Roberto Durans notable wins

Duran holding his own with Hagler doesn't mean Duran won the fight. A year and a half before that fight he lost easily to Benitez for a title at 154. Why is that fight ignored but the Hagler loss mentioned as proof of Duran greatness? It is selective, yet Duran still lost. And all Marvin had to do was pore it on and fight the fight he should have fought early in the fight and he won the last few rounds and the fight. Then 7 months after that at a weight Duran won a title he lost to Hearns in two rounds. As for Barkley. He is a good fighter and had so much heart and good power but Barkley was not great. I knew when they signed it Duran would win. Barkley was 6ft tall and Duran almost 5-8.. 6 inches? Barkley was a decent fighter, but he lost to Kalambay, Nunn,Benn before and after Duran the same years. The thing Barkley is known for is beating Hearns. Duran lost to Ray easily in the rematch and rubbermatch. Some people will say I repeat the same stuff over and over, but I am responding to what people say makes him great. Dejesus was not a great fighter. Neither was Buchanan.

 

Duran fought until he was 50, and that gives us enough evidence he was fighting fine at 30-32 when he fought Benitez,Hagler and Hearns. The problem is every loss which that other poster mentioned are the greatest fighters Duran ever fought. Benitez and Hearns easily beat Duran and so did Hagler. Because the fight was close at times and because Duran landed a few soft right hands which swelled up Marvin's left eye a little, that means Duran is a top great? Totally ignoring his loss to Benitez a year and a half before Hagler and his loss to Hearns 7 months after Hagler in the lower division. Then Leonard easily beat Duran in 1989 the same year Barkley fought Duran. The thing which Duran fans do is they say that Duran was diminished when he fought the greats Hearns,Benitez,Hagler and Leonard. yet they use the wins against Moore and Barkley as proof he was great. So those wins help his legacy and prove he is great in those years, but when he fought the greats at the same era he somehow was not great because he did not train when he fought the best fighters he ever fought? The logic does not make that much sense. Why would he not train when he fought the best guys, yet train for Barkley and Moore and Sims?

 

Roberto Duran 27-12-0 (15)

Marcel, Marshal, Kobayashi, Garcia, Buchanan, De Jesus (x3), Robertson, Ferat, Thompson, Takayama, Lampkin, Viruet (x2), Mamby, Villa, Fernandez, Brooks, Palomino, Nsubugu, Leonard (x3), Gonzalez, Minchillo, Benitez, Laing, Cuevas, Moore, Hagler, Hearns, Simms, Barkley, Pazienza (x2), Camacho (x2), Castro (x2), Lawlor (x2) (33)

resume against notable opponents

 

Both wins over De Jesus and Buchanan were great. Its impossible to distinguish the victories.

Buchanan is the best Scottish fighter that ever lived, and one of the best British fighters of all time.

His win over Ismael Laguna is an ATG victory. He outboxed and outfought Laguna in his hometown in Panama. He had such bad swelling over his eye that his cornerman cut the top of his swell to allow the blood to flow out enabling Buchanan to see. Buchanan also beat Laguna again in MSG. He also beat Hernandez and defended his title against Ruben Navarro.

After his loss to Duran, Duran's handlers wanted to stay away from Buchanan as much as possible. Buchanan dominated the lightweight division for three years before finally getting a shot at the title but he lost. Arguably was past his prime.

 

notable not great my man!!! Most top fighters have even more notable guys than this!!!! Look at Roy Jones list of notables? Toney!! Whitaker!!! Hearns!!! Holmes!! Duran did fight Cuevas Leonard Hagler Hearns Benitez Dejesus Barkley were the cream crop guys he fought! Lost to half of them!!!!!!!! Duran gave Hagler a good scrap and did land a right hand or two on Hit Man Hearns but that does not a win make!!!!!!

 

Why would Duran's handlers have wanted to avoid Buchanan?

Duran absolutely dominated Buchanan and Duran was still raw at that stage.

If Duran had fought Buchanan a year or two after their first meeting, it would have been an even more comprehensive victory for Duran.

 

They felt that Buchanan was coming on strong in the later rounds. He actually hurt Duran in the 13th before Buchanan was low blowed.
They felt that Duran could have easier fights for the same money also. Basically, it is Carlos Eleta's fault. Duran would have happily fought him again

 

Duran Overrated? Looking a little like it but I am not sure!!! He did have a good lightweight career!!!! I heard people talk about Duran being overrated as early as 1982 after Benitez boxed Duran's ears off!!! There is a lower standard for Duran than other greats!!!!!! People love the guy!!

 

so Duran ducked tough fights??? Another Floyd Mayweather!!

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Name any lightweight in history that could hang with Hagler. Sure you could say Hagler did not fight the way he was supposed to, but thats a testament to Duran's strength of intimidation and sheer aura to force a beast like Hagler not to engage like he usually does.

People are quick to diminish fighters like Marcel,De Jesus, and Buchanan. But thats because they had Duran in their division. De Jesus has the skillset to possibly beat JMM. Buchanan is one of the most underrated fighters here on ESB (probably because he is British) but he still dominated the lightweights during that time, he just couldnt get to De Jesus or Duran. Marcel moved down a weight... I wonder why he never stayed at lightweight...

 

Did you read my post? atsch

Eleta was to blame for that

Duran only fought who was put in front of him (lightweight Duran that is) Duran never really called anyone out at LW except for Marcel, but thats because of Panamanian rivalry

 

To sum up duran's career he's the greatest lightweight in history, beat the greatest WW of his era. was the fighter of the decade in the 70's. went on to achieve great victories when he was many years and many pounds best his best as a LMW-MW-SMW.

Anything after WW can't really be held against him due to age and size.

 

+1

 

Nice work. 29 fights for Hearns not 27 if I counted correctly, and then add in there Nate Miller who was champion and Lenny Lapaglia and Marcos Geraldo, who was no worse than Lawlor and gave Marvin and Ray tough fights. Ernie Singletary was a fighter of note and that gives Hearns 33 also. The noteworthy fights are really subjective opinions. Some might even say Baez was noteworthy in 1981. That would make 34. Another guy with a lot of noteworthy is Holyfield.