what in your estimation prevents duran from being the greatest fighter whoever lived?

[KostyaTszyu44]

duran is top 5 p4p and nothing anyone says will change that

he fought anyone, anywhere, anytime, he dominated LW and moved up past his prime and above his natural weight to take on and even beat some ATGs

he fought a lot of bums yes, but he was a guy who liked to stay busy in his prime so he took those fights when out of shape to stay sharp, in between title defences

he was a tremendous fighter

[Silencers]

He was the greatest lightweight but as mentioned, his resume there isn't as great as it's cracked up to be but it's very, very good nonetheless with wins over Buchanan, De Jesus etc.

His weight fluctuations didn't help him either and he had mixed success when he moved up, although he had more ups than downs.

[wpink1]

duran is top 5 p4p and nothing anyone says will change that

he fought anyone, anywhere, anytime, he dominated LW and moved up past his prime and above his natural weight to take on and even beat some ATGs

he fought a lot of bums yes, but he was a guy who liked to stay busy in his prime so he took those fights when out of shape to stay sharp, in between title defences

he was a tremendous fighter

In your opinion Duran is a top 5, not in mine. DLH fought everyone anywhere anytime, Chavez did too, Hopkins dominated the middleweights for a decade....etc. All things Duran did. What makes Duran better? One fight makes him better, SRL number 1. Arguable you could point to his win vs Barkley too, but we all know Barkly was not a great fighter, but Duran winning at 168 is a tremendous feet, and deserves credit for that. However, his narrow win over SRL, was based on SRL simply chosing the wrong styles, when SRL decided to use his tools vs Duran, it was no contest.
I ask you to tell us what All time greats at Lightweight did Duran beat? Dejesus was a very good fighter yes. However we are talking about a man with 70 wins at lightweight, can you point out why his beating one truly very very good fighter and some other good ones, but know widely regarded at top all time except for leoanrd, is better than a fighter beating 4 of them, or anohter beating 3 of them.

In my opinion Duran and Tyson enjoyed a flawed legacy one that appointed them a higher status than what they truly deserved in the ring based on their style. When you have a fighter that had a incredibly weak resume at Lightweight, vs lets say Whitacker who beat
Chavez (truly won this fight it was not a draw) , Paez, Azumah Nelson, Roger Mayweather, Jose Louis Ramirez, Haugen, Julio Vasquez, DLH (very very close), vs Buchanon, Dejesus, Marcil, Kobyashi,......or even Mayweathers record Carlos Gerena, Corrales, Hernadex, Jesus Chavez, Castillo N'dou, Genero Hernandez, Manfredy, Hatton, Gotti, DLH, Judah, vs Durans including Leonard and barkly but also his losses to leonard, hearns, hagler, Benitez at the same age they both moved up, and no he was not past his peak 28 is NEVER considered past prime. NEVER, he may not have been at his natural weight, but neither was Whitacker in a lot of fights, Mayweather either. Nor was leonard in some fights too. Hell leonard came out of retirment and beat a all time top fighter and moved up to do so.

So again point to a factual reason why Duran is top 5. Meaning what has he done.

I can justify
Armstrong.
Ali,
Jones,
Leonard,
Robinson
etc...... But Duran would be something like this and it is flawed

• He dominated the lgihtweight division with a record of 70-1 ( what about the level of competition) He moved up and beat SRL ( what about the return match when he was outboxed easily and quit, then knocked out by hearns, and beaten by Benitez and hagler..all these fights before the age of 33, then he came back and beat Moore and Barkly...So there go duran fans picking and choosing)
• He won a title at 168.... (great great accomplishment. Roy jones won at heavy when starting at middle. Mayweather won at 154 vs a much better fighter, Leonard won at 175, etc..Pacquio winning titles up to 135......)

