Roberto Duran vs Floyd Mayweather's opponents- does he reach 49-0?

Well this seems to allude to the fact that Floyd could beat Hearns and possibly hurt him, how else should this be interpreted?

 

I think that your emotional excitement for Duran has clouded your reading ability in this thread. Show me where I even have Floyd beating Hearns...

BTW, why are you so committed to badmouthing Mayweather in these comparisons to fighters from past eras when you clearly don't know much at all about him, his abilities, or his career? It seems like no argument is too spurious or baseless for you when it comes to exaggerating the gap between Floyd and Duran.

 

He was clearly dealing with your contention that Mayweather could not last the distance against Barkley because Hearns couldn't. His intent was pretty clear to me in the context of the discussion...

 

Bad mouthing Mayweather not in the least. You're the one starting a thread asking if Duran would beat of all of Mayweather's opponents and seemed shocked that the vast majority of posters think he would. The whole purpose of starting this thread was to present some kind of superiority of Mayweather over Duran, so who's the one bad mouthing someone?

All I said was I think 3-4 fighters that Duran fought would beat Mayweather, and I stand by that. That's hardly bad mouthing the guy.

But I do think you're defense of Mayweather as being able to beat Hearns, or Barkley is a bit delusional. But obviously you think it's a valid outcome.

 

I don't think I am certain. I'm definitely certain. Ffs it took Mayweather 5 years to drum up the courage to fight a former Flyweight.

All those I listed above are certain to beat him. Buchanan and Benitez by out boxing him, Hagler, Leonard, Hearns, Palomino, Moore, and Duran himself all stop Mayweather.

When you get buzzed by the likes of Corley, Judah, and an old Mosley, your not going to last with guys that can really bang. Which is why in all probability Maweather would never have faced those guys had he been around then, or they were around today.

 

1) I didn't start this thread.

2) You're either delusional or a very dishonest person if you still think that any of us have been saying that Mayweather would beat Hearns.

3) I am indeed surprised that such an overwhelming majority thinks that an inconsistent fighter who didn't make it to 49-0 in real life against less formidable opposition, and who then went on to lose to multiple opponents less impressive than Floyd's competition, think that he would go 49-0 against them. Highly irrational stuff.

 

Whatever, I'm basing it on actually watching the fights Barkley had with both Hearns and Duran. That's the basis of my comments. You seem to think power is just some abstract and meaningless thing but I've been watching boxing for about 40 years, and power is an extremely important component in boxing. And both Barkley and Hearns have mountains of power in excess of anyone Mayweather's fought in his career. And Hearns is also a pretty damn good boxer, as he did outbox both SRL and Benitez. You think Floyd's better than these two, and I disagree.

 

1) You're right as I look back you didn't start the thread, my apologies.

2) I will revisit the thread to see why I have this impression.

3. It's irrational if you take it over 18 years, if you take it over the 7 years of Duran's peak, it's not irrational at all.

 

When I said Hearns would beat Mayweather you responded with the above quote which to me implies Hearns would lose to Mayweather. How else would you interpret this?????????

 

This also implies the same thing.

 

Probably?? like there's any doubt.

 

It doesn't allude to any of that. It alludes to Barkley not stopping Floyd

 

Wow, you really are being sincere, huh? This is the post that started this whole ridiculous Hearns sideshow. When you wrote the above, I assumed that you were trying to argue that Hearns had boxing skills comparable to Floyd's and that because he was unable to outbox Barkley, Mayweather would also be unable to do so. I argued that no, Mayweather is in fact far more intelligent and more skilled than Hearns (especially defensively). This wasn't to argue that he would beat Hearns, which I have repeatedly denied, but to explain why the fact that Barkley knocked out Hearns has little bearing on how he would fare against Floyd. Arguing that because Hearns couldn't last the distance, Floyd couldn't is simply ridiculous.

 

Hearns does have boxing skills comparable to Floyd's. Better even. Not defensively, but in his totality he's better.

 

It implies no such thing. The context of the thread made that the meaning of that post crystal clear: I was refuting your argument that Hearns was not more susceptible than Mayweather to being knocked out by a slow, bigger fighter.