are you serious? 12 of the 19 defeats of robinson were in his 40s, or past his prime, he lost against a lhw maxim when he was a natural small welter and he was competitive ,duran lost the rematch against leonard, he lost clearly against hagler, he was destroyed by hearns, robinson did beat all time greats like lamotta tons of times and lamotta was a natural supermw even lhw, robinson did beat guys like kid gavilan,turpin,graziano,bobo olson,zivic, armstrong ... and he fought tons of rematches and he was the better man. 173 wins in a record full of great fighters with 19 defeats , 12 of the 19 when he was in his 40, are you serious?
Duran was a great fighter. He mowed everyone down, effectively going 70-0 before (his loss to de Jesus in '72 is questionable imo) legitimately losing his first fight. His best years were in the 70's. He was done by the time he faced Leonard. I would've loved to have seen him fight Hagler in the 70's, that would've been an excellent fight.
I totally agree with you, I wasn't saying SRR is overrated. Wasn't most of durans defeats past his prime and to bigger men?
Yes. Duran was a great fighter in his prime. I think he could've competed at higher weights during his prime (1970's).
Duran was lazy, he had SOO much talent, that he could have competed with SRR for p4p. Also, if he learnt english, he would easily beat Ali in terms of popularity. He had great charisma, great sense of humor, he had everything
I cannot see top 10. He beat one great fighter in his career, and did not dominateLeonard when Ray fought his fight. Then Ray won easily in the remach and rubbermatch. What makes him top 10? By that estimation Julio Cesar Chavez should be top 10 or top 5 also. And Chavez beat Lockridge and Mayweather and Rosario and Taylor. Fought Pernell and Oscar.
When Leonard and Duran fought, Duran was done. It's really as simple as that. Had they met in 78 or 79, it would've been a different story. Ideally i'd say mid 70's, but Leonard wasn't pro yet when Duran was at the top of his game.
....that's to say i'd rather have seen Leonard-Duran in 78 or 79, Leonard-Hagler in 80 or 81, and Leonard-Hearns in 84 or 85.
he was done at 29? Simple as that? No, excuses cannot be that easy adn the guy fought the whole decade, having a superfight at the end of 1989 almost 10 years after you say he was done, and fought another 21 years-after he was done? This is why I comment on Duran, because these are excuses. If he was done before the fought the best guys he ever fought, then he should be rated on his lightweight fights, and is he top 10 on his lightweight reign? If so how? Buchanan and Dejesus were ATG which he beat? Duran just turned 29 when he fought Ray and he gained out of the lightweight division. He actually fought at 154 in 1978 when he was 27 years old. How is that done? No Roberto was not done in 1980, and the fact is that he really could not beat Ray past the first fight and never would have.
Duran is not a guy who needed help finding the competition. No he and all the other fab 4 guys had all the chances they had and were fortunate. If they didn't make what they could out of it, it is their fault. I never said Hearns should have an excuse for losing to Ray or Marvin. Why should Roberto? Roberto had many chances to add to a legacy of beating greats, and he did not past the first Leonard fight. He was given Benitez in Jan. of 1982 at 154, a weight he fought at for 4 years, and he did not beat Wilfred. He had a chance to fight Hagler and he did not win. Then Hearns again, no win.. A 3rd fight with Leonard and he lost a decision. To say well let's have the fight in 1978 or 1979? If you had the Ray Leonard of 1981 against Duran of 1978 which really is the same as 1980 at welt. then Ray still outboxes him easily. Duran could not beat Ray on his toes.