Seriously now.. People overrating Roberto duran

DeJesus vs Mayweather would be a much more competitive fight than Duran vs Mayweather, I would imagine. Although I would fancy Floyd to outpoint him.

 

I guess. I see Marciano as having a decent legacy, but people also realize he did not have many prime guys on his record, which is the same for Mayweather.

 

I don't think he was. DeJesus was a very good boxer perhaps borderline great not an all time great. Of course those beatings Duran administered to him didn't help his cause. In another era who knows?

 

It would be hard to overate Duran. It's possible but you would have to have him in the top 2 P4P all time. You would have to put him over the likes of Sugar Ray Robinson and Ezzard Charles. Otherwise I can see him anywhere from #3 P4P through the top 10.
Duran's resume has everything, every box is checked.
1. He dominated his prime weight class for 7 years and 12 successful defenses. 10 knockouts in a row in title defenses a record at that time. This alone makes him an all time great.
2. Duran won titles 4 weight classes. All this after his initial reign of terror at Lightweight.
3. Quality of opp was there and that's an understatement. Duran collected scalps. From very good to great.
4. The eye test . To be honest If you have spent a great deal of time following boxing and can't see Duran's greatness? Well the French Open is on. Go watch Tennis.

 

I would like to respond. This is a good post, but still I am wonder where the top ATG comes from here-the 2-10 atg level. If you said Leonard, we see Hearns, Benitez, Duran and Hagler,which seals that. I mean that is quality of opposition and many times.
On number one , then Virgil Hill was champ for just as long maybe longer and had 24 title defenses in two weight classes. Does that make him ATG top 20 even? Many guys won in 4 weight classes where do they rank, and where does Leonard rank? Hearns?. Quality of opposition great, but he didn't beat the greats he fought, they all beat him. I think he was great, but saying the eye test shows us. That is vague in that, matters what criteria we use for what is great.. Why didn't he beat Benitez or Hearns at 154, where he fought before they did. I am still looking for why he is 1-10 all time great. No offense to anyone, but this does not prove it. Many guys dominated weight classes and better opposition also and they are not near top 10.Look at Ray Leonard and Ali. to name just two. I think what would make Duran top 10 which would check the final box is did he beat the greats he fought and not make excuses. Which would have given him the top 10. Had he beaten Hearns and Benitez and then moved up to beat Hagler. But he didn't. I think that is the box which he did not fill. And regardless of excuses or any reason, he does not have real greats which he beat convincingly or that matter at all.

 

My experience is that fighters rise in rankings.

And this Floyd nitpicking bs... Was he nitpicking because he didn't fight DLH and Mosley when they were two, three divisions above him? That's like saying that Loma is nitpicking because he isn't facing Spence or Thurman or whatever. If he is facing those guys at 147 and 154 five years down the line is that nitpicking? **** it is.

Yes, Floyd should have faced Canelo at a full 154 instead of that silly 152 catchweight, but saying that a guy with over 40 fights, and something like 7 title fights, is "green" is just being full of it. Who isn't green by that standard?

The Pac fight should have happened five years earlier, but that's on both guys as far as I'm concerned and Pac was still the younger guy.

Looking at the two guys records, I think there's a case for having Floyd ahead of Duran, seeing how consistent Floyd was while Duran was very inconsistent after Montreal. H2h... with Buchanan and Castillo in mind I'd have to favor Duran at 135, but you never know.

People make it out like ranking is some exact science almost, but depending on where you put your emphasis you can make good cases for very different positions.

 

You keep saying this same bull**** and you keep getting proven wrong over and over. You keep saying he fought at 154 before they did. HOW THE F DOES THAT MATTER CLOWNSHOES when he fought that under not optimal conditions. He only fought at 154 because HE COULDN'T MAKE THE WEIGHT OF 135 because of his habits in between fights. That isn't a good thing, that shows he was already having trouble with his training habits and unable to make the LW limit even while still the champion. Fluctuating in weight that much in between fights in never a good thing, and it takes it toll on the body as time goes.

