What's the greatest win in Boxing history?

That fight wasn`t very good at all.

 

It was a fantastic fight .... for Laing.

 

We've debated this before and i disagree with your generalizations of fighters moving up.

Duran was making lightweight for a decade. He dominated 135 for 6 years.

Duran chose to rise up. He skipped 140 altogether, by choice. I would accept that he had been struggling to make weight for a while and it was a good time to move up but the struggles were partly due to Duran's between fight habits.

Duran's best weight was 135 tho he still did great things at 147. He fought at 135 for many many years and is a consensus top 3 there.

His greatness is what whipped Palomino. He was still able to perform at a great level at 147. He was however a lightweight who had moved up. A naturally smaller man who chose to move into the division.

He chose to move out of 147 fast too. As soon as he walloped Davey Moore he chose to move to 160 instantly to fight Hagler tho he could still make 154 comfortably.

I remember you saying Toney was a legitimate heavyweight. Toney was just a lazy slob who ate and lazed his way into heavyweight. He didn't even look big at 160.

Weighing in at the poundage don't make you legitimate or not the naturally smaller man. Duran's greatness is what made him good at higher weights, not some magical growing into the weight.

SRR was a career welter who chose to fight at middleweight. His natural and best weight wasn't middleweight.

Duran had 15 fights at Featherweight. He's not called a natural featherweight because he was legitimately still growing and he found his comfort zone at 135 - for many years.

RJJ chose to scale the weights. He could have had 5 fights at heavyweight but no way would he have been a legitimate heavyweight for me.

 

Its not about a great fight....its about a great win.

Also, Laing was great in that fight.

 

What is stupid is you not being able to grasp the relevance of what i laid out in the simplest of terms. Duran's era may have crossed over with Leonard, Hearns and Benitez but he was from a different era. Saying Duran fought at 154 before the other guys when he had been fighting at a great level an era earlier is quite frankly absurd not to mention utterly desperate. I laid it on a platter for you with ridiculous examples and still you couldn't accept the concept.

The comment about Duran at 154 isn't important, it is stupid, fanatical and ignorant which quite frankly describes you with anything Duran related.

I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.

Speed was his weak point only after he moved up in weight. Given his height and reach this is hardly a revelation. Of course he was going to struggle against bigger fast men. Who would have thought????

It's not a lie to say he was a naturally smaller man who moved up either. This is a fact. He also beat some fighters very close to elite at 135 if not elite and he also beat SRL at the higher weights. He won greatly against one of them.

If only boxers were as perfect as you demand they be.

So Hearns grew 3 inches taller post Leonard? He was 6'1 for the Leonard fight and the same for Virgil Hill so what are you talking about? Hearns was always going to put on weight easily as he was so tall and skinny. His height, reach and frame gave him an advantage when moving up in the weights comparative to a relative midget in Duran. I don't care about Hagler - Hearns.

Leonard was a much better fighter when Duran beat him than Hill was. Leonard had beaten a GREAT fighter to win the welterweight title. Who the hell had Hill beat? You are playing with numbers and failing. Hill was actually less developed than Leonard was. Steward was all over this like a fat kid on a cupcake. Even tho he and Hearns had split he said Hearns would win because Hill was still basically an amateur.

Yes and Duran had about 45 pounds of fat on him and Hearns 15. Who woulda thunk you'd prefer Manny over Duran

Incidentally Duran beat Barkley who had ironed out Tommy in his previous fight! David and Goliath!

It is a big deal when fools think 5-10 years doesn't matter in boxing.

He was not a big enough guy - he was 5'7 with a 66' reach for ****s sake. This is going to be hard to overcome when fighting taller longer ATG's that were naturally much heavier. This is childs level stuff.

He had some excellent scalps at 135. Look at you desperate to manipulate figures again, figures that mean jack to anyone with a brain.

What the **** has GGG got to do with things? Plenty have been burnt out or retired by 32. You may as well cite Archie Moore and Hopkins to.

Well over and above that the guy was a short natural lightweight with not much reach. Lets forget that tho - meaningless excuse

Meaningless tripe. Everyone is different but who would have thought. You are desperate to disparage and it shows.

Hill was no ATG. Jesus.

Anyone would think Hill was a top 5 Light Heavyweight the way you keep spewing his name out. Enough already comparing him and SRL is embarrassing.

I don't care exactly why Duran lost the rematch. There are so many stories one doesn't know what to believe but there is also plenty saying he was in good shape too. It's fair to say he was a bit lesser on the night and Ray a little bit more ready.

Duran did not say he did not train for Hagler or Benitez so stop telling lies.

