why do people put duran ahead of pac on atg list???

All you have to do is watch the fight. If you can't appreciate what he did, they fine, just stop calling yourself a boxing fan and move onto another sport cause you obviously have no appreciation of boxing. It's that simple.

 

This is where your foolishness shows through. Most of Duran's plaudits come from his absolute dominance in a deep LW division. He'd have been a top 50 fighter if he'd have retired before fighting Leonard.

You seem to know all about Duran's 2nd career (his one above LW), and little about his LW career. Will you admit that's true??

 

No. Many of his fights at LW were tune-ups against no-hopers, which I don't hold against him as that was the practice of the time and I wish it still were, so the 70 number means next to nothing. His best wins were DeJesus, Viruet, Buchanan and Marcel. A quality line-up, but p4p nothing like MAB, EM, JMM. Duran was a high level champ, an ATG, but still EXTREMELY overrated.

 

atsch:-patsch:-(

 

On a side note, why do you keep quoting the Morales win like it means anything?? Morales was GONE!!!! That win means less than Duran's top 15 wins, even if he's a better fighter in historical context.

And Pac doesn't have one clear win over JMM (I have them 1-1).

 

I guess you just can't grasp the fact that Hearns, Hagler and SRL are all far bigger then MAB, JMM and EM and they were get virtually slaughtered if they were in the ring with any one of those first three.

How hard can it be to understand this?

Do you even know who the first three are, cause comparing them in terms of either Pac or Duran stepping in the ring with them is like night and day.

And Hagler is on almost everyone's top 5 middleweight list of all time, so I don't know what the hell you're trying to prove knocking him. Hell I became a boxing fan because of Hagler. Hagler would destroy EM, MAB or JMM in less than 2 rounds. It would make his fight against Hearns look like a long drawn out affair.

 

I factor in all those things and I have specified them- you have to have criteria otherwise anyone can put any great fighter where they want, and that is what has happened with Duran. I rate everything when I see who is ATG, but Duran fans want to simplify it to get him rated high. No matter what. If you rate him fairly he comes out much lower in the ATG ranking than his fans put him. The ATG top 10 does not figure out no matter how you spin it.

His fans do not want to use criteria to rate him since if they do he comes out less than what they want. It has to intuitive with Duran otherwise you cannot justify high ATG ranking. If a man has not beaten other great fighters convincinly he cannot be considered the top great ever. Skill set? that goes under the category who you beat. Virgil Hill was insulted a lot by people saying who he didn't beat anyone, yet he had 25 title defenses against guys just as good or better than Duran. Who? Stewart,Czyz, Tate,Maske-Former champions all.
Why is Duran rated so high in people's mind? He dominted a division and was powerful and people feel they have to rate him high since he spanned many years, but if you break it down something is missing from the ATG top 10 ranking. If he had a Pernell Whitaker or Floyd at that weight things would have been different.
I agree divisions spanned is ok, but then you have to rate Vinny Paz as rated high if you go by Duran inspired criteria, and Vinny was not great.Vinny did the same jump from title wins as Duran.

Yes I do penalize fighters for losses especially since he lost to everyone great in the 1980's. He fought everyone and lost mainly to the greats. That means when he stepped up to that level it was too much. You have an isolated fight like Laing, but that was it. He basically lost to Benitez,Hearns,Leonard and Hagler in the early half of the 1980's, he beat everyone else. That is significant. Their skill level was the reason apparently.

 

I don't know how you can even call yourself a boxing fan if you can't appreciate Duran's wins over Leonard and Barkley. The Barkley fight he stood in the pocket and countered him to death, and took some hillacious shots doing so. I mean come on man, that fight was a work of art. If you can't appreciate Duran's defense, his ability to take a middleweight punch and his countering ability, then I don't know what to say. No way in hell does pac last that fight, I'd bet my house on it and I'm a huge Pac fan. And this was Duran at 38 FFS.

