View Full Version : The overrated Roberto Duran


Method Checker
01-26-2010, 04:27 PM
What has he done to be considered by many as the greatest lightweight of all-time? Now I can understand him being a top 5 and even top 3 lightweight, but the greatest?

Also, why is considered a top 10 P4P all-time great? It doesn't make sense.

He has losses to the greatest fighters he's ever fought. They include Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Benitez. Yet, somehow, he's rated highly above all of them, by most people.

I can understand that he's got a few good wins at lightweight over the likes of Buchanan, De Jesus and Kobayashi, but the rest are either paper champions or average journeymen.

How he's so highly rated is beyond me.

TheGreatA
01-26-2010, 04:41 PM
He cleaned out the lightweight division in a fairly strong era, dominating for 7 years as the champion.

Esteban DeJesus is a man I'd rate among the top 20 lightweights of all time, possibly higher if not for Duran. He is a great boxer to watch yet was dominated and stopped by Duran in their last two bouts after winning the first one.

Ken Buchanan is another fighter who is possibly top 15 among the great lightweights. A great boxer with grit, he was beaten for 13 rounds by a very young Duran until a controversial ending. Either way there's no doubt that Duran had his number.

Hiroshi Kobayashi was formerly the man at 130 but a 20 year old Duran KO'd him with ease.

Ernesto Marcel was awesome at 126 lbs, beat the likes of Alexis Arguello, but 18 year old Duran had the better of him for 10 rounds.

Suzuki Ishimatsu twice knocked out the highly regarded Rodolfo Gonzales but he was no match for Duran.

Hector Thompson, the great Australian contender, ranked number 1 among 140 lbers, was beaten to submission after an 8-round war.

Ray Lampkin and Edwin Viruet were two forgotten but very capable lightweight contenders who would have surely held titles today. Unfortunately they competed in the same era as Duran.

Considering how dominating Duran was and his competition, it's difficult not to rate him atleast top 3 in the lightweight division.

This wasn't the end for Duran who went onto compete in the welterweight and middleweight divisions. His performance against former welterweight champ Carlos Palomino is among the best you'll ever see. Just when you think he couldn't, he topped his performance by beating a prime Sugar Ray Leonard. Can you imagine any featherweight coming up 2 divisions in weight to beat a prime Roberto Duran? No way but Duran was able to do it to Leonard.

Leonard reversed the loss and Duran was counted out, yet he went onto beat LMW champ Davey Moore, lost a 15 round decision to a prime Hagler (imagine Hagler taking on even Michael Spinks, not to mention Larry Holmes), beat a natural light heavyweight in Iran Barkley who had KO'd the man who had beaten him, beat former titlist Jorge Castro at 47 years of age.

I'd say all this warrants a high ranking, pound for pound.

Method Checker
01-26-2010, 05:10 PM
He cleaned out the lightweight division in a fairly strong era, dominating for 7 years as the champion.

Esteban DeJesus is a man I'd rate among the top 20 lightweights of all time, possibly higher if not for Duran. He is a great boxer to watch yet was dominated and stopped by Duran in their last two bouts after winning the first one.

Ken Buchanan is another fighter who is possibly top 15 among the great lightweights. A great boxer with grit, he was beaten for 13 rounds by a very young Duran until a controversial ending. Either way there's no doubt that Duran had his number.

Hiroshi Kobayashi was formerly the man at 130 but a 20 year old Duran KO'd him with ease.

Ernesto Marcel was awesome at 126 lbs, beat the likes of Alexis Arguello, but 18 year old Duran had the better of him for 10 rounds.

Suzuki Ishimatsu twice knocked out the highly regarded Rodolfo Gonzales but he was no match for Duran.

Hector Thompson, the great Australian contender, ranked number 1 among 140 lbers, was beaten to submission after an 8-round war.

Ray Lampkin and Edwin Viruet were two forgotten but very capable lightweight contenders who would have surely held titles today. Unfortunately they competed in the same era as Duran.

Considering how dominating Duran was and his competition, it's difficult not to rate him atleast top 3 in the lightweight division.
I've already said that him being rated as a top 5 or even a top 3 lightweight is understandable. But he shouldn't be rated at #1 or #2. He beat some good fighters but so did many other lightweights.

This wasn't the end for Duran who went onto compete in the welterweight and middleweight divisions. His performance against former welterweight champ Carlos Palomino is among the best you'll ever see. Just when you think he couldn't, he topped his performance by beating a prime Sugar Ray Leonard. Can you imagine any featherweight coming up 2 divisions in weight to beat a prime Roberto Duran? No way but Duran was able to do it to Leonard.
The reason Leonard lost was because he chose to fight Duran how Duran liked to fight; which was a brawl. The rematch was fought differently, however. Leonard chose to use his boxing skills and he embarrassed Duran in a one-sided beating that made Duran quit.

And, despite what you think, Duran was very beatable. If De Jesus could knock down and beat Duran on route to a decision, I'm sure fighters such as Whitaker and Mayweather would be able to embarrass him.

Leonard reversed the loss and Duran was counted out, yet he went onto beat LMW champ Davey Moore, lost a 15 round decision to a prime Hagler (imagine Hagler taking on even Michael Spinks, not to mention Larry Holmes), beat a natural light heavyweight in Iran Barkley who had KO'd the man who had beaten him, beat former titlist Jorge Castro at 47 years of age.

You left out the fact that the Davey Moore fight is highly controversial. And, somehow, it's so amazing for Duran to lose to a fighter in a division where he was a titleholder. Many fighters have gone up in weight and won titles in more divisions and you're praising him for losing.

Jorge Castro was a lucky paper champion so please don't bring him up as a legit win.

TheGreatA
01-26-2010, 05:27 PM
I've already said that him being rated as a top 5 or even a top 3 lightweight is understandable. But he shouldn't be rated at #1 or #2. He beat some good fighters but so did many other lightweights.

Who would you rate over him?


The reason Leonard lost was because he chose to fight Duran how Duran liked to fight; which was a brawl. The rematch was fought differently, however. Leonard chose to use his boxing skills and he embarrassed Duran in a one-sided beating that made Duran quit.

I disagree. Leonard, for the most part, fought as the aggressor in the majority of his professional fights. Coming into the fight, Dundee said Leonard would be too strong for the former lightweight Duran. However Leonard didn't exactly "brawl" with Duran, he was forced to brawl with Duran.

Leonard wanted to keep the fight in the middle of the ring but Duran was constantly pressuring him, feinting him and fighting in the clinches. The relentless body attack in the early rounds took away Leonard's legs and he had no choice but to stand and trade. Leonard did attempt to use his movement in the middle rounds but by then Duran had his number and made him flinch with every feint he threw. The fight was Duran's at that point but Leonard made a courageous rally in the late rounds.

In the rematch Leonard came in with his Olympic style and danced away from Duran. However he was so negative that the judges had the bout near even at the time of the unexpected stoppage. Duran quit then, but it was not because he was badly beaten, it was because his ego had taken a hit from Leonard's taunting. Or something else which we'll probably never know. Leonard won fair and square but so did Duran in the first fight. Duran attempted to get a third fight immediately, unsuccessfully so. The public had lost its interest because of the way the fight had ended.


And, despite what you think, Duran was very beatable. If De Jesus could knock down and beat Duran on route to a decision, I'm sure fighters such as Whitaker and Mayweather would be able to embarrass him.

This was a young and very raw Duran and DeJesus doesn't resemble either Whitaker or Mayweather much. He was a counter puncher for sure but he also had great power in either hand to keep Duran honest. It was also a 10 round fight and Duran was coming on strong at the end. 15 rounds and it may have gone differently.

You left out the fact that the Davey Moore fight is highly controversial. And, somehow, it's so amazing for Duran to lose to a fighter in a division where he was a titleholder. Many fighters have gone up in weight and won titles in more divisions and you're praising him for losing.

How was it controversial? Because of the thumb excuse? That has only come up much later. From what I saw Duran simply had Moore's number and Moore was a good fighter but with the wrong style to battle Duran.

Tell me the equivalent of Roberto Duran, who started out as a bantamweight, was in his prime as a lightweight, went up to welterweight and went 15 rounds with a prime ATG Marvin Hagler at middleweight. There's no comparison.

Jorge Castro was a lucky paper champion so please don't bring him up as a legit win.

Tell me about all the 47 year olds who have won even against paper champions.

BOLLOCKS
01-26-2010, 05:28 PM
Red K Given.

Method Checker
01-26-2010, 05:49 PM
Who would you rate over him?
Benny Leonard, Joe Gans and Carlos Ortiz are all much better lightweights than him, in my opinion.

I disagree. Leonard, for the most part, fought as the aggressor in the majority of his professional fights. Coming into the fight, Dundee said Leonard would be too strong for the former lightweight Duran. However Leonard didn't exactly "brawl" with Duran, he was forced to brawl with Duran.

Leonard wanted to keep the fight in the middle of the ring but Duran was constantly pressuring him, feinting him and fighting in the clinches. The relentless body attack in the early rounds took away Leonard's legs and he had no choice but to stand and trade. Leonard did attempt to use his movement in the middle rounds but by then Duran had his number and made him flinch with every feint he threw. The fight was Duran's at that point but Leonard made a courageous rally in the late rounds.

In the rematch Leonard came in with his Olympic style and danced away from Duran. However he was so negative that the judges had the bout near even at the time of the unexpected stoppage. Duran quit then, but it was not because he was badly beaten, it was because his ego had taken a hit from Leonard's taunting. Or something else which we'll probably never know. Leonard won fair and square but so did Duran in the first fight. Duran attempted to get a third fight immediately, unsuccessfully so. The public had lost its interest because of the way the fight had ended.
You're basically saying what I said but in a longer format.

I said Duran was a brawler and Leonard tried to brawl with him. When Leonard used his boxing abilities (dancing or Olympic boxing, as you call it), he embarrassed Duran.

This was a young and very raw Duran and DeJesus doesn't resemble either Whitaker or Mayweather much. He was a counter puncher for sure but he also had great power in either hand to keep Duran honest. It was also a 10 round fight and Duran was coming on strong at the end. 15 rounds and it may have gone differently.
It was the very same Duran that dethroned Buchanan, yet, he wasn't that good, in your opinion. Talk about a last resort excuse.

Whitaker and Mayweather were much better boxers and would've likely had a filed day with Duran. I wouldn't count on Whitaker dropping Duran but I could see Mayweather doing so.

How was it controversial? Because of the thumb excuse? That has only come up much later. From what I saw Duran simply had Moore's number and Moore was a good fighter but with the wrong style to battle Duran.
Rubbing his glove laces against his eyes is considered controversial.

Tell me the equivalent of Roberto Duran, who started out as a bantamweight, was in his prime as a lightweight, went up to welterweight and went 15 rounds with a prime ATG Marvin Hagler at middleweight. There's no comparison.
The reason he started out as a bantamweight was likely due to the fact that he was still a teenager and probably very malnourished. Pacquiao started at flyweight, won a title there, and then went onto welterweight to beat the beat arguably the best welterweight of the decade. Sounds a lot better to me than Duran's championship accomplishments. Yet, I don't go claiming that Pacquiao is a top 5 or even a top 10 all-time great.

Tell me about all the 47 year olds who have won even against paper champions.
A 49 year old Larry Holmes beat Bonecrusher Smith. A 50 year old Holmes beat Mike Weaver. Smith and Weaver were better fighters than Castro.

There are plenty more fighters around that age who have done the same thing.

cooper5
01-26-2010, 05:52 PM
A great reply TheGreatA!

I could imagine why young fans looking back at Durans record might be questioning why he so highly regarded by historians and older boxing people.

One thing about Duran is he used to get fat and out of shape between fights and on tune up bouts he didn't train with the seriousness that we usually associate with greats. But don't let that or how he preformed in some of the tuneup bouts fool you. When a big bout came up Duran was ready and as dangerous as a fighter could be. The welterweight division he rose in weight to join was at a very high skill level, perhaps one of the best in history.

Later when Duran challenged Davey Moore, many knowledgable boxing people were discussing what round Moore was going to dispatch the man already thought of as an over the hill legend in. And when he challenged Hagler, the same chatter was going on. Even after Barkley stopped Hearns, the man who beat Duran, when Duran challenged him, the over-under or what round Barkley would dispatch him in was getting more bets than who would win!
The thing is that aside from being one of the greatest lightweight champions, Duran even at an advanced age and way over his natural weight constantly overcame the odds and somehow won the big ones!

TheGreatA
01-26-2010, 06:09 PM
Benny Leonard, Joe Gans and Carlos Ortiz are all much better lightweights than him, in my opinion.

You could argue Leonard & Gans but not Ortiz in my opinion. And I'm a fan of Ortiz.

You're basically saying what I said but in a longer format.

I said Duran was a brawler and Leonard tried to brawl with him. When Leonard used his boxing abilities (dancing or Olympic boxing, as you call it), he embarrassed Duran.

Calling Duran a brawler is a bit misleading. The man could box with the best of them but giving away 6 years in age, 3-4 inches in height and 8 in reach, he was forced to "brawl". And he also forced Leonard to brawl with him. You give him no credit for doing so while I do.

Leonard didn't truly embarrass Duran, Duran embarrassed himself by quitting. The judges had Leonard leading by one point at the time of the stoppage. Leonard fought very negatively in this fight.

It was the very same Duran that dethroned Buchanan, yet, he wasn't that good, in your opinion. Talk about a last resort excuse.

Excuse? Duran had just turned 21 years of age. It's very obvious that he got better as a boxer as his career went on. Stylistically, young Duran's relentless pressure was great against Buchanan, a great boxer but without great punching power. However against Esteban DeJesus, a clever counter puncher with dynamite in his fists, it was the wrong way to go on about it. Duran showed he was the better man in their two rematches.

You should know this if you have viewed the careers of Duran, DeJesus, Buchanan.

Whitaker and Mayweather were much better boxers and would've likely had a filed day with Duran. I wouldn't count on Whitaker dropping Duran but I could see Mayweather doing so.


Whitaker and Mayweather weren't DeJesus. They were better defensively but offensively they don't pose the threat to Duran that DeJesus did. Who is to say that Duran simply wouldn't walk down Mayweather like Castillo did? With three more rounds to go, Floyd would have lost very decisively to Castillo, who as good as he was, was not in Duran's class.

Rubbing his glove laces against his eyes is considered controversial.

Can you point out where in the fight Duran rubbed laces in Moore's eyes? Is this not an excuse?

The reason he started out as a bantamweight was likely due to the fact that he was still a teenager and probably very malnourished. Pacquiao started at flyweight, won a title there, and then went onto welterweight to beat the beat arguably the best welterweight of the decade. Sounds a lot better to me than Duran's championship accomplishments. Yet, I don't go claiming that Pacquiao is a top 5 or even a top 10 all-time great.


Best welterweight of the decade? Surely you can't be talking about Miguel Cotto? I don't even care to begin to describe what Duran would do to Cotto.

Cotto is good no doubt but he is no prime Marvin Hagler.

Also the fact that Pacquiao's own trainer Freddie Roach doesn't think Manny could have beaten Duran is very telling.

A 49 year old Larry Holmes beat Bonecrusher Smith. A 50 year old Holmes beat Mike Weaver. Smith and Weaver were better fighters than Castro.

Smith and Weaver were also 40+ year old men almost as old as Holmes himself and it's rather debatable whether they were better than Castro. And talking about lucky champions, there's no more luckier a punch thrown than the one Weaver felled John Tate with in the 15th round of a fight he was clearly losing on the cards. Or when Smith stopped Bruno in the 10th and final round after having lost the 9 previous rounds.

There are plenty more fighters around that age who have done the same thing.

So bring up all these examples then. Bernard Hopkins? Archie Moore? Any more?

HaglerSteelChin
01-26-2010, 06:13 PM
I think Duran is overrated if he is ranked top 10, but i have him #21 on my P4P list. In my collection, i have around 60-65 of his fights and i do regard him as one of the greatest mainly due to his LW career. Duran's No Mas lost hurt his image but i felt his fights with Moore, Cuevas, Hagler, and Barkely showed he did have the heart and courage of a true champion. I like his fighting ability in the inside and how he got leverage on his punches and how he was able to slip punches on the inside. Just look at RD15 of his first fight with SRL; he made SRL missed three punches while he displayed cat like reflexes.

My biggest bone with some Duran fans is when they say he is the greatest latin fighter. I still think that belongs to Carlos Monzon. Monzon fought in a competitive division and when without losing over 80 of his last fights.

donkim
01-26-2010, 06:16 PM
Great thread.Let's not forget that Duran ducked Rodolfo Gonzalez either.It took Duran years to unify just two titles,when Gonzalez handed him the oppurtunity a couple of years before Duran eventually did and Duran wanted nothing to do with him.



Duran did thumb Davey Moore early in their bout and while Duran apologists try to brush it under the carpet,it greatly affected Davey Moore throughout the fight and Duran's cheating and fouling throughout the fight was an absolute disgrace.



Duran finally met his match in one William Joppy however.

TheGreatA
01-26-2010, 06:18 PM
I think Duran is overrated if he is ranked top 10, but i have him #21 on my P4P list. In my collection, i have around 60-65 of his fights and i do regard him as one of the greatest mainly due to his LW career. Duran's No Mas lost hurt his image but i felt his fights with Moore, Cuevas, Hagler, and Barkely showed he did have the heart and courage of a true champion. I like his fighting ability in the inside and how he got leverage on his punches and how he was able to slip punches on the inside. Just look at RD15 of his first fight with SRL; he made SRL missed three punches while he displayed cat like reflexes.

My biggest bone with some Duran fans is when they say he is the greatest latin fighter. I still think that belongs to Carlos Monzon. Monzon fought in a competitive division and when without losing over 80 of his last fights.

With all due respect to Carlos Monzon, I wouldn't rate his reign at 160 any higher than I do Duran's at 135 and we know that Duran went up to the welterweight and middleweight divisions also while Monzon never tried to test waters at light heavyweight or heavyweight even though there were possibilities.

Wins over Napoles and Griffith were great but both men were giving away a lot of age/height/reach to Monzon.

Method Checker
01-26-2010, 06:27 PM
You could argue Leonard & Gans but no Ortiz in my opinion.

Ortiz beat better fighters than Duran did at lightweight.

Calling Duran a brawler is a bit misleading. The man could box with the best of them but giving away 6 years in age, 3-4 inches in height and 8 in reach, he was forced to "brawl". And he also forced Leonard to brawl with him. You give him no credit for doing so while I do.
Who said I didn't get Duran credit? He was able to beat Leonard in a brawl but not in a game of pure boxing.

Leonard didn't truly embarrass Duran, Duran embarrassed himself by quitting. The judges had Leonard leading by one point at the time of the stoppage. Leonard fought very negatively in this fight.
I learned a while ago that you shouldn't let the judges determine your scoring. I had Leonard winning every round except for maybe one.

By negatively, you mean you didn't like it. That's too bad, but he still out-boxed him in embarrassing fashion.

Excuse? Duran had just turned 21 years of age. It's very obvious that he got better as a boxer as his career went on. Stylistically, young Duran's relentless pressure was great against Buchanan, a great boxer but without great punching power. However against Esteban DeJesus, a clever counter puncher with dynamite in his fists, it was the wrong way to go on about it. Duran showed he was the better man in their two rematches.
While the latter part may be true, it showed that he did have flaws and that he was able to be out-boxed.

And if you claim that this was such an amateur version of Duran, how can you even say that Buchanan deserves to be mentioned as an all-time great lightweight? You can't have it both ways.

You should know this if you have viewed the careers of Duran, DeJesus, Buchanan.
Here we go with a personal attack. Showing your immaturity.

Whitaker and Mayweather weren't DeJesus. They were better defensively but offensively they don't pose the threat to Duran that DeJesus did. Who is to say that Duran simply wouldn't walk down Mayweather like Castillo did? With three more rounds to go, Floyd would have lost very decisively to Castillo, who as good as he was, was not in Duran's class.
What about the Mayweather that fought Corrales? That sure looked like a better version of him. Better yet, since there were no before day weigh ins during Duran's time as a lightweight, lets use Mayweather as a super featherweight against Duran. A much more faster, defensively-better version of Mayweather.

Can you point out where in the fight Duran rubbed laces in Moore's eyes? Is this not an excuse?
All you have to do is watch the fight closely. Watch the fight. Something you claim me of not doing.

Best welterweight of the decade? Surely you can't be talking about Miguel Cotto? I don't even care to begin to describe what Duran would do to Cotto.
It's fine if you deny him to be the best welterweight of the past decade, even though most don't. Let's go with the runner-up in Mosley. Mosley would give Duran a very competitive fight. Although he wasn't as defensively minded as Duran was at welterweight, he was faster and arguably had more power.

Cotto is good no doubt but he is no prime Marvin Hagler.
I never said that. I was making a comparison between Duran and Pacquiao. Duran won titles at less weight classes than Pacquiao. He also lost to the best fighter of the decade, at the highest weight he won a title, while Pacquiao didn't.

Smith and Weaver were also 40+ year old men almost as old as Holmes himself and it's rather debatable whether they were better than Castro.
It's your opinion. Nothing against that. Even though I think you're wrong.

So bring up all these examples then. Bernard Hopkins? Archie Moore? Any more?
Why would I waste my time just to show you something that you already know. You're buying time and it's quite obvious. If you just admit that you're wrong, you'll be a better man.

TheGreatA
01-26-2010, 06:53 PM
Ortiz beat better fighters than Duran did at lightweight.

I wouldn't call an old Joe Brown and Ismael Laguna necessarily better fighters than the ones Duran faced. Elorde and Ramos were good but they were coming up in weight. Ramos also nearly KO'd Ortiz in their first bout despite being a former featherweight. I believe prime for prime Ortiz vs Buchanan would be near 50-50 match-up.

Who said I didn't get Duran credit? He was able to beat Leonard in a brawl but not in a game of pure boxing.

The usual excuse is that Leonard "wanted" to brawl with Duran. As if he lost that fight on purpose. No, Duran forced Leonard to brawl and won the fight fair and square. It was an all-time great performance against an all-time great fighter.

I learned a while ago that you shouldn't let the judges determine your scoring. I had Leonard winning every round except for maybe one.

Sometimes you also have to take others' opinions into account.

By negatively, you mean you didn't like it. That's too bad, but he still out-boxed him in embarrassing fashion.

Being negative means you're trying your best to avoid any action. The fact is that had both fighters fought like Leonard did, there would have been no fight. Yes, Leonard was able to use his advantages in height, reach, speed and youth to beat Duran in the rematch but this doesn't automatically erase Duran's win in the first fight.

While the latter part may be true, it showed that he did have flaws and that he was able to be out-boxed.

And if you claim that this was such an amateur version of Duran, how can you even say that Buchanan deserves to be mentioned as an all-time great lightweight? You can't have it both ways.

I never said he was an amateur nor did I make any excuses about the first loss. Duran lost the first fight but he clearly adapted and became a better boxer from that point onwards. The Duran who fought DeJesus the first time was still a beast, one who could beat many of the lightweight greats, but he was also one-dimensional. This approach was ideal to beat Buchanan but it was the wrong style against DeJesus.

Buchanan deserves to be mentioned as an all-time great lightweight for cleaning out the division of the late 1960's and early 1970's and for beating Ismael Laguna. On film it's clear that he was a great boxer but his style was well-suited for a young, relentless Duran.

Here we go with a personal attack. Showing your immaturity.

A personal attack? I'm simply questioning how much you truly know about DeJesus and Buchanan.

What about the Mayweather that fought Corrales? That sure looked like a better version of him. Better yet, since there were no before day weigh ins during Duran's time as a lightweight, lets use Mayweather as a super featherweight against Duran. A much more faster, defensively-better version of Mayweather.

Did Mayweather suddenly become a lesser boxer just a couple of years after beating Corrales? Or is it because his style was more suited to beating Corrales than Castillo?

I could say that the Duran of the Palomino fight would have beaten every welterweight who ever lived but the truth is that he fought against an opponent whose style was ideal for Duran to fight against.

All you have to do is watch the fight closely. Watch the fight. Something you claim me of not doing.

I didn't say you haven't watched it.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dEzuceBkP_k&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dEzuceBkP_k&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Where is Duran lacing Davey Moore?

It's fine if you deny him to be the best welterweight of the past decade, even though most don't. Let's go with the runner-up in Mosley. Mosley would give Duran a very competitive fight. Although he wasn't as defensively minded as Duran was at welterweight, he was faster and arguably had more power.

Make a poll and let's see if people consider Cotto the best welterweight of this decade. I doubt they will. Cotto has always come second best in his big fights outside of the Mosley win, and Mosley wasn't exactly in his prime.

Mosley is getting old. He was at his peak in the very early 2000's when fighting De La Hoya.

I never said that. I was making a comparison between Duran and Pacquiao. Duran won titles at less weight classes than Pacquiao. He also lost to the best fighter of the decade, at the highest weight he won a title, while Pacquiao didn't.


Cotto is not the best fighter of the decade and it's a stretch to compare him to a prime Marvin Hagler.

It's your opinion. Nothing against that. Even though I think you're wrong.

It's not my opinion that they were 40 years of age and neither of them were exactly great fighters anyway. This is James "Bonecrusher" Smith we're talking about, Bonecrusher Smith... The guy Marvis Frazier beat.

Why would I waste my time just to show you something that you already know. You're buying time and it's quite obvious. If you just admit that you're wrong, you'll be a better man.

Again you haven't given any actual examples of 47 year olds beating "paper" champions, outside of Holmes running the geezer circuit against Smith and Weaver. Hardly comparable to Duran beating 29 year old Jorge Castro.

The Noose
01-26-2010, 07:13 PM
What has he done to be considered by many as the greatest lightweight of all-time? Now I can understand him being a top 5 and even top 3 lightweight, but the greatest?

Also, why is considered a top 10 P4P all-time great? It doesn't make sense.

How he's so highly rated is beyond me.

U think he could be in the top 3 lightweights ever, but its beyond u he is considered so great?

To me top 3 lightweights ever is already an ATG, and therefore there can be arguments made for him being one of the p4p ATG's.

The arguments are never black and white.

Method Checker
01-26-2010, 07:19 PM
I wouldn't call an old Joe Brown and Ismael Laguna necessarily better fighters than the ones Duran faced. Elorde and Ramos were good but they were coming up in weight. Ramos also nearly KO'd Ortiz in their first bout despite being a former featherweight. I believe prime for prime Ortiz vs Buchanan would be near 50-50 match-up.
Like I said, it's your opinion. If you wanna be biased, go ahead.


The usual excuse is that Leonard "wanted" to brawl with Duran. As if he lost that fight on purpose. No, Duran forced Leonard to brawl and won the fight fair and square. It was an all-time great performance against an all-time great fighter.
I already responded to this.


Sometimes you also have to take others' opinions into account.
Sometimes. That time, they were wrong.


Being negative means you're trying your best to avoid any action. The fact is that had both fighters fought like Leonard did, there would have been no fight. Yes, Leonard was able to use his advantages in height, reach, speed and youth to beat Duran in the rematch but this doesn't automatically erase Duran's win in the first fight.

I never said it erased anything. It just showed how unable Duran was to out-box someone with speed and quickness. It also showed how a bully wasn't able to take a beating mentally and then quit from embarrassment.

I never said he was an amateur nor did I make any excuses about the first loss. Duran lost the first fight but he clearly adapted and became a better boxer from that point onwards. The Duran who fought DeJesus the first time was still a beast, one who could beat many of the lightweight greats, but he was also one-dimensional. This approach was ideal to beat Buchanan but it was the wrong style against DeJesus.
You just can't stop making biased excuses.

A personal attack? I'm simply questioning how much you truly know about DeJesus and Buchanan.
I don't have to watch the career set of every single fighter to know how they fought.

Did Mayweather suddenly become a lesser boxer just a couple of years after beating Corrales? Or is it because his style was more suited to beating Corrales than Castillo?
We're not talking about who Mayweather was better against. You're going off topic and I don't intend on going down that same route.

I could say that the Duran of the Palomino fight would have beaten every welterweight who ever lived but the truth is that he fought against an opponent whose style was ideal for Duran to fight against.
You and I both know that Whitaker and Mayweather would've given Duran a beating. Too slick, too fast, too defensive and too much of a good pure boxer for Duran to handle.

I didn't say you haven't watched it.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dEzuceBkP_k&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dEzuceBkP_k&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Where is Duran lacing Davey Moore?
Why would I watch the whole fight again just to prove something that's already been known for a while?

Make a poll and let's see if people consider Cotto the best welterweight of this decade. I doubt they will. Cotto has always come second best in his big fights outside of the Mosley win, and Mosley wasn't exactly in his prime.

Mosley is getting old. He was at his peak in the very early 2000's when fighting De La Hoya.

There was already a poll in NSB and Cotto took it by a landslide. Go ahead and make another if you feel you need to be proven wrong. And don't make it in the history section where you have your friends to back you up for the fun it.

Cotto is not the best fighter of the decade and it's an insult to compare him to a prime Marvin Hagler.
I never said he was the best fighter of the decade. I said he was the best fighter in his weight class of the decade. Much like Hagler was.

It's not my opinion that they were 40 years of age and neither of them were exactly great fighters anyway. This is James "Bonecrusher" Smith we're talking about, Bonecrusher Smith...
I meant based on their overall careers.

Again you haven't given any actual examples of 47 year olds beating paper champions, outside of Holmes running the geezer circuit against Smith and Weaver. Hardly comparable to Duran beating 29 year old Jorge Castro.
I already responded to this.

You act as if beating Castro was an accomplishment. This just shows that you'll do anything to make sure that your favorite fighters don't get commented on in a negative way. There's two sides to the story. You have one. I have the other.

Method Checker
01-26-2010, 07:20 PM
U think he could be in the top 3 lightweights ever, but its beyond u he is considered so great?

To me top 3 lightweights ever is already an ATG, and therefore there can be arguments made for him being one of the p4p ATG's.

The arguments are never black and white.

I have him rated no higher than as the third best lightweight of all-time. Gans is second and Leonard is first. I only have Leonard in my top 10 all-time P4P list.

TheGreatA
01-26-2010, 08:03 PM
Like I said, it's your opinion. If you wanna be biased, go ahead.

Isn't it all an opinion? Aren't we supposed to discuss boxing here and not just state that "it's your opinion" and leave it that? That's very easy to do.

You could, for example, point out how Ortiz's opposition is so much better than Duran's and compare their dominance, head-to-head abilities, longevity and so on. For me, Duran was better.

I already responded to this.

You haven't responded to it. From the very beginning you attempted to diminish Duran's victory over Leonard by saying that Leonard simply chose to brawl with him. As if Duran had nothing to do with that.


Sometimes. That time, they were wrong.

In your opinion.

I never said it erased anything. It just showed how unable Duran was to out-box someone with speed and quickness. It also showed how a bully wasn't able to take a beating mentally and then quit from embarrassment.

It showed how Duran was unable to outbox someone with speed, quickness as well as advantages in size, height, reach and youth. Duran had no trouble outboxing fast boxers at lightweight, such as Esteban DeJesus, Edwin Viruet, Ken Buchanan.

Duran was hardly a bully. He quit against Leonard but shall we take away Willie Pep's achievements for quitting against Sandy Saddler? Sam Langford's achievements for quitting against Joe Jeannette? JC Chavez for quitting against De La Hoya? Joe Gans quit too and took a dive. Duran had a 120 fight career and quit in one, should this define his whole career? Especially when he went onto show heart against the likes of Iran Barkley, Davey Moore, Marvin Hagler, much bigger men than himself. One fight doesn't define a whole career.

You just can't stop making biased excuses.

You don't respond to my points. Duran eventually proved he was better than DeJesus yet I'm somehow making excuses? By pointing out that DeJesus and Buchanan fought entirely differently? I never claimed that Duran was an amateur or a novice when he fought Buchanan & DeJesus but he was one-dimensional, a dimension that worked well against Buchanan but not so well against DeJesus. Duran was forced to adapt and become a better boxer in order to overcome DeJesus. This is rather obvious watching their trilogy.

I don't have to watch the career set of every single fighter to know how they fought.

But you do have to watch them in action. So far you have failed to actually discuss the finer points in the styles of Roberto Duran, Ken Buchanan and Esteban DeJesus and have only come up with the kind of information one could easily seek by visiting BoxRec.com.

We're not talking about who Mayweather was better against. You're going off topic and I don't intend on going down that same route.

"What about the Mayweather that fought Corrales? That sure looked like a better version of him."

Actually you said that Mayweather was better against Corrales. I pointed out that Corrales's style suited Mayweather's, and that stylistically Castillo resembles Duran much more than Corrales.

You and I both know that Whitaker and Mayweather would've given Duran a beating. Too slick, too fast, too defensive and too much of a good pure boxer for Duran to handle.


I don't know it. Whitaker vs Duran for me is a 50-50 fight while I'd give Duran the edge against Mayweather. It's not as if Duran didn't fight slicksters. I'd say that Marcel resembles Mayweather quite a bit with his beautiful right hand lead and slick movement which he beat Alexis Arguello with. Duran however brought intelligent pressure, had better footwork at 135 than he did at higher weights, great at slipping punches and getting into his ideal range. Pernell and Floyd neither have the firepower of DeJesus or Leonard so I don't see them as similar match-ups.

Escaping a prime Duran would be far more troubling for Whitaker and Mayweather than it was for Leonard who was bigger and stronger than either of them. Not to mention that Duran did beat Leonard in the first fight by forcing him to fight his fight. Whitaker is 5'6 while Mayweather is 5'7-5'8.


Why would I watch the whole fight again just to prove something that's already been known for a while?

To prove what you're saying? Sure, the recent excuse about this fight has been that Davey Moore was thumbed but I've never heard anything about lacing before. In the video I posted, there's no lacing whatsoever. Duran was simply beating Moore up.

There was already a poll in NSB and Cotto took it by a landslide. Go ahead and make another if you feel you need to be proven wrong. And don't make it in the history section where you have your friends to back you up for the fun it.


With a close decision win over a 37 year old Shane Mosley, a controversial split decision win over Clottey and wins over Judah & Quintana, such awards are given out rather easily these days. Compare Hagler's legacy to Cotto's and you'll see the difference.


I never said he was the best fighter of the decade. I said he was the best fighter in his weight class of the decade. Much like Hagler was.


You could argue that Hagler was the best fighter of the decade while Cotto was far from it. The point is that Cotto is not comparable to a prime Marvin Hagler.

I meant based on their overall careers.

Neither were exactly in the prime of their life, were they? I don't see how wins over out of shape 40 year olds compare to Duran beating a much younger Castro.

I already responded to this.

You act as if beating Castro was an accomplishment. This just shows that you'll do anything to make sure that your favorite fighters don't get commented on in a negative way. There's two sides to the story. You have one. I have the other.

Of course it's an accomplishment. To pretend that it's not is just ridiculous. You better believe that if Roy Jones managed to beat the worst of all title holders at 47 years of age, you'd hear about it. Castro was a crude but strong fighter, and it was figured that he'd kill old Duran, yet Duran more than held his own with him.

There's nothing that compares to Duran beating Jorge Castro. I'm not saying it's a career-defining win but it's a notable one, because no other 47 year old former lightweight has beaten a 29 year old former middleweight title holder.

Ziggy Stardust
01-26-2010, 08:16 PM
The judges had Leonard leading by one point at the time of the stoppage. Leonard fought very negatively in this fight.

This is why I point out that as recently as the 1980s Mayweather's pot-shot and run like fvck tactics wouldn't have played well in the eyes of the judges (ie. the people who determine who wins the decision) and would have cost him fights.

Poet

Method Checker
01-26-2010, 08:58 PM
Isn't it all an opinion? Aren't we supposed to discuss boxing here and not just state that "it's your opinion" and leave it that? That's very easy to do.

You could, for example, point out how Ortiz's opposition is so much better than Duran's and compare their dominance, head-to-head abilities, longevity and so on. For me, Duran was better.
Ortiz beat four lineal champions at lightweight, while Duran beat two. Ortiz also beat four HOFers, while Duran only beat one.

The level of fighters that Ortiz beat were simply much better Duran's.

You haven't responded to it. From the very beginning you attempted to diminish Duran's victory over Leonard by saying that Leonard simply chose to brawl with him. As if Duran had nothing to do with that.
He did brawl with him. Obviously he had an option of whether he wanted to go toe to toe or not. The one quote you gave from his trainer doesn't mean anything. Leonard did what he wanted in the second fight and look what happened. He made a complete mockery of Duran.

It showed how Duran was unable to outbox someone with speed, quickness as well as advantages in size, height, reach and youth. Duran had no trouble outboxing fast boxers at lightweight, such as Esteban DeJesus, Edwin Viruet, Ken Buchanan.
You think the boxers you named are as fast as Leonard? Wow.

Duran was hardly a bully. He quit against Leonard but shall we take away Willie Pep's achievements for quitting against Sandy Saddler? Sam Langford's achievements for quitting against Joe Jeannette? JC Chavez for quitting against De La Hoya? Joe Gans quit too and took a dive. Duran had a 120 fight career and quit in one, should this define his whole career? Especially when he went onto show heart against the likes of Iran Barkley, Davey Moore, Marvin Hagler, much bigger men than himself. One fight doesn't define a whole career.
Duran was a bully. Anyone who thinks he wasn't doesn't know what they're talking about.

You bring up Pep? Haha. He had an injury, unlike Duran who chose to make up multiple excuses. Duran was out-boxed to the point of embarrassment and that's that.

You don't respond to my points. Duran eventually proved he was better than DeJesus yet I'm somehow making excuses? By pointing out that DeJesus and Buchanan fought entirely differently? I never claimed that Duran was an amateur or a novice when he fought Buchanan & DeJesus but he was one-dimensional, a dimension that worked well against Buchanan but not so well against DeJesus. Duran was forced to adapt and become a better boxer in order to overcome DeJesus. This is rather obvious watching their trilogy.
You said Duran was young and didn't have enough experience, yet he beat Buchanan. Then when he loses, you said that's because he didn't have the right style. It's clear you're making excuses and it's quite sad.

But you do have to watch them in action. So far you have failed to actually discuss the finer points in the styles of Roberto Duran, Ken Buchanan and Esteban DeJesus and have only come up with the kind of information one could easily seek by visiting BoxRec.com.
There we go with the personal attacks, again.

Just because my opinions are different from yours and I'm getting the better of you in this debate, you claim that I haven't watched any fights. You just use that as another excuse to cover up everything I've proven wrong about your little theories. You're clearly biased.

"What about the Mayweather that fought Corrales? That sure looked like a better version of him."

Actually you said that Mayweather was better against Corrales. I pointed out that Corrales's style suited Mayweather's, and that stylistically Castillo resembles Duran much more than Corrales.
Duran isn't Corrales. He also isn't Castillo. To use Castillo as an example of why Duran would be able to beat Mayweather is stupid.

Nice job, there.. NOT.

I don't know it. Whitaker vs Duran for me is a 50-50 fight while I'd give Duran the edge against Mayweather. It's not as if Duran didn't fight slicksters. I'd say that Marcel resembles Mayweather quite a bit with his beautiful right hand lead and slick movement which he beat Alexis Arguello with. Duran however brought intelligent pressure, had better footwork at 135 than he did at higher weights, great at slipping punches and getting into his ideal range. Pernell and Floyd neither have the firepower of DeJesus or Leonard so I don't see them as similar match-ups.
That's your opinion, but I don't agree with it.

