Duran's place amongst the 4... Over ranked?

because he was the greatest lightweight ever prior to moving up and fighting those guys from ww to MW. duran didn't just "do stuff in the lower weight classes." you clearly don't know much about his career if that's how you characterize it. he was the greatest lightweight ever. he had unreal power at the weight, an iron chin, and high level skills. I read his bio I know quite a bit about him... poor choice of words I was trying to get to the point of what he did later. and I think there can be arguments for other greatest lightweights ever but that's for another thread

I don't think what you're saying is entirely accurate. Duran had an exceptional run as LW champ, there is literally no doubt about it. At 135, he was as fierce and hard hitting as they come, possebly the most animalistic lightweight of all time, definitely the greatest champion in the division's history. Many felt that he was the fighter of the decade in the 1970s...but I just think it was a counter culture argument, cos most of the mainstream would pick Ali, meaning if you were a boxing fan you had to be different or more knowledgeable. But whatever, Duran would be in any top 3 for the decade. Having said all that, Duran's achievements in the 80s, that win over Leonard, the fight with Hagler and an eventual title in the mw division really elevated Duran into the rarefied air of the top 5 or 10 ATGs. His place would not be so sacred if didn't hold those wins or have those competitions. Imagine Duran retiring without a welterweight crown. Of course there are certain damages to his legacy too, No Mas, destruction at the hands of Hearns, losses to some less than stellar opponents. You're right ... If he retired before the Leonard fight which was supposedly towards the end of his (first?) prime. He would've been looked at one of the best to ever do it at those weights and a hell of a figther... those fights between the 4 are the ones he's most known for but he lost most of those fights that's what I have trouble wrapping my head around. The Iran Barkley win was seriously impressive though.

Well, you're framing a question without allowing context to give you your answer. He's part of the "4 horsemen" because they all fought eachother. But, his resume exists independent of the fights with those guys, those guys bank their resume on the fights with one another. So, the premise of your question is flawed. Duran would still be Duran. His fights with those guys are just a teastment of how game he was. Success among those opponents doesn't really mad. It's an unfair comparison at the end of the day. You can't say any of those guys names without mentioning Duran. Duran (besides Leonard) exists without them I don't think what you're saying is entirely accurate. Duran had an exceptional run as LW champ, there is literally no doubt about it. At 135, he was as fierce and hard hitting as they come, possebly the most animalistic lightweight of all time, definitely the greatest champion in the division's history. Many felt that he was the fighter of the decade in the 1970s...but I just think it was a counter culture argument, cos most of the mainstream would pick Ali, meaning if you were a boxing fan you had to be different or more knowledgeable. But whatever, Duran would be in any top 3 for the decade. Having said all that, Duran's achievements in the 80s, that win over Leonard, the fight with Hagler and an eventual title in the mw division really elevated Duran into the rarefied air of the top 5 or 10 ATGs. His place would not be so sacred if didn't hold those wins or have those competitions. Imagine Duran retiring without a welterweight crown. Of course there are certain damages to his legacy too, No Mas, destruction at the hands of Hearns, losses to some less than stellar opponents.

again i'm not speaking of his resume in the lower weights ... he was an ATG. I'm saying when ranked amongst the 4 he is held in a higher regard than all except Leonard... Well, you're framing a question without allowing context to give you your answer. He's part of the "4 horsemen" because they all fought eachother. But, his resume exists independent of the fights with those guys, those guys bank their resume on the fights with one another. So, the premise of your question is flawed. Duran would still be Duran. His fights with those guys are just a teastment of how game he was. Success among those opponents doesn't really mad. It's an unfair comparison at the end of the day. You can't say any of those guys names without mentioning Duran. Duran (besides Leonard) exists without them

Duran was already the future hall of famer when he came up to face Leonard. He beat a prime Leonard toe to toe in a close decision. In the rematch Leonard admitted to having the fight scheduled as soon as possible because he knew Duran had major weight issues. Duran struggled and barely made weight. Leonard outclassed and controlled the distance against a already somewhat defeated Duran. No one really know's exactly why he quit, either it was because he was fed up with being "outclassed" by a guy who was running or he just felt outmatched. Hearns lost at Welterweight against Leonard by TKO although he was way ahead on the score cards. Hearns then moved up and iced Duran in 2. From there he challenged Hagler and had him hurt bad multiple times in the fight. The fight was almost stopped too because of the gash on Haglers face. Hagler feeling the urgency caught, hurt and finished Hearns. Benitez was a master boxer and a bigger man standing around 5'10. He was a defensive wiz but wasn't able to overtake Leonard. When he fought Hearns his defensive ability gave him a chance but Thomas was too rangy and powerful making Benitez lose a UD. Hagler was the middleweight kingpin and would fight anyone. He waited for years for Leonard and pole axed the guy (Hearns) who iced Duran in 2. He would also fight Duran who came up from 154 in which Roberto gave him a quite competitive fight. Leonard would end up sealing the legacy by beating Hagler in a very very controversial decision. Pretty much by running and stealing rounds with quick flashy combos. Duran was bar none the best lightweight the world had ever seen. Leonard was arguably the best welterweight ever, You could make a case for Hearns being the best jr Middleweight, and many say Hagler is the best Middelweight champion ever. Hagler fight anyone??? hahahah as long as they were LW.WW or JM never moved out of MW. haggler would have to knock out spinks at LH and decision frazier or ali to come close to Duran

yet, if you ask TBE to do the same you'll be labeled as a hater Duran was the greatest fighter there ever was. no PED's little guy with short arms looks like a kid fighting barkley. I don't give a fu uck about ali leonard robinson or payweather. no body went up in weight as much AND fought the caliber of fighter Duran did

