LMAO at comparing Duran's lightweight reign with Virgil Hill. Ah well. it's your to delude yourself i suppose.
competitive? That is the criteria for being great? Winning the fight is great, not just being competitive. No one is going to pay a ppv fight and hope someone puts up a fight, we want to see them win. And with Benitez and Hearns he was outclassed. Moore and Barkley were not greast. Cuevas was over the hill in 1983. Palomino was near the end in 1979 and was overrated himself and look who beat him? The guy who outclassed Duran later-Wilfred Benitez. Duran lost to the guys he should have beaten. You can make excuses for all his losses, but he still lost to the top greats he fought.
yes I am. saying LMAO doesn't make it out of hand. Duran's competition was not good at lightweight. Dejesus was his only great competition. Buchanan was ok but look at Virgil's reign . He fought Hearns, Stewart, Czyz, Tate, Maske, Tiozzo, Kinchen. Is that really LMAO standard?
Hearns,Czyz,Tate,Maske, Stewart. Duran's competition are mediocre compared to top fighter ever, wihch is what Duran is seen as. And they are mediocre compared to Hearns and Leonard and Hagler and Benitez. all whom Duran lost to. There is an argument for Duran being overrated. Absolutely.
beating Moore and Barkley does not put a guy at top 5 ever. That is why Duran is overrated because no facts see him beating the top fighters. He actually is top 3 because he was competitive with Hagler? He didn't have to beat him? Wow, the standards for Duran are different than for other greats who had to actually win the fight. If he is top 30, then he is right where he belongs. People have been so hung up on Duran for so long, they cannot rate him fairly. He did not beat the top guys he fought. Fact. Yeah you can say he was over his prime weight when he fought them. Like Hearns fought above his prime weight for years also and beat Hill and Benitez and Roldan and Andries and Duran etc. But regardless of how high Duran was in weight he still lost to the greats, and really if look at Duran's record. he was fighting at 154 back in 1978 before Hearns even fought at 154. I am talking facts here and you guys just want to say he is great for no reason. He is great but overrated. His personality and charisma made people think he was more dominant than he was. And when he made excuses for fights people believed him. Dominant personalities make people think they are better than they are. He was great, but not top 5. Where are the wins? He has to beat a top top fighter and stop him dominantly and win the rematch to be top 5.
I will say one thing people are alot more forgiving to fighters from past eras. EG..duran got smoked by /hearns schooled by Euro champs like Kirklandlang.....everyone is happy to forgive him for that/make excuses. But when a great from this ERA eg RJJ gets beaten @ 35 they get called china chinned/ they would get beat by this and that etc...
Duran always made excuses and for some reason people believed him. When he lost to Benitez after Ray outboxed him a year before that showed his lack of foot movement and cutting off the ring against a great boxer. Then when Hearns knocked him out it made clear how Leonard and Benitez and Hearns all were too fast for him. He was not in their level and he was not that old. Hearns moved up and was faster than Virgil Hill in 1991. Against the standards for Duran were lower than for anyone else. Yet for some reason people believed his excuses. They wanted to.
I don't see how he is overrated... everytime you mention Hearns, Hagler, Leonard... you cant say those names without mentioning Duran as well... everything has it reasons and when your name is mention everytime those 3 names are mention, you are far from being overrated...
Hearns and Maske will be HOF for sure and Czyz probably. Virgil had more defenses at lightheavyweight than Duran .Duran's lightweight reign was not great so again how do you warrant him being rated top 5 ever? Which is why he is overrated in my mind. He lost to the best guys he fought.
no he is great and he belonga with them, but he lost to them all and also to Benitez. I do not think he is overrated if you rate him at number 30 ATG. But most people here and elsewhere rate him top 5 ever. He is overrated on that standard. He lost to all the four kings and Benitez in the 1980s. How is that not overrated? I am talking about how people see him in the ATG ranking. Not if he is great, but where he is ranked. His numbers and competition do not add up to it.
Kirkland LANG!!!! ROFL thats like Mayweather losing to Micheal Jennings! what would you say avout FLoyd?