Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

Why wouldn't a washed up fighter get credit for beating a pair of world rated opponents?

 

A washed up fighter does not beat world class opponents. I don't think Duran would even say he was washed up when he fought those guys. I think saying he is washed up is mentioned help his legacy deal with the Benitez and Hearns losses. That is what the excuses are about, not being in shape or washed up. To dismiss the losses to Leonard in fight 2, and Hearns and Benitez. There is no way to dismiss those fights even with the excuses. As it is, when people have polls about what is the greatest knockout ever, Duran/Hearns comes to mind always. The fight will always be remembered for the knockout.

 

If you were previously the most skilled fighter ever, you do.

That's why Duran would be winning boxing matches until around 2025..

This is how serious I take you. This is the mess you made.

 

most skilled fighter ever is opinion, yet it has to be proven against other top skilled. Which is my point. And Hearns would be winning now also if he fought if he fought mediocre guys, but Hearns nor Duran are going to be winning a title now. But when it was elite fighters Duran had trouble beating the fast ones 20 years before he retired. How many Pat Lawlors can he beat? Many.. So could Hearns now. Hearns beat a guy named Nate Miller when he was 41 in England in 1999. What did it mean?

 

I'll always remember a washed up, fat gob **** Duran going the distance and winning against the two guys that sparked Hearns inside 3.

 

That is my point. There was no excuse. Duran was in shape and had the right style for him to fight. Not an elite but a guy who was just 2 years before fighting on ESPN. Duran was not fat. He looked good beating Barkley. Barkley was not great and his claim to fame was beating Hearns, yet losing to everyone else of note including Benn in one round.
At the same time, Duran fighting a decision fight with Iran Barkley does not reverse the fight with Hearns. The Hearns fight with Duran is significant because Hearns and Duran were both 154 pound champions. Duran was only 32 at the time and Hearns beat his conclusively. Sure Duran can beat Barkley but he cannot beat Hearns or Benitez or Leonard when he fights his fight.

 

Duran fought at that weight before them because hes also like 5-7 years older . Your comments about not fighting spinks doesnt answer anything.

The fact is Duran fought 2 of the best welters ever and an ATG Middleweight. Hearns did not fight the 2 of the best middleweights and a top 5 light heavyweight. Giving explanantions about why fights with spinks, mcallum, etc didnt tak place is not going to change anything. Like do you even read what i write. why do you even respond when your response doesnt answer the statement. You are foolishly criticising duran for fighting the best fighters ever at 154 and 160, when Hearns never came close to fighting a michael spinks caliber of a fighter at 175 and got dusted at 160 by hagler.

There is no point in responding to this statement because nothing you can say will answer the fact that Hearns wasnt fighing GOAT competition at 168 and 175 like the way duran was doing at 154 and 160. Like really you just want to keep going on and on, without acknowleding the fact that hearns and leonard would have never jumped up 4 weight classes to fight michael spinks, you know like duran did with hagler, something that you claim he should be dscounted for, then you wonder why i think your opinion sounds very idiotic.

Like really tell me what you have answered? Duran fought leonard at 147 twice, hearns at 154, and hagler at middleweight. Duran was a lightweight! Please educate me on what Hearns did that was similar. Hearns got his ass kicked by hagler at 160, and your response is that he beat virgil hill at 175. Oh my that is so equivalent to fighting a bob foster/michael spinks caliber of a fighter at 175. Who did he fight that is an All timer at 168? Yeah nobody. Like stop and think for a ****in second man, your criticisms for duran are idiotic, when are you going to wake up.

Which lightweight beats leonard and hearns at 147 and 154, then beats hagler at 160. Go on, tell me which lightweight would acomplish this?

 

Gadzooks! This is still going.

 

I have answered everything you have asked. Why did I mention the timing of Hearns and Mike McCallum yesterday? You asked. You asked why didn't Hearns or Hagler fight McCallum and I went down the line with thier careers and schedule explaining why it wouldn't work timewise, and that in the 1980s no one mentioned those fights as much as in hindsight now people act like it was a big topic then. It was not.

My criticism is not on Duran as much as the excuses he gives and the way people accept excuses, which diminish the guys who beat him. He was good enough to win titles at 154 and 160 like his fans say, yet when he loses he automatically becomes washed up, fat, out of shape, ate a steak too many and drank too much water, was old at 29-32, etc etc etc etc.
Hearns was the only one who said he was going to fight Spinks if he beat Hagler. Spinks said I would love to fight Tommy. Duran fighting 2 of the best welterweight is better than Hearns fighting 4 of the best welterweights ever? Duran never fought a really great elite at lightweight at his original title winning weight, so what the really big deal for him to fight better guys at welt? When he does, then he loses the rematch and gets excuses when Ray fights his fight. Hearns always fought top guys at most weights. At 147 he fought Cuevas and Leonard, 154 Benitez and Duran, 160 Hagler,168 Leonard, 175 Virgil Hill.

