Decade tourney Rnd 2 - 70s v 2000s

They aren't stylistic copies, but both are skilled boxers. I'm not too sure whether Buchanan used more foot movement; Floyd moves a lot, too.

But simply put: I was only using Buchanan as an example that it's not unreasonable to pick Mayweather over Duran, since ESB's Duran Dicklicking army argues that Mayweather stands no chance, even though he's better than any lightweight the Panamanian ever fought.

Plenty, and he won a good amount of rounds, too. Refer to the paragraph above.

He's not been in with Ali's type of competition, but also consider the following:
-We know that he's at his best against not so aggressive fighters who use speed and slickness. Byrd won 0 out of 17 combined rounds against him, Chambers dito. They're no Ali's, but the one-sidedness of those victories does say something.
-Wlad hasn't faced an Ali, but the reverse is also true. How many 6'6 240lbs opponents that could actually box and move has Ali faced? And please don't mention Ernie "not coming out of this shell" Terrel. He doesn't nearly have the footwork, power, range controlling ability or skill of Wlad. Ken Norton twice bested the 70's Ali and gave him a very close fight the other time, Young should've gotten the decision later in the 70's. This doesn't convince me about the 70's Ali's ability to handle a bigger, skilled jabber.

 

Heavy: Ali - Lewis -

70's Ali? Why talk about that Ali who wasn't quite ready in '71 or the sadly worn version in the later part of the decade. Remember that after the loss to Frazier in '71 Ali went on a long journey of regular bouts with all sorts of fighters - most of them very good ones. Oh, he might not have been in shape here and there, like in the 1st bout with Norton. But during this period he went through guys like Ellis, Mathis, Mac Foster, Chuvalo, Quarry, Al 'Blue' Lewis, Patterson, Bob Foster, Bugner, Norton (rematch), Frazier and finally culminating in the win against Foreman. A really impressive list, wouldn't you say?

So if we have to talk about a 70's Ali, let us talk about this version. Lennox Lewis would be a most worthy opponent. But surely he would still lose to this version of Ali. No comments required about the Klits.

Light heavy: Foster - Jones -

The theory is that Roy Jones Jr. would be handily outboxing Bob Foster till Foster catches him with a big one. Excellent logic. Very difficult to counter.

Middle: Monzon – Hopkins -

A nasty one to pick. Monzon could make it most difficult for his opponent. Hopkins wasn't much behind him in this regard. Bernard, I think, had better movement and overall boxing ability. But Carlos only had to execute his own style to perfection to present a huge puzzle for his opponent to solve. Nobody solved it. And I don't think B'Hop would have.

Welter: Leonard – Moseley -

Nobody has picked Shane, I think. Sad for him - such a good fighter. But what else can you say when everyone is stating the truth.

Light: Duran – Mayweather -

A very difficult pick. Duran, I believe have been picked more here. I think this is largely because of his huge successes in higher weight classes. But still I think that Duran looked unbeatable at Lightweight and I wouldn't like to argue with anyone who picked him above Floyd. Not that an argument for Floyd cannot be made.

Feather: Jofre/Arguello – Pacquaio -

Eder Jofre is one of my favourites. But I think that Eder was at his best as a Bantam and was a rather smallish Feather. Now, Pac was a big Feather with a fearful punch. I know that most have picked Eder to win over Pacman. But I pick Manny to defeat Eder at Featherweight. Asian bias? Maybe.

Bantam: Olivaries v Marques -

Again a tough pick. But Ruben is an acknowledged great. Marquez is yet to become one, though he might be well on his way. I will play it safe and stick to what is as compared to what is likely to be. Olivares for me.

Fly: Canto v Wonjongkam -

Canto was one of the all time cute boxers, imho. Won (interesting name if you refer to him like this) will not win here.

 

Sorry mate, but that seems like arsehole-upwards logic to me (if you'll pardon the expression) to make an argument for Mayweather beating Duran.

1.) Kenny and Mayweather are nothing alike to my eye, even if both were/are skilled in their respective methods. Buchanan was fleeter of foot with a better, more varied jab and better (and more unusual) upper-body movement. An unusual type boxer-puncher/stylist, whereas Floyd is more of a defensive cutie who has relied more on blocking, parrying and potshotting against the best he has faced above super feather.

2.) As well as the difference in style, Buchanan was a proven hard case who was willing to go into the trenches and tough it out. It was this combined with his style that gave Duran the trouble it did, and Duran still won handily - Buchanan was losing the 13th and had won no more than 4 rounds of the previous 12.

3.) Duran of the Buchanan fight wasn't the Duran of DeJesus III. He was a fair deal greener and unpolished, lacking the subtlety, patience and defensive-offensive blend that helped him to batter DeJesus, Leonard and Palomino. That Duran is the one that people use in h2h matchups.

4.) Most people who pick Duran to beat Mayweather aren't dicklickers. They'll probably have watched substantial footage of both men and come to a conclusion based on the evidence. And there's more to suggest that Duran comes up trumps rather than vice-versa IMO.