Durans overall record vs top fighters Buchanon, Leonard, Marcil, Dejesus, Kobayashi, hagler, Hearns, Benitez, Moore, Barkley is 8-6. This includes the best at his normal weight, and those vs a 11-0 fighter, Kobayashi who had 9 losses and several draws at the time they fought. What is so great about this. Lets compare. Leonard record even including his fight vs Norris when he was clearly shot, hmmmm 7-2-1 This includes fights at jr middle, middle and super middle. Mayweather undefeated which includes fights as he moved up in weight at roughly the same age as duran. Jones until age 35 he was undefeated except for a dq, he beat fighters at middleweight just as good as duran beat at ligtweight, and he beat toney when he stepped up, then moved on up and won the heavyweight title, I think that compares to Duran accomplishments.

Help me understand factually. Oh and your statment that he beat some ATG's is false he beat one, and then lost the next two fights vs him. The other all time greats he fought beat him.

[BennyST]

As per Point 1, Esteban DeJesus is considered by many boxing historians to be an ATG at Lightweight.

Poet

I don't know why so many overlook this, but Buchanan was the best fighter Duran faced as a lightweight and a very, very, very underrated lightweight great. Although he is in the HOF he is not often mentioned as being an amazing fighter which he most certainly was and was easily one of Duran's greatest wins.

Buchanan beat a who's who of all time great fighters such as Ismael Laguna x 2, Carlos Ortiz, Carlos Hernandez, Ruben Navarro, Donato Paduano, Jim Watt etc etc.

He was a really good fighter that gets overlooked, generally because Duran handled him so brutally and because he was Scottish. That aside, he was a great fighter. Duran was the only fighter to really beat him as well. His first loss was a terrible hometown robbery decision and between then he basically didn't lose until well past it and was in his absolute peak at the time of the Duran fight having just had a string of his greatest wins and going on another string after.

On Duran though, there were many things holding him back from being the greatest ever. Obviously his habits and lack of discipline were the greatest factors. He is certainly up there in the top ten all time but just misses out on being right up there due to his losses after he went down so much following the 2nd Leonard fight debacle.

Apart from the usual, boring, anti-Duran diatribe of pWink, it's pretty obvious why Duran was one of the greatest ever but not the greatest ever. Though it is fun watching people spew the usual double standards while holding their own favourite fighter on a pedestal.

Though it makes you wonder when someone can only do it about one fighter and one fighter only....



Anyway, Robinson clearly holds the 'all time' title, with other incredible fighters like Pep, Armstrong, B. Leonard, Greb etc etc all up there vying for the 2nd - 10th spot.

[wpink1]

Benny - good post. In fact you drive home my point even more. Buchanon was a very good fighter and duran beat him. However he was probably the best opponent he faced as a lightweight, between him & Dejesus. This simply points out how weak his competition was at lightweight when that is the best he faced, Anne the next group was marcil & kyobashi. Compare his best wins at lightweight to leonards or whitackers or mayweathers, then compare the quality of consistent opponents he went up against. It is no comparison.

Even with all that, I have never said Duran was not an all-time great, he was. Just not what some people make him out to be. He lags behind thosecthay beat a group of truly great fighters not one. Ali, Leonard, robinson all beat better fighters than he did pound per pound.

[StarshipTrooper]

