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

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


  1. arther1045

    arther1045 Member Full Member

    490
    2
    Aug 29, 2007

    Fact..Duran had a better record against common opponents then Hearns, even though Hearns was the much bigger fighter and Duran was the smaller fighter in all fights. Duran was also older then all common opponents and Hearns had no age disadvatage in these fights. Thats a very impressive fact for Duran. And for once just ack the fact that I just told you. You have twisted this fact for years.
     
  2. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    269
    Jul 22, 2004
    If only it wasnt for the H2H :lol:

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-Ipn_Y3iNM[/ame]
     
  3. arther1045

    arther1045 Member Full Member

    490
    2
    Aug 29, 2007
    I guess we should rate Hearns vs Barkley head to head. And they were the same age. Norris is also better then Leonard.
     
  4. Arriba

    Arriba Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    27,148
    6
    Jun 30, 2007
    That punch is still one of the greatest ever. Like Duran was struck with a lightning bolt.
     
  5. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    65
    Dec 1, 2008
    The common opponent issue does not come out better for Duran. The fact he fought Barkley is because Barkley won the title from Hearns. But Hearns against the legends Hearns fought better. Who beat two out of the 4 legends (and really 3 out of 4 when he fought Ray even in Ray's words). And say you are right about the common opponent thing for the sake of argument, then that proves Duran was natural at the weight and Hearns and Duran are equal, so then Hearns knocking out Duran and beating Benitez and then beating Hill was all better than what Duran did in beating Barkley, and the Benitez win is a legit loss since Benitez won his first title at 140. Tommy should have had the win over Ray in 1989. I guess Tommy should have knocked out Pat Lawlor so he could go ahead in the common opponent matchup by the numbers. Leonard outclassed Duran and never outclassed Tommy. Tommy outclassed Duran head to head and Duran was outclassed by Benitez and Tommy beat Benitez. Some common opponent advantage. All you are looking at are numbers, not the actual fights. Everything said by Duran fans is too much in his favor and then you look into the fights and facts. Fact is in all his career, you cannot give me many fights where he beat an ATG. One time, and then he lost the rematch easily. That gets him ATG top 10?. This is not me disliking Duran, I do not see how it adds up. If you are good enough to win titles when you are older- but lose to all the greats, that means you are ATG best ever? Doesn't make sense.
     
  6. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    65
    Dec 1, 2008
    Not comparable. Duran was champion at 154 of the WBA when he fought Hearns. That was a unification fight but the WBA stripped Duran for not fighting McCallum. Leonard had not fought at the weight of the Norris fight for 10 years since Kalule. Duran was only 32 years old when he fought Hearns. Both were champs and Duran just fought Hagler and as people say he gave Hagler a good fight-but still lost. Saying Duran was washed up for Hearns should eliminate his fight against Hagler then, but Duran fans want to give Duran credit for taken Hagler 15, but then say he was washed up for Hearns. This is shaky argument. Duran was not washed up at all. He fought another 17 years and 35 times after Hearns. Duran lost legit to Hearns and was good enough, but Duran fans cannot accept that he was beaten in such a conclusive way. These were two legends fighting who were both champions. I do not see the argument. Had Duran beaten Hearns it would have been seen as his greatest win. No bad thing losing to Hearns. Cuevas,Benitez,Hill and Duran all lost relatively easy to Tommy.
     
  7. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    You could have written this with three words: I hate Duran. No need to write this much. We got it by now.
     
  8. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    65
    Dec 1, 2008
    I respect you are a Duran fan. If someone said this about Tommy's I would discuss back also Tommy qualification. . I understand you admire him. So what should I do not post here? That is the point of message boards and comments. It isn't personal. I feel the same about Hearns as far as admiration, and I saw Duran fight in the 1970s, and then Hearns comes up in 1977 and the whole era of the great welterweights is started. So when I hear this stuff about Duran and his resume is so great-longevity and age and good performance at 38 and lightweight- in my mind it does not equal what most rank him as. I rank him top 25. But most of you rank him at top 5. And top 3 since SRR. Top 25 is not a bad ranking. Which is why I bring this up, I think Tommy is unfairly ranked lower because of losing to Ray and Marvin in his biggest fights, yet he beat top guys, and Duran in given credit and he lost to them all. I mean all Ray had to do was stay on his toes and he won easily. Duran was not that mugh higher than 135 in 1980. He should have been able to duplicate the win from June if he was top 5 ever. This is not personal, this is seeing an unfairness in ranking. Bringing up facts about boxing is what this message board is about. It isn't personal I don't know him. If you want to simplify everytime in boxing or sports someone says something about someone you like which you don't agree with, yeah just say they hate them so it is personal and you can discard it. But it isn't . This is about where people rank Duran and where I do. I brought up facts. Have I ever said I do not like Duran? When I say my opinions about Duran people get upset. Any other subject doesn't matter since it is rarely noticed. If I say Shane Mosley is a great fighter, no one gets mad. I am partial towards the great boxer like a Leonard who can fight both ways, -just admiration for certain styles and accomplishments. I always believed to be great you have to beat ATG fighters. Fighting at 70 and beating a top 20 contender in my mind would not be great. Fighting at 30 and beating an ATG is the real accomplisment.
     
  9. Gesta

    Gesta Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,975
    9
    Apr 12, 2009
    Short but sweet.

    :good:good:good