Duran vs Mosley at lightweight

everyone was moving up and fighting higher than their earlier weight. Hearns fought at light heavyweight and won two titles there, 30 pounds over his original first title weight,and he beat Virgil Hill for one of those titles. Hearns was competitive also. Hearns fought almost 20 years after his welt. title win against Cuevas and beat Nate Miller in Manchester, England for the IBO title. My argument is Duran was a great fighters, but not ATG top 10. I am not sure people hear what I am saying.

 

I watched his fights as a kid. My dad loved Duran as a fighter but I saw through the machismo and the opposition a little more. I have watched more Duran than you have I am sure. I have many of the fights on tape here also as well as watching them back in the 1970's. I stand by what I say. He is a great fighter who is not top 10 ATG. Top 25 is still pretty good. You cannot rate a man ATG top 10 if he moved up and was outclassed a few times in weight divisions he was fighting in at the age of 27. Even if you say Duran slowed down from his Dejesus days, it was not as much as you think. Duran was fighting less quality back then, so he looked greater. Even when he threw lead rights when he was a younger fighter, he wouldn't have been able to do that against the guys later. They were quicker. I think you guys are thinking more on black and white issues than I am. You will not accept anything where someone brings up comments against what is popular belief.

 

That is right, and you guys should apply this rule to yourselves. I do not go by the normal popular belief. If everyone says Duran is great because he was great I want to see why. There are facts which can be looked into which can put Duran's ranking in the proper place. You have to eliminate his aura of machismo and see his effectiveness against greats fighters. Beating two ATG fighters in my mind is better than beating 10 mediocre guys or 25 tomato cans.

 

Oh yes we do & we all choose to ignore it & the obvious reason being is that you are a ****IN NUTTERlol: jeezus ****in christ, i bet there's a stampede out the back door of the boozer when you walk in.....

I know your sort from school days, you always had yer homework done on time & did every others ****ers as well by choice & no doubt you now captain every pub quiz team within a 50 mile radias all down to the fact that you are the ultimate STAT-HOUND & know every answer.

I knew they had to be a reason for your antipathy towards Duran:yep

SO YOUR DADDIE WAS A DURAN FAN EH!!!!!! i knew it, i knew it, i knew there had to be something in your past that turned you into this poor tortured duran hating human being nuff said, i'll leave yer be to rant & rave on in your evangalistic attempt to convince planet earth the world is flat & duran is over-rated

 

I'm also a fan of both . . . and I have all their major fights in my video collection.

I'll pick Duran.

 

The reason I do not think he ranks ATG top 10? His resume. His lack of wins vs. fellow ATGs. I think he gets a pass. I am not sure why people who get on message boards get emotional and post messages like this. I post what I feel and what I believe, I don't care if someone doesn't respond to me or ignores me. I don't take this personally, I am hear to post about boxing. As for boxers? I am partial to boxers who fought them all and have two gears not just one-boxer and puncher, and who do not make excuses for losses.
Stat hound? Don't know what you mean. I am not into other sports really, just boxing. I love the sport and no man is bigger than the sport in a way that I cannot objectively rate him or at least try to. With Roberto Duran I thought he gets considerations for being great more than what he should. I have been through this before as many people on ESB will mention. The man's record at lightweight would get him ranked where? top 40? Then his career after that gets him to top 25 at the most. Where would the top 10 be from. You have to use objective reasoning when ranking fighters, it is not a popularity contest. Popularity contest I agree Duran would be top 5. I think that is where people overrate him, but that is not objective.

 

MAG what I do not get about you is that with most topics on here you are pretty normal and do not make big opiniuns but it is true that with Duran you do make more of a point that he is overrated.You really stand by this ATG are only great if they fought other ATGs, but there are other criteria. Duran did dominant a devision and it was not a great devision but it was good. I agree he was not top 10 but you have to see why people would think he is.

 

To me that is an important criteria. If what he did past 135 is not important, then you cannot really rate him at the higher weight classes or you have to take the losses with the wins, and he beat the Davey Moore and Iran Barkley level (so he was good enough to beat two guys who were champions), but he lost to the Benitez,Hearns,Hagler and Leonard (two times) level. I understand people saying well he moved up he was not as good, well he was good enough to win titles, so they are making excuses-which is what Duran fans do. Hearns moved up also so I guess he has excuses for losing every fight except the first Leonard fight -where he was rather inexperienced. If Duran was only good at 135 then he should only be rated at 135. So where would he rank ATG? If he is ranked in all the divisions that is fine, but then how can he be rated higher than 25? My point is always that he is overrated by 15 points in the ATG ranking. He should be 25 and not top 10. simple.

 

Duran was dominant until he met diverse fighters. Even the Leonard fight proves something. He did well if the guy fought him, but when Ray boxed he was ineffective which shows how he couldn't do well when fighting out of his range. Even at lightweight he would reach against certain fighters with punches he couldn't have reached with when he moved up. Those guys would have made him pay and they did. Duran had lead rights in fights at lightweight and he never tried it much later because Benitez or Hearns or Leonard would have countered that easily.

 

What a fight that would be. Duran wins by ud, but I mean saying he would slaughter Mosley is a stretch.

 

def shane mosley just way too much speed for duran

 

I hate when people say **** like this. Based on what evidence?? Unlike Mosley, Duran has actually been brutally knocked out.

 

How would SSM get murdered? Remember he was really a small WW fighting at 135 who was not only very big and strong for the weight but had blinding speed, the kind of speed that is unusual, I have yet to see a fighter since peak Mosley with that kind of speed. Maybe Duran wins but NO ONE would have an easy night with Mosley at 135.

 

Yeh!! Try it yerself sometime:deal

Back in the day you would have been classed as a hanging judge, guilty or not guilty & no mitigating circumstances taken into consideration when passing the only sentence allowed & thats always guilty as it's all black or white in your very own court of justice, so much easier & less complicated that way ai'nt it:yep , as there is no such thing as an innocent defendant is there:smoke

 

Duran is probably the greatest lightweight.

However, it's not uncommon that guys from recent history comes out who looks to have an even chance of scoring an upset.

I have to pick Mosley by decision. Duran's power will be evened out by Mosley's proven chin. So it will come down to skill. At 135, Shane had the athletic ability and speed that had troubled Duran against Leonard the second time around.