Is Duran an overrated lightweight?

Everyone being questioned by the overrating police is overrated.

 

I really rate his consistency as champ pretty high.

 

I rank Gans and Leonard slightly ahead of Duran at Lightweight, but I could see Duran beating either one of them on a given night.

 

back 3-5 years and more i'd tend to agree Duran had a lot of love and not much talk about his failings, but nowadays for that i'd say it's Whitaker that has taken his place as far as a relatively modern era great lightweights goes.Eventually it'll be Ortiz or Gans etc

You see "is Duran really that good\is he overrated" threads every month on here just about...be it general or classic.Lots of divided opinion on him.

These things go in cycles i guess though.I don't think many of the fighters i would have said were seriously underpraised or forgotten on here years ago, really are any more.And a good number of the earlier boxing forum favourites that suffered backlash are in a different position now as well.Ricardo Lopez,Khaosai Galaxy, Mike McCallum etc

I agree with Klozoff as well though and feel we should strive to get away from the whole overrated\underrated thing...at least in using it as the starting point of a discussion.At the end of the day most of these fighters are rated roughly right after all.

Except Haye.He's pish.

 

Roberto Duran

Wins the WBA Lightweight Championship at age 21.

6/26/72 - KO 13 - Ken Buchanan

1/20/73 - KO 5 - Jimmy Robertson
6/2/73 -- KO 8 - Hector Thompson
9/8/73 -- KO 10 - Ishimatsu Suzuki

3/16/74 - KO 11 - Esteban De Jesus
12/21/74- KO 1 - Masataka Takayama

3/2/75 -- KO 14 - Ray Lampkin
12/20/75- KO 15 - Leonico Ortiz

5/23/76 - KO 14 - Lou Bizzaro
10/15/76- KO 1 - Alavaro Rojas

1/29/77 - KO 13 - Vilomar Fernandez
9/17/77 - W Dec 15 - Edwin Viruet

1/21/78 - KO 12 - Esteban De Jesus

Not sure who he missed, except for possibly;
* WBC Lightweight Champion - Rodolfo Gonzalez (1973)
* Former WBA Lightweight Champion Ken Buchanan II in (1973/1974)
* WBC Light-Welterweight Champion - Perico Fernandez in (1975).

Some facts;
* Roberto did make Ray Lampkin wait an additional 9-months.
* Roberto could have fought 'undefeated' Randy Shields in late-1975.
* Roberto could have fought 'undefeated' Vicente Mijares in 1976.

 

This, I think, is what a lot of boxing fans forget about when evaluating records. Everyone gets caught up on the big names, the biggest wins, and forget about things like the solid contenders of an era, the tough gatekeepers, the champs that are slightly past their best but are a huge deal when a young kid coming up beats them.

30-40 years from now, people are going to be sneering when guys who were actually around for the current era of boxing try to explain why beating, say, a Zab Judah is a big win, ("He was a punk who lost to everyone! That's not a big win, and only someone with a shitty resume has to try to make a big deal out of beating him!") or why Morales almost beating Maidana was a big deal. ("Madiana was nothing but a clumsy gatekeeper and Morales lost anyway, why do old timers try to make this sound impressive?")

When you lose that context, you can't put an era into context anymore. Long story short, the 70s had a lot of solid contenders that would have made decent champs for a year or two before getting knocked off, and Duran beat every single one of them. It may not sound like a big deal today to beat a Hiroshi Kobayashi on the way up, to take out Edwin Viruet or Ray Lampkin, but beating guys on that level for 8+ years without ever slipping or coming up against a different style that neutralizes you says a lot about a fighter.

Bottom line, in Duran's lightweight and pre-lightweight days he beat a couple of really good names that everyone remembers, some good names that most people forget about despite them being world class contenders, and some guys that tend to be overlooked and forgotten about. (Like Duran taking out Ernesto Marcel at 130. How many times does that get forgotten, and how many people remember that Marcel was a hell of a fighter who beat Arguello over 15 rounds years later?)

Yes, because we all know that KO% is the only thing that makes a fighter good. That's why everyone knows that Edwin Rosario was better than Pernell Whitaker, and a prime Frank Bruno is bigger challenge to a Heavyweight Champion than prime Muhammad Ali.

:roll:

 

The Wanderer.

Roberto's victory over Ernesto Marcel,,,,,,stopped with '8' seconds left in the bout.

It was a 'very close bout', and Referee - Isaac Herrera made a horrible decision,
that some even questioned as 'fixed'.

Roberto and Ernesto were in a 'soft clinch', and Referee Herrera stepped in between the
two combatants, and raised Roberto Duran's hand, for no 'explained' reason.

