sides of the one coin:smoke

Oh, by the way, Duran never had any intention of fighting Hagler on the inside, he was 2 small, his plan was mostly too counter Haglers right hand, now Duran's performence was indeed a Masterfull performence even in defeat he ran the Harvelous one close did'nt he:hey although i thought the judges were a little 2 generous 2 Duran:smoke

 

Correct.

 

You have a very odd definition of what master boxer is. Holmes and Hearns were excellent straight up one-two boxers. But that's not what a master boxer is. A master boxer can do everything. Robinson was a master. Pep was a master. Whitaker was a master. Duran was a master.

 

Duran did get inside on Hagler. He didn't stay inside. There's a difference. His strategy was to do lots of different things in there. Halger imposed his will on Duran, like Hagler did on a lot of fighters. And Hagler boxed beautifully that night. But Hagler couldn't destroy Duran because Duran was too slick. Duran could have moments against the best middleweight ever because Duran was a master. The way he rolls with punches, slips, etc. Great victory for Hagler. Duran was on a streak. Great fight. Very misunderstood fight. But a great fight nonetheless.