Roberto Duran. Overrated or what?!

i dont agree with you but you defend your points well

 

The Leonard fight doesn't count.Jesus christ.

 

^

Just when you thought you've heard it all, eh?

 

Id really like to know how Leonard "dominated" Duran in the rematch...that is one of the biggest myths around and just proves to me people are making up their mind on the fact the record book says Leonard won by 8th round TKO...not what the actual fight showed.

There was barely anything in it coming into the 8th...as the scores show. Leonard was doing a lot of moving, a lot of taunting but not a hell of a lot of punching...and certainly not landing that much.
He starting coming on strong in the 7th...but by that time Roberto had mentally given up anyway..He was frustrated by Leonard's antics and not prepared enough to deal with his tactics.
It was heading for domination...but the fight up until that point was far from it.

The first fight is the most definitive of their series...That was truly two fighters at their peak and Duran won that fight clearly.

 

When did i say he was top 5 p4p, i don't have him top 5 though i wouldn't have a problem if he was. Ive have the duran v leonard 2 fight,he quit in my opinion because leonard was clowing about, nor was it a shut out for leonard before it, theres no excuse for that though and its a black mark against duran. As for your attempt to justify hearns resume as being better than duran, its frankly a joke.

The leonard win doesn't count and why would that be? Because its far better than any win hearns has maybe. Barkley win means **** all because benn knocked him out a year later, lets me spell this out for you, DURAN WAS A NATURAL LIGHTWEIGHT AND MILES PAST PRIME in the barkley fight. As was stated earlier on would casamayor beating pavlik now mean **** all even lets say if abrhams knocked him out a year later? No it would be one of the greatest wins in the history of the sport, as duran was v Barkley.

If you own all of the footage of buchanan and de jesus then you will know they where top quality fighters, as was marcel. Better than anyone that hearns beat apart from duran himself (who was miles past his best weight and prime) and benitez.

And why would because duran was past prime in the 80's mean that his acompishments there mean nothing, actually it means more than when he was miles from the fighter he was between 77-80 he was still able to beat top level opposition at weight classes he has no business being at.

 

I agree. Leonard was winning but it wasn't a total domination up to that point. There's myths about the 1st fight as well. People act like Leonard changed his style for that fight because of Duran's mind games and decided to brawl and stand flat-footed. Leonard usually fought flat-footed. Leonard changed his style to a more fleet-footed one in the Duran rematch, and Hagler fight.

 

Thready, preaching to the choir mate...I have arguement after arguement with people over this..Leonard if anything changed his style for the rematch and he tried everything in the first fight...brawling, being the aggressor, being on the back foot, fighting from the outside, mid-range and inside, trying to outjab Roberto...but he was beaten everywhere he tried.

Fact is you watch Leonard before the Duran fight, He fit the boxer-puncher role much better then pure boxer..His movement was usually efficient not wasted, he wasnt afraid to get inside and completely confident that his skills and handspeed could see him win a shootout with anyone. He often liked to sit just outside of range or use his head movement and footwork to make guys miss but be right there to counter...he was often the aggressor in a lot of those fights and certainly did not employ the constant movement that we saw in the Duran rematch. Even during his amatuer days did you see him moving as much as that.

 

How was a just turned 24 year old fighter in his third year as a pro at is peak???

The first fight was close the second wasnt, Duran won the first round on all cards and the second on two of three, Then he lost 3,4,5,6,7 and was losing 8.

Duran was frustrated because Ray didnt stand and trade with him as he did in the first fight, he boxed him, and Duran know that he couldnt win that way...Duran was throwing shots at a fighter that was there, then pop, pop, pop he was back dropp'n combo's on Duran and gone again.

Problem with saying that Duran was the greater of the four is his head to head vs those fighters, he lost 5 or 6 fights, the worst record of the four head to head, and beating guys like Barkley, Moore, and Cuevas who isnt close to being a great fighter as stated before, he was what we would term today a belt holder.

I dont hold anything that happened after 1990 against Duran, he was a shell by then but the fact remains that Duran was a great fighter, I dont think that anyone is saying he wasnt, he just isnt the fighter that many on this site seem to think he was, his resume is vastly over rated when you take out the fighters that he lost to. Which is the reason that guys like you overstate his win over Leonard..You cats try and make it sound like it was Douglas over Tyson.

 

I'd have to go through a list, but I think Roberto Duran is likely one of the 5-10 greatest fighters in history. Greatest lightweight ever.

 

No he didnt try everything...Did he fight the way he did in the second fight??? If not, he didnt try every thing. KEEP IN MIND Duran won the fight by a total of 4 points on all three cards I dont remember the numbers but I remember that.

Ray never used that style???? WTF are you talking about????

 

When would you rate leonard peak as?

 

Because a lot of fighters with the kind of amateur career Leonard had are just about hitting their peak as soon as they start their pro career.
Because probably his best performance..thats including Hagler, Duran and Hearns..was against Benitez 6 months earlier.

Leonard retired 2 years later and we never saw him regain this kind of form again. Benitez was at his peak at 21, Gomez was at his peak 22, Tyson at 21 ..what does age have to do with it? Everyone is different, Leonard was past his peak by the time he was 30..Hopkins was at his peak at 40.

Im not on hear trying to say Duran was winning that fight...Im just saying I think people saying he was getting dominated is absolute shite...Neither guy was landing **** until Duran pretty much stopped fighting.
That doesnt take away from Leonard's win...but people have to get real.

 

Thats fight wasnt close though...Duran was all over him for the first 10 rounds, then took his foot off the pedal for the last 5 rounds which is often typical of Duran when he felt he was in control of a fight.
Duran didnt let him do anything, he moved but was cut off..he tried to hold but was pushed away. He tried to outjab but was outjabbed himself.

He did try a different strategy from the start the next time around...but against a less prepared Duran. He tried movement in the first fight, its bull**** to suggest otherwise..it just didnt work for him.
I have said 1000 times before..people make a big deal about what Leonard WASNT doing that fight but dont acknowledge what Duran WAS doing...he just stiffled everything Ray tried..It was Roberto's night and not Ray's.

Have you seen much of pre-Duran Leonard huddy?..He very rarely employed that amount of movement, just because he could doesnt mean he did...As I said it wasnt really his style, he was more of a boxer-puncher at that stage, with a high level of technical ability and natural athleticism.

 

WHAT??? Did Ray fight better in the second fight??? If so they how was he at his peak in the first fight. Not landing **** was the way that Ray should have fought the first time, and there would have never been a rematch cuz the first would have been just like the second and third fights...

That just it, we never got to see Ray at his best, he rarely fought during his peak years because of the eye injuries. And Age has every thing to do with it. Do you think that a 27 year old Ray would have stood and traded with Duran the way that a just turned 24 year old Ray did???

Ray had long layoff from 81-97 fighting only 11 times and only losing two.
I would have loved to have seen Ray fight 10 to 15 fights between the ages of 25 and 30 but he only had 4 winning all by knockout that was his prime. He didnt look as good because he was always rusty, and not because he was past his prime as you are impling.:good

 

For the record...Anyone who has Duran in their top5 alltime IS overrating him.

I personally have him 7 or 8..but that stage of the list there can be a lot between guys even though their is only 1 or 2 spots separating them. I personally think that is high, about the highest I can justify. But I think having him outside the top 15 is selling him short...outside the 20, I would love to see the argument for it because I cant see one.

And yes I have him above Leonard.