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

Pac wouldnt last 4 rounds with Duran.
He wouldnt last one round with Hearns.

 

How the fu*k is he stating facts?:huh Ive already corrected him numerous times! He cant even get the facts right so how much weight to his opinions hold? He also has not responded to the last time I corrected him.Maybe hes embarrased

 

First of all, look at my join date and post count, I joined even way before that with different account before the server crash. So rather than repeating yourself wasting a few lines, next time just look at the info already presented to you.

Of course people mention those controversies, however it matters not, those wins are set and propells SRL into greatness. For example people make all sorts of excuses for pacs wins over MAB, DLH, Morales etc...all ATG's, downgrading them. However when you mention SRL wins, you dont downgrade them, you just know he beat them...controversial or not. Imagine I started doing this:

Duran was weight drained...win means nothing, really lost to Hagler...Benitez was past it...that leaves hearns. Wow great fighter, 1 great win....

But we dont do that...we say he has 4 wins over 4 atg's, regardless of the circumstances of those wins. Which is fair enough.

However you put down MAB, Morales, JMM, ODLH, Hatton, Cotto, Larios and look at it without making excuses...that is ****ing impressive! But because those fights are fresh off our memory, we start disecting it, DLH was weight drained, lost to JMM, MAB forest fire, Morales past it, Cotto got beatdown, hatton no longer undefeated....no so great...


You mention Oscar and how we can try convince ourselves he was a good fighter that night. guess what, by all accounts, same thing could be said for Duran...Duran claims he had stomach cramps ffs. SRL beat the legendary Duran because he had stomach cramps! :rofl You make excuses for oscar, we make excuses for Duran.

 

You'd have no argument to present that Benitez was past it. You'd also have to mention that Leonard was just as past it as Hagler when they fought.

 

I don't know where to start with this. :huh You've never ever stepped foot in the Classic forum have you? They dissect the old fights of the 80s on a daily basis there. The sooner you come to terms with the fact that General comprises mostly of clueless idiots, the better.

 

Whats your point? What does the classic forum have to do with the discussion? We are discussing older fighters wins here and putting them up to the same scrutiny as todays fighters...and you'll find todays top fighters stack up quite well.

 

I just told you. You have a great avatar but that's about it by the looks of things. You claim "you" "they", whoever the hell you're talking about, don't look at the whole picture when considering Sugar Ray Leonard's victories in the 80s. People are always harping on about what shape Duran was in by the time of their second fight, and some idiots like Rooster are adamant that Hearns was weight drained.

If someone says Benitez was shot by the time Leonard beat him, where did that come from? Benitez was undefeated, a champion for 4 years and hadn't showed any evidence of rust previous to fighting Ray. Leonard put on a wonderful performance to outbox the boxer, and Benitez would rebound to beat the likes of Duran and Hope. That suggests to me Benitez was not shot.

Now consider Oscar De La Hoya. By Pacquiao's "masters" own admission, Oscar De La Hoya was a walking corpse, he claimed he could see the fresh IV marks in his arms. He said, this being Pacquiao's right hand man, that Oscar could no longer pull the trigger. Everything that transpired in the fight suggested all of those things to hold weight, and Oscar immediately retired. Draw your own conclusions.

 

What's your criteria, and who deserves to be higher in your judgment, Duran or Pacquiao?

 

It doesnt matter people harp on about it. I was named after Marvin Hagler...I know the bitterness that surrounds that controversial decision, SRL duckin of Aaron Pryor that people bring up etc. However although people may harp on about it, it is not taken into account in ranking him. Most have him top 10 ATG, do you really think they would still have him top 10 ATG if they took into account the crap that is said about him. Right now the negatives said about todays fighters affect their ATG ranking...in 20 years time those negatives would still be remembered perhaps but they will have no effect.

An example of this is Pac-JMM, when Pac first won many didnt even rank him above JMM because they thought JMM won. Today people still remember the controversy, but they have learnt to accept it...same with older fighters, they know of the controversy but learnt to accept that a win is a win.

There is also the thought with todays fighters that because they can always do more, we tend to place them lower, that is because there's hope they can achieve more and move up in our rankings. With older fighters, their legacy is set, nothing more we can do...because of this I think we tend to be a bit more generous.

Benitez wasnt past it, I was just taking shots...although one could argue he was at his best at 140, its a weak one.

Roach talks a lot of smack because he likes to.

 

atsch
There was no computer, they filmed different endings for the fight to play in different locations.

 

Manny Pacquiao's place in history is not tainted because of the Oscar De La Hoya controversy, nor is it tainted by people believing Morales was past prime for their three encounters. He still rates very highly, top 30 according to a lot of Boxing enthusiasts, and I think that sounds about right. You're confusing me here, what exactly are we discussing? Where do you rank Pacquiao in an ATG sense, and what are your reasons for doing so?

 

I overlooked the Palomino fight. Carlos was beaten by Wilfred right before that and Palomino was not at his best, and anyway no one who trains out of Westminster Boxing Club under Noah Cruz and Jackie McCoy is going to beat Duran. Cuevas? Duran beat him 3 years after Hearns knocked out Cueves. It was not that great a win and yet it was great fight while it lasted. I didn't think Cueves would be stopped by Duran. As a matter fact, the fact Duran gets credit for beating Cuevas, which got him the title shot against Moore shows Duran was a pretty solid fighter at 154 with that level, then when he lost to Hearns the next year, Duran is a washed up fighter, or some have said Hagler wore him out. Incredible excuses.