Edwin Valero v Roberto Duran @ lightweight

Logic might dictate that Valero would have got better after 27 fights if he had been 21, like Duran was (nearly) in his 27th fight. You're pitting a 28 year old Valero against a 21 year old Duran. How about we put a 28 year old Duran in with 21 year old Edwin?

Logic actually dictates that a 28 year old who had been in a few tough fights and who had serious drug issues is more likely to have peaked than a 21 year old. We can't compare them after 27 fights as they took different career trajectories. Valero had to face better opposition in his first 27 fights as he didn't have the luxury of time. Better to compare them at 28. At which age Duran had beaten deJesus, Palomino, Viruet etc and was about to move up and beat SRL, a top 5 ATG welterweight in most people's eyes.

Valero is a could have been, Duran is Duran. If a 37 year old knocks a middleweight Iran Barkley down - something Tommy Hearns couldn't achieve in two fights - then logic dictates that a younger version of that fighter, fighting at his peak weight, should beat the hell out of a mentally unstable, drug addled slugger.

The only other question is could Duran have succeeded against Valero's southpaw style? Marvin Hagler might help shed a bit of light on that one.

 

You go girl.

 

Amazing story you have there. It proves noting. You keep bringing up age when nobody mentioned age which clearly shows your level of intelligence. I said compare the amount of fights they had. You are comparing one guys total career with one guys 27 bouts. Then try to use a poor straw mans logic to prove a point for the fighter you like.

Tommy Hearns destroyed Duran so Duran beating Barkley proves what? I am sure Barkley was far more prepared for Hearns than he was for Duran. Hearns fought Barkley first and I am sure Iran figured if he could beat Hearns who beat Duran then he could beat Duran with no problem. Duran still only won be Split decision.

Also what the hell does that have to do with Valero fighting Duran? As I said in his first 27 bouts Valero was far superior to Duran in his first 27 bouts. Duran had a longer career so he learned and got better. Valero did not.

 

You totally missed his point

He only brought up age to show that Duran and Valero had vastly different career trajecories. Valero being superior to Duran after each had 27 fights doesn't mean anything. It has no bearing on who would win prime for prime because, as Ezzard Charles pointed out, Duran was nowhere near his prime after 27 fights and Valero likely was - He was a champion and 28 yrs. old.

Each fighter has a different career trajectory. They turn pro at different ages, have varying degrees of quality of opposition and peak at different times.

The bottom line is Valero had reached is peak or passed it at the time of his death. You can't assume that he was going to improve as much after 27 fights as Duran did after 27 fights. It just doesn't work that way.

 

You're comparing them after 27 fights. But that's not fair as Duran was 20 when he had his 27th fight. I bring age into it as it is very relevant. A 20 year old with 27 fights is not at the level you'd expect a 28 year old to be.

Let's say age is as irrelevant as number of fights. The thread asks who'd win in a LW fight. Valero had three fights at LW. Which one of those fights leads you to believe that a drug addict who fought three times at LW against mediocre opposition beats a man whose prime weight was lightweight but who was still good enough to beat an all time great welterweight champion and go nip and tuck, when well past prime against one of the best ever middleweights? It's not a question of 'who I like'. It's a no-brainer.

If you do reply, see if you can do it without personal insults as well. No need for it.

 

1st off, the thread starter asked who wins at 135, Duran or Valero. He didn't say who wins after 27 fights. I have no idea why you brought that up. And neither does anyone else. 2nd, you wrote that because Duran got better after 27 fights, then Valero would have also. Really? A lighter weight fighter improves after his 28th birthday? You sure about that? 3rd, you wrote that a 130 pound fighter knocked Duran down. Who? DeJesus? He was a full blown lightweight when they fought and their 1st fight was a nontitle fight at above 135. 4th, you wrote Duran fought bums in his first 27 fights. Really? Just which 130 pound fighter did Valero fight was better than Ernesto Marcel, who had beaten Alexis Arguello? And which lightweights did Valero beat that were better than DeJesus and Buchanen. 5th, you're judging Duran at 20 years old instead of what the thread starter requested. Instead of making up your own rules, I suggest you start a thread about who would win between a 27 fight Valero or a 27 fight Duran ( Id bet Duran would still win convincingly on a poll here, lol), instead of ignoring what the thread starter requested. 6th, Duran started getting beaten by cuties and fellows that were much bigger than him when he left 147. He ate straightforward sluggers for dinner, especially those smaller than him. Valero's naturally smaller than Duran. Cholo would have decapitated him.

 

Duran would have done the world a favor and executed this waste of life.

 

In roger mayweather voice you dont know sh.t about boxing.

 

Edwin was a punk anyone who murders his wife deserve to burn in hell.duran vs edwin no contest edwin aint fighting his wife hes fighting DURAN

 

A shorter smaller man walking straight in on a lightweight Roberto Duran? Brutal KO

 

oh my god.
duran ko valero rd 1
this is funny