u have facts, u present an argument. u cant deny the facts. :roll:
thank u 4 not answering the question i posted. anyways, duran dominated at lightweight--yes! then he moved up and lost to bigger fighters. but...
thats why hagler gets the respect that he gets. its because he beat the atg's in his era. and the srl loss, is debatable. however, srl did win, so...
thats why i asked in one of my posts, whats the standard?? and as u said, they cant give u a criteria, because that criteria doesnt qualify him to...
4 u, your criteria is enough. but for many others, its not.:happy
ok he dominated that division. but just because he dominated that division at that time does not put him at the top of the atg list. prob 20-30,...
im sorry. if u wanna be an atg, especially top 10 (like alot of people have him), u have to beat the greats. and just stepping in the ring, isnt...
obviously im not the only one that feels that way. durans a great fighter and one of my favs, but i'd have to put pac ahead of him on the atg...
well said. i myself have him somewhere from 20-30. if u wanna be great, u have to beat the greats. :hi:
exactly!! given all the losses duran has, why was he able to be rated soo darn high??? i mean cmon now. if pac lost like that, we would never hear...
your argument is based on the unknown and its purely subjective.
70-0??? many of those fights werent even sanctioned. and most of em' we names no one even knows. cmon now. like another person said on here, if...
totally agree. alot of those fights werent even sanctioned and shouldnt even count.
no one said pac could beat duran.
