Duran Not Hype Witness for Yourself True Greatness

Do you realize you just admitted to being a fool?

 

Once again..Can we see your list of fighters you rank higher pfp then Duran?

 

Well I was different, but I changed to a different direction -also like we all do, and I came up with my own hero in boxing. I paid more attention to Leonard and Duran when I was younger and then Hearns came out as the best of the bunch to me when I saw his attitude and the lack of mental games he played, and how he dominated ATG fighters- not just being dominant over average fighters. I really believe Hearns fought the best and left his best in the ring win or lose. And he kept fighting and looking great, something Duran did not. Regardless of what you guys will say Duran was not washed up or old, Duran was barely over 30 yeas old when he lost to Benitez and Hagler and Hearns and fought until he was 50.

It is true Hearns had greater fighters to fight than Duran did at lightweight, but I thought he handled it better win or lose and I liked his attitude. This is about skill and quality of opposition and sportsmanship.
Hearns just fought the best and win or lose gave his opponent credit. That is what I like in sports. A sportsman who is willing to lose but fight the best and not make excuses. Yes I changed but more in the direction of Hearns. I was rooting for Leonard the night Hearns and Ray fought in Sept of 1981. I saw Hearns as the big puncher and I wanted Ray to win. Not everyone is going to change or think the way you guys do.
I liked Ray and acknowledge he is the only one of the 4 to beat everyone.
I liked Marvin, but I thought the other guys moved up and took on challenges Marvin did not. I awknowledge Marvin's greatness and domination, but more his defenses against Fully Obel, and Vito and Hamsho and Sibson. Guys like that. It is great Marvin took on Duran and Hearns and Leonard, but in my mind he should have been like them and taken a chance and fought Spinks. People think it was crazy, but I thought it would have proven he could be on both sides of the weight issue and not just have the advantage. Just fighting guys moving up in my mind wasn't as impressive as it would have been had he beat those guy at the same weight class. But he was great. A lot of heart and skill. And he switched off. Good chin.
I have watched boxing for years and studied it and Duran to me was the least of the 4 in attitude and quality wins. Fighting for 115 times didn't matter much to me. He just isn't a person who ever caught my fancy in skills or attitude as a ATG 5-10 like I have always stated. Hearns fought on in years also. Yori boy Campas fights on and who is going to rank him ATG?

The fact that I do not agree with some of you that Duran is so great baffles me a little. I see the greatness a little, but not nearly like I do with Leonard or Hearns who had two ways to fight. That will not change for me. If you like him best of the 4 that is fine. I respect it, but this is a boxing message board and my opinions I state just for the sake of discussion. Not personal.

I have explained my logic over and over again, yet I am not making excuses for not being impressed with Duran like you guys are, I just do not see the magical things in his career you and others do. Longevity, good chin, heart (when he has the right fight), machismo which benefits him when he fights his fight. But I do not see sportsmanship and wins over greats which would define someone I admire like Hearns.
I saw his domination in his lightweight career and then how he moved up and beat Ray. I thought wow this is something. I did think Ray on that day in June of 1980 should have boxed. Then Duran loses very clearly in a fight regardless of what shape he is in, he would not have won fight I do not care if he would have been tip top
Even in an interview Duran gave recently he was asked which fight would you want to do over again. Well he said Hearns, but also the first Leonard fight. The first one? Why? So he could beat Ray better than he did. Well why didn't he say the second fight? Because he is smart enough to know he couldn't have beaten Ray. If you guys went back and read his interviews you would see that he is admitting certain styles do not go well with him. -Ray was moving and fighting differently and Duran lost. And instead of taking it like a man he makes excuses. The quitting didn't bother me as much as the lack of sportsmanship. That is part of being great. It shows you are not bigger than boxing. And he wasn't. He lost to Ray fair and square. If you asked Hearns which fight does he want over he says he would want a rematch with Hagler. He would't just want to fight a guy on his worst day and beat him up worse than he did. I do not see that as a great fighter mentally with Duran.

