why when mentioning the true greats of boxing does duran get talked about so highly

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Madmanc, Apr 6, 2014.


  1. Madmanc

    Madmanc Guest


    what is your point ?
     
  2. OvidsExile

    OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

    34,177
    36,343
    Aug 28, 2012
    Probably because he was a lightweight who held the middleweight title, fought with success at super middleweight, and the quality of the scalps on his belt.
     
  3. Madmanc

    Madmanc Guest

    his greatest win was a fluke,a good win but he never fought the best version of srl which was emphatically proven in the 2 other fights between them.hearns ko'd him in 2 one sided rounds,hagler showed him far too much respect but still beat him comfortably,he beat davey moore who was as green as they come coming in and barklay who was far from great,granted he beat hearns twice but still far from great.
    duran had a good career at lightweight but against a weak division as a whole,to have him top 30 all time is criminal never mind top 10
     
  4. Thread Stealer

    Thread Stealer Loyal Member Full Member

    41,889
    3,266
    Jun 30, 2005
    Pryor was the one who turned down the Duran fight, he had managerial issues. He turned down the Leonard fight too because he wanted more money.

    Duran, or his management, turned down other fights, such as Cervantes and a Buchanan rematch.
     
  5. Vanboxingfan

    Vanboxingfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,591
    212
    Feb 5, 2005

    My point is if you read the post you might accidently learn something rather than continually coming across as a dumbass. But since you're too dense to make the necessary mental gymnastics to pick this up, I guess my point ends up being your clueless and always will be clueless.
     
  6. Vanboxingfan

    Vanboxingfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,591
    212
    Feb 5, 2005
    It's actually hard to square that these so called boxing fans have such difficulties in understanding this. Either you're a boxing fan or not, and if you are it's pretty hard not to appreciate what Duran did. It would be akin to being a tennis fan and not liking Federer.
     
  7. PernellSweetPea

    PernellSweetPea Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,099
    5,664
    Feb 26, 2009
    Being fair to boxing or any sport is about seeing things objectively and seeing the whole game and not just a fanboy approach of admiration, which then takes away from boxing and makes the fighter more important than the sport. Duran did not have the foot movement or speed to deal with elite fighters with foot positioning and foot speed. Now if you knew boxing you would understand that this is about objectivity and style, and he did not fight that versatile fighter as much until he moved up to welterweight and fought Leonard. Duran could not deal with speed faster than him, and foot speed was his achilles. He didn't have to deal with that quality or versatile fighter at lightweight, and anyone who says he did is lying-if you think he had a Benitez,Leonard or Hearns at lightweight. And he did not move up in that level of Leonard,Hearns,Benitez until he actually did. Wins and losses have to be taken into account. Certainly using the weight argument is ok if Duran would not have successfully moved up and not won against Barkley and Moore, which his fans give him full or even more credit than he deserves. For example.
     
  8. Madmanc

    Madmanc Guest

    duran beats federer,what a silly comparison