Gee what a surprise!!! You've spent 10 years plus on here degrading it Mag

It's debatable. I lean slightly on the side Ray chose to fight that way but anyone overly sure of it one way or another is kidding themselves.

Ray didn't gut it out with Benitez. Completely different fight and scenario! Have you even seen the fights?

Again who could be totally sure.

 

Harada over Jofre is worth a shout, particularly as he repeated the trick and handed Jofre his only two career defeats in 78 fights.

 

Jofre beating Saldivar just made this win better.

 

I wouldn't even bother.

The guys avatar is Duran just before he is KO'd for Christ sake.

 

He's smaller than Leonard but by 1980 he was no longer a lightweight. He'd been a lightweight since he was 20, and last fought there at age 26 and was probably struggling to make weight by then.
He'd turned 29 when he beat Leonard.
What's "natural" or even comfortable weight for a man at 20 - 25 years isn't necesarily sustainable and "natural" for him at 29.
That's my point. Hs moving up seemed natural, in fact.

Toney was blatantly bulked up considerably on steroids on his 2003-2006 heavyweight campaign.
Fat, yes, but also bulked up muscularly, way beyond what can plausibly be regarded as "just a middleweight".

Duran was smaller naturally than Leonard, I agree.
But a 29 year old Duran and a 24 year old Leonard were both legitimate welterweights, and the difference is minimal.

By extension, I'd say Leonard, if he'd stayed active, would have been legitimate and exclusively a 154 pounder by 30, he would have naturally outgrown weler.

I'm really not saying anything contrversial here at all.
Most fighters (and there are some definitte exceptions) outgrow the division they are in age 20 by the time they approach 29 or 30.

 

Great post! To be kept for future reference!

 

How does the saying go? " If you continue to argue with a fool......"

 

I just felt like making a fool of him.

 

I think what I say is relevant and very clear when it comes to Duran. You do not seem to realize your rather ridiculous explanations. If you think what I am saying is desperate, your excuses for him are unfair to the guys he fought and unfair to boxing. This is not about personalities and who you like. Otherwise I would buy the Hearns excuse about massaging his legs and weakness and that ridiculous claim of I had to take it to him and get him out of there.. As for Duran against Leonard or anyone good and the excuses. So he was crossing over into another era right? Ok another era at 28 years old, yet you bring up another excuse about size and what weight class he started at? if one thing does not work, try another. Like I said, why not mention the steak and gallons of water excuse. You will say I am lying about that also, because you just don't want to hear it. I heard that the night of the fight. Right after. I am not sure why it came out so soon. Manny does not get these excuses, why does Duran? And I still do believe Manny's record against greats is better than Durans. Duran lost to all the elites, granted fighters were better then which is why he lost to all of them and he lost rather brutally.. Clear. You are starting to sound like Duranimal or whatever his name was. Watch him come out now.

You don't feel sorry for me. You cannot stand when someone brings up good points about Duran and the truth. That the best fighters he fought regardless of excuses he lost to and easily lost to. I have been saying all this for years. You are right. I am not even changing my argument because the facts don't change.

This is where we differ. The Leonard fight. And this is what brought me to comment. I don't look for this, and I have been avoiding this top for months because frankly I get bored talking about it.

Duran fans stick to that fight as his claim to fame because it is the only fight he really beat a legend or elite, so they have to build it up. And the hotheads on here get upset because I am nitpicking that win and the fact is Ray was not an elite yet. It is clear and I stand by that and know it. I know it. If Ray fought his fight in the first fight he wins. Duran might not have quit, but Ray would have won. I think the quitting is Ray wanting to humiliate Duran more because of the first fight. But in the first fight Ray absolutely fought Duran's fight because Duran called Juanita a Puta. Simple as that. He wanted to beat him at his own game and he said " I almost beat that man at his own game. I tried" Look up the quotes. You ignore those comments from one of the participants. Duran lost easily in the rematch. Easily almost an outclassing. I don't care what people say about the scores and all that, Ray was starting to pick up the pace after avoiding Duran and making him look like a clown. He was starting to hit him to the body and head and then Duran quit. As a matter of fact Duran quit as Ray was hitting him to the body. So even Ray stepping inside to land body punches Duran could not deal with or counter. That is significant.

Speed was his week point when he moved up because he fought elite guys moving up which he did not fight at lightweight. Where were the Hearns or Leonards or Benitez of the lightweights? Don't tell me Buchanan or DeJesus were Leonard or Benitez level.

So you think if Duran is claimed to be top 5 or 10 all time great he should not be close to perfect even when he moves up? Manny was not close to it moving up for some time? That is a quite a high position, and the greatest win ever is also isn't it? If he were not perfect then why would he deserve it? Because he is Duran and has that incredible personality and charisma? No, this is about facts. Is this about defending Duran or being accurate on these questions? I mean really.

