No..if you go by the facts. Duran was 32, 364 days and 20 hours. Hopkins was 41. Tarver was 37. Reach equal. Height an inch apart. Winner: Hopkins Floyd was 37. Pacquiao was 35. Floyd has large height and reach. Winner: Floyd Duran was 32. Hearns was 25. Hearns has gigantic height and reach. Winner: Hearns Duran was 30. Benitez was 23. Benitez has large height and reach: Winner: Benitez I will add: Wlad was 39. Fury was 27. Fury has large height and reach. Winner: Fury Do you see a theme of older fighters routinely conceding large physical advantages to great younger fighters and winning? I sure don't. What are you trying to prove with this selection of fights? Puts into perspective what Duran did achieve against Ray Leonard, fought the wrong fight or not. Thurman isn't a great fighter and has basically fought once in the last two years. Way to go out on a limb with that shocking pick.
I don't think these stats go in Duran's favor.. He was 32 when he fought Hearns and the other guys were significantly older. Hopkins was 36 when he beat Tito. There are many many fights where guy even half a decade older like Hopkins was than Duran did well.
Watch Hearns vs. Duran. The first punch which backs up Duran was a counter left. Then Duran backs up and Hearns hits him with a right when Duran bends down. Duran could not beat Hearns.. The style was not there. Hearns fought from the outside not on the inside, which was where Duran was a master. Hearns was always all wrong for him
No! He stood right in front of Benitez,his movement against Duran was awesome, he kept changing direction to keep Duran off.
Duran`s performance against Moore at around 32-33 years old was better than any performance by Tito from that same age onwards and Tito and Hopkins never fought guys that had the kind of reach advantage that Tommy had over Duran.
Which does not say much for Duran's chances at any weight against Hearns. Hearns was fighting on the outside against Duran and just punching wherever Duran bent or went. It was not hard for him at that range and he got the maximum leverage. Ray did not punch like Hearns did and Tommy was sitting back like easily hitting him with his range and speed. Bad style for Duran in any weight. People can make excuses and that is fine.
I don't know about that. Moore had 11 fights and dental surgery, but take the excuse about dental surgery out of it. Moore was not experienced and saying that was better than Tito against Vargas or against even Camacho. who was smaller, but a better fighter than Moore would not be accurate. Oba Carr.. And he fought well against Delahoya. Joppy was not bad.. I don't see how Moore was better than Tito's opponents.. No
Again, YOU SAID HE WASN'T passed his prime in the 80's... your reasons... he fought for over a decade after Hearns, and had some big wins, so he wasn't passed his prime. So if he wasn't passed his prime, than what was he?
He was still vital and a top fighter and paid very well.. He is given credit for beating Moore whom someone just said is a better win than anyone Tito ever fought,and he beat Barkley.. So he gets credit even in 1989, but excuses also. That is unfair.
Try fighting the two best boxers in the business in a row. Particularly after nearly beating the unbeatable Middle weight champion. A young boxer would have a problem doing that.
People say he is or could be the greatest boxer ever, not a young boxer. Why did he come out with two losses? And he was champ at 154 at the time. Hagler fought a very docile sitting back fight. And he lost to Benitez also in 1982.. It is a heck of a lot of excuses for Duran for losing all those fights. This my point. I can mind my own business and then these threads come up saying things like the title of the thread only Duran can say and people believe, yet he didn't beat other greats to say he is accurate. He lacks wins against greats. No matter what. .
He came out with two losses because he had over 70 fights and spent a decade ruling the light weight division. As he went up in weight he could put on superb performances but not all the time. Sugar Ray couldn't beat Hector Camacho in only his 40th fight.
Those are more excuses. Everyone gets old and can lose. That is what I mean about excuses.. But Sugar Ray Leonard beat 4 elites when he was younger. had Duran done that and then lost to the other fab 4 including Duran I could see what people mean.. But he never beat elites. He lacks those wins. Rather simple reasoning.
Ali could be considered a top fighter in 78' if we go by the criteria of ranking and public affection and the overall lack of talent to take him out of the rankings at the time. That doesn't mean he was truly a top fighter in principal. Duran was still a good fighter who was still a big draw. That doesn't mean he was still in his prime or the fighter he once was correct?