Duran discounted for fighting Hagler no, but I do not credit him with a win when he lost. And Hearns did jump up 4 divisions to fight Hill. Won the title. Beat Virgil Hill.

 

Well your definition of top guy is highly questionable if cuevas, hill and benitez are 'top guys' and marcel, kobayashi, buchanon, de jesus and palomino are not.

Duran should never get criticised for losing to hagler at 160, hearns at 154 because no lightweight would ever beat them. Go ahead and pick one to do it? Gans, Whitaker, Benny Leonard?

Ken Buchanon is almost always considered a top 15-20 all time lightweight, Esteban De Jesus is also a top 20-30 all time lightweight. Ernesto Marcel was definetly a great super featherweight. No one ranks virgil hill as a top 15 light heavyweight, cuevas definetly isnt a top 20 welterweight and Benitez isnt a 10 or even top 15 welterweight. Go ahead keep exxagerating your definitions of what is a top level fighter. Ken Buchanon has a better resume than benitez and he dwarfs him in longevity. Marcel's resume is also better than Benitez's.

 

None of this changes the fact that they only fought once when Duran was in top shape.

Leonard himself knows this which is why he smiles as warmly recalls making the fight after learning Duran was in hard core party mode. He ain't the first to do the trick.

Notice how bowe looked heavy in the holy rematch? Every morning holyfields headcoach would order a large pizza to Bowes hotel room and every morning bowe would eat it without question.

Yes it is the fighters own fault for not having championship discipline. Yes they only have themselves to blame.

But it doesn't change that Leonard only fought a top Duran once and that once he lost.

Leonard himself would tell you this mate.

 

If Duran had beaten Benitez you would have dismissed it:deal Stating your usual fallback mantra that Benitez was not an ATG as he lost to a green Leonard & then lost to Hearns & then Davey Moore. You are the ultimate stat revisionist in full flux:deal

 

no none of those guys are Cuevas,Hill or Benitez level. Buchanan was decent but was he a 3 time champion like Benitez who beat a guy like Cervantes and Duran. Longevity? If you don't have the resume of a guy like Benitez, what does longevity matter? Beating an older Ismael Laguna gets him ranked over Benitez? And Virgil Hill had 25 title defenses during 4 reigns as champion. A very underrated fighter. I won't even mention Palomino since there is no way that guy is even close to half the fighter of the 3 I mentioned. How many title defenses did Marcel have? Dejesus,Kobayashi,Buchanan? and did they fight the level of fighter that Benitez,Hill and Cuevas did with long defenses. Talk about bending the stats to favor someone like Duranimal accuses me of doing. Duran's lightweight reign was mediocre. But it was dominant so I give him credit, but no way is his career there near a 1-10 or 1-15 ranking in ATG. Were any of those guys 3 time champions who beat guys the quality of Duran and Cervantes? And Benitez would not have lost to Duran if he was anywhere near the fighting level he was at 154. Duran might have had a chance to beat him if Benitez fought him in 1986, but even then I think Benitez beats Duran at middleweight but it would be pickem. Benitez at 154 was a good fighter.

 

Leonard has said when I fought my fight Duran was one of my easiest fights. He won the rematch and the rubbermatch when Duran was 168 pound champion.

 

I would have given Duran credit for beating an elite like Benitez who was fast. But he didn't and this is why there is no basis for all the excuses for Duran. None at all. If someone said Leonard was not in shape for a fight and lost easily and quit I would say, well he beat Hearns, Benitez,Duran Hagler, so maybe there is something to it. The reason why the excuses make me respond here is because I know how Duran could not deal with a guy like a Leonard or Benitez or Hearns, yet then gets the benefit of excuses. Say it was that he was washed up at 29-32 and had never fought at 154 in his life (which is not true). Say he had all those excuses, then he lost to those guys. But was fighting at 154 for a long time. I have watched great fighters fight and I have seen speed, and no way does a guy with Duran's foot work give someone like a prime Leonard or Hearns or Benitez as much trouble as you guys think. He plodded and rocked back and forth the same at 154 as he did at 135. Sure quicker, but that still would not get him a win if he could not deal with those elite guys stylistically, and Dejesus was not the quility of Hearns or Benitez. I am sure even Gregorio Benitez would have admitted to this. And Duran always had this footwork. Duran's footwork was to me his biggest weakness against the elite guys.