What is it about Roberto Duran...

Duran is a straight up beast at lightweight,, and past his prime and above his prime weight, he fought legit ATGs in their prime and faired well against them except for hearns who ko'd duran in 2... Like another poster said earlier,,, imagine floyd going up and slugging it out with hopkins, pavlik, taylor,,, and those guys besides hopkins arent even ATG... just think about that,,, Duran was past his prime and up in weight and still evenly battled ATGs in their prime at their weight,,,,, The best way i can describe duran is "Most fighters train to fight,,, Duran was born to fight"

that consistently ranks him in the top 10 of all-time greats p4p? Why is it that despite losses to Hagler, Hearns and Leonard ("no mas" debacle), he is rated way ahead of these greatest fighters to ever defeat him? Why is this man a so-called "legend?" yes he lost to them but your comparing a lightweight to welterweights and middleweights. and he did beat leonard. a faded, former lightweight stood toe-to-toe for 15 rounds with the most feared middleweight champion of all time and was up on the cards after 12. it was hagler who fought much more cautious than in any of his other fights because of the respect he had for duran. in all of haglers title defenses, duran was the only fighter to go the distance. even in a loss, that fight showed duran's greatness. he also came back years later, more faded and bloated and took the middleweight title from iran barkley, who knocked hearns out twice. duran was a great fighter because of what he did at lightweight. he became an legend because of what he did to ray leonard in their first fight. everything after that was gravy.

in addition to the exploits with which the casual fan is familiar (his work at 147 and above,) he is arguably the greatest lightweight ever. he fought forever. fought everybody, and only lost to bigger guys, or great guys. his only loss below 147 was to dejesus, which he avenged twice. wins over buchannan, and a slew of top 10 contenders. seven year reign of a lineal title. beyond the resume he had terrific defense, a great chin, and knockout power that carried all the way to middleweight. prime roberto duran would KILL prime pacquiao. he would completely destroy him from 135 on up.

Another one of my dirty little boxing secrets.

Quote: Originally Posted by raysan Youre right, I think Floyd could be the middle weight champion too, it just doesnt seem to be an interest of his. Floyd is already an all time great but i just dont think he wants to take that risk. Yes hes a small guy, barely made 154, but im certain his skills could make him the middle weight champion. Duran's legacy being questioned is something i never thought i would see by the way haha Why would you want Floyd to move all the way up to MW? Duran had the sort of power to compete that high up in weight, Floyd has the boxing ability to go up that high but he has nowhere near the power to keep those huge guys off him. lol. What happened to "skills pay bills"? Now you're using the excuse of power. newsflash, Duran was smaller than Floyd. Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android

He lost to all of them, but also outlasted all of them When Hearns got knocked out by Hagler, Duran went the distance in a very close fight. When Hearns got stopped by Barkley... Duran outfights him for the middleweight crown Duran officially and unarguably beat Leonard, something neither Hearns nor Hagler can say And all of that was done well out of his prime I guess that's a solid reason... I'd rate Leonard higher personally, but for some reason Leonard doesn't get rated as highly as you'd expect

watch his fights and you too will be a beliver. (man that chick in your avatar is fine, who is she)That "chick" is former first lady, senator, secretary of state and future President of the United States - Hillary Rodham Clinton.

that consistently ranks him in the top 10 of all-time greats p4p? Why is it that despite losses to Hagler, Hearns and Leonard ("no mas" debacle), he is rated way ahead of these greatest fighters to ever defeat him? Why is this man a so-called "legend?" damn, you can tell people on this site are new to the sport, when i say new i meen they became fans within the last ten years and think they actually know something. he was considered a legend before the 80's even started. his ferocity in and out of the ring gained him that title. since most people on here are youngsters and were'nt around when roberto was fighting in his prime mabe they should read about him in the book hands of stone, the life and times of robero duran.

Alot of people have Leonard top 10 alltime.Is that so? Name one!

Resurface............

The Essence of the "Hands of Stone" Mystique: Which brings me full circle back to my thread-starter question: Why - despite your argument to the contrary - is Duran so highly regarded? WHY? WHY? WHY?!A throwback in the Dempsey mold, he always came to fight. Few understood and practiced the object of the game - to inflict serious damage on an opponent - as did Durán. He was extremely popular even in opponents' backyards (often eliciting chants of his name), due to the raw animal intensity he brought to the ring. Durán - even at his worst - has never been involved in a dull fight, and more often than not, actually drove the action in the ring. Most boxing fans appreciate a fighter who realizes that the squared jungle is no place for a track meet or dance contest. He is (was) also highly regarded for his uncanny ability to simultaneously employ defensive tactics while in attack mode. THAT'S WHY!

that consistently ranks him in the top 10 of all-time greats p4p? Why is it that despite losses to Hagler, Hearns and Leonard ("no mas" debacle), he is rated way ahead of these greatest fighters to ever defeat him? Why is this man a so-called "legend?" i was thinking about this last night but in a different way. you could say that hagler, leonard, and duran all belong in the top 10 p4p. but why not hearns? IMO, he won the leonard rematch, he beat benitez (who beat duran), he destroyed duran in a way no1 else could possibly imagine, and his right hand is probly the best in welterweight history. duran's career wasnt the same after he left lightweight. hearns career wasnt the same after he left welterweight. but you cannot deny that hearns accomplished more than duran. so why is duran held in higher regard than the man who destroyed him and whos accomplishments eclipse his own?

