This proves Pac is better than Duran/Hearns/Leonard/Hagler

And I bet if I tried, I could link somebody MAB beat to someone who beat Ali.

Why is it so important to you Duran nuthuggers that you'll go to these ridiculous lengths to support your fantasies? I mean.. yeah he's a goodlooking guy, but COME ON!

 

You're hilarious,not so long ago you kept saying that Pac beat those guys when they were shot and your usual BS and now that you've jumped on Pac's bandwagon all of a sudden they're three all time greats and tremendous wins for Pac.

 

What the **** does I said have to do with Duran you caveman?

You just continue to show you ignorance about anything outside a handful of well known fighters.

You gotta get some perspective mate...its called research, its not that hard you just have to get your head out of arse for a little bit.

 

So Manny defeats three fighters, who had all lost in the prior 18 months, and now his resume is as good as SRL. Benetiz & Hearns were unbeaten when Leonard defeated them.
Hagler had not lost in 11 years & Duran 8 years, when Leonard beat them
None of the four fighters had been previously knocked out in their career
Unlike Cotto,Oscar,Hatton & MAB had been.

 

Idiot.

 

He won his first title at 135, not 119. When did Pacman win his first world title? He was 29 when he fought Ray the first two times, and that is not old for Duran who fought until 50, and when Duran fought Hearns he was 32. That is not old, especially in today's standard, which shows how much more competitive fighters were then. If a guy was 35 then, he started to struggle a little. Nowadays a guy can fight into his 40s. Unheard of in the 1980s. Some people will say different training methods, I am not sure but I doubt that. The difference between the elite and contenders is big now. As for Duran. I don't think it matters what the other fab 4 were or how young, Duran to be top 5 or 10 p4p still should have been able to beat Hearns and Benitez and Hagler for that ranking. He beat none of them. He is ATG< but my point is not top 5 or 10.

 

excellent point. Back in the 1980's that example would have been clear, although Duran always got credit for wins which were not great or too mind boggling. He lost to Benitez and Hearns at 154, but beat Moore. People excuse the Hearns and Benitez losses. Then you take Thomas Hearns who beat an undefeated guy in Virgil Hill with 10 title defenses and younger, and people never gave him credit. Sort of unfair.

 

guys,

no need despise the current fighters.

in my opinion, the quartet of jmm, em, pac and mab are just as good and as dominating as the quartet of duran, srl, heans and hagler.

the latter fought at higher weights true and had their own merry go round. just in the same manner that the former quartet gave us some of the best fights in the past 20 years or so.

just imagine

pac-em trilogy.
mab-em trilogy.
pac-jmm
pac-mab.

in the same breath, i started watching boxing in the time of SRL and saw some of the greatest fights in that era.

no need to slag on each others favorite quartet on this as I view them practically on the same level.

 

Duran did have trouble with speed. Ray did not use his speed the first fight and he paid for it. He brawled. And still Duran did not stop him. When Ray was not stopped, Ray said, I can beat him easily if I fight my fight and he did just that. Duran quit because of speed, and then Benitez won because of speed, and then Hearns knocked out Duran because of speed. All speed from the legends. Duran could not handle speed. Do I think Pacman could have beaten Duran? I am not sure because Pacman likes to brawl and stand still at times, and if you gave Duran that he would go for it and he might win. But Pacman does look a little faster than Duran was. The only issue I have about Pacman and Duran is that Pacman does not move on his legs, and for Duran you needed either footspeed like Leonard or defenses like Benitez (which Pac does not have), or handspeed and power like Hearns or strength of Hagler. Pac has none. That is the problem. But Duran really is 1-5 against the legends.

 

See this is what I dont understand about this mindset.

Why is respecting fighters from other eras and giving them dues all of a sudden hating on modern fighters?

Its quite simple really...watch all fighters from both eras on film and see which ones were better.

EM-Pac-MAB-JMM are better the most fighters that have laced them up...just not those ones. I think saying anything otherwise is spinning it around and hating on fighters of the past.

 

I agree. I have a friend who I argue with about boxing who says fighters now have modern training techniques and would beat the Robinsons and Lamottas and also the Leonard's and Hearns, but I think the older fighters were some of the best, and they were committed to boxing. Look how guys can fight now at 40 years old. Unheard of in 1982. I do think that guys like Delahoya and Mosley and Pacman compete in any era, but Cotto and Hatton (I just the get the feeling) they are very good fighters, but Pryor or even Curry would have beaten Hatton and Cotto. Curry would have busted up Cotto and made it easy. Although then some might argue that Honeyghan was no better than Cotto. So everything is up for debate.

 

Somebody stop this man.....

I firmly believe that Roberto Duran would have beaten Sat's Pacman

 

Its unfortunate there were no Hagler, Hearns, SRL, Duran in Pacquiao's era. Its not his fault either. I think the measure of ATG should be measure on how he fared against the best possible fighters in his era. I for one am not saying he'd beat the Fab 4, but resume wise, he's up there with them. I know some of you would agree with me on that account.

 

:huh

Thats EXACTLY what he was doing...and as usual basing it on nothing of substance.

 

There will still be alot of arguing. For many people their worship of the big four is just idolatry. For them no one will ever be that good again.