All four of those guys were incredible. So was Benitez. So were Arguello and Pryor, fighting close to the same time. How you rank them depends on your criteria. If you're impressed by fighters moving up weight classes with great success while developing their game, then Duran especially deserves top billing. Or if you just love one fighter dominating his weight class, then you have to love all of them except Hearns. Leonard, to me is the best because of the guys he defeated. Duran is a close second, Hagler a close third.

Duran is one of the most skilled fighters of all time not only skilled Duran was never on PED's moved up in higher weight divisions more then any fighter . fought haggler when every one feared him and almost beat him. not like the cowardly cotto scared of GGG. KO'd a young strong bigger Davey moore fought a LH posing as a MW in Iran "into a right" barkley who fought as a HW. nobody but no body had his courage along with the skill he was a little guy

Why is it that he seems to get so much love and is even ranked higher by most when compared to the rest of the 4 horesmen? He did tremendous things at the lower weight classes and was smaller than all three of the other guy's but he lost to every single one of them... with the exception of the one win over Leonard in the first fight (you could argue Leonard won that one too)... Hearn's nearly decapitated him, Hagler beat him, No Mas' and he lost to "Radar" Benitez... Why is he ranked so high ... not in the lower classes but the work he did in those superfights... He was exciting, ruthless, a wild man both in and out of the ring but he lost damn near every single one of the fights that mattered most... I'm admitting my ignorance on the subject as I'm pretty weak with my boxing history pre 1990. So take it easy on me... but It's always been something that bothered me and I've never really gotten a good answer. When I speak to old timer's guys my father or uncles age it's alway Leonard and then Duran that come up and maybe in close 3rd it's Hagler. Are you trying to ask who is the best H2H? That's clearly Leonard. Are you asking who has the best legacy, combining everything from resume to world titles to skill/technique/natural ability? Then it's pretty close between Leonard and Duran but I'd probably rank Leonard higher. What with Duran's "No Mas" and his several high profile losses.

Leonard-(he beat all of them) Hagler(beat both Duran and Hearns) Hearns(almost killed Duran) Duran(lost to all the other 3) duran beat leonard in their first fight. so in your little parenthesis, write: leonard (beat all of them, lost to duran, who was LW champion for most of a decade) and write duran: (lost to all of these bigger fighters, yet beat the best of the four, ray leonard.)

because he was the greatest lightweight ever prior to moving up and fighting those guys from ww to MW. duran didn't just "do stuff in the lower weight classes." you clearly don't know much about his career if that's how you characterize it. he was the greatest lightweight ever. he had unreal power at the weight, an iron chin, and high level skills.

Now your catching on to why an undefeated record means nothing... look at the atg list

I stopped ranking them because they all had something really special going and I hate thinking of one being overall better than the others. Tommy was the most naturally gifted. Leonard was smart, Haggler rugged and patient, and Duran had several things going. Side note, Tommy's chin want his problem! It was the fact that the ***** wouldn't back down when he was hurt!

He probaly quit becuase he was getting embarassed and schooled "Schooled" implies he wasn't in the fight. He very clearly was.

Duran in my opinion is second to only ray robinson as the most technically complete fighter ever. I dont mean ranked no.2 of all time, but just using my own eyes, Duran in his prime was perfection. He was the best ever at making you miss while coming forward and attacking, he slip inside and outside of punches with well placed counters to the head or body. He had a great jab. A terrific chin. He does lots of subtle things with distance and defence that people who DKSAB cant even see. If you know what you are looking at, Duran was supremely skilled. He was actually very slick, very crafty, and had a very deep bag of tricks. Angles, head movement, feints, counterpunching, and an ability to stay on you like white on rice while punching chasing you across the ring, because of great footwork. He was a truly balanced and versatile fighter. And had the biggest set of ball ever fit through the ropes. Good posts. _____

Winning at belts at 135 and 160 is the same as winning titles at 130 and 154, and people give Duran more credit than Mayweather, even though Mayweather was lineal champion at both weight classes and all the weight classes in between (maybe except 140 cuz Kostya Tszyu didn't wanna fight, but he still was the WBC champ). It's funny how people WORSHIPPED Duran even though he was one of the most disrespectful fighters I've ever seen, he insulted fighters and their families before and after fights and he QUIT against Leonard. Doesn't mean he wasn't a good fighter, he was a great fighter, his ability to feint and get off feints is probably the best in history, but he definitley gets more credit than he deserves. He lost to most of his big fights except the first fight against Leonard, and even though he won it, it was his 73rd fight as a pro and it was Leonard's 28th fight as a pro, Duran was 29 and Leonard was 23, so the difference in experience and knowledge of the tricks of the trade was VAST. 28th fight as a Pro and an olympic gold medal. And considered the best fighter in the world... 5'6 with 70+ fights at 135 vs 5'10 regarded as one of the best welterweights of all time in his absolute prime... you make it sound like leonard was green... he made between 7-10 million dollars for the fight... thats not green fighter money... There is a reason it is regarded as one of the best wins in the history of boxing. Duran was also 29, when 29 was very old for a fighter... 72 fights of ring age on him already. The fight took place in 1980... Duran turned Pro in 1968... Consider that. He was not a fresh fighter. This in an age when Benitez was shot at 26, and most fighters were well past their best by 30.

