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

Hagler and Monzon get raped by Spinks and Foster. **** wouldn't even be funny.

 

lineal never meant much to me. That is political nonsense. A guy wins a title in the same line of succession? So if Randy Shields won the lineal title then Hearns beating him means more than beating Cuevas? Lineal title definition is all over the place. Cuevas was an 11 defense champion. Hill 10 defense.

Who is giving Duran ****? I am saying the excuses are not warranted and he lost and no excuses are really needed. He fought at 154 before Hearns,Leonard or Benitez did, so losing to Hearns and Benitez was not a guy moving up and he was champion at 154 at the same time Hearns was. It was a unification but the WBA stripped Duran.

Duran did Hagler a favor by getting a shot at the middleweight title? Applaude Duran for what? Duran got the favor. He was given a shot for not beating any contender at middleweight. He beat Moore and the Hagler fight was signed. And I am not knocking Duran for getting a shot at the title without beating a contender, Hearns and Leonard also got the Hagler fight without fighting a contender, although in 1986 Hearns got another shot at Hagler for beating James Shuler, who was number one contender. And that fight never happened because Ray came out and wanted to fight Marvin.

I agree with you. Hagler never moved up and fought Spinks. He should have after he wanted all the other guys to move up and weight to fight him. And he had a 75 inch reach, which was long for a guy his height and weight. Spinks had a reach of 76 inches, and Hearns was 78 1/2.. Virgil Hill was 77 by the way.

I do think Hagler should have tested his skills like the legends who moved up and fought him did. It proves something.. Yes I do think it does.

 

probably Spinks beats Hagler. Amazingly Spinks reach was only one inch longer than Hagler. But more than likely Marvin is too short and gets hit with that right hand of Spinks. It would be interesting to see how well Marvin takes Spinks punches. Something teslls me the fight is more competitive than we think, and also Monzon vs. Foster.

 

I dont recall virgil hill taking that title from michael spinks, when spinks left the division, Hill never even unified with michael moorer or prince charles williams, his belt is abc soup, not lineal. Same with cuevas. Napoles lost to stracey, stracey lost to palomino, cuevas is not the champ, just another abc soup guy.

Dont kid yourself, if hearns ever fought bob foster you would have to pray if he makes it out of their alive, michael spinks would rip tommy's heart out and become his daddy. Hearns would never beat the elite 175 legends, Roy Jones Jr. at 168 would make mince meat out of hearns. I wouldnt even pick tommy to beat the 3 muhammads.

 

The guy you say was not ATG top 100 in your mind was the lineal champion-Wilfred. So that sort of diminishes your talk about lineal titles. I never talked about lineal titles anyway. Doesn't matter to me. Most guys give the title up so it isn't lineal anyway, not in a true way. Palomino was the lineal champion and what does that mean? That doesn't mean too much to me since I don't think he was that good. Nice guy. Met him 10 years ago, but rather limited. He trained out of Westminster Boxing club in California, when I used to live there. An ok boxing club who trains most of their fighters offence and but not much defense. I am not sure if it is open anymore. There was a guy there named Noah Cruz, and I forget the bosses last name, his first was Jackie and I forgot his last name. My memory is not what it once was.
Hearns would have a chance against anyone. I have stated how Duran fought at 154 before Hearns or Benitez ever did. That negates the argument he was this washed up little guy moving up. He beat Moore to win the title, and most people rate more high enough. And then in 1989 (7 years after Benitez) Duran won the middleweight title. There is an argument that Virgil is great. Elite? The problem was Virgil was he was left handed fighter, without much of a right or power. But the guys he fought and beat were good fighters. And Hearns beat him easily. If Duran beat someone at middleweight the level of Virgil Hill I would have been impressed.

 

Thats good for wilfred if he was lineal, so was ken buchanon. Boxing has existed for over 100 years, wilfred simply doesnt have longevity or a strong enough resume to make my top 100, especially when I start including legends before the 1950's. You say palomino was a limited fighter yet wilfred couldnt convincingly beat him, i had it as a draw.

No Hearns would get murdered by all 3 of them. You basically said it, he fought virgil hill because Hill lacked power. Michael Spinks would crack his chin so hard that he would need plastic surgery done on it.

 

I said Hearns fought Hill because he lacked power? No I didn't say that. He fought him because he wanted to beat the best light heavyweight who was undefeated at the time, and he did.. Hill beat inchen-great counter left. Fought Hearns and Jones. 25 or so title defenses. I think Hill beats Qawi easily, and many of the guys we don't think he could. Foster no. Spinks probably not. Marvin Johnson yes.

Wilfred won the fight. I go by results. Even when people say Hearns beat Leonard in the rematch, I cannot say he did. Tommy got a draw. A win is what we get on scorecards. I don't make my own rules. I wish Tommy would have had the decision that would mean he would have beaten everyone of the group except Hagler. Stewart,Czyz,Tate,Maske, Tiozzo.Lalonde, who else. the list is long.. Kinchen-great counter left. Fought Hearns and Jones. 25 or so title defenses. I think Hill beats Qawi easily, and many of the guys we don't think he could.