I know I'm being pedantic and don't want to get into a prolonged argument or anything, but using the Buchanan fight to support the opinion that Mayweather beats Duran - a conclusion people have every right to come to btw - seems to me to be using flawed logic. Especially if you think that Mayweather is clearly superior to Buchanan in a h2h sense (I'm not sure that he is).

Sorry for being so long-winded....

 

Both are skilled boxers, but that is an awful vague term is it not? Roberto Duran and Wilfred Benitez are both skilled boxers also, are they anything alike?

Floyd did move alot at times but the main difference, but he applied it in a completly different way from Buchanan, Buchanan would use his footwork to set up angles for his punches moving laterally. Mayweather on the other hand tending to use his movement in a more negative way, normally to escpace situations, but at other times more to lead opponents on to potshots rather than setting anything up.

I do not see hardly any stylistic similarities, what specific ones do you see?

I wouldnt say Mayweather is better than Buchanan at Lightweight, and if he is it is only marginally. Also I do not think anyone is a 'Duran dicklicking' if they think Duran beats Mayweather, I think Duran has a very good stylistic advantage over Mayweather and is the better fighter overrall. I don't see how Mayweather can really pose Duran too many problems, its not a complete whitwash, but there is not alot Mayweather can do to beat Duran here. How do you think Mayweather wins? specifically.

As Tin_Ribs says 4 rounds maximum, how many did you think he won. Duran was pretty much dominanting the fight, as much as it pains me to say it.

Good post.

On the point number 3, I would slightly disagree. I think the rougher but more aggresive Duran would be a harder match-up for Mayweather than the more well-rounded, later, version of Duran. I think a more measured pace of his attack would give Mayweather more scope for success, as it would Buchanan.

 

Thats interesting reading . Its seems to be a given that the stars of today are inferior to those of the past particularly the 70's which is seen as a golden era of boxing yet the consensus seems to be that while the 70's has the edge there are a lot of tough matchups

 

Foster is the hunchback.

 

This is starting to get on my tits. You've made numerous references to this now. Exactly who is "Duran's dicklicking army"? Duranimal? Well, that would be a one man army, then. Who else? There's no pro-Duran agenda on here, none at all. If anything, the opposite of that is true. We have people who for mind-numbingly simplistic reasons or merely to try and upset the apple cart choose Mayweather over Duran (ripcity, PowerPuncher, you?). We have people whose deliberate purpose (Pachilles) is to try and undermine Duran to a massive extent. We have people who come round and put bricks through your windows when you start talking about "Montreal Duran" as a different animal to anything else, ever (teeto) (and rightly so). There are more people with a blatant agenda against than an agenda for. Really, it just sounds like you're being dismissive.

 

All the cool guys like Hopkins over Monzon.

How do you see Jones vs. Foster going down?

 

:good

 

Sure. No major disagreements.

Going in the trenches? Buchanan spent most of the Duran fight on the back foot.

Plus, Mayweather doesn't get hit with half the shots Buchanan does.

Here we go again, all weaknesses Duran ever shows don't "count" because he was green, unfocused, or whatever. Believe whatever you want to believe and close your eyes for reality.

Sure, I'm just making a general reference to people who are denying events of certain fights because Duran wasn't "motivated" or didn't "train".

Read my words:

I'm not going to start this into a name calling game, but let's say the above example of saying that Duran against Buchanan wasn't at his best (for ****s sake) and that his bouts with Palomino, DeJesus III (note the 2nd one didn't happen), and the first fight against Leonard are the only ones that constitute his career. The most embarrassing quit job in history that followed never happened either.

Nevermind that, I'd like to make an exception by naming Duranimal, who is the most blinded, delusional Duran cheerleading girl I've ever witnessed.

Good point, Benitez is more like Mayweather, and he embarrassed Duran.

My bad. atsch This was one of Duran's infamous "never happened because he wasn't motivated" events, like that Kirkland Laing fight.

Who is the greater fighter, Mayweather or Buchanan? I respect the Scott, but come on.

I don't think so either, but the fact that most people call you crazy for picking Mayweather over Duran does make them qualify for the above.

Have you seen the Benitez fight? Watch it and tell me with a straight face that you can't see how Mayweather can pose Duran problems. Duran was a bit past his best, sure, but so was Benitez, who would never again win a significant fight.

Floyd had trouble with Castillo when he broke his hand, but still won the fight and proved that it was a fluke by easily winning the rematch and beating an unbeaten, confident and big Ricky Hatton.

Mayweather has an iron chin, great fighting heart - both of which he showed against Mosley - incredible reflexes and outstanding overall skills.

 

I wouldn't have even bothered responding to this utterly baffling claim if it weren't from so established a poster as yourself. Maybe you've been having a few bites too many of the old space-cake.

So you honestly think Duran hit his peak as a 21-year-old? You don't think that the trivially obvious improvements in his defence, ring intellect, punch-picking etc. that occured over the course of 9 years of title fights at the top level constituted any kind of development in his game whatsoever?

I guess Duran was at his peak for Marcel as well

 

If the decision was legit, i expect the Jofre that beat Legra was still a superior fighter to Marquez.And fighting in a similar(but much more refined) textbook powerpunching style with his vastly superior toughness and power, i'd expect him to beat Manny in a good fight.