Duran Not Hype Witness for Yourself True Greatness

No you didnt

 

I thought I did.

The general gist of my reply was basically saying I don't believe by me saying Marquez has a lesser resume than his Mexican contemporaries constitutes as me underrating the man. I'm not hating on the man, I'm really fond of his skills. He was one of my favorites once upon a time, and his showing against Pacquiao can take credit as really, really getting me into Boxing.

 

First of all divisions go by weight, not height, so the comparison between Pac and Hopkins and Duran vs Hagler are valid from that perspective. And if you want to carry it further, Barkley was about the same height at Hopkins, so Duran did that too. As to size, this is really a silly perspective. So you're basically saying that when Jones went to heavy and beat Ruiz, since he really was a heavyweight he wasn't the smaller guy.

But the thing is Duran could never legitimately fight at a middleweight without adding weight he didn't need. Sort of like ODL fighting Strum, he was fat and out of shape just to make the 160 limit.

If Pac were to fight at middleweight, do you honestly think he could gain another 15lbs of muscle and if he managed to do that, he would be the same size as Hopkins, (or if height's an issue Hagler)? If course not, he'd be the smaller man who artificially became bigger, now doing that and holding your own against one of the best middleweights in history, after beating probably the 2nd or 3rd best welterweight in history, seems like a hell of an accomplishment to me.

And all that aside, I personally don't give Duran a pass on any of his losses. My philosophy has always been if you get into the ring, the results count. Period. But I do sometimes give guys credit in a lossing effort. For example I thought Vitali fought his heart out against Lewis, and even though he lost, he gained a tremendous amount of respect from me.

 

But yet you still dont rate him as a great fighter? I would rate him higher than Orlando Canizales someone you rate very highly.

 

I think Juan Manuel Marquez is a great fighter but not worthy of recognition as an "All-Time Great".

I would also rate Marquez ahead of Canizales. Superior level of competition, more success above their natural weights.

 

What is your criteria for All time Great? I would rank Marquez as a top 75 PFP of all time,or maybe even a little higher.

 

I don't have a written definition currently at hand Anarci, but I feel that Marquez is lacking the quality in his resume to be considered an ATG. All it takes is a defining win and he's there, but for now, old Barrera, old Casamayor, and Diaz just doesn't cut it.

 

Yey but he deserved the 2nd fight with Pac who is definitely an elite atg, i had Marquez winning by 2 points,and he might have won the first one too although a draw was fair.

Who do you got tonight Addie Abraham or Dirrell?

 

Both fights were far to close and competitive for me to call them robberies, but I also had Juan winning both fights with the Filipino. I have a rule whereby if a fighter has clearly been robbed of a victory then I'll dismiss the verdict of the judges, but if the fight is a close and competitive one, then I'll be willing to concede. I think Marco beat Morales in 2000, but I dont' credit him for doing so because I can comprehend how the judges came to their conclusions.

I think Abraham will get Dirrell out of there somewhere in the middle rounds. I hope to a competitive, exciting match-up. Yourself?

 

I usually just go by who i felt won the fight, for instance i will never give Tito credit for his win over Oscar, or even more recently Funeka-GUzman or Froch-Dirrell.. I also pretend that Martinez got the win over Williams, Everyone thinks im crazy for rating Martinez so high on my PFP list(ihave him 6th) but i feel he beat Williams and i have to rank him higher.

As for tonight well:think Im kind of 50/50 on this i can definitely see Abraham knocking out Dirrell, as i think his chin is suspect just Froch was never able to get to it and Abraham has much faster hands than Froch. But style wise i dont think this is a good match for Abraham and on Rummys Challenge i picked Dirrell to pull off the upset. Im sure the odds are heavily favoring Abraham and if i should put some money of Dirrell. Do you know the Odds for this fight?

 

Duran was not semi retired when he fought Moore and Hagler and Hearns and Benitez. He was a champion still. My point is he beat the mediocre and couldn't beat the greats.
Hearns won titles 4 and 5 weight classes above his weight also and beat guys like Virgil Hill, not Moore, and Tommy was 32, the same age Duran was when he fought Tommy.
Duran fought less quality guys at lightweight. Hard to compare those guys to Hearns/Benitez/Leonard/Hagler. I still think Arguello would have matched up better with Duran than people think.
My point was not that Duran was not great, but that he was 25-30 ATG. Not 5-10. For 5-10 his resume lacks the wins against greats. His resume looks more like a 25-30 ATG.

 

Still going!!!!
Mag,the earth is ****ing flat as well.
Im not hating on the earth,but there is no excuse for it. It might be an ATG hall of fame planet,but when i look out the window its flat,period....
And dont go make excuses that its billions of years old,the moon is past prime as well,but it still has the discipline to be round....
The earth is the least great of the fab four. (moon,sun and uranus,respectively comprising the others,guess who hearns is?!)
:smoke Everytime there is an eclipse,im reminded of 'no mas',with sugar ray 'sunny' leonard causing the earth to quit...

 

Don't get frustrated by a message board. Calling me closed minded is rather hypocritical. Seems interesting how you call me close minded because I do not believe what you do about Duran. Duran is not the sun. The sun dominates. Duran did not dominate. He dominated other moons but not anything bigger.
Leonard was the sun and became the sun to use your analogy, and everything else rotated around him. To Leonard and Hagler's career Hearns would be Uranus and Duran would be the moon.
Not to get into astronomy, but you said the moon is more significant than earth? Moon is the least significant, so then why wouldn't Duran be the moon, he lost to them all. He was the least significant. He rotated around everyone since he lost to them all.


Believe me out of the fab 4, Duran did the worst out of the 4 head to head. Lost to them all. Regardless of beating Moore and Barkley, there will never be footage of Duran stopping Hearns or Benitez or Hagler. That is significant. Hearns was the most exciting of the fab 4 and had better wins win from lower to higher weight ranges. In my mind there is no way Hagler can be greater than Hearns. He beat him, but his career is not better. About Duran, I have explained enough about where I rank him 25-30 ATG. Pretty good ranking.

 

Im just injecting humour into the process. Im not frustrated in the slightest.
My astronomy anologies are not to be taken literally.
I agree,hearns should be above hagler p4p,and resume wise.
It really doesnt matter to me,its not a bona fide empircal fact that duran is the best of the fab four. Your entitled to your view.

I just find it amusing that you type copius amonts of words to try to justify your viewpoint.
I think that shows it more important to you than to me....

 

you are probably right. I started watching boxing more in the 1970's and 1980's, and Hearns became my favorite fighter. I have a lot of ideas on the subject since I saw it all and read all the papers and magazines and everything.
I have read and watched a lot of Duran.

You agree Hearns was greater than Hagler? Well you and I and just a few others agree. I think his resume and weight ranges show he was the greater fighter. But Hagler beat him, but if Hagler had not fought Hearns, then Tommy would be ahead.

I did not mind your astronomy metaphor. I thought it was good. I would like to think Tommy was the sun but I know that is not the case. If anyone was it had to be Ray, and he knew it also.