is Roberto Duran overrated??

By some people on the Classic Forum, most definitely, and I'm a massive Duran fan. Too many people seem to give him a by on his failings. Although there are also people like Pachilles who greatly underrate him.

 

I didn't think Pachilles underrates him anymore, he rates him in the top 10 doesn't he? He makes fun of Duran but also rates him from what I've seen.

From other posters though I've seen comments such as 'all you need is a bit of speed to beat Duran', now we're talking embarrassing.

 

This is how I see it.

 

the polls a year or two ago and now have changed a little!! Robertoo Duran will always be great but overated and Wilfredo Benitez made him look slow and weak!!!

 

Both

Underrated: Practically no one ranks him over Henry Armstrong or Ross for that matter who he is flat out better than imo and a comparable resume and the potential if given the chance to hold FW-WW titles simultaneously

Overrated: When people say he was past it/not prepared for all his losses. The myth that get's put about that he wasn't motivated for facing ATG's but was up for facing Davey Moore and Barkley. He had stylistic weaknesses like practically every boxer and his were elite level movement and counter boxers alongside speed but every boxer has issues with speed. His win over Barkley just isn't that good, I mean it's good but not really great and I don't care if he was 70 and he needed a poo in round 6, it doesn't make Barkley great

 

right on!!!!!!! :good

 

He's a certainty for one of the best 3 lightweights of all time,if not THE best.

 

I think the nuthuggers and haters even themselves out.

I think most reasonable observers can see that whilst speedy boxer types caused him some problems, when he was at the top of his game he could still beat the best of them (for e.g. Marcel, Leonard, Buchanan, Viruet II, Dejesus II & III, Fernandez).

Anything short of his best and he struggled though (DeJesus I, Viruet I, Benitez, Leonard II & III).

I don't think he ever lost a fight when he was at the top of his game. At his best I think he would beat Benitez and Hearns at 147. That said the Ray Leonard of the second fight (a more boxer oriented one) may have edged the Duran of their first fight. And of course Hagler would always beat Roberto.

 

he started this in the general as well

[url]http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=346204[/url]

How low

 

The thing is while he could beat lower level speedsters. A Leonard who doesn't move is allot easier to hit than a Leonard who moves. Buchannan and Viruet's defensive footwork isn't as quick as Leonard's. Marcel wasn't as talented as Benitez. Part of this though is to do with size Hearns, Benitez and Leonard all have reach/height advantages. No one has the height/speed/reach of Hearns at WW, can Duran handle that ever? I doubt it but if he can somehow weather the storm, he may be able to walk Hearns down late

As for Benitez/Hearns at 147, the fights aren't that much different. Against Benitez, Duran was 18months older than he was in the first Leonard fight, he also didn't have to kill himself to make 147. Benitez presented a master class of defensive footwork and countering to neutralise Duran

Duran is similar to Tyson in that people can't work out how his explosive attacks can be neutralised or how he can be hit first

 

Sure, but I wouldn't say Leonard from fight one was strictly "a Leonard who doesn't move." Leonard used movement, but he probably underestimated Duran's strength.

I know I'm quite unconventional in my praise of Marcel, but I think he's probably more talented than Benitez. H doesn't have Wilfred's radar and uncanny reflexes, but he has better footwork and better punch variety for mine.

Yeah, I think it is somewhat unfair to Duran to pitch him against elite welterweights, but even at such a disadvantage I think he hangs with them.

Over 15 roudns I think he'd get to Hearns, but Tommy's right hand will be a potential fight ender for a good 10 rounds.

Duran wasn't 'old' or 'shot', but his physique against Wilfred clearly shows how different a person he was from the one that faced Leonard in their first fight, for example. And all the more so for his fight with Hearns.

 

I really like Ernesto Marcel as well.

But I just can't see how he could ever defeat Hearns, not with such a conclusive result like that. Funnily enough I could see a fresher Duran beating a similarly tentative Hagler though.

I don't think it is unfair to pit any atg LWs against the welters. Gans, Duran, and Leonard all have a top10 WW under their belt so why not rate their chances against others?

 

I agree with you on all of this

 

oh my, not the 'Duran didn't win, it was Leonard that lost' theory again, I thought that was buried donkeys years ago

this is madness

 

to build on the early discussion a bit, the best pure fighter (not boxer) i've ever seen.

at his best, a match for anyone in history
at his middle, an A class fighter with big stylistic problems and a lack of dedication
at his low, is beat by B class fighters with a will to win