Also, the bout was held at the Gimnasio Nuevo Panama (Panama City).

This was a home-city bout for Roberto Duran, as he was from El Chorillo (slum within the vicinity of Panama City),
and Ernesto Marcel was from northern Colon City.

 

I can't see any argument being made for Williams or Pea being ahead of duran.. it really isn't close with them. This is coming from one of the biggest Whitaker fanboys as well..

 

Missed my point completely, take your strawman arguement and shove it.

 

What was your point then? Because all you did was say that he didn't fight anyone with a high enough KO% to please you, then went on about his power being overrated. It certainly sounds like you're saying that power is the main, overriding factor to be considered.

Me, I rate highest using the quality of competition beat and accomplishments such as remaining champion for a prolonged period, being able to beat well regarded fighters at multiple levels, etc. How do you rank fighters when it comes down to one era vs another? In the specific case of Duran, who do you think he should have fought that he didn't? What fighters with higher KO% should he have fought that he didn't? Leonard's KO% was barely above 50% when Duran took him on, does that make Leonard an unworthy opponent, and would that make Cuevas (whose record at the time of the first Leonard-Duran was 27-6 with 24 KOs) a more respectable win?

What exactly were you saying?

 

pernell was the best lightweght on film imo, i love ike willialms btw, but duran would beat him.

 

Duran deserves a mention.

 

Roberto "Hands of Stone/Cholo/Manos De Piedra" Duran definitely is not overrated at Lightweight. However you do make a very valid point in how great fighters that preceeded him such as Ike Williams, Benny Leonard or even "Hammerin" Henry Armstrong or those that proceeded him such as Pernell "Sweet Pea" Whittaker would all do or how they'd match up against him as far as each guys fighting style and technique goes or as far as each fighters championship quality of opposition goes specifically at 135. Based on Duran's title defense record of 12/12 defenses I would for the time being keep him at #1 as the all time best but not by much. Carlos Monzon's record of 14/14 title defenses at Middleweight before Bernard Hopkins broke that record in 2002 didn't nor doesn't make him #1 all time on my list as the greatest middleweight of all time, that distinction in my book still goes to Marvelous Marvin Hagler albeit by a close vote just like Duran's standing at lightweight. Ike William's, Benny Leonard, Henry Armstrong and Pernell Whittaker just to name a few are all a close neck breathing distance behind Duran as far as #1 all time lightweight in the world is concerned. I think honestly Whittaker would take 2/3 against Duran if not a close 3/3. B.Leonard, Williams & Armstrong no doubt would give him the same type of hell that he gave all his opponents at 135 and they'd all would win no less than one or more against him in a best of three fight series against "Hands of Stone."

 

No!...he's simply the best lightweight of all time..

 

I read a superb article in the Sep, 1980, issue of the Ring about Duran's lightweight greatness, and head to head ability against past lightweights. The people giving their opinion have been around since the 40's at least, some had seen Benny Leonard during the 20's. Some were trainers like Cus Dmato and Ray Arcel, Teddy Brenner and many others. They talked about Benny Leonard, Lew Tendler, Tony Canzoneri, Beau Jack, Jimmy Carter, Bob Montgomery, Henry Armstrong, Barney Ross, Ike Williams, Carlos Ortiz, etc. Basically they all agreed that Duran was really good but never in the class of Williams and Canzoneri, etc. They really asked the question, who did Duran beat? One even laughed at Lou Bizzaro taking Duran into the late rounds.

Jack Fiske said "When I try to place Roberto Duran in a one-to-ten listing, I can never wipe the memory of his title defense against Lou Bizzaro, Leonica Ortiz and Vilomar Fernandez. Bizzaro lasted 15 rounds, Ortiz went the full 15 round limit and Fernandez was there until the 13th. Bizzaro, without a doubt, was the most pathetic lightweight challenger in history, although a great runner. Ortiz, at the time he met Duran had a 22-5-1 record. Fernandez 19-5-1, had only knocked out five men. Ike Williams would have knocked out all three in one night.

"The best fighter Duran ever met was Esteban De Jesus, who beat him one out of three. Probably on par with De Jesus was Ken Buchanan, from whom Duran won the title on a controversial low blow in the 13th round. Duran's manager would never honor a commitment of a return bout contract with Buchanan after that"

"None of the old timers participating in the poll gave De Jesus or Buchanan a call on their all-time lists. Think about it".


Teddy Brenner "Duran, to me, was an exciting, colourful, hard punching, charismatic fighter, but I think he suffered a geniune lack of competition. While he held the title, the fighters in the lightweight division were at the lowest calibre in the divisions history".