Poet, you have your facts completely backwards. Leonard beat anywhere from 3-4 top 50 fighters..Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Benitez. Benitez has been on many list on then others I don't see him on there. On the Ring greatest fighters of the last 80 years Leonard had 4 fighters on there he beat, and Duran one, and again he won that fight when Leonard willingly and ******ly chose to abandon the very skills that got him to the top, and go toe to toe. You cant take that win from Duran cause Duran moved up, won the mental fight, and won inside the ring. However for sakes of being fair ( I never really count the last fight they had) I consider the relevants fights they had a split. Then Duran is 0-3 vs the rest of that list. Not a single other fighter on this list Duran beat. Then couple that with what has to be a all time weak list of challengers at the lightwieight division when compared to other great fighters, it is inconcievable that a great fighter the level of Duran would beat Buchanon a very good fighter for the lightweigh title in 1972 then fight Greg Potter 11-3-1 the next fight. However this is mild compared to some of the other fights he had Lupe Ramirez 6-10, Juan Medina 1-1, Doc Meclendon 10-12-2, Tony Garcia 13-2-4 .The list goes on and on and this is AFTER he became champ. If you compare the quality og fighters Duran faced at lightweight to Whitacker or Mayweather, or Leonard at welter or even Hagler at middle it is simply Joke! From Leonard 14th fight on, every time he stepped in the ring except once Bernardo Prada it was againt a fighter with a good record, they might not have been world beaters but not 10-12 either. Also, from the time he became champ almost always he fought very good to great to all time great fighters. Duran DID NOT. I understand Duran fought many times for money to feed himself and you can not knock that. However in a fair comparison, Duran dominance at lightweight (which he did for a entire decade) you have to point out that there was a lack of top opponents. You say the standard of greatness is not determined at how they do when they jump weights but how well they do at their natural weight.....Hmmm lets examine that false statment. What was Sugar Ray Robinson's Natural weight...He started at hmmm 130 and beat the lightweight champions (both of them) in nontitle fights. However we review him on wars he had at welter and Middle. Hmmmm Mayweather, Never lost at his natural weight. No he did not have 70 fights at lightweight, but as I already indicated 30 or so of Durans fights were against such weak opponents they should not have been santioned. Could you imagine Mayweather coming back tody and announcing he is fighting someone with a record of 10-12. He would be laughed off the face of the earth, and the fight totally discredited. Hell this happens when he fought Judah. Why give Duran credit for his totally weak group of fights..Hmmm I would compare Mayweathers group of wins at lightweight vs Durans anyday. Carlos Gerena, Corrales, Hernadex, Jesus Chavez, Castillo N'dou, Genero Hernandez, Manfredy.... Ahh and Mayweather was undefeated at Lightweight. From his 10th fight on he didnt fight a fighter with a losing record, and outside of Emmanuel Augustus the fighter he fought were good fighters or great fighters. Another thing he does not own a victory over a fighter the level of Sugar Ray leonard, but he does own victories as he travled north over Hatton, DLH, and Judah. No losses. Duran can't say that. So tell me how do we rate Mayweather on him being undefeated at lighweight or the total body of work. What about Roy Jones do we look at his work at Middleweight or do we include his work at Super middle, Light heavy and Heavy. What about Armstrong. I think you got your facts completley wrong The facts are You and other Duran fans want everyone to give Duran a pass on his exploits north except of course for his win vs Leonard and Barkly but anything he was not successful at, you want Duran to historically be given a pass on this since it was not at lightweight, but you elevate Duran to legendary greatness overlooking the fact that his resume AT lightweight is HORRIBLE, and that other before and after him has dominated the divsions facing either stiffer opponents, and beat them all and moved up better. Help me understand how Duran is better then these fighters...Ohh i left out other fighters like DLH, who is reviewed based on his exploits at welter, jr welter, etc. Then you have Chavez, who had some weak fights too but beat much better opposition at his natural weight Rosario, Roger Mayweather, Jose Louis Ramirez, Taylor ( he should have lost this one), Hector Camacho. Again compare that to Buchanon, Marcil, kobayashi (61-9-4 at the time..wow great fighter) Dejesus.....Completely a Joke. Finally for your last stament about Cramps....I think I spelled out my review of Duran before and after No mas. Yes I think No mas has to be considered in a overall review of duran, as Tyson Biting Holyfired is in a overall review of Tyson. Duran entire career accomplishments can not be offset by NO Mas, anyone that says that is igorant. Howevr, double standards..who is offering double standards..I think everything I pointed out is fact. I am not ignoring his level of competiton,,, You and others are. I am not ignoring othersr beat better competion at their natural weight, you and others are.. I am not ignoring the fact that fighters lilke Whitacker, Jones, Armstrong, Leonard, dlh etc..are judged by their entire body of careeer, you and others are. I am not ignoring the fact that he 1-4 vs fighters highly regarded and ranked on the rings top 80 fighters of the last 80 years, you and others are. Who is being biased, misleading and applying double Standards. Funny how things are. What would everyone say about Leonard had he lost that fight to Hagler. Now consider the fact how duran fans and many convieniently leave out the fact Ray was coming out of retirment for the most part of 5 years, and hmmm Poet..he moved up 2 weight classes to do so. No what you hear is that Hagler was supposedly past his prime (name another fighter 32 years old that is undefeated over the past 10 years, coming off a ko streak over his best 3 challengers, and they are called over the hill,,hmmmm) , and leoanrd got concessions like 12 rounds vs 15, (when if these idiots did their research they would clealry know 95% of title fights in 87, and most of 86 where indeed 12 rounds fights) No double standards are being applied against fighters like Leonard. What he did in beating Duran, hearns, Benitez and Hagler is simpy amazing and not another fighter has beaten 4 fighters in the Rings top 80 all time fighters. Not one other fighter has! Dont we review leonard positivly or negativly on his fight vs hagler, even though he moved up 2 weight classes and was retired.! Check your facts my friend!

