Montreal Duran vs PBF at Welter

he was an educated pressure man as I say. Yes he workhorsed it but he wasn't reliant on that workrate as say a Margarito has been, because he was better technically as I oulined.

 

With a slight change of the wind direction......Mayweather matches up better against Chavez. He's a more basic offensive fighter than Duran. Defensively, as well, for that matter. Chavez doesn't just jump in there like Duran. He's more controlled and robotic - doesn't throw unless it's going to land. Easier to read. He finds it more difficult to get off, so to speak. And I don't buy the "If Castllio can run Mayweather close, then Chavez, who was much more accomplised offensively than Castllio, would have beaten him" Lets not forget, Mayweather, more or les, fought that first fight with one arm. Thats like saying, a prime Whitaker - who moved like a demon on his feet - would've beaten Duran based on the evidence of the "no mas" fight with Leonard.

 

Cuevas was neither great p4p nor as a welterweight , and I m not shy of recognizing non HOFers as greats .
Duran was not reigning @ 154 when Hearns KOd him .
Hearns did not reign @ 160 when Hagler KOd him .
Delahoya vs Chavez #1 ended due 2 cuts .
Tyson took no belt from neiter Holmes nor Spinks , and he also didn't come close 2 stopping Tucker & Smith .
Duran's achievements r magnified more than Hearns because Duran was much older & smaller when he did what he did above lightweight .
outpointing Hill does not equate 2 outpointing Leonard , it is probably less than outpointing Palomino .
Duran beat Barkley who destroyed and later beat Hearns again .
Hearns did beat Leonard better than Duran did , but then both were stopped by Leonard and Duran was smaller and older than Leonard while Hearns was younger and bigger than him .
Duran outdid Hearns vs Hagler .
Both did about as well , according 2d scorecards Hearns slightly outdid him vs Benitez & Sims but again , age & size make it yet again more 2 Duran's credit .
h2h Hearns > Duran , p4p Duran >> Hearns .

 

Hearns beat better guys to be honest. Just for his titles the names are impressive For his first title Cuevas, Second Benitez. Duran should have been unification. Light heavy Virgil Hill.

 

Enough of this incomprehensible ****, frank.

 

Duran bullies PBF and takes it on points.

 

Cuevas is a matter of opinion. 12 title defenses beating guys like Weston and Espada and Shields and his domination. I think he was a great champion. Not in the level of a Hearns or Duran, but great.

Duran was not champ, but he should have been. The WBA stripped him, but he did not lose the title.

Hearns did not reign at 160 when Hagler fought him, but Hagler still knocked out a great. I agree with that, Hagler always fought greats who were moving up in weight.

Stoppage is a stoppage. Oscar was dominating.

You are talking about actual titles. Spinks beat Holmes and was undefeated. Again this is similar to the Hearns/Duran fight. Duran nor Spinks lost their titles.

Duran's wins are magnified you say, but he didn't beat elites above his first title winning weight. Hearns did. And the fact is Duran fought at 154 before Hearns or Benitez or Leonard ever did. His right hand could have knocked out anyman 175 and below if landed clean, that was not as small a man as people thought. But he could not deal with speed much.

Age and size? In that case Hearns shines over Duran. He beat Virgil Hill 11 years after his first title at welt. 30 pounds up and an undefeated champion with 10 title defenses.

The age stuff I do not get. If a guy fights at 60 but loses all the time, that doesn't make him that great, even if he can go the distance with pacman. Winning is the goal when a guy fights. Duran lost to all the elites above 135. Look what Pacman is doing beating bigger guys in dominant fashion. That is winning. Winning is not saying well Duran is only 32 years old and at a weight he fought at for 6 years, yet Hearns stopped him in 2 rounds, yet Hearns first fought at the weight 2 years before. What is the excuse? Or Benitez beating Duran. Someone on the thread said Benitez was bigger than Duran. I don't think so.

 

Was Cuevas the no.1 in the division at any point?

No. Then he was never a 'champion'.

 

Benitez started @ 140 at a much younger age than d age duran started @ 135 , which means he started higher and had more time to grow (as opposed to getting fat) from d initial higher weight .
Benitez was much bigger than Duran . At any given (common) age during their primes Benitez was some 2 weight classes over Duran .
Pacquiao either drains his opponents , fights d left overs of them , or both . Sometimes he even fights a fringe contender who somehow has a belt . Pacquiao's last telling win was Hatton and b4 him Marquez .
D rest don't really matter , except 2 his bank account and legacy (in d eyes of stupid ppl / ppl who still don't know d facts) .
U could even add Nate Miller 2 Hearns' credit (more impressing than Hill due 2 size & durability) . I guess Hearns could somehow get squeezed in2 top 100 p4p , but Duran is a top 10 , Hearns at least had his size 2 help him when he aged , Duran even lacked that .
Duran had 2 b aggressive or he would have been a punching bag , Hearns could always choose 2 "box" when in trouble / doubt .
Duran lacked that "tool" and had 2 rely more on his skill .
Hearns was skilled 4 a man his size but keep it this way and don't try 2 make it more than it was .
Duran's right hand could have KOd any man below 175 ? or did u mean Hearns' ? because it's wrong either way .
And when I say that Duran's wins r magnified I meant they r 4 a reason , which is his age & size disadvantages .
How many bigger men did Hearns fight in his career ? 1
How many did Duran fight ? more than 5
How many times was Hearns was stopped by smaller men or his size ? 3 .
Duran ? 0 .

