Also, lets take the career of Foreman. A great fighter who had defensive liabilities. If Foreman did not have power he would have been a mediocre fighter, although he had a great jab. In his second career he did win the title against Moorer. But Moorer was a second rate champ with a weak chin. That is what Foreman wanted, a guy who was smaller and from a lower weight class who couldn't take his punch if he could land it clean-but Foreman did win the title. Still Foreman lost to Evander and Tommy Morrison before this. Did the second career help Foreman much? I am not sure. He did well, but he lost 2/3 title fights. If you give a man a title shot enough times, he will win the title eventually-especially with George's power. I don't know if Foreman was a good example of winning and losing and legacy, but somehow it applied. Fighting and losing does not really help a legacy, although beating Moorer I admit seems to have notched Foreman up some in the heavyweight ranking. Duran had a little of this. He fought guys like Moore and Barkley who were not great and if Duran could fight on the inside and was able to do what he does best, he would win. And he looked good. But still, he never beat Hearns and Benitez and Hagler level for those titles. And he got the chance at those same weights.
The bigger guys who Duran beat in Davey Moore and Iran Barkley were not 5-20, they were both defending world champions. Whichever way you look at it, a former Lightweight moving up and handling those guys like that is impressive, doesn't matter at what age, and for that reason they were legacy enhancing fights for Duran. You have Duran around 25, that's your choice, but I stick to my guns and have Duran much higher for the reasons already touched upon. It was his punching power that won the Moore fight, but re-watch the masterclass that was the Barkley performance. Old Duran, beefed up, was slipping and maneuvering himself out of a 100 jabs and right hands, and coming back with swift counters, that were indeed hurting the much bigger Barkley. It's one of the finest displays of Boxing I've ever seen. Forget how each fighter looked in the ring, the fact was that Hagler had been fighting and beating up Middleweights for years, whereas Duran was completely new to that weight class. Hagler hit harder than any previous opponent, he had a longer reach than any previous opponent, and sure, Duran didn't look to small, but it was still a great achievement in going the full 15 with a guy like Hagler at the peak of his powers. Most guys move up, but not everyone can claim to have fought Ray Leonard, Wilfred Benitez, Ken Bunchanan, Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns, and Iran Barkley. Duran fought of the best fighters of all time, and although he came up short against some of them, nobody will ever be able to take his win over prime Ray Leonard at 147lbs away from him. He fought and beat De Jesus x2, Ken Bunchanan, Ray Leonard, Carlos Palamino, Davey Moore, and Iran Barkley. It's not particuarly the names although the Bunchanan and Leonard wins are fantastic, but the fact that he got those wins all at different weight classes. And like I said, Duran also scores highly in terms of skill set, longevity, and winning world titles in 4 separate divisions. You have to look at more than just the resume. How is that the same thing? Duran was supposed to have been done by the time he lost to Wilfred Benitez, he said it would be his last fight. He'd go on to win a world title in 1989 off the much bigger Iran Barkley, and this was a guy that was fighting in the late 60s. That level of longevity is unheard of these days. Hearns also had great longevity, but he's missing the win over prime Ray Leonard and Iran Barkley off his resume, and I also feel Duran was a more complete package.
Well, Freddie would know best Watch from 2.49 min [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OhC69fcsAE[/ame]
Look at it this way. Ricardo Lopez was equally dominant at the lower weight divisions just as Duran had been at Lightweight. Of course, Lopez didn't fight as many number one contenders and didn't fight half as many fights as Duran did, but the comparison remains the same. Lopez, by many accounts, is a top 60-70 level fighter based purely on that domination, and he didn't fight anyone of the calibre of a De Jesus or Buchanan. We can safely assume Duran's dominance and superior resume shifts him near the top 45 or 50 by that critetia. He's already earned the right to be special because of his consistancy at world level. Everything else that proceeds that is a legacy fight and will enhance his legacy, because the man was originally and exclusively for a large portion of his career, a Lightweight. The fact he moved up to Welterweight and took the fight to a prime, undefeated, All-time great like Ray Leonard and come out on top is huge. Leonard had just out-boxed and stopped undefeated Wilfred Benitez for the title, and damn near killed decent contender Davey Boy Green. This Lightweight comes up, starts looking spectacular in doing so, and then beats one of the best fighters on the planet. Huge legacy fight, it enhances his position greatly. If you had him top 40, he'd now be about top 30. These are just for examples, I'm not being literal. His performance against Palamino also enhances his standing. He took his defeats against Leonard, and everyone thought he was finished by the time of the Benitez defeat. Does this diminish what he had previously achieved? Of course not, all great fighters tend to lose more as they get older. What's so remarkable about Duran however is that he kept coming back from defeat to win more world titles at higher weight divisions. Moore wasn't a great fighter, but he was undefeated and a defending world champion. He'd go on to destroy Benitez, yet Duran absolutely manhandled him. The manner in which the victory came, notching yet another world title, against class opposition (at the time), further enhances his standing. If you had him top 30, he's now top 20. Like I said, just examples. The man is 38 years of age, he's up at 160lbs fighting a fresher defending world champion who had just beaten Thomas Hearns, and he outboxes him, and outpunches him. Hurts him, knocks him down, and very nearly out. Remarkable performance for a veteran, and he yet again he beat a fighter that had beaten one of his old adversaries. Benitez beats Duran, Moore beats Benitez, Duran beats Moore. Hearns beats Duran, Barkley beats Hearns, Duran beats Barkley. Benitez beats Duran, Leonard beats Benitez, Duran beats Leonard. That coupled with longevity, skill set, and the numerous world titles at different weight classes, and I can see why some would rank the guy in the top 10, top 5 of all time.
Well ****ing said.Under the circumstances-age,moving up how many pounds and times in weight,number of fights-and Duran's victory over Barkley is far,far more impressive than Leonard's victory over Donny LaLonde-a mediocre lightheavy champ that even moved DOWN to the newly established supermiddleweight division just to give a chance for Leonard to get an extra belt.Think about it.LaLonde was one of the lightheavyweight champs but defended his LIGHTHEAVY crown at 168.
Addie you make some excellent contributions to this thread!! ...though I'm not really sure why it's been brought back.
Duran is 1-5 against the legends of the 1980's . Who beat a legend and then beats that guy is not that significant. Does anyone care who beat Berbick or Leon Spinks? Those guys beat Ali. Duran has one win against a legit Hall of fame fighter, and even there he didn't stop him and was beaten in the next two fights easily.
Ken Buchanan, Esteban de Jesus, Davey Moore, Barkley and SRL. Those are the significant wins of Duran I can recall top of my head. PACs resume is seriously far more stacked and was dominant in more divisions. Duran was King at LW. But Pac would be one of the best at 122, 126, 130, 135, 140 - ever. That’s h2h, resume wise, he’s also strong at BW, FW and WW. The only argument for Duran is SRL, which is a very strong one.