First off, it sounds like the standard is changing yet again. Is this top 50 p4p or is this based on a Ring magazine article? If it's the latter then the critera is all over board because it's a consenses of a dozen or more people polled each having their own ideas as to what factors count. Further more such things as "historical significance" and "cultural impact" are factored in: Hardly things that I would use to rate a fighter.

Second, Hearns and Benitez, as great as they were, were not top 50 p4p fighters. Hagler was, but, again, Leonard won a slim decision over Hagler after BOTH fighters were past prime. That brings me to my third point: YOU may factor the Hagler fight to Leonard's credit but I certainly don't. My opinion Leonard is based solely on his body of work as Welterweight where he beat Benitez, beat Hearns, and split with Duran. I do NOT factor anything negatively OR posisitively anything he did after he came out of retirement and fought past prime. This is hardly unfair. Mike Tyson is normally rated on what he did BEFORE he went to prison not after. Fair enough! When he got out of prison he was not the same fighter and clearly no longer in his prime.

Fourth, as to Chavez, he padded those 100+ wins by knocking over a LOT of local toughmen in Mexican bars; IE. precisely the kind of thing you're accusing Duran of.

Fifth. How the hell did Gayweather get brought into this? The only reason he gets rated on the entire body of his career is he retired WHILE HE WAS STILL IN IT! That's hardly a relevant example for this topic. So what of the others? Do YOU downgrade Armstrong because he lost to Robinson while past his prime? I don't. How about Robinson? You make a big deal about Robinson fighting in three divisions but boxing historians are practically unanimous in agreeing that Robinson was at his best at Welterweight. Additionally, I know of no boxing historian that detracts from Robinson because he lost to Joey Maxim in a bid for the Light-Heavy crown. Robinson lost MANY fights at the tail end of his career and nobody (that I know of) holds it against him.

Sixth. The only time a fighters past prime really impact is when someone some one does something extraordinary such as beat a fellow ATG when past prime. Ali beating Frazier and Foreman past prime is and example of this. This doesn't happen very often. In contrast, LOSING to a fellow ATG after your past your prime doesn't lower your standing: This is why losing to Holmes isn't held against Ali, losing to Tyson isn't held against Holmes, losing to Lewis isn't held against Tyson, and losing to RAY LEONARD isn't held against Hagler.

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

I don't know why so many overlook this, but Buchanan was the best fighter Duran faced as a lightweight and a very, very, very underrated lightweight great. Although he is in the HOF he is not often mentioned as being an amazing fighter which he most certainly was and was easily one of Duran's greatest wins.

Buchanan beat a who's who of all time great fighters such as Ismael Laguna x 2, Carlos Ortiz, Carlos Hernandez, Ruben Navarro, Donato Paduano, Jim Watt etc etc.

He was a really good fighter that gets overlooked, generally because Duran handled him so brutally and because he was Scottish. That aside, he was a great fighter. Duran was the only fighter to really beat him as well. His first loss was a terrible hometown robbery decision and between then he basically didn't lose until well past it and was in his absolute peak at the time of the Duran fight having just had a string of his greatest wins and going on another string after.

On Duran though, there were many things holding him back from being the greatest ever. Obviously his habits and lack of discipline were the greatest factors. He is certainly up there in the top ten all time but just misses out on being right up there due to his losses after he went down so much following the 2nd Leonard fight debacle.

