Classic Boxing Blind Spots

I feel Roberto Duran is one of the most overrated fighters when they talk about all time pound for pound greats. Even at his best weight lightweight. He came into so many fights in poor condition even at lightweight, and he always seems to get a pass on his bad nights, some type of excuse that everyone seems to accept. Not saying he wasnt a hall of famer and didn't have an outstanding career. But so many people have him too high in their all time ratings. I have seen people rank Duran in their top ten pound for pound all time ratings, which is ridiculous, and these same people have ranked as the best lightweight ever which he isnt, and lucky to be top five at light weight.

 

The only real loss regarded a prime Duran that is truly hotly debated, with exuses etc all over the place is the second leonard bout.Which i think was a pathetic despicable display from Duran to quit btw.

I would think most fans posting on this forum would know Duran was not a great fighter anymore after that, more a guy that could still turn in a great performance against good fighters if the style was right.

the thing i see more on this site is a lot of bitterness from those that take umbrage at anyone mentioning Duran was older and above his best wieght by this time(the time he truly ebcame inconsistent).

I think there are some posters here that overrate Duran above lightweight, but at the same time a lot that can't seem to differentiate between the different stages of his career, projecting a lot of biased analysis on his eighties performances.

 

I don't think it's just pure "prime" Duran being discussed here. I'm pretty sure the Benitez and Hearns matches are being taken into consideration here. Poor results here have been commonly put down to being unmotivated and the like.

The Hagler fight was a great performance vs a "great" fighter. Incredible considering where he come from.

There's no argument Duran was older and above his best weight. The point is he's excused for big losses vs Benitez and Hearns via disinterest etc, but when he wins vs Moore or Barkley (POST Hearns and Benitez) or goes great vs Hagler he's "fully motivated and hard". He comes off a fine effort vs Marvin but next fight Hearns hammers him so he's not the same fighter. But later vs Barkley he is. Many can't palate this. Duran had EVERY reason to be interested vs Benitez because it was his first opportunity to wipe out the disgrace that was No Mas.

What should be said is that at this weight and career stage these two were simply way too good. Obviously this is anything but peak Duran, but credit should be dished out where applicable. This often doesn't happen and hence the disenchantment for many.

General Forum devotee's maybe. I've nailed the real points above in my post.

It's a huge tribute to Duran he could mix it as well as he did past his best weight and time, but sometimes he simply wasn't good enough.

 

I must admit that Duran is my favourite fighter of all-time. And I agree with a lot of views on his career that has been posted previously on this thread.

I have posted on threads over the last few weeks when Duran has been matched against other ATG's, Whitaker and Hearns, he wasn't the superman people quite make him out to be. If he had mixed it with Leonard, Hearns, Benitez, Hagler, and beat them all, then maybe he would be seen 'rightly' as superman.

My views are very fair and balanced when it comes to Duran. I take Whitaker to beat him at lightweight, Hearns at welterweight, and Hopkins at middleweight.

Someone said on a thread the other day that Duran's combinations were better than De La Hoya's. He's a greater fighter, better inside, and is better than De La Hoya in most areas, also stamina and chin probably. But combinations.........please. IMO it's not even remotley close. The difference in combination punching is the same gap between them fighting inside, and obviously Duran was better inside.

 

I don't really disagree with you man.Just putting in my two cents.

I personally think Benitez and Hearns were simply better junior middleweights than Duran.Nothing to do with Duran being out of shape or anything imo.

I guess in general a lot of people find it hard to take a middle ground with many great fighters.Doesn't help that he is discussed so much.It eventually makes for more contentious debates as the same topics or viewpoints get brought up again and again imo.

 

That was me and i stand by what i said.Duran was just far more efficient with his combos in general and had a much more balanced two fisted attack.Oscar may have thrown more 5-8 punch flurries but he was far from being better imo.

I didn't say it to be argumentative or to boost up Duran btw.

 

Not feeling the love for the following fighters:

Kostya Tszyu (could crack, and did some really good work at 140lbs, but I just don't see him being the complete fighter that others tend to do.)


Mickey Walker (yeah, he fought heavyweights. Yeah, he be won the welterweight and middleweight titles. Yeah, he was great. But, for every really good performance, there's a hiding that he received at the hands of a Lou Broullaird, or a Harry Greb, so I just don't see how he rates Top 10 p4p all time.)

 

Astonishing.

 

Astonishingly correct.:good

 

Nah, laughable to suggest Duran's combinations are anywhere near De La Hoya's. For a start, De La Hoya has more of them in his locker. He's got many different types he can throw. Duran was good at pouring the pressure on with both hands, but when it comes to certain 3-4-5 punches being put together aka a combination, De La Hoya's are machine gun like to the body and head. When De La Hoya throws combinations, he faster, and hardly ever throws the same combination twice.

Duran's combinations aren't near Robinson's, Leonard's, De La Hoya's, etc.

He wasn't quite polished enough technically when letting his hands go to be considered a superb combination puncher. Pretty good in patches, not consistently.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree then, you're obviously set in your opinion and i disagree with more or less everything you are saying.I think you're being fooled by flash over effectiveness personally.

 

Yeah, I'm set in my opinion as I don't think the comparison between their combinations is a close call. I can come and go and change my views somewhat, but not on this one.

Another thing I'd like to add is that Duran wasn't great at long range. He certainly wasn't a consistent fighter at long range. Defensively at distance he was superb. His jab was used as a range finder most of the time, eg; De Jesus III. It wasn't thrown with speed and power. The type which snaps an opponents head back. He caught many fighters while stepping in with shots, when he rocked Leonard during the 2nd round in Montreal. IMO his punches at long range limit him severely when it comes to triggering off 3-4-5 punch bursts, flashy or not.

 

Again, I don't dispute that Roberto Duran was a Hall of Famer. He was a tremendous fighter. But when Bert Sugar among others rate Duran as the 8th best fighter who ever lived pound for pound, and ESPN puts him at 6 pound for pound all time, then that is overrating him. And when people rate him as the greatest lightweight of all time, that is overrating him.

 

How high do you think he belongs.Just out of curiousity.

Lists should just be for fun anyway imo.way too subjective to be taken too seriously.

 

I can have hard time giving Tyson and Duran their due, mostly because I feel the ferocius fighters get a bit too much hero worship. People talk like a 24 year old Tyson that was 18 months away from his best win was washed up, and seem to claim that Duran detoriated badly during six months after arguably his best perfomance.

My favourite load of BS is the cliché "if only Rooney stayed with Tyson..." If you're that dependant on one trainer then you're not worth **** to begin with! For ****s sake.

Especially Duran was without a doubt a great fighter, but this infatuation with the "bad asses" that behaved like whiney children when tings didn't go their way... It gets to me.