Further what's worse, you keep acting like Duran was slowly acclimating himself to making 154 and taking tune-up fights before facing Hearns and Wilfred there. That couldn't be further from the truth. He was doing no such thing. He was still defending his LW title when he was struggling to make weight when you claim "he fought there before them", which itself is a ******ed point. Holyfield fought at HW before Toney, does that make Holyfield a better HW at that stage of their careers? Whitaker had fought at WW before Felix/Hoya did, did that make him a better WW when he faced them? Of course not because in each of those cases, the person fighting there first is much older and already past their best. So it doesn't matter if they fought their first, when they actually did meet was many years later when they are no longer at their best. What is so difficult to compute here? Is there a learning disability I'm unaware of going on here? You can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that Duran was in his early 30's when he fought Wilfred and Hearns at 154. They were in their prime and smack dab in their 20's. Duran had been champion for more than a decade already before they met, let alone how long he had been fighting before that. Sometimes your arguments just make me wanna go WTF

 

We've gone over this before Bud, but WHO exactly did Canelo fight that gave him the experience needed to face a Floyd Mayweather Jr. Just saying having 40 something fights isn't enough if the competition isn't even near what you'll now be facing in the ring. There's general greenness and their practical greenness. Canelo was green when it came to fighting people even near Floyd's level. He was green when it came to that. Even the TOP name you'll cite before he faced Floyd, was that victory super dominant or one-sided? It was anything but that, and many had it the other way. So where is the level of competition that made Canelo not "green" to fighting somebody like Floyd. That isn't even getting into the Catchweight thing that Floyd made him do as he did others. When you are stacking the deck in your favor all the time, that has to be acknowledged as a real thing, because it was. It tarnishes to some degree those victories imo, but maybe not to you.

 

Most are green when it comes to facing someone near Floyd's level. Ali hadn't when he faced Liston, Frazier hadn't when he faced Ali, SRL hadn't when he faced Benitez, Hearns hadn't when he faced SRL, Bowe when he faced Holy and so on and so on.

 

Exactly, and what about those fights listed are different from the Canelo vs. Floyd fight? They all won or were very competitive if they didn't. That is in STARK comparison to Canelo, who wasn't the least bit competitive. I was watching the fight with people who knew next to nothing about boxing, and even they commented that Canelo looked tentative and scared of the moment. He certainly did, and that comes from inexperience at that level. The proof is in the pudding. Sure, one doesn't know if you're ready when you face an ATG for the first time, but the results prove if you are or not. The results in the fights you listed prove they were, while the result of Canelo-Floyd certainly show the exact opposite IMO. He clearly was not ready.

 

He isn't.

 

So if you beat someone easily, it's proof that the victory doesn't mean very much? That principle, if applied consistently, would really turn rankings up-side-down.

Floyd has made most of the fighters he faced look ordinary. Canelo for his part has shown both before (Trout) and after (Lara) that he has trouble with elusive counter punchers. That the he would struggle with the best elusive counter puncher of his generation was hardly a surprise.

Personally, I'd be pretty confident that Saunders would beat him.

If you want to claim that Canelo was a good stylistical match-up for Floyd - fine. I thought as much going into the fight and still do. But this "green" stuff... It just won't wash.

 

I think the arguments I make are valid. Certainly I do not buy any of Duran's excuses, as I would not any other fighter. When Hearns said he had his legs massaged before Hagler, I didn't care. Why did he let guys massage his legs before his biggest fight and not know what he was doing. Why didn't he let guys massage his legs before fights he won. And then in the biggest fight of his career he doesn't know not to let them massage it. Too bad. Excuses to me are just ways to get out of a loss. it didn't work for Hearns, and I don't see how Duran's should work for him.
As for Duran and the 154 fight in 1978, if he fought as early as 1978 he was not this guy who just moved up in weight like say Marlon Starling when he fought Michael Nunn in April of 1990.. He was comfortable at a weight (before Hearns or Leonard or Benitez) fought at this weight, and the excuse Duran had that he was was bloated at this weight I think is devalued right there. That is my point. So what else is there? Why the big thing to make excuses for Duran losses? That is why I mention it. Every fighter has habits, why should I care what bad habits Roberto had. We know the excuses he made for Ray in the rematch. I remember hours after he fought Ray. The word was he ate 2 steaks and had 2 gallons of water. I remember that one. Well why did he do that with Ray in the rematch but not in the first fight?Why did he need those kinds of excuses? It is very similar to Hearns and the massage before the Hearns fight. Or Hagler coming out right handed, well that was Hagler's choice, but a bad move. Ray fooled him. As for Duran- If he didn't beat the great fighters he didn't. That is his problem, but his record should be rated fairly then that he lost, and excuses usually are not with an asterisk by a loss. He didn't beat great fighters when he could have been in shape therefore he is not as great as some say. This is a bad argument? No.
Somehow Duran fans think because Duran has excuses, people will say had he been in shape or not had the excuses we should assume he would have won and therefore get the credit for a win or somehow ignore the loss. The Benitez fight is unfairly forgotten which is a shame since Wilfred fought masterfully. But Hearns will never be forgotten, it was one of the greatest knockouts ever..

