Duran Not Hype Witness for Yourself True Greatness

Basically everything after Ray Leonard, I see as a bonus. His legacy was already sealed, but winning titles at 154 and 160 at the age of almost 38 set him apart from his contemporaries.

 

You guys talk about not hating because I discuss Duran and because I do not think he is 5-10 ATG great. And I bring up facts, something you guys fail to do. If this were such a clear conclusion about Duran being 5-10 ATG, where are the facts? Don't tell me it is Barkley or Moore. That is ridiculous, and you guys know it deep down. This is not hate toward Duran. I like Duran. Duran helped Thomas Hearns career more than most fighters. It is about not being able to accept Duran is top 5-10. I just cannot. The resume is not there. I would put Evander more in that place before Duran. He fought the best and beat some of the best.
I am not just spewing nonsense. I do not get personal about anyone or any fighter and I do not get angry or upset, and I stick to the topic. This is objective, yet the Duran fans are the ones on here talking with frustration and saying I have hate because I say what I believe objectively about a boxer which they do not agree with.


This is all opinion. I wanted Duran to give Leonard a good fight in the rematch and Benitez a good fight, and he didn't. It was always talk, and then after losing legit he comes out with excuses, instead of letting people give that fighter credit. He lost to all the greats and made excuses, and then he fights Moore and Barkley and those are the best wins ever in the history of boxing to Duran and his fans, as though that was the real Duran. That is not hate, this is looking objectively. Why didn't he beat Benitez and Hearns and Hagler the way he beat Moore and Barkley. Because they were better. That is objective and fact. How can anyone argue that?

Those wins are not great and anyone who says they are is exagerrating the wins just to give Duran more credit.

Had Duran beaten Hearns and Benitez I would have been the guy now saying he was great 5-10, but he didn't. He lost.
I am talking reasonably like I said-Duran did not beat enough greats to be top 5-10. That is my standard. If you guys want to believe he did that is fine. Not everyone can believe the way you want them to.
The lengths people will go when other people do not see things the way they do is interesting. I just do not see him as a 5-10 ATG- more like 25-30. This has nothing to do with hate, it has to do with I cannot accept Duran as a top 5-10. My standards are different.

Simply, I think a fighter who is great should beat other greats. A 5-10 ATG fighter should beat more than one ATG. And if that one fight gets Duran 5-10 without dominating Ray when Ray was young and not yet a complete fighter, than Ray Leonard should be number one ATG.

 

I don't see it that way. Duran fought better guys when he moved up, and that was his time to prove that even moving up he could beat the greats. Hearns did it with Hill. Why couldn't Duran?
If you say Duran was 25-30 ATG after he fought Ray the first time, then I will admit that everything else was bonus, but Duran fans use his fight with Moore and Barkley to take him up the ATG ranking more, yet ignore totally his losses to Hearns and Benitez and Leonard and Hagler prior or near that point, as though the excuses were the reasons he lost. They insinuate that Duran losing had nothing to do with those guys skills. Which is ridiculous. That is like saying Duran getting knocked out by Hearns had nothing to do with Hearns right hand.

 

It is the same argument over and over. When you say Duran was too small too old I envision this guy 45 who is the size of Humberto Gonzales. Duran was not small compared to Leonard and he looked big enough next to Hagler. Check the fight out. He looked big enough next to Ray and Benitez. And Hearns was taller, but Duran was much thicker.
And old? He was 29 when he lost to Ray and 30 to Benitez and 32 to Hearns, the same age Hearns was when he beat mid 20's age Virgil Hill to win the light heavyweight title in 1991. Any argument you guys make I am answering. It is not the same as Pac beating Hopkins. Compare Pacman to Hopkins in height and Roberto to Hagler in height. is Pacman 5-11 1/2?

 

I have always stated Duran fought at 154 before Hearns or Leonard or Benitez ever fought there. Did Pacman fight at middleweight before Hopkins did?

 

Well I hope that you put a lot of money on it then, because you would have made a fortune.... the odds were heavily in Barkley's favor until Duran weighed-in at 156 lbs. the day before....then they were made a little closer because people believed then that Duran had trained hard.

As for overrating Duran....I think that a lot of people(including me) rate him based on his ability to box, as demonstrated on video of his matches.

And Leonard gave it his best effort in the first match against Duran. In the rematch Leonard was essentially a non-combatant. Many people seem to believe that Leonard executed a brilliant fight plan in that match, but he really didn't do anything except avoid boxing in every way he could manage....if anyone robbed the fans that night it was Leonard, not Duran. Although it bears mentioning that that match was winnable for Duran even at the point when he surrendered....the scorecards were close, Duran was landing pretty well, and Leonard was using a lot of energy....Duran should have continued....he may well have won.

