Seriously now.. People overrating Roberto duran

He didn't dominate a division for a decade, but he certainly moved up and beat a great champion in his best division.

Your forget to mention that Duran by 34 not only had been easily beaten by Benitez and massacred by Hearns, but also beaten by Laing.

 

Wouldn't say that Duran gets overrated generally, since he has such a good case for a really high ranking. But there is a clear tendency to only look at the positives after Montreal and not No Mas, the one-sided losses to Benitez and Hearns and the loss to Laing.

 

Well put.

 

Yeah, I think you have a point here. Ali probably gets some of this h2h bias at HW, as well.

I certainly wouldn't bet my house on Duran vs Chavez/Pea/PBF any which way.

 

I wouldn't bet my house either, but Duran as you say, should be the clear favorite. I think that is all that is being said here, and I don't think that is exaggerating nor a clear bias being shown. If you actually laid it out on paper and said, these are the things Chavez does better than Duran, that list wouldn't have as much filled in as Duran's side of the ledger. It's really that simple.

 

There is LITERALLY nothing scientific about what you're saying here, but it's hilarious that you claim you are. Maybe you didn't see domination against the best he faced, because, well, he was already past his best when he faced some of the ATG he went up against? How does that fit into your equation?

 

There is always some bias with anyone even trying to objective. Roberto -I saw him dominant. And he was a great fighter, but the question I have is how does that make him 1-10 all time great. Maybe my criteria is different than most. I saw other fighters fighting in dominating ways against ttop levels also. And knowing who the elites are is not hard. Look at Julio Cesar Chavez, yet Julio did not fight many in that top level until Taylor and Pernell and the when he was on the downside Oscar. Yet Julio's career does not warrant 1-10 ATG. Pacman to me has a good argument for possible top 10. Marquez, Morales. Barrera, Oscar,Cotto, Mosley and he fought Floyd but lost. I am more partial to Ray Leonard's 4 fights with Benitez,Duran, Hearns and Hagler than most because he beat ATG fighters who were at that top tier. I do not think Floyd should be top 10 because he constructed many of his wins with catchweights or picking them at the right time. Holyfield is a tough one. And I rate Michael Spinks very high for beating Holmes 2 times, which some dispute, but that is a tall order and he did it. 2 fifteen rounds fights. I like Hearns record, but Tommy had the wins, but his losses were devastating.. he had the great wins and title fights and great fighters and honestly he might be rated higher if he never fought Hagler and Leonard because his wins are very high level, but the way he lost in his two biggest fights hurts his legacy maybe more than it should. I don't think Roberto losing to Hearns hurts Roberto's legacy as much as he needed a Hearns or Benitez on his resume to warrant the top 10 you guys think he should be. I would have loved to have seen Roberto fight Alexis. I think Alexis right hand even though not the Hearns right hand, would have landed. Hearns landed and I know Alexis would also, the problem is Alexis might be too in range of Duran. And then Duran could have fought Pryor also. Great fight. And that win would have been a great win. I think he missed out not winning the 140 pound title.

 

that is a tough fight to figure. I think Roberto was the harder puncher and that might be the difference. But with Chavez you just don't know. That is a grueling fight.

 

IMHO his loss to Hearns really hurt his legacy. It was not so much that he lost, but how he lost. Duran had no chance against the bigger, stronger, faster Hearns.
The version of Duran that showed up in Montreal would have done better, but it would still have been a tough challenge for him. He was clearly a lot quicker then, and he might have been able to slip Hearns’s big punches while getting inside.

Alexis? Well he did have the reach advantage, but certainly not the power and speed of Hearns. Althoug tall, he had a very small frame, having competed in featherweight and bantamweight. I say Roberto gets inside easily. He avoids getting hit much better than Pryor, and if he does get hit he walks through Arguellos punches just as Pryor did.

Pryor vs Duran? Great fight. A war. Duran would welcome The Hawk’s relentless aggression.

 

It was said that he would KO Chavez, and while not impossible I do think that's a sign of overrating. He'd be the favorite, but I'd expect a tough competitive fight going the distance.

 

He wasn't shot at 34. He lost but also cameback and won a title after those fights you mentioned. Duran did that with more than twice the # of fights on his odometer.

 

Great insight. Agree 100%

Yeah, after a while it becomes predictable and boring. Same fighter. Same putdowns. Me included, for some threads you just ignore or skip by some posters because you can predict his post

Excellent! This is getting scary.

Mi amigo! Spot ****in' on! ! ! ! ! #

 

Duran was one of the few very special fighters in boxing history

 

I decree it is impossible to overrate Roberto Duran.
It should be added to the constitution!

 

Yes, but he was also much more inconsistent when still close to his prime. He lost to Laing around the same age Leonard was he beat Hagler. I'd take Leonard's post 30 work over Duran's, I think, even considering the Barkley win and his amazing longevity.