Pavlik vs. Duran at 160 -- Who wins?

Duran seemed to have a way to pull these fights out of his ass, even when he was bigger.

I pick Duran by close UD or MD.

8-4
7-5
6-6

 

Duran UD12.

 

Duran, comfortably. Possible stoppage.

 

I'm sorry but no one under 200 pounds can "take" Durans shots the man was to strong and vicious. If you let Druran land too many flush shots I dont care who you are you're getting knocked out. Look at the men who have beaten Duran (pre 1990), none of them took alot of shots from him especially Leonard and Hearns (DeJesus had an amazing chin). I think a 160 pound Duran could beat Pavlik but it wuold have to be Duran before he turned 40 because as he got older he did lose speed and sharpness and thats why he started losing more as he got older like most fighters do. A 160 pound 32 year old Duran beats Pavlik by 10th round TKO.

 

p4p i believe duran hits harder than hearns...he just knows how to throw his punches at the right angle with proper distance

 

^^^exactly..but we are just starting to scratch the surface of pavlik immense talent..to bad he's running away from abraham

 

I usually dislike throwing a 26 year old kid in with an atg from the past. However, this is one I never would have thought of. I think it's a good fight with plenty of action. When it goes to the cards, fans on both sides are holding there breath waiting. One guy just edges the other. Duran wasn't the speed depend at 160 that he was at 135-147. If Kelly established the jab before mid rounds, he'd do well. If not, Duran wins.

 

A guy who is widely considered ATG #3 is not better than Cotto??? The guy who best SRL at WW. That's an understatement and a half.

 

I just do not get that. How is Duran number 3 ATG? What did he do to deserve that? Give me some facts. Beating Leonard does not do it since he did not dominate him and then he quits in the rematch before he is stopped. And Duran lost to all the legends of the 1980s.

 

The guy was a natural LW. He lost to bigger men who were absolute legends.

Greatest LW
Beat SLR at WW - SRL possibly #2 ATG WW
Gave Hagler a very tough fight at MW - Hagler possibly #2 ATG MW
Ko'd Barkley at SMW and was 38 years of age - Barkley the guy who beat Hearns twice.

I'm not going to go in it much further. You can do the research yourself. Whether Duran was #3 or #10 is not the point. The point is someone thought Duran was no better than Cotto, which is a joke. That just goes to show what kind of people post on this forum.

 

not even top 5 ATG..the top 5 is solid..robinson, armstrong, greb, ali, langford

 

He still lost too all those guys when he moved up, and they were the legends and greatest guys he fought. So what wins make him the best ATG ever? Giving Hagler a tough fight but losing makes him number 3 yet being knocked cold by Hearns in the same time period is ignored? That is a Duran fan formula- pick and choose the fights which Duran gets credit for. Ignore the loss but give him credit for giving Hagler a good fight, but ignoring the loss to Benitez 2 years before that. You cannot pick and choose the fights Duran gets credit for. Boxing has to be objective to be fair to the other fighters who did beat the legends like Leonard. Leonard is a guy who has more of a right to be ATG #3. But with Duran.
Beating Barkley makes him great? Why because Iran beat Hearns? Still Barkley was beaten by Nunn and stopped by Benn in one round. I do not even think Duran is #10 ATG, I want to know how and what opposition warrants it. Yes Duran is great, but rate him on his lightweight reign, because what he did -after that is great opposition but losses. And his lightweight reign is not the quality of an Ali heavyweight reign. So what rates him #3 ATG? Duran dominated against good opposition at lightweight, then he moves up and starts to lose against great opposition. How should he be rated? He still lost against the greats.

 

When this issue of Duran comes up I always have an opinion since I see this subjective reasoning with him. I am not trying to be unreasonable, I just do not see what warrants him this top ATG rating. He is the one who says in interviews how he is the greatest ever. He never says how. I do know that Roberto has excuses for all his losses. For Benitez and Hearns and Leonard (in the rematch) he says he did not train. Why not? Coincidence they were the best he ever fought and he does not train? So he choose to not train in the 3 fights which would have defined his greatness? Come on. Doesn't anyone else see the ridiculousness in all this? He trained for Barkley and Moore, but not for the 3 legends who would defined his greatness? Not an excuse? I know even his fans can see the truth in this, yet they do not want to see it. And when they have to see it they say he was older when he fought them (really 29-32 is old if he fought to 50?) as this excuse. So if you discard Duran's fights after he moved up, Barkley and Moore should not be counted either. So what makes him the greatest ever? Has to be his lightweight reign.

 

I am not sure how Cotto/Duran would go. I know Duran would not just walk through him.