is Duran overrated as a lightweight? quality of opposition?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Unforgiven, Aug 4, 2017.


  1. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,071
    3,067
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 4, 2008
    Not an expert on Duran as a LW an even less so on the LW division over all. But isn't there are least as a case to rate him nr 1 at LW? If so there's hard to see how he's overrated.

    On the other hand there also possibly seems to be a case to rate not only old greats as Leonard but also Whitaker above him at the weight. Even though Pea didn't have Duran's longevity as a LW he had one-sided wins over guys like Mayweather, Haugen, Ramirez and Nelson at the weight, among many others. It's a question of how highly you rate these guys as well of how much you emphasize quality of wins compared to quantity (if you indeed think Pea's top wins at the weight are better than Duran's).
     
  2. richdanahuff

    richdanahuff Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,838
    3,226
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 12, 2013
    Duran IMO suffers as a lightweight with the same issue that RJJ had moving through the ranks he was fighting very good and some great fighters like Hill, Hopkins and Toney he was so dominant he made very good fighters look average...Duran dominated so thoroughly his time as a champion looks bad in comparison....I think what Duran did the rest of his career when he moved up shows his greatness what he did as a lightweight was great but what he did as he moved up was greater as he took on bigger challenges against the odds being the much smaller man.....Ray Arcel seemed to think he was the reincarnation of Jack Dempsey
     
  3. Perry

    Perry Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,348
    1,364
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 26, 2015
    Expert opinion rates him at least top three almost universally. Been that way for decades.
     
  4. Clinton

    Clinton Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,946
    2,289
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 22, 2009
    Yes, I know. He actually looked very good against Haugen. But he looked poor both times he fought Randall.
     
  5. JackSilver

    JackSilver Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,378
    2,171
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Jun 24, 2017
    Exactly it's something that is set in stone for so called experts and people who lived through that time like you, until the end of time. No current or future revision or discussion is allowed.
     
  6. Drew101

    Drew101 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    27,716
    5,237
    Sportsbook:
    3,100
    Feb 11, 2005
    Well, with the exception of Pernell Whitaker, no one has really come along with the accomplishments needed to displace him from that perch.
     
  7. Perry

    Perry Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,348
    1,364
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 26, 2015
    Revisionism is a dispicable enemy of known history.
     
  8. ChrisPontius

    ChrisPontius March 8th, 1971 Full Member

    19,413
    110
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 4, 2005
    Great to see you, and the others, are still around!

    (I've been occasionally lurking, of course.)
     
  9. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    88,992
    6,268
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 21, 2007
    This is a ridiculous remark.

    There are numerous examples of revisionism which is now widely accepted as the preferred version.

    Best, probably, is the notion that World War 1 officers in the Allied ranks were "donkeys", birthed from the popular phrase "lions led by donkeys" perhaps coined nowhere better than in Alan Clark's "The Donkeys", a book which sculpted thinking on the trenches in WW1 for two generations - more recently, this point of view has been debunked, to a degree, by revision of the history of WW1 combat. Combat officers get a far, far better break than they did in the 60s and 70s.

    Kl, the masterpiece by Nikolaus Wachsmann, has completely revised how the birth of Nazi concentration camps occurred and retells aspects of Nazi targeting in the early days of the camps; for the most part this has been successful. Now the definitive text on the matter it was written nearly 80 years after those events began.

    If you prefer an example from boxing, take Harry Greb. A womaniser and an alcoholic for the best part of a century, his reputation was revised by work done by Bill Paxton and Steve Compton.

    Columbus was America's hero for decades; now he is regarded as something of a tyrant, a murderer, and perhaps not the man who discovered America anyway. This is still in question - it is currently being revised.

    History is never finished - ever. There is always new data, new points of view as society evolves. Christ, we don't even know how many fights Jack Johnson had for sure and he was the heavyweight champion of the world. Archie Moore, Koichi Wajima, Bert Lytell, Jimmy Wilde, their records are likely incomplete and new data could arrive any day.

    Just because someone says something for a long time, it absolutely does not make it true. History is constantly - constantly - being revised, in it is in absolutely no way the enemy of established history. The idea that "the truth" is a frozen perspective for anything that happened in the past has been proven to be untrue literally thousands of times.
     
  10. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Not here for the fairy tales Full Member

    16,692
    6,664
    Sportsbook:
    876
    Jan 30, 2014
    Grossly underappreciated comment.
     
    Sangria and McGrain like this.


Sign up for ESPN+ and Stream Live Sports! Advertisement