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

You follow these threads around a lot, are they the only fighters you discuss?

And can you read or what? I said in addition to being the greatest lightweight in the history of the sport [the deepest division in boxing] he beat the second best welterweight of all time at his peak [don't spin it that he was green] and was a four-weight champion [including beating the man that destroyed Hearns]. If Leonard got stopped or dominated by a smaller man, then he wouldn't be ranked anywhere near as high as he does, so you can't expect much more from Duran other than a brilliant individual performance and clear victory.

 

Duran also beat HOFer Ken Buchanan, HOFer Carlos Palomino, HOFer Pipino Cuevas, Esteban DeJesus, Davey Moore and Iran Barkley besides Leonard. Have you ******s bashing him ever heard of these guys? They werent exactly pushovers.

 

I was not arguing him being ATG, what I discuss is whether he is top 10 ATG ever, and those names do not put him there. If you added Thomas Hearns and Wilfred Benitez on there, it might have done the trick. I think he is ATG top 25, which is respectable.

 

Look up my posts. Don't ask me, go check it out. ESB is a good system where you can see all the posts someone has made if you really want to.

 

I say I what I believe. I read what you said, and you said what everyone else is saying. There isn't much more to it. Duran was a great lightweight and his lightweight reign was dominant against ok guys, but not great guys. So where does his lightweight reign put him? Certainly not top 30 on that. So he beat Barkley, he didn't beat Hearns and never could of. So if Foreman would have stopped Leon Spinks, that would have been like stopping Ali and evening it up? No way. Hearns was the ATG not Barkley, and Duran was beaten easily at a lower weight which was better for both Hearns and Duran when both were champs or should of been since Duran was stripped of his title for fighting Hearns. Hearns and Duran were the ATG's going head to head, and Hearns won. Duran fans cannot spin that Barkley fight into a win over Hearns. Duran should have tried to beat Terry Norris so he could say he beat the guy who beat Leonard. Doesn't mean he beat Leonard again. The Hearns fight was 5 years before at a different weight and both were younger. Duran's record vs. the legends is 1-5, and I say that because if you people put such weight on the Leonard fight, well he lost 2 out 3 fights. Duran was not this little guy at 147, he was big enough and could punch and as people say he handled Palomino. You guys cannot have it both ways. You cannot say he fought well vs. Palomino and then say he was this little guy moving up with Ray. Ray handled him and then boxed the second fight and won easily. Why would Duran winning that first fight, but losing the next two make him top 10 ATG or whatever else you want to say he did in regards to Leonard. Still does not warrant top 10 ATG.

 

i also can't seem to understand why..

giving credit for fighting top tier guys like hagler,hearns, leonard and even benitez is one thing. but to place him high in the atg rankings even when he lost to all 4 of them put things in the wrong perspective.atsch

 

All of them Featherweights.

Duran being a natural Lightweight, Leonard and Hearns natural 147-154 pounders, and Hagler a Middleweight.

All against larger opposition when past his prime.

This is so stunningly irrelevant I'm amazed you even had the nerve to post it.

False.

What?

The circumstances were completely and totally different, and have just been explained in minor detail.

Wrong. He was KO'd twice early in his career, and arguably lost the rematch to Marquez.

Case closed.

 

I stopped reading there. Possibly the worst logic I've ever seen.

Thomas Hearns had 6 inches in height, 12 inches in reach, and a massive natural weight advantage over Duran. In the lower weight divisions, size is an enormous factor, it becomes less of a factor at heavyweight. If, for example, Bob Foster had've sparked Ray Robinson in the second round at light-heavyweight in the late 50s, would you hold that against him? Of course not. And the Leon Spinks example is quite simply... idiocy on your behalf. Leon Spinks was a spud, who beat an ancient Ali. Ali was physically inferior to Foreman in terms of size, unlike the Hearns-Duran scenario, is it really that difficult to grasp?

The consensus disagrees with you. That's enough for me, no point arguing with someone who used Spinks-Ali as any kind of example.

 

If Pac continues to fight 20 years past his prime, he'll have racked up a lot more losses as well.

 

I think many years down the road when the nostagia of Duran is in the past, people will rate him more objectively. That he was a great fighter with a dominant lightweight reign who fought everyone yet was beat by the better fighters he fought when he moved up. It will be a matter of how will he be rated for his lightweight reign, 4 world titles at different weights and the Leonard win. I think ATG 25 is a good ranking for that. His lightweight reign was good but not many great names, Leonard in my mind was still improving and not near his best as he was a year or two later, and the 4 titles were good, but he won two of them against Moore and Barkley, not Hearns and Hagler.

 

I do not rate Duran on his losses as much as on the lack of wins vs. ATGs. And my argument is not that he is not ATG, he is. But not top 10. Since when is top 25 an insult?

 

11 inches in reach not 12, but the same weight. If everyone who was 6-1 1/2 could fight 147 and 154 and win so easily, why don't most guys that tall do it? Tommy was a small boned guy who could weigh that at the weight. As tall and as much of an advantage as it was, that height gave him disadvantages also. Fighters just had to find them and capitalize on them. Actually size is less of an advantage in the lighter weights since the weight is the same . Heavyweight are you saying Klitchko with his weight fighting Holyfield is not an advantage?

 

No I wouldn't have held it against Robinson losing to Foster, I would have known Foster won the fight and on that day he was better. Robinson didn't win the 175 pound title. He was stopped on exhaustion when he did fight for it. Had he won it legit and then moved up and fought at 190 against a great(which would be equivalent of Duran fighting Hagler at 160), then when he moved down and fought Foster 7 or 8 months later, I would think that was a very good win by Foster. Beating a fellow lightheavyweight champion in Ray Robinson who could go up and fight at an even higher weight.

 

How is the Leon Spinks comparison idiocy? Ali beat Foreman by knockout. So by your logic mentioning Duran beating Barkley who beat Hearns, if Spinks (who beat Ali once) was beaten by Foreman after that, does that make Foreman even with Ali? I say no. When two greats fight, the result is the result. You cannot beat a great fighter by beating someone who beat him. You act and say that I am having difficulty grasping things. Let me put it this way. Duran was good at the weight of 154. He fought at 160 before the Hearns fight against a great champion. The two men (Hearns and Duran) weigh in at the same weight and both men are champs at that weight- and one is knocked out. Is that hard to grasp for you that the guy who won gets the credit?