Win you rate higher....Duran over Barkley or Hearns over Hill?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by BENNY BLANCO, Feb 10, 2010.


  1. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    65
    Dec 1, 2008
    A decent list of guys who he was better than. But Duran's lightweight list is not much better if any. That is why Duran gets credit for machismo attitude and power, but still a win is a win against guys you are better than. Still, Duran never knocked out an ATG fighter and had he not beaten Ray on a night Ray fought his fight, he would have never beaten and ATG fighter.
     
  2. Sister Sledge

    Sister Sledge Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,129
    27
    Jul 24, 2004
    :lol::rofl Boy, this Duran-Leonard flame-war is transcending threads now.
     
  3. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    65
    Dec 1, 2008
    Not silly. Ray was not stopped. This is not like Curry/McCrory or Honeyghan/Curry. It went the distance when Ray fought Duran's fight. And Ray adjusted and won fighting his fight. That is why that fight can be disregarded more. I disagree that Ray would have necessarily beaten Hearns the night he fought Duran in Montreal. If that Ray fought Hearns then Hearns would have knocked him out with that attitude. The Ray who fought Hearns in 1981 would have beaten the Benitez and Duran 1 easily enough. He learned the whole game and the inside and outside game. Ray who fought Hearns in Sept. 1981 was the best Leonard who fought. Had he kept on fighting he would have probably peaked around 1982 or 1983.
     
  4. TheGreatA

    TheGreatA Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,241
    157
    Mar 4, 2009
    I rate DeJesus and Buchanan among my top 20 best lightweights of all time.
    Marcel gave a lesson to young Alexis Arguello.

    Maske, Tiozzo, Czyz, as good as they may have been, wouldn't make the top 30 LHW's nor the hall of fame. Again, Hill beat a decent bunch and I wouldn't oppose him being in the hall of fame for his longevity and consistency but he never proved himself against a great. An aging Thomas Hearns beat him, Roy Jones KO'd him, Michalczewski beat him.

    How did it turn into Duran not ever KO'ing an ATG now? I could come up with quite a few all-time greats who didn't. He beat Ray Leonard, simple as that. Leonard also beat him in a rematch. I don't know why people just can't face the facts, they both beat each other. It's either Leonard "fighting Duran's fight" or Duran being "weight-drained", "out of shape".

    As far as I'm concerned, if you fight the other guy's fight and lose or come in out of shape and lose, you still lose. And the opponent wins. And don't tell me that Duran had nothing to do with Leonard "fighting his fight". Leonard could have fought that fight against any other fighter in the division and won.
     
  5. TheGreatA

    TheGreatA Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,241
    157
    Mar 4, 2009
    So you have to stop your opponent to credit for a win now? Well, that's too bad for Harry Greb, Willie Pep and Pernell Whitaker.

    What was the big difference between the Leonard who fought Hearns and the Leonard who fought Duran? Leonard was "fighting Hearns's fight" for 13 rounds and was getting outboxed, outjabbed, outpointed. He had to rally in order to win, make a brawl out of it, show the heart that he did against Duran in the late rounds. The attributes that he showed against Duran in losing won him the Hearns fight.
     
  6. Sister Sledge

    Sister Sledge Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,129
    27
    Jul 24, 2004
    No. That day was the day Barry McGuigan was inducted.
     
  7. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    65
    Dec 1, 2008
    The stopping is significant since we are talking about Duran. That just shows how he was not dominant ever with an ATG and the one guy he beat was inexperienced, and then when he fought his fight Ray outclassed him. The facts are there. I am not making them up. Ray was not fighting Hearns fight for 13 rounds. Ray started off moving and avoiding Hearns punches. He started to slowly get his rhythm and stand in front of Tommy since Tommy's jab was landing so moving around was not working, so he started to stand more but slip Hearns punches, but he was in Hearns range , but Tommy was in Ray's range also and hurt Tommy, and then he became the aggressor with Tommy boxing. Then Tommy slowly started to stand in front of Ray again. But that Ray who fought Hearns had much more experience and timing and knew the whole game inside and out. Hearns fought the better Sugar Ray Leonard. I think that is obvious that the Ray who fought Hearns in Sept. 1981 was very elite compared to the Ray who fought Duran in Montreal. Beating Duran and making him quit showed what a fighter Ray was and that once he learned to fight his fight and be smart he beat everyone.
     
  8. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    :rofl:rofl:rofl you are so desperate and with you biased postings in this sort lose every credibility.
     
  9. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    65
    Dec 1, 2008
    I don't think so. I am stating facts. I think the biased Duran fans lose credibility especially in this poll, and it shows how Duran is overrated. This poll is proof. To say Duran had a greater win with a fighter like Iran Barkley than Hearns over Hill is just absurd- Barkley, who fought Duran in 1989 -lost, and he lost to other fighters the years around this. In 1987 he lost to Kalambay, He lost to Nunn in 1989 as well as to Duran, In 1990 he lost to Benn in one round. To see a guy lose to all those fighters and then say Duran's win over him is better than Hearns win over Hill (who was undefeated and had 10 title defenses-30 pounds above Tommy starting welterweight) is completely ridiculous. And you guys do not see this bias or overrating? You probably see it now. This proves it.
     