 

Most certainly. Good distinction, Castillo was definitely more cerebral than Margo.

 

yeah, I see what you and others mean with him being a workhorse though, I was too quick to label that as being a stab at him tbf. It's just that I see him getting (in my mind) underrated somewhat quite a bit. He was the best lightweight of his era (except the quick passing through the division by Mayweather, and some even think he beat him once), which must stand for something. I've seen fighters who have been the best of other eras in their division which haven't been all that get called great etc. Castillo wasn't dominant but he emerged the best in an era which was competetive at 135 pounds, so it's either the era was absolutely shambolic or he was a dam good lightweight. I go with the latter. I think in years to come he'll be one of those 'was he great or very good' fighters who we debate in that vein. Which will be fair imo. As Lora said, calling him a workhorse was not derogatory, you could say the same of a Marvin Hagler I suppose and it wouldn't be offensive or derogatory. Hagler showed a lot of skills though so I'm not throwing a potential mirror image comparison in there or anything.

 

Ranked against the other very good/great fighters of his era, do you view Castillo as belonging in the same group as Tszyu, Winky, Calzaghe, Marquez, etc, or a little bit below them?

 

Then please list the people Hearns beat that compares to the short list I put up. When you look at their common opponents.. Hagler, Leonard, Cuevas, and Barkley... Duran did better. Only one he didn't was Benitez.

 

it's hard to say, which probably is going to mean no. I think Calzaghe is great in ability terms, or at least in terms of effectiveness h2h. The fact that I feel I'm putting myself out there for criticism with that is evident that he is not outright great in the sense that a Pernell Whitaker is for example. Calzaghe that is.

Wow that's a hard question you've asked me though tbh. Tszyu, was the best 140 man of his era until he was beaten in his very last fight, and his era wasn't bad, so I think he would get the nod over Castillo in this. Marquez seems to be the least achieving in that sense but I have no qualms in calling him a great in h2h terms, and that's from one of his biggest critics, he is ultimately one dimensional in my view, but at times it doesn't matter because he is simply better than the opposition, and showing a clear gulf in class is one trait of a dam good or even great fighter. **** it, I'll call Marquez great, a better fighter than Castillo.

If we're operating in a system wherein we have many different categories or levels, such as elite, great, very good, good, world class, average, etc and so on, then I'll say Castillo is a bit below the fighters you asked me about. If we're just talking a system wherein we have great fighters, borderline great fighters, and then good fighters then I'll say Castillo is on their level.

Hope that clears that up, likely it was just a load of rambling bull****, I'm tired!

 

Yeah Manny fights too many fights with the weight agreed upon, but he still beats guys. He beat Oscar,Shane,Marquez,Morales etc.. That is what rates a guy the top ATG in my mind. Duran is not top 10 pfp. Not in my mind and he never could. He has to beat other greats in dominating fashion. I know great fighters and what a top 10 would constitute and that would be beating great fighters in a dominating way. If Duran had his career with the Ray Leonard level elite wins then he could be top 10. top 25 is more like it.
If Duran could land his right hand on anyone 175 and below he could knock that fighter out. He was a hard puncher and a big enough guy regardless of what people say about him being small. He could rock any big guy he fought if he landed.

How many bigger men did Hearns fight? If you say one then you are looking at height as the only criteria. Hearns was smaller than many guys he fought if you look at bone structure. Look at the Kinchen fight even of Dewitt. He was smaller in bone structure. Andries,Hill, Kinchen,Barkley,Hagler all big bone structures.

That is the thing about Duran. People think because he is shorter he was this small little guy. Look at him compared to Hagler before their fight, he was not this little guy compared to Hagler even in arm size.

The fact is Duran lost to all the elites he fought. I am not sure how that can be ignored except by making excuses for him, and that is exactly what happened. At least if there were wins against other elites that would explain why he lost to all the other elites he fought above welt, but he didn't have those other wins. Then he made excuses after.

Hearns was stopped by one man his size and 2 men bigger. That is what surprises me about the boxing message board and people in general on here. I am not sure they understand size as far as muscle mass and bone structure. They think because a man is 6-1 1/2 and weighs in at 175 (for example) that he is the bigger man against Virgil Hill who is 6 ft 1/2 and 175. That would mean Diego Corrales or Arguello was bigger than Mike Tyson. Hearns was moving up in weight and was never that big above 160. As a matter of fact Duran could weigh in at 250 in the 1980s opposed to Hearns who walked around 180 in 1986.