 

But that is all you have. He beat Davey Moore not a great. I just do not see the greatness in that no matter how you bend the facts. Davey Moore was not a great win. I would be a hypocrit to see this as impressive and then say Duran is a top great fighter based on this. Yeah Duran said give me a contract to sign, he signed it and he lost. That makes him great? I saw that fight on tv. I was watching it. Ray Leonard got to the ring apron and held Duran's hand up. I know the fight. But still Duran couldn't do that to Benitez and Hearns. That is significant to me. This is isn't about Duran, it is about who I think was the best and Duran fought the best and lost to them.
And you say Hearns said he would fight Hagler for years, not really. He prematurely said he would fight Marvin in May of 1982, and then he hurt his pinkie, but the real issue was he was not great at the weight and he fought Benitez and won a title at the lower weight. Duran was going to fight Hearns in Sept. of 1982 and it was all set to be made, and Duran pulled out. Did you know that? So Duran did pull out of fights and play games. Then Hearns decided to fight Benitez, and Duran fought Cuevas for the chance to fight Moore. I know the whole story. Hearns then defended his 154 pound title 3 times in 1984 with a fight against Sutherland in the summer of 1983. Hearns had options.

 

all fighters fight against that odds not just Duran. And he didn't win to really prove he beat the odds. When he lost he made excuses which takes away from the guys who did beat the odds. Hearns was not expected to knock out Duran. I was around then. I saw the picks in the magazines and by sportswriters. Hearns UD Duran. was what people thought. I think the odds were 2-1. If Duran would have beaten the odds vs. the greats you beat I would have given him credit. But he didn't. Hearns was a 4-1 underdog against Virgil Hill when he was 32 (same age Duran was when he fought Hearns), and he beat Virgil who was 26. He beat the odds. He won and against top competition. There was no need to build Hill up as more than he was, Hill was the top 175 pound champ.

 

You don't even get why this is another funny post. You are actually not even aware that Benitez is bigger then Duran. Forget about the ages.

This is one of your top 10 beliefs that yo have to have to rank Duran where you rank him.

This goes hand in hand with your other posts.

1- Duran was actually bigger then Hearns.

2- Hearns put up a better fight agains Hagler then Duran did.

3- Duran's win against Leonard at 147 didn't mean that much because 24 year old Leonard was not in his prime, but Hearns win at 154 over 33 year old Dura told us everything.
Just a short list.[/quote]

I am not sure why this one does not properly quote my comments. To everyone reading this my post starts at the I am not sure part, to the response to me earlier above it. ---Benitez was not much bigger than Duran. That is just a way to excuse Duran again. Duran's fans seem to mimick Duran a little. He lacks the wins so they have to make excuses for him. Which other greats had the excuses he does and people buy them? No one. Which other great did not have the wins against other greats that he didn't, and still seems to rank him 5-10 ATG?

 

You don't even get why this is another funny post. You are actually not even aware that Benitez is bigger then Duran. Forget about the ages.

This is one of your top 10 beliefs that yo have to have to rank Duran where you rank him.

This goes hand in hand with your other posts.

1- Duran was actually bigger then Hearns.

2- Hearns put up a better fight agains Hagler then Duran did.

3- Duran's win against Leonard at 147 didn't mean that much because 24 year old Leonard was not in his prime, but Hearns win at 154 over 33 year old Dura told us everything.
Just a short list.[/quote]


I never said Duran was bigger. See this the thing. I have studied boxing for years just as much as you guys. You cannot claim you know boxing and weights and Duran more than me. But you want to act like you know what I said. If you understood boxing like I do you would know what I meant by my comment about Duran and weighing 200 pounds, which was what I said. I didn't say he was bigger. But I will let you guys figure what I meant.