 

I find it interesting that on another thread the topic is could Delahoya beat Duran at welterweight. Many people say Duran would win easily and walk through him. My point is when did he ever walk through an elite fighter? He never did. It is the myth and the overrating here. You have to rate a fighter by how he did vs. other elites. If we rate him by that, Oscar with his speed and counter left could win the fight, but he would have to move.

 

You go by results because you rely on boxrec, i watched the fight online and became my own judge, wilfred did not convincingly beat palomino, its a draw in my opinion. I guess whitaker vs chavez is a draw too right, i mean you go by official results.

As a boxing fan, i watch fights and determine who i thought really won, i dont rely on judges who might have scored fights a certain way to protect a hometown fighter or big draw. Oscar De La Hoya got easily beat by sturm but was given a gift because his fight with hopkins would make millions. I dont view it as a win for oscar because he got his butt whooped. You call it a win because you are a boxrec warrior.

Thats exactly why tommy fought virgil, hes a fighter with no power, if he had power, hearns would have ducked him.

 

I definetly think oscar would have an excellent chance of winning. Duran isnt the only fighter overrated in head to head matchups, hearns is also monstrously overrated in head to head terms. He beat 3 guys that were smaller than him in size, and a light heavyweight with no power, yet his gullible fans like you think he could beat roy jones, carlos monzon, mike mccallum or even sugar ray robinson. Duran is overrated head to head, no doubt about it, but hearns is the most overrated head to head fighter ever.

 

You watched the fight online and became your own judge? Well, being that you rely on the net for your boxing information puts you in a position to call me a boxrec warrior when I do nothing of the sort? So you watch youtube? I like youtube, but I don't rely on my boxing knowledge from it.
I do like to link boxing from there for ESB and send friends some links from youtube, but I don't sit and watch hours of fights there. I have 300 tapes of boxing more or less, and I do have the Duran/Palomino fight. Spent enough time taping fights all these years and also paying for shipping and handling many years ago for fights I didn't have, and for those on ESB who remember ordering fight tapes by mail where you get an order form. I am not some guy who watches fights on the internet and then calls people trolls and boxrec warrior out of insecurity. I wouldn't want to embarass myself acting that way. I keep things respectful. Ask anyone on this ESB site.
As for judging, boxing is a sport and fighters come to fight and rely on the judges. I believed that for years and when my favorite fighter got a draw in 1989 I never have said Tommy won the fight. Part of my argument for Tommy being great is using the existing wins he has and basing my judgement on that. Not making excuses for him and then thinking he somehow would have beaten Hagler because he had his legs messaged or that being 145 was the reason he lost to Ray. Wouldn't it be rather chaotic if we didn't have judges and the fight ended and we all believed the person won who we like rather than who deserved it? And that goes along the lines of saying Duran had excuses. It diminishes from the sport. It makes him more important than boxing, and even Duran would say he is not more important than boxing.

Opinions are ok in a discussion, but someone screaming on a message board that Palomino beat Benitez or that Duran was out of shape when he fought Leonard does not make it anymore true. The bottomline is this. Duran lost to all the elite guys he fought, except for Ray who won the rematch and rubbermatch. What is it that puts him at ATG top 10, which is what his fans want to suggest.

 

it is all opinions. But Hearns beat more elites when they were prime or champions than Duran did. That is fact. And the Virgil Hill fight was the cherry on the top of the whole career.
And you are defining size in a very simplistic way. Hearns is bigger because he is 6-1 1/2? Hill was bigger even if he was the same height, Marvin was stronger than Tommy when he fought him. Height is not the only variable to size, and actually a very shaky one. Tyson was the same height as Arguello, and no one would say they are the same size. And Duran weighed in after he retired at about 260. Which is why I say Duran is not a small guy. Not because he weighed that, but his body accepting that weight shows that being 160 or 168 was not a stretch. JCC Sr. looks like he still weighs 155.

 

I have boxing tapes too and whenever its on tv i watch it, but yes you are boxrec warrior based on the way you respond. No official results arent the end all to be all. Chavez lost his status as #1 p4p after he lost to whitaker and it also ended his myth as unbeatable, whitake schooled him and 3 judges giving it a draw infront of 70,000 mexicans doesnt change the fact that chavez was outboxed badly. De La Hoya got his ass kicked by sturm and even he knew it, his christams gift from the judges doesnt change the outcome.

Buchanon, Marcel and De Jesus were elite fighters and Duran beat them.

Now go look up boxrec.

 

Hearns never beat any 'elite' fighter. Duran was well past his prime, cuevas and hill are not elite. Benitez was smaller and not an all timer. Hearns fought two elites and got stopped both times.

 

Actually that fight is a case where Oscar was out of shape and still won against Sturm. He didn't lose a fight against an elite and say he was out of shape, he fought a mediocre guy and still won. Credit to him.
I believe in having order in boxing, and the official results stand for me, even when it comes to Tommy. I never understood the judges scoring of the 12th round in that fight, but saying Tommy won goes against the scoring. If a fight has ridiculous scoring, have a rematch. Tommy was at fault for going for broke in the early part of the round and getting tired,but Ray didn't have any firepower left to justify those scores. But I accept them.

I will discuss boxing as long as it stays relatively mature, and to say Buchanan, Marcel and Dejesus are elite fighters of the level of Benitez? No one believes that. That is what I mean by chaotic. Making up your own rules according to who you like as a fighter. But the facts remain.