 

That is the whole point, it was not a deep division. I remember watching it as a kid. Duran was the star of the lightweights like Jones was the star of light heavyweight when Jones was better than everyone. Duran just had the personality to shine, and it was exciting, but if you break down the wins and resume, Duran cannot be ATG ever or top 10.

Top 50 fighter if he retired before Leonard. So what did the Leonard win do for him? Certainly beating Ray by decision when Ray was in only his second title defense of his pro career does not jump Duran up to number 20? That is ridiculous reasoning. Ray was not elite at that time like he was when he fought Hearns and all of you know this. Then Duran was outclassed by Ray in the rematch, which Duran fans say doesn't matter. Well of coarse it would not matter if you want Duran to be rated high, but to be fair it does matter.
If beating Ray in 1980 gets Duran to number 40 ATG from 50 like you said after lightweight, what did he do after that to go to top 10 ATG? Beating Moore and Barkley? Then losing to Benitez,Hearns,Leonard and Hagler? If you look at it there is no way he can go down any greater than 20. The numbers are not there. I don't care what criteria you use. If you cannot beat great fighters yet fight until you are 50, that doesn't mean you are ATG ever. The fighting until 50 but losing to the better fighters along the way with better records doesn't do that much. Say he was 30 before all that, he would be 30 after. Hearns fought until he was 47 or 48. Does that help him in ATG ranking if he beat a guy named John Long in 2005? Not much. Means he continues and can still beat guys at that level. Tommy is great because he beat ATG's and made records.
Beating guys on USA network like Jacque LeBlanc in 1996 or 1997 does not reverse Duran not being able to beat Hearns and Benitez 13 years before.

 

Look, Leonard is generally thought of being a top 3 WW of all time, give or take a rating or two. Hagler is generally thought of in the top 5 all time great middleweights (Monzon, Greb, etc). Duran beat Leonard who was protecting his perfect record and he gave Hagler all he could handle. How does this not translate into greatness? On a p4p basis he's generally thought of a better than SRL, Hagler and Hearns. Now I don't believe in excusses when I fighter losses, but neither would I put a lot of stock in his loss against Hagler considering who the man was, with was an ATG middleweight.

 

I am a boxing fan, that is why I see the Leonard win in 1980 as overrated as Duran fighting a guy who fought his fight and he didn't stop him. It was a close fight, but Ray was relatively inexperienced. Then Duran loses the rematch and quits when Ray is going to stop him (in my mind). Usually a fight is easier for the conquerer the second time. And Barkley? Barkley was not a great fighter. Why overrate that win? Duran lost to Sims 3 years before that but no one is mentioning that as something against his resume. Selective reasoning.

If Duran was 38 that is fine, but Hopkins still fights and is 45 in January. And Hopkin's still beats top guys like Pavlik.

You saying how can I call myself a boxing fan because I do not think how you think is rather simplistic thinking and close minded. If we thought the same way about things, why have boxing message board? But as for your comment, that is like me saying I don't know how you can call yourself a boxing fan by not knowing how to rank ATG fighters. You don't think it is a bit of an insult on other ATG's to rank someone as ATG without the criteria. I love the sport of boxing, that is why I say what I do. I am not just a guy who thinks the way everyone does and does not look at facts. I saw Duran fight when he was young, and yet I do not see the wins against fellow greats which he needs to be ATG top 10. This is my point. He is not ATG top 10. ATG top 25. That is what domination at lightweight in his division does, and then winning 4 titles with a Leonard win in 1980, yet losing to all the other legends. That is good ranking. But Duran fans want number one. The numbers are not there. How can you spin facts?

 

Their not better than Hearns but I can see an argument for Hagler. I love Hagler but what are his biggest wins? A win over a chinny Hearns at MW and Duran at MW, who lets face it, was not an ATG at MW. He also lost twice and drew with Vito Autofermo in his prime.

You look at someone like Morales on the other hand, in his prime he only ever lost to a fellow ATG. He's beaten just as many top contenders as Hagler, however he also has a win over a prime MAB which IMO was a better win than a win over Hearns at MW. Hearns wasnt an ATG MW, MAB was an ATG BW. He also has a win over a physically prime Pacquiao, which is definitely a better win than Duran at MW.

