***The TOP 50 WINS OF THE DECADE, 1980-1989***

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by horst, Jun 13, 2011.


Page 7 of 12
  1. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    66
    Dec 1, 2008
    my issues with Duran are that he gets credit for beating mediocre guys in the 1980's when he could not and did not beat the greats except for one win against Ray. It is simple and my opinion is a total boxing perspective. I give great fighters more credit when I feel they took on all fighters and showed great skills and heart in beating other fellow greats, regardless of excuses. And when they lost that they show respect to the opponent and not put his own ego ahead of boxing and what is fair. This really isn't about your list as much as the same opinion I have been making for years on ESB as you and others know.
     
    MAG1965, Jun 16, 2011
    MAG1965, Jun 16, 2011
    #91
  2. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    66
    Dec 1, 2008
    doesn't matter. You don't have to be embarassed at all. With all the work you put into that list I should be more embarassed for even being critical of your list. It is hard to make a list. I have made ATG lists and later realize I left out someone as significant as SRR.
     
    MAG1965, Jun 16, 2011
    MAG1965, Jun 16, 2011
    #92
  3. horst

    horst Guest

    You're overlooking the circumstances. Look again at my criteria on page 1. Duran was a natural lightweight (135lbs) who won his first world title in 1972. Barkley was a natural 160-175lbs fighter, and Duran beat him in 1989. If you don't think 17 years and 25lbs enhances a win, you have no business evaluating wins.

    And FYI, Kalambay and Nunn didn't come close to "beating up" Barkley.

    Kalambay outboxed and UD'd him over 15 rounds, Kalambay being one of the best boxers of the era.

    Then Duran beat Barkley.

    And after that, Nunn beat him on a ****ing majority decision, and Benn got the benefit of a premature stoppage in a fight that was warming up to becoming an all-out war.


    Your petty dislike of Duran is making you say some stupid things.
     
    horst, Jun 16, 2011
    horst, Jun 16, 2011
    #93
  4. horst

    horst Guest

    Because I follow a set criteria, and if you have bothered to read the criteria you would understand that this fight could not rank anywhere close to #3.

    Another daft point. :-(
     
    horst, Jun 16, 2011
    horst, Jun 16, 2011
    #94
  5. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    66
    Dec 1, 2008
    I really believe he gets credit for wins which other fighters would not get credit for. Had Thomas Hearns beaten Davey Moore or Iran Barkley (which he was expected to and would have had Iran not landed that punch) no one would be talking about those fights now. Duran had one great win in the decade of the 1980's-Ray Leonard, which Leonard easily won in the rematch in Nov. All the other wins are wins people were surprised he won because they didn't think he was any good because of his losses to Benitez and Leonard, which was the great thing about Duran-with a certain style he could still do better than people thought. But against the top greats with speed he could not win. That is why I think he gets overrated in the 1980s. Duran had such a great personality and charisma that when he won he did electrify the crowd and put his all into the whole show of winning, even shoving Ray when Ray wanted to embrace him. When he lost well he had a good excuse that he didn't train.
     
    MAG1965, Jun 16, 2011
    MAG1965, Jun 16, 2011
    #95
  6. horst

    horst Guest


    I disagree.

    Pryor-Arguello is maybe my favourite fight of all-time, and one I rate highly considering it's top 20 position, but it is essentially a natural lightwelterweight fighting a guy in his 4th weight class.

    It is not in the same league as Honeyghan-Curry IMO. Pre-Honeyghan, Curry was a phenomenon, a natural welterweight phenomenon with some superb wins behind him and all the ability and momentum in the world.
     
    horst, Jun 16, 2011
    horst, Jun 16, 2011
    #96
  7. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    66
    Dec 1, 2008
    Arguello vs. Pryor was one of the tops fights of the early 1980s as you know. Probably the top fight of 1982 aside from Holmes/Cooney. Much bigger than Lloyd and Donald Curry in 1986. I loved the upset when Honeyghan beat Curry, but in that fight Donald basically folded under the pressure of a strong fighter who didn't back up when Donald hit him. It was not a great fight. A good upset. With Arguello and Pryor, both guys showed heart and the fight exceeded expectations. The Honeyghan vs. Curry fight is more like the Duran/Moore in that it was surprising as was Hearns/Barkley the first fight, but it they were not top wins in my mind, just big upsets. Unless Lloyd and Roberto and Iran would have gone on to beat the top guys in the divisions, and they didn't.
     
    MAG1965, Jun 16, 2011
    MAG1965, Jun 16, 2011
    #97
  8. horst

    horst Guest

    :admin Are you serious? Really?


    Roberto Duran was a lightweight who won his first world title in 1972.

    Thomas Hearns was a welterweight who won his first world title in 1980.


    OF COURSE Duran gets more credit for winning the world lightmiddleweight title in 1983 than Hearns would have if he beat the same guy. OF COURSE he does.

    Do you really not see the difference in terms of the accomplishment here???