Escaping a prime Duran would be far more troubling for Whitaker and Mayweather than it was for Leonard who was bigger and stronger than either of them. Not to mention that Duran did beat Leonard in the first fight by forcing him to fight his fight. Whitaker is 5'6 while Mayweather is 5'7-5'8.
You can't compare Whitaker and Mayweather to Leonard because they're nothing alike. Whitaker and Mayweather were much better defensively than Leonard. Do you honestly think Whitaker and Mayweather would stand there and exchange punches with Duran. No. It would be similar to Leonard vs Duran II. They would out-box him by counter-punching (which they were amazing at) and constantly moving. They're defense would've been too much.

To prove what you're saying? Sure, the recent excuse about this fight has been that Davey Moore was thumbed but I've never heard anything about lacing before. In the video I posted, there's no lacing whatsoever. Duran was simply beating Moore up.
Believe what you want but it doesn't matter.

I do remember that it was towards the end of one of the rounds, though.

With a close decision win over a 37 year old Shane Mosley, a controversial split decision win over Clottey and wins over Judah & Quintana, such awards are given out rather easily these days. Compare Hagler's legacy to Cotto's and you'll see the difference.

You could argue that Hagler was the best fighter of the decade while Cotto was far from it. The point is that Cotto is not comparable to a prime Marvin Hagler.
Why do you constantly try to bring up separate debates? I'm not comparing the accomplishments of Hagler and Cotto.

I'm comparing the fact that Duran lost to the best fighter of the decade at the highest division where he won a title at.

Pacquiao, however, didn't lose to the best fighter of the decade at the highest division he won a title at.

Neither were exactly in the prime of their life, were they? I don't see how wins over out of shape 40 year olds compare to Duran beating a much younger Castro.
The overrated Castro was a lucky, overweight paper champion. Castro also beat Duran in their first fight, only to lose the second fight by a close decision. Did Holmes ever lose to either Smith or Weaver? Didn't think so.

Of course it's an accomplishment. To pretend that it's not is just ridiculous. You better believe that if Roy Jones managed to beat the worst of all title holders at 47 years of age, you'd hear about it. Castro was a crude but strong fighter, and it was figured that he'd kill old Duran, yet Duran more than held his own with him.

There's nothing that compares to Duran beating Jorge Castro. I'm not saying it's a career-defining win but it's a notable one, because no other 47 year old former lightweight has beaten a 29 year old former middleweight title holder.
Castro was hardly a good fighter. Have you actually seen him fight? He's below average of any kind of championship material.

steeluv
01-26-2010, 09:03 PM
I think you are forgetting the the way he stepped up through the weight divisions, u can talk about lightweights all day but how many ppl did wht he did and beat some one like SRL, an all time great and was competitative against the likes of Hagler, a much bigger guy who deserves his place in hall of fame, and He beat Iran Barkley in RING MAGAZINES FIGHT OF THE YEAR at AGE 38, Barkley was 29.

He won titles (WBC) in 3 of the Original Weight Classes? When winning Titles meant something and competition was stronger. Even what Pacquaio has done now I wouldn't consider to be as good as this because of the amount of ****ty belts and low class opponents. Lets see how many of your ****ty list have achieved such

steeluv
01-26-2010, 09:23 PM
Lol at the Idiot comparing a heavyweight to Duran, everyone knows due to less need for speed and work rate in that division, u can go on longer, Where is the lightweights to compare this too or even Welters??? Larry Holmes did not win titles in any other division, there is people like Foreman, Ali in the heavyweight division to compare to Holmes, U need to listen to your BS comparisons, We are NOT TALKING OLD HEAVYWEIGHTS, We are talking About a Guy who WENT FROM LIGHT TO MIDDLE and won MIDDLEWEIGHT TITLE AT 38 in THE RING MAGAZINE FIGHT OF THE YEAR??

TheGreatA
01-26-2010, 10:09 PM
Ortiz beat four lineal champions at lightweight, while Duran beat two. Ortiz also beat four HOFers, while Duran only beat one.

The level of fighters that Ortiz beat were simply much better Duran's.

Ortiz beat two lineal lightweight champions as far as I know, the ones I already listed (Laguna & Brown).

You have to consider at what point in their careers those hall of famers were. Surely Laguna was at his peak and that's Ortiz's best win, he overcame him in a three fight series. But Joe Brown was getting old and after being beaten by Ortiz was never a good fighter again. Buchanan beat an old Ortiz but I wouldn't give him much credit for that.

Sugar Ramos was a former featherweight champion who was showing signs of slipping. Saldivar had beaten him viciously but Ramos actually put Ortiz down for a long count in a controversial fight. Was Ramos truly a great lightweight? He went onto lose to Mando Ramos, who was a good fighter and a title holder, but not superior to the opposition Duran fought at 135. I'm not too sure if he could have competed with the best lightweights Duran defended his title against.

Flash Elorde was a hall of famer but mostly for what he accomplished at 130. It was a very good win however.

Also I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the likes of Esteban DeJesus & Ernesto Marcel make the hall of fame in the future.

He did brawl with him. Obviously he had an option of whether he wanted to go toe to toe or not. The one quote you gave from his trainer doesn't mean anything. Leonard did what he wanted in the second fight and look what happened. He made a complete mockery of Duran.

Again you're taking away credit for Duran's victory as if it counts for nothing. Duran was able to force Leonard to fight his fight the first while Leonard made Duran fight his fight the second time. But who had all the advantages in height, reach and youth? Leonard did. Do you see any featherweight coming up in weight to beat Duran? I don't. Duran went up to Leonard's division and beat him once.

Do you favour the likes of Whitaker and Mayweather over Leonard? Duran still does hold that win over Leonard which proves he can beat him. He beat Ray Leonard, one of the greatest and fastest boxers that ever lived. It's a huge victory which should not be cast aside as some sort of "fluke".


You think the boxers you named are as fast as Leonard? Wow.

Not necessarily as fast but they were fast and they were lightweights. Ray Leonard was one of the fastest fighters who ever lived. You said Duran wasn't able to outbox fast boxers. Take a look at Ernesto Marcel, slippery as an eel and a right hand lead comparable to Mayweather's. Duran beat him.


Duran was a bully. Anyone who thinks he wasn't doesn't know what they're talking about.

How was he a bully? Do bullies have brutal 12 round fights against the likes of Iran Barkley and take massive punishment yet overcoming a huge size advantage to win? You're trying to define Duran's career on one fight out of 120 fights. Yes, he quit once, but so did many others.

You bring up Pep? Haha. He had an injury, unlike Duran who chose to make up multiple excuses. Duran was out-boxed to the point of embarrassment and that's that.

Pep had a cut on his eye in a fight he was clearly winning and retired on his stool. Not to mention the alleged dives he took and when he retired on his stool against Tommy Collins. How about the rest? No comment on Joe Gans who you rate over Duran?

You said Duran was young and didn't have enough experience, yet he beat Buchanan. Then when he loses, you said that's because he didn't have the right style. It's clear you're making excuses and it's quite sad.

You don't get what I'm saying here. I said Duran did not have enough experience to deal with DeJesus' style. Buchanan was completely different from DeJesus. Duran obviously went onto prove that with added experience he was able to handle DeJesus, so what is it exactly that you're trying to say here?

There we go with the personal attacks, again.

It's not a personal attack. It's an observation. A lot of what you're saying can be said by anybody. You can discredit any fighter the way you're doing.

Just because my opinions are different from yours and I'm getting the better of you in this debate, you claim that I haven't watched any fights. You just use that as another excuse to cover up everything I've proven wrong about your little theories. You're clearly biased.

You're only getting the better of this debate in your opinion. You have refused to discuss the actual fights and only point out to the outcomes.

Duran isn't Corrales. He also isn't Castillo. To use Castillo as an example of why Duran would be able to beat Mayweather is stupid.

Nice job, there.. NOT.

How so? Do you not see any comparisons between Duran and Castillo? I'll have to disagree with you there. Duran would bring an equal amount of pressure as Castillo but he was a better and more clever fighter.

That's your opinion, but I don't agree with it.

Try to even state why you don't agree with it and I'll cease to accuse you of not knowing what you're talking about.


You can't compare Whitaker and Mayweather to Leonard because they're nothing alike. Whitaker and Mayweather were much better defensively than Leonard. Do you honestly think Whitaker and Mayweather would stand there and exchange punches with Duran. No. It would be similar to Leonard vs Duran II. They would out-box him by counter-punching (which they were amazing at) and constantly moving. They're defense would've been too much.

Whitaker did stand and trade many times although he was adept at making people miss while doing so. I do not think either of them have the blend of speed and power that Leonard brought, not to mention they aren't as big as Leonard who was a natural welteweight several inches taller and reachier than Duran, Whitaker, Mayweather.

What's going to prevent Duran from walking in like Castillo did against Mayweather? I'm almost certain that had it been Duran in there instead of Castillo, not to mention had the fight been scheduled for 15 rounds, Mayweather would have left the fight with a loss on his record. Duran brings fast, relentless yet intelligent pressure.

Believe what you want but it doesn't matter.

I do remember that it was towards the end of one of the rounds, though.

It doesn't matter? You're trying to discredit Duran's win over Davey Moore but you're not willing to point out why?

Well then, may we disregard Mayweather's victory over Hatton because he was using his elbows? I actually have the proof right here:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/c0qclW1dag8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/c0qclW1dag8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Here's some real lacing by Larry Holmes:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cj6OJ71N-MM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cj6OJ71N-MM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Evander Holyfield's career should be erased from the record books:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n3oyrq4Q5gM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n3oyrq4Q5gM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

An exhibition on holding and hitting by Lennox Lewis:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/emfS1S2SXkI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/emfS1S2SXkI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I can go on.

Why do you constantly try to bring up separate debates? I'm not comparing the accomplishments of Hagler and Cotto.

You compared Pacquiao fighting Cotto to Duran fighting Hagler, so yes, you are comparing Hagler and Cotto.

I'm comparing the fact that Duran lost to the best fighter of the decade at the highest division where he won a title at.

Pacquiao, however, didn't lose to the best fighter of the decade at the highest division he won a title at.

But fighting Hagler and fighting Cotto is not comparable.

The overrated Castro was a lucky, overweight paper champion. Castro also beat Duran in their first fight, only to lose the second fight by a close decision. Did Holmes ever lose to either Smith or Weaver? Didn't think so.

Are you still trying to claim that beating old, out of shape men like Weaver and Smith is in any way comparable to Duran's efforts against Castro? It speaks for itself.

Castro was hardly a good fighter. Have you actually seen him fight? He's below average of any kind of championship material.

I've seen his fights at light middleweight, middleweight and cruiserweight. He was as tough as they come and very strong physically.

HaglerSteelChin
01-26-2010, 10:31 PM
With all due respect to Carlos Monzon, I wouldn't rate his reign at 160 any higher than I do Duran's at 135 and we know that Duran went up to the welterweight and middleweight divisions also while Monzon never tried to test waters at light heavyweight or heavyweight even though there were possibilities.

Wins over Napoles and Griffith were great but both men were giving away a lot of age/height/reach to Monzon.

There was no SMW division at the time. It came years later where guys moved up from 160 t0 168. I study the fighting styles and think Monzon and Salvador Sanchez can adapt to more different styles than Duran. DUran is a great fighter but i don't think he is better than Monzon. Monzon had the recored of 14 title defenses when there was one real lineal champ. His greatest wins are not against Napoles and Griffith, i rate his wins over Benenvenuti and Rodrigo Valdez as his best wins. He beat Benenvenuti in Italy in front of his own fans by KO and than did it again to put the exclamation point. He beat Valdez when monzon was pass his prime and beat him twice. This dosen't even include fighters like Licata who was like 50-1 or Mundine a tenacious austrailain fighter who Monzon KO'd. Even as champ, he went to france to beat prime french challenger Bouttier by knocking him down 3 times to avoid the judges giving Bouttier a hometown gift decision.

Duran moved up in weight and eventually beat SRL. But when SRL found how to beat him he couldnt adjust. Monzon over his 80 consecutive wins beat counterpunchers, brawlers, Stylists etc. He went almost 13 years without a loss. Duran beat Davey Moore at 154 for the WBA; but if he fought the true 154 champ Thomas Hearns he wouldnt have won at 154. He also lost to Benitez at 154 so his win was against a guy who had 12 professional fights. I give him credit for Barkely, but it was a SD and many had it the other way.

I have no doubt with the alphabet soup of belts that Monzon would have picked up a title at 168 if the SMW division existed at the time. If he wanted to jump to 175 LHW than his opponent would be John Conteh an english fighter who Muhammad beat twice in the mid 1970's. Monzon would have beat Conteh who was no Dick Tiger. Tiger's reign at LHW was around the time when Monzon was still defending his MW crown and it would be more likely that Monzon would move up later in his career.

I hate Carlos Monzon the person; he beat up women, photographers, and killed a woman. But the man stepped in the ring 100 times and his losses were 3; and those were early in his career.

TheGreatA
01-26-2010, 10:44 PM
There was no SMW division at the time. It came years later where guys moved up from 160 t0 168. I study the fighting styles and think Monzon and Salvador Sanchez can adapt to more different styles than Duran. DUran is a great fighter but i don't think he is better than Monzon. Monzon had the recored of 14 title defenses when there was one real lineal champ. His greatest wins are not against Napoles and Griffith, i rate his wins over Benenvenuti and Rodrigo Valdez as his best wins. He beat Benenvenuti in Italy in front of his own fans by KO and than did it again to put the exclamation point. He beat Valdez when monzon was pass his prime and beat him twice. This dosen't even include fighters like Licata who was like 50-1 or Mundine a tenacious austrailain fighter who Monzon KO'd. Even as champ, he went to france to beat prime french challenger Bouttier by knocking him down 3 times to avoid the judges giving Bouttier a hometown gift decision.

Duran moved up in weight and eventually beat SRL. But when SRL found how to beat him he couldnt adjust. Monzon over his 80 consecutive wins beat counterpunchers, brawlers, Stylists etc. He went almost 13 years without a loss. Duran beat Davey Moore at 154 for the WBA; but if he fought the true 154 champ Thomas Hearns he wouldnt have won at 154. He also lost to Benitez at 154 so his win was against a guy who had 12 professional fights. I give him credit for Barkely, but it was a SD and many had it the other way.

How do you think Monzon would have done against a bigger, stronger and reachier fighter than he was? All of his opponents were smaller. I can't see Monzon going up to the light heavyweight division and being successful for example against Bob Foster. Would Duran ever have lost again had he stayed in the lightweight division? I tend to doubt it. But he went after bigger challenges. Monzon relied on his height and reach advantages a lot. Duran proved he could beat bigger men over and over.

Rodrigo Valdez was very good but I'm not sure if I'd rate him any higher than Esteban DeJesus at LW for example. Benvenuti was also very good but he was past his true prime and better off at 154 in my opinion.

Many of Monzon's European opponents were good but I wouldn't say any better than most of Duran's LW defenses who are a very overlooked and underrated bunch.

I have no doubt with the alphabet soup of belts that Monzon would have picked up a title at 168 if the SMW division existed at the time. If he wanted to jump to 175 LHW than his opponent would be John Conteh an english fighter who Muhammad beat twice in the mid 1970's. Monzon would have beat Conteh who was no Dick Tiger. Tiger's reign at LHW was around the time when Monzon was still defending his MW crown and it would be more likely that Monzon would move up later in his career.

Conteh was champ late in Monzon's career and I actually doubt that Monzon would have beaten Conteh. Conteh was greatly talented until his hand injuries. May have been too much for an older Monzon to handle.

Yes there was no super middleweight division but don't forget that Duran too skipped the light welterweight division altogether, went straight at welterweight and then junior middleweight & middleweight. Monzon never fought at light heavyweight even though there were potential match-ups against Bob Foster and John Conteh.

DeepSleep
01-26-2010, 10:52 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dEzuceBkP_k&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dEzuceBkP_k&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Where is Duran lacing Davey Moore?


Duran should have been DQ'd in this fight, he thumbed Moore badly mulitple times and hit low throughout the fight along with (lace)raking his face badly at the end of the seventh round.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tMfDqZyn1NM&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tMfDqZyn1NM&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

3:02 - 3:06.

Joey Giardello
01-26-2010, 10:55 PM
How do you think Monzon would have done against a bigger, stronger and reachier fighter than he was? All of his opponents were smaller. I can't see Monzon going up to the light heavyweight division and being successful for example against Bob Foster. Would Duran ever have lost again had he stayed in the lightweight division? I tend to doubt it. But he went after bigger challenges. Monzon relied on his height and reach advantages a lot. Duran proved he could beat bigger men over and over.

Rodrigo Valdez was very good but I'm not sure if I'd rate him any higher than Esteban DeJesus at LW for example. Benvenuti was also very good but he was past his true prime and better off at 154 in my opinion.

Many of Monzon's European opponents were good but I wouldn't say any better than most of Duran's LW defenses who are a very overlooked and underrated bunch.



Conteh was champ late in Monzon's career and I actually doubt that Monzon would have beaten Conteh. Conteh was greatly talented until his hand injuries. May have been too much for an older Monzon to handle.

Yes there was no super middleweight division but don't forget that Duran too skipped the light welterweight division altogether, went straight at welterweight and then junior middleweight & middleweight. Monzon never fought at light heavyweight even though there were potential match-ups against Bob Foster and John Conteh.

Monzon and conteh were in talks to fight, john wanted the fight more than monzon, would of been conteh's biggest pay day, it even made the front of the boxing news that the fight was in talks and close to happening. Would be cool if you coud get that cover of the boxing news up Great A, with both coneh and monzon on it

TheGreatA
01-26-2010, 10:59 PM
Duran should have been DQ'd in this fight, he thumbed Moore badly mulitple times and hit low throughout the fight along with (lace)raking his face badly at the end of the seventh round.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tMfDqZyn1NM&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tMfDqZyn1NM&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

3:02 - 3:06.

Seemed more like he was pushing Moore off of him, and Moore was a beaten man at that point. The fight should have been stopped. I don't see anything DQ-worthy in that sequence.

Moore certainly landed his share of low blows as well.

Owlzfan84
01-26-2010, 11:08 PM
Ortiz beat two lineal lightweight champions as far as I know, the ones I already listed (Laguna & Brown).

You have to consider at what point in their careers those hall of famers were. Surely Laguna was at his peak and that's Ortiz's best win, he overcame him in a three fight series. But Joe Brown was getting old and after being beaten by Ortiz was never a good fighter again. Buchanan beat an old Ortiz but I wouldn't give him much credit for that.

Sugar Ramos was a former featherweight champion who was showing signs of slipping. Saldivar had beaten him viciously but Ramos actually put Ortiz down for a long count in a controversial fight. Was Ramos truly a great lightweight? He went onto lose to Mando Ramos, who was a good fighter and a title holder, but not superior to the opposition Duran fought at 135. I'm not too sure if he could have competed with the best lightweights Duran defended his title against.

Flash Elorde was a hall of famer but mostly for what he accomplished at 130. It was a very good win however.

Also I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the likes of Esteban DeJesus & Ernesto Marcel make the hall of fame in the future.



Again you're taking away credit for Duran's victory as if it counts for nothing. Duran was able to force Leonard to fight his fight the first while Leonard made Duran fight his fight the second time. But who had all the advantages in height, reach and youth? Leonard did. Do you see any featherweight coming up in weight to beat Duran? I don't. Duran went up to Leonard's division and beat him once.

Do you favour the likes of Whitaker and Mayweather over Leonard? Duran still does hold that win over Leonard which proves he can beat him. He beat Ray Leonard, one of the greatest and fastest boxers that ever lived. It's a huge victory which should not be cast aside as some sort of "fluke".



Not necessarily as fast but they were fast and they were lightweights. Ray Leonard was one of the fastest fighters who ever lived. You said Duran wasn't able to outbox fast boxers. Take a look at Ernesto Marcel, slippery as an eel and a right hand lead comparable to Mayweather's. Duran beat him.




How was he a bully? Do bullies have brutal 12 round fights against the likes of Iran Barkley and take massive punishment yet overcoming a huge size advantage to win? You're trying to define Duran's career on one fight out of 120 fights. Yes, he quit once, but so did many others.



Pep had a cut on his eye in a fight he was clearly winning and retired on his stool. Not to mention the alleged dives he took and when he retired on his stool against Tommy Collins. How about the rest? No comment on Joe Gans who you rate over Duran?



You don't get what I'm saying here. I said Duran did not have enough experience to deal with DeJesus' style. Buchanan was completely different from DeJesus. Duran obviously went onto prove that with added experience he was able to handle DeJesus, so what is it exactly that you're trying to say here?



It's not a personal attack. It's an observation. A lot of what you're saying can be said by anybody. You can discredit any fighter the way you're doing.



You're only getting the better of this debate in your opinion. You have refused to discuss the actual fights and only point out to the outcomes.



How so? Do you not see any comparisons between Duran and Castillo? I'll have to disagree with you there. Duran would bring an equal amount of pressure as Castillo but he was a better and more clever fighter.



Try to even state why you don't agree with it and I'll cease to accuse you of not knowing what you're talking about.



Whitaker did stand and trade many times although he was adept at making people miss while doing so. I do not think either of them have the blend of speed and power that Leonard brought, not to mention they aren't as big as Leonard who was a natural welteweight several inches taller and reachier than Duran, Whitaker, Mayweather.

What's going to prevent Duran from walking in like Castillo did against Mayweather? I'm almost certain that had it been Duran in there instead of Castillo, not to mention had the fight been scheduled for 15 rounds, Mayweather would have left the fight with a loss on his record. Duran brings fast, relentless yet intelligent pressure.



It doesn't matter? You're trying to discredit Duran's win over Davey Moore but you're not willing to point out why?

Well then, may we disregard Mayweather's victory over Hatton because he was using his elbows? I actually have the proof right here:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/c0qclW1dag8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/c0qclW1dag8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Here's some real lacing by Larry Holmes:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cj6OJ71N-MM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cj6OJ71N-MM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Evander Holyfield's career should be erased from the record books:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n3oyrq4Q5gM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n3oyrq4Q5gM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

An exhibition on holding and hitting by Lennox Lewis:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/emfS1S2SXkI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/emfS1S2SXkI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I can go on.



You compared Pacquiao fighting Cotto to Duran fighting Hagler, so yes, you are comparing Hagler and Cotto.



But fighting Hagler and fighting Cotto is not comparable.



Are you still trying to claim that beating old, out of shape men like Weaver and Smith is in any way comparable to Duran's efforts against Castro? It speaks for itself.



I've seen his fights at light middleweight, middleweight and cruiserweight. He was as tough as they come and very strong physically.

you can also add Lennox lewis thumb causing the cut over Vitali's eye.

Honestly dude, if this were an actual debate you prob would of won. But Nothing you can say will change the thread starters mind. the mere fact that he refuses to give full credit for Duran beating a PRIME Sugar Ray leonard in Leonards best weight class is evidence enough his mind is made up and he'll never give Duran full credit for certain wins and his accomplishments.

and another note, just because Duran moved forward in his fights doesn't automatically make him a brawler. What i liked about Duran was he could move forward and still be slick with head feints and blocking punches with his arms. There's different styles of boxing and saying one style is real boxing as opposed to another is just one sided thinking.

I personally have Duran in my top 10 pfp...but it is opinion and boxing is the hardest sport to gauge and measure the fighters because of the weight classes. I could see someone having Duran in the top 10, or top 25.

Method Checker
01-26-2010, 11:19 PM
Ortiz beat two lineal lightweight champions as far as I know, the ones I already listed (Laguna & Brown).

You have to consider at what point in their careers those hall of famers were. Surely Laguna was at his peak and that's Ortiz's best win, he overcame him in a three fight series. But Joe Brown was getting old and after being beaten by Ortiz was never a good fighter again. Buchanan beat an old Ortiz but I wouldn't give him much credit for that.

Sugar Ramos was a former featherweight champion who was showing signs of slipping. Saldivar had beaten him viciously but Ramos actually put Ortiz down for a long count in a controversial fight. Was Ramos truly a great lightweight? He went onto lose to Mando Ramos, who was a good fighter and a title holder, but not superior to the opposition Duran fought at 135. I'm not too sure if he could have competed with the best lightweights Duran defended his title against.

Flash Elorde was a hall of famer but mostly for what he accomplished at 130. It was a very good win however.

Also I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the likes of Esteban DeJesus & Ernesto Marcel make the hall of fame in the future.

You make excuses and then you make more excuses. I can do the same to Duran's victories, if I wanted to.

Show me once, in this thread, where I discredited Duran's win over Buchanan. Show me where I discredited Duran's two wins over De Jesus.

Again you're taking away credit for Duran's victory as if it counts for nothing. Duran was able to force Leonard to fight his fight the first while Leonard made Duran fight his fight the second time. But who had all the advantages in height, reach and youth? Leonard did. Do you see any featherweight coming up in weight to beat Duran? I don't. Duran went up to Leonard's division and beat him once.
I didn't take anything away from his victory. Leonard brawled one fight and boxed the other. Leonard lost the brawl. I keep repeating that over and over but you somehow find the need to keep bringing it up. He lost, then won.

Do you favour the likes of Whitaker and Mayweather over Leonard? Duran still does hold that win over Leonard which proves he can beat him. He beat Ray Leonard, one of the greatest and fastest boxers that ever lived. It's a huge victory which should not be cast aside as some sort of "fluke".
I would give Leonard the full advantage over Mayweather. However, I think he would've had some trouble with Whitaker and that fight could go either way.

How was he a bully? Do bullies have brutal 12 round fights against the likes of Iran Barkley and take massive punishment yet overcoming a huge size advantage to win? You're trying to define Duran's career on one fight out of 120 fights. Yes, he quit once, but so did many others.
I didn't say he was a bully throughout his whole career. You're falsely claiming I did. The only time I said he was a bully, in this thread, was during the Leonard fights. Show me where I said elsewhere.

Pep had a cut on his eye in a fight he was clearly winning and retired on his stool. Not to mention the alleged dives he took and when he retired on his stool against Tommy Collins. How about the rest? No comment on Joe Gans who you rate over Duran?
Of course, they deserve to be bashed over what they did, but the quitting part doesn't take away anything extra from their losses. The quitting part just casts a shadow over their profiles.

Not once in this thread did I say that Duran's quitting should take anything away from his legacy. I just stated the fact that he lost by quitting. It doesn't matter whether he quit, got knocked out or lost a decision. He just lost and that's how I rate it.

You don't get what I'm saying here. I said Duran did not have enough experience to deal with DeJesus' style. Buchanan was completely different from DeJesus. Duran obviously went onto prove that with added experience he was able to handle DeJesus, so what is it exactly that you're trying to say here?
It's quite clear that you're very fond of Duran. I just find it disgraceful that you have to make an excuse to cover up a loss in his prime.

It's not a personal attack. It's an observation. A lot of what you're saying can be said by anybody. You can discredit any fighter the way you're doing.
Funny, but you've done that a lot more than I have.

You're only getting the better of this debate in your opinion. You have refused to discuss the actual fights and only point out to the outcomes.
So you think you're winning, now, do you? Tell me, did you convince me that Duran is overrated? No, you haven't. I, on the other hand, have given you more reasons why I consider him overrated.

How so? Do you not see any comparisons between Duran and Castillo? I'll have to disagree with you there. Duran would bring an equal amount of pressure as Castillo but he was a better and more clever fighter.
You can make comparisons of between many fighters. That doesn't mean they fought the same.

Try to even state why you don't agree with it and I'll cease to accuse you of not knowing what you're talking about.

Whitaker did stand and trade many times although he was adept at making people miss while doing so. I do not think either of them have the blend of speed and power that Leonard brought, not to mention they aren't as big as Leonard who was a natural welteweight several inches taller and reachier than Duran, Whitaker, Mayweather.

What's going to prevent Duran from walking in like Castillo did against Mayweather? I'm almost certain that had it been Duran in there instead of Castillo, not to mention had the fight been scheduled for 15 rounds, Mayweather would have left the fight with a loss on his record. Duran brings fast, relentless yet intelligent pressure.
Whitaker and Mayweather had enough of a good punch, however, in order to gain respect from their opponents.

While Whitaker didn't go for the knockout, he still had a good punch when he wanted to use it. Observe his fight with Louie Lomeli. He was pretty aggressive in that fight and he knew that he could take him out of there if he wanted to. He did.

The same with Mayweather. He was all about fighting a safe fight and not getting hit. When he wanted to use his power, he did.

I see both of them out-boxing Duran, en route to a decision. Duran would try to pressure but would get caught with counter-punches and would be missing more than he ever has before.

It doesn't matter? You're trying to discredit Duran's win over Davey Moore but you're not willing to point out why?

Well then, may we disregard Mayweather's victory over Hatton because he was using his elbows? I actually have the proof right here:

Here's some real lacing by Larry Holmes:

Evander Holyfield's career should be erased from the record books:

An exhibition on holding and hitting by Lennox Lewis:

I can go on.
Using your laces against someones eyes is a lot different than low blows, elbows and hitting behind the head. That's all common in the game of boxing. Using laces against the eyes, however, is not.

You compared Pacquiao fighting Cotto to Duran fighting Hagler, so yes, you are comparing Hagler and Cotto.

But fighting Hagler and fighting Cotto is not comparable.
The original response from me was about you asking if there was another fighter that went from bantamweight to middleweight and fought a competitively against the middleweight champion.

I gave you an example using Pacquiao. He climbed higher divisions and actually beat the champion instead of lost to the champion.

I am in no way comparing Hagler's legacy to Cotto's. I'm only comparing how much Duran and Pacquiao climbed up in weight and what weight division champions they beat. You're thinking I'm saying something different when, in fact, I'm not.

Are you still trying to claim that beating old, out of shape men like Weaver and Smith is in any way comparable to Duran's efforts against Castro? It speaks for itself.
Holmes didn't lose to either of them, while Duran did. Before you respond to this, read below.

I've seen his fights at light middleweight, middleweight and cruiserweight. He was as tough as they come and very strong physically.
That's your opinion. How about we finish the Castro talk because I find it to be quite useless.

HaglerSteelChin
01-26-2010, 11:24 PM
How do you think Monzon would have done against a bigger, stronger and reachier fighter than he was? All of his opponents were smaller.

Right of the top of the head; Mundine and Benevenuti had about the same height and reach. He also Kod them. In addition, Mundine was kind of wide build and won national titles in the LHW and Cruiser divisions. He also beat a fighter called Roy Dale who was MUCH bigger than him like 5 inches taller; and of course Monzon murdered him in 5 rounds.

Monzon was shot and fought the same year with an injured leg, he was tougher than people think; even if he was a thug. There are many great fighters like ALi, Louis, Hagler,Wilde who all fought in one division. Monzon was obviously interested in having the most defense record which he held until BHOP broke it. Nowadays, with all those belts it's not as great as back in the day. Its pure subjective and speculation; but i have no doubt if Monzon was fighting today with the alphabet divisions he could have won titles at 168 and 175.

TheGreatA
01-27-2010, 12:14 AM
You make excuses and then you make more excuses. I can do the same to Duran's victories, if I wanted to.

What are these excuses? Is it not true that Sugar Ramos was a natural featherweight? Is it not true that Joe Brown was 36 years old? Should I now claim that Buchanan beat the best version of Ortiz?

I rate Ortiz as the best Puerto Rican fighter of all time but I don't think his lightweight reign was quite as dominant as Duran's.

Show me once, in this thread, where I discredited Duran's win over Buchanan. Show me where I discredited Duran's two wins over De Jesus.

I never said you discredited them. What's there to discredit? I didn't discredit Ortiz's wins over Laguna either but the wins over Ramos and Brown in particular have questions over them. I wouldn't give Duran a whole lot of credit for beating a featherweight at 135 or a 36 year old.


I didn't take anything away from his victory. Leonard brawled one fight and boxed the other. Leonard lost the brawl. I keep repeating that over and over but you somehow find the need to keep bringing it up. He lost, then won.

We may leave it at that. It seemed to me that you were indeed discrediting Duran's victory in the first post. It should be considered a career-defining victory for Duran, much like the rematch was for Leonard.

I would give Leonard the full advantage over Mayweather. However, I think he would've had some trouble with Whitaker and that fight could go either way.

I believe he would have beaten both. But I can see Whitaker's southpaw style and slickness possibly troubling him.

I didn't say he was a bully throughout his whole career. You're falsely claiming I did. The only time I said he was a bully, in this thread, was during the Leonard fights. Show me where I said elsewhere.

I assumed you did.

"It also showed how a bully wasn't able to take a beating mentally and then quit from embarrassment."

"Duran was a bully. Anyone who thinks he wasn't doesn't know what they're talking about."

One can easily get the impression that you were talking about his overall career. I make no excuses for Duran's quitjob against Leonard but he showed heart plenty of times and thus shouldn't be considered a mere bully.

Of course, they deserve to be bashed over what they did, but the quitting part doesn't take away anything extra from their losses. The quitting part just casts a shadow over their profiles.

Not once in this thread did I say that Duran's quitting should take anything away from his legacy. I just stated the fact that he lost by quitting. It doesn't matter whether he quit, got knocked out or lost a decision. He just lost and that's how I rate it.

You made a thread about Duran being overrated. Since Duran quitting against Leonard was part of your argument, and you highlighted the fact, I was given the impression that you don't rate Duran because of it.


It's quite clear that you're very fond of Duran. I just find it disgraceful that you have to make an excuse to cover up a loss in his prime.

Of course I respect Duran but I've found myself defending Sugar Ray Leonard more often than Duran actually. If I feel someone is simply trying to pick apart a fighter's resume, I'll respond to it whether it was about Duran, Leonard, whoever.

Again I don't see how I'm making any excuses for the DeJesus loss. What I'm saying is something that's proven by the films. Young Duran's early style worked very well against Buchanan but it did not work against DeJesus. Thus Duran had to improve in order to beat DeJesus, which he did do, twice in fact. This proves what I'm saying. It's not like I'm saying Duran was weight-drained, Duran was injured, Duran was wearing the wrong socks, etc. I'm saying he did not have the necessary experience to deal with DeJesus's style at that point.


Funny, but you've done that a lot more than I have.

To display how one can do what you're doing.

"I can understand that he's got a few good wins at lightweight over the likes of Buchanan, De Jesus and Kobayashi, but the rest are either paper champions or average journeymen."

I pointed out more wins on his record than just those.

"The reason Leonard lost was because he chose to fight Duran how Duran liked to fight; which was a brawl. The rematch was fought differently, however. Leonard chose to use his boxing skills and he embarrassed Duran in a one-sided beating that made Duran quit."

You said here that Leonard chose to fight the way he did against Duran. I argued that Duran forced Leonard to fight the way he did.

"You left out the fact that the Davey Moore fight is highly controversial. And, somehow, it's so amazing for Duran to lose to a fighter in a division where he was a titleholder. Many fighters have gone up in weight and won titles in more divisions and you're praising him for losing."

You claimed the Davey Moore fight is "highly controversial" and discredit the win. I do not see anything warranting a DQ in the bout and Moore was soundly beaten from round 1 until the end.


So you think you're winning, now, do you? Tell me, did you convince me that Duran is overrated? No, you haven't. I, on the other hand, have given you more reasons why I consider him overrated.

I don't concern myself with winning or losing arguments. Such things are futile as no one's going to admit to "losing" over the internet. You made a thread about Duran being overrated and I gave you my opinion.

My opening post on this thread displays that Duran clearly rates among the best of all time. A dominant lightweight champion for 7 years, who went up to the welterweight division and beat two of the best welterweights of the era and also successfully competed at light middleweight and middleweight. I don't force you to rate him in the top 10 or anything.

You can make comparisons of any fighter. That doesn't mean they fought the same.

Point out what Castillo did better than a prime Roberto Duran.


Whitaker and Mayweather had enough of a good punch, however, in order to gain respect from their opponents.

But they don't truly pose a threat of a one punch KO as DeJesus and Leonard did. Duran had to be a lot more wary against them.

While Whitaker didn't go for the knockout, he still had a good punch when he wanted to use it. Observe his fight with Louie Lomeli. He was pretty aggressive in that fight and he knew that he could take him out of there if he wanted to. He did.

With all due respect to Louie Lomeli, he's not in the class of a Roberto Duran. He walked in with his chin up and got caught with a big punch. It's not like Duran dropping a very tough Iran Barkley up at 160.

The same with Mayweather. He was all about fighting a safe fight and not getting hit. When he wanted to use his power, he did.

I'm sure he wanted to use his power against Castillo but Floyd couldn't budge him.

I see both of them out-boxing Duran, en route to a decision. Duran would try to pressure but would get caught with counter-punches and would be missing more than he ever has before.

Duran was very accurate and creative with his combination punching and had a peach of a counter right hand. Surely he'll be missing against two of the best defensive fighters of all time, but Duran's own defensive ability is often overlooked. You may catch him once but not twice. And he is very quick to close the gap and force you to fight his fight in close. Give Duran 15 rounds and he'll give Whitaker and Mayweather hell at 135.


Using your laces against someones eyes is a lot different than low low blows, elbows and hitting behind the head. That's all common in the game of boxing. Using laces against the eyes, however, is not.


So low blows, rabbit punches, elbows and headbutts are allowed now? Duran wasn't nearly as "dirty" against Moore as he is made out to be. Moore was having more trouble dealing with Duran's defense on the inside, his counter punching and the relentless body beating he was administering.

The original response from me was about you asking if there was another fighter than went from bantamweight to middleweight and fight a competitively against the middleweight champion.

This is what I originally said:

"Tell me the equivalent of Roberto Duran, who started out as a bantamweight, was in his prime as a lightweight, went up to welterweight and went 15 rounds with a prime ATG Marvin Hagler at middleweight. There's no comparison."


I gave you an example using Pacquiao. He climbed higher divisions and actually beat the champion instead of lost to the champion.

It's debatable if Cotto was in his prime and he is certainly not an ATG on the level of Hagler. It's a fair example but do you think Pacquiao would have beaten a Ray Leonard, or a 147 lb version of Hagler? I doubt it. I believe Duran would have beaten Cotto.

I am in no way comparing Hagler's legacy to Cotto's. I'm only comparing how much Duran and Pacquiao climbed up in and what weight division champions they beat. You're thinking I'm saying something different when, in fact, I'm not.

My original argument was that no one went up as many weight divisions as Duran and could have beaten an all-time great like Hagler. Thus it's difficult to discredit Duran because of this loss.

TheGreatA
01-27-2010, 12:14 AM
Right of the top of the head; Mundine and Benevenuti had about the same height and reach. He also Kod them. In addition, Mundine was kind of wide build and won national titles in the LHW and Cruiser divisions. He also beat a fighter called Roy Dale who was MUCH bigger than him like 5 inches taller; and of course Monzon murdered him in 5 rounds.

Mundine was talented and a pretty big middleweight but he had trouble making weight and suffered from having a glass jaw. Benvenuti wasn't small but he was better off at 154 in my opinion. The point is that Monzon never fought anyone bigger. Can you imagine him fighting a 175 lb version of Ray Leonard who had several inches over him in height and reach? Simply an impossible feat for Monzon who relied on his reach. Bob Foster would have had his number if you ask me.

Monzon was shot and fought the same year with an injured leg, he was tougher than people think; even if he was a thug. There are many great fighters like ALi, Lewis, Hagler,Wilde who all fought in one division. Monzon was obviously interested in having the most defense record which he held until BHOP broke it. Nowadays, with all those belts it's not as great as back in the day. Its pure subjective and speculation; but i have no doubt if Monzon was fighting today with the alphabet divisions he could have won titles at 168 and 175.

