I don't even know what butt hurt means but I can figure it out. However, I am not hurt. I don't take this stuff seriously. Just commenting on a thread, which is what we do on ESB.
I see your point although the Moore fight or Barkley fight was good but not great. Duran in his sleep had enough to beat guys like that with his style with Barkley and with his experience with Davey Moore, not insulting Barkley or Moore, but Duran was great and I never said he wasn't. I just said some of his wins are overrated, and his losses are ignored against the greats in the 1980's. And I agree Hearns win over Andries is good for Hearns but not great considering the quality. Tommy had a much tougher time over non world titlest Dewitt a few months before Andries. The Hill win for Hearns was the great win since it was against Virgil. Duran giving Hagler a tough fight at middleweight was more impressive than the Moore fight in my mind. And the 3 fights in 1983 Cuevas,Moore and Hagler showed that Duran when he fought Hearns was still a top notch fighter regardless of weight.
No. Duran's style alone was not enough to beat Barkley in his sleep. No. Julio Cesar Chavez fought in a similar style to Duran, and started his world title career only 5lbs south of Duran. Could Chavez have beaten a Barkley-calibre fighter at 154lbs in his sleep, purely due to his style? No, he could not. We saw that JCC was a much declined force by the time he got over 140lbs, he would not have been capable of what Duran achieved. Style in itself is not enough for a fighter to overcome huge weight, height, reach and all-round size disadvantages. That win took great reserves of skill, experience and resilience from Duran. It was not Duran's style that made him show amazing body resilience, withstanding some huge bodyshots from Barkley throughout the 12 rounds. It was not Duran's style that made him take a monster shot to the chin and stay up, nor was it Duran's style that meant he still carried the power late in the fight to floor someone of Barkley's size. To attribute this victory to a mere stylistic advantage is borderline idiotic, and demonstrates no understanding of boxing in this period (or any other period tbh). His wins aren't overrated. They are rated appropriately. You underrate them, due to your Duran issue/agenda/bias/whatever the **** your problem with him is. For what feels like the 75th time, Duran gets more credit for beating Moore and Barkley than Hearns would have for beating the same fighters at the same time, but this is quite correct. This is the way it should be. This is not a pro-Duran conspiracy, nor an anti-Hearns one. I have already explained this in full, yet you have either not read it or not understood it. I will do so again: - Thomas Hearns gets MUCH more credit for outpointing Virgil Hill at 175 in 1991 than someone like Henry Maske or Fabrice Tiozzo would get for achieving the exact same victory, because the circumstances are entirely different. - Thomas Hearns was a natural welterweight who won his 1st world title in 1980. He had no business winning a lhw world title in 1991, 11 years and 28lbs beyond his first championship. By the exact same logic, - Roberto Duran gets more credit for beating Davey Moore and Iran Barkley at 154 and 160 in the 1980s than someone like Tommy Hearns would get for achieving the exact same victories, because the circumstances are entirely different. - Roberto Duran was a natural lightweight who won his 1st world title in 1972. He had no business winning lmw and mw titles in 1983 and 1989, 19/25lbs and 11/17 years beyond his first championship. It's continually the same logic applied to both men. You keep avoiding or ignoring these points, but they are not going away. Your infantile Duran issue is being proven to be dog**** with reference to my threads. :deal Also, you say Duran's losses to 80s greats are "ignored", obviously overlooking the fact that Duran was a 70s lightweight champion and not an 80s welter/lightmiddle/middle. But leaving that rather obvious point aside, I am still waiting for your answer on would you be on here whining about Tommy Hearns being overrated and his losses overlooked, if he had fought the best supermiddles and lightheavys of the 1990s, and lost more than he won? If Toney at 168 in 1994 had beaten Hearns, and Jones at 175 in 1997 had beaten Hearns, would you be on here whining about how Hearns was overrated because of these defeats, disregarding all his great work at 147 and 154 in the 1980s??? Still waiting for these points to be addressed? :think I think Hearns-Andries was a great win, which is why I placed it in my top 50. A natural welter going up to lightheavy and dominating and stopping a guy in his 3rd WBC title defence? Come on man, that's a great win. No. If Maske or Tiozzo had beaten Hill, it wouldn't have been anywhere near as good a win as Hearns-Hill was, so the quality of opposition is not the only thing that matters. It is important, but the fact that Hearns was 11 years and 28lbs beyond his championship starting point is of obvious and undeniable significance. Maybe so. Though of course you understand I couldn't put a loss in my top 50 wins list. Why do you have such a hard-on about Hearns-Duran? Who has been saying to you that Duran was shot or something for that fight? Your issue is amusing to me. Everyone knows that was a great win, I have no idea who it is you are wrestling with over this issue, or why. Duran was obviously not a lightmiddleweight, but he did indeed produce some top wins/performances at and around that weight, which is one reason why Hearns-Duran is a great win. The other key reason is that Tommy was ****ing dynamite that night. To dominate and destroy a fighter with the chin and experience of Duran in the fashion that he did was awesome. Just awesome.
I thought I did a good job answering? Duran fought at 154 before Hearns and Leonard and Benitez did so saying he was so small is deceptive a little. I was never really into that because someone is older a win against a mediocre guy is a great win is my point. Every fighter ages differently and has styles which benefit getting older more than others.
