what makes roberto duran

[nivek535]

what makes him the best lightweight of all times o.o?
genuinely curious..
looking at his resume... doesn't sound very impressive(?) (educate me on his resume pls)

[SBleeder]

what makes him the best lightweight of all times o.o?
genuinely curious..
looking at his resume... doesn't sound very impressive(?) (educate me on his resume pls)

1. Wrong section
2. I rate Joe Gans and Benny Leonard higher than Duran at Lightweight
3. Duran's resume is incredible and his longevity is unrivaled. His wins over deJesus alone make him one of the best ever.

[nivek535]

1. Wrong section
2. I rate Joe Gans and Benny Leonard higher than Duran at Lightweight
3. Duran's resume is incredible and his longevity is unrivaled. His wins over deJesus alone make him one of the best ever.

1. yes sorry, i actually posted it here knowing that :P 'cause there tends to be too many responses without facts..
2. mmm.. ok
3. longevity, agreed. however, at LIGHTWEIGHT, how is he rated so high? beating dejesus, but prior to duran, who haas dejesus beat?

[young_robbed]

what makes him the best lightweight of all times o.o?
genuinely curious..
looking at his resume... doesn't sound very impressive(?) (educate me on his resume pls)

What isn't impressive about his resume?? Beating Buchanan & Marcel is plenty impressive as they are two great fighters. He also beat DeJesus.

[Beavis_5000]

Probably his dominance combined with what he did at upper weights. Im pretty sure he wiped out all the big lightweights while he was there and then he went up and beat Sugar and gave Hagler a good fight which definatley added to his resume which also put him down as one of the greats P4P.

[nivek535]

What isn't impressive about his resume?? Beating Buchanan & Marcel is plenty impressive as they are two great fighters. He also beat DeJesus.

3 lightweight champs who had ok resumes...?
i hope ppl aren't offended by my question, i am genuinely unsure why he is rated #1 lightweight (on many ppl's list)... based on "3 champs"?

Probably his dominance combined with what he did at upper weights. Im pretty sure he wiped out all the big lightweights while he was there and then he went up and beat Sugar and gave Hagler a good fight which definatley added to his resume which also put him down as one of the greats P4P.

yes its great that went up and beat sugar and gave hagler a hard time.. but thats not in light weight... take hopkins for eg, he was prime at another weight, and "dominating" lightheavy now.. can u say hes that great at middle, because he got older and did better at a heavier weight?
(i hope i explained my intuition behind this well enough)

[Beavis_5000]

3 lightweight champs who had ok resumes...?
i hope ppl aren't offended by my question, i am genuinely unsure why he is rated #1 lightweight (on many ppl's list)... based on "3 champs"?

yes its great that went up and beat sugar and gave hagler a hard time.. but thats not in light weight... take hopkins for eg, he was prime at another weight, and "dominating" lightheavy now.. can u say hes that great at middle, because he got older and did better at a heavier weight?
(i hope i explained my intuition behind this well enough)

I think when people call him the "best lightweight" they don't necessarily mean he has the best resume at lightweight. I think they mean the best fighter that was a natural lightweight.

Im probably not making sense but I do know what you are asking as far as your question. I personally don't know the answer to your question and would like to see what someone more knowledgable about that era of lightweights has to say.

But my best guess for an answer to your question is that people look at his big fights at higher weights, then take into account Duran was a natural lightweight and then put him down has the best fighter that was a natural lightweight.

Or maybe his lightweight resume is better than we realize lol.

[GOD-FR33]

Not a bad question.......

This is not a bad question at all. It can be posed to any fighter, any person, any place, anything basically. I think Duran is the greatest lightweight in boxing history. He grew up poor, he was naturally intelligent and temperamental. He was real easy to piss off. He grew up without a father. He didn't meet his father until four years after he turned pro. As for Duran the fighter, he is in my top five all-time. He was the most violent fighter I've ever seen in the ring. He was fast, strong, defensively sound, great stamina, and incredible will. He was a special fighter who wanted to fight the best and that's what he did. Growing up in poverty, not having a father throughout his childhood, help to make him as violent as he was; on top of that, he was always quick tempered anyway. His ability to adjust in the ring is under-rated I think. He was a really smart fighter who understood how to get to any opponent. He often knew before the fight, what type of "man" he was facing, just by looking him in the eye. He would be undisputed champ at lightweight today, easily. He would also be undisputed welterweight champion. He would also defeat everyone at 154lb as well. This is the honest truth as I see it and that is "what made" Duran.

[nivek535]

hm.. interesting :/..

[bluntt]

Is not having a father such an terrible crazy thing. Most friends I have dont really have a father or even a father figure..