The Ring's 50 best fighters (1946 to 1996)

tell me how? don't just make a claim and not back it up. I use facts.

 

that is always Duran fans excuse when Duran never beat a great except Ray. He beat a guy who beat Arguello, or he beat Barkley who beat Hearns. So what. Many guys beat Barkley. Palomino is not a great fighter. Dejesus is not top 100 great. Cuevas was 3 years from his title loss to Hearns and that was after Stafford. and on and on. And Barkley was beaten by Nunn, and Toney and Kalambay. Duran does not deserve the ranking of top 5 in those years. No way. Leonard does, Duran doesn't. Duran is overrated. I think the machismo stuff and his attitude and charisma were great, and that overrated his actual skills. People saw him demolish lesser guys in dominant fashion, so when he lost to the greats they made up excuses for him. He was great, but the resume shows weaknesses when he fought better guys. A great of top 5 should have been able to knockout one great fighter.

 

Um yeah i dont think you really know much about duran's opponents. Ernesto Marcel and Ken Buchanon are just as great as benitez, benitez really isnt an all timer, he was shot at the age of 24. So um yeah that leaves leonard, hearns and hagler. Name one lightweight you would pick to beat these guys? I have asked you many times to name another lightweight that can actually beat hagler and hearns and you avoid that. Weight classes exist for a reason kid.

You keep saying duran is overrated, yet he's the only great that hearns ever beat. When hearns fought leonard and hagler, he chocked.

 

The Reason Lewis and Holyfield are rated lower is because this poll was in 96. Both Lewis and Holy had good wins after this and would be ranked higer than Zarate now.

 

Louis was still pretty good during his decline, only losing to Charles and Marciano, which is hardly a disgrace when you consider his age. His "shot" period contrasts very well against a lot of other top 10 heavyweights.

 

It's not a requirement to beat a great in order to be an ATG fighter. Shutting out the competition for a long time is just as valid, arguably more so because it's a lot harder to win world title fights for years on end without defeat. Almost all ATGs have had upset losses from lesser fighters, whereas very few have the kind of record Duran compiled at lightweight. For example, neither Hagler nor Monzon nor Hopkins ever beat a great middlweight. It's a simple fact that great fighters rarely face each other, because there are what, 50-100 "greats" in history? That's one every 1-2 years, across *all* divisions - so the chances of them meeting prime for prime is very low.

If Duran had retired before the Leonard fight, he would still be a very highly ranked ATG on his lightweight record alone. His record had over 70 wins and only one avenged decision loss, and he dominated the 1970s, beating some very good fighters. The fact that he then went on to beat a much younger, bigger, *prime* Leonard - who is probably the 2nd best welterweight of all time, is just ridiculous. Can you name another time where a prime ATG fighter lost to a much older fighter from a lower weight division?

And beating bigger, younger guys like Moore and Barkley, whilst past his prime, just adds to Duran's reputation.

 

The only great Duran beat was Ray who outclassed him in the next fight. Hearns beat Duran, Benitez,Cuevas, Hill. 4 greats. And even if you say Virgil is not great, that is 3, and he should have been given the nod in 1989 with Ray. That would make 5. Benitez is an all timer. Youngest to win a title and it stands. He was not shot at 24, he moved up in weight to middleweight and fought Hamsho who was not the right guy to fight then. At 154 in 1982 he was fighting great and better than he had at any weight, outclassing Duran early in 1982.

 

beating greats is significant, especially since Duran beat up all the competition until he fought the greats. He could beat Moore at 154 but not Hearns. He could beat Barkley at 160 but not Hagler. When he fought the better guys he didn't win, which is significant. If Duran had retired before Leonard he would not be regarded as well at all as he is now. Dominant at lightweight vs. decent competition, but nothing which was great. He was dominant and had charisma and great staying power with the right style, and that enhanced his legacy more than it should have. His charisma made it so that if he lost he had a good excuse and people bought it.

 

Moore and Barkley are not HOF fighters. People give Duran more credit for that than Hearns moving up to light heavyweight and beating Virgil Hill after unseating champion Dennis Andries a few years before. Tommy was able to beat the better fighters in the same fashion he would beat guys like Dewitt or Shuler. Duran would lose when he moved up and fought better guys. Regardless of all which is said, I think that is a positive for Hearns. He did not lose when he reached the top levels, and I know you will say Duran was old and all this, but he was only 32 when he lost to Hearns, and he fought at 154 as early as 1978 in tuneups-before Hearns and Leonard ever fought there.

 

define a choke? By the definition or reasoning you are giving Ray was not great because the reason Ray won in 1981 was because Tommy choked. Ray won in 1981 because he never gave up with a swollen eye and being outboxed, and also because he got a little help by Hearns overtraining and coming in 145 and running out of gas in round 13. But he beat Tommy, yet Tommy did better in the rematch in 1989. And Marvin in 1985 was great. See those fights Ray and Marvin were great. If you say Tommy choked, it sort of means you think Tommy would have won had he not choked. Marvin is a fight Tommy should have won. I always thought regardless of that win, Tommy has a much better resume than Marvin and better skills and greater wins. Marvin fought the way he had to. He knew Tommy would outbox him if he didn't fight an extraordinary fight.