I rate boxers on their ability to box. And based on that, I believe Duran to be top 5 P4P all time.

 

My comments are geared towards where you rank Duran on an ATG list, my comments are simply observations I've made on your posts. I really don't care where other posters rank fights..it's so far down on my list of priorities in life that it's not even on the list..not even close. But if you are going to take the time to rank a fighter, the criteria should be consistent amoungst boxers and relivent. And I think Duran's size and age relative to the other greats he fought especially beyond 147 should be considered. That doesn't mean a loss is a win, but a close loss to a prime Hagler is still a hell of an accomplishment considering where he started. As for Hearns, you should at least acknowledge that he's a much bigger man than Duran, and I thought he did well against Hagler, truthfully he had Hagler hurt and the fight could have gone either way if Hearns had managed to land more combinations.

 

I was 24 years old in 1989 and I was not into gambling. If I would have known the process I would have put 100 on Duran, but I didn't. I remember I saw the fight on scrambled mode where you could see the fight on PPV< but only scrambled and no sound. I still remember they showed the first round of Hearns/Roldan as a preview before the fight.
I do not think Ray robbed the fans. He has to win the fight the way he can win it. He knew he had to move and box and frustrate Duran and he did. I do not see Duran winning that second fight, and Duran quitting I think was more to do with avoiding a stoppage. Ray was starting land harder punches to the head and body and that is when Duran quit. I think Ray was going to knock him out by TKO eventually and Duran knew it.

 

By the way I rate ability to box if you can effectively box the great fighters you fight. If a guy is great usually the level of fighter does not affect his effectiveness, but with Duran the better the guy and his effectiveness went way down, which to me affects his ATG status big time.

 

I think part of understanding Duran is to see clearly that he could handle the weights of 154 and 160 very well. The excuse that he was not natural at the weight was not a valid one, considering how many fights he fought at those weights and the titles won, and his weight between fights. Pacman does not weigh in at 190 between fights.
Duran was not small. Look at his fight with Hagler or Benitez or Leonard, he is not a small guy. This small excuse does not really hold up if you look at the stats and how he looks in the ring with them. His age was not that old. 29 when he fought Ray and 30 and 32 for Benitez and Hagler and Hearns is not an old fighter.

They are all excuses. Do they affect his fight plan a little? Some, but if he could win titles against Moore and Barkley and his fans give him credit for that, then why give him excuses for losing to the greats. Hearns and Benitez could beat guys without those guys having weaknesses.
And about being in shape. Benitez still had Duran's number in 1982, and Duran still had to absorb Hearns right hand regardless of the excuses.

 

So by your comments I gather you think a prime Duran weighted between 160-190 is that what you're trying to say?

Isn't it possible that Duran weighing in at 190lb between fights is a sign that (humour me here) maybe he's out of shape between fights? and that he's not a natural 190lb scaling down to 160 or 154? Just a thought..

and how can these been excusses when we both agree, a loss is a loss is a loss?

 

Fair enough MAG1965. I just think that some people, like myself, watch how well an essentially semi-retired, now good-natured Duran did against Moore, Hagler, Barkley, Pazienza, Castro, and Camacho with really no power or speed to rely on, in his 30's and 40's, four and five weight classes above his best weight, and are amazed at his skill level, diminished as it was, and imagine what he was like with youth, power, and speed, foaming at the mouth and routinely sending opponents out of the ring on stretchers.

As far as Pac goes, he seems to be a great fighter for sure, but the comparison isn't fair, as Duran was facing undefeated opponents at their best and likewise would have had no problem with the styles of Barrera, Morales, Hatton, and Cotto....in fact those opponents would have been highlight reel material for Duran IMO.

And Benitez?....well....you have a good point there. Duran never should have lost to Benitez....although I imagine that if Duran wanted to get in a boxing ring and do his best to avoid engaging/boxing, he probably could have as well as Benitez....in fact he almost did against Hagler, but engaged too much....I don't know, perhaps he just wasn't wired to do that.

I don't think that we can claim that Duran is overrated based on particular efforts and style matchups, and not point out the same things about Robinson, Pep, etc...., who took some pretty serious beatings in their careers.

I don't want to get too much into the "no mas" debacle, as that's another topic, but I don't believe that Leonard had much of a chance of stopping Duran, unless Duran was so terribly out of shape that he couldn't have continued due to exhaustion....we'll probably never know what happened though.

Duran did put forth some poor efforts though, and perhaps he shouldn't have taken those matches at all if he wasn't going to do all that he could to win.

 

I'm a sensitive guy. Steady on.

 

Yey you are.

Duran should also get credit for beating Camacho but the judges robbed him.

Also his 1st fight with a much younger Paz could have gone either way, and he dropped him too.

 

I replied to your message Anarci. I think?