Canelo Alverez vs Roberto Duran @154

None of them were 154 or higher though. Barkley, shot Cuevas and Moore really weren't as good as him.

They'd really be pacing themselves. Canelo is too big for Duran to bumrush and Canelo would refuse to fight agressively. He never does against top opponents.

 

You forgot to mention that Canelo lost 12 out of 12 to a blown up Welterweight. Still waiting for him to land a punch.

 

Barkley would beat the crap out of Canelo.

 

As for the result of this fight, Duran easy UD. Alverez is a good fighter but he's yet to impress me as much as some others. He got shut out by Mayweather, narrowly scrapped by Trout, I thought he lost the Lara fight although is was very close, Cotto was well past his prime and he was getting outboxed by light welter Khan before he landed.

 

What's this about Alvarez being better than Barkley??

Barkley was limited in many ways but an absolute monster.
He KO'd Hearns and Michael Olajide in his previous two fights.
Oh, I suppose Alvarez did KO Amir Khan, James Kirkland and LIam Smith .....

I'd test Alvarez against Darrin Van Horn first before putting him in with Barkley.

People seem to have no sense or context. Alvarez is still young, a promising fighter, popular and well-promoted. But fighting isn't a popularity contest. You have to look at resume and proven ability.

 

You're rose tinting. Michael Olajide never beat anyone. Other than that, Barkley beat Hearns twice (Hearns' fault the first time and he was spent by the second one) and did little else but lose when he stepped up. He has less to his name than Hasim Rahman.

Canelo is technically much smoother and would beat Barkley on account of Barkley being fairly crude. If Toney could trounce him, Canelo would at least counter his way to a decision by a few points. Canelo already has been ranked for more years than Barkley and the gap will only widen. Furthermore, he wins his fights. Posters here are going great lengths to discredit him. He beat Lara and Trout. Lara ran his way to a loss and the Trout fight was open scoring so Canelo had no reason to put his foot on the gas. He's also lineal at 160 which everyone pretends didn't happen. I wouldn't even assume Barkley would beat Lara.

There's also the elephant in the room which is that Duran arguably lost to Barkley. Duran found a very opportunistic chance to win a middleweight belt against an average champion, and won it closer than any of Canelo's wins.

Duran could beat Canelo by dec if he showed up on an "on" night. If they fought three times, it would be split one way or another because one guy is consistent and the other wasn't.

 

Olajide beat Don Lee who was rated. Olajide lost a wide 15 round decision to Frank Tate for the vacant IBF title but was still rated among the top 10. I'm not saying he was an elite middleweight just that he was a contender when Barkley destroyed him.

Barkley knocked Hearns the f--k out. What has Austin Trout done?

Alvarez barely beat Lara either.
There's no discrediting going on. I'm just stating the opinion that Alvarez has a relatively weak resume. He's won a number of light-middleweight title fights, that's good.
But so did Gianfranco Rosi and others who I can't even remember.

Miguel Cotto was perhaps the weakest and most fortunate "lineal" middleweight champion for many years.
It was common knowledge that Sergio Martinez had a shot knee going into that fight, and was really just cashing out. Cotto was lucking out in his twilight years too.
That's not Alvarez's fault at all, but what has he done since winning the "lineal" title from Cotto?

I agree Duran-Barkley was close.
But Duran was a clear underdog, so the theory of "opportunistic chance" doesn't hold water.
I mean, Cotto and Alvarez are the ones who took an opportunistic route to be middleweight champs as i already mentioned.

 

1. Cotto will likely end up in the hall of fame. Lara is still one of the best Jr. Middles in the world and Trout was a former olympian and highly touted undefeated fellow title holder. I think these wins surpass that of a 12 fight Davey Moore and a shot Cueves. The other guys Duran beat at Jr. Middle i've never heard of.

2. Yes and Leonard lost to Norris in their actual fight. Why? Because he was past his prime and fighting under conditions that weren't ideal, just as Duran would be. I'm not saying Canello is "better" than Roberto Duran. Duran is probably one of the top 10 best fighters that ever lived. But if we took him from the time frame that he fought at Jr. Middle and put him in with the current Alvarez he should rightfully be an underdog. This isn't about name rating.

3. If you want to say that Benitez was better than Alvarez at Jr. Middle then fine. But I don't see how this helps Duran's case as he was "beaten" by Wilfred.. Along with Kirkland Laing and a few a others.