Monzon did in fact get shot and he was an incredibly tough and focused man but I disagree that he faced all kinds of opposition. He never truly fought anyone bigger than him which Duran did numerous times. Duran was 5'6-5'7 with a 66" reach, yet he competed as high as middleweight with the likes of 6'1 Iran Barkley who later fought at heavyweight.

I rate Monzon highly and don't think it's outrageous to have him over Duran but I felt I had to point out Duran's ventures into divisions above his natural weight and the way he frequently competed against bigger men.

t.boone.pickenz
01-27-2010, 12:28 AM
nicee sig.

DeepSleep
01-27-2010, 01:41 AM
Seemed more like he was pushing Moore off of him, and Moore was a beaten man at that point. The fight should have been stopped. I don't see anything DQ-worthy in that sequence.

Moore certainly landed his share of low blows as well.

I think we will have to agree to disagree because to me that is a clear eye rake. I think though this is all moot though because I think Duran would beat Moore decisively with or without the thumbs/low blows/eye rake anyways.

AddiX
01-27-2010, 01:57 AM
I can't believe there is a thread on a boxing website that is calling Duran over-rated. SMH, dude was a complete animal.

bojangles1987
01-27-2010, 07:10 AM
Come on.

Roberto Duran is the best or second best lightweight ever. He is top 10 p4p easily, and he would embarrass Floyd Mayweather. He would probably beat Whitaker as well, though not as easily.

mickey malone
01-27-2010, 07:43 AM
Over the duration of his carrer, Duran had many peaks and troughs.. He'd beat the best then rest on his laurels and depreciate until it was time to do it all over again.. He was probably the 2nd best LW whoever lived.. Just behind Joe Gans and ahead of Benny Leonard in my poinion..

BennyST
01-27-2010, 09:21 AM
If you want to understand why Duran is considered a top ten P4P ATG, this is one reason. Duran won his first title at 135 in 1972.

Five years later Thomas Hearns had his first pro fight at 147. Eight years later, in 1980, Hearns won his first title at 147.

Eight years after Hearns first won his 147 title he lost the middleweight title in 1988.

Duran, after winning the 135 pound title in 1972, and after starting his career at super-bantamweight in 1968, won that same 160 pound title that Hearns lost in 1989. The guy he beat would go on to become a three division world champion from MW to LHW, also winning a minor HW title against HW champion Gerry Coetzee.

That's over twenty years after he started his career and seventeen years after he first won a title eight divisions below 160.

With wins over great world champions and many HOF'ers from 1970 to 1997 and a career that spanned across five decades, what else would he be?

Oh, and I saw you bring up the old argument that he lost to the best fighters he faced. Like I said, Duran started his career in 1968 at super-bantamweight and won his first title in 1972 right?

Hearns started his career at the end of 1977, basically in 1978, five years after Duran first won a world title. Hearns is arguably the greatest light-middleweight ever and that's where they fought.

Leonard started his career in 1977 also. Again, five years after Duran first won a world title and nearly ten years after he first started as a pro.

Hagler started his a little earlier. He had his first pro fight only one year after Duran first won a title and over five years after Duran had his first pro fight.

Nonetheless, each of these guys won their first titles around twelve years after Duran first started fighting as a pro and about eight years after he had already won his first title. They all started a minimum of six divisions higher than Duran. Duran fought each guy at their best weight, not his, and beat the best fighter out of the lot while being the older, much smaller, more worn fighter. He was a LW that started at 118. They were big 147 pounders that started at 147, or in the case of Hagler at 160.

What would you say if Mayweather moved up to LHW to face a prime, peak Roy Jones Jr, while Mayweather was old and well past his best , and still did better than every one of his opponents? Would you still say "Oh, well he lost to the best fighters he faced"? What if Mayweather moved up to face a prime Hopkins at MW and beat him but then lost the rematch? Would you say "Well, Hopkins still beat him"?

EzzardFan
01-27-2010, 09:44 AM
What has he done to be considered by many as the greatest lightweight of all-time? Now I can understand him being a top 5 and even top 3 lightweight, but the greatest?

Also, why is considered a top 10 P4P all-time great? It doesn't make sense.

He has losses to the greatest fighters he's ever fought. They include Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Benitez. Yet, somehow, he's rated highly above all of them, by most people.

I can understand that he's got a few good wins at lightweight over the likes of Buchanan, De Jesus and Kobayashi, but the rest are either paper champions or average journeymen.

How he's so highly rated is beyond me.

Because at lightweight he was unbeatable. His defeats came at higher weights, although he did very well at welterweight when the division was particularly strong. That's what makes him the greatest lightweight ever. Although personally I prefer Benny Leonard.

EzzardFan
01-27-2010, 09:48 AM
If you want to understand why Duran is considered a top ten P4P ATG, this is one reason. Duran won his first title at 135 in 1972.

Five years later Thomas Hearns had his first pro fight at 147. Eight years later, in 1980, Hearns won his first title at 147.

Eight years after Hearns first won his 147 title he lost the middleweight title in 1988.

Duran, after winning the 135 pound title in 1972, and after starting his career at super-bantamweight in 1968, won that same 160 pound title that Hearns lost in 1989. The guy he beat would go on to become a three division world champion from MW to LHW, also winning a minor HW title against HW champion Gerry Coetzee.

That's over twenty years after he started his career and seventeen years after he first won a title eight divisions below 160.

With wins over great world champions and many HOF'ers from 1970 to 1997 and a career that spanned across five decades, what else would he be?

Oh, and I saw you bring up the old argument that he lost to the best fighters he faced. Like I said, Duran started his career in 1968 at super-bantamweight and won his first title in 1972 right?

Hearns started his career at the end of 1977, basically in 1978, five years after Duran first won a world title. Hearns is arguably the greatest light-middleweight ever and that's where they fought.

Leonard started his career in 1977 also. Again, five years after Duran first won a world title and nearly ten years after he first started as a pro.

Hagler started his a little earlier. He had his first pro fight only one year after Duran first won a title and over five years after Duran had his first pro fight.

Nonetheless, each of these guys won their first titles around twelve years after Duran first started fighting as a pro and about eight years after he had already won his first title. They all started a minimum of six divisions higher than Duran. Duran fought each guy at their best weight, not his, and beat the best fighter out of the lot while being the older, much smaller, more worn fighter. He was a LW that started at 118. They were big 147 pounders that started at 147, or in the case of Hagler at 160.

What would you say if Mayweather moved up to LHW to face a prime, peak Roy Jones Jr, while Mayweather was old and well past his best , and still did better than every one of his opponents? Would you still say "Oh, well he lost to the best fighters he faced"? What if Mayweather moved up to face a prime Hopkins at MW and beat him but then lost the rematch? Would you say "Well, Hopkins still beat him"?

Amen to that!

BennyST
01-27-2010, 09:58 AM
Castro was hardly a good fighter. Have you actually seen him fight? He's below average of any kind of championship material.

Yet he was able to beat the very good champion and slick southpaw boxer Reggie Johnson (one of the best wins in both Jones' and Toney's careers) twice as well as another very slick, quick, undefeated champion fighter in John D. Jackson. How about that?

For someone well below any kind of championship material to win a world championship and defend it five or six times against some very fine other champions is rather remarkable is it not?

Also fascinating is that someone well below any kind of championship material was able to compile a record of 126-11-3 while winning and defending a world title and beating champions as well as facing the greatest fighters of their era and going from JMW to CW without losing much. Why would the greatest fighters of their era face someone well below any kind of championship material? What would be the point?

It would be like Mayweather fighting Henry Bruseles, except that Castro was a champion that beat other good champions and faced the best of his era while Brusles was never even a good contender.

Anyway, GreatA: I would let this one go. This dude is obviously a bit deluded. He came in, seemingly not overly biased, but in the usual fashion of people that can't see past their own illusions, it quickly degraded into nothing but biased ignorance. What's really funny though is that he thought he was making sense and that his arguments were unbiased and 'beating' yours (whatever that means). :lol1:

It's fascinating reading how deluded some people can be though whilst thinking they are making perfect sense. The whole bit about you supposedly resorting to personal attacks was strange though...:thinking:

Still can't figure out where he got that one from. :dunno:

From what I read there was a lot more insulting of you from him and a lot more insinuations from him. It's probably just whats-is-name....Brandish.

Method Checker
01-27-2010, 03:31 PM
What are these excuses? Is it not true that Sugar Ramos was a natural featherweight? Is it not true that Joe Brown was 36 years old? Should I now claim that Buchanan beat the best version of Ortiz?

I rate Ortiz as the best Puerto Rican fighter of all time but I don't think his lightweight reign was quite as dominant as Duran's.

I never said you discredited them. What's there to discredit? I didn't discredit Ortiz's wins over Laguna either but the wins over Ramos and Brown in particular have questions over them. I wouldn't give Duran a whole lot of credit for beating a featherweight at 135 or a 36 year old.
I said it was easy to discredit any fighter's wins, in the manner that you just did.

For example: one of Duran's two lineal champions he beat in Kobayashi came off of a knockout loss in his previous fight against a journeyman (who also came off a loss). Kobayashi must have not been in top form, considering that his last fight before Duran (which he lost) was at a lower division. Maybe Duran only beat one legit lineal champion, then?

I still count it as a win over a lineal champion, even though he was the champion at a smaller weight class and he was slipping. Perhaps we're different in how we rate fighters.

We may leave it at that. It seemed to me that you were indeed discrediting Duran's victory in the first post. It should be considered a career-defining victory for Duran, much like the rematch was for Leonard.
It was a career defining win for Duran. He also had a career defining loss, in the rematch, did he not?

I believe he would have beaten both. But I can see Whitaker's southpaw style and slickness possibly troubling him.
You're entitled to your opinion.

I assumed you did.

"It also showed how a bully wasn't able to take a beating mentally and then quit from embarrassment."

"Duran was a bully. Anyone who thinks he wasn't doesn't know what they're talking about."

One can easily get the impression that you were talking about his overall career. I make no excuses for Duran's quitjob against Leonard but he showed heart plenty of times and thus shouldn't be considered a mere bully.
You assumed I did, yet there's no proof.

Duran was a bully in both fights. He showed no sense of respect to Leonard and had terrible sportsmanship. Only in the second fight did Leonard retaliate like I kid who was being picked on and out-bullied the bully mentally. Duran quit due to embarrassment. I know that you very much dislike hearing that but it's true.

After the first fight was over, Duran pushed Leonard, with a face of disgust. Was that a nice man with plenty of heart?

You made a thread about Duran being overrated. Since Duran quitting against Leonard was part of your argument, and you highlighted the fact, I was given the impression that you don't rate Duran because of it.
I obviously still have to rate him. I just find the loss very shameful.

Again I don't see how I'm making any excuses for the DeJesus loss. What I'm saying is something that's proven by the films. Young Duran's early style worked very well against Buchanan but it did not work against DeJesus. Thus Duran had to improve in order to beat DeJesus, which he did do, twice in fact. This proves what I'm saying. It's not like I'm saying Duran was weight-drained, Duran was injured, Duran was wearing the wrong socks, etc. I'm saying he did not have the necessary experience to deal with DeJesus's style at that point.
Experience has nothing to do with it. Duran and De Jesus both had about the same number of fights. In fact, Duran's resume before fighting each other was much greater than De Jesus'.

Duran fought two lineal champions and one ABC titlist. De Jesus, however, only fought one ABC titlist.

The reason Duran lost was not due to the lack of experience. He just couldn't beat De Jesus because it was a bad style match-up (like you said). HOWEVER, Duran's style did not change to that one style throughout the rest of career. He improved in the second and third fights, only enough to beat De Jesus.

But the proclaimed "greatest lightweight of all-time" got beat by a journeyman, at the time, even though he had a lot more championship experience. Bahaha.

You said here that Leonard chose to fight the way he did against Duran. I argued that Duran forced Leonard to fight the way he did.
That was your opinion and the opinion of his trainer. Does Dundee fully control what Leonard is doing throughout the whole fight?

You claimed the Davey Moore fight is "highly controversial" and discredit the win. I do not see anything warranting a DQ in the bout and Moore was soundly beaten from round 1 until the end.
With the help of laces, yes. Just because he's considered an all-time great by many doesn't mean he wasn't a cheater. Look at Sandy Saddler.

Point out what Castillo did better than a prime Roberto Duran.
I never said he did anything better. I only said they could have comparisons. A comparison means you can compare what they did in a similar manner. You've already elaborated, on that.

Never did I say that Castillo did anything better than Duran, nor have I said the opposite. Now, are you done with putting words into my mouth?

But they don't truly pose a threat of a one punch KO as DeJesus and Leonard did. Duran had to be a lot more wary against them.
A one punch knockout isn't all it takes to beat Duran. I know that it hurts to hear the truth, but he was able to be out-boxed. Every fighter he is.

With all due respect to Louie Lomeli, he's not in the class of a Roberto Duran. He walked in with his chin up and got caught with a big punch. It's not like Duran dropping a very tough Iran Barkley up at 160.
Show me where I said that Whitaker would knock Duran out. I simply said that Whitaker had enough of a punch to gain the respect of Duran.

I'm sure he wanted to use his power against Castillo but Floyd couldn't budge him.
One fight defines a whole career? Even you should know better.

Duran was very accurate and creative with his combination punching and had a peach of a counter right hand. Surely he'll be missing against two of the best defensive fighters of all time, but Duran's own defensive ability is often overlooked. You may catch him once but not twice. And he is very quick to close the gap and force you to fight his fight in close. Give Duran 15 rounds and he'll give Whitaker and Mayweather hell at 135.
A bit biased towards Duran, in that prediction, aren't we? Why don't you talk about how Duran is such a nice guy, as well?

So low blows, rabbit punches, elbows and headbutts are allowed now? Duran wasn't nearly as "dirty" against Moore as he is made out to be. Moore was having more trouble dealing with Duran's defense on the inside, his counter punching and the relentless body beating he was administering.
Never did I say they were allowed. You seem to love putting words into my mouth.

I said it's all very common in the fight game and all fighters have been known to do it occasionally. You should know that. Not all fighters are as innocent as they claim to be.

Raking the eyes of a fighter with laces, however, is too far for compared to the other illegal things.

If he was going to win so comfortably, then why do it?

It's debatable if Cotto was in his prime and he is certainly not an ATG on the level of Hagler. It's a fair example but do you think Pacquiao would have beaten a Ray Leonard, or a 147 lb version of Hagler? I doubt it. I believe Duran would have beaten Cotto.
Pacquiao was smaller than Duran so I doubt he would be able to take on Hagler or Leonard. At the same time, do you think Duran would be able to beat Roy Jones? Didn't think so.

However, Pacquiao did go up more weight divisions than Duran and certainly beat more elite fighters.

My original argument was that no one went up as many weight divisions as Duran and could have beaten an all-time great like Hagler. Thus it's difficult to discredit Duran because of this loss.
He started out as a bantamweight, most likely due to malnutrition and still being a kid. Just as Pacquiao started out as a flyweight when he was kid. Eventually, Duran's normal fighting weight was 135, while Pacquiao's was still around flyweight.

I don't concern myself with winning or losing arguments. Such things are futile as no one's going to admit to "losing" over the internet. You made a thread about Duran being overrated and I gave you my opinion.

My opening post on this thread displays that Duran clearly rates among the best of all time. A dominant lightweight champion for 7 years, who went up to the welterweight division and beat two of the best welterweights of the era and also successfully competed at light middleweight and middleweight. I don't force you to rate him in the top 10 or anything.
Don't act like you don't. If you didn't concern yourself with winning or losing, but simply just stating your opinion, you would've walked away from this thread a long time ago. But you didn't. You exposed your true colors. You know that you can't walk away because it might make you look like you lost the debate.

I've also angered you to full extent where you feel the absolute need that you must defend Roberto "Quitto" Duran.

Method Checker
01-27-2010, 03:54 PM
Yet he was able to beat the very good champion and slick southpaw boxer Reggie Johnson (one of the best wins in both Jones' and Toney's careers) twice as well as another very slick, quick, undefeated champion fighter in John D. Jackson. How about that?
Two close split decisions to Johnson and a lucky comeback after behind absolutely outclassed by Jackson up until the stoppage.

For someone well below any kind of championship material to win a world championship and defend it five or six times against some very fine other champions is rather remarkable is it not?

Also fascinating is that someone well below any kind of championship material was able to compile a record of 126-11-3 while winning and defending a world title and beating champions as well as facing the greatest fighters of their era and going from JMW to CW without losing much. Why would the greatest fighters of their era face someone well below any kind of championship material? What would be the point?
If you define a titlist as a champion, then that's your way of thinking.

Championship material, to me, is the man who beat the man. In other words, a lineal champion. Something Jorge "Fat" Castro was never able to become.

Anyway, GreatA: I would let this one go. This dude is obviously a bit deluded. He came in, seemingly not overly biased, but in the usual fashion of people that can't see past their own illusions, it quickly degraded into nothing but biased ignorance. What's really funny though is that he thought he was making sense and that his arguments were unbiased and 'beating' yours (whatever that means). :lol1:
I simply state it how I see it. And I hope you don't think that the 'beating' part was serious. I just say it because I find it funny and I think that's what TheGreatA tries to do. If not, he wouldn't have been so dedicated to proving a "biased" poster wrong.

It's fascinating reading how deluded some people can be though whilst thinking they are making perfect sense. The whole bit about you supposedly resorting to personal attacks was strange though...:thinking:
Making excuses to bash another fighter's wins just to defend your favored fighter is a lack of respect towards the opposing fighter. Why would I debate with someone like that?

On the other hand, I do debate with TheGreatA.

TheGreatA
01-27-2010, 04:33 PM
I said it was easy to discredit any fighter's wins, in the manner that you just did.

For example: one of Duran's two lineal champions he beat in Kobayashi came off of a knockout loss in his previous fight against a journeyman (who also came off a loss). Kobayashi must have not been in top form, considering that his last fight before Duran (which he lost) was at a lower division. Maybe Duran only beat one legit lineal champion, then?

I still count it as a win over a lineal champion, even though he was the champion at a smaller weight class and he was slipping. Perhaps we're different in how we rate fighters.

I thought you were talking about lineal lightweight champions because resume in the lightweight division is what we're talking about here. As I said, I wouldn't give Duran a huge amount of credit for beating former featherweight titlists at 135.

Your criticisms about the Kobayashi wins are actually legit, although it should be said that the Marcano loss was an upset in a fight he was winning. A very young Duran actually dominated and KO'd Kobayashi in highlight reel fashion. However I disagree that Marcano was a journeyman. Journeymen don't defeat several world champions such as Marcano did. Clearly your definition of a journeyman is as bit off.


It was a career defining win for Duran. He also had a career defining loss, in the rematch, did he not?


No he did not. As I said, one loss does not define a career. It was the only time Duran lost in that fashion. One win also doesn't define a career, but Duran has numerous great wins along with the Leonard win which defines his career. A lightweight champion, thought to be past his prime, taking the fight to an ATG champion bigger, younger and faster than him and winning. That's a great accomplishment.


You assumed I did, yet there's no proof.

Duran was a bully in both fights. He showed no sense of respect to Leonard and had terrible sportsmanship. Only in the second fight did Leonard retaliate like I kid who was being picked on and out-bullied the bully mentally. Duran quit due to embarrassment. I know that you very much dislike hearing that but it's true.

After the first fight was over, Duran pushed Leonard, with a face of disgust. Was that a nice man with plenty of heart?

The proof is pretty much right there. You say you only consider Duran a bully in the Leonard fights but these fights seem to define his career for you. Yes, he did not act like a nice man towards his opponent. Duran was angered by the claims that he stood little chance against Leonard and that he made less money than Sugar Ray despite having fought over 70 times and having dominated for a decade.

"At the final bell, Leonard approached Duran to touch gloves, but Duran waved him away and stalked to his corner. He could not cut off his mood of ferocity so abruptly. He mellowed in the locker room enough to say, "Leonard, you're my friend now," but by then the ring was dark and Leonard was in another room and it seemed a bit late for sentiment."

You'll have a hard time finding a man who has as much time for his fans than Duran. There's a reason he had such a large fanbase and it's because he was a likable person but not towards his opponents.

Again, you treat Duran as if he was some schoolyard bully while Leonard was the one being bullied. They were both professional fighters and did whatever they could to gain a mental advantage. Leonard was the master of mind games himself, much like his idol Muhammad Ali.

I obviously still have to rate him. I just find the loss very shameful.

In your last post you said you do not care whether it was a decision loss, knockout loss or a quit. Obviously you do seem to care about the manner in which Duran lost. But many other greats quit in their careers as well, yet no one in their right mind will call the likes of Willie Pep, Joe Gans or Sam Langford "quitters" or "bullies".

Experience has nothing to do with it. Duran and De Jesus both had about the same number of fights. In fact, Duran's resume before fighting each other was much greater than De Jesus'.

Duran fought two lineal champions and one ABC titlist. De Jesus, however, only fought one ABC titlist.

The reason Duran lost was not due to the lack of experience. He just couldn't beat De Jesus because it was a bad style match-up (like you said). HOWEVER, Duran's style did not change to that one style throughout the rest of career. He improved in the second and third fights, only enough to beat De Jesus.

But the proclaimed "greatest lightweight of all-time" got beat by a journeyman, at the time, even though he had a lot more championship experience. Bahaha.


Why did Duran improve? Because of added experience. That's the point I'm trying to make. And he did change his style a lot in between the first and third fights. He went from a raw, aggressive pressure fighter to a more intelligent boxer.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pAnHuFpu138&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pAnHuFpu138&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Also please don't tell me that you're calling Esteban DeJesus a journeyman.

That was your opinion and the opinion of his trainer. Does Dundee fully control what Leonard is doing throughout the whole fight?


No he doesn't but Leonard said he did what he felt he had to do to win the fight.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZskaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AUcEAAAAIBAJ&dq=leonard%20duran&pg=6847%2C3706149

Duran was simply the better man the first time while Leonard had the better of it the second time.


With the help of laces, yes. Just because he's considered an all-time great by many doesn't mean he wasn't a cheater. Look at Sandy Saddler.

A lot of fighters have "cheated" or bent the rules to their advantage. I don't see how this takes away from Duran's legacy unless you'll take credit away from all the others who have done so as well.

I never said he did anything better. I only said they could have comparisons. A comparison means you can compare what they did in a similar manner. You've already elaborated, on that.

Never did I say that Castillo did anything better than Duran, nor have I said the opposite. Now, are you done with putting words into my mouth?

So if Duran is comparable to Castillo in style but better in almost all areas then how come the Mayweather-Castillo fight is not a better comparison than Mayweather-Corrales on how a Mayweather-Duran match-up would have gone?


A one punch knockout isn't all it takes to beat Duran. I know that it hurts to hear the truth, but he was able to be out-boxed. Every fighter he is.

Obviously but if you're going to compare the outcomes of Duran vs DeJesus I/Leonard II to how Duran vs Whitaker/Mayweather would have gone, then you have to take into account that DeJesus and Leonard were a lot different from either Whitaker or Mayweather and Duran did beat both DeJesus and Leonard as well.


Show me where I said that Whitaker would knock Duran out. I simply said that Whitaker had enough of a punch to gain the respect of Duran.

Enough of a punch to gain respect but not as big of a punch as Leonard or DeJesus who did pose the threat of a one punch knockout to Duran. Duran is going to have a much easier time applying pressure because of this.

One fight defines a whole career? Even you should know better.

There were many other fights in which Mayweather couldn't hurt the opponent either. However since the Castillo fight was at 135 and since we've established that Castillo was likely the most similar to Duran out of all the opponents Mayweather fought, it's best to bring up this fight.

A bit biased towards Duran, in that prediction, aren't we? Why don't you talk about how Duran is such a nice guy, as well?

I don't get it. I could claim that you're biased towards Mayweather and Whitaker as well but there's no point to it.

Never did I say they were allowed. You seem to love putting words into my mouth.

I said it's all very common in the fight game and all fighters have been known to do it occasionally. You should know that. Not all fighters are as innocent as they claim to be.

Raking the eyes of a fighter with laces, however, is too far for compared to the other illegal things.

If he was going to win so comfortably, then why do it?

"Using your laces against someones eyes is a lot different than low low blows, elbows and hitting behind the head. That's all common in the game of boxing."

How is lacing so much more illegal than headbutting, elbowing, hitting below the belt or rabbit punching? Larry Holmes did it in every fight of his, Willie Pep did it frequently.

TheGreatA
01-27-2010, 04:38 PM
Pacquiao was smaller than Duran so I doubt he would be able to take on Hagler or Leonard. At the same time, do you think Duran would be able to beat Roy Jones? Didn't think so.

Not sure what you mean by this. Cotto was no Roy Jones either. Pacquiao taking on Leonard at 147 is about equal to Duran taking on Hagler at 160. Both would be taking on all-time greats in the prime at their best weight. Cotto is very good but doesn't rate with the likes of Hagler, Leonard.

However, Pacquiao did go up more weight divisions than Duran and certainly beat more elite fighters.

He started out as a bantamweight, most likely due to malnutrition and still being a kid. Just as Pacquiao started out as a flyweight when he was kid. Eventually, Duran's normal fighting weight was 135, while Pacquiao's was still around flyweight.

Duran started fighting at bantamweight and ended up fighting as high as super middleweight. Pacquiao was killing himself to make flyweight and went up to super bantamweight immediately after losing his title. Keep in mind that in Duran's time it wasn't an option to put on 10+ pounds after the weigh-ins. Pacquiao, while fighting at 130, frequently came into his fights around the welterweight limit, while Duran weighed in at 135 and fought at 135.

Pacquiao has grown into a solid 147 lbs while Duran was always a bit out of shape above 147 lbs.

Don't act like you don't. If you didn't concern yourself with winning or losing, but simply just stating your opinion, you would've walked away from this thread a long time ago. But you didn't. You exposed your true colors. You know that you can't walk away because it might make you look like you lost the debate.

I've also angered you to full extent where you feel the absolute need that you must defend Roberto "Quitto" Duran.

Seems like the only one angered and concerned with winning this debate is you. I do this frequently and enjoy discussions, even if they get a bit heated. In the end there are no winners or losers. At no point have I felt the need to call any fighters names such as "quitto" or "bully" as you have.

GJC
01-27-2010, 05:22 PM
3:02 - 3:06.

You fellows have obviously never seen a good lacing :)
Duran pulled out his full range of tricks but he didn't lace Moore.

Method Checker
01-27-2010, 05:42 PM
I thought you were talking about lineal lightweight champions because resume in the lightweight division is what we're talking about here. As I said, I wouldn't give Duran a huge amount of credit for beating former featherweight titlists at 135.
That's you. I'm different. I give credit for beating legit world champions if they aren't completely past their prime. You don't.

Your criticisms about the Kobayashi wins are actually legit, although it should be said that the Marcano loss was an upset in a fight he was winning. A very young Duran actually dominated and KO'd Kobayashi in highlight reel fashion. However I disagree that Marcano was a journeyman. Journeymen don't defeat several world champions such as Marcano did. Clearly your definition of a journeyman is as bit off.[/QUOTE]
It's nice to know that you think the circumstances didn't matter in Duran's case.

At the time, Marcano was a journeyman. And please name me the "several world champions" he beat besides Kobayashi. If I'm correct, he only defeated one other titlist. Not another world champion.

No he did not. As I said, one loss does not define a career. It was the only time Duran lost in that fashion. One win also doesn't define a career, but Duran has numerous great wins along with the Leonard win which defines his career. A lightweight champion, thought to be past his prime, taking the fight to an ATG champion bigger, younger and faster than him and winning. That's a great accomplishment.
By career defining loss, I meant that was the most significant loss of his career among his other losses.

On the other hand, you could argue about him being KTFO by Hearns as a much more significant loss. Bahaha.

The proof is pretty much right there. You say you only consider Duran a bully in the Leonard fights but these fights seem to define his career for you. Yes, he did not act like a nice man towards his opponent. Duran was angered by the claims that he stood little chance against Leonard and that he made less money than Sugar Ray despite having fought over 70 times and having dominated for a decade.

"At the final bell, Leonard approached Duran to touch gloves, but Duran waved him away and stalked to his corner. He could not cut off his mood of ferocity so abruptly. He mellowed in the locker room enough to say, "Leonard, you're my friend now," but by then the ring was dark and Leonard was in another room and it seemed a bit late for sentiment."

You'll have a hard time finding a man who has as much time for his fans than Duran. There's a reason he had such a large fanbase and it's because he was a likable person but not towards his opponents.

Again, you treat Duran as if he was some schoolyard bully while Leonard was the one being bullied. They were both professional fighters and did whatever they could to gain a mental advantage. Leonard was the master of mind games himself, much like his idol Muhammad Ali.
Just because he apologized for being a bully doesn't suddenly erase the fact that he was a bully, at the time.

No matter what you think, refusing to touch gloves and pushing a fighter after the actual fight is over is a huge sign of disrespect. He was angry and ferocious, much like a bully.

By the way, Leonard was the one bullied and did use mind games to beat Duran. He embarrassed Duran and made him quit. Ali also used mind games against the bully in Foreman. That worked out for him, as well.

In your last post you said you do not care whether it was a decision loss, knockout loss or a quit. Obviously you do seem to care about the manner in which Duran lost. But many other greats quit in their careers as well, yet no one in their right mind will call the likes of Willie Pep, Joe Gans or Sam Langford "quitters" or "bullies".
I rate is as a loss. I don't take away anything extra because of the manner of losing. I just consider it a loss. I just like to enlighten the fact that he quit. I've already stated this before.

What do you care, anyways? I rate a loss as a loss. I'm fair. I should be allowed to talk about the aspects of a loss. It affects his character, not his record or legacy. And I don't rate fighters by their character.

Why did Duran improve? Because of added experience. That's the point I'm trying to make. And he did change his style a lot in between the first and third fights. He went from a raw, aggressive pressure fighter to a more intelligent boxer.

Also please don't tell me that you're calling Esteban DeJesus a journeyman.
The lack of experience against a certain fighter shouldn't be used as an excuse when he loses to that fighter. Duran never fought someone named De Jesus before. And De Jesus never fought someone named Duran before.

I said at the time, De Jesus was a journeyman. What would you call someone who's rising up in the ranks but never won a title. A top contender? Maybe that's a more suitable meaning. I sort of consider journeymen and top contenders the same. However, for your benefit, let's say he was a top contender.

No he doesn't but Leonard said he did what he felt he had to do to win the fight.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZskaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AUcEAAAAIBAJ&dq=leonard%20duran&pg=6847%2C3706149

Duran was simply the better man the first time while Leonard had the better of it the second time.
Direct quote from one of the articles:

"I said I would fight Duran flat-footed and I did," he said. "I had no alternative. I wouldn't change if I had to do it all over again."

Critics questioned why Leonard, the slick, lightning-fast craftsman with Muhammad Ali's ability to move and stick, chose to mix it up with the awesome veteran who is nicknamed "Hands of Stone." "People questioned whether I could take the big punch," Sugar Ray said softly. "I showed them."

So if Duran is comparable to Castillo in style but better in almost all areas then how come the Mayweather-Castillo fight is not a better comparison than Mayweather-Corrales on how a Mayweather-Duran match-up would have gone?
You can draw certain aspects of their style and compare them to style of other fighters. Castillo and Duran had some comparisons, but they also had a lot of differences. Thus, they're not the same.

And I will not elaborate on what Corrales, Castillo, Duran or even Mayweather have in common any longer. This is about how overrated Duran is. Not a comparison debate between other fighters.

Obviously but if you're going to compare the outcomes of Duran vs DeJesus I/Leonard II to how Duran vs Whitaker/Mayweather would have gone, then you have to take into account that DeJesus and Leonard were a lot different from either Whitaker or Mayweather and Duran did beat both DeJesus and Leonard as well.
Whitaker and Mayweather's defense were far more superior to that of De Jesus' and Leonard's.

Enough of a punch to gain respect but not as big of a punch as Leonard or DeJesus who did pose the threat of a one punch knockout to Duran. Duran is going to have a much easier time applying pressure because of this.
The question, now, however, is would the pressure work against such good defensive fighters. Duran has never faced anyone that had such good defense as Whitaker. You could argue with Benitez but I think Whitaker's defense was far superior to Benitez' and would work in a more supreme manner.

There were many other fights in which Mayweather couldn't hurt the opponent either. However since the Castillo fight was at 135 and since we've established that Castillo was likely the most similar to Duran out of all the opponents Mayweather fought, it's best to bring up this fight.
They're have some similar comparisons but so do a lot of other fighters.

Like I said, though. This is about Duran's legacy. Not Mayweather's. Obviously Duran is rated as the greater lightweight than Mayweather. However, I still think Mayweather can beat Duran on both of their best nights.

How is lacing so much more illegal than headbutting, elbowing, hitting below the belt or rabbit punching? Larry Holmes did it in every fight of his, Willie Pep did it frequently.

A lot of fighters have "cheated" or bent the rules to their advantage. I don't see how this takes away from Duran's legacy unless you'll take credit away from all the others who have done so as well.
They're all considered illegal but every fighter breaks the rules once in a while. The manner in which they break the rules are observed differently by the public.

Raking the opponent's eyes to hinder their vision is far more disrespectful than the rest.

I don't know about you, but hindering the vision of someone's eyes is far more of a cheat than the rest. You wouldn't be able to see clearly and vision is needed in the ring.

Before you respond to this. Let me respond to the second part of your post.

Method Checker
01-27-2010, 05:53 PM
Not sure what you mean by this. Cotto was no Roy Jones either. Pacquiao taking on Leonard at 147 is about equal to Duran taking on Hagler at 160. Both would be taking on all-time greats in the prime at their best weight. Cotto is very good but doesn't rate with the likes of Hagler, Leonard.

I'm not comparing Cotto to Jones. You were comparing Pacquiao and Duran. You asked me if Pacquiao would go up against Hagler and fight competitively, like Duran did. That's 11 divisions north of where Pacquiao started his career.

I responded by asking if Duran would be able to compete against Roy Jones at light heavyweight. That's 10 divisions north of where Duran started his career. One division less than Pacquiao.

Pacquiao would've been to small for Hagler, much like Duran would've been too small for Jones. So don't bring up the fact that Pacquiao wouldn't have been able to do what Duran did against bigger opponents. Pacquiao was simply a smaller man than Duran.

Duran started fighting at bantamweight and ended up fighting as high as super middleweight. Pacquiao was killing himself to make flyweight and went up to super bantamweight immediately after losing his title. Keep in mind that in Duran's time it wasn't an option to put on 10+ pounds after the weigh-ins. Pacquiao, while fighting at 130, frequently came into his fights around the welterweight limit, while Duran weighed in at 135 and fought at 135.
Both Pacquiao and Duran started low due to malnutrition and the fact that they were still teenagers. I very, very, highly doubt that Pacquiao cut weight for his first professional fight. You're acting as if Duran had a life of simplicity when he started fighting as a teenager.

Pacquiao has grown into a solid 147 lbs while Duran was always a bit out of shape above 147 lbs.[QUOTE]
So the fact that he didn't take proper care of himself is my fault? I could care less how he "looked". Fighters look different.

[QUOTE]Seems like the only one angered and concerned with winning this debate is you. I do this frequently and enjoy discussions, even if they get a bit heated. In the end there are no winners or losers. At no point have I felt the need to call any fighters names such as "quitto" or "bully" as you have.
You and your friends think I'm biased. If I'm so biased, why is it so important for you to continue debating. Obviously, you have a goal, in all of this. You're trying to prove me wrong and thus "win".

Exposed. Bahaha.

TheGreatA
01-27-2010, 06:46 PM
That's you. I'm different. I give credit for beating legit world champions if they aren't completely past their prime. You don't.

Did I say I don't give credit to Ortiz for beating Brown or Ramos? I said I wouldn't give him a huge amount of credit.

I'm putting it in perspective. Let's say that Duran beat an old Ortiz (whom he was scheduled to fight) and say, a declining Kuniaki Shibata at 135 while actually being knocked down and winning controversially? Comparable to Ortiz's fights against Joe Brown and Sugar Ramos. Few would give Duran much credit for such victories.


It's nice to know that you think the circumstances didn't matter in Duran's case.

I didn't say they don't matter. I said I acknowledge the criticisms and would never try to make the case that Duran was a great fighter because he beat Hiroshi Kobayashi. It's just a good victory but not a great one.

At the time, Marcano was a journeyman. And please name me the "several world champions" he beat besides Kobayashi. If I'm correct, he only defeated one other titlist. Not another world champion.

You must have a very different definition of "journeyman" than I do because journeymen do not defeat Hiroshi Kobayashi, Rene Arredondo, Bernardo Caraballo, have two close losses to Ernesto Marcel nor are they rated in the top 5 contenders in the division.

1969:

Hiroshi Kobayashi, Champion

1. Ruben Navarro
2. Antonio Amaya
3. Silverio Ortiz
4. Alfredo Marcano
5. Alton Colter
6. Ray Echevarria
7. Yoshiaki Numata
8. Jose Acosta
9. Rene Barrientos
10. Jose Smecca

By career defining loss, I meant that was the most significant loss of his career among his other losses.

On the other hand, you could argue about him being KTFO by Hearns as a much more significant loss. Bahaha.

As career-defining as Leonard's shutout loss to Terry Norris, Hearns's KO loss to Iran Barkley, Roy Jones's KO losses to Tarver & Glen Johnson?


Just because he apologized for being a bully doesn't suddenly erase the fact that he was a bully, at the time.

No matter what you think, refusing to touch gloves and pushing a fighter after the actual fight is over is a huge sign of disrespect. He was angry and ferocious, much like a bully.

I just don't see the relevance of the whole thing about Duran being a "bully". He wasn't overly respectful to the opponent who was trying to bash his face in but that doesn't make him a terrible human being or a coward nor does it have any impact on his legacy as a boxer.

By the way, Leonard was the one bullied and did use mind games to beat Duran. He embarrassed Duran and made him quit. Ali also used mind games against the bully in Foreman. That worked out for him, as well.

You seem to like to think of certain fighters as "bullies". However I could come up with as many examples of Ali and Leonard being "bullies" as Duran and Foreman. See Ali-Frazier rivalry or Leonard-Hagler build-up/fight.

I rate is as a loss. I don't take away anything extra because of the manner of losing. I just consider it a loss. I just like to enlighten the fact that he quit. I've already stated this before.


What do you care, anyways? I rate a loss as a loss. I'm fair. I should be allowed to talk about the aspects of a loss. It affects his character, not his record or legacy. And I don't rate fighters by their character.

If it has no relevance to the discussion, which is about Duran being overrated, then don't bring it up in the first place. You can talk about the aspects of loss but with all the talk about Duran being a "bully", "quitter", "embarrassed" against Leonard you're making it a point.


The lack of experience against a certain fighter shouldn't be used as an excuse when he loses to that fighter. Duran never fought someone named De Jesus before. And De Jesus never fought someone named Duran before.

I said at the time, De Jesus was a journeyman. What would you call someone who's rising up in the ranks but never won a title. A top contender? Maybe that's a more suitable meaning. I sort of consider journeymen and top contenders the same. However, for your benefit, let's say he was a top contender.

The definition of a journeyman is a fighter who goes from town to town to lose to rising prospects and contenders. Marcano and DeJesus were far from that. They were contenders.

Direct quote from one of the articles:

"I said I would fight Duran flat-footed and I did," he said. "I had no alternative. I wouldn't change if I had to do it all over again."

Critics questioned why Leonard, the slick, lightning-fast craftsman with Muhammad Ali's ability to move and stick, chose to mix it up with the awesome veteran who is nicknamed "Hands of Stone." "People questioned whether I could take the big punch," Sugar Ray said softly. "I showed them."