    Look at this:

    http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=257283


    I placed Thomas Hearns vs Virgil Hill as the number 2 wins of the 1990s in my 90s list - and took some heat for it from people reacting much the same way about it as you are reacting about Duran-Leonard 1 now.


    They, like you, did not understand the importance of the circumstances.

    Obviously if it had been Henry Maske or Fabrice Tiozzo beating Hill in '91, it would not have been the number 2 win of the decade, because those guys are similar to Hill in terms of age and natural size.


    Thomas Hearns was a welterweight who won a world title in 1980. Him winning the lightheavyweight title in 1991 was obviously MASSIVE as compared to what Henry Maske winning the same lhw title in 1991 would have been.

    And I apply the exact same logic to rating Hearns's achievements as I do to Duran's.


    Duran was a 70s lightweight. He had no business beating up lightmiddles and middles in the 80s, much like Hearns had no business outboxing a lightheavyweight in the 90s!


    Duran and Hearns have been treated the exact same by me. You are wrong.
     
    horst, Jun 16, 2011
    horst, Jun 16, 2011
    #98
  9. horst

    horst Guest

    The comments in red reinforce that you do not understand how to evaluate a win, at least not by my criteria.

    The scale/high-profile nature of a fight is utterly irrelevant when evaluating the quality of a win, so it doesn't matter a jot that Pryor-Arguello was "bigger".

    The excitement value of the fight is utterly irrelevant when evaluating the quality of a win, so it doesn't matter a jot that Pryor-Arguello was a great fight and Honeyghan-Curry was not.

    I suggest you read my criteria, because scale and excitement factor do not even come into it at all.
     
    horst, Jun 16, 2011
    horst, Jun 16, 2011
    #99
  10. horst

    horst Guest

    :lol: I really am kind of blown away that someone who has been on these forums as long as you is making comments like this. It's really crazy.

    If Thomas Hearns had survived into the mid 90s and fought all the best supermiddles and lightheavys, and lost all but one of those fights, would you view him as inferior to them, and unfairly praised for the wins he did achieve against other prominent supermiddles and lightheavys of the mid 90s?

    :nut Of course you would not, not at all.


    Say after the Hill win in '91, Hearns fought on until 1999, and in the mid 90s he fought and lost to James Toney at supermiddle, Roy Jones at lightheavy, etc.

    Would view him as inferior to Jones & Toney? Would you whine and cry when people spoke about how great his win over Virgil Hill was? Despite the fact that Hearns was well past his best and well above his best weight when he was fighting those guys? Despite the fact that Tommy had shown his best form 10-15 years earlier against Cuevas, Benitez, etc?


    OF COURSE YOU WOULDN'T! So show the same respect to a 1970s lightweight who could've retired as in 1978 as one of the most brilliant and dominant lightweights ever, but didn't, and fought on against the best fighters of the 80s in the lightmiddle and middleweight division.

    :deal
     
    horst, Jun 16, 2011
    horst, Jun 16, 2011
    #100
  11. horst

    horst Guest

    Still waiting for MAG to respond to these points...
     
    horst, Jun 17, 2011
    horst, Jun 17, 2011
    #101
  12. goat15

    goat15 Active Member Full Member

    926
    0
    Nov 10, 2010
    don't expect a response to your post about hearns losing to toney and jones in the nineties... that sort of reasoning always causes a retreat in debates such as these!
     
    goat15, Jun 17, 2011
    goat15, Jun 17, 2011
    #102
  13. horst

    horst Guest

    I imagined it would.



    MAG and others on this forum judge Duran for performances ww-mw in the 80s vs SRL, Hagler, Hearns & Benitez.

    Duran was a 70s lw.


    The equivalent would be judging Hearns for performances mw-lhw in the 90s vs Hagler, Hill, Jones & Toney,

    seeing as Hearns was an 80s ww.


    "As if".
     
    horst, Jun 17, 2011
    horst, Jun 17, 2011
    #103
  14. goat15

    goat15 Active Member Full Member

    926
    0
    Nov 10, 2010
    yeah. to compare duran and hearns you need to match duran's lightweight career against hearns' at welterweight. then duran at 140 vs hearns at 154, duran at 147 vs hearns at 160, duran at 154 vs hearns at 168, and duran at 160 vs hearns at 175. you can also compare hearns and leonard in this way, as well as duran and leonard. it's pretty straight forward with these three, as they were all at their best in their first weight class (although hearns was arguably better at 154). the point is that they all diminished as they got bigger.

    comparing a list of names doesn't make much sense in and of itself. those kinds of debates tend to lack structure, and hence go on and on... and on.
     
    goat15, Jun 17, 2011
    goat15, Jun 17, 2011
    #104
  15. goat15

    goat15 Active Member Full Member

    926
    0
    Nov 10, 2010

    ​

    indeed. it's what i always say... would you hold it against pacquiao if he fought williams at 154 and got sparked out in two rounds? or if pacquiao lost a close but clear decision to martinez at 160? you'd be crazy to penalise him for losses like those.
     
    goat15, Jun 17, 2011
    goat15, Jun 17, 2011
    #105
Page 7 of 12