Is Roberto Duran overrated?

One bad night and Mayweather at is best is not that good? Is that how it works? Duran quit against Ray Leonard this means he would quit under any adverse sittuition. That is the logic you are using. I personaly think your wrong, but what do I know?

 

I'd like to see anyone surive that low blow after the bell. Duran should have been DQ'd.

 

He was the best fighter of the 1970's so he is not overated IMO. But his resume, although great, does not compare to men like Sugar Ray Robinson, Willie Pep or Henry Armstrong in terms of quality of opposition in prime. Duran beat all the opponents he needed to beat at his best - 1972 to 1980. He was perhaps the best lightweight ever.

 

By those people, yes.

By anyone outside of them, no.

Yes, if DNA scientists somehow manage to combine Ray Leonard, Ken Buchanan, Esteban DeJesus, Ernesto Marcel, and Carlos Palomino into a single fighter.

We heard you the first time.

 

no matter how you say it the only great in that list is Sugar Ray. Dejesus isn't even in the top 20 of lightweights and Palomino the same at welt. :mj

 

Palomino is a HOF'er because people liked the mustache and Buchanan is a HOF'er because people felt sorry about the groin punch. You're right, Dejesus isn't great if he doesn't make a top twenty list of one of the deepest, richest, oldest divisions in the sport, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda. Duran clearly got lucky with Leonard the first time around and it's his only credible win over a great opponent. And Leonard was green anyway. And, um, the sun was in his eyes, and Duran cheated by being mean before the fight. And, and, and, and...everybody else he fought was a cab driver! Even the world champions!

 

Well you say Leonard is the only great Duran beat, but I think his win over Barkley is actually one of the better wins among the fab four.

 

Either one could qualify for a top 20 in their respective weights. Besides which, who made up this "rule" that only the first 20 fighters in each weight class are allowed to be called great? :huh

 

:rofl

 

What has tthe second Leonard fight to do with Duran's lw performances? And why does the excuse of a bad night get consideration for Mayweather but not Duran? Double standards. Mayweather never proved himself like Duran did. I can't see him beating Duran.

 

Where do you see a dubbel standred?
Did you read the post the post you re responding to is a response to?
The logic of the post was that because Mayweather had one bad night he would not do will in a prime for prime match up with Duran. You may fel that Mayweather would beat Durn or that he wont. However to make that call based on an off night is very flawed. It would be just like saying Duran could not win big fights becsuse he had one bad night himself.

 

It's got nothing to do with an off night. Duran performed consistently at the top level and showed what he was made of. Mayweather showed vulnerabilities in that fight, and hasn't since done enough for them to be ignored. Yes, he won the second fight, but it was hardly a schooling - and, indeed, if you're going to make injury excuses for Mayweather losing the first fight, why not make weight-drainage excuses for Castillo losing the second? The bottom line is that Mayweather is not even close to Duran's league in any possible respect. There's no need to even discuss it.

 

Sweep aside the fact that he was winning virtually every round up to that point.

If you're going to talk about "should have"s, a lot of boxing history needs to be rewritten.

 

What the ****?

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl