I know he's a great fighter while he could be a bit overrated by his fanboys at times,but I wanna ask some questions... 1:what..truly makes him deserves the 7-8th ranking in the p4p? There are old school fighters that's resume was arguably thicker... 2:was PBF nor the pacman's record ever better than him? This argument had been made by NoNeck that both had more HOF wins than Duran... Answer 1:it may be from his longetivity and achievements for a lightweight,nobody has made it into super middleweight plus actually growing quite well into the weightclass too,he lasted until 50 with every type of fighters. 2: Duran never fought in catchweight, draining the bigger fighter and well .. there's some difference about an top 20 ATG and your HOF guy.
He's a consensus top 3 LW, which arguably has the best top 3 of any division, of all time. He holds arguably the best win in boxing history. Which other fighter beat a prime consensus top 2 all time fighter in one of the original 8 weight divisions, 1 of those 8 division original weight divisions above their best?
I agree with you. Duran gets cut too much slack for losing above 135 because of his size and after seeing someone like a Pacquiao its hard to justify it. He never defended a belt above LW and his record in title fights above LW is bad. Hes getting too much credit for just being competitive and I don't believe he was facing large enough deficits to justifty it. And yeah his longevity was great and while I don't follow LW hes one of the best ever there. But I don't really believe in elevating him above the other kings and Beneitz when they beat him most of the time because he was a bit smaller. Much less putting him in P4P top 10 all time. I think we give fighters who took challenges and took losses too much credit nowadays. It feels like in regards to taking risks we're pro participation trophy because no wants to participate. Don't get me wrong we should handicap for size we've just taken it too far. We're giving guys too much credit for overcoming or almost overcoming deficits that are too small.
He was smaller but also the oldest of that group. By the time he fought Leonard, Duran was approaching 30. I believe Duran was voted fighter of the decade of the 1970s. With that he is still the only lightweight champion to win the Middleweight title. My own view is that Duran's greatness was cemented at 135lbs. Whatever he did after that was icing on the cake. It would be like Hagler winning 3 more titles after his Middleweight reign.
71-1 at lightweight with wins over every man he faced- Then moves up to beat one of the best fighters EVER in their prime, at their weight. Just imagine how crazy that must've been to see back in the day. I think the factor that really seals the deal for most people is the fact that even when Duran was beaten, it never seemed too drastic. There's always an excuse or a way that you could argue, "But if he was in his prime...", and he always put up a good showing of himself in title bouts (with the exception of Hearns). Even when weight drained, he gives Leonard a hard fight ahead of the "No Mas" incident... Hagler, Benitez, Laing, De Jesus, it's not really a scar to say you lost to any of these guys, right? It's very easy to fall into the trap of thinking that way. 7 world titles amongst 4 weight classes, a career spanning 5 separate decades, and a resume littered with name of champion after champion after champion... Duran just seems unreal when you look at his record and the things he accomplished, and it's very easy to see why people gravitate towards him, and why people rate him so highly. He's the closest equivalent to someone from a movie. I say all this as a fan of Duran and someone who puts him up there amongst the best of the best pound for pound, as though I still believe what I believe, I know that he does get a little too much put in favor of him at most times.
