Duran (Buchanan) easily beats mayweather

I like fairness believe it or not. I believe in people getting credit for wins and yet to have their whole careers rated fairly. not because a fighter had charisma but because he had wins, regardless of excuses. He would have beaten Floyd easily, well how he did against other fast guys does not back that up when people say that.
I would not say anything makes me speechless on this message board, but rather dismayed in seeing people make excuses for Duran when I know for a fact what I believe and what I saw, and he beat Moore and Barkley, but not Hearns and Benitez. Which is significant. It is obvious what his ceiling was at that level. I know boxing and know he is a bit overrated (if we go by top 10 ATG rating) and that is my opinion, yet I did not make the thread about Duran being overrated, someone else did. Whether it gets tiring or not to hear me say it is not relevant. People still have not supported the claim he is top 10 ATG.. If they say I have not supported that he is not, they certainly have not supported him being top 10 atg.. Thing is, there is only me saying what I say about Duran and a few others, yet there are many people saying what they say making excuses for Duran. Saying he is small and beat more greats than the other fab four is not true. And this is a boxing message board where we discuss it, so I mention it when I hear it. Since it is said more than my opinion I respond, so that is why people hear me say it a lot. I am usually responding. Take note of that. It is as simple as that. If 10 people come out and say the same excuse for him, and I am the one with the differing opinion, well that means I have to respond more than the other side does. And I do believe and know that had Ray fought his fight in the first fight, he wins easily. He learned from that first fight the whole game. I think Duran fans know this. Again I say, look at the first fight and the second fight and Ray's movement in round one.

 

Who was optimum in the fab 4? Maybe Hagler since he never moved up and wanted everyone to fight him at his peak weight and confort. Hearns moved up to 175 and beat two champions 4 years apart. And look how Hearns moved around .. 160 in March 1986, June 1986 at 154.. October back to 160... March 87 up to 175,, October 87 back to 160... 160 in June 1988 and then 168 in Nov. 1988... Who does that, and who made excuses for him. That is too much up and downs. and it is his fault, but why does Duran get the luxury of excuses when if you really look at wins. Hearns has better wins than Duran. For 3 of his titles he beat Cuevas over 10 title defenses all but one a knockout, Benitez 154... Hill 175 undefeated 10 title defenses...That is not mentioned because people assume height means everything. If Hearns is 6-1 somehow that means he can carry 175 as easily as Spinks, which is not true. Tito Trinidad is near 6ft, yet he really was not a natural middleweight. Tyson was 5-10, should he have gone down to welterweight? You guys are confusing starting off with a man growing and getting bigger, and not seeing how Duran was not as small as you think he was. He gained weight substantially and looked pretty good at 154. Look at the Benitez fight in early 1982. Ray in my mind cheated for 2 titles in one fight, which I think was the terrible as I thought in November of 1988 as I think now. I am a person who likes fairness. If you win a title, win it at the weight and no catchweights and no strings. I do not believe in catchweights for titles or rules.. And I don't like excuses. A loss is a loss. Idon't care if Hearns had his legs massaged for Hagler or brokehis hand. He lost. Although I do think a slower pace favors him, since that is just opinion, but Hagler won. No excuses. Even poor judging is not an excuse. Hagler came out righty against Ray and gave up the momentum. He took him for granted then cries when he loses. My point has always been if Duran were top 10 ATG he beats Hearns and Benitez at 154 and maybe Hagler at 160.. If he didn't I don't see how he proved he is top ten ATG. Not with the wins at lightweight or the Ray win, which had Ray coming back and easily winning.

 

My previous comments still stand - except now you're confusing height with size. But that's besides the point.

I don't need to watch any more Duran fights to know where he performed optimally - and it was not at 154 or 160 or beyond.

That he won titles in these higher weight classes is testament to his skills; not to an imaginary, magical ability to increase his physical frame.

 

Where did he fight the optimal opponents?

 

I am not familiar with this term, as it relates to Boxing. What are optimal opponents?

 

No I think people are giving Duran more consideration than others. Everyone moves up and faces problems. Some guys are bigger regardless of height.

 

Hearns,Hagler,Benitez,Leonard. Great fighters. The top level.. Regardless of weight since he did not have this level at lightweight no matter what.

 

SRR isn't a top 10 ATG either. If he was he would have beat Joey Maxim and Paul Pender among others. Who cares about his 110 wins before he left 147 for good.

 

You can think what you like.

What I think is that, all things considered, Duran is an All Time Great pound-for-pound Boxer, with a strong argument for being placed in the Top-10.

 

Where did Michael Spinks fight his "optimal" opponent?
Where did Whitaker fight his best opposition? Was he simply found out vs Trinidad and ODLH?

 

Duran didn't face anyone like Floyd at 135 lbs, either.

Almost nothing is completely out of the question, but Floyd faced a lot of good punchers but was only seriously hurt once - by a fighter that must have been around 160 lbs in the ring and quite possibly on roids. He's never been close to close to an attrition KO, which is the kind of KO the ones predicting one are leaning towards. I can't even remember him looking winded.

The first Viruet was close according to accounts (haven't seen it, though EDIT: now I have and it looked razor close, had it a draw, but watched on my cell) and even slightly controversial (but wouldn't rule out that bias for the home fighter could have something to with that).

The fight with Adolfo Viruet seems to have been closhish also. Yes, it was at 140 lbs (which also the loss to DeJesus was), but Floyd when he fought at 135 and even 130 were probably around 140 in the ring (and his opponents mostly north of that). Duran was also around 140 in his prime in non-title fights, if I'm not mistaken. Don't think those extra 5 lbs should have made that much of a difference for him.

EDIT: Adolfo was a career WW for the most part, who went down to 140 lbs for the fight with Duran. They were still likely more similar in size than Floyd and Castillo, but as not to make things too complicated let's exclude the Duran-Adolfo Viruet fight for this discussion.

 

And?

Sill not sure of your point, from this post - or, is this just a cryptic way of you repeating the same 'Duran didn't beat elite fighters, who were 3 to 4 divisions about his optimum weight class'?.

 

Yeah, that you can't appreciate differing styles - even when they are masterfully executed. But I can.

I like the younger Floyd better than the older version, though (and same goes for Duran). But it is the younger version we would look at in this match-up.

 

He didn't beat elite fighter at his so called real weight if you say lightweight was his real weight, considering he fought at 154 in tuneups. And since my criteria is beating elites makes him an ATG top 10, where are the elite fighters he beat at 135? I think he was solid at 147, and when he fought Benitez at 154 he looked good. Eliminating the weight aspect, he just does not have the elite fighters on his record to warrant top 10 atg, and the way he lost when he fought all time greats does not make him top 10. He was rather outclassed 3 times with Leonard, Hearns and Benitez. Really. It was not close. Simply put he lacks elite wins. Regardless of the excuses about his weight or not training.

 

I agree that it's a bit useless to harp on about Duran's post prime losses in this discussion, but I'm not sure that LW was his optimal weight. At the age that most fighters peaked at by then (late 20's), he had clearly outgrown LW and made 147 with no extra flab whatsoever. Palomino and Montreal were also two of his top performances.

I think an argument could be made that he peaked at WW.