Yes, he fought the way he felt he should have fought against Duran. But his gameplan was never to be trapped against the ropes and to take trendemous body punishment which sapped his energy. It was to keep the fight in the middle of the ring which he could not do.

As I said previously, Leonard had fought most of his professional fights in a more flat-footed stance to generate greater punching power and to excite the crowds.

You can draw certain aspects of their style and compare them to style of other fighters. Castillo and Duran had some comparisons, but they also had a lot of differences. Thus, they're not the same.

What are the big differences though? As far as I'm concerned, they have similarities in style but Duran was better in all aspects.

And I will not elaborate on what Corrales, Castillo, Duran or even Mayweather have in common any longer. This is about how overrated Duran is. Not a comparison debate between other fighters.

Then refrain from making comparisons in the first place.

"And, despite what you think, Duran was very beatable. If De Jesus could knock down and beat Duran on route to a decision, I'm sure fighters such as Whitaker and Mayweather would be able to embarrass him."

"What about the Mayweather that fought Corrales? That sure looked like a better version of him. Better yet, since there were no before day weigh ins during Duran's time as a lightweight, lets use Mayweather as a super featherweight against Duran. A much more faster, defensively-better version of Mayweather."

Whitaker and Mayweather's defense were far more superior to that of De Jesus' and Leonard's.

The question, now, however, is would the pressure work against such good defensive fighters. Duran has never faced anyone that had such good defense as Whitaker. You could argue with Benitez but I think Whitaker's defense was far superior to Benitez' and would work in a more supreme manner.

And Leonard/DeJesus had superior punching power to Whitaker/Mayweather. Leonard especially was a much more of an offensive threat with his handspeed and power. Can Mayweather or Whitaker discourage Duran from forcing them to fight his fight with their lesser punching ability? Is defense going to win the fight on the judges' eyes (see Whitaker-Chavez robbery)? And if you make the fight for 15 rounds, Mayweather and Whitaker would be in uncharted territory. Make Castillo-Mayweather I a 15 round fight and Castillo would have won decisively.

Like I said, though. This is about Duran's legacy. Not Mayweather's. Obviously Duran is rated as the greater lightweight than Mayweather. However, I still think Mayweather can beat Duran on both of their best nights.

And I'm bringing up examples in Mayweather's career that may indicate he wouldn't have such an easy time with Duran after all.

They're all considered illegal but every fighter breaks the rules once in a while. The manner in which they break the rules are observed differently by the public.

Raking the opponent's eyes to hinder their vision is far more disrespectful than the rest.

I don't know about you, but hindering the vision of someone's eyes is far more of a cheat than the rest. You wouldn't be able to see clearly and vision is needed in the ring.

Rabbit punching could kill. Headbutting and elbows causes cuts. No one wants to get hit below the belt.

It's just a bit pointless to discredit Duran's victories because he was a rough fighter, unless you're going to discredit all the other fighters who were also equally as dirty or even more so.

TheGreatA
01-27-2010, 06:54 PM
I'm not comparing Cotto to Jones. You were comparing Pacquiao and Duran. You asked me if Pacquiao would go up against Hagler and fight competitively, like Duran did. That's 11 divisions north of where Pacquiao started his career.

I responded by asking if Duran would be able to compete against Roy Jones at light heavyweight. That's 10 divisions north of where Duran started his career. One division less than Pacquiao.

Pacquiao would've been to small for Hagler, much like Duran would've been too small for Jones. So don't bring up the fact that Pacquiao wouldn't have been able to do what Duran did against bigger opponents. Pacquiao was simply a smaller man than Duran.

I didn't say anything about Pacquiao facing Hagler at middleweight. I said Duran fighting Hagler at 160 is the equal of Pacquiao fighting Leonard or a 147 lb version of Hagler. Do you think Pacquiao could win? Would he even be competitive? Duran was competitive against Hagler for 15 rounds.


Both Pacquiao and Duran started low due to malnutrition and the fact that they were still teenagers. I very, very, highly doubt that Pacquiao cut weight for his first professional fight. You're acting as if Duran had a life of simplicity when he started fighting as a teenager.


I'm not saying he cut weight for his first fight but he was cutting a lot of weight in his last fights at flyweight. He was a natural super bantam at 19 years of age, when Duran fought naturally at 130, and in today's boxing fighters put on 10+ lbs after the weigh-ins so Pacquiao was probably coming in at 130 to his super bantamweight fights. I question whether Pacquiao is all that much smaller than Duran.


So the fact that he didn't take proper care of himself is my fault? I could care less how he "looked". Fighters look different.

My case is that Duran was never a natural 160 lber while Pacquiao seems to have grown into a solid welterweight.

You and your friends think I'm biased. If I'm so biased, why is it so important for you to continue debating. Obviously, you have a goal, in all of this. You're trying to prove me wrong and thus "win".

Exposed. Bahaha.

I have numerous debates going on at this very moment on other forums. It's not a big deal to me to have long debates with people and I don't care if I "win" or "lose". How could I possibly prove you wrong? It's plainly obvious that you're not going to change your mind on this subject but I can atleast bring up some interesting viewpoints that you may or may not agree with. Just take a less of a hostile attitude towards me and other members of this section of the forum.

Method Checker
01-27-2010, 07:38 PM
Did I say I don't give credit to Ortiz for beating Brown or Ramos? I said I wouldn't give him a huge amount of credit.

I'm putting it in perspective. Let's say that Duran beat an old Ortiz (whom he was scheduled to fight) and say, a declining Kuniaki Shibata at 135 while actually being knocked down and winning controversially? Comparable to Ortiz's fights against Joe Brown and Sugar Ramos. Few would give Duran much credit for such victories.
If Ortiz was the reigning champion, I would give Duran credit for that win. And if Shibata was on a winning streak and a still young 25 years old, I would give Duran credit for that win, as well.

I didn't say they don't matter. I said I acknowledge the criticisms and would never try to make the case that Duran was a great fighter because he beat Hiroshi Kobayashi. It's just a good victory but not a great one.

I view is as a pretty good victory and yet I still think Duran is overrated. How's that for being biased?

You must have a very different definition of "journeyman" than I do because journeymen do not defeat Hiroshi Kobayashi, Rene Arredondo, Bernardo Caraballo, have two close losses to Ernesto Marcel nor are they rated in the top 5 contenders in the division.
I've already stated that I view a journeyman and a top contender as the same thing. If you wanna call him a top contender, fine. I'm sure it'll make you so much happier to know that I used a different word to describe him when I really meant the same thing.

As career-defining as Leonard's shutout loss to Terry Norris, Hearns's KO loss to Iran Barkley, Roy Jones's KO losses to Tarver & Glen Johnson?
Considering Leonard wasn't in his prime against Norris, no. Leonard's career defining (most significant) loss is a close decision loss to Duran.

Hearns' career defining was to either Leonard or Hagler.

Jones' career defining loss never happened. He wasn't in his prime against Tarver or Johnson. If you're asking which is the worst loss of his career, it would be to Tarver.

I just don't see the relevance of the whole thing about Duran being a "bully". He wasn't overly respectful to the opponent who was trying to bash his face in but that doesn't make him a terrible human being or a coward nor does it have any impact on his legacy as a boxer.
Once again, I never said it had an impact on his legacy. Just on his character.

You seem to like to think of certain fighters as "bullies". However I could come up with as many examples of Ali and Leonard being "bullies" as Duran and Foreman. See Ali-Frazier rivalry or Leonard-Hagler build-up/fight.
Who was the aggressor in the Ali vs Frazier fights? Who attacked who in a studio pre-fight interview?

Regarding Leonard vs Hagler, who was the aggressor? Who cried about the outcome?

Mind games isn't really bullying. Just a manner of trying to psych the opponent out.

[QUOTE]If it has no relevance to the discussion, which is about Duran being overrated, then don't bring it up in the first place. You can talk about the aspects of loss but with all the talk about Duran being a "bully", "quitter", "embarrassed" against Leonard you're making it a point.
Are you saying that because I'm talking to you, I'm not allowed to have free speech?

I've already told you that I don't take anything away from the loss. Go ahead and enlighten me on the losses of Leonard. See if I care.

The definition of a journeyman is a fighter who goes from town to town to lose to rising prospects and contenders. Marcano and DeJesus were far from that. They were contenders.
Fair enough. He was called a contender. Does it make you feel better, even though I don't think of him any differently?

Yes, he fought the way he felt he should have fought against Duran. But his gameplan was never to be trapped against the ropes and to take trendemous body punishment which sapped his energy. It was to keep the fight in the middle of the ring which he could not do.

As I said previously, Leonard had fought most of his professional fights in a more flat-footed stance to generate greater punching power and to excite the crowds.
Then that was Leonard's fault. He snapped out of it, in the second fight, and took Duran to school.

Then refrain from making comparisons in the first place.
To me, the Mayweather is the Corrales fight was a much better version of him. Of course, Corrales and Castillo aren't the same. I just think that Mayweather was a lot sharper, had better quickness and had his head in a great state of mind. It was one of his best performances, in his whole career.

And Leonard/DeJesus had superior punching power to Whitaker/Mayweather. Leonard especially was a much more of an offensive threat with his handspeed and power. Can Mayweather or Whitaker discourage Duran from forcing them to fight his fight with their lesser punching ability? Is defense going to win the fight on the judges' eyes (see Whitaker-Chavez robbery)? And if you make the fight for 15 rounds, Mayweather and Whitaker would be in uncharted territory. Make Castillo-Mayweather I a 15 round fight and Castillo would have won decisively.
De Jesus and Leonard basically tried to brawl with Duran. Whitaker and Mayweather wouldn't. They're all about keep their opponents at bay, landing counter punches and using their defense. It would not be similar to Duran's fights against De Jesus or Leonard, at all.

I like how you bring up the robbery part. So what if they're robbed in a fantasy fight? Non biased fans would know who the real winner was.

I'm sure that Whitaker and Mayweather would prepare themselves for a 15 round fight if they knew they were going to be in one.

And I'm bringing up examples in Mayweather's career that may indicate he wouldn't have such an easy time with Duran after all.
Fair enough.

Benitez was slick. But I think Mayweather was slicker. Benitez had good defense, but I think Mayweather's defense is better.

Benitez beat Duran.

Rabbit punching could kill. Headbutting and elbows causes cuts. No one wants to get hit below the belt.

It's just a bit pointless to discredit Duran's victories because he was a rough fighter, unless you're going to discredit all the other fighters who were also equally as dirty or even more so.
In the rarest of rare circumstances do rabbit punches kill someone. That doesn't mean I'm saying it shouldn't be frowned upon. All of the things you mentioned should be.

I just think that lacing the opponent's eyes with your gloves and thus hindering his vision is worse, considering you're in the middle of the fight and you need your vision.

I didn't say anything about Pacquiao facing Hagler at middleweight. I said Duran fighting Hagler at 160 is the equal of Pacquiao fighting Leonard or a 147 lb version of Hagler. Do you think Pacquiao could win? Would he even be competitive? Duran was competitive against Hagler for 15 rounds.

I didn't say anything about Pacquiao facing Hagler at middleweight. I said Duran fighting Hagler at 160 is the equal of Pacquiao fighting Leonard or a 147 lb version of Hagler. Do you think Pacquiao could win? Would he even be competitive? Duran was competitive against Hagler for 15 rounds.
Your response to when I said Pacquiao climbed up more divisions than Duran and beat the champion/titlist at the highest division he won a title at:
Best welterweight of the decade? Surely you can't be talking about Miguel Cotto? I don't even care to begin to describe what Duran would do to Cotto.

Cotto is good no doubt but he is no prime Marvin Hagler.

Also the fact that Pacquiao's own trainer Freddie Roach doesn't think Manny could have beaten Duran is very telling.

I'm not saying he cut weight for his first fight but he was cutting a lot of weight in his last fights at flyweight. He was a natural super bantam at 19 years of age, when Duran fought naturally at 130, and in today's boxing fighters put on 10+ lbs after the weigh-ins so Pacquiao was probably coming in at 130 to his super bantamweight fights. I question whether Pacquiao is all that much smaller than Duran.
You said Duran started at bantamweight and I said Pacquiao started at flyweight. The question wasn't how long they were at that weight. The question was which weight did they start at.

If he was shorter and weighed less than Duran, when they were around the same age, Pacquiao was the smaller man.

My case is that Duran was never a natural 160 lber while Pacquiao seems to have grown into a solid welterweight.
I would say Duran was natural, considering he gained so much weight in between fights. The fact that he might have not took proper care of himself shouldn't be an excuse. Either way, Duran was naturally heavier than Pacquiao.

I have numerous debates going on at this very moment on other forums. It's not a big deal to me to have long debates with people and I don't care if I "win" or "lose". How could I possibly prove you wrong? It's plainly obvious that you're not going to change your mind on this subject but I can atleast bring up some interesting viewpoints that you may or may not agree with. Just take a less of a hostile attitude towards me and other members of this section of the forum.
If you don't care about winning or losing a debate, what's the point in debating? If you don't think you have the skills to win a debate, what's the point in debating?

F l i c k e r
01-27-2010, 07:45 PM
What has he done to be considered by many as the greatest lightweight of all-time? Now I can understand him being a top 5 and even top 3 lightweight, but the greatest?

Also, why is considered a top 10 P4P all-time great? It doesn't make sense.

He has losses to the greatest fighters he's ever fought. They include Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Benitez. Yet, somehow, he's rated highly above all of them, by most people.

I can understand that he's got a few good wins at lightweight over the likes of Buchanan, De Jesus and Kobayashi, but the rest are either paper champions or average journeymen.

How he's so highly rated is beyond me.


Now that you mention it, it does seem a bit overrated in the p4p discussion. But for the most part he is rated highly as a lightweight.

He lossed to SRL, Hagler, Hearns, and Benitez as a welterweight. So, I understand where your comming from for the overall p4p discussion. But as a lightweight i think he is rated just fine.

One more round
01-27-2010, 07:51 PM
TheGreatA's opening post summed it up for me, anyone who reads that and doesn't realise how good the man was is a ****ing idiot

GJC
01-27-2010, 08:18 PM
I think GreatA has pretty much covered all the points all I would add as a quick summary is when rating ATG fighters p4p some weight their lists by the amount of titles won at different weights, some weight their lists on how long a fighter dominated a particular division and others weight their list on how good a fighters resume was.
Duran ticks all three boxes.
Whether you rate him top ten or top 20 if you rate him outside of your top 20 i'd be interested to see how many of the 20 fighters you rank over him tick all 3 boxes.

Jim Jeffries
01-27-2010, 10:27 PM
Well when a career lightweight jumps up to WW and beats an undefeated ATG like Leonard. Jumps up to MW and is even/slightly ahead after 12 rounds against a top 2 or 3 ATG MW like Hagler. When he fights over 5 different decades. Wins a world title in fight of the year at age 38, 17 years after he won his first world title. Fights for a world title at age 47. Wins a world title in 4 different weight classes. 11 world title defenses at LW. etc etc etc.

HaglerSteelChin
01-27-2010, 10:36 PM
I rated him #21 on my P4P list and i don't think that is being disrespectful considering the sport has over 120 years of modern title fights.


In my list, i have him higher than these guys

22-Tony Canzonieri
23-Manny Pacquiao
24-Julio Cesar Chavez
25-Sandy Saddler
26-Stanley Ketchel
27-Barney Ross
28-Ezzard Charles
29-Marcel Cedan
30-Kid Chocolate

My main issue is when they put duran as top 10 P4P and rate him as the greatest latin fighter of all time. The greatest latin fighter dosen't get outbox by Wilfred Benitez at 154 quite easy. Also Benitez started at 140 and 154 was his third weight class. But i will rate Duran higher mainly due to his LW career.

Method Checker
01-27-2010, 11:13 PM
I rated him #21 on my P4P list and i don't think that is being disrespectful considering the sport has over 120 years of modern title fights.

My main issue is when they put duran as top 10 P4P and rate him as the greatest latin fighter of all time. The greatest latin fighter dosen't get outbox by Wilfred Benitez at 154 quite easy. Also Benitez started at 140 and 154 was his third weight class. But i will rate Duran higher mainly due to his LW career.
I agree very much with this.

TheGreatA
01-27-2010, 11:16 PM
If Ortiz was the reigning champion, I would give Duran credit for that win. And if Shibata was on a winning streak and a still young 25 years old, I would give Duran credit for that win, as well.

Would you regard them as better wins than a prime Ken Buchanan or a prime Esteban DeJesus though? Both arguably top 20 all-time lightweights at the peak of their abilities. Buchanan also had the better of Ismael Laguna, perhaps Ortiz's best win.

Considering Leonard wasn't in his prime against Norris, no. Leonard's career defining (most significant) loss is a close decision loss to Duran.

Hearns' career defining was to either Leonard or Hagler.

Jones' career defining loss never happened. He wasn't in his prime against Tarver or Johnson. If you're asking which is the worst loss of his career, it would be to Tarver.

You brought up the Hearns loss though. Duran was as old/older than the above while they lost.

The term "career-defining" to me means that something in particular defines the whole career of a boxer. I don't really think of losses as career-defining unless the boxer puts up his best ever performance in losing, for example Rogers Mtagwa vs Juan Manuel Lopez.


Regarding Leonard vs Hagler, who was the aggressor? Who cried about the outcome?

Mind games isn't really bullying. Just a manner of trying to psych the opponent out.

I don't necessarily think of aggressors as "bullies". A bit of an odd term to describe Hagler or Duran. Hagler cried about the outcome much like Leonard probably would have had he been on the losing end of the split decision.

I'd say that what Ali did to Frazier is a better example of bullying than anything else.


Are you saying that because I'm talking to you, I'm not allowed to have free speech?

I've already told you that I don't take anything away from the loss. Go ahead and enlighten me on the losses of Leonard. See if I care.

I'm saying that if it's not of any substance to the discussion then why take shots at Duran's character with terms such as "quitto", saying he was a bully and so on. It does make you appear a bit biased even if you aren't. It's a bit unnecessary.

Fair enough. He was called a contender. Does it make you feel better, even though I don't think of him any differently?


The term "journeyman" holds a negative connotation and isn't usually used to describe contenders unless one wants to insult their abilities. But if it's the term you use to describe a contender then go ahead. But you seemed to use it in an insulting way by saying that "Duran lost to a journeyman, Bahaha", "Kobayashi was coming off a loss to a journeyman". It's not like saying Duran lost to a top contender.

Then that was Leonard's fault. He snapped out of it, in the second fight, and took Duran to school.

It wasn't Leonard's fault. Leonard's plan was never to be pressured against the ropes, take a bad body beating and lose a decision. He couldn't hold off Duran and keep the fight in the middle of the ring the first time. It's as if people think that Leonard willingly went against the ropes. He didn't, that was never the plan.

To me, the Mayweather is the Corrales fight was a much better version of him. Of course, Corrales and Castillo aren't the same. I just think that Mayweather was a lot sharper, had better quickness and had his head in a great state of mind. It was one of his best performances, in his whole career.

And I brought up that Corrales's style was better for Mayweather to fight against, and that there were only a couple of years in between those fights. I don't think there was any significant decline in Mayweather's skills during that time, he was just in there with a different opponent.

De Jesus and Leonard basically tried to brawl with Duran. Whitaker and Mayweather wouldn't. They're all about keep their opponents at bay, landing counter punches and using their defense. It would not be similar to Duran's fights against De Jesus or Leonard, at all.

They didn't exactly try to brawl with Duran, they were forced to brawl with him. It's not like Leonard and DeJesus went against the ropes on their own. Whitaker wasn't afraid to stand and trade, while Mayweather was dragged into a brawl by Castillo. The lesser offensive firepower of Pernell and Floyd is going to bother them.


I like how you bring up the robbery part. So what if they're robbed in a fantasy fight? Non biased fans would know who the real winner was.

I'm being realistic. I'm not saying that Duran is going to win a robbery, but the judges do favour aggressive fighters. Since I imagine both of these fights would be close, the aggression could win it for Duran. It's just something to think about.

I'm sure that Whitaker and Mayweather would prepare themselves for a 15 round fight if they knew they were going to be in one.

Sure they would but they would definitely have the advantage in a 12 round bout. Duran had great stamina at 135 and had several KO's into the last three rounds and always came on strong.

Benitez was slick. But I think Mayweather was slicker. Benitez had good defense, but I think Mayweather's defense is better.

Benitez beat Duran.

Benitez was also 5'10-5'11 at 154 pounds against a 30+ year old Duran. Whitaker had quite a few struggles post-30 years of age at 147 & 154 but I'm talking about a match-up at 135 here.

Also Benitez was great at fighting off the ropes, more so than Mayweather or Whitaker.

In the rarest of rare circumstances do rabbit punches kill someone. That doesn't mean I'm saying it shouldn't be frowned upon. All of the things you mentioned should be.

I just think that lacing the opponent's eyes with your gloves and thus hindering his vision is worse, considering you're in the middle of the fight and you need your vision.

It's debatable if it's worse or not. For me, excessive fouling should be taken into consideration but I do not feel that Duran did anything to warrant a disqualification in that bout. I think it's often exaggerated. The really controversial fights are the likes of Luis Resto vs Billy Collins. I simply can't give credit to the fighter under those circumstances.

Pryor's career-defining win over Alexis Arguello had big controversy about it, especially with recent statements by Luis Resto and Emmanuel Steward. However I still won't take away Pryor's win over Arguello.

Your response to when I said Pacquiao climbed up more divisions than Duran and beat the champion/titlist at the highest division he won a title at:

You said Duran started at bantamweight and I said Pacquiao started at flyweight. The question wasn't how long they were at that weight. The question was which weight did they start at.

If he was shorter and weighed less than Duran, when they were around the same age, Pacquiao was the smaller man.

I meant to compare the greatness of Marvin Hagler to Miguel Cotto. I said that while Pacquiao's recent success is comparable to Duran's in a way, he hasn't exactly fought calibre of fighters that Duran has. One could say that he went up as many divisions and beat the champion while Duran didn't, but is Cotto anywhere near as great as a prime Hagler? Of course not. Would Pacquiao have beaten the equivalent of a prime Marvin Hagler at 147, for example, Ray Leonard? I doubt it seriously.


I would say Duran was natural, considering he gained so much weight in between fights. The fact that he might have not took proper care of himself shouldn't be an excuse. Either way, Duran was naturally heavier than Pacquiao.

He gained a ton of weight but so does Ricky Hatton. He was just fat and a lot of people make excuses for that but I don't. However it's very clear that he was rather out of shape above 147 pounds most of the time and was not at his natural fighting weight by any means.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wNjJ_tcL4uo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wNjJ_tcL4uo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Pacquiao at 147:

http://www.boxnews.com.ua/photos/1970/Manny-Pacquiao-Miguel-Angel-Cotto76.jpg


If you don't care about winning or losing a debate, what's the point in debating? If you don't think you have the skills to win a debate, what's the point in debating?

I don't think of debates as winning or losing. I think that's a bit silly. It's not competition. I believe the point is to have a civil, well-mannered discussion about a certain subject which could possibly broaden the views of both parties involved. You can either attempt to learn from such debates or try to understand the others' point of view or just think of the other as an "enemy" who has to be "defeated" in a war of words.

Method Checker
01-28-2010, 12:04 AM
Would you regard them as better wins than a prime Ken Buchanan or a prime Esteban DeJesus though? Both arguably top 20 all-time lightweights at the peak of their abilities. Buchanan also had the better of Ismael Laguna, perhaps Ortiz's best win.
I wouldn't regard Shibata as a better win. You brought him up, not me.

I would regard a win over the reigning champion Ortiz better than either Buchanan or De Jesus, yes.

You brought up the Hearns loss though. Duran was as old/older than the above while they lost.
I used that as a bit of a joke. Didn't mean it to be serious..

His career defining loss was when he quit against Leonard. I regard him as still being in his prime, just at a higher weight.

The term "career-defining" to me means that something in particular defines the whole career of a boxer. I don't really think of losses as career-defining unless the boxer puts up his best ever performance in losing, for example Rogers Mtagwa vs Juan Manuel Lopez.
When I say career-defining losses, I'm not talking about his whole career (wins, losses, draws, etc.). I'm talking only talking about his losses. Maybe I shouldn't use the term "career-defining" any longer. I'll just use "the most significant".

I don't necessarily think of aggressors as "bullies". A bit of an odd term to describe Hagler or Duran. Hagler cried about the outcome much like Leonard probably would have had he been on the losing end of the split decision.
I didn't say only the aggressor. Mix aggressiveness and the huge lack of respect (ie. refusing to touch gloves and pushing Leonard after the fight was over), and I call him a bully. If you don't, that's your opinion.

I'd say that what Ali did to Frazier is a better example of bullying than anything else.
I think of them as mind games to try and psych the bully out. But you're entitled to believe what you want.

I'm saying that if it's not of any substance to the discussion then why take shots at Duran's character with terms such as "quitto", saying he was a bully and so on. It does make you appear a bit biased even if you aren't. It's a bit unnecessary.
I don't like Duran. But I don't let that get in the way of a fair judgment. I don't like Calzaghe but I rate him as the greatest super middleweight of all-time.

It wasn't Leonard's fault. Leonard's plan was never to be pressured against the ropes, take a bad body beating and lose a decision. He couldn't hold off Duran and keep the fight in the middle of the ring the first time. It's as if people think that Leonard willingly went against the ropes. He didn't, that was never the plan.
His plan was to go toe to toe with during fight a brawl. That didn't work out and he only has himself to blame. When he chose to use his boxing skills, in the next, he won.

And I brought up that Corrales's style was better for Mayweather to fight against, and that there were only a couple of years in between those fights. I don't think there was any significant decline in Mayweather's skills during that time, he was just in there with a different opponent.
Corrales' style was better for him, but that doesn't mean he lost any of his speed and quickness. I just think that it was one of the greatest performances of his career. Not only one of the greatest wins.

They didn't exactly try to brawl with Duran, they were forced to brawl with him. It's not like Leonard and DeJesus went against the ropes on their own. Whitaker wasn't afraid to stand and trad, while Mayweather was dragged into a brawl by Castillo. The lesser offensive firepower of Pernell and Floyd is going to bother them.
Whitaker and Mayweather would only brawl if they felt they could do it without much consequence. I doubt they would do it very much against Duran.

I'm being realistic. I'm not saying that Duran is going to win a robbery, but the judges do favour aggressive fighters. Since I imagine both of these fights would be close, the aggression could win it for Duran. It's just something to think about.
If Duran won a robbery, would you consider it a legit win? His record might but I wouldn't.

Sure they would but they would definitely have the advantage in a 12 round bout. Duran had great stamina at 135 and had several KO's into the last three rounds and always came on strong.
We'll never know. I can just see Whitaker and Mayweather on their best nights beating Duran on his best night.

Benitez was also 5'10-5'11 at 154 pounds against a 30+ year old Duran. Whitaker had quite a few struggles post-30 years of age at 147 & 154 but I'm talking about a match-up at 135 here.

Also Benitez was great at fighting off the ropes, more so than Mayweather or Whitaker.
They all fought off the ropes in a different manner. It depends how you rate who was 'better'. Mayweather was good at slipping punches with his shoulder roll. Whitaker used his athleticism to avoid punches.

It's debatable if it's worse or not. For me, excessive fouling should be taken into consideration but I do not feel that Duran did anything to warrant a disqualification in that bout. I think it's often exaggerated. The really controversial fights are the likes of Luis Resto vs Billy Collins. I simply can't give credit to the fighter under those circumstances.
No one should give Resto even the smallest amount of credit.

I see raking the eyes with laces worse than a small headbutt, a little rabbit punching and an occasional low blow. They're all bad but I would consider the latter to be the least worst.

Pryor's career-defining win over Alexis Arguello had big controversy about it, especially with recent statements by Luis Resto and Emmanuel Steward. However I still won't take away Pryor's win over Arguello.
All you have to do is look at the second fight. But please, let's not bring this fight into the debate since it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I meant to compare the greatness of Marvin Hagler to Miguel Cotto. I said that while Pacquiao's recent success is comparable to Duran's in a way, he hasn't exactly fought calibre of fighters that Duran has. One could say that he went up as many divisions and beat the champion while Duran didn't, but is Cotto anywhere near as great as a prime Hagler? Of course not. Would Pacquiao have beaten the equivalent of a prime Marvin Hagler at 147, for example, Ray Leonard? I doubt it seriously.
He wouldn't have beat Leonard, but I could see him being competitive. Much like Duran was against Hagler. Which proves my point, in the end. I did name a fighter who was able to do what Duran did.

He gained a ton of weight but so does Ricky Hatton. He was just fat and a lot of people make excuses for that but I don't. However it's very clear that he was rather out of shape above 147 pounds most of the time and was not at his natural fighting weight by any means.
Pacquiao wasn't at his best at 147, as well.

I don't think of debates as winning or losing. I think that's a bit silly. It's not competition. I believe the point is to have a civil, well-mannered discussion about a certain subject which could possibly broaden the views of both parties involved. You can either attempt to learn from such debates or try to understand the others' point of view or just think of the other as an "enemy" who has to be "defeated" in a war of words.
I look at debates as a means of proving a point. Meaning you can either win or lose.

Anyways, I'm signing off for the night. If you make a reply, I'll respond to it, tomorrow. Goodnight.

TheGreatA
01-28-2010, 12:47 AM
I wouldn't regard Shibata as a better win. You brought him up, not me.

I would regard a win over the reigning champion Ortiz better than either Buchanan or De Jesus, yes.

Well, I happen to disagree with that. Not to mention that Buchanan beat an older Ortiz. Brown was the reigning champ, although he had lost in non-title bouts and had won controversially against Dave Charnley, but the clear signs of decline were there, much like they were for Ortiz before he fought Buchanan. Brown never went onto be any good afterwards. I don't think it's the same as beating a 29 year old Joe Brown at the peak of his powers.

I brought up Shibata to compare him to Sugar Ramos. Ramos was hall of famer for sure but for what he did at featherweight, not what he accomplished as a lightweight. In fact Ortiz's fights with Sugar Ramos have some legit questions over them since the first fight was very controversial. Ortiz was actually stripped of his WBC title over the controversy. I'd say that if Duran had similarly struggled with a former featherweight then there'd be questions about those fights too.

His career defining loss was when he quit against Leonard. I regard him as still being in his prime, just at a higher weight.

When I say career-defining losses, I'm not talking about his whole career (wins, losses, draws, etc.). I'm talking only talking about his losses. Maybe I shouldn't use the term "career-defining" any longer. I'll just use "the most significant".

I can understand calling it the most significant loss of Duran's career.

I didn't say only the aggressor. Mix aggressiveness and the huge lack of respect (ie. refusing to touch gloves and pushing Leonard after the fight was over), and I call him a bully. If you don't, that's your opinion.

I'd call that an aggressive or ferocious fighter. The term "bully" can come off as negative. Kind of like saying Mayweather, Leonard, Whitaker are "clowns" or something like that.

I don't like Duran. But I don't let that get in the way of a fair judgment. I don't like Calzaghe but I rate him as the greatest super middleweight of all-time.

That's fair. I don't necessarily have a huge amount of respect the likes of Carlos Monzon, Jake LaMotta or even Sugar Ray Robinson for some of the things he did as human beings, but that doesn't take away from their legacy as I'm sure you'll agree.

His plan was to go toe to toe with during fight a brawl. That didn't work out and he only has himself to blame. When he chose to use his boxing skills, in the next, he won.

He wasn't really planning a brawl like it turned out to be. From the very beginning Leonard tried to stay in the middle of the ring and counter Duran's rushes but he wasn't successful in doing so.

Corrales' style was better for him, but that doesn't mean he lost any of his speed and quickness. I just think that it was one of the greatest performances of his career. Not only one of the greatest wins.

It was probably Mayweather's best ever performance, however I'd say he would have still had a lot of trouble with Castillo even in that form.

Whitaker and Mayweather would only brawl if they felt they could do it without much consequence. I doubt they would do it very much against Duran.

I just struggle to come up with too many examples of fighters who were able to completely avoid fighting Duran's fight. Maybe Leonard in the rematch but Leonard was able to use his advantages in height and reach. He was also much more of a mover than either Mayweather or Whitaker. I imagine if Leonard had been Duran's height and fought him at 135, he would have had even more trouble holding off Duran than he did.

If Duran won a robbery, would you consider it a legit win? His record might but I wouldn't.

No but a lot of times fights end up in close decisions that could go either way. See Cotto vs Clottey, people give Cotto credit for beating Clottey but the fight could have very well been scored for Clottey as well.

They all fought off the ropes in a different manner. It depends how you rate who was 'better'. Mayweather was good at slipping punches with his shoulder roll. Whitaker used his athleticism to avoid punches.

I'd say that Benitez was more comfortable at fighting off the ropes than either though. In fact he spent almost the whole fight against Maurice Hope against the ropes and picked him apart, KO'ing him in highlight reel fashion.


I see raking the eyes with laces worse than a small headbutt, a little rabbit punching and an occasional low blow. They're all bad but I would consider the latter to be the least worst.

What if it was not just a small headbutt but one that may have impacted the outcome, such as Hopkins's against Wright which caused a huge cut on Wright's eye, Trinidad low blowing Vargas after being knocked down and hurt, Benn rabbit punching McClellan repeatedly and possibly causing further injury...

Duran seemed to have Moore's number from the beginning so for me it was a legit victory.

All you have to do is look at the second fight. But please, let's not bring this fight into the debate since it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Then again Arguello could have been damaged goods after the beating he suffered in the first fight which could be tainted depending on if you believe Pryor was cheating or not. I brought it as just one example but it doesn't have any further relevance to this topic.

He wouldn't have beat Leonard, but I could see him being competitive. Much like Duran was against Hagler. Which proves my point, in the end. I did name a fighter who was able to do what Duran did.

I wonder just how competitive Pacquiao would be against Ray Leonard though. Could he have survived 15 rounds or if he did, would he lose one-sidedly on the scorecards? I think Mayweather vs Pacquiao will answer a lot of questions about both of their greatness, if such a match-up ever happens.

Pacquiao wasn't at his best at 147, as well.

I'd say he is better off at 147 than Duran was at 160. Pacquiao didn't seem to look any smaller than Cotto while Duran looked like a midget next to Iran Barkley. The size difference was absurd.


I look at debates as a means of proving a point. Meaning you can either win or lose.

A lot of times there's no real proof about either view being right or wrong though. Especially in a discussion about all-time great lists. It's safe to say that everyone has a different one.

DeepSleep
01-28-2010, 02:05 AM
It was probably Mayweather's best ever performance, however I'd say he would have still had a lot of trouble with Castillo even in that form.


I believe the first fight Mayweather had with Castillo he had an injured shoulder(Whether or not it's true is debatable). Whether or not you believe him about the shoudler injury I thought he handled Castillo pretty well in their second fight winning a close but clear UD, so I'd imagine that Floyd would handle Castillo if he fought him on his best night, he would atleast be able to repeat what he did in the second fight. I think Floyd adapted to Castillo similar to how you alluded to how Duran adapted after his first fight with De Jesus.

Still I think if Castillo can apply enough pressure to force Mayweather into a ugly fight I'd imagine Duran would be able to also considering he forced the bigger and stronger Leonard into a trench fight.


Benitez was slick. But I think Mayweather was slicker. Benitez had good defense, but I think Mayweather's defense is better.

Benitez beat Duran.


I think Mayweather is slicker than Benitez but Mayweather tends to shell up and only rely on pot-shotting his opponents when they apply enough pressure to force him to defend constantly. Benitez thrives off his opponent’s pressure using it to setup his counterpunches. Benitez’s offensive output doesn't drop down nearly as much as Mayweather's when he gets put under extreme amounts of pressure.

tyger
01-28-2010, 04:28 AM
Duran is overrated by everybody over 20. Even more so by historians and people in the know. Ever wonder why?

BennyST
01-28-2010, 07:49 AM
Two close split decisions to Johnson and a lucky comeback after behind absolutely outclassed by Jackson up until the stoppage.


If you define a titlist as a champion, then that's your way of thinking.

Championship material, to me, is the man who beat the man. In other words, a lineal champion. Something Jorge "Fat" Castro was never able to become.

He still won them didn't he?

So, you say that Pac beat more champions and elite fighters and did it in more divisions and yet he only ever beat the man down at 118, 122 and 126 or something.

That means, according to you that he only should be a champion in a few weight classes.

It also means Mayweather is a three division champion or something.

With your way of thinking there are very few titlists today at all in fact. I'm sure you use the argument that Mayweather is a six division champion don't you? I'm sure you say that other fighters are also many division champions with the same argument. Jones for example being the only guy to win a MW and HW title in 100 years or whatever. According to you then, he didn't at all. He never fought Lewis.

Give it up man, your views are skewed.

BennyST
01-28-2010, 08:00 AM
I said at the time, De Jesus was a journeyman. What would you call someone who's rising up in the ranks but never won a title. A top contender? Maybe that's a more suitable meaning. I sort of consider journeymen and top contenders the same. However, for your benefit, let's say he was a top contender.

:lol1:

You call a great prospect, a guy who is as good as the champions in his division but hasn't won a title yet a journeyman? So, Mayweather was a journeyman before his fight with Hernandez? Whitaker was a journeyman before his fight with Ramirez?

eazy_mas
01-28-2010, 09:02 AM
Overrated?

Yes Duran is overrated because people tend to go baise toward the tought nail brawler rather than a boxer.


I think he was very beatable but he was very very tough to beat.

SRL was very smart in choosing the time to fight him. He is one of the smartess boxer of his era.

BennyST
01-28-2010, 09:26 AM
Mind games isn't really bullying. Just a manner of trying to psych the opponent out.

De Jesus and Leonard basically tried to brawl with Duran. Whitaker and Mayweather wouldn't. They're all about keep their opponents at bay, landing counter punches and using their defense. It would not be similar to Duran's fights against De Jesus or Leonard, at all.

I just think that lacing the opponent's eyes with your gloves and thus hindering his vision is worse, considering you're in the middle of the fight and you need your vision.

You said Duran started at bantamweight and I said Pacquiao started at flyweight. The question wasn't how long they were at that weight. The question was which weight did they start at.

If he was shorter and weighed less than Duran, when they were around the same age, Pacquiao was the smaller man.

Mind games aren't bullying? I think you'll find mind games are the most effective form of bullying possible. If you don't think mind game are bullying then you should learn more about how the mind can effect someone. Ali was the bully against Frazier. In the build ups to their fight it was Ali trash talking, calling Frazier an Uncle Tom. This would have been the highest insult to Frazier. Ali bullied him. What else can you call it?

What makes you think Whitaker wouldn't brawl with Duran? I don't think you know enough about each guy to debate this fully to be honest. First: Whitaker often brawled as much as he played the defensive counter puncher. Throughout his whole career he often fought in the pocket or just straight out brawled without thinking too much about defense. Why do you think he got knocked down as many times as he did? He was knocked down more than Duran ever was and in as long a career as Duran had and fighting to the age of fifty +, that says something.

Two: Mayweather, at his earlier weights also was a much more aggressive fighter. He rarely ever just sat back and counter punched. He was in as many brawls as most fighters can get in: Manfredy, Rios, Gerena, Vargas, Ausgustus, Chavez, Castillo, Corley, N'Dou, Gatti (in the sense that he stood right in front of him and out punched him), Mitchell, Judah etc.