 

Yes I think Hearns put up a better fight than Duran against Hagler. Hagler knew Duran's reputation for great fighting on the inside and saw the Moore fight. He didn't want to be suckered in. That is another thing, you guys say you are boxing experts, but you do not understand styles and how to get in guys heads. All you do is look at the result and say well Duran went 15 and Hearns didn't. Vito went 15 and did better than Duran did. Roldan knocked Hagler down which Hearns and Duran never did, so he was better? Duran still lost to all the greats. how can you bend a loss into a win? He still lost to the same Benitez which Hearns beat and outpointed.
As for Hagler, Hearns hit Hagler with the cleanest punches he ever was hit with and wobbled him. Even Hagler said it. One of his toughest fights in the post fight. He did not say that with Duran. He said he was not aggressive enough and fought like he was sparring.
And about Ray, Ray was the variable. Ray fought on the inside Duran won and Ray fought on the outside Duran loses. Like I said earlier, in an interview Duran wanted to fight Ray in the first fight again and not the 2nd and 3rd? Why? He says he wanted to beat Ray up more than he did, well that means he was admitting he wouldn't have been able to get to Ray in the 2nd and 3rd fights. Everything you guys say can be easily picked apart, yet one of you said I need to read more about boxing. I just bring up facts and I keep the message board clean by not using personal insults. Just facts.
And to be honest, you have to admit, I do not get personal or insult any of you because I do not have to. I keep it respectful and use facts and they stand up.. Yet then Arther says give me your list which I have and still he asks again. When you cannot bring up facts, you want to see a list. Then when I posted my list no one commented.

 

Addie, this is not about me. I am just stating my points. Saying I am a fool doesn't make what I say less significant, and it doesn't make Duran greater or not greater.

 

No offense mag,but really those posts are just nonsense on stilts.
Can you just answer me one thing,what was hearns' best weight?

By the way,i agree hearns did indeed fight the best And took on the challenge of fighting above his normal weight. Hearns also always gave everything he had. Duran was exactly the same,he just lacked discipline,which does downgrade him somewhat.
But hes still better than hearns because he took on his atg opposition when he was already advanced and above his best weight.
Hearns never fought a single great above 160. And he lost to hagler and leonard when near as damn it prime.
After 91 hearns never had a significant win. (he was 33 then.) You get the picture?
How do you feel when illogical folks say hearns wasnt a true great because he lost his two biggest tests? (i dont agree with that analysis,its too simplistic.)

 

I think I responded to everyone who asked me a question. Sorry for the long posts.

 

Hard to say. It is either 147 or 154. Probably 147. His power and speed and effectiveness were the best at that weight. 154 is where he had his greatest wins, and that is where most people rate him as the best. But I say 147.

 

After thinking about it a little 147 was his best weight. But he still fought well higher. I do not think Hagler beat a little Hearns and I do not think Hearns has much of an excuse. He still fought well at 160, but 147 he was at his best offensively but not defensively. When he moved up after the first Barkley fight he became better defensively and learned how to throw the left hook to the body better and hold and became a more patient inside fighter, which is why he started to go 12 rounds 3 fights in a row with Kinchen, Leonard 2 and Olajide, then he went 12 with Virgil Hill and then Barkley. Slowly he became more defensive and learned the whole game, but he was not as quick as he was before so he was not as effectively offensively. But 147 was his best offensive weight and 175 his best defensive weight. But offense was his game and his greatness in a way. As well as outboxing legit great boxers Wilfred Benitez and Virgil Hill. Legit wins no excuses.

 

Yes hearns beating benitez and hill are both great wins. (as is the duran win.)
I agree,hearns was best at 147&154. More complete at 154.
My point is that by the time he got to 168 and up he looked very dodgy v kinchen,lost to barkley. (Again.) Now the hearns at 154 would never struggle with kinchen or lose even once to barkley. Hearns lost a lot above 160,and lost a lot with age. I say after hearns lost to barkley he was never quite the same,due to wars,weight hopping and age.
The hill win only adds to his greatness,the barkley loss doesnt take away from his greatness. Same standard i apply to duran,as he got older and bigger. I hope you see what i am trying to say here?