Definitely an argument there.

 

Then the general consensus is wrong. I am not sure who is doing that ranking, but they shouldn't be. Duran fought 2 title fights at welterweight and he is 1-1. That is not top 3 WW of all time, and had Ray retired after the first Duran loss no one would even have ranked him top 10-15 WW ever. The Ray who was great is the Ray who got experience and came back and beat Duran and then beat Hearns. Ray's ranking would not be better than 15 just by beating Benitez, so how does Duran get number 3 by beating Ray when Ray was in his second title defense. All sort of ridiculous.
Hagler is rated high because did fight 3 legends, and beat two of them. He was in the fight and round of the year 1985 and probably in history, which helps him in ranking. Yet Marvin is ranked about 15-20 in most peoples mind, maybe higher, so his reign did not put him at top 10.

And Marvin was dominant in over 11 title defenses also. But fighting 3 ATG's at middleweight is better than Duran fighting none at lightweight, and Hagler beat two of three-regardless of Hearns and Duran and Leonard moving up to fight Hagler. Giving Hagler all he could handle is a matter of opinion. Hagler was not finished and could have fought another 10 rounds as he said later. Watch the fight, he had Duran going in round 15. By that criteria Vito got a draw with Marvin, so he should be ATG number 5 by going 15 with Hagler also. Duran did not beat Hagler. He is 1-5 against the legends of the 1980s.
Duran is the only guy in history who gets credit for losing a fight, yet because he went the distance he is ATG. Which other fighter gets credit for losing a fight? I respectfully say this is ridiculous reasoning. Duran lost to Hagler and his fans want to turn it into a win- and when he loses to Hearns big time 7 months later in a unification of his title at 154, they use an excuse of why he lost. No matter what, Duran is given considerations for losing. Then when he beats mediocre fights like Davey Moore with 11 fights his fans act like he beat Hearns at the weight. What other fighters are given credit like that? He still was 1-5 against the legends of the 1980s. If he was top 10 ever he would be more like 5-1 against the legends.

 

I don't think anyone's suggesting he's number one, but that fight against Leonard was vintage Duran. Maybe it depends on what kind of fighters fans like. Some like slickters, others like fighters. I clearly fall into the later category, and whether a fighter wins or not, isn't as important as whether or not he left everything on the table. This is why Gatti had such a huge following, and why Pac is so highly regarded relative to Floyd. Pac fights, Floyd hand picks his opponents. And Duran fought all comers. Should he be critized with the second Leonard fight, absolutely. Leonard knew Duran was partying and gained a lot of weight, but so what? that's on Duran not SRL, same as when Tyson lost to Douglas. If you're a professional fighter your job is to show up ready to fight, period. Sometime Duran didn't do that, but mostly he fought tooth and nail during his entire career, and the fact a fighter can fight that style for those amount of years is itself incredible. Frazier, Dempsey, Marciano etc. were all done in their early 30's. Even Pac's making noise about retiring. Duran fought til he was damn near 50.

 

Thats why older fighters have so much advantage in these sort of debates...excuses for their opponents are forgotten whilst modern fighters excuses for their opponents are fresh of our memory.

We take a look at SRL, he beat Duran, today we can say Pac beat a weight drained Oscar....we forgot that Duran also had to loose 50lbs for that fight and didnt train for it. Of course its so long ago nobody gives a **** about making excuses for Duran.

We say MAB was past it...so was Hagler...again we dont mention that much. We crucify Pac for winning a controversial decision against JMM, SRL-Hagler is one of the biggest controversial fights ever.

Its just something I noticed, whenever we talk about older fighters victories...we never descredit those wins with excuses...yet we become accustomed to doing it with modern fighters.

In 50years time people wont really be talking about Floyd beating a weight drained Corrales who had prison problems at the time, or a past it Oscar, or Cortez messing up the fight for Hatton etc...they just gonna remember he beat those guys, recognise their names, recognise their achievements and they will be seen much higher.