Duran Leonard Hearns Hagler

[hemichromis]

Duran Was At His Best As A Lightweight, He Was Bloated And Above Natural Weight When He Fought These Guys And Also Past His Prime And He Still Mananged To Beat Leonard. Hearns Only Ko'ed Him Cos Duran Was Fat, Old And Had No Motivation. Duran Achieved More Than The Other 3 Did

Duran in his prime should have been a very tough fight for hearns, howver duran was trying to box hearns from the outside! with a 13" reach advantage! did duran ever offer an explantaionj for that?

[hemichromis]

No matter how many rebutalls the size of "War and Peace" you post here, no matter how often you cite the inferior opponents as a lightweight, or his lack of an amateur career, etc., Duran will ALWAYS be rated at least ten rungs ahead of Leonard on the p4p ATG list of all objective boxing scribes.

This, like the age difference between two individuals who remain alive, will never change; the younger will never catch up. Leonard will never be rated ahead of Duran by anyone who has half a brain. This is something you will have to live with for the rest of your life. And if posting an epistle everytime Duran's name is mentioned on this website is like insulin to a diabetic to you, then - to use an appropiate phrase - Knock yourself out!

well judging by your pic your a little bias, i do however agree with you!

[The Noose]

Leonard beating Benitez, Hearns, Duran and Hagler, is better than anything Duran achieved IMO.

[wpink1]

Hmm no matter how many times you ingore his weak resume of wins,,,or rant and rave that duran was some godlike figure, the FACTS are he got his ass whipped repeatedly everytime he stepped up in class..ASS WHIPPED REPEATEDLY... n fact ko'd in his peak years in 2 rounds...SLEEP!

So you can offer opionions, I can point to the record books which records factual happenings.......Oh here is a link where Duran is rank by only 4 slots ahead of leonard..The ring...http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/ring_80_best.htm

[Panamaniac]

well judging by your pic your a little bias, i do however agree with you!

As you obviously understand, being biased and being correct are not mutually exclusive conditions. Sugar Ray Robinson's mother may be biased, but it doesn't mean her son wasn't the greatest fighter who ever lived (with all due respect to Muhammad Ali)...

[hemichromis]

Hmm no matter how many times you ingore his weak resume of wins,,,or rant and rave that duran was some godlike figure, the FACTS are he got his ass whipped repeatedly everytime he stepped up in class..ASS WHIPPED REPEATEDLY... n fact ko'd in his peak years in 2 rounds...SLEEP!

So you can offer opionions, I can point to the record books which records factual happenings.......Oh here is a link where Duran is rank by only 4 slots ahead of leonard..The ring...http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/ring_80_best.htm

these 'factual happening' descriube the entire career of a fighter if we are talking about the 'prime fighter' they mean nothing!

duran was fighting people who were alot bigger than him for alot of his career and yet still managed alot of big wins!

yes he was beaten by leonard hearns and hagler but would he have done so if they hadn't got the size advantage?

i personally do not think so!

[wpink1]

these 'factual happening' descriube the entire career of a fighter if we are talking about the 'prime fighter' they mean nothing!

duran was fighting people who were alot bigger than him for alot of his career and yet still managed alot of big wins!

yes he was beaten by leonard hearns and hagler but would he have done so if they hadn't got the size advantage?

i personally do not think so!

That statment justifies what I have always said about duran fans...Sure he fought bigger fighters since he moved up from Lightweight no one is discrediting that. My point is what about every other fighter that moved up,,,and did so much more successfully thsat Duran did... How is it that you all say well duran moved up at age 29 and he lost so we only measure him by his career at lightweight where he had padded resume at best, and was not undefeated....and we will only measue his successes when he moves up, we will discredit his losses as for Duran only they do not matter because he was 29 and not at his prime weight...

When on the other hand..

Mosley Mayweather, Dlh, Leonard, Jones, Whitacker, etc....the list goes on and on..alll moved up and fought bigger people too, Many did so more successfully and was undefreated at their original weight (roy, Mayweather, Mosley).. Jones beat two fighters much better at middleweigh than anyone duran fought at light weight, he also dominated (not just fought at a higher weight class) at super middle, and light heavy...then went on to win a Heavy weight title.... No losses (true beating in the ring) until he was much older than duran was before he took a loss... Also, Roy fought many many many champions and beat them, his resume was not padded with 0-3, 10-11 fighters as Durans was......

Facts...

[slicksouthpaw16]

Hmm no matter how many times you ingore his weak resume of wins,,,or rant and rave that duran was some godlike figure, the FACTS are he got his ass whipped repeatedly everytime he stepped up in class..ASS WHIPPED REPEATEDLY... n fact ko'd in his peak years in 2 rounds...SLEEP!

So you can offer opionions, I can point to the record books which records factual happenings.......Oh here is a link where Duran is rank by only 4 slots ahead of leonard..The ring...http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/ring_80_best.htm

I am also not too fond of Duran's resume(especially at lightweight) but he was a great fighter and he does holds a win over a peak Leonard and many other excellent fighters. Also, he wasn't in his peak years at the time he fought Hearns. The Hearns fight occured after Duran's war with Hagler at middleweight and he was well past his prime. His peak years was at lightweight and although he was still a good fighter at the higher weights, he was past it.

[wpink1]

Again are we prepared to give other boxers who are 29-32 the same benefit of the doubt when they move up. If so then I am all for it. I dont understand the issue with Duran fans allowing for consistency.

[slicksouthpaw16]

I'm not that big of a fan of Duran. I think hes a great fighter and the greatest lightweight of all time, although i do think that hes slightly overrated by some people on this forum and the east-side boxing forum. The point is that he was past his prime at the time that he fought Hearns. He was in his prime when he was in his lightweight days because he was fighting in his natural weight class at his prime weight. Despite me believing that Hearns would have beaten him anyway (bad style match up), it was a time period where he was struggling with his weight and was fighting at a higher weight against naturally bigger guys. This fight was after the Benitez and his war with Hagler. He was also pulling his weight back down to make the 154 limit to meet Hearns. Lets just put it like this, if Duran was in his prime against Hearns, then Hearns was in his prime against Barkely and Leonard was in his prime against Donny Lalonde.