the win that got Duran into the top 10?

I'd rather take away Duran's talent than his best win.The man was a **** and we'd have been better off seeing him beat into the ground by Marcel and Buchanan.

No top ten for him then.

 

:rofl :rofl :rofl He's on one tonight

 

Lora is taking up Mag's place just more ruthless!!

 

I have always said, if Ray made Duran top 10, then what does that make Ray in the p4p rating? He has to be the best ever then, otherwise beating Ray cannot make Duran top 10. You guys already know what I think here. Ray beat Duran twice easily after the first fight when Ray became a better fighter. Manuevering Duran to become 1-10 and making the Leonard win more than it was cannot make it right. The win was good but not that great. Ray fought his fight and won the next two fights easily when Ray became a more complete fighter. And I think most of you guys know that Ray did become a more complete fighter after the first Duran fight.

 

The Barkley fight was the final bit of redemption Duran needed to crack the top 10, after LeonardII.

 

i meant leonard plus everything before, but then i posted again anyway, and for me p4p includes beating bigger men, which ray was

 

I try to avoid the Duran threads as much as I can, but it almost seems like they are now made to draw me in . The thread title assumes Duran is top 10. It isn't even a question in the thread title. Duran is great no doubt. I never said he wasn't. Lightweight reign and longevity and fighting the best he could. He fought everyone he could and he gets credit. Fought in a tough era also, but his lack of wins over fellow legends is what prevents him from being top 10. I am not sure why people think that is an insult. A guy is top 25 p4p and somehow I am insulting him because I don't think he is top 10. How is top 25 an insult? Simply put, I just don't see how his wins equal top 10. He should have been able to duplicate the Ray win and beat Benitez and Hearns.. But he lost to all those guys not close but onesided in divisions he had won titles.

 

Knew I was gonna regret that, and now feel like a human pretzel. **** you, lora.

I just couldn't say that with any conviction. There isn't another WW I'd be inclined to favor over SRL aside from Robinson and certainly nobody who had their hey day campaigning at lightweight, which puts it right up there as arguably the greatest win of all-time or thereabouts for me. Whitaker never got the opportunity to prove his greatness at that type of level despite JCC being a marvelous fighter in his own right, though he's every bit his equal in terms of ability for me. I guess it comes down to me believing Leonard was that good, which is an unpopular opinion here.

Amongst the fighters most often listed as top ten material, I don't know if anybody is affected as much as taking away Duran's Montreal triumph, primarily because guys like Greb, Langford, Armstrong, Charles, et al. have deeper pockets than Duran to begin with. It does make a bigger negative impact turning them into L's rather than removing them altogether though.

 

Mag.. maybe the REASON why Duran didn't do so good against the other fellow greats he faced was because he had ALREADY BEEN FIGHTING FOR A DECADE OR MORE before he met them? Maybe because he was well past his best weight will fighting fighters IN THEIR PRIME AT THEIR BEST WEIGHT. Those are key factors you miss and continue to miss. But hey.. at least he waxed barkley.. the same person that curb stomped hearns on two occasions.

 

You try to avoid Duran threads as much as you canatsch? You're NOTORIOUS for making threads about other fighters into Duran threads.

 

MAG, that was a good post. I do think you have somewhat of a point.

I guess it's because Duran is probably the greatest lightweight of all time, a skill level on par with the likes of Pernell Whitaker.
Duran also had issues with making weight all the time. He used to balloon in weight and by the time he reached Leonard, he had a big ring age. He was no longer prime when facing the likes of Benitez and Hearns - both difficult styles for Duran anyways.
Hearns is not just a regular fighter, he's a guy that you're just not going to outpoint. You'd have to knock him out, there's no outpointing Hearns.

One thing I acknowledged though after watching Montreal - The win over SRL was was the worst SRL I'll ever see. SRL evolved as a fighter from that fight and to be frank, excuses aside, SRL-Duran 2 just proved that.
HAVING SAID THAT, let's not pretend that this is at Duran's prime weight...it certainly isn't.

Leonard 1, Marcel, Buchanan, Palomino, De Jesus x 2, Barkley - that's great.

Why is no one mentioning his borderline shot surge against Hagler?

 

Duran vs. SRL 2 proved he evolved... Please.. go watch more SRL if you think that's true. Never again did he fight like that until Hagler.. and even then.. it wasn' t like No. 2... He evolved and this fight proved it LMAO

 

because Duran and the other guys were the fighters I always followed more than any fighters starting in the 1970s. So I use that era as my main points.. I have always said Duran was great, but what I discuss is not whether he was great it is that he was 1-10 ATG.