4. Yes Canello has a loss at Jr. Middle. To probably the greatest fighter of the past 25 years, and one who's style has positively zero in common with Duran's.

 

Barkely would have killed Canelo. Canelo is a straght ahead plodder, no head movement and limited conditioning. Easy style matchup for Duran.Look at Cuevas or Palomino etc

 

This is about head-to-head, Duran v Alvarez.
I don't think Alvarez has defeated anyone as good as the Duran who beat up Davey Moore, for example.

It doesn't matter who you've heard of. We've all heard of Amir Khan but that doesn't make it a better win than Luigi Minchillo, who would probably compete very well against the likes of Trout and Lara.

The point I'm making is that Duran was capable of beating good light-middles and good middles.
A better class of fighter than Alvarez seems willing to fight against.

It doesn't help Duran's case.
It's just worth noting than Benitez was very possibly better than Alvarez.
And almost certainly better than the men Alvarez is winning against.

I agree with the point about styles. But you keep mentioning Duran's losses to Benitez and Laing, whose styles have positively zero in common with Alvarez's. So?

 

1. Exactly, so why compare resumes then?

2. That's a matter of opinion. Moore's career was painfully short.

3. I think Amir Kahn is significantly more accomplished than a man who spent 98% of his career beating guys with losing records in rural Italy. Then again you seem to know more about him than I do.

4. Please. His best scalps above welter include a 12 fight Davey Moore, a shot cueves and Iran Barkley who was a good middleweight but also erratic and inconsistent.

5. Benitez record at Jr. Middle is something like 8-3, and most of those 8 wins came against guys who came up from lower divisions. His major claim in that class was beating Duran. Therefore, I can see why someone advocating for Duran would inflate Wilfred's credentials for argument's sake.

6. I only mentioned his losses because the comparison of resumes seems to keep resurfacing. If that's the case then Duran doesn't have a leg to stand on at Jr. Middle against Alvarez. As for Styles? Alvarez is the naturally bigger stronger man who's never been stopped in 50 fights and would certainly have the edge in youth had this match taken place within the suggested time frames. If Duran turns this into a physical contest where he attempts to brawl with Alvarez, he might very well get the short end of it.

 

I don't know.
I think I entered this conversation when you mentioned "Kirkland Laing, Robbie Simms and a blown up past prime Wilfred Benitez" ...

I'm talking about Duran, as he was when he beat Davey Moore. He looked sharp to me. I doubt Alvarez has faced or defeated anyone as good as that Duran, just an judgment.

At 154, no.
Unless I'm mistaken Luigi Mincihillo went 15 rounds with Hearns, and lasted into the late rounds against McCallum. He fought Duran pretty hard too, and went the distance.
I imagine he's easily as good as most of Alvarez's defenses.

If you want to disqualify Davey Moore from being described as "a good light-middle", and disqualify Luigi Minchillo because he was just a 'Euro bum' or whatever then go ahead. I don't think I'm heaping praise of them by calling them "good".
You accept Barkley as a "good middle", that's good.

This is all "resume talk" by the way.
Which you seem to be more interested in me, although it's possibly just a mutual misunderstanding.
Actually, my statement is: Duran was capable of beating good middles and good light-middles.
Honestly, I'm one of the people on the forum who rates Duran LOWEST at "above 147" but I'll give him his credit.

Benitez's decline post-Hearns defeat is well documented. Post-Hamsho more so.
His losses to Moore and Hilton were when he was well shot, so they say.

I don't care about boosting Benitez or Duran.
Just giving Benitez some credit. Going into the Duran fight, Benitez had an almost pristine record still, with just a competitive loss to prime Ray Leonard in his loss column.
If Benitez was ever any good he was still good against Duran, that's all.

Honestly, i didn't bring up resumes.
If I mention "who did Alvarez beat?" I'm asking because I figure he's still relatively untested now.
My opinion: Duran is capable of beating great lightweights and great welters, and good light-middles and good middles.
Alvarez has been defeating men who I suspect are a step down from Duran, and he looks pretty slow and easy to hit, that's all really.

 

Duran outboxes Canelo over the distance quite convincingly.

 

Duran was a level above. An in shape Duran would win

 

You're out of your mind. You're using the Mayweather fight as a measuring stick as if Mayweather hasn't made a very long list of fighters look bad. Canelo has good defense and a good chin. His issue is punch output, if anything.

This content is protected