In every fight he stood his ground or walked them down, or lay on the ropes when he counter punched and rested. He rarely moved around or kept his opponent at bay by moving. He stood right in front of them or lay on the ropes waiting on them to come at him. Mayweather has only started moving a lot more since getting up to WW. Previously, and most importantly at 135, he stood his ground and traded more often than not, he lay on the ropes for lengthy periods of time fighting off them and never boxed in the way that gave Duran trouble ie. literally moving away backward non stop. Even at 135, against those opponents that did do this, Duran was quick enough with hand and foot and the same size as his opponents that he was able to get to them much easier. It was only against Leonard, Laing and Benitez where he was much smaller, older, slower and really not in the kind of shape he was at 135.

A LW Duran has the speed to match any very fast fighter as you saw in Leonard I. He still has the head movement which allowed him to slip one of the greatest jabs boxing has seen and contrary to most peoples opinion, he was as much of a counter puncher himself as an offensive lead puncher.

The only time he supposedly 'laced' Moore (even though it was more him trying to push Moore of him due to his own exhaustion) was at the end of the seventh or eight round. Moore was already completely beaten by this stage and that did absolutely nothing. Also, it is nearly impossible to lace someones eyes. It's rubbish. You can scratch their eyebrows etc, but with all the tape and shape of the gloves it's very hard to get your laces to their eye.

Not only that, but lacing is not nearly as bad as taking a headbutt or elbow. A great Mayweather trick that he has is that not only does his elbow act as a good defensive tool, but it acts as another weapon inside, and let me tell you, when you get hit with an elbow it is as bad as taking a flush punch without a glove on. Beats a lacing any day of the week. Not only that but it cuts your skin much easier too. If you think lacing is dirty (and the fact is that that wasn't even what you call lacing. That was exhaustion and getting someone off from being held), you should first take a headbutt or an elbow inside. The you'll think twice about calling someones open glove in your face disgraceful. An elbow or headbutt is more damaging than any amount of lacing could ever be. If you can figure out how lacing is worse than having a badly swollen eye and a huge cut with blood pouring into the eye from an elbow or headbutt, then I'll concede the point that lacing is dirtier than those.

In that fight also, you'll not actually find a single account of Duran deliberately thumbing Moore. What happened, and this happens all the time, is that when you punch someone with a straight right and it's not a direct hit the thumb section of your glove can hit their eye socket. It is very, very common and most badly swollen eyes are actually from this and its variants. That's why thumbless gloves were, for a while, all the rage. You're just repeating stuff you've heard without watching it properly. Find one account of Duran thumbing Moore deliberately and put up the round and time of it. You won't though because it's not there. I've checked. What I have seen though is Duran landing right hands after which Moore's eye became badly swollen which was the result of the punch as well as his thumb section hitting Moore as much as his knuckle section because of a shot off to the side slightly.

Pac and Duran are half an inch apart in height. Duran at 5'7" and Pac at 5'6 1/2". Both guys by about thirty had become WW's but Pac had been weighing in as a WW for much longer than Duran had and that was with day before weigh ins. Pac had moved up from Flyweight as a sixteen year old. Duran had started out at bantamweight as a seventeen year old. Pac was nearly always fighting as a bantamweight unless it was a title fight, major or minor and it was only a few years after he started that he made the full jump to superbantamweight. From 2004 he was a FW usually weighing in at the WW division and then only four years later was a genuine WW.

Now, the big difference here is the weigh ins. Pac has always had day before weigh ins and better hydrating techniques. Duran had same day weigh ins. With day before weigh ins he would have started much lower and stayed lower for much longer. Pacquiao would never have been making 122, 126 or 130 back when he was first fighting all the big names. He was already weighing in as a WW in those fights so I don't see how you're saying he was smaller. He would probably never have been a Flyweight. He has been weighing in as a WW since his mid to late twenties. Duran was weighing in as a LW with same day weigh ins until he made the move to LWW first, then WW in his late twenties just before he hit thirty.

Pac has traversed over eight divisions I think? Or nine by now. He has moved from flyweight to WW which is about 40 pounds. Duran went from bantamweight to LHW at the end of his career. About ten divisions and nearly sixty pounds.

Anyway, by the same age Pac had traveled more divisions due to him not being able to make weight anymore with day before weigh ins. What does that tell you? He looks like a solid, genuine WW. From the fights up to and including Leonard I and II, Duran looked like a LW that had put on weight badly. The only fight where he looked like a trim WW was Leonard I. All the rest he looked slightly flabby. He was still smaller than every opponent he faced after LW. Pac has either been bigger or the same size. The only guy he was obviously smaller than was Oscar. After Leonard II, Duran just looked fat. I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

The era also comes into play here though. Duran was in a particularly tough WW era in which most of the guys fighting were a lot bigger than him. At LW, he was often smaller than many of his opponents. Check out the size difference between him and Buchanan. It's staggering.

BennyST
01-28-2010, 09:29 AM
Now that you mention it, it does seem a bit overrated in the p4p discussion. But for the most part he is rated highly as a lightweight.

He lossed to SRL, Hagler, Hearns, and Benitez as a welterweight. So, I understand where your comming from for the overall p4p discussion. But as a lightweight i think he is rated just fine.

The only fights he had at WW were with Leonard. All the others were at 154 or 160.

BennyST
01-28-2010, 10:14 AM
I rated him #21 on my P4P list and i don't think that is being disrespectful considering the sport has over 120 years of modern title fights.


In my list, i have him higher than these guys

22-Tony Canzonieri
23-Manny Pacquiao
24-Julio Cesar Chavez
25-Sandy Saddler
26-Stanley Ketchel
27-Barney Ross
28-Ezzard Charles
29-Marcel Cedan
30-Kid Chocolate

My main issue is when they put duran as top 10 P4P and rate him as the greatest latin fighter of all time. The greatest latin fighter dosen't get outbox by Wilfred Benitez at 154 quite easy. Also Benitez started at 140 and 154 was his third weight class. But i will rate Duran higher mainly due to his LW career.

Well, with respect to Monzon who I also rate very highly, he never moved up at all. He lost three or four times in his one division. Duran lost once, avenging it twice by brutal KO. If Monzon had moved up to LHW or even HW, then that would have been the equivalent of what Duran did but he didn't. He stayed in the one division his whole career.

While Duran got outboxed by Benitez, it was one of his greatest performances during one of his greatest title runs and while it was his third division, it was Duran's eighth! Benitez was twenty four years old. He was over 5'10" with a 70" reach. Duran was well over thirty years old, 5'7" with only a 66" reach.

Not only that but Benitez himself is right up there as one of the greatest latin fighters of all time as well as an ATG. Why can one of the slickest ever boxers not outbox an older, smaller guy in his eighth division? If it's such a travesty why weren't more people able to beat Benitez? The only guy that had beaten him was Leonard at Leonard's natural weight and Duran had beaten him.

Monzon never left MW so you have no idea how he would have done against a much bigger, younger, skillful boxer that was also an ATG himself. The only ATG's that Monzon ever fought were half his size and old. The comparison doesn't add up. You would expect Monzon to beat those guys just as Benitez was expected to beat Duran.

I think he's very nearly the best MW but Duran's LW reign compares with Monzon's easily and he moved up to WW and beat two HOF, and a top ten/twenty ATG at his best weight and peak age and then moved up again and fought a bigger, younger, ATG at 154 who beat him.

I don't see how you can say that a true ATG shouldn't lose to another ATG that is bigger, younger and at an advantage in most areas by that stage of Duran's career.

If you're going to compare Monzon and Duran, you can compare their natural divisions.

Monzon had a record of 87-3 with nine draws. How many of those were losses but in his hometown? All were at MW. I know he had some interesting draws with guys like Briscoe in Argentina and many other draws with guys that were literal journeymen that he was meant to beat easily. Most of his losses came early, but he also lost to a guy with two fights and he was an experienced prospect by that stage. If Duran lost in his LW reign to a guy with only two fights and that guy went on to lose many more fights than he won, he wouldn't be considered the best LW by most.

Duran had about 63-1 LW fights, though he started out at bantamweight and had many fights by the time he got to LW. We'll include those anyway.

Monzon had fourteen defenses. Duran had twelve. Duran still holds the record for most title defenses at LW from memory. I think Hopkins holds the MW record now. They both unified their division.

Monzon's best win or wins were Rodrigo Valdez and Nino Benvenuti. Duran's were Buchanan, De Jesus and Marcel (if you want to include that as it was at 126 or 130 I think). Buchanan is in the HOF, Marcel was nominated for the HOF this year. Benvenuti is in the HOF. I'm sure both Valdez and De Jesus will make it one day too.

I look at their records like that as being very even. Monzon then retired as champion without losing as a champion at his weight. He had fights he could have taken and fights that people wanted him to take at a higher weight. Duran also retired as an unbeaten champion at his weight. After though, he moved up to WW beating the HOF'er Palomino and the top ten/twenty ATG younger, bigger Leonard. He then lost to Leonard at WW and later Benitez at 154. He would win another title at 154 himself beating the guy who then knocked out Benitez.

He then moved up and challenged Monzon's major successor in Hagler, and a guy who is usually considered the greater MW between the two, and lost a very narrow decision. He then later won the middleweight title as well.

HOw can you not understand why people think he is the great latin fighter and a top ten P4P? If you yourself have Monzon higher than Duran and their records look like that....:thinking:

BennyST
01-28-2010, 10:40 AM
I didn't say only the aggressor. Mix aggressiveness and the huge lack of respect (ie. refusing to touch gloves and pushing Leonard after the fight was over), and I call him a bully. If you don't, that's your opinion.

So you think pushing someone you've just been fighting is a huge sign of disrespect but pulling your opponents shorts down in the middle of a fight isn't?

What about laughing at your opponent after he misses and then talking **** to him, calling him a *****?

All fighter have their own way of disrespecting their opponent? Mayweather laughs at them and calls them names during the fight. He has also refused to touch gloves in his fights. Whitaker does all sorts of **** during the fight. He has an entire history of being disrespectful. Duran had his own way too. The only thing is, because you dislike Duran you notice his and think it's bad, whereas you don't notice it when your favourite fighters do it or you think it's isn't disrespectful, but that is true for many aspects of this discussion I've realised. One standard for a fighter you dislike, another for fighters you like.

They're no different from each other. Each guy does it because they think they're better. Although you probably don't believe Duran was a nicer guy outside the ring than I imagine both Whiatker and Mayweather are. Duran never beat his wife, Mayweather did numerous times. While it has nothing to do with their ring achievements, I don't think you can call one a disrespectful bully and the others good, respectful guys. :lol1:

Dedicating your fight on international TV to battered women everywhere is less disrespectful than pushing the guy you've just been fighting for half an hour? Especially when the opponent could have said the same thing.

Like it or not, when you have a dislike of someone your view gets distorted. It's just natural. Your view is distorted even though you think it's not. If you were just some guy that read your responses and didn't care either for or against Duran, you could easily see the dislike and biased nature of the replies.

Ziggy Stardust
01-28-2010, 11:01 AM
A great series of posts Benny! :fing02:

Poet

Amazinger
01-28-2010, 11:27 AM
The best exchange of idea and opinion I've seen here so far.Keep it up guys!!

Amazinger
01-28-2010, 11:28 AM
Duran is overrated by everybody over 20. Even more so by historians and people in the know. Ever wonder why?


You answered your own question already........

rskumm21
01-28-2010, 12:20 PM
TS. Please give it up. This GREAT A dude obviously knows his boxing.

HaglerSteelChin
01-28-2010, 01:09 PM
Well, with respect to Monzon who I also rate very highly, he never moved up at all. He lost three or four times in his one division. Duran lost once, avenging it twice by brutal KO. If Monzon had moved up to LHW or even HW, then that would have been the equivalent of what Duran did but he didn't. He stayed in the one division his whole career.

While Duran got outboxed by Benitez, it was one of his greatest performances during one of his greatest title runs and while it was his third division, it was Duran's eighth! Benitez was twenty four years old. He was over 5'10" with a 70" reach. Duran was well over thirty years old, 5'7" with only a 66" reach.

Not only that but Benitez himself is right up there as one of the greatest latin fighters of all time as well as an ATG. Why can one of the slickest ever boxers not outbox an older, smaller guy in his eighth division? If it's such a travesty why weren't more people able to beat Benitez? The only guy that had beaten him was Leonard at Leonard's natural weight and Duran had beaten him.

Monzon never left MW so you have no idea how he would have done against a much bigger, younger, skillful boxer that was also an ATG himself. The only ATG's that Monzon ever fought were half his size and old. The comparison doesn't add up. You would expect Monzon to beat those guys just as Benitez was expected to beat Duran.

I think he's very nearly the best MW but Duran's LW reign compares with Monzon's easily and he moved up to WW and beat two HOF, and a top ten/twenty ATG at his best weight and peak age and then moved up again and fought a bigger, younger, ATG at 154 who beat him.

I don't see how you can say that a true ATG shouldn't lose to another ATG that is bigger, younger and at an advantage in most areas by that stage of Duran's career.

If you're going to compare Monzon and Duran, you can compare their natural divisions.

Monzon had a record of 87-3 with nine draws. How many of those were losses but in his hometown? All were at MW. I know he had some interesting draws with guys like Briscoe in Argentina and many other draws with guys that were literal journeymen that he was meant to beat easily. Most of his losses came early, but he also lost to a guy with two fights and he was an experienced prospect by that stage. If Duran lost in his LW reign to a guy with only two fights and that guy went on to lose many more fights than he won, he wouldn't be considered the best LW by most.

Duran had about 63-1 LW fights, though he started out at bantamweight and had many fights by the time he got to LW. We'll include those anyway.

Monzon had fourteen defenses. Duran had twelve. Duran still holds the record for most title defenses at LW from memory. I think Hopkins holds the MW record now. They both unified their division.

Monzon's best win or wins were Rodrigo Valdez and Nino Benvenuti. Duran's were Buchanan, De Jesus and Marcel (if you want to include that as it was at 126 or 130 I think). Buchanan is in the HOF, Marcel was nominated for the HOF this year. Benvenuti is in the HOF. I'm sure both Valdez and De Jesus will make it one day too.

I look at their records like that as being very even. Monzon then retired as champion without losing as a champion at his weight. He had fights he could have taken and fights that people wanted him to take at a higher weight. Duran also retired as an unbeaten champion at his weight. After though, he moved up to WW beating the HOF'er Palomino and the top ten/twenty ATG younger, bigger Leonard. He then lost to Leonard at WW and later Benitez at 154. He would win another title at 154 himself beating the guy who then knocked out Benitez.

He then moved up and challenged Monzon's major successor in Hagler, and a guy who is usually considered the greater MW between the two, and lost a very narrow decision. He then later won the middleweight title as well.

HOw can you not understand why people think he is the great latin fighter and a top ten P4P? If you yourself have Monzon higher than Duran and their records look like that....:thinking:


I am at lunch and wrote a reply to this and of course before i hit submit reply the pc froze and i lost the message.

The whole division thing is overrated. Iran Barkley won in three divisions does that mean he is better than guys like Aaron Pryor or Koysta Tszyu who fought at JR WW? Is Ricardo Mayorga better than a champ who defends his title 10 times simply because Mayorga became champ in two divisions. We live in Alphabet soup paper champion era. For example, some people count pacman's Ring belts at 126 and 140 as titles. Nowadays, it can be argued that Hector Camacho had 7 titles due to some of the paper belts he won at 154,160, and 168.

Duran lost to the two best JR MW's at the time Hearns and Benitez. The reach thing is a joke. Benitez even invited Duran at the end of the fight to hit him as he stayed in the ropes stationary. Benitez was simply a better boxer. Why you think Hearns went the full 15 rounds with Benitez and only needed 2 to KO Duran? Benitez made Hearns missed 11 consecutive blows at the end of RD 2 of their fight; he had a radar. In addition, the age thing is preposterous. Benitez was not a usual 24 year old fighter. He started to fight professionally at 15 and was world champ at 17 a record that possibly will never be broken. Guys who start very young to to peak at an earlier age. As a result, Benitez by the age of 26 was already past his prime. Mike Tyson in his 30's was not a shell of a fighter as he was at 22. Duran beat the guy that KO Benitez is incorrect. Benitez BROKE his ankle in the moore fight a fact you conveniently left out.

People say Duran beat guys with bigger reach. So did guys like Rocky Marciano and Jack Dempsey; guys you need to rate Duran higher than if you put him in top 10. Jimmy Wilde beat guys who weighed 100 pounds more; yet many put Duran higher. I don't think Duran is better Robinson, Armstrong, Louis, Pepp, Ali, Gans, Langford, Greb, Tunney, and both Leonards. Monzon beat a guy who was like 6 feet 5 and murdered him in 5 RDS. He also beat two great fighters at his same height. He went overseas and KO guys in their home countries. If you want to knock him for early losses than please knock Pacquiao for his early two knockouts. The fact is that Monzon never was Knocked out in 100 professional fights, and he had only KD his entire career. Duran was KD twice by Dejesus and even quit during a fight. Also lets not mention the Hearns massacre and NO MAS. Monzon was most interested in preserving his title defense record. The HW and MW divisions are the most fancy divisions in the sport. So why blame a fighter for trying to defend his title with record defenses? The guys immediately after Monzon didnt move up as well. Wilfred Gomez got murdered by Sanchez does that mean since he took alphabet soup belts at 126 and 130 he is better than Salvador Sanchez? Does it mean that great fighters like Sanchez or Monzon wouldn't be able to pick up belts with the current alphabelt system. Let's remember Duran won the WW title and had 0 defenses of it. He picked up the JR MW against a fighter who had 12 fights but lost to the best JR MW's Benitez and Hearns. He won his MW by a SD that many had the other way. SRL won at 154,160,168, 175 all in his FIRST try. Yet to rate Duran top 10 you likely would need to rate him higher than Leonard. I simply disagree with that.

Monzon's early draws were draws. Unless you have those fights in film than dont assume hometown cooking. It would be like saying the early Duran fights in Panama were hometown cooking. Also do you have the height and reach of all 90 plus Monzon opponents? I already name three that had the same dimensions or were bigger than him. I mentioned 2 opponents who had same height and reach and one guy who was MUCH bigger than Monzon. In addition, Mundine who Monzon KOD did become national champ at LHW, Cruiser, and HW divisions he wasen't blown up MW. Monzon was weight drained for years to make MW. Its speculation to say could he have beaten a Conteh, Tiger, or Foster. But i will say its likely that he would have won against one or two of those opponents. He definitely would have won at SMW if it existed at the time. It's also possible that Monzon would have done well at LHW since he was getting older and his body would have been more naturally at LHW.

Duran is one of my fav fighters and i have him #21 P4P which i dont think its an insult. I don't make an issue of his 16 losses but i do point out he lost to guys like Robbie Simms, Kirklang Laing, and did quit in a major title bout. Sugar Ray Leonard is my fav fighter and yet i wont say he is better than Henry Armstrong or Muhammad Ali.

Be back later; i know this discussion is just in the beginning. :boxing:

Method Checker
01-28-2010, 02:26 PM
He still won them didn't he?

So, you say that Pac beat more champions and elite fighters and did it in more divisions and yet he only ever beat the man down at 118, 122 and 126 or something.

That means, according to you that he only should be a champion in a few weight classes.

It also means Mayweather is a three division champion or something.

With your way of thinking there are very few titlists today at all in fact. I'm sure you use the argument that Mayweather is a six division champion don't you? I'm sure you say that other fighters are also many division champions with the same argument. Jones for example being the only guy to win a MW and HW title in 100 years or whatever. According to you then, he didn't at all. He never fought Lewis.

Give it up man, your views are skewed.
You make these claims out of nothing. When did I ever say these things?

Obviously you don't know what a titlist is. There's like 4 or more titlists in every division. Even more when you count regular champions, super champions, interim champions, champions in reccess, etc., for each division.

I only think of Pacquiao as a welterweight titlist. Not a welterweight champion. I think of Jones as a middleweight and heavyweight titlist. Not a champion.

That was a big false claim.

Method Checker
01-28-2010, 03:00 PM
Well, I happen to disagree with that. Not to mention that Buchanan beat an older Ortiz. Brown was the reigning champ, although he had lost in non-title bouts and had won controversially against Dave Charnley, but the clear signs of decline were there, much like they were for Ortiz before he fought Buchanan. Brown never went onto be any good afterwards. I don't think it's the same as beating a 29 year old Joe Brown at the peak of his powers.
He was still the reigning champion and that's how I view it. You can say he was on the decline but that shouldn't take away the fact that Ortiz beat him.

People don't take away Jack Johnson's victory of Jim Jeffries, just because Jeffries was out of action for six years. They tend to rate that as the greatest victory of his career. I don't know about you, but I think Ortiz' victory over Brown is fair compared to Johnson's victory of Jeffries.

I'd call that an aggressive or ferocious fighter. The term "bully" can come off as negative. Kind of like saying Mayweather, Leonard, Whitaker are "clowns" or something like that.
Whitaker and Leonard were known to clown around in the ring. If you wanted to use that, I would have no problem with it.

That's fair. I don't necessarily have a huge amount of respect the likes of Carlos Monzon, Jake LaMotta or even Sugar Ray Robinson for some of the things he did as human beings, but that doesn't take away from their legacy as I'm sure you'll agree.
Agreed.

He wasn't really planning a brawl like it turned out to be. From the very beginning Leonard tried to stay in the middle of the ring and counter Duran's rushes but he wasn't successful in doing so.
He thought he could beat Duran toe to toe and he was wrong. I keep saying that it worked out very differently in the next fight. He used his speed, quickness and beautiful footwork to make a mockery of Duran.

When he didn't give Duran the opportunity to make it a brawl, he was the man.

It was probably Mayweather's best ever performance, however I'd say he would have still had a lot of trouble with Castillo even in that form.
We'll have to disagree on that.

I just struggle to come up with too many examples of fighters who were able to completely avoid fighting Duran's fight. Maybe Leonard in the rematch but Leonard was able to use his advantages in height and reach. He was also much more of a mover than either Mayweather or Whitaker. I imagine if Leonard had been Duran's height and fought him at 135, he would have had even more trouble holding off Duran than he did.
Leonard, although quick, wasn't a true defensive fighter. Whitaker is as good as it gets regarding athleticism in defense. Mayweather is pure technical defense and he works it masterfully. The both of them are fantastic at counter-punching. I just see them walking away with a decision victory.

No but a lot of times fights end up in close decisions that could go either way. See Cotto vs Clottey, people give Cotto credit for beating Clottey but the fight could have very well been scored for Clottey as well.
I don't think it would be that close. Duran would win some rounds but it wouldn't be a debatable decision fight.

I'd say that Benitez was more comfortable at fighting off the ropes than either though. In fact he spent almost the whole fight against Maurice Hope against the ropes and picked him apart, KO'ing him in highlight reel fashion.
As great as Benitez was, I would say that Mayweather's defense off the ropes was that much better. Plus, Hope wasn't near as fast as Duran.

What if it was not just a small headbutt but one that may have impacted the outcome, such as Hopkins's against Wright which caused a huge cut on Wright's eye, Trinidad low blowing Vargas after being knocked down and hurt, Benn rabbit punching McClellan repeatedly and possibly causing further injury...

Duran seemed to have Moore's number from the beginning so for me it was a legit victory.
They're all terrible fouls but that shouldn't excuse another foul.

Then again Arguello could have been damaged goods after the beating he suffered in the first fight which could be tainted depending on if you believe Pryor was cheating or not. I brought it as just one example but it doesn't have any further relevance to this topic.
We can save this topic for another debate.

I wonder just how competitive Pacquiao would be against Ray Leonard though. Could he have survived 15 rounds or if he did, would he lose one-sidedly on the scorecards? I think Mayweather vs Pacquiao will answer a lot of questions about both of their greatness, if such a match-up ever happens.
Pacquiao's defense has actually improved a lot, since the time he was a slugger. He knows when to use his speed and he's fantastic at counter-punching now. I'd say his defense his improved greatly, as well.

I also didn't see Hagler vs Duran as a close fight, whatsoever. I thought Hagler was the clear winner but Duran did manage to keep it competitive, at times.

I'd say he is better off at 147 than Duran was at 160. Pacquiao didn't seem to look any smaller than Cotto while Duran looked like a midget next to Iran Barkley. The size difference was absurd.
Barkley wasn't as great of a fighter as Cotto, though.


A lot of times there's no real proof about either view being right or wrong though. Especially in a discussion about all-time great lists. It's safe to say that everyone has a different one.
Where do you rank Duran on your all-time great list and do you put before him and after him?

TheGreatA
01-28-2010, 03:48 PM
He was still the reigning champion and that's how I view it. You can say he was on the decline but that shouldn't take away the fact that Ortiz beat him.

People don't take away Jack Johnson's victory of Jim Jeffries, just because Jeffries was out of action for six years. They tend to rate that as the greatest victory of his career. I don't know about you, but I think Ortiz' victory over Brown is fair compared to Johnson's victory of Jeffries.

Personally I don't think much of Johnson's win over Jeffries. It's a great accomplishment in history because he proved wrong the racist notions at the time but in reality Jeffries was an old man who had drained himself to come down to 220 lbs. Even Jeffries's closest friends bet against him.

However Johnson beat the best of his time and young versions of Langford, Jeannette, McVea were tough opposition. If you asked me why I rate Jack Johnson over another heavyweight, I wouldn't answer because he beat Jeffries but because he was a dominant heavyweight champion for nearly 10 years and cleaned out the division before his heavyweight title run.

Whitaker and Leonard were known to clown around in the ring. If you wanted to use that, I would have no problem with it.

I think I would seem a bit biased if I said Duran only lost to a clown like Leonard and would have beaten clowns like Whitaker & Mayweather.

He thought he could beat Duran toe to toe and he was wrong. I keep saying that it worked out very differently in the next fight. He used his speed, quickness and beautiful footwork to make a mockery of Duran.

He would have beaten Duran had he been able to keep Duran in the middle of the ring as he planned to in the first fight. However Duran was able to pressure Leonard and put him against the ropes. Leonard's basic style at the time was to stand in the middle of the ring and set his feet to punch with more power.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rJHhSU25rAs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rJHhSU25rAs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Leonard did not fight a "stupid" fight in my opinion, he fought a brilliant fight and he fought the kind of a fight he had fought in almost all his previous professional bouts. But it wasn't enough to beat Duran the first time.

When he didn't give Duran the opportunity to make it a brawl, he was the man.

Of course he was faster, young with advantages in height and reach. There are few boxers in history who could have outboxed Leonard in the middle of the ring, especially coming up from 135 lbs.

Leonard, although quick, wasn't a true defensive fighter. Whitaker is as good as it gets regarding athleticism in defense. Mayweather is pure technical defense and he works it masterfully. The both of them are fantastic at counter-punching. I just see them walking away with a decision victory.

Leonard wasn't strictly a defensive fighter yes but it was his offensive abilities along with solid defense and awesome determination and toughness that made him a great fighter, greater than Whitaker and Mayweather for me. Leonard was the king at 147 and possibly the number 2 in that division all-time behind Ray Robinson, yet Duran was able to prove wrong the notion that a great big man always beats a great smaller man in their first fight.

As great as Benitez was, I would say that Mayweather's defense off the ropes was that much better. Plus, Hope wasn't near as fast as Duran.

I disagree. Benitez was able to make Hearns miss while trapped in a corner and he was not only very good on defense but he was great at counter punching and trading shots in close while fighting off the ropes. Mayweather on the other hand goes into his shell and tries his best to avoid punishment.

Benitez could win fights by fighting off the ropes only while I doubt Mayweather would be able to do that.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sIdJ170hHqk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sIdJ170hHqk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


They're all terrible fouls but that shouldn't excuse another foul.

And I won't excuse any fouling but I'm putting it into a perspective. If you were to take away Duran's win over Moore for supposed lacing then you'd have to take away credit from other fighters as well who bent the rules to their advantage.

Pacquiao's defense has actually improved a lot, since the time he was a slugger. He knows when to use his speed and he's fantastic at counter-punching now. I'd say his defense his improved greatly, as well.

I also didn't see Hagler vs Duran as a close fight, whatsoever. I thought Hagler was the clear winner but Duran did manage to keep it competitive, at times.

His defense has improved some but I'm more impressed by his ability to take a punch. Early on his durability was actually suspect but that was probably due to weight-making. The judges actually had Duran ahead after 12 rounds against Hagler but I agree that Hagler won clearly, but it was also competitive. Much more competitive than anyone thought it would be.

Barkley wasn't as great of a fighter as Cotto, though.

No he wasn't but he was far bigger than Duran unlike Cotto against Pacquiao. I don't think anyone at 147 would tower over Pacquiao like Barkley did against Duran unless Paul Williams fights him. Duran was simply not at his natural fighting weight as a middleweight while Pacquiao has grown into a solid 147 lber.

Where do you rank Duran on your all-time great list and do you put before him and after him?

To be honest I don't have much of an all-time great list. I don't believe such lists are ever objective because there are many different factors you have to take into account, such as longevity, record, opposition fought, head-to-head ability. For example some people rate Bernard Hopkins over Roy Jones, despite Jones probably being the better fighter prime for prime, even if his prime didn't last as long as Hopkins's.

I'm mainly making the case that Duran has a solid case of being ranked among the top 20 greatest fighters of all time due to his accomplishments. You don't necessarily have to rate him as highly but it's not outrageous or overrating him to rate him that highly, in my opinion.

Method Checker
01-28-2010, 04:25 PM
Personally I don't think much of Johnson's win over Jeffries. It's a great accomplishment in history because he proved wrong the racist notions at the time but in reality Jeffries was an old man who had drained himself to come down to 220 lbs. Even Jeffries's closest friends bet against him.

However Johnson beat the best of his time and young versions of Langford, Jeannette, McVea were tough opposition. If you asked me why I rate Jack Johnson over another heavyweight, I wouldn't answer because he beat Jeffries but because he was a dominant heavyweight champion for nearly 10 years and cleaned out the division before his heavyweight title run.

Ask any major historian and I bet they'll tell you that Johnson gets full credit over Jeffries. I do.

It's arguably the greatest win of his career and the greatest performance of his career.

I think I would seem a bit biased if I said Duran only lost to a clown like Leonard and would have beaten clowns like Whitaker & Mayweather.
If you worry about what other people think of you..

I'm just saying that you could describe that as clowns, if you want. I don't get upset over things like that.

He would have beaten Duran had he been able to keep Duran in the middle of the ring as he planned to in the first fight. However Duran was able to pressure Leonard and put him against the ropes. Leonard's basic style at the time was to stand in the middle of the ring and set his feet to punch with more power.

Leonard did not fight a "stupid" fight in my opinion, he fought a brilliant fight and he fought the kind of a fight he had fought in almost all his previous professional bouts. But it wasn't enough to beat Duran the first time.
If he didn't want to show that he could take Duran's punches and fight toe to toe, he would've adapted to his style and eventually done what he did against Duran in the second fight. Dance, dance and punch when the opportunity was right. He actually did have the option of doing that but he chose to go toe to toe. He wanted to prove he was brave enough.

Of course he was faster, young with advantages in height and reach. There are few boxers in history who could have outboxed Leonard in the middle of the ring, especially coming up from 135 lbs.
Thank you for admitting that Leonard would've been able to outbox Duran if he wanted to.

Leonard wasn't strictly a defensive fighter yes but it was his offensive abilities along with solid defense and awesome determination and toughness that made him a great fighter, greater than Whitaker and Mayweather for me. Leonard was the king at 147 and possibly the number 2 in that division all-time behind Ray Robinson, yet Duran was able to prove wrong the notion that a great big man always beats a great smaller man in their first fight.
Yes.. if he was given the opportunity to fight his fight. I've made that pretty clear, throughout my posts.

I disagree. Benitez was able to make Hearns miss while trapped in a corner and he was not only very good on defense but he was great at counter punching and trading shots in close while fighting off the ropes. Mayweather on the other hand goes into his shell and tries his best to avoid punishment.

Benitez could win fights by fighting off the ropes only while I doubt Mayweather would be able to do that.
Only when Mayweather was on the ropes would he not try to land that many punches. When he was on the ropes, he tried to avoid punches and that's basically it. Other than that, he would move around the ring and potshot. I think he has one of the greatest connect percentages of all-time.

Plus, take into account that the Castillo against Mayweather was bigger than Duran. Castillo had a one inch advantage in height and a four inch in advantage in reach, over Duran.

As for Mayweather, he had about a six inch advantage in reach and a one inch advantage in height. He would also be the bigger man, against Duran.

The Mayweather vs Castillo fights happened at 135. Mayweather weighed in at 138, but knowing Mayweather, I'm sure he could've stuck to 135 if he wanted, since he wasn't the type of fighter to gain that much weight after weigh-ins. Castillo weighed about 10 pounds higher than Mayweather. Meaning he was basically a welterweight fighting a lightweight, in that fight.

Given that it wasn't Mayweather's best solo performance and the fact that he wouldn't be outweighed by 10 pounds against Duran (considering the fight happened in Duran's time), I'm sure that he would've been that much better in able to get a decision victory.

And I won't excuse any fouling but I'm putting it into a perspective. If you were to take away Duran's win over Moore for supposed lacing then you'd have to take away credit from other fighters as well who bent the rules to their advantage.
I don't give Benn the full credit over McClellan. I don't give Margarito the full credit over Cotto.

No he wasn't but he was far bigger than Duran unlike Cotto against Pacquiao. I don't think anyone at 147 would tower over Pacquiao like Barkley did against Duran unless Paul Williams fights him. Duran was simply not at his natural fighting weight as a middleweight while Pacquiao has grown into a solid 147 lber.
You also have to take into account that Cotto was basically a middleweight, during the fight. He most likely went up to at least 154. Pacquiao hasn't been known to gain much weight, since he was a lightweight.

To be honest I don't have much of an all-time great list. I don't believe such lists are ever objective because there are many different factors you have to take into account, such as longevity, record, opposition fought, head-to-head ability. For example some people rate Bernard Hopkins over Roy Jones, despite Jones probably being the better fighter prime for prime, even if his prime didn't last as long as Hopkins's.

I'm mainly making the case that Duran has a solid case of being ranked among the top 20 greatest fighters of all time due to his accomplishments. You don't necessarily have to rate him as highly but it's not outrageous or overrating him to rate him that highly, in my opinion.
I was just curious, since you seem to be so protective of how I rate him. At least, tell me where you would range him. 1-5? 15-20?

As for me, I only have a top 10 list and Duran's not in it. I would put him within the top 20, though. I just think that the fact that he's rated in the top 10 is crazy.

TheGreatA
01-28-2010, 05:53 PM
Ask any major historian and I bet they'll tell you that Johnson gets full credit over Jeffries. I do.

It's arguably the greatest win of his career and the greatest performance of his career.

Well, I discuss and read the texts of historians on a daily basis and not too many of them give Johnson much credit for the win. However most acknowledge that Jeffries did not want to give Jack Johnson a shot when he was in his prime and Jeffries himself stated that Johnson would have beaten him in his prime, which speaks of Jack Johnson's greatness. But Jeffries didn't have much left by the time he fought Johnson, he wasn't even more of a challenge than former middleweight Stanley Ketchel.

Most would also acknowledge that Joe Brown wasn't the same man he had been 10 years previously. I think people would do the same had Duran beaten a 36 year old Ken Buchanan, not a 26 year old Buchanan as he did.

If he didn't want to show that he could take Duran's punches and fight toe to toe, he would've adapted to his style and eventually done what he did against Duran in the second fight. Dance, dance and punch when the opportunity was right. He actually did have the option of doing that but he chose to go toe to toe. He wanted to prove he was brave enough.

Did he have enough left to change his tactics after taking a beating to the body in the early rounds though?

I'd compare it to Ali vs Frazier I, except Leonard was closer to his prime than Ali. Ali's strategy was to stand his ground against Frazier and batter him in the middle of the ring but he was dragged into a brawl and by the late rounds he didn't have enough left in him to start dancing. He had to suffer that loss in order to be able to adapt his tactics and beat Frazier in the rematch.

The Leonard who fought Duran would have beaten Benitez and Hearns that night. But he was unable to deal with Duran's style.

Thank you for admitting that Leonard would've been able to outbox Duran if he wanted to.

I'm saying that he had all the tools to outbox Duran. But he could never outbrawl him. So it came down to who was able to force the other to fight their fight and both were successful in doing that, Duran in the first fight, Leonard in the rematch.

Yes.. if he was given the opportunity to fight his fight. I've made that pretty clear, throughout my posts.

However I think Duran would have a much easier time competing with the likes of Whitaker and Mayweather in the boxing department because they weren't as big as Leonard. Duran was only unable to outbox men who were almost six feet tall compared to his 5'6-5'7 and 67 inch reach. Duran was a classy boxer at his best, just watch his third fight against Esteban DeJesus. And in a brawl no one could get the better of him.

Only when Mayweather was on the ropes would he not try to land that many punches. When he was on the ropes, he tried to avoid punches and that's basically it. Other than that, he would move around the ring and potshot. I think he has one of the greatest connect percentages of all-time.

Yes and if Duran were able to pressure Mayweather against the ropes and keep him there as he was able to do to Leonard, DeJesus, Viruet, Marcel, Buchanan, Floyd would have a more difficult time being able to deal with it.

People bring up Duran's loss to Benitez but don't mention that Benitez went up to middleweight and lost badly to a much cruder opponent Mustafa Hamsho than Duran who used the same tactics as Duran, except he was much bigger. Size does make a difference. Duran at 154 simply wasn't quite the force he had been at 135.

Plus, take into account that the Castillo against Mayweather was bigger than Duran. Castillo had a one inch advantage in height and a four inch in advantage in reach, over Duran.

Castillo was slightly bigger but Duran at 135 was one of the strongest to ever fight in the division. He relied a lot on his strength but as he moved up in weight fighters were able to match him in this category. Duran was a better boxer than Castillo and few could have ever beaten him in a slugfest at 135.

As for Mayweather, he had about a six inch advantage in reach and a one inch advantage in height. He would also be the bigger man, against Duran.

I don't think he would necessarily be bigger, just slightly taller with a longer reach. As far as strength, I doubt Mayweather would be able to match Duran. Even Leonard couldn't. Leonard had 3-4 inches in height and 8 inches in reach on Duran and he was a natural welterweight. I think Duran will have a much easier time dealing with the relatively small differences in height and reach against Mayweather.

The Mayweather vs Castillo fights happened at 135. Mayweather weighed in at 138, but knowing Mayweather, I'm sure he could've stuck to 135 if he wanted, since he wasn't the type of fighter to gain that much weight after weigh-ins. Castillo weighed about 10 pounds higher than Mayweather. Meaning he was basically a welterweight fighting a lightweight, in that fight.

Given that it wasn't Mayweather's best solo performance and the fact that he wouldn't be outweighed by 10 pounds against Duran (considering the fight happened in Duran's time), I'm sure that he would've been that much better in able to get a decision victory.

Castillo did put on a lot of weight after the weigh-ins, which is something that's different to Duran's era when fighters weighed in the day of the fight and mostly fought at the weight they weighed in at.

However while Castillo was bigger, he was not a better fighter than Duran by any means, although there are stylistic comparisons. Duran was able to outmatch Ray Leonard, a welterweight, in physical strength and thus I doubt Mayweather either would be able to hold off Duran if Duran was able to make him fight his type of a fight as Castillo was able to.

I don't give Benn the full credit over McClellan. I don't give Margarito the full credit over Cotto.

I wouldn't necessarily compare Duran vs Moore to those fights though. Margarito may have used loaded gloves while McClellan was clearly in a bad way against Benn and ended up being permanently injured.

You also have to take into account that Cotto was basically a middleweight, during the fight. He most likely went up to at least 154. Pacquiao hasn't been known to gain much weight, since he was a lightweight.