He dident retire after that fight though, he shamed himself in the very next fight. I always hear merchant talk about "Great fighters" dominate. Ray Leonard Knocked out both Wilfredo Benitez and Tommy Hearns, Duran got ko'd by Hearns and lost a decision to Benitez. If your logic is true, Where would Roy rank if he retired after beating Ruiz? I mean Roy dominated Toney and Beat hopkins convincingly. Won titles from Middle to Heavyweight, Is Duran winning a razor thin decision to Barkley, more impresive then Roy dominating Ruiz? My thinking isnt a popular one, I go to lots of websites and almost everybody has Duran alltime ranked top 5. Durans biggest win was against Leonard in the first fight, and he dident dominate. Ray beat him in the return fight,Fact of the matter is Duran got his ass kicked the first time he fought Dejesus. People forget about that loss because he avenged it, but people give Duran loads of credit for beating Ray. Although Ray avenged that, and made Duran quit. I also think he lost to Barkley.Which brings me full circle back to my thread-starter question: Why - despite your argument to the contrary - is Duran so highly regarded? WHY? WHY? WHY?!

Sugar Ray Leonard was a bad man. But Duran scared him.

Come on now, only one person (see above) rate him #1. By all other reasonable accounts, that hallowed spot belongs to Robinson. This is not a pro-Duran argument, but a remarkable fact: Ali and Duran are the only modern-era (70's to present) fighters to make the elite all-time p4p top 10. What does that tell you? Alot of people have Leonard top 10 alltime.

P4P lists tend to favor guys who moved up the most weight classes, hence those old timers whom no one ever actually saw get the top spots. Duran BEAT SRL in the fight that matter; Hearns killed him, but if you look at their careers it's hard to argue he's as good as Duran. Hagler dominated one weight class. Maybe that';s more impressive, but most p4p lists don't give as much credit to that. But ask yourself this: if Duran retired in 1980 after beating Leonard, was 72-1 with a long lightweight reign and a win over an atg welterweight, wouldn't he still be in the top 50? Well then, how could years of wars against bigger guys when he was past his prime have hurt that. It's not even like Mayweather fighting Kelly Pavlik, it's more like Mayweather fighting the middles and supermiddles of the NEXT generation. He dident retire after that fight though, he shamed himself in the very next fight. I always hear merchant talk about "Great fighters" dominate. Ray Leonard Knocked out both Wilfredo Benitez and Tommy Hearns, Duran got ko'd by Hearns and lost a decision to Benitez. If your logic is true, Where would Roy rank if he retired after beating Ruiz? I mean Roy dominated Toney and Beat hopkins convincingly. Won titles from Middle to Heavyweight, Is Duran winning a razor thin decision to Barkley, more impresive then Roy dominating Ruiz? My thinking isnt a popular one, I go to lots of websites and almost everybody has Duran alltime ranked top 5. Durans biggest win was against Leonard in the first fight, and he dident dominate. Ray beat him in the return fight,Fact of the matter is Duran got his ass kicked the first time he fought Dejesus. People forget about that loss because he avenged it, but people give Duran loads of credit for beating Ray. Although Ray avenged that, and made Duran quit. I also think he lost to Barkley.

P4P lists tend to favor guys who moved up the most weight classes, hence those old timers whom no one ever actually saw get the top spots. Duran BEAT SRL in the fight that matter; Hearns killed him, but if you look at their careers it's hard to argue he's as good as Duran. Hagler dominated one weight class. Maybe that';s more impressive, but most p4p lists don't give as much credit to that. But ask yourself this: if Duran retired in 1980 after beating Leonard, was 72-1 with a long lightweight reign and a win over an atg welterweight, wouldn't he still be in the top 50? Well then, how could years of wars against bigger guys when he was past his prime have hurt that. It's not even like Mayweather fighting Kelly Pavlik, it's more like Mayweather fighting the middles and supermiddles of the NEXT generation.

...If you look at Duran's career from start to finish, it's just plain unbelievable. I rank him #1 of all time p4p, and that's no joke. I feel Duran is overrated by the way, not saying he isnt great, but some people have him P4P #1...Come on now, only one person (see above) rate him #1. By all other reasonable accounts, that hallowed spot belongs to Robinson. This is not a pro-Duran argument, but a remarkable fact: Ali and Duran are the only modern-era (70's to present) fighters to make the elite all-time p4p top 10. What does that tell you?

I feel Duran is overrated by the way, not saying he isnt great, but some people have him P4P #1. He lost in his prime to Esteban Dejesus, pretty much was dominated that fight, was on the floor. Beat Ray in a great fight then Quit..Beat past his best Cuevas(Who had already been ko'd by Hearns) Lost to Wilfredo Benited,Ko'd by Tommy hearns. Beat a very green Davey Moore, Who also was injured in that fight(not that it matters)Did beat Iran barkley,I thought Barkley won but it was a great great fight. Yes Duran was great, but he wasnt what they make him out to be.

Duran fighting SRL,Hagler & Hearns was like Manny P fighting Hopkins,Mosley,& Lacy, that's why you have to look at the overall carrer instead of the losses. Duran was someone who might not have been "great" at anyone thing but he was very very good at everything which is something that very few are able to be and that is what makes him such a all time great. Your right about Duran being great but your comparison is wrong!! Pacman started at flyweight and is the only fighter ever! to win titles in both flyweight and featherweight..A more fair assesment is Pac fighting at lightweight.