You are not even reading what I said or what my point was about. We all know Hearns in 1977 was the same height he was in 1987 for example, so it was not about that. I said Emanuel knew Hearns body. Emanuel was talking about Hearns as an amatuer fighter. My point was that he knew Hearns body and they followed where he should be and how his body was, until got more power and they started to chase championships in 1987 after he didn't get the Hagler rematch, so he had to move up and fight Andries. Then he went up and down in weights so much that had to affect his body. But I am not going to use that as a big excuse like Duran fans would. Duran was not a small fighter. I disagree with that. He was a big enough guy, and at 160 he was not much smaller than Hagler. Look at some of the promo shots of Duran with Hagler for that fight in 1983. If you look at that, it is shocking how he looks damned near Hagler's size.

That is rather novice comment from you. Barkley beat Hearns, and Duran beat Barkley. That sure proves something to others but Barkley was not great. The guy isn't even in the Hall of Fame. I like him but what more can you say. Good win for him. Again, Barkley did not beat Kalambay, or Nunn, or Benn or anyone of note except Hearns. Excuse for Hearns. Well sure because Hearns is a much better fighter than Barkley, you have to say Barkley had a good style matchup with Tommy. Physically strong and he could take punches and still swing back at awkward times to even the fight even when Tommy was landing on Barkley 2 or 3 to 1 in punches. It was a good style for Barkley, and all the credit to him. But Duran beating Barkley does not take away Hearns knocking out Duran. A legend fighting a legend always stands, and that Duran footage with Hearns is always in greatest knockouts ever. I rarely see the Barkley knockout over Hearns in highlights. Occasionally.

He was not big enough at 5 foot 7 inches at welterweight? So is 5 foot too small also Where do you draw the line? So you are saying his whole career above welterweight should not be regarded? I guess Qawi was too small for lightheavyweight right? How tall was he? And if people ask well who would win Qawi or Hearns at 175, most don't give Hearns a chance. Your excuses are not really that great. They are the reaching excuses all of you guys have said for years. Duran was great inside. I tell you. I wish I made a video or it is documented that I picked Duran over Barkley in 1989, because I did. Barkley to me was still an ESPN fighter level in many ways, and I thought Duran would reach him and he did. I actually thought Barkley did better than I thought he would.

I cited fighters who were 32 who didn't even mention age and won easily against other fighters. Hopkins and Moore were exceptions. I am talking about Floyd at 32 in 2009. Had he lost the way Duran did to Hearns, people would say that was a game changer for his legacy. Duran sure gets excuses, and somehow act like you are giving me the business, when I think I am proving every point you make is nonsense and not very original. Mine are not original either but they are based on fairness. I have been saying them for 10 years or even longer. As a matter of fact I have been telling my friends this for 20 or 25 years, and they get upset also. They are Duran fanatics also. But I cannot change my opinion. He was great, but not the greatest and this win was in no way the greatest win ever. Ray has to be the greatest fighter ever at this point in June 1980 for this to be the greatest win or at least Duran has to have the odds against him in this fight. He really didn't in retrospect.

Hill was not all time great? Ok. good point. Why not? Because you say it? How many title defenses did he have in 3 title reigns? So Ray was great because he won a Gold Medal? So Mike Tyson beating Tyrell Biggs is just as great as Duran beating Ray? Hey what if Biggs came back and outclassed Mike in the rematch? Would you still say Tyson's win over Biggs was the greatest ever? Why was Ray great when Duran fought him? Is that in retrospect? So then Jones is greater for his win over Hopkins in 1993 because of what Hopkins did later, but had he just faded into obscurity, then it would not be a great win? Or did Hopkins get better?

Duran was more out of shape when he fought Ray in the rematch and Ray was more you say. Because Duran lost right? Yet when he won he miraculously decided to train. It is so ridiculous the excuses for him. No other fighter gets these excuses. Why should I hear it and not respond? It is so unfair to the fighters he fought.

Who is lying? Arcel did say Duran was in the best shape he ever saw him in for Benitez, which says a lot of Wilfred and his dominant win, and yet in a boxing magazine in 1982 Duran said he felt flat and not in great shape as the fight went on. Another excuse.

I think I made good points here and this is what this thread is about. Not about getting mad , but discussing it logically and bringing up good points, which is more important then just getting upset. I had to delete your comments above because it would not post saying I had 1000 or more letters.

 

You must be talking about someone else, because I don't feel that at all. I feel quite the opposite. You took a fanboy approach.

 

Exactly. I put that on there to prove how the truth is in the results. Not about excuses.