Seriously now.. People overrating Roberto duran

Well because I do not think his level of wins or the opposition of those wins is not 1-10 ATG then I miss the point is what your are saying. I just don't think he has the level to warrant 1-10. I have a mind which needs facts to warrant what I believe. Understanding or not. It is just an opinion like anything else. You know, I have read about the Kennedy assassination for 41 years now. And I believe Oswald shot President Kennedy and was the lone gunman. I know this does not relate to boxing, but the way my mind works is I take whatever facts there are and come up with a conclusion on it without making it more or less. Sort of scientifically or in a practical way. I don't make guesses and I don't like excuses.. If there is proof, then I figure that out.

 

Well I don't think Ray had the mental strength to do what Hearns or Duran did and keep fighting and losing and fighting mediocre guys like Hearns and Duran did. They could fight those Tuesday night fights and be happy with it. I saw Hearns fight two mediocre guys at the Forum is in Los Angeles when I used to live there. Kemper Morton on Feb. 11, 1991, and Ed Dalton in January of 1997. I forget the exact date maybe January 31. But with Ray, he wanted the big stage or nothing at all. But what Ray did which Hearns and Duran could not is beat all the greats he fought. And that gives him a pretty good place in boxing history. By that standard where does Virgil Hill rank. He had 24 title defenses with 3 reigns. Or Hopkins or Holmes or Chavez, who had more title fights than Duran.. Hill has more than Duran I think. And if you go by Duran and his age. Hearns was 32 when he beat Hill. who was undefeated and at 175 with 10 title defenses. Duran was 32 when he fought Hearns.

 

Mayweather's greatest asset in amassing his record was ducking. History will remember.

His bout with McGregor - how could that count as a win in his record?

He chose money, he got it, can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

And therein lies Mayweather's missing ingredient, the huge challenge fight where he fought tooth and nail, and possibly lost. We never got to see greatness because he didn't step up. A gift against old Oscar? A ud against younger ped-free Canelo, who Trout and Lara also outboxed with relative ease?

Prime Pacquiao would have been Mayweather's Ray Leonard, but instead he waited and to this day I still believe old Pac out landed him in a real let down of a fight.

Duran >>>>>>> FMJ

 

'Fighters Would Take One Look At Me An Crap In Their Pants.' There's nothing really new in this Duran interview, from his British tour a year ago. But it's an enjoyable read, with a great title: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/may/08/roberto-duran-boxing-sugar-ray-leonard

 

Whitaker would go the distance and lose a decision , Chavez gets knocked out inside 10,, Duran is always rated in the top 10 pound for pound fighters in history,,, tell me where those same experts rate Floyd?

 

You state you need facts; that you don't like excuses - and yet you posted the below, earlier on in this thread.

The actual facts are that, in June 1980, Duran beat Leonard and there are no excuses. Duran was just better than Leonard on the night.

Your claim that Leonard was not in his prime, when he fought Duran the first time, and fought Duran's fight because he was rattled by insults thrown at his wife, could be interpreted as a pair of excuses. You also speculate that, had their first fight happened in 1982 (when Leonard was in what you think was his prime) then Leonard would have beaten Duran.

There is nothing factual in this quite abstract speculation of yours, but you get into detail about how that fight would have ended - "Ray......completely knocks [Duran] out in the late rounds". This goes further towards your fiction; away from the facts. It seems you have had to set up a fantasy construct in order to take anything you can away from Duran's achievement.

And, here you are now, stating you have a mind that needs facts to warrant what you believe. Your statement seems quite shallow, all things in this discussion considered.


I saw you were previously called out on having made these excuses for Leonard's loss to Duran. In a subsequent response to this, you justify the excuses because Leonard went on to win his rematch with Duran.

The above seems to be an attempt to directly map Leonard's victory in the rematch to the justification of excuses made for Leonard's initial loss. Even if we forget that you need facts and don't like excuses, in direct contradiction to you yourself having made excuses for Leonard, your explanation for it being ok to do so is a vague, ultimately flawed proposition.



Of course, it's right to point out his failure to beat the legends that are Benitez, Hagler and Hearns at 154 and 160. But to do so, without giving the proper credit where it's due, just comes across as a simplistic attempt to diminish Duran’s achievements at every turn, with your lines of argument shifting to manage whatever rebuttals come your way. Your bias and, at times, incoherence is quite evident, which makes your interpretation of the facts (those you choose to address, while ignoring others) highly suspect.

 

I don't think it is as simple as Duran beat Leonard. Ray beat him too easily in the rematch and rubbermatches, and Hearns and Benitez added to that. I give him credit, but I also have to put the fights in the proper perspective... No excuses.. That is how Duran always handled losses.

 

Well if you don't know the all time pound for pound ratings lists why are you here? Are you saying that Chavez is going to walk straight in on Roberto Duran at 135 pounds? Somebody in this fight will back up and it will happen by round three, Chavez can't sing and he can't dance, and he could never fight backing up. Duran is called , The Hands of Stone for a reason, Duran hits harder, is quicker and is a far better defensive fighter, and Chavez will be rescued around round 8. Duran ain't the Taxi drivers he fought or Meldrick Taylor

 

The thing I know is when two great fighters fight there are sometimes surprises. I favor Duran, but it might be a great fight. Duran fought better at the higher weights than Chavez ever could have.

 

As I've detailed, with examples of your own words, for you - Your bias is obvious and your "proper perspective" is highly suspect.

 

I don't think so. I am using almost a scientific approach to this. I don't see the domination of the top level I would want to see for complete clarity on 1-10 ATG. I said he was top 30, but no way beating whom he did the way he did warrants top 10. That is bias? I think it is rather biased of you judge the way I rate fighters. I do not think he beat the top levels dominantly, if you want me to say it simply. He beat one great fighter, who then made him quit and beat him in the 3rd fight. He lost to Hearns and Benitez and Ray with speed. That is not highly suspect, and the guys he dominated were not top tier. That is a fact. He had a great long career and dominanted a rather average bunch of guys at lightweight, which do not give him top 10 ranking in ATG.

 

There really is nothing scientific about your approach - it is biased and I have pointed out clear examples of where it is so. You've made a simple case based on losing statistics, which is fine, as I acknowledged and stated two posts ago, but the rest of your argument amounts to little more than a group of value judgements and double standard.

That you now accuse me of being biased against you, for identifying the flaws in your argument, makes me wonder if you even understand the points I made. Anyhow - never mind.


To conclude (as I really don't want to keep batting this back and forth), you have just described Duran's Lightweight opposition as an "average bunch of guys".


I'll rest my case there.

 

like I told someone else. I have studied other issues other than boxing like the Kennedy assassination, and my conclusions are always based on logic and things of that nature. I understand your points, but you are saying I am biased so we are at an impasse. Yes, compared to the fighters Duran fought at lightweight, they were average, and not fighters which get him top 10 ATG ranking.

 

Saying that Duran vs Chavez would be a foregone conclusion is certainly overrating Duran. Duran wasn't unbeatable at LW.

I'd have Duran as favourite, but you never know.