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

st762410 · Nov 20, 2009

anarci said: ↑

I have actually stopped trying to make my point on this thread. I think Duran is a Top 3or4 ATG and if the Duran Haters dont see it by now,they never willatsch Although I think Very highly of Manny and I dont believe he is Overrated at all,until they start saying he would have beat Duran or should be above him. If Manny were to retire today id Put him anywhere between 8 and 15.
Click to expand...

4 u, your criteria is enough. but for many others, its not.:happy

st762410 · Nov 20, 2009

MAG1965 said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

thats why i asked in one of my posts, whats the standard?? and as u said, they cant give u a criteria, because that criteria doesnt qualify him to be in the top 10 atg :bloodrankings.

horst · Nov 20, 2009

Sweet Pea said: ↑

Yes they were you stupid, fat, ugly, bald cocksucker. How much of a pinhead can you possibly be? He was far out-sized by both Hagler and Hearns, and clearly the smaller man against Leonard. Only a bald, mentally ******ed pedophile with Down Syndrome could possible think different. I guess that explains why you think so you fat pile of ****.
Click to expand...

:happy:happy:happy

PopeJackson · Nov 20, 2009

atsch My god some people are ****ing ******ed. Get Pacquiao's nuts out your mouth.

bernie4366 · Nov 20, 2009

Popkins said: ↑

:happy:happy:happy
Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised that a Duran dickrider would consider calling someone a pedophile a super clever remark? I thought that was a bannable offense.

mariancobretti · Nov 20, 2009

can you see Kirkland Lang beating Manny Pac?

during prime years?

st762410 · Nov 20, 2009

MAG1965 said: ↑

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?[/quote
couldnt have said it any better. :hi:
Click to expand...

st762410 · Nov 20, 2009

MAG1965 said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

thats why hagler gets the respect that he gets. its because he beat the atg's in his era. and the srl loss, is debatable. however, srl did win, so be it. just a side note: hagler wanted a rematch, and leonard said no. anyways, if hagler lost to duran, srl (decisively) and hearns, theres no way he's ranked in the top 20 (at least) with the atg's. :bbb

KO KIDD · Nov 20, 2009

Popkins said: ↑

Is this serious??

- Duran won the 135 title in 1972, and the 160 title in 1989.

- He started out as a bantam or superbantam in the 60s, and had his last meaningful win at supermiddle in the 90s.

- He was one of the ATG champions in one of the traditional and strongest weight classes, going 71-1 through the 70s and cleaning out the lw division.

- He owns perhaps the greatest single win in the history of boxing, his golden win over Ray Leonard at ww in 1980.

Should I go on?

Duran is one of the top 6 or 7 fighters in history, he is on a different level to Pac, and this is coming from a huge Pacquiao fan.

Get a ****ing grip.
Click to expand...

I agree with this statement. Well put. Pacquiao has a way to go in accomplishments. Not to mention an early post that said Duran is the only fighter to fight in 5 different decades. He also beat Leonard in his prime.

Vanboxingfan · Nov 20, 2009

Anyone who wants to know more about Duran should read this article by Monte Cox. It's an extremely good article.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/duran.html

anarci · Nov 20, 2009

mariancobretti said: ↑

can you see Kirkland Lang beating Manny Pac?

during prime years?
Click to expand...

WTFatsch Duran was not in his prime against Laing,its been said a ****ing ZZZZiilllion times already. Duran was pretty much Hot and cold after the 1st Leonard fight. He had been fighting pro for about 14 years before that fight,and had long ago established himself an ATG. Manny has barely established himself an ATG,but yey i can see Manny losing to a lower top 10 contender when hes uninspired and past his best.

rodney · Nov 20, 2009

Because Duran would knock Pacman out ****in cold at Lightweight or welter.
No doubt about it.

heehoo · Nov 20, 2009

st762410 said: ↑

:bbbi can understand if duran beat srl, hagler and hearns. but he didnt. not only why is he ahead of pac man, but why is he esteemed so high on that list, if he didnt even beat the best in his era??? ok, he beat srl once, thats it. if thats the standard, im sorry. to me thats not enough. i can look at pacs accomplishments and understand why people esteem him so high--and rightfully so. people have a legit argument, given his dominance the last few years. but when i look at durans and what hes done and hasnt done, it makes no sense to me. is there a double standard here?? whatever the standard is 4 one, it should be 4 all. u cant drop the bar for one fighter and then raise it 4 the next fighter cause u like or dislike him.
Click to expand...

Why don't you post somewhere else?

Vanboxingfan · Nov 20, 2009

st762410 said: ↑

im sorry. if u wanna be an atg, especially top 10 (like alot of people have him), u have to beat the greats. and just stepping in the ring, isnt enough. as u said yourself, no former lightweight in history has a chance in hell at beating hearns or hagler, so "YOU" say. with that statement u concede that hagler and hearns were better than duran. then why is duran put above hearns and hagler so often?? he fought the greats and lost. then he shouldnt be put on the same plateau as the greats. yes he beat buchanan, dejesus, barkley, etc. but theyre:hi: not considered greats---like srl, hagler, etc..
Click to expand...

This is pretty stupid stuff, so much so it's hard to even comment on. So if Pac lost to Hopkins, Paul Williams and Floyd, would that mean he wasn't a great fighter, when he beat every fighter his own size and went on to beat Cotto, ODL and Hatton?

Or would it just mean that the smaller Pac got beat by bigger fighters who were themselves pretty good fighters?

Would Williams beating Pac make him a better fighter or give him a better legacy than Pac?

DaDeRailer · Nov 20, 2009

RightCross said: ↑

Duran had 120 professional fights. You have to factor in durability and total number of fights into the equation when you talk about all time greats. Pac wont even get to half that number.
Click to expand...

:good

Log in or Sign up

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

st762410 Member Full Member

st762410 Member Full Member

horst Guest

PopeJackson Well-Known Member Full Member

bernie4366 Boxing Junkie Full Member

mariancobretti Well-Known Member Full Member

st762410 Member Full Member

st762410 Member Full Member

KO KIDD Loyal Member Full Member

Vanboxingfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

anarci Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

rodney Boxing Junkie Full Member

heehoo TIMEXICAH! Full Member

Vanboxingfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

DaDeRailer Member Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

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

st762410 Member Full Member

st762410 Member Full Member

horst Guest

PopeJackson Well-Known Member Full Member

bernie4366 Boxing Junkie Full Member

mariancobretti Well-Known Member Full Member

st762410 Member Full Member

st762410 Member Full Member

KO KIDD Loyal Member Full Member

Vanboxingfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

anarci Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

rodney Boxing Junkie Full Member

heehoo TIMEXICAH! Full Member

Vanboxingfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

DaDeRailer Member Full Member