If Duran face McCallum instead of Hearns, who you got?

A dubious endorsement.

 

I consider that fight his peak fight. But at 5'7 with his shoes on and having spent almost his whole career as a lightweight contender and champion, the idea that he was really a welterweight is off-mark.

He was a lightweight who happened to be skilled and strong enough to handle most welterweights. That's a mark of his greatness. It does not finance the faulty reasoning tossed around on this thread.

 

:goodI agree with him also. He brings up good points and Duran was not a a natural lightweight. It always did occur to me why Duran never beat any great fighters and still he was seen as this unstoppable force. Something is fishy.

 

If I told someone that a random fighter said he did not train for the greatest fighters he ever fought, that person would probably say it was an excuse. Since if all Duran had to do was train and beat Leonard and Benitez and Hearns (yet by all your accounts you say Hearns and Benitez and Ray were too big for Duran anyway), then why didn't he train? I do not buy the training explanation since it was always when he fought legends, but say he didn't train. What was he afraid of? He would have received credit for those wins and been top 5 ATG ever in everyone's mind. Now if you do not accept it as an excuse, then an objective position might be that the fighter knew he would lose and didn't train since he needed an excuse after to be able to accept the loss and fight on. Then he could fight fighters who were not as good, but were more beneficial to his style and just say he trained this time. Either way the reasoning is poor.

 

We have fights to prove Ray fighting differently made a difference. We have Duran getting another chance to fight Ray in 1989 when Ray was old also, and Duran lost another lopsided decision. The rematch and rubbermatch speak for itself, and the fact that Ray fought Duran's fight and barely lost. This is significant.

 

I never said Duran was not a natural lightweight when he fought at lightweight, but I disagree that he was this small lightweight or a lightweight when he fought Leonard in 1980 and Hearns and Benitez a few years later. I know what over the weight fights are, but I also know that champions would get much more out of defending a title than fighting over the weight. Hagler never fought at 175 when he was defending his title. There is a reason Duran was fighting over the weight.
Difference between excuse and reason? Ok say Shaq losses a game in a championship game and says he was out of shape and that is why they lost. That is an excuse when he knows he is a professional and should be in shape, and people know he knows the game. A reason for them losing might be his latest injury. He didn't play because he had his thumb sprain. no one is going to say he is making an excuse. If an MRI is done and you see the damage and he gets surgery that is a reason.

Any fighter can make an excuse and they usually do. With Duran the excuses were used more and he made the same one all over again. So for Ray he didn't train so you would think that would never happen again or he might lose a fight if he does not train for another great, and he then doesn't train for Wilfred. So you would think he would train in his next fight with a great and he says for Hearns he didn't train. How many excuses can a man make before it is ridiculous?

Somehow I think people think his machismo meant he cannot lose. It sort of convinced them that this machine of a fighter so great at lightweight could not lose to easily. There has to be a reason why which does not have to do with Leonard or Benitez or Hearns, although he never lost in that fashion to any other fighters. If people look into records and styles they have the answer, but sometimes that is too difficult. It is easier to believe the excuses. The path of least resistance.

 

I admire all fighters also. This is something I have believed for years. I cannot hear someone say Duran is great for beating Iran Barkley, knowing that he is being given excuses for losing easily to Benitez and Hearns. That is honestly how I feel. It doesn't matter if this is Duran or any other fighter. I am being objective as hard as it is to believe. He is being overrated. His wins over ATG fighters speaks for itself. Had he beaten Hearns and Benitez I would be here now saying he was a ATG top 10. But he didn't. He needed those wins. Beating Barkley and Moore do not do that for me. That is great if Duran beating Barkley and Moore are good ATG top 5 wins for the whole world, but not for me. Saying I do not like Duran is an easy way to discount what I say, but I know I am bringing up facts so if you want to discount what I say by saying I am subjective, then you do not think I know boxing styles and weights and know when a fighter is making excuses. And that is fine. Fact is how many ATG fighters did he beat? One? Ray? Then he lost two rematches to Ray easily. This is not being objective? I am bringing facts. This is not about me, it is what I see in the record. If you guys looked at the record objectively you would see it. And if as you say Duran had no business fighting the legends of the 1980's because he was too small or out of shape, then he should only be rated by his lightweight career. And that is good and dominant, but is it top 5-10 ATG? That has always been my point.

 

Duran did not look much smaller than Hagler. He was not this small guy. Hagler was 5-9 1/2.

 

What have I twisted? I bring up facts and explain myself. And about Michael Spinks, I think his win against Holmes was better than Duran's against Ray. He had an inexperienced guy fighting his fight at a comfortable weight and he barely won, then lost the rematch. Spinks won the rematch.

Fighters I rank higher than Duran? Leonard, Ali, Robinson, Hagler, and Spinks,Holyfield, etc etc etc. how many do you want. I would say Hearns, but people would accuse me of being subjective. I rate beating fellow ATGs as a big thing. Domination against ATG fighters and being able to box and punch. When something goes wrong, can the fighter change his tactic. Matters what criteria you use. People will get upset and say why Spinks why Holmes, why Evander. Evander's list of wins over ATGs. Tyson,Foreman,Bowe, etc.. He moved up and actually didn't say he was smaller. Duran's wins against ATG fighters is lacking. I am not being subjective. I have yet to hear anyone say anything to show he was ATG top 10. If you say it is because he beat Iran Barkley, then I will say Barkley lost to Benn and Kalambay and Nunn, and Toney and on and on.

 

Which actually supports the thought that Ray was different or better than all those 73 previous fighters. Ray was outclassing him and Duran couldn't handle it. Why did Duran quit vs. Ray and not against Palomino?

 

Duran was probably in better shape for the first fight and more motivated I will accept that. But Ray of the second fight if he moves and frustrates Duran will win a decision no problem. He barely lost the first time fighting Duran's fight. If Ray fights his fight he wins. He might have even stopped Duran since Duran would probably not of quit the first time.

 

Thats twisting right there. Leonard wasn't outclassing him. Leonard was winning a close fight.

 

the question is what made him quit? He even said he ate a steak and had a gallon of water once, or something to that effect. There are so many excuses. So he never ate a steak in 73 of his previous fights? So just for Ray his stomach hurt from eating a steak? Then of course the lack of training excuse was there. So two excuses. But I think when people say something was out of character, it means he was seeing something in the other fighter which he never saw before in his previous 70 or so fights or fighters. What he saw was a Sugar Ray Leonard focused and fighting Ray's fight. That is what I think made him quit. He had 73 other fights to quit or not train or eat steak, and that never happened before.

 

Well this has to be one of your most lunatic statements to date, you've lost the plot pal & this old observation describes your twisted bias too a tee.

"None are so blind & deaf as those who do not wish to see or hear"

You would even make SRL put a gun too his head

Good grief, now we have Larry Holmes/Michael Spinks thrown in as a last desperate act to discredit a man who became only the 2nd Lightweight since Henry Armstrong to succesfully navigate his way to the WW title in defeating the the universally accepted P4P champion in Leonard.

But NO!!! that means nothing to you does it As your hero fought the wrong fight (Even Leonard/Dundee said they did'nt) & least we forget that Leonard was inexperienced:nut

You should be a lawyer:yep & now you throw in another nonsense comparison stating Spinks robbing an old Larry was a better victory, jeezus, what absolute bitter twisted rubbish:deal

Stonehands has put you to the test, but you just want to live in that blinkered SRL world that you have created:smoke