Ring Magazine Rates Roberto Duran the 5th Best Boxer of the Last 80 Years

He aint overrated on the classic section, both he & Duran are god over there ... I dont mind that tho because I have loads of respect for both.

 

Yes but you only get involved in war type fights if you don't have the ability to make the fight look easy. Roy Jones won nearly every round for 10 years because he was far too good for just about everyone around his weight class, not because he didn't like fighting. He was knocking people out left, right and centre because he could. If Morales could have, he would have, but he couldn't, hence the 'wars'.

Was his defence, and a lack of power.

Nah, I'd still go with defence and a power deficiency. If he had a good defence and some power, then when he went to war the other guy would crumble, but this rarely happened. Because Erik got hit a lot and because he didn't have the power to make the other guy go away, he was dragged into wars of attrition with inferior fighters - which he won, but the fact that he did not possess the abilities to avoid those sorts of fights underlines his flaws as a fighter.

Erm, no. Not at all. Watch the McCullough fight. Watch the way Erik retreats in a straight line, often with his chin in the air and his guard nowhere. Watch how many, many, many times he is hit cleanly throughout his whole career. There is no argument for saying he had a good defence.

His weakest. And an undeniable weakness.

A lot of this is pretty overstated. Morales was reasonably versatile, but he was not outstanding in any aspect of his game. His decent versatility is all that sets him apart from guys like Felix Trinidad; though obviously Tito had the formidable weapon of power whereas Erik did not.

He had a nice jab, could box pretty well from the outside on occasion, was a decent combination puncher, had OK footwork and an OK inside-game. I'd put him on the same level as guys like Mosley and Marquez when it comes to ability, ahead of the Calzaghes and the Castillos, but some way adrift of fighters like Jones and Hopkins.

You're not serious??

How on Earth would a Morales with a shoulder-roll come anywhere close to the all-round game of a Ray Leonard, the attacking brilliance of a Roy Jones, the boxing wizardry of a Pernell Whitaker, or the rampaging brutality of a Roberto Duran??!

I'll take that comment as tongue-in-cheek, and hope that you do not correct me...

 

as do i :good

 

Duran deserves to the in the top 10....no questions about it....duran had a dominant reign in the lightweight division in the '70....having a toe-to-toe fight with one of the best middleweight of all time (Hagler) convinced me that he deserved top 10 ATG

 

Man, I thought that DINAMITA was an alright poster, this thread is proof of how wrong I am

 

I dont remember him winning a belt at BW...but oh well. You can debut at any weight, but being good enough to win a title at that weight says a lot more, and to do it 9 divisions later...

 

What I said made too much sense...sorry.

 

How so? Everyone grows over time, and I think he's shown that. Sweet Pea looked a pretty **** poster here if I'm being honest, and he seems to be quite highly regarded on this forum.

 

Yeah, many people before they come on this forum have never really discussed boxing with anyone before. If you like it, but your mates don't, then without a forum like this, all you can do is watch coverage on your lonesome and never have anyone to bounce ideas off or learn from. I doubt there is anyone on this forum who hasn't improved their knowledge and understanding of boxing radically from when they first appeared. :good

 

Ring got it right, Duran earned his ranking, he's the man.

 

That list is ****ing terrible. Marciano is way too high. Over guys like Moore, Charles, Napoles, Burley, Gavilan ect, ect is ludicrous. Burley, Napoles abd Gavilan are also all horribly underrated.

 

one word son

49 and 0

:smoke

 

There is a big difference Duran moving up and Hearns and Leonard moving to middleweight. By the point Hearns moved to Middleweight he had beaten greats and hof fighters Cuevas,Benitez,Duran and fought Leonard. Duran never beat a great fighter at lightweight and never fought a real great there. Tht is my point. Duran's win against Ray is overrated. The fact he could not knock out a young fighter who fought his fight is significant. Going 15 rounds in a loss does not mean much when he lost easily to Benitez 2 years before the Hagler fight, which people do not mention. The criteria for Duran being top 5 pfp is not there. That is ring magazine trying to satisfy the fans.
About Duran being this small guy, that comes up convieniently to excuse his losses. He beat up bigger guys in Moore and Barkley, who were more natural at the weights than Hearns or Leonard. Like I have stated numerous times, Duran fought at 154 in 1978, way before Hearns or Leonard ever fought at that weight. Duran is overrated, but this is just my opinion.
And I bring some facts. What great fighters did he knockout in his career? He beat one great fighter who absolutely turned the tables on him and beat him easily once he fought his fight. Ray owned Duran, yet people want to see the first fight. I think Duran is great and a legend because of his reign at lightweight. That gets him rated maybe top 25, but not top 5. He fought everyone I give him credit, but he didn't beat them. I respect Duran as a fighter, but this thing about him being top 3 or 5 does not hold water and never will. You have to beat fellow greats to be ranked that high. You have to.
Hearns actually beat more greats than Duran. That is a fact. It is all image. But since Hearns lost his biggest fights to Ray and Marvin, the image is what hurts. The image of Duran as machismo gives him points where it shouldn't, and Hearns is hurt by his two biggest losses, but if you look at wins Hearns has the greater wins against greats. The facts are there. And look at my avatar pic. I like Duran. I know the eras.