I don't know how much weight Cotto put on but Pacquiao was clearly stronger than Cotto during the fight. Duran was nowhere near as strong as Barkley, who came into his fights as a light heavyweight, but beat him with superior skill. Hagler too was a lot stronger than Duran and incredibly had a near 10 inch advantage in reach while Cotto actually has the same reach as Pacquiao.

I was just curious, since you seem to be so protective of how I rate him. At least, tell me where you would range him. 1-5? 15-20?

I didn't even know how you rated him until now, I'm just making the case that he can be rated very highly depending on how one rates fighters. Duran scores highly in many categories, such as longevity (fought from 16 years of age to age 50), dominance (the best lightweight for 7 years), opposition fought (fought absolutely everyone), competed in many weight classes (from bantamweight to super middleweight).

As for me, I only have a top 10 list and Duran's not in it. I would put him within the top 20, though. I just think that the fact that he's rated in the top 10 is crazy.

I think a case can be made that he's top 10. See for example Marvin Hagler or Carlos Monzon. They were dominant in their own divisions, as was Duran, but never went up in weight and mostly fought smaller greats while Duran took on great fighters who were bigger in size. That's one case you could make for him. Another would be that he was atleast top 3 at lightweight, scored a win over a top 3 all-time great welterweight, and went the distance against a top 3 all-time great middleweight. This is the definition of pound for pound.

Method Checker
01-28-2010, 06:52 PM
Well, I discuss and read the texts of historians on a daily basis and not too many of them give Johnson much credit for the win. However most acknowledge that Jeffries did not want to give Jack Johnson a shot when he was in his prime and Jeffries himself stated that Johnson would have beaten him in his prime, which speaks of Jack Johnson's greatness. But Jeffries didn't have much left by the time he fought Johnson, he wasn't even more of a challenge than former middleweight Stanley Ketchel.

Most would also acknowledge that Joe Brown wasn't the same man he had been 10 years previously. I think people would do the same had Duran beaten a 36 year old Ken Buchanan, not a 26 year old Buchanan as he did.
Jeffries' humble attitude doesn't count for everything. A case can be made that Jeffries would've beaten Johnson, in his prime. The same can be said the other way around. Of course we'll never know for sure if Johnson could've beaten Jeffries in his prime, but you'll just have to give Johnson the credit for the win.

The same case can be made regarding Ortiz' victory over Brown. You can certainly make a debate that Ortiz would've beaten Brown had he been "10 years younger".

The point is, part of my rankings are based off of the champions/titlists they beat, the HOFers they beat, and their performances against those kinds of top fighters. With all that said and done, I give the edge to Ortiz ranking ahead of Duran, regarding lightweights. I do rank Duran higher on a P4P level, though. But I think Ortiz deserves to be recognized as the greater lightweight.

Did he have enough left to change his tactics after taking a beating to the body in the early rounds though?

I'd compare it to Ali vs Frazier I, except Leonard was closer to his prime than Ali. Ali's strategy was to stand his ground against Frazier and batter him in the middle of the ring but he was dragged into a brawl and by the late rounds he didn't have enough left in him to start dancing. He had to suffer that loss in order to be able to adapt his tactics and beat Frazier in the rematch.
Ali vs Frazier I isn't actually a good example. Ali had a lot of ring rust. He didn't have the legs that he used have, in order to dance around the ring. Add the poor stamina to that and there you go. He was forced to brawl with Frazier.

Leonard had the opportunity to either move and dance or go toe to toe with Duran. He chose the latter. He do think that he had the stamina to change his approach if he wanted to but he didn't. He wanted to show his bravery.

I'm saying that he had all the tools to outbox Duran. But he could never outbrawl him. So it came down to who was able to force the other to fight their fight and both were successful in doing that, Duran in the first fight, Leonard in the rematch.
If Duran wanted to brawl, it was his fight. If Leonard wanted to box, it was his fight. The thing is, Leonard was the one who was able to control whether it was a brawl or a boxing match.

However I think Duran would have a much easier time competing with the likes of Whitaker and Mayweather in the boxing department because they weren't as big as Leonard. Duran was only unable to outbox men who were almost six feet tall compared to his 5'6-5'7 and 67 inch reach. Duran was a classy boxer at his best, just watch his third fight against Esteban DeJesus. And in a brawl no one could get the better of him.
Both Whitaker and Mayweather had a reach advantange over Duran and I'm sure they would've been able to use it wisely. Plus, I see them punching and moving and then holding if Duran got too close and attempted to make it a brawl.

Yes and if Duran were able to pressure Mayweather against the ropes and keep him there as he was able to do to Leonard, DeJesus, Viruet, Marcel, Buchanan, Floyd would have a more difficult time being able to deal with it.

People bring up Duran's loss to Benitez but don't mention that Benitez went up to middleweight and lost badly to a much cruder opponent Mustafa Hamsho than Duran who used the same tactics as Duran, except he was much bigger. Size does make a difference. Duran at 154 simply wasn't quite the force he had been at 135.[QUOTE]
None of the fighters you named were as good on the ropes as Mayweather. He slipped punches better than any of them and I'm sure he wouldn't even try that to a great extent against Duran. I can see him trying to tie Duran up a lot, to prevent any danger. Much like he did against Hatton. Hatton was the stronger fighter and pressured more than Duran.

Of course, Hatton's boxing or brawling skills are nowhere near Duran's, but the case can be made that Mayweather could deal with Duran's pressure.

[QUOTE]Castillo was slightly bigger but Duran at 135 was one of the strongest to ever fight in the division. He relied a lot on his strength but as he moved up in weight fighters were able to match him in this category. Duran was a better boxer than Castillo and few could have ever beaten him in a slugfest at 135.
Except the last thing Mayweather would ever do is to try and engage into any sort of slugfest.

I don't think he would necessarily be bigger, just slightly taller with a longer reach. As far as strength, I doubt Mayweather would be able to match Duran. Even Leonard couldn't. Leonard had 3-4 inches in height and 8 inches in reach on Duran and he was a natural welterweight. I think Duran will have a much easier time dealing with the relatively small differences in height and reach against Mayweather.
Mayweather never really used that much strength against any opponent. He was always safety first and was all about defense. I don't know about you, but I don't think strength is required in order to avoid punches.

His reach advantage (5-6 inches) would help him greatly, against Duran. He has an amazing connect percentage and I'm sure his punches would find home.

Castillo did put on a lot of weight after the weigh-ins, which is something that's different to Duran's era when fighters weighed in the day of the fight and mostly fought at the weight they weighed in at.

However while Castillo was bigger, he was not a better fighter than Duran by any means, although there are stylistic comparisons. Duran was able to outmatch Ray Leonard, a welterweight, in physical strength and thus I doubt Mayweather either would be able to hold off Duran if Duran was able to make him fight his type of a fight as Castillo was able to.
I doubt that a 135 pound Duran was stronger than a 148 pound Castillo. Also, don't forget that Castillo had a bigger reach and height advantage, compared to Duran.

I wouldn't necessarily compare Duran vs Moore to those fights though. Margarito may have used loaded gloves while McClellan was clearly in a bad way against Benn and ended up being permanently injured.
I'm not comparing them. I'm just saying that I do take away some credit from those victories, as I would from Duran's victory over Moore.

I'm quite confident that Margarito used plaster against Cotto, given the fact that he tried to use it on a seemingly lesser and older opponent in Mosley.

Many people believe that the referee in the Benn vs McClellan fight was very biased. He allowed Benn to make the right fight. There's also a lot of debate about whether the fight should've been stopped in the first round and declared a first round knockout victory for McCellan, but I won't get into that.

I don't know how much weight Cotto put on but Pacquiao was clearly stronger than Cotto during the fight. Duran was nowhere near as strong as Barkley, who came into his fights as a light heavyweight, but beat him with superior skill. Hagler too was a lot stronger than Duran and incredibly had a near 10 inch advantage in reach while Cotto actually has the same reach as Pacquiao.
I wouldn't say Pacquiao was stronger than Cotto. I would say he had more power. In the first few rounds, they were feeling each other out. Pacquiao then knocked down Cotto and from then on, the fight was his. Pacquiao's power was simply too much. Not his strength.

I didn't even know how you rated him until now, I'm just making the case that he can be rated very highly depending on how one rates fighters. Duran scores highly in many categories, such as longevity (fought from 16 years of age to age 50), dominance (the best lightweight for 7 years), opposition fought (fought absolutely everyone), competed in many weight classes (from bantamweight to super middleweight).
It's all been said before but I don't buy into how it looks on paper.

I'm still awaiting the response of where you rank him. Either the exact number or the range.

I think a case can be made that he's top 10. See for example Marvin Hagler or Carlos Monzon.
I don't rank Hagler or Monzon as a top 10 all-time great.

They were dominant in their own divisions, as was Duran, but never went up in weight and mostly fought smaller greats while Duran took on great fighters who were bigger in size. That's one case you could make for him.
I respect the fact that he climbed up in weight and took on great fighters, but his record and performances against those fighters don't cut it for a top 10 all-time great. Perhaps you see it differently but I don't.

Another would be that he was atleast top 3 at lightweight
In your opinion.

, scored a win over a top 3 all-time great welterweight, and went the distance against a top 3 all-time great middleweight. This is the definition of pound for pound.
He lost in return to that fighter and lost against the ATG middleweight. I know it's a brave thing to do but bravery isn't a major factor in ranking a fighter.

BennyST
01-29-2010, 06:36 AM
You make these claims out of nothing. When did I ever say these things?

Obviously you don't know what a titlist is. There's like 4 or more titlists in every division. Even more when you count regular champions, super champions, interim champions, champions in reccess, etc., for each division.

I only think of Pacquiao as a welterweight titlist. Not a welterweight champion. I think of Jones as a middleweight and heavyweight titlist. Not a champion.

That was a big false claim.

You said Pac and Mayweather were better champions because they had won more titles in more divisions. Go back to the first page and read what you wrote yourself.

"If you define a titlist as a champion, then that's your way of thinking."

"Championship material, to me, is the man who beat the man. In other words, a lineal champion. Something Jorge "Fat" Castro was never able to become."

This is what you wrote just before as well. There was no lineal champion at that time.

Duran beat 'the man' at all but 154. He beat Buchanan and De Jesus at 135. He beat Leonard at 147 and then he beat Barkley at 160 who had beaten Hearns, who had beaten Roldan for the title left behind by Ray Leonard after he beat Hagler.

Anyway, like I said before, you use the argument that Mayweather is a six time champion and Pac won more than Duran too and I know that you would use the same argument for everyone else too, but when it suits you to say someone is not a champion because he never beat 'the man' then you brig up this false argument.

As for Castro never beating 'the man', he did in fact beat the two of 'the men'. Jonhson had held the WBA MW title for the last three years and had lost it to Jackson in his last fight before Castro. Jackson relinquished it and so Jonhson and Castro fought for it. He won. Then Castro and Jackson fought for it because in some way it was still considered to be the title of Jackson's. He lost also. He beat two of the top guys and two main champions.

When Castro won the title, there was no lineal champion. Hopkins held the IBF I think, the WBC had been vacated by McClellan and wasn't won until 1995 by J. Jackson. The two main champions at that time were Jackson and Johnson and Castro beat both. The WBA had the main lineage from Hagler still. It went from Hagler, who got stripped of it, to Kalambay who the ring recognised as the main champion, he vacated and on it went to Johnson etc.

JAB5239
01-29-2010, 06:47 AM
You said Pac and Mayweather were better champions because they had won more titles in more divisions. Go back to the first page and read what you wrote yourself.

"If you define a titlist as a champion, then that's your way of thinking."

"Championship material, to me, is the man who beat the man. In other words, a lineal champion. Something Jorge "Fat" Castro was never able to become."

This is what you wrote just before as well. There was no lineal champion at that time.

Duran beat 'the man' at all but 154. He beat Buchanan and De Jesus at 135. He beat Leonard at 147 and then he beat Barkley at 160 who had beaten Hearns, who had beaten Roldan for the title left behind by Ray Leonard after he beat Hagler.

Anyway, like I said before, you use the argument that Mayweather is a six time champion and Pac won more than Duran too and I know that you would use the same argument for everyone else too, but when it suits you to say someone is not a champion because he never beat 'the man' then you brig up this false argument.

As for Castro never beating 'the man', he did in fact beat the two of 'the men'. Jonhson had held the WBA MW title for the last three years and had lost it to Jackson in his last fight before Castro. Jackson relinquished it and so Jonhson and Castro fought for it. He won. Then Castro and Jackson fought for it because in some way it was still considered to be the title of Jackson's. He lost also. He beat two of the top guys and two main champions.

When Castro won the title, there was no lineal champion. Hopkins held the IBF I think, the WBC had been vacated by McClellan and wasn't won until 1995 by J. Jackson. The two main champions at that time were Jackson and Johnson and Castro beat both. The WBA had the main lineage from Hagler still. It went from Hagler, who got stripped of it, to Kalambay who the ring recognised as the main champion, he vacated and on it went to Johnson etc.

Ohhh this is a beat down.

BennyST
01-29-2010, 08:19 AM
I am at lunch and wrote a reply to this and of course before i hit submit reply the pc froze and i lost the message.

Duran lost to the two best JR MW's at the time Hearns and Benitez. The reach thing is a joke. Benitez even invited Duran at the end of the fight to hit him as he stayed in the ropes stationary. Benitez was simply a better boxer. Why you think Hearns went the full 15 rounds with Benitez and only needed 2 to KO Duran? Benitez made Hearns missed 11 consecutive blows at the end of RD 2 of their fight; he had a radar. In addition, the age thing is preposterous. Benitez was not a usual 24 year old fighter. He started to fight professionally at 15 and was world champ at 17 a record that possibly will never be broken. Guys who start very young to to peak at an earlier age. As a result, Benitez by the age of 26 was already past his prime. Mike Tyson in his 30's was not a shell of a fighter as he was at 22. Duran beat the guy that KO Benitez is incorrect. Benitez BROKE his ankle in the moore fight a fact you conveniently left out.

People say Duran beat guys with bigger reach. So did guys like Rocky Marciano and Jack Dempsey; guys you need to rate Duran higher than if you put him in top 10. Jimmy Wilde beat guys who weighed 100 pounds more; yet many put Duran higher. I don't think Duran is better Robinson, Armstrong, Louis, Pepp, Ali, Gans, Langford, Greb, Tunney, and both Leonards. Monzon beat a guy who was like 6 feet 5 and murdered him in 5 RDS. He also beat two great fighters at his same height. He went overseas and KO guys in their home countries. If you want to knock him for early losses than please knock Pacquiao for his early two knockouts. The fact is that Monzon never was Knocked out in 100 professional fights, and he had only KD his entire career. Duran was KD twice by Dejesus and even quit during a fight. Also lets not mention the Hearns massacre and NO MAS. Monzon was most interested in preserving his title defense record. The HW and MW divisions are the most fancy divisions in the sport. So why blame a fighter for trying to defend his title with record defenses? The guys immediately after Monzon didnt move up as well. Wilfred Gomez got murdered by Sanchez does that mean since he took alphabet soup belts at 126 and 130 he is better than Salvador Sanchez? Does it mean that great fighters like Sanchez or Monzon wouldn't be able to pick up belts with the current alphabelt system. Let's remember Duran won the WW title and had 0 defenses of it. He picked up the JR MW against a fighter who had 12 fights but lost to the best JR MW's Benitez and Hearns. He won his MW by a SD that many had the other way. SRL won at 154,160,168, 175 all in his FIRST try. Yet to rate Duran top 10 you likely would need to rate him higher than Leonard. I simply disagree with that.

Monzon's early draws were draws. Unless you have those fights in film than dont assume hometown cooking. It would be like saying the early Duran fights in Panama were hometown cooking. Also do you have the height and reach of all 90 plus Monzon opponents? I already name three that had the same dimensions or were bigger than him. I mentioned 2 opponents who had same height and reach and one guy who was MUCH bigger than Monzon. In addition, Mundine who Monzon KOD did become national champ at LHW, Cruiser, and HW divisions he wasen't blown up MW. Monzon was weight drained for years to make MW. Its speculation to say could he have beaten a Conteh, Tiger, or Foster. But i will say its likely that he would have won against one or two of those opponents. He definitely would have won at SMW if it existed at the time. It's also possible that Monzon would have done well at LHW since he was getting older and his body would have been more naturally at LHW.



Man, I hate it when that happens. I have done that lots of times and just couldn't be bothered redoing it. :lol1:

Firstly, I still think you're missing the point. If reach, height and divisions didn't matter we wouldn't have them. Two guys with similar skill fight; the guy who is bigger will win. Great big guy will always beat great little guy. Leonard started at 147 and won the 154, 160 and 168, not 175 title (he won it, but it wasn't at 175). Duran started at 118 and still later won the same titles as Leonard apart from the 168 title. How do you not see that as relevant?

While I agree the division thing is overrated, it is still important. Duran had as impressive a run at LW as Monzon did at MW, but he then went even further by winning title in higher divisions, one against a guy who like you just said went on to win his own titles in 147, 154, 160, 168 (and 175 at 168). Duran moving up to beat him in his at his best weight is a greater feat than anything Monzon produced.

I see their title runs as about even. Duran then did a hell of a lot more after that. He beat a top ten P4P ATG that was bigger, younger and at his best weight. Duran's LW and that win alone put him above Monzon for me.

I will try to put this as succinctly as possible. I would have Duran and Monzon about equal if Duran had retired after his LW run. I would have Monzon slightly ahead. But, he moved up another two divisions and beat one of the greatest fighters of all time. It's a greater win by itself than anything Monzon had and it came against a guy that was bigger, younger, faster, supposedly more skilled and at his best weight.

I take into account the length of run and against what type of opposition, how many divisions you win titles in and how long you are champion for. Monzon had good opposition and a great title reign. Duran had both of these and more. He moved up ten divisions all up, beat ATG's at much higher weights than his natural weight and won more titles against guys that were way bigger and younger.

Maybe you don't see beating someone twice your size as anything to talk about but I certainly do. Duran beat the equivalent of your 6'5" guy in Buchanan. He was much bigger and taller than Duran, but it was still in his own division. See, him beating Buchanan doesn't get talked about as a great because of how much bigger Ken was does it?

Size does matter a great deal. Would Cotto have lost to Marg if they were the same size? I doubt it.

You are still looking at losses Duran had against guys that were so much bigger. How do you not say Hearns' height and reach advantage didn't matter? Duran had a foot less arm reach. That **** matters. Yes, smaller guys beat bigger guys but Duran did it against Leonard. He did it against Barkley, Moore. They weren't just bigger, they were much bigger and they weren't in his division. They were many, many divisions above where he started.

Moore had knocked Bentiez down and knocked him down badly and on the way down he twisted his ankle. He was ****ed. He was beaten. That was a legitimate win for Moore as he had Benitez beaten. Benitez didn't break his ankle while winning. He was getting smashed and was going to be knocked out. His ankle didn't change that. The stoppage itself was off, but Moore was pounding on him and had brutally knocked him down to the point that Benitez had no clue.

Why wouldn't you rate Duran higher than Leonard? Duran beat him and he started ten years earlier, at about seven division below where Leonard started and he still beat him. He won the same amount of titles as Leonard unless you count winning the 175 title he won at 168 another title. He fought longer, in twice as many divisions, won as many titles, beat him and his titles were across a much greater range of divisions.

Now, before you say "But Leonard beat Hearns and Hearns knocked Duran out!", like I said, divisions, age, height and reach really do matter a great deal. Hearns fought Duran in his best possible. Hearns would have beaten Leonard at 154. They fought at Leonard's best weight though and he came from behind in a stunning win. So, Hearns couldn't beat him yet Duran could even though Duran had come up from 118 since 1968, where as Hearns started in the same division as Leonard in the same year ten years after that.

You compare Duran to Hearns, Benitez, Leonard and Hagler yet he wasn't even in their era. He was in Monzon's era but at LW. He just kept on fighting and winning though against guys that were a generation younger and many divisions bigger. You can't compare them as equals because they weren't. Unless those guys started out at LW or fought Duran at LW and were the same age, they don't bare full comparison as equals.

Hey man, I do knock Pac for his early losses. That **** matters just as Duran's losses do matter but they are lessened y the fact that he was in the eighth division, was fat and old and fighting ATG's at their best weights and peak years.

Anyway, what does De Jesus knocking Duran down have to do with anything? I'm lost on that one. He won two out of three fights and knocked him out twice. Monzon got knocked down too. If he won though it doesn't matter. Yes, I have seen two of the fights in question that he had draws in and he lost both. Especially the Briscoe one.

Yes, Monzon was never knocked out but he never fought anyone in a much higher division that towered over him and was one of the hardest P4P punchers in boxing history. He got knocked down twice in his LW career.

Mundine was ok. He was the same height as Monzon though and the CW and HW division in Aus was terrible. He was good though and I rate that win highly for him. I don't see it as any better than Thompson's loss to Duran though and I think Thompson was better all around.

I just think Duran had a much greater career all up.

BennyST
01-29-2010, 09:17 AM
Except the last thing Mayweather would ever do is to try and engage into any sort of slugfest.

Mayweather never really used that much strength against any opponent. He was always safety first and was all about defense. I don't know about you, but I don't think strength is required in order to avoid punches.

His reach advantage (5-6 inches) would help him greatly, against Duran. He has an amazing connect percentage and I'm sure his punches would find home.


Have you seen Mayweather fight at 135? More often than not he was in a toe to toe battle and had many slug-fests at those lighter weights. Even against Castillo, he hardly boxed the way Leonard did against him.

Leonard against a closer version of the LW Duran was hardly able to tag him with many flush shots and he was faster than Mayweather. Marcel, who was very fast too and fought with a very similar style to Mayweather, also had great landing anything major on Duran as did nearly all of his LW opponents. Mayweather would have as much trouble hitting Duran as Duran would have hitting him. Mayweather would have it better on the outside and Duran would have it better on the inside.

The thing is, MAyweather has never once been adverse to fighting on the inside, and if anything, preferred to fight there at the lighter weights.

All about defense and safety first? Again, you are talking about the WW MAyweather. He was not at all that type of fighter at the lighter weights.

You know what's interesting? Mayweather fights very similar to how Leonard did in his career up to and including Duran I. He stands up close, counter punches and uses short lateral movement and combinations to fight.

Do you call this safety first defensive fighting?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mWp3NLNTJK8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mWp3NLNTJK8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fitBbruouGo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fitBbruouGo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UEVwxRsUR50&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UEVwxRsUR50&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

None of these fights are safety first, defensive fights. He uses defense very well but they're not safety first without risk.

Now, one major thing is that he never had any trouble finding any of these guys. They all had severe defensive liabilities. Mayweather was able to slip, duck, whatever and then counter punch and hit them pretty easily. They all walked straight into him. When the one guy that didn't, but was still a pressure fighter in Castiilo, it gave him obvious trouble.

The biggest similarity between Castillo and Duran is that they are both pressure fighters that wait on their opponent as much as lead. Castiilo waited for Mayweather to lead then countered him and got inside and then he banged away to the body and head. It gave him a lot of trouble. But, Castiilo is easy to hit unlike Duran.

One thing Mayweather can be hit by well is the left hook and straight right. He is also open to the right uppercut to the body which Duran threw as well as anyone. Duran had one of the greatest counter rights off a number of punches, especially off the jab, 1,2 and straight right of the opponent, and an incredibly sneaky 1,2 (watch how many he lands against Palomino and Leonard) and of course his left hook to head and body is rarely equaled.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rAeusEtgnlo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rAeusEtgnlo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Watch how slick he is on the inside. Mayweather would have more trouble hitting him than he has ever had hitting anyone else in his whole career and he would also have his missed shots countered as much as he would be countering too.

BennyST
01-29-2010, 09:49 AM
Oh, HaglerSteelChin, one thing I forgot to comment on was you saying Benitez was past it. Yes, he started early but when he fought Duran he was in his prime definitely. In fact he was in the middle of the best title run in his career and had just come off some of the greatest performances he ever had.

He was twenty four, at a good weight for him, had lost only once in about forty fights and just before his fight with Duran had looked incredible against Hope, Ranzany and the undefeated Santos and afterward he went on to have a great shot against Hearns whom he lost a close decision to. After that loss he started to go downhill which was due to lack of training and moving up to face some big MW's (which just shows how much height, reach and size do matter). But, his performances against Duran and before were among the best of his career without doubt and were nothing close to being past his best. He was at his peak in those fights.

It was Duran that was well past his best by that stage. Benitez was only in his third weight class, compared to Duran's eighth, he was only in his ninth year of fighting compared to Duran's fifteenth, he was only twenty four compared to thirty two and he was in his greatest reign as champion.

Duran was too fat, old and slow and it was commented upon numerous times in the fight by Clancy and Dundee that he looked a shell of his former self and the weight was obviously too much for him and effecting his fighting badly as he looked sluggish, slow and uninterested.

Benitez was fighting as good as he ever had and was not at all past his best.

Anyway, what I still find interesting is that you are saying Duran can't be better than Monzon based on his loss to Benitez (one of the main reasons you gave anyway) and yet Monzon never fought anyone as good as Benitez was at that stage and certainly didn't do it four divisions above his best weight and eight above the weight he started at. However, Monzon also never fought anyone as good as Leonard whereas Duran did and he did it again, well above his best weight and he beat him.

This is all after his equally impressive reign at LW compared to Monzon's. I can see Monzon being rated above Duran when looking only at their respective runs at their best weight which are very equal, but for Monzon it stopped there whereas for Duran he went on to do what very few have ever been able to get even close to doing. Beating top ten ATG's above his best weight when no one else could do it well above where Leonard himself started, winning three more division titles and fighting some of the greatest ever fighters and in most instances holding more than his own.

I can see it based on their best runs but on their overall careers, I just can't see how you could rate Monzon above Duran in a P4P sense at all. Duran, like Robinson, Leonard, Armstrong etc. epitomised the meaning of P4P by not only dominating a single division for a decade but by then moving up many divisions past his natural fighting weight and size and beating some of the greatest fighters that ever fought even though they were much bigger. It is the reason the term P4P came about.

Maybe Monzon would never have lost again even if he moved up to HW. I don't know. He was incredible. But, he didn't and only dominated the one division much as Duran dominated his, but he never went further.

Their respective runs at their best weights are so similar that they are very difficult to tell apart based on that alone. You could put either guy in front due to just their title run but with all the extra done by Duran I really struggle to see how Monzon could be seen to be above him in a P4P sense.

wmute
01-29-2010, 11:33 AM
Have you seen Mayweather fight at 135? More often than not he was in a toe to toe battle and had many slug-fests at those lighter weights. Even against Castillo, he hardly boxed the way Leonard did against him.

Leonard against a closer version of the LW Duran was hardly able to tag him with many flush shots and he was faster than Mayweather. Marcel, who was very fast too and fought with a very similar style to Mayweather, also had great landing anything major on Duran as did nearly all of his LW opponents. Mayweather would have as much trouble hitting Duran as Duran would have hitting him. Mayweather would have it better on the outside and Duran would have it better on the inside.

The thing is, MAyweather has never once been adverse to fighting on the inside, and if anything, preferred to fight there at the lighter weights.

All about defense and safety first? Again, you are talking about the WW MAyweather. He was not at all that type of fighter at the lighter weights.

You know what's interesting? Mayweather fights very similar to how Leonard did in his career up to and including Duran I. He stands up close, counter punches and uses short lateral movement and combinations to fight.

Do you call this safety first defensive fighting?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mWp3NLNTJK8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mWp3NLNTJK8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fitBbruouGo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fitBbruouGo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UEVwxRsUR50&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UEVwxRsUR50&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

None of these fights are safety first, defensive fights. He uses defense very well but they're not safety first without risk.

Now, one major thing is that he never had any trouble finding any of these guys. They all had severe defensive liabilities. Mayweather was able to slip, duck, whatever and then counter punch and hit them pretty easily. They all walked straight into him. When the one guy that didn't, but was still a pressure fighter in Castiilo, it gave him obvious trouble.

The biggest similarity between Castillo and Duran is that they are both pressure fighters that wait on their opponent as much as lead. Castiilo waited for Mayweather to lead then countered him and got inside and then he banged away to the body and head. It gave him a lot of trouble. But, Castiilo is easy to hit unlike Duran.

One thing Mayweather can be hit by well is the left hook and straight right. He is also open to the right uppercut to the body which Duran threw as well as anyone. Duran had one of the greatest counter rights off a number of punches, especially off the jab, 1,2 and straight right of the opponent, and an incredibly sneaky 1,2 (watch how many he lands against Palomino and Leonard) and of course his left hook to head and body is rarely equaled.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rAeusEtgnlo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rAeusEtgnlo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Watch how slick he is on the inside. Mayweather would have more trouble hitting him than he has ever had hitting anyone else in his whole career and he would also have his missed shots countered as much as he would be countering too.

What? Straight right?!?!?

That's the punch I would just tell my fighter to basically leave at home. Well not exactly, he would need to be throwing it and keep it ready, but it would never do any damage, and if anything leave him open. There are two good things about the shoulder roll D, it protects your body, and it leaves you in a perfect position to counter the right hand, because of your position and because it leaves the other guy off balance more than a parry or block would, if the guy commits to the punch. I am going to read the rest later more carefully later Benny, but the part about the straight right is a bit shocking. I remember very few straight rights landing well on Mayweather. A couple of beautifully arched shots from Castillo which caught Mayweather ducking away (not rolling!!!) and the occasional half assed shot by a few others. Also left hooks rarely got in. The punches I have seen Mayweather hit most with were right hooks from lefties. hardly surprising, because that's when you would want your left hand close to your face. Later.

TheGreatA
01-29-2010, 12:59 PM
Jeffries' humble attitude doesn't count for everything. A case can be made that Jeffries would've beaten Johnson, in his prime. The same can be said the other way around. Of course we'll never know for sure if Johnson could've beaten Jeffries in his prime, but you'll just have to give Johnson the credit for the win.

The same case can be made regarding Ortiz' victory over Brown. You can certainly make a debate that Ortiz would've beaten Brown had he been "10 years younger".

The point is, part of my rankings are based off of the champions/titlists they beat, the HOFers they beat, and their performances against those kinds of top fighters. With all that said and done, I give the edge to Ortiz ranking ahead of Duran, regarding lightweights. I do rank Duran higher on a P4P level, though. But I think Ortiz deserves to be recognized as the greater lightweight.

I just don't agree that the opposition should be rated entirely based on their past achievements, I rate them based on how competent they were at the time. Joe Brown and Sugar Ramos, not to mention Jim Jeffries, weren't truly "great" opposition at that point. Rocky Marciano has wins over all-time greats Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott, but how high does he rate?

All in all Ortiz's best opponent at lightweight was Ismael Laguna, and Buchanan was better than Laguna. The next would probably be 36 year old Joe Brown but I seriously doubt that version of Brown would have beaten a prime Esteban DeJesus. He was struggling to beat Dave Charnley, Ray Portillla, Giordano Campari, Luis Molina at that point.

And besides, there are other things you should take into account than the quality of opposition, and the true quality is a bit questionable in this case. Duran had around 50-60 fights at lightweight losing only one, which he avenged. He reigned as the champion for 7 years, taking on the best contenders in the division. He beat every man he ever faced at that weight.

Ali vs Frazier I isn't actually a good example. Ali had a lot of ring rust. He didn't have the legs that he used have, in order to dance around the ring. Add the poor stamina to that and there you go. He was forced to brawl with Frazier.

Leonard had the opportunity to either move and dance or go toe to toe with Duran. He chose the latter. He do think that he had the stamina to change his approach if he wanted to but he didn't. He wanted to show his bravery.


Ali did have the ability to move even if he was rusty, see Ali-Quarry I but from the very beginning he stood flat-footed against Frazier because he felt that was the way to beat him. He wanted to gain Frazier's respect with his punching power which he was unable to do. However Leonard had fought this way for almost all of his professional career, standing more flat-footed and setting his feet to punch. It wasn't like he suddenly turned from a dancer to a puncher against Duran. That was the way he fought Benitez, Andy Price, Ranzany, Mayweather Sr. and it's what had won him all of his professional fights until then. Dundee said that they couldn't afford to back up against Duran.

If Duran wanted to brawl, it was his fight. If Leonard wanted to box, it was his fight. The thing is, Leonard was the one who was able to control whether it was a brawl or a boxing match.

He wasn't able to control it in the first fight. Leonard never wanted to brawl with his back against the ropes while taking a beating. He wanted to keep the fight in the middle of the ring.

Both Whitaker and Mayweather had a reach advantange over Duran and I'm sure they would've been able to use it wisely. Plus, I see them punching and moving and then holding if Duran got too close and attempted to make it a brawl.

In Whitaker's case he has a couple of inches at most. Mayweather has a more significant advantage but not like Ray Leonard. Clinching Duran is easier said than done because he was amazingly strong for a lightweight and would push you against the ropes, much like Hatton did to Mayweather, but he didn't smother his own offense.

None of the fighters you named were as good on the ropes as Mayweather. He slipped punches better than any of them and I'm sure he wouldn't even try that to a great extent against Duran. I can see him trying to tie Duran up a lot, to prevent any danger. Much like he did against Hatton. Hatton was the stronger fighter and pressured more than Duran.


Of course, Hatton's boxing or brawling skills are nowhere near Duran's, but the case can be made that Mayweather could deal with Duran's pressure.

Here's the difference between Hatton and Duran though.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oQxCEmOBAME&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oQxCEmOBAME&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
2:00

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jZnsDfrnZjY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jZnsDfrnZjY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
5:50


Except the last thing Mayweather would ever do is to try and engage into any sort of slugfest.


No but he could be drawn into one. Mayweather wasn't all that cautious at 130-135. I'm not saying he was reckless, he was and is safety first but you didn't see him potshotting and doing what he did against Baldomir in the late rounds when he fought Castillo, Corrales, Genaro Hernandez.

Mayweather never really used that much strength against any opponent. He was always safety first and was all about defense. I don't know about you, but I don't think strength is required in order to avoid punches.

No but it's required to be able to hold off the opponent in the clinches. Surely what Castillo troubled Mayweather with wasn't his superior boxing skill or speed but his strength and aggressiveness. He also wasn't a "dumb" aggressor, just walking in with little regard for defense and smothering his own offense like Ricky Hatton did.

His reach advantage (5-6 inches) would help him greatly, against Duran. He has an amazing connect percentage and I'm sure his punches would find home.

Duran would be one of the better defensive fighters Mayweather has ever fought though, despite being a constant aggressor.

I doubt that a 135 pound Duran was stronger than a 148 pound Castillo. Also, don't forget that Castillo had a bigger reach and height advantage, compared to Duran.

Castillo has an inch in height and 2 inches in reach, not significant advantages by any means. Do you see Castillo ever bulling Ray Leonard around like Duran did? Was he even competitive at 140 the way Duran was at 154-160? Duran was extremely strong, all of his opponents noted this.


I'm not comparing them. I'm just saying that I do take away some credit from those victories, as I would from Duran's victory over Moore.

I think you're being a bit unfair with this because Duran using some questionable tactics is in no way comparable to loading your gloves like Margarito supposedly did, or arguably being KO'd in the first like Benn and having a biased referee officiating the bout. You'd have to take away credit for a lot of fighters if you take away credit from Duran.

I wouldn't say Pacquiao was stronger than Cotto. I would say he had more power. In the first few rounds, they were feeling each other out. Pacquiao then knocked down Cotto and from then on, the fight was his. Pacquiao's power was simply too much. Not his strength.

Basically he was able to overpower Cotto. He could take his best punch, he was able to match his strength and he was able to hurt Cotto with every punch he landed.


It's all been said before but I don't buy into how it looks on paper.

I'm still awaiting the response of where you rank him. Either the exact number or the range.

I said I don't have a list. I say he is among the 20 best fighters I've ever seen. Where exactly I'd rate him isn't clear to me.

I don't rank Hagler or Monzon as a top 10 all-time great.

Some do and since Duran should rate above the two, who are possibly top 30 or even top 20 all-time greats, then there's a very good case Duran makes top 20, top 15 or even top 10. Especially since a lot of people don't rate early 1900's fighters.

In your opinion.

I'd say the great majority rate him top 3 at lightweight. In that case it's not really an opinion, it's consensus.

He lost in return to that fighter and lost against the ATG middleweight. I know it's a brave thing to do but bravery isn't a major factor in ranking a fighter.

He was supposed to lose. I'd like to know the examples of all-time great lightweights who went onto beat all-time great welterweights and middleweights.

Joe Gans managed a draw with 140 lb Barbados Joe Walcott.

Benny Leonard was losing and fouled himself out against welterweight Jack Britton.

Ike Williams had little success above 135 pounds. Ortiz never tried.

So you can maybe point out to Henry Armstrong, Pernell Whitaker and Floyd Mayweather. None of those men were exactly facing a prime Ray Leonard during their welterweight campaign and neither did they ever even think about stepping up to face a prime Hagler at 160.

Southpaw16BF
01-29-2010, 01:19 PM
Benny Leonard was losing and fouled himself out against welterweight Jack Britton.

I have read reports that Leoanard was actually winning this fight against Britton. And then fouled him after the bell, and Britton cound't continue. Thus making him the winner.

Ziggy Stardust
01-29-2010, 01:23 PM
I have read reports that Leoanard was actually winning this fight against Britton. And then fouled him after the bell, and Britton cound't continue. Thus making him the winner.

That's a mean looking avi of Shavers you got there :D

Poet

Southpaw16BF
01-29-2010, 01:27 PM
That's a mean looking avi of Shavers you got there :D

Poet

:lol1:

Thanks. You a big fan of Shavers, Poet? How do you think he matches up with todays Heavyweights?

TheGreatA
01-29-2010, 01:31 PM
I have read reports that Leoanard was actually winning this fight against Britton. And then fouled him after the bell, and Britton cound't continue. Thus making him the winner.

Atleast these reports claim that Britton was leading on points:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=KLwWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TiEEAAAAIBAJ&dq=jack%20britton%20benny%20leonard&pg=6247%2C5318588

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/332300302.html?dids=332300302:332300302&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Jun+27%2C+1922&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=SENSATIONAL+FINISH+OF+NEW+YORK+BOUT+THROWS+FI STIANA+IN+UPROAR.&pqatl=google

Ziggy Stardust
01-29-2010, 01:31 PM
:lol1:

Thanks. You a big fan of Shavers, Poet? How do you think he matches up with todays Heavyweights?

Yeah, I love watching Earnie fight! The division is so weak right now I have a hard time seeing most of these guys beating him. One right hand on Wlad's fragile wiskers and you could count to a hundred. Vitali I think would probably beat him: Unlike Wlad, Vitali has the chin to take some punches from Earnie without getting KOed :boxing:

Poet

Method Checker
01-29-2010, 03:03 PM
You said Pac and Mayweather were better champions because they had won more titles in more divisions. Go back to the first page and read what you wrote yourself.

"If you define a titlist as a champion, then that's your way of thinking."

"Championship material, to me, is the man who beat the man. In other words, a lineal champion. Something Jorge "Fat" Castro was never able to become."

This is what you wrote just before as well. There was no lineal champion at that time.

Duran beat 'the man' at all but 154. He beat Buchanan and De Jesus at 135. He beat Leonard at 147 and then he beat Barkley at 160 who had beaten Hearns, who had beaten Roldan for the title left behind by Ray Leonard after he beat Hagler.

