is Duran overrated as a lightweight? quality of opposition?

Which shows how great Hearns and Benitez and Ray were to easily beat Duran 5 years or more before that fight. I heard Gil say that, and I wondered why he gave Duran credit for beating Barkley, but not for losing easily to Hearns and Benitez.. Duran always got credit for winning against lesser guys and excuses for losing against greats.

 

It was a great win.

Barkley was made to order, though. Not highly skilled, poor defensively, not fast of foot or hand.

Besides the miracle win over Hearns, what is Barkely's best win at 160 lbs?

Olajide? Kinchen?

Now, if Duran had beaten Kalambay or Nunn that would have been outrageous.

 

exactly.. Barkley lost to Kalambay, Nunn, Benn and Duran in the same 2 years. Benn in one round. Even Dewitt went 7 or so with Benn. I am sure it proved how great Duran was.. Duran beating Hearns and Benitez in the early 1980s would have proved greatness..

 

I'd still push it toward "outrageous" i think. Barkley's only made to order in hindsight, i don't remember anyone giving Duran much chance going in particulary given Iran stopped his obliterator in Hearns. Duran hadn't won a fight of note for 6 years and was 37 odd.

Way back in 1983 he won Rings comeback fighter of the year as he was thought to be finished even then. Six years later he won it again with this victory over Barkley.

In hindsight Barkley was a come forward fighter with average skills and yes he suited Duran. He was however much much bigger, a big puncher, strong and prime.

 

Duran was great by the time he left Lightweight, let alone after he beat SRL. If you don't think him "great" there's not much anyone can do for you.

 

I am not lying when I say I thought Duran would win. I thought, this is the guy who makes Duran look good and they will say he is great after. This was Barkley. Without the Hearns win what do you really have? He was an ESPN fighter a few years before and had lost to Kalambay and Sims and later to everyone. Had a great style with Hearns. Hwo was it a great win? Barkley was not a great fighter. Hearns was his entry into the big time..

 

he was in no way top 20 atg. he didn't have the resume. and he never knocked out an elite fighter, the best he came was an old Pipino Cuevas. That is the truth. Ray beat him easily in the rematch and rubbermatch. His career is a little overrated. or a lot. I think many guys who have legs and skills like a Whitaker or Mosley or Floyd jr. could win a decision.

 

Everyone knows those guys are also great fighters. Do you think the fact that all those guys were younger and bigger than Duran played a part in those fights? Out of the Fab 4 Duran was the oldest and smallest. In a nutshell Hearns and Benitez beating Duran proved they were better Jr. Middleweights {154lbs} than Duran and Leonard a better Welterweight.{Though Duran also beat Leonard} Unless you don't think divsions matter.

 

How many Lightweight Champions besides Duran also won the Middleweight Championship?

 

how many lightweight champions forfeited the welterweight championship in his first defense?

 

Talk to Perry. Quitting below Heavyweight does not count.

 

Duran was convincingly beating Buchanan, whoever says otherwise are so easily influenced by commentators it's crazy.

 

So, how do you rate Whitaker because Duran's resume shits all over Sweet Pea's?

 

If you beat a guy twice, it's not a "miracle win"