Classic Boxing Blind Spots

Well pound for pound all time somewhere in the top 50, but not top ten. As far as lightweight you could say top five not best ever though. Just off the top of my head I would put these guys over Duran at lightweight:
1.Benny Leonard
2.Henry Armstrong
3. Tony Canzoneri
And guys like Pernell Whitaker and Shane Mosley were awesome at lightweight as well, and Duran would have his hands full with them no doubt.

 

We could just as easily say you vastly underrate Duran. Watch the man fight, that's really all that's needed. If you can't grasp or understand his immense skills at his best than you simply don't know what you're watching.

 

"Somewhere in the top 50, but not top 10". I could live with the same sentence, but replaced with the following "somewhere in the top 15-20".

Mosley wouldn't beat Duran at lightweight. He's far too aggressive and would play into Duran's hands. IMO Mosley does fight rather flat-footed at times and would more than likely get beaten in a similar fashion to the way Leonard did at welterweight.

Whitaker, I agree. Too well rounded for Duran. Excellent varied defense, uses the whole ring, superb jab, durable, scored well to the body, fast hands, and very hard to fathom out.

 

Fair call there. Nothing much harder than this.

 

Totally agree there are many either side of the middle ground, and Hearns and Benitez were simply better at 154, which was my point. You've nailed the issue of continual debates to, now you set it out like that. Top point. Even over here we get the extreme views either end a bit. I love it when someone picks out a single poor fight (often even past their prime) and simply hammers home on it. Old pudgy Duran had Hagler intimidated so how can he beat Carlos. Another will point to Monzon's draws or a close fight with Briscoe. Holmes got dropped and almost stopped by Snipes, how could he beat X? Louis was getting outboxed by little Conn, how could he handle any top heavyweight that moves and boxes etc. Sometimes such points have a merit worthwhile of bringing into debate obviously, but i'd sure hate to build my house around them as some seem to do.

 

Virtually everyone puts Duran inside the top 10 P4P, you would be hard pressed to find an 'expert' or 'historian' that doesn't include Duran amongst the top 10. So either your wrong or everyone else is, don't you think this is more you underrating Duran than others overrating him? Honestly, what fighter have you seen that was more complete than prime Duran at 135lbs?

 

I have watched several of Duran's fights from throughout his career, and I know exactly what I am watching. If you read my posts you would realize I am in no way underrating him, I admit he is a hall of famer, but he is not one of the top 10-15 fighters who ever lived nor is he the greatest lightweight who ever lived. It is that simple.

 

That's your very flawed opinion, and you're entitled to having a very flawed point of view if it pleases you.

 

I think this is the best boxing board on the web. The classic section in particular has as least ten people I can learn from, and after watching boxing for 30 years, and reading many magazine and books, there is something to be said about that. The photo sharing, video links, news paper posts, and such are nice too.

Message boards are all about opinions. An opinion that is well thought out can’t really be 100% wrong or 100% right. Even if I disagree with the opinion, as well thought out opminion offers me the chance to learn something.

Having said that, I do believe double standards, or looking too much at one side of the coin are things the board can improve on as a whole. I also think there is a tad too much distain for modern fighters on the classic board, but I guess that is to be expected.

 

He´s absolutly in love with the Klitschkos :yep

 

I have very little interest in any division south of bantamweight. Sorry Sal.

Orlando Canizales was great, Michael Carbajal and 'Chiquita' Gonzales were fun to watch, and I like Khaosai Galaxy.
Apart from those guys, meh.

I have a hard time watching guys fight that weigh little more than my cat. Unfair I know, because they are skilled and do provide some decent action, but still...I'm underwhelmed.

If that doesn't make me a purist, so be it.

 

I sure I have some blind spots, but I would like to think they fade away once I am shown the light of facts, films, and truths.

Being a fan or having rooting interests does not equate to being blind, but picking with your heart instead of your head does. I am most often the later, not the former.

 

I think you need to see a pin weight fights, Fist of Furry!

In truth, I think boxing at bantam and flyweight used to be fantastic. Watch the old timers. They really came to fight at these weights.

Men like Wilde, McGovern, or if you prefer the golden age, catch Jofre, or Zarte.

Modern, watch Ricardo Lopez.

Sadly, the shenanigans at the scales where fighters sometimes weigh 3-4 weight classes above the belt they are fighting for has badly damaged the lower weight divisions,.

One thing I didn't believe at first is the bantamweight division is perhaps the best division of pound for pound punchers. I’m serious, the KO% of some of the top fighters here rival and in some cases exceed the heavyweight division. The ethic wars also seem to be hotest at the lower end of the scales these days.

 

Blind Spots. There are many in this corner:

1. People who accuse others of "making excuses" for Duran. This is tossed around too casually. I would be labelled guilty if some of the accusations on this thread were looked at simplistically. I have made the observation, repeatedely in fact, that Duran was a passion fighter who on his off-days fought like a passion fruit. He was in some ways, truly a savage with a surplus of testosterone that carried him through his natural division. After 1980 his depleted savagery was only enough to give us a few great performances -but those were damn near unprecedented. Are these "excuses" or are they plainly observable? I'd say the latter. Duran was inconsistent -after his 70th bout and after his 13th year as a professional fighter. Is that an excuse? Or is it a fact? New Orleans Duran was not anywhere near the caliber of fighter that Montreal Duran was. Is that an excuse or is that obvious? The Duran that stepped into the ring against Hagler was far more ready -physically at the very least- than the Duran who stepped into the ring against Hearns. Is that an excuse or is it pretty damn observable even before the first bell?

What the hell was Duran, with a LW frame, doing competing 20 lbs over his natural weight in his 30s anyway? What was he doing competing against the top 1% greatest WW, LMW, and MW of all time in or near their respective primes?

In any event, Duran's inconsistency was a fact, and it does cost him terms of legacy. It was idiotic of him to come into a fight with Leonard and Hearns less than primed. But, writing off the obvious as "excuses" is annoying. Sh*t, if he wasn't "inconsistent" and didn't lose to the Laings and the Simms and the Lawlors of the ring, and ended up beating Leonard in the rematch and by some miracle beat Hearns at 154, he'd be breathing down Robinson's neck for #1.

PS/ Even so, ranking Duran outside of the top 10 ATG p4p warrants serious questioning. Ranking Duran outside of the top 20 ATG p4p warrants a dope slap.

2. The more I sit and think about it, the more I am beginning to suspect that Hopkins is enjoying a reputation that may be bloated. Pavlik will decide that.

3. The Roy Jones Drones are depleted but every now and then they pop up and annoy me. Head to head, Roy's very formidable. But ranking him in the all-time top 20 warrants a dope slap.

4. I share the disregard for the general HW skillset. I noted that Ted Sares has Joe Louis and Ali in the top 10 ATG p4p. I just can't see it. Hell, at this point if I were a newbie in the Classic section, I'd lie if I did.

5. No-film Greats who are touted as all-time world-beaters with no regard for the evolution of the sport and even less regard for the evolution of skill.