Anyway, like I said before, you use the argument that Mayweather is a six time champion and Pac won more than Duran too and I know that you would use the same argument for everyone else too, but when it suits you to say someone is not a champion because he never beat 'the man' then you brig up this false argument.
I believe I said that Pacquiao won more titles than Duran and he did. If I ever said he won more lineal titles, then I was right again. First, let us review the lineal champions they each won:

Pacquiao lineal titles: featherweight, super featherweight and light welterweight

Duran's lineal titles: lightweight and welterweight

When I use the term "the man" I mean they were the number one in the division. Duran, nor Barkley, were either number one. In 1989, when Duran won the title from Barkley, Michael Nunn was the number one in the division. Duran was number four and Barkley was number five. In order to be claimed the man in the division, even though there's no official title at stake, it has to be won between either the number one and number two in the division, or the number one and number three (in occasional circumstances).

Meaning Duran was never the lineal champion or "the man" at middleweight. Meaning Pacquiao won more championships than Duran.

Nice try, though.

As for Castro never beating 'the man', he did in fact beat the two of 'the men'. Jonhson had held the WBA MW title for the last three years and had lost it to Jackson in his last fight before Castro. Jackson relinquished it and so Jonhson and Castro fought for it. He won. Then Castro and Jackson fought for it because in some way it was still considered to be the title of Jackson's. He lost also. He beat two of the top guys and two main champions.

When Castro won the title, there was no lineal champion. Hopkins held the IBF I think, the WBC had been vacated by McClellan and wasn't won until 1995 by J. Jackson. The two main champions at that time were Jackson and Johnson and Castro beat both. The WBA had the main lineage from Hagler still. It went from Hagler, who got stripped of it, to Kalambay who the ring recognised as the main champion, he vacated and on it went to Johnson etc.
You're incorrect, yet again.

At the end of 1994, when Castro beat both Johnson and Jackson, McClellan was still rated as the number one middleweight in the world. Castro was second and Hopkins was third. In order become the man, you have to beat or defend for the number one spot in the division. That number one spot belonged to McClellan. Meaning there was no "man" at middleweight, during that time.

Method Checker
01-29-2010, 03:41 PM
I just don't agree that the opposition should be rated entirely based on their past achievements, I rate them based on how competent they were at the time. Joe Brown and Sugar Ramos, not to mention Jim Jeffries, weren't truly "great" opposition at that point. Rocky Marciano has wins over all-time greats Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott, but how high does he rate?

All in all Ortiz's best opponent at lightweight was Ismael Laguna, and Buchanan was better than Laguna. The next would probably be 36 year old Joe Brown but I seriously doubt that version of Brown would have beaten a prime Esteban DeJesus. He was struggling to beat Dave Charnley, Ray Portillla, Giordano Campari, Luis Molina at that point.

And besides, there are other things you should take into account than the quality of opposition, and the true quality is a bit questionable in this case. Duran had around 50-60 fights at lightweight losing only one, which he avenged. He reigned as the champion for 7 years, taking on the best contenders in the division. He beat every man he ever faced at that weight.
Note the parts in bold.

I find it very ironic for you tell me that I'm wrong when rating fighters, when you don't even have a list of your own ratings.

We all rate differently and I rate like I see it. No matter what the excuse you use (age, weight class, etc.), I view it as a simple win. No excuses from me. In the end, Ortiz beat more lineal champions and more HOFers at that weight, than Duran. That's enough for me to rate him ahead of Duran.

Also, I do give Marciano full credit for those wins. The only person I rank ahead of him, amongst his opponents, is Louis. It's not Marciano's fault that he wasn't fighting in one of the best eras.

Ali did have the ability to move even if he was rusty, see Ali-Quarry I but from the very beginning he stood flat-footed against Frazier because he felt that was the way to beat him. He wanted to gain Frazier's respect with his punching power which he was unable to do. However Leonard had fought this way for almost all of his professional career, standing more flat-footed and setting his feet to punch. It wasn't like he suddenly turned from a dancer to a puncher against Duran. That was the way he fought Benitez, Andy Price, Ranzany, Mayweather Sr. and it's what had won him all of his professional fights until then. Dundee said that they couldn't afford to back up against Duran.
You can't be serious, when using Ali vs Quarry I, as an example..

Ali was bouncing on his toes, but he wasn't dancing and moving around the ring like he did previously or like he did in Ali vs Frazier II. Also, Frazier pressured a lot more than Quarry did. To use that as an example is weak.

I'm not saying that's how he fought for only that fight. I'm just saying that he had the opportunity. Look at how it worked out for him, with his opponents. He beat them all in good fashion. If it wasn't working for him against Duran, he would've changed and started to dance around and not stand toe to toe. He didn't because he wanted to prove a point. He let Duran fight his fight.

He wasn't able to control it in the first fight. Leonard never wanted to brawl with his back against the ropes while taking a beating. He wanted to keep the fight in the middle of the ring.
He wanted to go toe to toe with Duran. We've already established that multiple times. Read the newspaper article that you sent to me, again, if you wish.

In Whitaker's case he has a couple of inches at most. Mayweather has a more significant advantage but not like Ray Leonard. Clinching Duran is easier said than done because he was amazingly strong for a lightweight and would push you against the ropes, much like Hatton did to Mayweather, but he didn't smother his own offense.
Leonard had nowhere near the ability to fight off the ropes as Mayweather and Whitaker did. He wasn't as defensive savvy as Mayweather and Whitaker. To use that, is another bad example.

No but he could be drawn into one. Mayweather wasn't all that cautious at 130-135. I'm not saying he was reckless, he was and is safety first but you didn't see him potshotting and doing what he did against Baldomir in the late rounds when he fought Castillo, Corrales, Genaro Hernandez.
Neither of the four are anywhere near as dangerous or great as Duran. You'd have to believe he would be extra careful against Duran. Knowing Duran, It's hard to believe Mayweather would ever get into any sort of slugfest with him.

No but it's required to be able to hold off the opponent in the clinches. Surely what Castillo troubled Mayweather with wasn't his superior boxing skill or speed but his strength and aggressiveness. He also wasn't a "dumb" aggressor, just walking in with little regard for defense and smothering his own offense like Ricky Hatton did.
I've already established that I don't believe the Mayweather in the Castillo fight was the best version of him. Take the Mayweather from the Corrales fight (which I consider one of his best solo performances) and it would be a different story.


Duran would be one of the better defensive fighters Mayweather has ever fought though, despite being a constant aggressor.
Duran had neither the better connect percentage or defensive abilities as Mayweather.


Castillo has an inch in height and 2 inches in reach, not significant advantages by any means. Do you see Castillo ever bulling Ray Leonard around like Duran did? Was he even competitive at 140 the way Duran was at 154-160? Duran was extremely strong, all of his opponents noted this.
Considering that Castillo weighed in as a welterweight against Leonard and Leonard was a natural welterweight, I doubt Castillo would bully Leonard.

However, Castillo would be able to bully someone smaller than him. Someone smaller than him by, say, 10 pounds.

A 148 pound Castillo would've likely been stronger than a 135 pound Duran. He was simply a bigger opponent, at the time.

I think you're being a bit unfair with this because Duran using some questionable tactics is in no way comparable to loading your gloves like Margarito supposedly did, or arguably being KO'd in the first like Benn and having a biased referee officiating the bout. You'd have to take away credit for a lot of fighters if you take away credit from Duran.
Who says I don't? I just don't think that minor things like occasional low blows, some rabbit punching and accidental elbows really compare to hindering the vision of someone with glove laces. Don't you?

Basically he was able to overpower Cotto. He could take his best punch, he was able to match his strength and he was able to hurt Cotto with every punch he landed.
His power, not his strength, was what won him the fight. He was able to take Cotto's punches, but who really landed more?

Pacquiao landed double the amount of punches. The amount of punches landed doesn't really have anything to do with strength. So to use strength as a reason of why it won him the fight is stupid. He wasn't holding and pushing Cotto against the ropes. Cotto might have backed up, at times, but that wasn't due to strength.

I said I don't have a list. I say he is among the 20 best fighters I've ever seen. Where exactly I'd rate him isn't clear to me.

Some do and since Duran should rate above the two, who are possibly top 30 or even top 20 all-time greats, then there's a very good case Duran makes top 20, top 15 or even top 10. Especially since a lot of people don't rate early 1900's fighters.
I'd also rank him within the top 20. I've already established that. I just said I wouldn't rank him in the top 10 P4P all-time and as the best lightweight of all-time. That's where I think he's overrated.

And just because other people might do it, that doesn't mean I have to do it. If you let others decide your opinions for you, your opinion is worthless.

I'd say the great majority rate him top 3 at lightweight. In that case it's not really an opinion, it's consensus.
Like I said, I don't let others decide for me. I leave that to myself.

He was supposed to lose. I'd like to know the examples of all-time great lightweights who went onto beat all-time great welterweights and middleweights.

Joe Gans managed a draw with 140 lb Barbados Joe Walcott.

Benny Leonard was losing and fouled himself out against welterweight Jack Britton.

Ike Williams had little success above 135 pounds. Ortiz never tried.

So you can maybe point out to Henry Armstrong, Pernell Whitaker and Floyd Mayweather. None of those men were exactly facing a prime Ray Leonard during their welterweight campaign and neither did they ever even think about stepping up to face a prime Hagler at 160.
Naming you a fighter that beat an all-time great welterweight and lost to an all-time great middleweight as an example to prove why he's a top 10 all-time great is stupid. I can ask you something that hasn't been accomplished before, regarding other fighters.

1st example: name me one other featherweight champion that bet more HOFers and featherweight champions after coming back from a plane crash, besides Pep.

2nd example: name me one other fighter who was an undefeated heavyweight champion of the world, besides Marciano.

3rd example: name me one other fighter who was an Olympic gold medalist and was a titlist from welterweight to light heavyweight, besides SRL.

Some things haven't been accomplished before, but that doesn't automatically entitle them to become a top 10 all-time great.

cotto16
01-29-2010, 03:57 PM
We all rate differently and I rate like I see it. No matter what the excuse you use (age, weight class, etc.), I view it as a simple win. No excuses from me. In the end, Ortiz beat more lineal champions and more HOFers at that weight, than Duran. That's enough for me to rate him ahead of Duran

So you're saying for example, that William Joppy's win against Duran, is a great win for Joppy? Sometimes you have to judge a win, on what stage the fighter was at? How finished was he etc. Not always, but sometimes.

And in cases like Duran's lost to Joppy, or Louis's lost to Marciano. There not outstanding wins due to the version they got of the fighter they beat.

Your acting like Marciano's win over Louis was amazing and deserves full credit, like he has beat a prime Louis.

Method Checker
01-29-2010, 04:18 PM
So you're saying for example, that William Joppy's win against Duran, is a great win for Joppy? Sometimes you have to judge a win, on what stage the fighter was at? How finished was he etc. Not always, but sometimes.

And in cases like Duran's lost to Joppy, or Louis's lost to Marciano. There not outstanding wins due to the version they got of the fighter they beat.

Your acting like Marciano's win over Louis was amazing and deserves full credit, like he has beat a prime Louis.
I was specifically referring to Ortiz' victories and Johnson's victory.

I don't Joppy the full credit, for his win over Duran. Duran wasn't even rated in the top 10 middleweights, at the time. But I'd still say that he has a victory over a hall of famer.

Louis, on the other hand, was rated as the number one heavyweight behind the champion Ezzard Charles, when Marciano fought him. So I do give him the credit for that win.

TheGreatA
01-29-2010, 05:13 PM
Note the parts in bold.

I find it very ironic for you tell me that I'm wrong when rating fighters, when you don't even have a list of your own ratings.

We all rate differently and I rate like I see it. No matter what the excuse you use (age, weight class, etc.), I view it as a simple win. No excuses from me. In the end, Ortiz beat more lineal champions and more HOFers at that weight, than Duran. That's enough for me to rate him ahead of Duran.

Also, I do give Marciano full credit for those wins. The only person I rank ahead of him, amongst his opponents, is Louis. It's not Marciano's fault that he wasn't fighting in one of the best eras.

I don't have a pound for pound or all-time great list, yes, but I'm pretty sure about my divisional ratings. And if someone were to claim, for example, that Dick Tiger or Jake LaMotta was a greater middleweight than Marvin Hagler then I could surely respond to it. Both Tiger and LaMotta arguably have a greater list of wins at middleweight than Hagler by the way.

Don't you think Marciano's wins over Louis, Charles, Walcott & Moore are better than Louis's best wins over Schmeling, Baer, Walcott & Conn? Better names atleast.

You can't be serious, when using Ali vs Quarry I, as an example..

Ali was bouncing on his toes, but he wasn't dancing and moving around the ring like he did previously or like he did in Ali vs Frazier II. Also, Frazier pressured a lot more than Quarry did. To use that as an example is weak.

He wasn't?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YC8a-6NrB6s&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YC8a-6NrB6s&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

He didn't ever even try to "dance" against Frazier because he felt the best way to beat him was in the middle of the ring. Not too many could have stood up to the punishment Frazier absorbed early.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aPBYhXBBYwg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aPBYhXBBYwg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I'm not saying that's how he fought for only that fight. I'm just saying that he had the opportunity. Look at how it worked out for him, with his opponents. He beat them all in good fashion. If it wasn't working for him against Duran, he would've changed and started to dance around and not stand toe to toe. He didn't because he wanted to prove a point. He let Duran fight his fight.

Or maybe it's because he took a trendemous body beating in the early rounds.

He wanted to go toe to toe with Duran. We've already established that multiple times. Read the newspaper article that you sent to me, again, if you wish.

I'm well aware that Leonard's plan was to beat Duran in the middle of the ring while setting his feet to punch with full power. However I disagree that he voluntarily went against the ropes, took a beating and lost a decision.

Leonard had nowhere near the ability to fight off the ropes as Mayweather and Whitaker did. He wasn't as defensive savvy as Mayweather and Whitaker. To use that, is another bad example.

Leonard was awesome at fighting off the ropes against Duran. He also did it great against Marvin Hagler. No he wasn't defensively as savvy but that's because he didn't go to a shell, he would throw flurries of punches which caught the judges' eyes.

Neither of the four are anywhere near as dangerous or great as Duran. You'd have to believe he would be extra careful against Duran. Knowing Duran, It's hard to believe Mayweather would ever get into any sort of slugfest with him.

All of them were certainly dangerous. Mayweather wouldn't necessarily get into a slugfest but there'd be moments when he would be drawn into Duran's fight. The likes of Hatton, Castillo, De La Hoya were all able to put him against the ropes for extended periods of time, so I don't see why Duran couldn't since he was a master at that. Mayweather would either have the choice to try his best in order to defend Duran's savage combinations to the body and head or stand his ground and trade punches with him. Either way he would have major problems against Duran.

I've already established that I don't believe the Mayweather in the Castillo fight was the best version of him. Take the Mayweather from the Corrales fight (which I consider one of his best solo performances) and it would be a different story.

Wouldn't this be the same as me saying that Duran wasn't the best version against Leonard, Benitez?

No, what I'm trying to explain here is that Whitaker/Mayweather weren't Leonard or Benitez, nor was Castillo the same as Diego Corrales. Styles do make fights. I imagine the Mayweather of the Corrales fight would still have problems with Castillo.

Duran had neither the better connect percentage or defensive abilities as Mayweather.

There was no compubox in his era so we don't know about his connect percentage, although he was a deadly accurate puncher at 135, but he was among the best to mix both sheer aggression and also defense.

Considering that Castillo weighed in as a welterweight against Leonard and Leonard was a natural welterweight, I doubt Castillo would bully Leonard.

However, Castillo would be able to bully someone smaller than him. Someone smaller than him by, say, 10 pounds.

A 148 pound Castillo would've likely been stronger than a 135 pound Duran. He was simply a bigger opponent, at the time.

Duran was able to outmuscle Ray Leonard while weighing 145, I imagine he would be able to do the same to a smaller Floyd Mayweather while weighing 135-140. Castillo being stronger than a prime Duran is very debatable despite a weight difference.

Who says I don't? I just don't think that minor things like occasional low blows, some rabbit punching and accidental elbows really compare to hindering the vision of someone with glove laces. Don't you?

The examples I've brought up weren't just "occasional" though. Headbutts cause cuts that hinder vision, low blows can take the fight out of you at a crucial moment (for example you've been hurt and hit the opponent low to buy time), rabbit punching is simply dangerous (see Benn-McClellan) and elbows in Mayweather's case were hardly accidental, he uses them constantly.

His power, not his strength, was what won him the fight. He was able to take Cotto's punches, but who really landed more?

Pacquiao landed double the amount of punches. The amount of punches landed doesn't really have anything to do with strength. So to use strength as a reason of why it won him the fight is stupid. He wasn't holding and pushing Cotto against the ropes. Cotto might have backed up, at times, but that wasn't due to strength.

Cotto was competitive early yet it was he who ended up on the canvas twice. Pacquiao simply didn't look like a small guy coming up from flyweight against Cotto. In fact you could say that he is at his very best now while fighting at 140-147. The same can't be said for Duran at 160 where he was clearly under-sized.

Saying that one fighter is "stronger" than the other doesn't necessarily always mean physical strength. Pacquiao was physically overpowering Cotto. He didn't necessarily put on a boxing clinic, he was just too strong, powerful, durable and fast for Cotto to handle.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/94-4Gcmsbz0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/94-4Gcmsbz0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Cotto arguably winning round 4 until being knocked down at 6:40.

TheGreatA
01-29-2010, 05:13 PM
I'd also rank him within the top 20. I've already established that. I just said I wouldn't rank him in the top 10 P4P all-time and as the best lightweight of all-time. That's where I think he's overrated.

And just because other people might do it, that doesn't mean I have to do it. If you let others decide your opinions for you, your opinion is worthless.

You're saying that you can't see how others could rate Duran in the top 10 or number 1 at lightweight though. Obviously you're not going to change your own opinion but I'm making the case that he can be rated as highly due to all his accomplishments. ATG lists are such a subjective thing really. If I see a fighter like Jack Dempsey rated in the top 10 p4p then I consider that overrating him, considering that there are many fighters who are clearly more accomplished than he is. But Duran scores highly in many categories. You can criticize just about any fighter for the same things that you're criticizing Duran for.

Naming you a fighter that beat an all-time great welterweight and lost to an all-time great middleweight as an example to prove why he's a top 10 all-time great is stupid. I can ask you something that hasn't been accomplished before, regarding other fighters.

I said that's only one way to make a case for him.

You can say he was a dominating champion for 7 years who took on all comers, you can say he won a world title from a terrific champion at just 21 years of age, you can say he holds a win over an all-time great welterweight champion, you can say he won world titles at lightweight, welterweight, light middleweight and middleweight, you can say he went the distance with an all-time great middleweight, you can say he beat a middleweight titlist who had KO'd Hearns at 37 years of age, you can say he competed until 50 years of age, etc. That's impressive no matter how you look at it.


1st example: name me one other featherweight champion that bet more HOFers and featherweight champions after coming back from a plane crash, besides Pep.

2nd example: name me one other fighter who was an undefeated heavyweight champion of the world, besides Marciano.

3rd example: name me one other fighter who was an Olympic gold medalist and was a titlist from welterweight to light heavyweight, besides SRL.

Some things haven't been accomplished before, but that doesn't automatically entitle them to become a top 10 all-time great.

Still, all of these fighters, with the possible exception of Marciano, have a case to be in the top 10 p4p.

Method Checker
01-29-2010, 05:22 PM
Before I respond, A, let me ask you something:

Do you find it understandable if someone didn't put Duran in a top 10 all-time P4P list and didn't rank him as the greatest lightweight of all-time?

TheGreatA
01-29-2010, 05:27 PM
Before I respond, A, let me ask you something:

Do you find it understandable if someone didn't put Duran in a top 10 all-time P4P list and didn't rank him as the greatest lightweight of all-time?

Yes. A lot of people don't rate Joe Gans, Sam Langford, Barbados Joe Walcott, because that's simply far too back for them. Duran is definitely one of the greatest modern fighters and it's no surprise to see him rated above the previously mentioned names because of this.

Benny Leonard has the best resume of wins at lightweight for me. However Duran could very well beat him in a head-to-head match-up.

Method Checker
01-29-2010, 05:31 PM
Yes. A lot of people don't rate Joe Gans, Sam Langford, Barbados Joe Walcott, because that's simply far too back for them. Duran is definitely one of the greatest modern fighters and it's no surprise to see him rated above the previously mentioned names because of this.

Benny Leonard has the best resume of wins at lightweight for me. However Duran could very well beat him in a head-to-head match-up.

Just answer the question in a straight manner.

Considering someone knew all of those fighters and knew everything they needed to know, and they didn't rate Duran in a top 10 P4P all-time list. Would that be understandable?

Considering someone knew everything about Duran, Leonard, Gans, etc. And they didn't rate Duran as the greatest lightweight of all-time. Is that understandable?

Yes or no answers, only.

TheGreatA
01-29-2010, 05:41 PM
Just answer the question in a straight manner.

Considering someone knew all of those fighters and knew everything they needed to know, and they didn't rate Duran in a top 10 P4P all-time list. Would that be understandable?

Considering someone knew everything about Duran, Leonard, Gans, etc. And they didn't rate Duran as the greatest lightweight of all-time. Is that understandable?

Yes or no answers, only.

Sometimes there is no clear "yes" or "no".

I've said it before that it's understandable not to rate Duran in the top 10 or as the greatest lightweight of all time. I believe I've been rather clear about that. However a case can also be made that Duran is top 10 p4p and the greatest lightweight of all time. Someone might look at the film of Gans and Leonard and say there's no way they could ever beat a prime Duran. Another might say that Gans and Leonard accomplished more.

Method Checker
01-29-2010, 05:48 PM
Sometimes there is no clear "yes" or "no".

I've said it before that it's understandable not to rate Duran in the top 10 or as the greatest lightweight of all time. I believe I've been rather clear about that. However a case can also be made that Duran is top 10 p4p and the greatest lightweight of all time. Someone might look at the film of Gans and Leonard and say there's no way they could ever beat a prime Duran. Another might say that Gans and Leonard accomplished more.
Fair enough. So he can be overrated. Thank you for establishing that.

TheGreatA
01-29-2010, 06:04 PM
Fair enough. So he can be overrated. Thank you for establishing that.

I believe overrating Duran would be calling him the best fighter of all time, which he clearly is not, or top 5 at welterweight which he isn't either. Or the Jack Dempsey example since many rate him in their top 10 pound for pound. If a solid case can be made that Duran is top 10 or the number 1 at lightweight then it's not truly overrating him, in my opinion.

Method Checker
01-29-2010, 06:05 PM
I believe overrating Duran would be calling him the best fighter of all time, which he clearly is not, or top 5 at welterweight which he isn't either. Or the Jack Dempsey example since many rate him in their top 10 pound for pound. If a solid case can be made that Duran is top 10 or the number 1 at lightweight then it's not truly overrating him, in my opinion.

In your opinion. He can still be overrated, in the eyes of others.

TheGreatA
01-29-2010, 06:06 PM
In your opinion. He can still be overrated, in the eyes of others.

I guess we will just have to disagree here then.

Method Checker
01-29-2010, 06:07 PM
I guess we will just have to disagree here then.

We will have to disagree on where he's rated, yes. But I would say that I've won this debate.

Tsukiyomi
01-29-2010, 06:17 PM
We will have to disagree on where he's rated, yes. But I would say that I've won this debate.

I think better points were made for Duran than against him.

Method Checker
01-29-2010, 06:26 PM
I think better points were made for Duran than against him.

On the contrary.

The debate was about whether Duran can be considered overrated. He tried to show me how Duran is a top 10 all-time great and a top 3 lightweight. He failed. I tried to show him the opposite. I failed.

But he did agree with me on one thing: Duran can be overrated.

GJC
01-29-2010, 06:32 PM
Any fighter can be overated, seems like you were pretty much arguing over a couple of spaces in either pfp or LW lists.

TheGreatA
01-29-2010, 06:37 PM
On the contrary.

The debate was about whether Duran can be considered overrated. He tried to show me how Duran is a top 10 all-time great and a top 3 lightweight. He failed. I tried to show him the opposite. I failed.

But he did agree with me on one thing: Duran can be overrated.

I disagree on your definition of "overrated". If I said that Duran is by no means a top 10 ATG or a top 3 lightweight, then I'd agree with you. He'd be overrated. But I believe he can be rated both in and outside of the top 10 all-time greats. It's very subjective.

As far as winning this debate, I don't think either party involved can make such a claim as that'd come off as biased. You'll have to leave it to the people not involved in the debate, although they could be biased too. That's why I don't really concern myself with it.

Method Checker
01-29-2010, 06:41 PM
I disagree on your definition of "overrated". If I said that Duran is by no means a top 10 ATG or a top 3 lightweight, then I'd agree with you. He'd be overrated. But I believe he can be rated both in and outside of the top 10 all-time greats. It's very subjective.

As far as winning this debate, I don't think either party involved can make such a claim as that'd come off as biased. You'll have to leave it to the people not involved in the debate, although they could be biased too. That's why I don't really concern myself with it.

The point is that you admitted that he can be overrated. That he can be left out of a top 10 all-time great list. That it's possible for him to not to be rated as the greatest lightweight of all-time

That's all that matters.

And in my view, I don't see him as a top 10 all-time great or as the greatest lightweight of all-time. Meaning that I think he's overrated.

TheGreatA
01-29-2010, 06:46 PM
The point is that you admitted that he can be overrated. That he can be left out of a top 10 all-time great list. That it's possible for him to not to be rated as the greatest lightweight of all-time

That's all that matters.

And in my view, I don't see him as a top 10 all-time great or as the greatest lightweight of all-time. Meaning that I think he's overrated.

I'm not sure if I get what you mean. I believe such rankings are entirely subjective and that Duran has a good case to be ranked among top 20, top 10 greatest fighters of all time. That's not overrating him in my view. Overrating him would be calling Duran the greatest fighter of all time, or one of the best welterweights of all time, when he doesn't have the accomplishments to be rated that highly. There's no real case to be made to rank him that highly. That'd be overrating him.

Method Checker
01-29-2010, 06:49 PM
I'm not sure if I get what you mean. I believe such rankings are entirely subjective and that Duran has a good case to be ranked among top 20, top 10 greatest fighters of all time. That's not overrating him in my view. Overrating him would be calling Duran the greatest fighter of all time, or one of the best welterweights of all time, when he doesn't have the accomplishments to be rated that highly. There's no real case to be made to rank him that highly. That'd be overrating him.

Definition of overrated: To esteem too highly; to give greater praise than due

I don't rate Duran that highly. So he's overrated, in my view, and probably by many others, as well.

HaglerSteelChin
01-29-2010, 07:28 PM
@BennyST



I think you misunderstood what i said about reach. It does help if the opponent makes it an issue. Benitez is was not on his bike and doing potshots or pittypat, or using his slight reach advantage. Benitez was willing to allow Duran to engage him on the inside. Hearns has much bigger reach than Benitez; but Benitez made him miss 11 consecutive blows since he is better at slipping and ducking. In addition, i said if small guys beating bigger guys is a sign of greatness than why would Duran be rated higher than Marciano who a shorter reach than literally all of his opponents; yet never lost a fight. Why is he higher than Jack Dempsey who murdered Jess "the giant" willard who was much bigger than him and many of his opponents. Even Mike Tyson beat alot of guys like TNT Tucker, Bonecrusher Smith, Bruno, Ribalda, etc., who had greater reach than him. Yet nobody would rate Tyson higher than bigger heavyweights as Foreman, Holmes, Holyfield, or even Lewis.

BTW, Benitez was once knocked down three times in a fight and still got up to beat Curry. The Moore fight ended with Benitez having a broken ankle.

My issue is more simply techinicall skill ask Angelo Dundee who was the more technical fighter Duran or Monzon. Dundee the man who trained Ali and Leonard said: "Monzon is the complete fighter......he can box you...he can outpunch you.....or he can even outhink you....he is game all the way." That is more to my point that guys like Monzon or Salvador Sanchez can assimilate and adapt to any style. When DUran fought Hearns the trainer and commentator Gil Clancy said: "Duran needs to get low against a much taller fighter to make it harder for him to hit you and force him to get in the inside." Hearns was KOD by both Hagler and SRL two guys much smaller than him. Benitez took Hearns to the full 15 RDS but Hearns destroyed Duran in 2rds. Monzon had alot of boxing IQ and i doubt he ever will be in a position where he would say NO MAS. I see things like the sport of tennis there is hard courts, decca turf, Clay, and Grass. Monzon was a fighter who could fight any style- a guy like Duran had trouble with slick fighters who use both speed and movement. Monzon neutrailzed speed with timing and clinching if needed, he neutralize power with a granite chin, he neutralize superior skill by intelligence.

If you want to be critical of Monzon and has early losses, than trash bernard
hopkins for his early loss at LHW. Also throw in Henry Armstrong for losing 3 of his first 4 fights. Also question Salvador Sanchez for an early loss in his career. But i guess the fact that he didn't lose his last 13 years of fighting and he defended his MW title a record 14 times at the time perhaps may offset some of those early losses? Also Monzon was KD only once in his entire career in his 100th fight and never was KO'D.

We will discuss the whole issue of moving up and size again. Monzon fought many guys like Licata who was about the same height and was 50-1. He also beat Benevenuti a Hall of Famer twice by KO who had same size dimensions. He beat Hall of Famer Jose Napoles and Hall of Famer Emile Griffith twice. That is 5 wins against Hall of Famers and two wins against Valdez who is bordeline HOF material. You mention that all his fights were at MW. That is not correct. Monzon had a few non title fights and what would be classified as the SMW division nowadays. Guess what? He won all those fights by early KO which suggests he possibly was weight drained in alot of those 160 fights. There are numerous stories of him starving or burning down calories to make weight. He was much more methodical than Duran, Duran got tired in the last 2 Rds against hagler. Monzon knew how to conserve energy and how to maintain stamina.

If Monzon goes to LHW he could have met a guy like Dick Tiger. Tiger was smaller than Monzon but looking at the people who beat Tiger there is nothing preventing from saying he coudnt beat him or Conteh who lost to Muhammad twice. I think Bob Foster would have been the opponent at LHW who can given him is greatest challenge. Brawn alone is not going to beat Monzon; because he was a thinking and methodical fighter.

You mention that Duran fought in many divisions but he won titles in 4. Something that has been done numerous times with alphabet soup belts. THomas Hearns won a title in 6 divisions if you count his cruiser title; yet i still rank Duran higher than both Hearns and Hagler. How many defenses does Duran have between 147-160? A total of 0. He never defended any title he had over 135. Something that guys like DLH and even Arguello have done. In fact, when discussing the greatest latin fighters Duran pretty much put Arguello in his class. He also put Trinidad up there a guy who defended his WW title 17 times and did have several defenses of his JR MW title. I myself rate Trinidad much lower than Duran and Arguello slightly lower than Duran. Duran himself admitted " i can't rate guys like Kid Chocolate or Gavilan since they were before my time and he said he didnt see enough of Napoles to rate him. Duran himself rated Chavez, Benitez, and Wilfredo Gomez high. An argument can even be made of Chavez vs Duran; although i would favor Duran in that battle.

This whole thread can go back and forth until the cows come home. If people want to think Duran is a top 10 PFP fighter or the greatest latin fighter than fine; but they can force that opinion on anyone.

Method Checker
01-30-2010, 09:03 PM
Number of lightweight title defenses by Duran: 12
Number of lightweight title defenses against top 10 ranked opponents: 7
Percentage: 58%

Number of lightweight title defenses by Ortiz: 10
Number of lightweight title defenses against top 10 ranked opponents: 9
Percentage: 90%

EDIT: Keep in mind that the top 10 ranked opponents is for fighters in any division. Not exclusively the lightweight division.

TheGreatA
01-30-2010, 10:04 PM
According to my knowledge the following were top 10 ranked:

Hiroshi Kobayashi
Ken Buchanan
Jimmy Robertson
Esteban DeJesus
Hector Thompson
Suzuki Ishimatsu
Ray Lampkin
Lou Bizzarro
Leoncio Ortiz
Saoul Mamby
Emiliano Villa
Edwin Viruet
Vilomar Fernandez

Although some at 140 lbs.

F l i c k e r
01-30-2010, 10:26 PM
Number of lightweight title defenses by Duran: 12
Number of lightweight title defenses against top 10 ranked opponents: 7
Percentage: 58%

Number of lightweight title defenses by Ortiz: 10
Number of lightweight title defenses against top 10 ranked opponents: 9
Percentage: 90%

EDIT: Keep in mind that the top 10 ranked opponents is for fighters in any division. Not exclusively the lightweight division.

Which Ortiz is that? Victor Ortiz? Who?

Method Checker
01-30-2010, 10:41 PM
According to my knowledge the following were top 10 ranked:

Hiroshi Kobayashi
Ken Buchanan
Jimmy Robertson
Esteban DeJesus
Hector Thompson
Suzuki Ishimatsu
Ray Lampkin
Lou Bizzarro
Leoncio Ortiz
Saoul Mamby
Emiliano Villa
Edwin Viruet
Vilomar Fernandez

Although some at 140 lbs.

Some of those weren't title defenses, though.

Which Ortiz is that? Victor Ortiz? Who?
Carlos Ortiz

steeluv
01-31-2010, 12:26 AM
Number of lightweight title defenses by Duran: 12
Number of lightweight title defenses against top 10 ranked opponents: 7
Percentage: 58%

Number of lightweight title defenses by Ortiz: 10
Number of lightweight title defenses against top 10 ranked opponents: 9
Percentage: 90%

EDIT: Keep in mind that the top 10 ranked opponents is for fighters in any division. Not exclusively the lightweight division.
:wank:


in no way shape or form is Ortiz better than Duran... Duran is the best ever latino fighter

u can look with a fine toothcomb for gay ass stats to make u feel more of a chump that u already sound,

if u want to talk stats

KO's

Duran 70
Ortiz 30

KO%
Duran 58.82
Ortiz 42.86

Most Weights world champ at Duran wins again

beating a better competition, Duran Beat Sugar Ray Leonard, Flash Elorde or Ramos although great boxers they are aint standing 10% chance of beating a Ray Leonard - Duran wins again

Longevity Duran beat the Iran Barkley age 37 in fight of the year for S Middlewelt Belt! Ortiz held his last belt age 31.

If u want to compare Duran..... Compare him to a hopkins or mosely etc not some dude who barely moved out of his division..and hardly won a fight in his 30's

Calilloyd
01-31-2010, 12:30 AM
[QUOTE=TheGreatA;7354588]Who would you rate over him?



I disagree. Leonard, for the most part, fought as the aggressor in the majority of his professional fights. Coming into the fight, Dundee said Leonard would be too strong for the former lightweight Duran. However Leonard didn't exactly "brawl" with Duran, he was forced to brawl with Duran.





It was Leonard's plan to trade with Duran. He didn't just decide to do it once he got in the ring. Leonard will say that in any interview you can find pertaining to that fight.




Leonard wanted to keep the fight in the middle of the ring but Duran was constantly pressuring him, feinting him and fighting in the clinches. The relentless body attack in the early rounds took away Leonard's legs and he had no choice but to stand and trade.

Leonard stood in front of Duran and traded from the opening bell. Not once did he use his legs as he did in rematch.


Leonard did attempt to use his movement in the middle rounds but by then Duran had his number and made him flinch with every feint he threw. The fight was Duran's at that point but Leonard made a courageous rally in the late rounds.

In the rematch Leonard came in with his Olympic style and danced away from Duran. However he was so negative that the judges had the bout near even at the time of the unexpected stoppage. Duran quit then, but it was not because he was badly beaten, it was because his ego had taken a hit from Leonard's taunting. Or something else which we'll probably never know. Leonard won fair and square but so did Duran in the first fight.



Agreed. But Leonard fought the way he wented to fight in both fights. One fight he came up short. He adjusted for the second fight and prevailed.
With that said I don't think Duran is overrated.

Calilloyd
01-31-2010, 12:36 AM
[QUOTE=TheGreatA;7354902]You could argue Leonard & Gans but not Ortiz in my opinion. And I'm a fan of Ortiz.



Calling Duran a brawler is a bit misleading. The man could box with the best of them but giving away 6 years in age, 3-4 inches in height and 8 in reach, he was forced to "brawl". And he also forced Leonard to brawl with him. You give him no credit for doing so while I do.

Leonard didn't truly embarrass Duran, Duran embarrassed himself by quitting. The judges had Leonard leading by one point at the time of the stoppage. Leonard fought very negatively in this fight.



Excuse? Duran had just turned 21 years of age. It's very obvious that he got better as a boxer as his career went on. Stylistically, young Duran's relentless pressure was great against Buchanan, a great boxer but without great punching power. However against Esteban DeJesus, a clever counter puncher with dynamite in his fists, it was the wrong way to go on about it. Duran showed he was the better man in their two rematches.

You should know this if you have viewed the careers of Duran, DeJesus, Buchanan.



Whitaker and Mayweather weren't DeJesus. They were better defensively but offensively they don't pose the threat to Duran that DeJesus did. Who is to say that Duran simply wouldn't walk down Mayweather like Castillo did? With three more rounds to go, Floyd would have lost very decisively to Castillo, who as good as he was, was not in Duran's class.

Mayweather also fought the first fight with a dislocated shoulder. He did remtach Castillo and beat him much more clearly. If you can give Duran the benefit of the doubt for the first Dejesus fight you can do the same for Mayweather.

Calilloyd
01-31-2010, 12:43 AM
This is why I point out that as recently as the 1980s Mayweather's pot-shot and run like fvck tactics wouldn't have played well in the eyes of the judges (ie. the people who determine who wins the decision) and would have cost him fights.Poet

Please show even ONE fight where Mayweather fought the way Leonard did in the Duran rematch. Or any fights of him "running". I'll wait.

BennyST
01-31-2010, 04:34 AM
Before I respond, A, let me ask you something:

Do you find it understandable if someone didn't put Duran in a top 10 all-time P4P list and didn't rank him as the greatest lightweight of all-time?

Yes. But that's still not overrating him if you did have him at No. 1.

The title of the thread by you is "The overrated Roberto Duran". That implies that having him in the top three as a lightweight and being somewhere around the top five to twenty, depending on who is rating the P4P list, is still not overrating. Him being 'overrated' would imply that anywhere in the top three or even top five and being in the top twenty P4P is overrated. If you think Duran is overrated, you wouldn't have him anywhere near the top three or top twenty. If you think he is among the top three and at or within the top twenty P4P, you're not overrating him at all. The consensus is that he's somewhere in the top twenty, whether it's eighteen or eight is irrelevant, and also a top three LW.

If you have him somewhere in those numbers then you yourself don't think he is overrated at all. You just dislike him. If you really thought he was overrated you wouldn't have him near the top ten/twenty or thirty nor would you have him near the top three at LW.

You have been slagging him off as if he was not worthy of being in the top three, or being a top five to twenty P4P guy. He is nearly always in the top three at LW and around the top ten P4P by most people.

If you have him in the top three or very near and in the top twenty P4P then you are also saying he's not overrated. You just have a different version and you dislike him which may slightly could your judgment. The fact you have him that high means that someone having him in the top three, or number one, and around the top ten, or in the top ten, is not overrating him either.

This whole thread comes across as either biased or written with an obvious dislike. Anyone that starts a thread with "The Overrated .... " comes across that way and when you have written the way you have it seems even more so.

Writing a thread that was genuinely unbiased stating Duran is too high, you would not have started it with the title "The overrated Duran". If you look at those who are genuinely unbiased and simply discussing something in here, it would usually be along the lines of "Rocky Marciano: Too High?"

BennyST
01-31-2010, 04:49 AM
Fair enough. So he can be overrated. Thank you for establishing that.