Apart from the usual, boring, anti-Duran diatribe of pWink, it's pretty obvious why Duran was one of the greatest ever but not the greatest ever. Though it is fun watching people spew the usual double standards while holding their own favourite fighter on a pedestal.

Though it makes you wonder when someone can only do it about one fighter and one fighter only....



Anyway, Robinson clearly holds the 'all time' title, with other incredible fighters like Pep, Armstrong, B. Leonard, Greb etc etc all up there vying for the 2nd - 10th spot.

I'm not sure Buchannon was the best fighter Duran faced at Lightweight as I'm inclined to lean toward DeJesus. Boxing historians tend to regard Buchannon as a near-great rather than an ATG. You're point is well taken though: Buchannon was a fine fighter who is often overlooked or underrated.

As to wpink, I DO have a su****ion he's a Leonard nut-hugger but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. He does seem to be going out of his way to discredit Duran much the same way London Ring Rules tries to discredit Ali. So yeah, I'm inclined to think there's an agenda here.

I think my larger point is anybody can ****pick the record of ANY fighter. And usually do! I've seen people do it with Leonard too. ANY fighter's resume can be picked apart. Name any fighter you care to and I can certainly find issues with their record. Anybody else can too.

Poet

[wpink1]

Poet ---- I have never tried to disrespect you, can we keep this civil. The ring, that is just one, I can point to many, Espn top 50 greatest, The ring etc... they are all subjective but it does point to how well respected so called experts rank fighters, and not on one poll has Duran beaten another top fighter than Leonard.

Again DURAN IS A ALL TIME GREAT. PERIOD! The debate is top all time, or even top 5-10. That is subjective and IMO he is not. In yours he is. I will respect that. I am only offering my opinion as why he is not.

I will argue that I point out factual points as to what he has and has not done, most Duran fans leave out a lot of important facts when discussing his career.

As for past prime. Hagler was not past his prime. If so, how can you account for him being his most impressive with ko's vs his best opposition, vs earlier in his career struggling with lessor opponents. Hmmmm No mention of his struggle vs Antefermo which I had him winning but it was still a good tussle, or Duran in 83. However he ko's tommy hearns, Mugabi, and Hamsho...has not lost in 10 years.. was well rested and I beg anyone on here to point to another fighter who was called past his prime when he was 32 and was in the middle of this type of streak. It is simply a attempt by leonard haters to discredit his fight with Hagler, They simply cant imagine leonard could come out of retirment and move up and beat hagler. Leonard by the way never said he saw hagler slipping, he said he saw hagler getting outboxed by Duran ( I guess Hagler was past his peak then too huh) and then by Mugabi, and he said he knows He could outbox Mugabi..so that is what he said....Just to correct people. he also told Mike trainer I think i can beat this guy......

Now for Hearns and benitez not being top 50, Benitez has been on some and not on others..I have not seen a poll where Hearns is not..So in any measure that is 3 top 50 fighters Leonard beat to one Duran beat, and his record vs that fighter is 1-2. Then his record vs the others is 0-2 or 0-3, however you want to look at it. Yes by the way, all of these fights happened by the age of 33.

Where Mayweather fits in, is a comparison of how ridicoulously weak Duran resume is at lightweight, where Duran beat hmmm Buchanon, Dejesus, Marcil, kYobahsi. Good fighters but not as good as Mayweather beat, or leoanrd beat, or Chavez beat, or others. That is a fair comparsion, espeically when Mayweather ( I would not call him gayweather unless your man enough to call it to his face, it is cowardly to get on a websit and talk tough, now isnt it?) moved up at the same age as Duran and beat better fighters (plural not just one fight ) than Duran did...I ask who basis are you going on that Duran is better. Hmm that he dominated the lightweight division and beat leonard. Very good, but is it more impressive than what Leonard did by beating hearns, hagler, benitez, Duran 2 out of 3. It is more impressive than Mayweather body of work. and when factoring in the 70 wins..I simply ask that you review the quality of those fights at lightweight, and compare it ....

[Viktor777]

Because Dempsey is the greatest fighter ever.

[wmute]

Hagler was not past his prime.

Oh my god! Not again...