  10. anarci

    anarci Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,237
    64
    Jul 21, 2009
    Man this is eaaaaaaaaaasy Duran over Barkley was more impressive he was so much smaller than Barkley and had been a pro for over 20 years compared to 13 for Hearns. He was also going on 39 Hearns only 32.
     
  11. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    I voted Hearns and defended my vote in the beginning of the thread. I still hink you are one biased hater with no credibility on any subject that somehow involves Hearns or Duran. :good
     
  12. arther1045

    arther1045 Member Full Member

    490
    2
    Aug 29, 2007

    He sure is. I had conversations with him about it years ago and couldn't believe it then. He doesn't like Duran and its obvious, even though he tries to deny it. If you listen to him you would think that Duran started boxing in Nov of 1980. He never changes. He has said that Duran was actually a bigger fighter then Hearns, and he actually says Duran had to be in his prime against Hearns because he fought so long afterwords. This is what he has to do to justify his opinion.

    Duran had much more phycial disadvantages against barklay then Hearns did against Hill. Some will compate the weights that Duran and Hearns moved up for these fights and act like its the same but its not. uran was still fighting 135 at 27 years old. He was a small fighter who had to put weight on around the middle to get to the higher weights. he was giving up about 6 inches to Barklay. Heanrs while he did fight at 147 in his early 20s moved up when he was younf ebcause he had to. He grew into his weight. It was obvious in his early 20s that he wasn't going to be able to stay at 147 or even 154 for that matter. There is no question when comparing these fights that Duran was giving up alot more then Hearns was.
     
  13. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    65
    Dec 1, 2008
    I don't think so. I do not hate Duran, my whole argument comes from the fact that I think he is being overrrated. I am a Hearns fan and Tommy beat Duran. Why wouldn't I want Duran to be the greatest fighter who ever lived? That would help Tommy's rating. But this poll and result so far 24-14. Not a blowout, but still in favor of Duran beating Iran Barkley shows the bias towards him. This is actual proof because Tommy beat a legit champion with 10 defenses who was undefeated and 30 pounds above his starting weight. Because Duran was older he gets more credit? Barkley was not that great a fighter so why is this such an accomplishment? Duran couldn't beat Sims a few years before. I never gave Foreman much credit for beating Moorer either. He lost to Holyfield and Morrison prior to this. His power and the law of averages was bound to come into affect eventually if he fought enough times for a title. Duran beating Barkley is overrated. His whole is a little. Not a lot, but a little. His lightweight reign was great. But how high does that get Duran's ranking? Then all you have after that is beating Ray but losing the next two fights making Ray better head to head, and then beating Barkley but losing to the legends. This is fact. Saying I hate Duran yet I am mentioning facts does not make sense.
     
  14. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    65
    Dec 1, 2008
    No you guys were saying Duran was this little guy when he fought Ray. Somehow every other fighter like Leonard or Hearns easily moves up and is natural at the weights and Duran always weighs 135. I was saying in a rather light way how Duran was going up and weighing 200 between fights and Tommy was 170 walking around weight, so if you want to argue that point Duran was bigger naturally. Duran giving up more? Not as much as it seems and the fact that Tommy beat better guys is what should be the real criteria. Being older and saying if Duran beats just a mediocre guy because he is older and Hearns has a higher standard is tougher on Hearns and really not fair. Beating Hill is better. And still he passed this standard and Duran still gets more credit for beating a guy like Barkley. This is the bias. I am just stating fact. If we had a poll asking who was the greater fighter Virgil Hill or Iran Barkley the results would probably be unanimous for Hill. So how can Duran beating Barkley be the better win? Duran also fought at 154 before Hearns ever did, and had a championship fight there before Hearns did.
     
  15. arther1045

    arther1045 Member Full Member

    490
    2
    Aug 29, 2007

    The problem with Mag is he never understands fighters and weight. he says that Duran fought at 154 before Hearns like that means anothing. Mag if Duran wanted to he could can 50 pounds and fight at heavyweight, doesn't mean he is as big as a heaveyweight. You are frustrating because you twist everything to be anti Duran. You bring up that Duran walked around at 200 like that has anything to do with his size. Duran should have never fought past 147 at the highest. His frame was too small. He was fighting guys with much bigger frames from 1980 on, and much younger guys. Do you honestly deny that you don't notice that Duran looks fat past 147. His frame didn't get bigger. You can even see it is a 147 fight in 1980 when the announcers were saying that Duran could never move up any higher, his frame was too small. That is very obvious.

    Hearns on the other hand had a big frame and movied just as well at 160 as he did at 147. Hearns was bound to move up. There is no way he was going to stay at 147 even if he wanted too. His frame was too big. The size difference that Heanrs gave up to Hill is nothing compared to the size difference Duran gave up to Barklay. And the age differnce is not even close. Duran was giving up alot more. Why do you have trouble seeing this.