I've come to the conclusion that Roberto Duran would knock out Monzon

I myself have assumed the role of Duran detractor when the other side gets stupid in their claims. And he deserves more criticism than any other elite fighter I can think of. That's obvious.

It is the poor, redundant, rock-for-brain, emotional fist-shaking that is my problem (CP's satire is not included).

I think that the other side should be called to task, hopefully with specific argument, even a couple of shots too I don't care, but stop fretting like a bunch of old women in a laundry mat, because the quality of ESB classic is being dragged down.

 

That means nothing,,a smart fighter stays where he is physically best suited.

 

What I see is people obsessing on Duran's career in his 30s. If you listen to these people you would think that Duran started boxing at 147 when he was 29. I haven't seen anyone obsessing on the fact that Benitez was no good past 25 years old. I don't see constant threads about what happened to Leonard the only time in his 30s that he fought a very good primed fighter in Norris. Leonard got destroyed, yet I never hear that mentioned. But when Duran who also had a huge size disadvantge loses to Hearns or Bentiez some say it proves that Duran was not that good, and rank Leonard over Duran.

Duran was the greatest lightweight ever, at welter he he he split with Leonard. Destroyed Palmino. At 154 in his 30s he was better then Moore but not as good as a primed Benitez or Hearns.

At 160 in his 30s he gave a primed Hagler all he could handle, and at 38 he beat a primed Barkley.

I make no excuses for Duran. He was still a very good fighter in his 30s but not great enough to beat primed young fighters like Benitez or Hearns. He was a good middle but not good enough to beat Hagler. he was inconsistent after about 20 years of boxing. It was obviously hard for him to train for fights that didn't mean alot to him. Look at the pictures.


I don't think any fighter in history would be good enough in their 30s to give up all the size and age to fighters as good as Hearns,Benitez, or Hagler and beat them. I don't know if any fighter in history could split with Leonard giving up that size.

I think some Duran fans on here go overboard with Duran excuses, but the anti Duran bias is more ridiculous.

 

It isnt that people are obsessing on Duran in his thirties but that is when he fought the best fighters he ever fought was and he lost to them all and his lightweight reign was mixed with guys moving up or overrated guys who were not very good. His thirties is when he fought the best and lost to the best . It has to be important to his legacy. but according to Durantards he has an excuse for each loss and every win against mediocre guys is the best win any could have. There was even a poll on ESB comparing spinks beaten Larry Holmes to Duran over Barkley. Holmes was undefeated and Barkley had 6 losses and no defenses and the poll was competitive until people started to think and now the Holmes fight came ahead.

 

Perfect retort,my man.:goodI've always hated punching those poor animals,too.

 

If Duran wasn't the real deal at 135 he would have never beaten Leonard at 147. he would have never pushed Hagler to the limit at 160 in his 30s. He would never have beaten the same Barkley that beat Hearns twice. It wasn't like Duran was having close fights at 135, he was easily beating everyone. Its not like anyone even almost beat him past 1972.


The anti Duran crowd also ignore the film. Duran at 154 or 160 in his 30s was obviously in slow motion compared to Duran at 147 or 135. Anyone who denies this is flat out lying. Just like you bringing up the fact that Spinks beating holmes, and using the fact that Holmes was undefeated at the time to try and make it seem like Spinks beat a primed Holmes. Spinks beat a Holmes that was obviously past his best, the film makes that clear. He was still good enough to beat most hevy's but obviously was nothing like Holmes of 1980. Are you trying to deny this.

Watch a video of Duran vs Palomino and then Duran vs Bentiez and if you try to say Duran who fought Benitez was anything like Duran who fought Palomino then you are flat out lying.

Its one thing if it common for fighters in their 30s to beat primed great fighters in their 20s, forget about the size difference for now, but it doesn't happen. So why would you use it against Duran that he couldn't.


Duran had nothing to lose in these fights, thats how it works. he was giving up so much that a lose means nothing. A win means everything.

Once again, someone give me a list of great fighters in their 30s who beat primed fighters as good as Hearns,Bentiez,or Hagler in their 20s at their best. Not even counting the weight difference.

 

if you are going to give Duran credit for beating Barkley and adding to his legacy, then you probably have to accept his losses to Hearns and Benitez several years before, otherwise that is selective. You cannot pick and chose which fights to put in a time capsule, which is pretty much what Duran fan's do.
Beating everyone at 135 with that opposition is much different than beating Hearns and Benitez- and he did not beat Hagler in a counterpunching fight. Duran's competition with Barkley and Moore is similar to his lightweight competition-good but not great-he still beat that opposition in 1983 and 1989 when he fought Moore and Barkley, but when he fought Hearns and Benitez he got beaten easily. How can that be ignored by saying he beat Barkley and Moore or that he was in his early 30's. He just turned 30 when he fought Benitez, and he ws 32 when he fought Hearns. He fought until he was 50-35 fights after Hearns? As for Barkley and Moore, we all know Barkley and Moore were not ATG fighters.
Palomino near the end of his career compares to Benitez who was champion at 154? That is almost as ridiculous as people saying Duran beating Barkley was as good as Spinks beating Holmes. Benitez was a 3 time champion.
A man in his 30's isnot old. Duran was 32 when he fought Hearns. How old is Mayweather now? 33 and Mosley is 38. The excuses continue. Duran was champion at 154 and the fight with Hearns was a unification, only ruined by the WBA stripping Duran.
The excuses Duran gives and gave are not bought by as many people as Duran fans want to think. Fact is he lacks wins against ATG fights. He fought many of them. Besides Hearns, he fought the best anyone could, but he didn't beat them. That is what the criteria is for being great. So the criteria for most fighters would be to beat a great and you become great. With Duran it is have excuses so when you lose you did better than anyone thought you would, so you are great even if you lose? That is called overrating and finding ways for Duran to get credit when he loses. Then when he wins against mediocre guys, overrated those fighters and say he is the greatest fighter who ever lived.

That list you want about fighters in their 30s beating guys who were younger can be found by a guy who is mentioned with Duran as a fab four. Hearns. He beat a 27 year old Virgil Hill when he was 32 in 1991 and beat him by UD 30 pounds above his on weight and Virgil was undefeated. Hearns is underrated and Duran overrated.

 

Didn't I just say this?

Of course it is still correct. I've a dozen or more fights on film from Duran pre-Leonard. He was an animal in his prime: preternaturally skilled, amazingly athletic, indefatigable. I have no problem putting him in my top-5 all time.

 

Benetiz at WW or Jr. MW would have always given Duran trouble.

 

Sure, how about lightweight, the weight at which Duran spent his entire prime?

 

Agree,

I think it is the Leonard/ Floyd lovers types, are the ones that don't like Duran.

 

Just objectivity. Ray beat 4 ATG fighters, and stopped 2 of them.

 

atsch

 

I guess MAG1965, that you are one of the former.