You're being very evasive on this thread I think. Can you answer my points individually? This should not be a problem if you have the courage of your convictions.
give me each question individually. I have the courage of my conviction just that I am not sure exactly what you want me to answer. I have said numerous times on this board what I think about Duran. Great fighter but not as great as people think. I think he was a consistently great fighter who was dominant like at lightweight when he was better than most guys, and he looked good. But at times and usually he could not rise above that level which could beat the top guys which would take more than his usually consistent style-yet at that moment people said he was out of shape., I do think he is great. I think he was more limited than most people think when it came to fighting above that level where he did at lightweight.. My general feeling is that Duran gets credit for things other fighters do not. He is great, but for him to be rated 1-10 ATG like some rate him, his wins against quality of opposition (not his opposition which was probably the best most guys had) was not great. The wins against greats was not too complete. I think Leonard on the other hand had less wins than Duran and a shorter career, but could go further and to a higher level and beat greats. Which is why he should be rated above Duran.
I was going to re-post all my questions individually, until I read your post. Now I think we can get down to the crux of the matter without having to go to the laborious effort of going question-by-question. You say Leonard "could go further and beat greats". Leonard's wins over greats were: - at 147lbs, his peak weight, vs Benitez, at the age of 23 - at 147lbs, his peak weight, vs Duran, at the age of 24 - at 147lbs, his peak weight, vs Hearns, at the age of 25 - at 160lbs, vs Hagler at Hagler's prime weight (13lbs above his peak weight), at the age of 31 His loss in this period was: - at 147lbs, his peak weight, vs Duran (12lbs above Duran's peak weight) So of Ray's 4 wins over greats, 3 of them were at his own peak weight, and all between the ages of 23 and 25, his real physical prime. The last of which was a very, very close and controversial points decision over a past-prime Marvin Hagler. Now we look at the contrasting circumstances of Duran's fights vs the same greats. Losses - at 147lbs, 12lbs above his natural weight, vs peak Ray Leonard (SRL's peak weight), at the age of 29 - at 154lbs, 19lbs above his natural weight, vs peak Thomas Hearns (either 7lbs above Hearns's peak weight or this was Hearns's peak weight, depending on your p-o-v) at the age of 33 - at 154lbs, 19lbs above his natural weight, vs Wilfred Benitez (7-14lbs above Benitez's natural weight), at the age of 31 - at 160lbs, 25lbs above his natural weight, vs Marvin Hagler at Hagler's peak weight, at the age of 32 His key win in this period was: - at 147lbs, 12lbs above his natural weight, vs peak Ray Leonard at Leonard's peak weight, at the age of 29 So for Duran's fights with these greats, he was 12-25lbs above his natural weight, and between the ages of 29 and 33. You think it's a fair judgement of who had that little extra in big fights, between a guy who had 3 of his 4 big fights at his peak weight class between 23 and 25, and a guy who had none of his big fights at his peak weight class, and all of them 12-25lbs over his natural weight, between the ages of 29 and 33? Pull the other one mate. Your means of differentiating between these guys is a joke. This is like judging Ray Leonard on the basis of him fighting Roy Jones Jr and James Toney at 168 and 175 in the mid 1990s, which of course you would not do, because it would be ridiculously unfair, yes? In fact, Leonard got his ass handed to him by Terry Norris 12 years after his first world title fight and 7lbs above his natural fighting weight. Compare this to Duran, who 11 years after his first world title fight went to a 15-round decision with Marvin Hagler 25lbs above his natural fighting weight!! And Hagler was a much better fighter in 1983 than Norris was in 1991, as well as bigger, as well as much bigger in relation to Duran than Norris was to Leonard! Rating Duran on the basis of his fights vs the Fab Four would be like rating Leonard on the basis of his fight with Norris (actually it would be kinder to SRL, as the fight with Norris took place only 7lbs north of SRL's natural weight), which would be ludicrous as it discounts all the great work SRL did in his own weight class in the early 80s. Roberto Duran was a 70s lightweight, just like Leonard and Hearns were 80s welterweights. If you judge the accomplishments of Leonard and Hearns on the basis that they were 80s welterweights, you must judge the accomplishments of Duran on the basis that he was a 70s lightweight.
This thread has gone off topic but i'll add my two cents. Duran was a great lightweight in the 70's, arguably the greatest. He moved up to fight a prime leonard at his prime weight and won. He moved up to fight a prime benitez, hearns and moore at their prime weights and went 1-2. He moved up and faced a prime hagler and barkley at their prime weights and went 1-1. It gets forgotten how simple this is, duran is a lightweight fighting these guys at their best. Imagine if that list all came down to lightweight, would it be held against them if they lost to the greatest lightweight of all time? Really? I doubt it. Take marquez now. Floyd and pac got massive stick for asking him to jump from lightweight to welterweight. Now imagine if cotto, cintron and alvarez all called him out would it matter if he lost a couple? Imagine if marquez went 1-1 with martinez and sturm, what a great achievement that would be. Knocking a man for losing to greats when he's fighting over 20 pound north of his best weight is bizarre.
Great rankings and article. though you did forget to put that Dona;ld CUrry was drained at weights against curry (in the critic section)
Yes, I should have mentioned that. Didn't think at the time, but it is something I was aware of and should have made note of. Others have pointed this out as well. Cheers for the comment.
you hit the nail on the head when you say Duran fought Hearns Benitez and Moore and his win he had was against the guy who was not a legend and then the win later aginast barkley again no legend and I am not sure what point you were making? Did Duran ever beat a great or was it all smoke and mirror with him??????Why was he great at lightweight for doing what???????????argably the greatest for beating who at lightweightt? Duran is overrated man and people are just starting to notice!!!!!!
yeah, you've got to give it to popkins, he's so committed to the cause. i talked about this with mag once when i first joined. never again.