:lol1:

Man, you're hilarious. Not only that but you're completely missing GreatA's point. Rating him anywhere from top ten to twenty is not overrating him. Rating him top three P4P would be overrating him. But you could put him inside the top ten without overrating him or you could put him at twenty and you wouldn't be over or underrating him.

A list this subjective can only go on averages really. Duran is always within the top twenty somewhere and within the top three at LW. So, you saying that GreatA is agreeing with you that he's overrated because he is saying he doesn't have to be in the top ten is stupid.

What he is saying is that you can have him in the top twenty or ou can have him in the top ten and neither is over or underrating him. Overrating him would be having him in the top five or calling him the GOAT. Having him in the top twenty somewhere, which you may do, means you agree with GreatA and that he is not overrated at all. Not everyone has him in the top ten and not everyone has him as the best LW.

What's interesting is that whenever you have brought up someone else in regards to similar accomplishments of his, they have also been top ten/twenty fighters.

BennyST
01-31-2010, 04:55 AM
I believe overrating Duran would be calling him the best fighter of all time, which he clearly is not, or top 5 at welterweight which he isn't either. Or the Jack Dempsey example since many rate him in their top 10 pound for pound. If a solid case can be made that Duran is top 10 or the number 1 at lightweight then it's not truly overrating him, in my opinion.

How can you say that GreatA agreed with you that Duran can be overrated when he very clearly states the above. You read this post and then said "So, you agree that he can be overrated. Great"

Then "I won this debate because GreatA agreed with me that he can be overrated" and yet, it so clearly states that he never said any such thing but said the opposite in fact. :nonono:

I can't stand when people don't look at what is written and then just make **** up because otherwise they can't get what they want. He disagreed with you. It is written right there in front of you and you keep saying you won because he agreed with you? :dunce:

BennyST
01-31-2010, 06:26 AM
@BennyST

BTW, Benitez was once knocked down three times in a fight and still got up to beat Curry. The Moore fight ended with Benitez having a broken ankle.

My issue is more simply techinicall skill ask Angelo Dundee who was the more technical fighter Duran or Monzon. Dundee the man who trained Ali and Leonard said: "Monzon is the complete fighter......he can box you...he can outpunch you.....or he can even outhink you....he is game all the way." That is more to my point that guys like Monzon or Salvador Sanchez can assimilate and adapt to any style. When DUran fought Hearns the trainer and commentator Gil Clancy said: "Duran needs to get low against a much taller fighter to make it harder for him to hit you and force him to get in the inside." Hearns was KOD by both Hagler and SRL two guys much smaller than him. Benitez took Hearns to the full 15 RDS but Hearns destroyed Duran in 2rds. Monzon had alot of boxing IQ and i doubt he ever will be in a position where he would say NO MAS. I see things like the sport of tennis there is hard courts, decca turf, Clay, and Grass. Monzon was a fighter who could fight any style- a guy like Duran had trouble with slick fighters who use both speed and movement. Monzon neutrailzed speed with timing and clinching if needed, he neutralize power with a granite chin, he neutralize superior skill by intelligence.

If you want to be critical of Monzon and has early losses, than trash bernard
hopkins for his early loss at LHW. Also throw in Henry Armstrong for losing 3 of his first 4 fights. Also question Salvador Sanchez for an early loss in his career. But i guess the fact that he didn't lose his last 13 years of fighting and he defended his MW title a record 14 times at the time perhaps may offset some of those early losses? Also Monzon was KD only once in his entire career in his 100th fight and never was KO'D.

We will discuss the whole issue of moving up and size again. Monzon fought many guys like Licata who was about the same height and was 50-1. He also beat Benevenuti a Hall of Famer twice by KO who had same size dimensions. He beat Hall of Famer Jose Napoles and Hall of Famer Emile Griffith twice. That is 5 wins against Hall of Famers and two wins against Valdez who is bordeline HOF material. You mention that all his fights were at MW. That is not correct. Monzon had a few non title fights and what would be classified as the SMW division nowadays. Guess what? He won all those fights by early KO which suggests he possibly was weight drained in alot of those 160 fights. There are numerous stories of him starving or burning down calories to make weight. He was much more methodical than Duran, Duran got tired in the last 2 Rds against hagler. Monzon knew how to conserve energy and how to maintain stamina.

If Monzon goes to LHW he could have met a guy like Dick Tiger. Tiger was smaller than Monzon but looking at the people who beat Tiger there is nothing preventing from saying he coudnt beat him or Conteh who lost to Muhammad twice. I think Bob Foster would have been the opponent at LHW who can given him is greatest challenge. Brawn alone is not going to beat Monzon; because he was a thinking and methodical fighter.



Hey man, I'm not forcing any opinion on you at all. You can rate Monzon wherever, but by saying you can't see at all how Duran is rated as the best Latin fighter and that Monzon is defintely higher, well, I am just pointing out some facts that are saying Duran accomplished a lot more overall, thus rating Monzon higher would be based on personal liking more than subjective rating.

I think if Monzon had moved up he would have done brilliant but the whole point is he didn't.

Curry beat Benitez. That fight was a robbery. A real robbery, not an NSB robbery. Benitez made it seem close by coming back a bit but he lost it.

Anyway, you rate Monzon highly based on his MW career (and I don't count non title fights a few pounds above MW as being a different division, otherwise most of Duran's non title fights were at 140 because both guys would weigh in a bit over 135. Every fighter back then did that) right? But, then you rate Duran down because of fights he had against JMW's and MW's. Saying he got tired against Hagler and that Monzon didn't and was good at conserving energy is way off base IMO. That was in Duran's tenth division. Would Monzon have had good stamina as a 200 pound HW? No.

Duran's stamina as a lightweight was unheard of. In the last rounds of a fifteen round fight he would always come on as if he was just starting out the fight. But, you are arguing that Monzon was better in stamina etc, because f a fight that Duran had against one of the greatest middleweight of all time. Duran was fat, small, old and slow at MW. He was a lightweight.

I rank Monzon and Duran together according to their respective best weights. Monzon only had one. Duran's was LW. They are comparable in their weights. We went over this already previously though.

Now, my issue comes with you saying you rate Monzon higher due to losses Duran had as a LMW and MW. From 118 to 147, Duran's stamina was as good as anyone's has ever been. At those weights he was usually fighting guys that were the same or a similar size, apart from most of the fights at 147. Above that he was fighting younger, bigger great fighters and yes, he lost. But, he was a LW fighting JMW and MW's.

If Monzon had gone up to LHW and HW he might have done great. I don't know because he didn't do it. That's my only problem. Can you sort of see where I am coming from?

You are basing stuff on losses that Duran had against middleweight and then comparing those losses to Monzon, but he was always a middleweight, never moved up. If you are going to talk about losses etc, then you should look at Duran's LW losses as compared to Monzon.

Oh, and I do take into account the loses of all those guys you mentioned. Hopkins's loss against Mitchell, Pac's KO losses early and the Morales loss, Armstrong's losses etc. It's like Castillo. Many forgot that he lost numerous times by TKO early on before having a few peak years. It doesn't mean he didn't lose. I do take all of that into account.

But, what I am still confused about is the losses you look at that put Duran below Monzon is your eyes. If he had lost more as a LW, then I would agree. He lost once from 118 to 135, defended that loss twice by KO. But, you rate him below Monzon because of stuff that happened at JMW and MW. Where he was tiny compared to his opponents, older, had fought twice as long in some cases etc etc. Benitez and Leonard either beating or goign the distance with Hearns means nothing as compared to Duran. They had always been in the same weight classes, were the same age, much close to the same height etc etc.

Those losses are like if Monzon had moved up to HW and he had lost to some of the greatest HW's that had ever fought.

Swap it around for a second to get a different perspective. You rate Monzon for his greater MW run compared to Duran's run at ten divisions and his best run at LW.

Would you rate Monzon lower than Duran if Duran had retired after his LW career with one loss and a record twelve defenses, unification and one of the most dominant ever title reigns at any weight etc and if Monzon had, after his legendary reign, then gone on to SMWand beat top conetdners etc, then to LHW, won a title against one of the greatest ever LHW's as well as another HOFer, then gone on to HW competed brilliantly and even nearly won against a top three/five HW but he also lost to some of the greatest HW's ever by decision and one by KO to the biggest puncher in the sport and arguably in history? Especially if this HW stood head and shoulder, literally, above Monzon?

You wouldn't say "Well, other HW's were able to go the decision or even beat him, so why couldn't the ATG middleweight Monzon?"

If he had done all that extra stuff, would you then rate him lower because of it? That's what you are doing. If Monzon had gone on to SMW, LHW and HW and won titles against some of the greatest ever fighters there as well as losing fights because he was much older and smaller than his natural HW opponents, how would you defend then rating him lower than Duran who had retired straight after his great LW run with only one loss?

I think Monzon's run was amazing. Don't get me wrong. He has always been one of my favourite fighters ever. I do look at his wins over Griffith and Napoles as rather foregone conclusions. They were old and very small compared to him. He was meant to beat and KO them. Could you imagine if the much older and smaller Napoles had given Monzon hell and even nearly beaten him and been his hardest opponent over all the other MW's? It's hard to imagine isn't it? Anyway, that didn't happen and he beat them pretty easy as he was meant to. Great names but they don't compare to his wins over Benvenuti and Valdez.

BennyST
01-31-2010, 07:01 AM
My issue is more simply techinicall skill ask Angelo Dundee who was the more technical fighter Duran or Monzon. Dundee the man who trained Ali and Leonard said: "Monzon is the complete fighter......he can box you...he can outpunch you.....or he can even outhink you....he is game all the way." That is more to my point that guys like Monzon or Salvador Sanchez can assimilate and adapt to any style. When DUran fought Hearns the trainer and commentator Gil Clancy said: "Duran needs to get low against a much taller fighter to make it harder for him to hit you and force him to get in the inside." Hearns was KOD by both Hagler and SRL two guys much smaller than him. Benitez took Hearns to the full 15 RDS but Hearns destroyed Duran in 2rds. Monzon had alot of boxing IQ and i doubt he ever will be in a position where he would say NO MAS.

I don't disagree with any of that. Monzon was a great technical fighter. He was very smart and knew what to do.

I thin you'll also find Dundee said the same about Duran too though. Before the Leonard fight: Angelo Dundee watched the Duran bout very carefully. “Duran is thought of as a rough guy, but he’s not rough,” he observed, “he’s smart and slick.”, and "One gets the impression of Duran is that he’s a tough, rough brawler who just wades in and ducks nothing. But all you have to do is look at his face to see that is nonsense. He’s not marked up. He does a lot of cute things in there."

He also said, with Gil Clancy that Duran was up too high. He didn't have the body to fight above 147. He said that he would have kept him at or below 147 because his body didn't adjust to 154. He was too slow, too fat and couldn't move the same way because of it and needed to lose the weight and get back down.

Ray Arcel on Duran "Duran knew how to fight. He knew what to do. If he looked at the corner the only thing I ever had to do was pretend to jab, once he was using his jab I knew he’d have no trouble. Even more important he knew how to think. When you talk about great fighters, always remember there was a guy named Roberto Duran. He was never given the opportunity to really display his wares because at his peak, he was overshadowed by Muhammad Ali."

Freddie Brown on Duran “The only guy we had like him,” Brown told Pete Hamill, “is Henry Armstrong.” Arcel trained Armstrong after Ross retired and understood the intricacies of explosive boxing. Both trainers knew the value of intelligence in the ring. “Boxing,” said Arcel whenever the subject came up, “is brain over brawn…if you can’t think, you’re just another bum in the park.” Duran was not only “one of the most vicious fighters we’ve ever had,” said Brown, he was “one of the smartest.”

Ziggy Stardust
01-31-2010, 10:55 AM
Please show even ONE fight where Mayweather fought the way Leonard did in the Duran rematch. Or any fights of him "running". I'll wait.

Just off the top of my head Baldomir, De La Hoya, and Marquez. I don't doubt I can find others if I go back and rewatch the films. The issue isn't whether Floyd uses his legs: Hell Ali used his legs. It's more a matter of his lack of offense ie. the potshotting. Ali (and Whitaker for that matter) used his legs without letting his work rate slide. It's a fallacy that you can't move and throw punches at the same time. In the Duran rematch Leonard potshotted and it cost him in terms of rounds won: Judges took a much dimmer view of that kind of offensive activity back then. Mayweather gets away with potshotting now, he wouldn't have at the time of the Leonard - Duran fights.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
01-31-2010, 11:01 AM
How can you say that GreatA agreed with you that Duran can be overrated when he very clearly states the above. You read this post and then said "So, you agree that he can be overrated. Great"

Then "I won this debate because GreatA agreed with me that he can be overrated" and yet, it so clearly states that he never said any such thing but said the opposite in fact. :nonono:

I can't stand when people don't look at what is written and then just make **** up because otherwise they can't get what they want. He disagreed with you. It is written right there in front of you and you keep saying you won because he agreed with you? :dunce:

He's using High School debate team tactics to try and score cheap points. Unfortunately for him it doesn't work when anyone with half an adult brain is judging the so-called debate.

Poet

Method Checker
01-31-2010, 03:14 PM
Yes. But that's still not overrating him if you did have him at No. 1.

The title of the thread by you is "The overrated Roberto Duran". That implies that having him in the top three as a lightweight and being somewhere around the top five to twenty, depending on who is rating the P4P list, is still not overrating.
What has he done to be considered by many as the greatest lightweight of all-time? Now I can understand him being a top 5 and even top 3 lightweight, but the greatest?

Also, why is considered a top 10 P4P all-time great? It doesn't make sense.

He has losses to the greatest fighters he's ever fought. They include Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Benitez. Yet, somehow, he's rated highly above all of them, by most people.

I can understand that he's got a few good wins at lightweight over the likes of Buchanan, De Jesus and Kobayashi, but the rest are either paper champions or average journeymen.

How he's so highly rated is beyond me.
Notice the parts in bold

If you have him somewhere in those numbers then you yourself don't think he is overrated at all. You just dislike him. If you really thought he was overrated you wouldn't have him near the top ten/twenty or thirty nor would you have him near the top three at LW.
I don't have him in my top 10. I do have him in my top 20. I think that putting him in the top 10 is overrating him. Hence, people overrate him. Meaning he's overrated by a lot of people.

You have been slagging him off as if he was not worthy of being in the top three, or being a top five to twenty P4P guy. He is nearly always in the top three at LW and around the top ten P4P by most people.
In my opening post I said that it's understandable to have him amongst the top 3 lightweights. I, myself, didn't have him in it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

If you have him in the top three or very near and in the top twenty P4P then you are also saying he's not overrated. You just have a different version and you dislike him which may slightly could your judgment. The fact you have him that high means that someone having him in the top three, or number one, and around the top ten, or in the top ten, is not overrating him either.
Like I said: putting him in the top 10 (not top 20) is overrating him. Claiming that he's the number one greatest lightweight of all-time is overrating him.

This whole thread comes across as either biased or written with an obvious dislike. Anyone that starts a thread with "The Overrated .... " comes across that way and when you have written the way you have it seems even more so.

Writing a thread that was genuinely unbiased stating Duran is too high, you would not have started it with the title "The overrated Duran". If you look at those who are genuinely unbiased and simply discussing something in here, it would usually be along the lines of "Rocky Marciano: Too High?"That's funny coming from you. You've made up numerous lies in your replies against me and you said I'm biased? Why don't you just come out with it and say you don't like me?

Method Checker
01-31-2010, 03:22 PM
:lol1:

Man, you're hilarious. Not only that but you're completely missing GreatA's point. Rating him anywhere from top ten to twenty is not overrating him. Rating him top three P4P would be overrating him. But you could put him inside the top ten without overrating him or you could put him at twenty and you wouldn't be over or underrating him.
All of that is in your opinion. Don't try to act like it's a fact.

A list this subjective can only go on averages really. Duran is always within the top twenty somewhere and within the top three at LW. So, you saying that GreatA is agreeing with you that he's overrated because he is saying he doesn't have to be in the top ten is stupid.

What he is saying is that you can have him in the top twenty or ou can have him in the top ten and neither is over or underrating him. Overrating him would be having him in the top five or calling him the GOAT. Having him in the top twenty somewhere, which you may do, means you agree with GreatA and that he is not overrated at all. Not everyone has him in the top ten and not everyone has him as the best LW.
He tried to show me that Duran is not overrated. He failed. I asked if he can be overrated. He said yes. What's so wrong, there?

Is it because he agreed that your lover can in fact be overrated by some people?

What's interesting is that whenever you have brought up someone else in regards to similar accomplishments of his, they have also been top ten/twenty fighters.
In the debate, I brought up Leonard, Ortiz, Whitaker, Mayweather and Pacquiao. Not all of them are in the top 10/20. Plus, they're used as a means of debating and I don't see why bringing them up to prove examples is so wrong.

What's interesting, in my opinion, is the fact that you keep responding to replies that I made to TheGreatA. Unlike you, TheGreatA doesn't put words into my mouth in every reply that he makes. He's actually been a good debater, while you have not.

HaglerSteelChin
01-31-2010, 04:24 PM
@BennyST


The last time i quoted your message and put my reply the system wouldn't allow the post since it said " you have exceeded the maximum number of limits." This thread will give anyone a migraine reading the length of it.

As far who had the greater career Duran at LHW or Monzon at MW, i give the edge to Monzon. Monzon had 5 wins against Hall of Famers and the only HOF that Duran beat at LW was Buchanan, i will give him the win despite the whole controversey surrounding if it was a low bow or not? Mainly since i had beating Ken by atleast 3 points at the time. Monzon had more defenses at MW which is more competitive than the LW division, also he was pretty much undisputed champ unlike Duran at his reign at LW. Taking nothing away from duran; as I have him as the 3rd greatest LW behind Leonard and Gans. The whole greatest LW debate is a thread upon itself. But when you have a guy like Benny Leonard beating guys like Johnny Dundee, Willie Ritchie, Lew Tendler, Freddie Welsh, Jack Britton etc. He even fought Ted Lewis to a draw even if it was at WW; Benny came in a half pound over the LW limit. I don't regard Monzon as the greatest fighter to fight at the MW division; that belongs to SRR and Greb, but i think his record as a MW alone is equal to anyone. Hagler fought a close fight scored a draw against Antuofermo for his first chance at a title, Monzon instead took the decision out of the judges by KTFO of Hall of Famer champ Benenvenuti in his home country. He also did it again this time in 3rds to put the exclamation point. Its very close between Marvelous and esopeta, but i give the sllight edge to Monzon. SRL didnt physically beat marvelous; SRL mentally beat hagler something no fighter could do to Monzon. The fact that hagler started to fight orthodox instead of southpaw shows that SRL already got into his head.

If you look at techinical skill alot of it has to do with how you minimize your decifincies and increase your strengths. Duran did find ways to win being smaller in height and reach; something guys like whitaker, dempsey, walker, marciano, tyson all have done. A reason why Greb is highly rated was the fact he fought with a blind eye toward the end of his career. Like Greb, Monzon found many more ways to win even with lasting tissue and tendon damage to his leg after being shot. He knew how to find ways to win even after being less mobile and agile. Monzon was unorthodox and never over comitted to a punch to avoid being countered. He never would say No Mas even after being behind in the cards; he would say more like no hay riendi..sigo hasta el fin"(no surrender I continue until the end).

Duran had 12 defenses at LW? How many more defenses did he have in any other division? A total of 0. This means Monzon had more defenses of his undisputed crown than Duran had for his entire boxing career. He beat SRL by one point and than his defense of his WW crown ended in NO MAS. His chance at LMW champ ended with a boxing lesson by Benitez who even mocked DUran by telling him to fight him in the ropes as he stayed stationary; no reach issue when a guy tells you to fight in the ropes and isn't that how he beat SRL in the first fight? Monzon would murder an opponent who did to him.
So than he beats Davey Moore the WBA alphabet soup champ and never defends his title. He got a SD win over Barkley that many had the other way. You mention Duran fought in 10 divisions but he never won titles at Bantam, FW, SFW, LWW etc. With the paper title system Hector macho camacho and Pacquiao have won in 7 divisions. BTW, those are two fighters that i rate Duran higher than. I don't put a guy higher simply because he won more titles or lower because he won fewer. I have DUran higher than guys like Hearns, Mayweather, and Pacquaio who all won more belts. Yet i won't rate Duran higher than guys like Armstrong, Ali, Louis, Moore, or Monzon who won less belts.

Nothing against Ray Arcel or Freddie Brown but having quotes from people associated with his own camp is not exactly unbiased. Promoter Arum use to say hearns was the greatest thing he ever saw but changed that when he had Mayweather and did it again when he had Pacquiao recently.


I do agree that Durans wins at 147 and 160 do count for something. In fact, i think by putting Manos de Piedra at #21 P4P over many great fighters cleary show i have high regard for him. Personally, I hate monzon and i am glad he wasent allow to get out of jail in a few years after he killed his 2nd wife. If it wasent for the car crash he would have been a free man in a few years. I go simply on what they accomplished in the ring, techinical skill, quality of competition, won-loss records, intangibles(desire to win), ability to assimilate etc. Overall, i do slightly rate Monzon over Duran.

I will give you the last word as i know this whole thread may get locked anyway for sheer over activity.

BritishBoxing92
01-31-2010, 04:41 PM
What has he done to be considered by many as the greatest lightweight of all-time? Now I can understand him being a top 5 and even top 3 lightweight, but the greatest?

Also, why is considered a top 10 P4P all-time great? It doesn't make sense.

He has losses to the greatest fighters he's ever fought. They include Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Benitez. Yet, somehow, he's rated highly above all of them, by most people.

I can understand that he's got a few good wins at lightweight over the likes of Buchanan, De Jesus and Kobayashi, but the rest are either paper champions or average journeymen.

How he's so highly rated is beyond me.

i do not think he is overrated

Roy Hobbs
01-31-2010, 05:04 PM
What has he done to be considered by many as the greatest lightweight of all-time? Now I can understand him being a top 5 and even top 3 lightweight, but the greatest?

Also, why is considered a top 10 P4P all-time great? It doesn't make sense.

He has losses to the greatest fighters he's ever fought. They include Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Benitez. Yet, somehow, he's rated highly above all of them, by most people.

I can understand that he's got a few good wins at lightweight over the likes of Buchanan, De Jesus and Kobayashi, but the rest are either paper champions or average journeymen.

How he's so highly rated is beyond me.

i think just having the guts to get in the ring with all these greats win, lose, or draw just improves his greatness as oppose to carefully manicuring a glossy record that looks flashy on the outside but lacks substance on the inside.

Perfect example today would be the glossy records of a floyd mayweather & joe calzaghe. I prefer & hold to a higher esteem records of a erik morales, marquez, & pacquiao. Those losses & draws signify wars & challenges. They are battle scars & mark of a truly great career.

BennyST
02-02-2010, 05:05 AM
Why don't you just come out with it and say you don't like me?

I don't like you. You have one of these minds which only allow certain things to be taken in. You are blind to reality and have a liking based on some form of demented hate and prejudice. You can see it in the way you write stuff.

You probably can't appreciate a certain type of fighter if they don't fit into your standards of what a great fighter should be, and that's small minded.

Happy? I can't stand people that rant on about a fighter as if they are being completely objective, especially when they start out their thread with an obvious biased agenda ('The Overrated Roberto Duran'. WHy not just title it 'Roberto Duran. Discuss?' and then put your little overrated spiel in). Why don't you just come out and say that you dislike Duran and that's the only reason you think people overrate him? You yourself rate him nearly as high as everyone so how do you think he is overrated, when the majority of people rate him slightly higher than you and are more objective because most of them see him as simply another fighter in the long history of the sport?

Are you the only person that is right?

Anyway, so you say you dislike him but you still have him in your top three LW's and in your top twenty somewhere P4P, but anyone who has him a few places higher is overrating him? :lol1:

I love it!

BennyST
02-02-2010, 05:13 AM
@BennyST


The last time i quoted your message and put my reply the system wouldn't allow the post since it said " you have exceeded the maximum number of limits." This thread will give anyone a migraine reading the length of it.

As far who had the greater career Duran at LHW or Monzon at MW, i give the edge to Monzon. Monzon had 5 wins against Hall of Famers and the only HOF that Duran beat at LW was Buchanan, i will give him the win despite the whole controversey surrounding if it was a low bow or not? Mainly since i had beating Ken by atleast 3 points at the time. Monzon had more defenses at MW which is more competitive than the LW division, also he was pretty much undisputed champ unlike Duran at his reign at LW. Taking nothing away from duran; as I have him as the 3rd greatest LW behind Leonard and Gans. The whole greatest LW debate is a thread upon itself. But when you have a guy like Benny Leonard beating guys like Johnny Dundee, Willie Ritchie, Lew Tendler, Freddie Welsh, Jack Britton etc. He even fought Ted Lewis to a draw even if it was at WW; Benny came in a half pound over the LW limit. I don't regard Monzon as the greatest fighter to fight at the MW division; that belongs to SRR and Greb, but i think his record as a MW alone is equal to anyone. Hagler fought a close fight scored a draw against Antuofermo for his first chance at a title, Monzon instead took the decision out of the judges by KTFO of Hall of Famer champ Benenvenuti in his home country. He also did it again this time in 3rds to put the exclamation point. Its very close between Marvelous and esopeta, but i give the sllight edge to Monzon. SRL didnt physically beat marvelous; SRL mentally beat hagler something no fighter could do to Monzon. The fact that hagler started to fight orthodox instead of southpaw shows that SRL already got into his head.

If you look at techinical skill alot of it has to do with how you minimize your decifincies and increase your strengths. Duran did find ways to win being smaller in height and reach; something guys like whitaker, dempsey, walker, marciano, tyson all have done. A reason why Greb is highly rated was the fact he fought with a blind eye toward the end of his career. Like Greb, Monzon found many more ways to win even with lasting tissue and tendon damage to his leg after being shot. He knew how to find ways to win even after being less mobile and agile. Monzon was unorthodox and never over comitted to a punch to avoid being countered. He never would say No Mas even after being behind in the cards; he would say more like no hay riendi..sigo hasta el fin"(no surrender I continue until the end).

Duran had 12 defenses at LW? How many more defenses did he have in any other division? A total of 0. This means Monzon had more defenses of his undisputed crown than Duran had for his entire boxing career. He beat SRL by one point and than his defense of his WW crown ended in NO MAS. His chance at LMW champ ended with a boxing lesson by Benitez who even mocked DUran by telling him to fight him in the ropes as he stayed stationary; no reach issue when a guy tells you to fight in the ropes and isn't that how he beat SRL in the first fight? Monzon would murder an opponent who did to him.
So than he beats Davey Moore the WBA alphabet soup champ and never defends his title. He got a SD win over Barkley that many had the other way. You mention Duran fought in 10 divisions but he never won titles at Bantam, FW, SFW, LWW etc. With the paper title system Hector macho camacho and Pacquiao have won in 7 divisions. BTW, those are two fighters that i rate Duran higher than. I don't put a guy higher simply because he won more titles or lower because he won fewer. I have DUran higher than guys like Hearns, Mayweather, and Pacquaio who all won more belts. Yet i won't rate Duran higher than guys like Armstrong, Ali, Louis, Moore, or Monzon who won less belts.

Nothing against Ray Arcel or Freddie Brown but having quotes from people associated with his own camp is not exactly unbiased. Promoter Arum use to say hearns was the greatest thing he ever saw but changed that when he had Mayweather and did it again when he had Pacquiao recently.


I do agree that Durans wins at 147 and 160 do count for something. In fact, i think by putting Manos de Piedra at #21 P4P over many great fighters cleary show i have high regard for him. Personally, I hate monzon and i am glad he wasent allow to get out of jail in a few years after he killed his 2nd wife. If it wasent for the car crash he would have been a free man in a few years. I go simply on what they accomplished in the ring, techinical skill, quality of competition, won-loss records, intangibles(desire to win), ability to assimilate etc. Overall, i do slightly rate Monzon over Duran.

I will give you the last word as i know this whole thread may get locked anyway for sheer over activity.

Nah, it's cool mate. I think I'll leave it that. I'm confused by your post.:lol1:


:fing02:

BennyST
02-02-2010, 05:30 AM
Actually mate: I'll just bring up one quick thing.

I think a lot of the points you make are great, but, a lot of them are also complete conjecture. You can't know a lot of the stuff that makes you rate him as high as you do. Like the Leonard thing psyching out Hagler and Duran. You can't possibly know that Monzon wouldn't fall into the same trap because he never faced anyone that was as good as Leonard, nor anyone that psyched opponents out as well. So, that's pure conjecture which is cool to discuss but I only rate guys on what they did do in their career, not what I think they could and would have done.

Also, that post was a repeat of the other one you write. It didn't actually answer anything. I don't really get the points you're making. Like Leonard losing by one point. What does that mean? He still won. Did Monzon never win by only one point? Did he always win every single round....Hold on, he never even fought anyone as good Leonard, nor did he move up many divisions to do it.

:lol1:

I can't figure it out mate.

Mud
05-11-2010, 02:18 PM
bump


..........

HaglerSteelChin
11-07-2010, 07:59 PM
bump


..........


The more you read and see Monzon fighting the more you realize how good he was, even if he was a horrible human being.

eli porter
11-08-2010, 02:14 PM
LOL, the great A you have the patience of a saint.

method checker, you are massively irrational. view your own posts and try to see how wrong they are.

check hook
11-09-2010, 12:07 AM
What has he done to be considered by many as the greatest lightweight of all-time? Now I can understand him being a top 5 and even top 3 lightweight, but the greatest?

Also, why is considered a top 10 P4P all-time great? It doesn't make sense.

He has losses to the greatest fighters he's ever fought. They include Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Benitez. Yet, somehow, he's rated highly above all of them, by most people.

I can understand that he's got a few good wins at lightweight over the likes of Buchanan, De Jesus and Kobayashi, but the rest are either paper champions or average journeymen.

How he's so highly rated is beyond me.


Posted this in another unrelated thread:

DURAN: 103-16-0

- Lightweight kingpin for almost a decade
- Beat SRL in his prime, moving up in weight.
- Trilogy with the incredibly underrated Esteban De Jesus who holds a victory over Duran.
- Slapped Davey Moore around like a cheap whore @ JMW when he was 32 years old.
- Very close fight with Hagler not long after slapping Moore. He told MH after the fight "You're not so marvelous"
- Beat Iran Barkley @ MW. Yes beat him at 160. For those who don't know Barkley was a HUUGEE MW. Watch the James Toney vs Barkley fight and lok at the size difference!!! Toney still credits Barkley as one of the hardest hitters he fought....stating he hurt me everytime he hit me!

Others:

- Wilfred Benitez
- Hearns
- Comacho

HaglerSteelChin
06-14-2013, 12:25 PM
@BennyST



I think you misunderstood what i said about reach. It does help if the opponent makes it an issue. Benitez is was not on his bike and doing potshots or pittypat, or using his slight reach advantage. Benitez was willing to allow Duran to engage him on the inside. Hearns has much bigger reach than Benitez; but Benitez made him miss 11 consecutive blows since he is better at slipping and ducking. In addition, i said if small guys beating bigger guys is a sign of greatness than why would Duran be rated higher than Marciano who a shorter reach than literally all of his opponents; yet never lost a fight. Why is he higher than Jack Dempsey who murdered Jess "the giant" willard who was much bigger than him and many of his opponents. Even Mike Tyson beat alot of guys like TNT Tucker, Bonecrusher Smith, Bruno, Ribalda, etc., who had greater reach than him. Yet nobody would rate Tyson higher than bigger heavyweights as Foreman, Holmes, Holyfield, or even Lewis.

BTW, Benitez was once knocked down three times in a fight and still got up to beat Curry. The Moore fight ended with Benitez having a broken ankle.

My issue is more simply techinicall skill ask Angelo Dundee who was the more technical fighter Duran or Monzon. Dundee the man who trained Ali and Leonard said: "Monzon is the complete fighter......he can box you...he can outpunch you.....or he can even outhink you....he is game all the way." That is more to my point that guys like Monzon or Salvador Sanchez can assimilate and adapt to any style. When DUran fought Hearns the trainer and commentator Gil Clancy said: "Duran needs to get low against a much taller fighter to make it harder for him to hit you and force him to get in the inside." Hearns was KOD by both Hagler and SRL two guys much smaller than him. Benitez took Hearns to the full 15 RDS but Hearns destroyed Duran in 2rds. Monzon had alot of boxing IQ and i doubt he ever will be in a position where he would say NO MAS. I see things like the sport of tennis there is hard courts, decca turf, Clay, and Grass. Monzon was a fighter who could fight any style- a guy like Duran had trouble with slick fighters who use both speed and movement. Monzon neutrailzed speed with timing and clinching if needed, he neutralize power with a granite chin, he neutralize superior skill by intelligence.

If you want to be critical of Monzon and has early losses, than trash bernard
hopkins for his early loss at LHW. Also throw in Henry Armstrong for losing 3 of his first 4 fights. Also question Salvador Sanchez for an early loss in his career. But i guess the fact that he didn't lose his last 13 years of fighting and he defended his MW title a record 14 times at the time perhaps may offset some of those early losses? Also Monzon was KD only once in his entire career in his 100th fight and never was KO'D.

We will discuss the whole issue of moving up and size again. Monzon fought many guys like Licata who was about the same height and was 50-1. He also beat Benevenuti a Hall of Famer twice by KO who had same size dimensions. He beat Hall of Famer Jose Napoles and Hall of Famer Emile Griffith twice. That is 5 wins against Hall of Famers and two wins against Valdez who is bordeline HOF material. You mention that all his fights were at MW. That is not correct. Monzon had a few non title fights and what would be classified as the SMW division nowadays. Guess what? He won all those fights by early KO which suggests he possibly was weight drained in alot of those 160 fights. There are numerous stories of him starving or burning down calories to make weight. He was much more methodical than Duran, Duran got tired in the last 2 Rds against hagler. Monzon knew how to conserve energy and how to maintain stamina.

If Monzon goes to LHW he could have met a guy like Dick Tiger. Tiger was smaller than Monzon but looking at the people who beat Tiger there is nothing preventing from saying he coudnt beat him or Conteh who lost to Muhammad twice. I think Bob Foster would have been the opponent at LHW who can given him is greatest challenge. Brawn alone is not going to beat Monzon; because he was a thinking and methodical fighter.

You mention that Duran fought in many divisions but he won titles in 4. Something that has been done numerous times with alphabet soup belts. THomas Hearns won a title in 6 divisions if you count his cruiser title; yet i still rank Duran higher than both Hearns and Hagler. How many defenses does Duran have between 147-160? A total of 0. He never defended any title he had over 135. Something that guys like DLH and even Arguello have done. In fact, when discussing the greatest latin fighters Duran pretty much put Arguello in his class. He also put Trinidad up there a guy who defended his WW title 17 times and did have several defenses of his JR MW title. I myself rate Trinidad much lower than Duran and Arguello slightly lower than Duran. Duran himself admitted " i can't rate guys like Kid Chocolate or Gavilan since they were before my time and he said he didnt see enough of Napoles to rate him. Duran himself rated Chavez, Benitez, and Wilfredo Gomez high. An argument can even be made of Chavez vs Duran; although i would favor Duran in that battle.

This whole thread can go back and forth until the cows come home. If people want to think Duran is a top 10 PFP fighter or the greatest latin fighter than fine; but they can force that opinion on anyone.

BUMP.

Monzon also avenged his only three losses and i said later in that same thread with GREATA, Monzon won fights with lasting tissue and tendon damage on his leg after being shot. Floyd Mayweather SR. was shot in the leg and that did derail him as a contender. With limited mobility due to the tendon and tissue damage Monzon still won ways to win.

Many fighters who start as teenagers like Duran and Pacquiao will naturally start in lower weights since their body is not fully matured. George Carpentier fought like from the modern flyweight all the way up to heavyweight. Mayweather and Cotto were like flyweights when they were 17. Once again, i am a bigger fan of Duran than Monzon, but i don't think someone is insane or off their rocker for making the case for Monzon.

IronDanHamza
06-14-2013, 06:43 PM
You could argue Leonard & Gans but not Ortiz in my opinion. And I'm a fan of Ortiz.



Calling Duran a brawler is a bit misleading. The man could box with the best of them but giving away 6 years in age, 3-4 inches in height and 8 in reach, he was forced to "brawl". And he also forced Leonard to brawl with him. You give him no credit for doing so while I do.

Leonard didn't truly embarrass Duran, Duran embarrassed himself by quitting. The judges had Leonard leading by one point at the time of the stoppage. Leonard fought very negatively in this fight.



Excuse? Duran had just turned 21 years of age. It's very obvious that he got better as a boxer as his career went on. Stylistically, young Duran's relentless pressure was great against Buchanan, a great boxer but without great punching power. However against Esteban DeJesus, a clever counter puncher with dynamite in his fists, it was the wrong way to go on about it. Duran showed he was the better man in their two rematches.

You should know this if you have viewed the careers of Duran, DeJesus, Buchanan.



Whitaker and Mayweather weren't DeJesus. They were better defensively but offensively they don't pose the threat to Duran that DeJesus did. Who is to say that Duran simply wouldn't walk down Mayweather like Castillo did? With three more rounds to go, Floyd would have lost very decisively to Castillo, who as good as he was, was not in Duran's class.



Can you point out where in the fight Duran rubbed laces in Moore's eyes? Is this not an excuse?



Best welterweight of the decade? Surely you can't be talking about Miguel Cotto? I don't even care to begin to describe what Duran would do to Cotto.

Cotto is good no doubt but he is no prime Marvin Hagler.

Also the fact that Pacquiao's own trainer Freddie Roach doesn't think Manny could have beaten Duran is very telling.



Smith and Weaver were also 40+ year old men almost as old as Holmes himself and it's rather debatable whether they were better than Castro. And talking about lucky champions, there's no more luckier a punch thrown than the one Weaver felled John Tate with in the 15th round of a fight he was clearly losing on the cards. Or when Smith stopped Bruno in the 10th and final round after having lost the 9 previous rounds.



So bring up all these examples then. Bernard Hopkins? Archie Moore? Any more?

Great posts all round but I don't agree at all with this.

Ortiz most certainly can be at the very least argued to be above Duran at LW.

Daddy T
06-15-2013, 05:49 AM
lol can't believe there were so many replies to this stoopid thread. What's next the 'Why is everybody so hot for Sugar ray Robinson, he was no Joe Calzaghe' thread?

Bolo Punch
06-15-2013, 10:03 AM
This thread should've ended after the second post.

broadwayjoe
06-15-2013, 10:53 AM
We will have to disagree on where he's rated, yes. But I would say that I've won this debate.

You could say that, but you would be wrong. TheGreatA made his points based on knowledge of the fighters being discussed and your comments showed a bias against Duran and your knowledge base is clearly BoxRec driven.

If this "debate" was a title fight, Howard Cosell would be threatening to quit doing boxing broadcasts.

Panamaniac
06-15-2013, 06:59 PM
What has he done to be considered by many as the greatest lightweight of all-time? Now I can understand him being a top 5 and even top 3 lightweight, but the greatest?

Also, why is considered a top 10 P4P all-time great? It doesn't make sense.

He has losses to the greatest fighters he's ever fought. They include Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Benitez. Yet, somehow, he's rated highly above all of them, by most people.

I can understand that he's got a few good wins at lightweight over the likes of Buchanan, De Jesus and Kobayashi, but the rest are either paper champions or average journeymen.

How he's so highly rated is beyond me.That you were able to say all that while omitting the words "no mas" is either a remarkable achievement in self-restraint or a product of selective memory loss.

That aside, any failure to comprehend his stature in the sweet science can be chalked-up to the ol' Roberto Duran mystique. ;)