U will probably get banned, for questioning Duran. Duran is like a God on NSB but I feel your sentiment. But he did win a belt @lightweight & middleweight which is a feat in itself but I understand what u mean. One thing u have to learn is according to Everyone on NSB no modern boxer could lace any of the 4 you mentioned boxing shoes. Winning at belts at 135 and 160 is the same as winning titles at 130 and 154, and people give Duran more credit than Mayweather, even though Mayweather was lineal champion at both weight classes and all the weight classes in between (maybe except 140 cuz Kostya Tszyu didn't wanna fight, but he still was the WBC champ). It's funny how people WORSHIPPED Duran even though he was one of the most disrespectful fighters I've ever seen, he insulted fighters and their families before and after fights and he QUIT against Leonard. Doesn't mean he wasn't a good fighter, he was a great fighter, his ability to feint and get off feints is probably the best in history, but he definitley gets more credit than he deserves. He lost to most of his big fights except the first fight against Leonard, and even though he won it, it was his 73rd fight as a pro and it was Leonard's 28th fight as a pro, Duran was 29 and Leonard was 23, so the difference in experience and knowledge of the tricks of the trade was VAST.

Meh, one of the most highly regarded boxer-puncher would be a better outlook. He wasn't super skilled or anything. If you know what you are looking at, Duran was supremely skilled. He was actually very slick, very crafty, and had a very deep bag of tricks. Angles, head movement, feints, counterpunching, and an ability to stay on you like white on rice while punching chasing you across the ring, because of great footwork. He was a truly balanced and versatile fighter. And had the biggest set of ball ever fit through the ropes.

As others said, he secured his place because not only did he jump up from 135 to beat a PRIME Leonard at 147, Duran himself was past his prime, but he also went on to be very competitive at 160 with Marvin Hagler, lost a close decision to Benitez at 154... and was able to compete with the rest of the fab 4, who were all natural 160lber, as a past his prime natural 135lber. Throw that in with an all time great run at the lower weights, and you have one of the greatest fighters ever.

Why is it that he seems to get so much love and is even ranked higher by most when compared to the rest of the 4 horesmen? He did tremendous things at the lower weight classes and was smaller than all three of the other guy's but he lost to every single one of them... with the exception of the one win over Leonard in the first fight (you could argue Leonard won that one too)... Hearn's nearly decapitated him, Hagler beat him, No Mas' and he lost to "Radar" Benitez... Why is he ranked so high ... not in the lower classes but the work he did in those superfights... He was exciting, ruthless, a wild man both in and out of the ring but he lost damn near every single one of the fights that mattered most... I'm admitting my ignorance on the subject as I'm pretty weak with my boxing history pre 1990. So take it easy on me... but It's always been something that bothered me and I've never really gotten a good answer. When I speak to old timer's guys my father or uncles age it's alway Leonard and then Duran that come up and maybe in close 3rd it's Hagler. Duran was already the future hall of famer when he came up to face Leonard. He beat a prime Leonard toe to toe in a close decision. In the rematch Leonard admitted to having the fight scheduled as soon as possible because he knew Duran had major weight issues. Duran struggled and barely made weight. Leonard outclassed and controlled the distance against a already somewhat defeated Duran. No one really know's exactly why he quit, either it was because he was fed up with being "outclassed" by a guy who was running or he just felt outmatched. Hearns lost at Welterweight against Leonard by TKO although he was way ahead on the score cards. Hearns then moved up and iced Duran in 2. From there he challenged Hagler and had him hurt bad multiple times in the fight. The fight was almost stopped too because of the gash on Haglers face. Hagler feeling the urgency caught, hurt and finished Hearns. Benitez was a master boxer and a bigger man standing around 5'10. He was a defensive wiz but wasn't able to overtake Leonard. When he fought Hearns his defensive ability gave him a chance but Thomas was too rangy and powerful making Benitez lose a UD. Hagler was the middleweight kingpin and would fight anyone. He waited for years for Leonard and pole axed the guy (Hearns) who iced Duran in 2. He would also fight Duran who came up from 154 in which Roberto gave him a quite competitive fight. Leonard would end up sealing the legacy by beating Hagler in a very very controversial decision. Pretty much by running and stealing rounds with quick flashy combos. Duran was bar none the best lightweight the world had ever seen. Leonard was arguably the best welterweight ever, You could make a case for Hearns being the best jr Middleweight, and many say Hagler is the best Middelweight champion ever.