Should Duran's losses be ignored because he mentioned an excuse? That is fair. because he has an excuse? Eating a steak or not training. That is what I call a WTF. He was having trouble with training habits? Poor Duran. When other guys are all having easy times training, he is the only one who struggles? Fact is he was paid to be at fights and one way or another he lost. Excuses don't mean the excuses are true. He would never have beaten Hearns. Tommy was too fast and his right hand too hard for Duran to take. Tommy said before that fight, he was going to test Duran's chin. Someone said, well Ray didn't knock him out, and Tommy said "you are comparing my power to Ray's power? I punch much hard. And he did..

Duran's excuses don't mean anything to me. Too bad for his discipline, it hurt his legacy then. If he really would have won had he been in shape, regardless of the fact you guys say he was bloated and not natural at the weight than that is a shame. I am saying Duran was comfortable at 154, the reason he lost is because he dealt with fast guys like Benitez and Hearns, something Moore or Minchillo could not provide him.

I think that is a valid point when someone fights at a certain weight before others. And you know what point I am making. Holyfield fighting before Toney at heavyweight means we cannot say he was a bloated heavyweight, and Whitaker was not bloated at WW.. Another excuse would have to be brought up to excuse them. And with Duran, another one always does. Then the excuse is he didn't train or he was not motivated or when he said Ray won the 3rd fight because he fought like a sissy. And your point about Hearns and Benitez and Duran being was washed up when he fought them.. Well with Holyfield. did Evander win a title 5 years after Toney like Duran did 5 years after Hearns and one division higher? No he didn't. Not a legit one. All the excuses for Duran can be proven just excuses because he is given credit years after for winning other fights-yet excuses when he lost. I don't think I have a learning disability, but if that is the case I think the fact you are not really proving your case means that if I do have a learning disability, I think my points are more valid. I am bringing up facts and not relying on excuses, which is very poor for a sports figure to do.

And then this Duran was old and Benitez so much younger is rather ridiculous. Benitez won easily in my mind. And Duran fought until 2001, and yet you say he was the old guy with Benitez who fought until I think 1990 some guy not Scott Pasadora, or I forget his name. And Benitez was completely washed up in 1990. yet Duran fought 40 times after Benitez and fought until 2001, and not retiring because of boxing but because of a car accident. He would have kept fighting for years after.. 32 is not old when he fought until 50, and the fact is he was fighting in 2000 at 168,,, 2 divisions above his 154 weight of 1984 when he fought Hearns, yet you and others say he was bloated at 154 and washed up in 1982 and 1984 when he fought Benitez and Hearns at that weight.. Did you know Hearns was the midpoint of his whole career in years? 35 years. Hearns was 17 years before he retired.

Now, you mentioned Whitaker and Holyfield trying to make a point about Hearns and Benitez-when Duran fought them. I ask you again, did Whitaker and Holyfield win a title 5 years after Whitaker lost to Tito and Holyfield lost to Toney like Duran did with Barkley in 1989-which is 7 years after Benitez? No. So your point there was proven wrong by a guy whom you say has a learning disability and does not understand. All Duran had to do in your mind is get in shape and be motivated and he would have knocked out Hearns and Benitez easily? Or you say he was old in 1984 and bloated, yet he fought until 2001 2 divisions above 154. Duran takes excuses. to another level. I think my points are valid on the weight at 154, and when he fought there and his excuses