The overrated Roberto Duran

[TheGreatA]

I have read reports that Leoanard was actually winning this fight against Britton. And then fouled him after the bell, and Britton cound't continue. Thus making him the winner.

Atleast these reports claim that Britton was leading on points:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...6247%2C5318588

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/....&pqatl=google

[StarshipTrooper]

Thanks. You a big fan of Shavers, Poet? How do you think he matches up with todays Heavyweights?

Yeah, I love watching Earnie fight! The division is so weak right now I have a hard time seeing most of these guys beating him. One right hand on Wlad's fragile wiskers and you could count to a hundred. Vitali I think would probably beat him: Unlike Wlad, Vitali has the chin to take some punches from Earnie without getting KOed

Poet

[Method Checker]

You said Pac and Mayweather were better champions because they had won more titles in more divisions. Go back to the first page and read what you wrote yourself.

"If you define a titlist as a champion, then that's your way of thinking."

"Championship material, to me, is the man who beat the man. In other words, a lineal champion. Something Jorge "Fat" Castro was never able to become."

This is what you wrote just before as well. There was no lineal champion at that time.

Duran beat 'the man' at all but 154. He beat Buchanan and De Jesus at 135. He beat Leonard at 147 and then he beat Barkley at 160 who had beaten Hearns, who had beaten Roldan for the title left behind by Ray Leonard after he beat Hagler.

Anyway, like I said before, you use the argument that Mayweather is a six time champion and Pac won more than Duran too and I know that you would use the same argument for everyone else too, but when it suits you to say someone is not a champion because he never beat 'the man' then you brig up this false argument.

I believe I said that Pacquiao won more titles than Duran and he did. If I ever said he won more lineal titles, then I was right again. First, let us review the lineal champions they each won:

Pacquiao lineal titles: featherweight, super featherweight and light welterweight

Duran's lineal titles: lightweight and welterweight

When I use the term "the man" I mean they were the number one in the division. Duran, nor Barkley, were either number one. In 1989, when Duran won the title from Barkley, Michael Nunn was the number one in the division. Duran was number four and Barkley was number five. In order to be claimed the man in the division, even though there's no official title at stake, it has to be won between either the number one and number two in the division, or the number one and number three (in occasional circumstances).

Meaning Duran was never the lineal champion or "the man" at middleweight. Meaning Pacquiao won more championships than Duran.

Nice try, though.

As for Castro never beating 'the man', he did in fact beat the two of 'the men'. Jonhson had held the WBA MW title for the last three years and had lost it to Jackson in his last fight before Castro. Jackson relinquished it and so Jonhson and Castro fought for it. He won. Then Castro and Jackson fought for it because in some way it was still considered to be the title of Jackson's. He lost also. He beat two of the top guys and two main champions.

When Castro won the title, there was no lineal champion. Hopkins held the IBF I think, the WBC had been vacated by McClellan and wasn't won until 1995 by J. Jackson. The two main champions at that time were Jackson and Johnson and Castro beat both. The WBA had the main lineage from Hagler still. It went from Hagler, who got stripped of it, to Kalambay who the ring recognised as the main champion, he vacated and on it went to Johnson etc.

You're incorrect, yet again.

At the end of 1994, when Castro beat both Johnson and Jackson, McClellan was still rated as the number one middleweight in the world. Castro was second and Hopkins was third. In order become the man, you have to beat or defend for the number one spot in the division. That number one spot belonged to McClellan. Meaning there was no "man" at middleweight, during that time.

[Method Checker]

I just don't agree that the opposition should be rated entirely based on their past achievements, I rate them based on how competent they were at the time. Joe Brown and Sugar Ramos, not to mention Jim Jeffries, weren't truly "great" opposition at that point. Rocky Marciano has wins over all-time greats Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott, but how high does he rate?

All in all Ortiz's best opponent at lightweight was Ismael Laguna, and Buchanan was better than Laguna. The next would probably be 36 year old Joe Brown but I seriously doubt that version of Brown would have beaten a prime Esteban DeJesus. He was struggling to beat Dave Charnley, Ray Portillla, Giordano Campari, Luis Molina at that point.

And besides, there are other things you should take into account than the quality of opposition, and the true quality is a bit questionable in this case. Duran had around 50-60 fights at lightweight losing only one, which he avenged. He reigned as the champion for 7 years, taking on the best contenders in the division. He beat every man he ever faced at that weight.

Note the parts in bold.

I find it very ironic for you tell me that I'm wrong when rating fighters, when you don't even have a list of your own ratings.

We all rate differently and I rate like I see it. No matter what the excuse you use (age, weight class, etc.), I view it as a simple win. No excuses from me. In the end, Ortiz beat more lineal champions and more HOFers at that weight, than Duran. That's enough for me to rate him ahead of Duran.

Also, I do give Marciano full credit for those wins. The only person I rank ahead of him, amongst his opponents, is Louis. It's not Marciano's fault that he wasn't fighting in one of the best eras.

Ali did have the ability to move even if he was rusty, see Ali-Quarry I but from the very beginning he stood flat-footed against Frazier because he felt that was the way to beat him. He wanted to gain Frazier's respect with his punching power which he was unable to do. However Leonard had fought this way for almost all of his professional career, standing more flat-footed and setting his feet to punch. It wasn't like he suddenly turned from a dancer to a puncher against Duran. That was the way he fought Benitez, Andy Price, Ranzany, Mayweather Sr. and it's what had won him all of his professional fights until then. Dundee said that they couldn't afford to back up against Duran.

You can't be serious, when using Ali vs Quarry I, as an example..

Ali was bouncing on his toes, but he wasn't dancing and moving around the ring like he did previously or like he did in Ali vs Frazier II. Also, Frazier pressured a lot more than Quarry did. To use that as an example is weak.

I'm not saying that's how he fought for only that fight. I'm just saying that he had the opportunity. Look at how it worked out for him, with his opponents. He beat them all in good fashion. If it wasn't working for him against Duran, he would've changed and started to dance around and not stand toe to toe. He didn't because he wanted to prove a point. He let Duran fight his fight.

He wasn't able to control it in the first fight. Leonard never wanted to brawl with his back against the ropes while taking a beating. He wanted to keep the fight in the middle of the ring.

He wanted to go toe to toe with Duran. We've already established that multiple times. Read the newspaper article that you sent to me, again, if you wish.

In Whitaker's case he has a couple of inches at most. Mayweather has a more significant advantage but not like Ray Leonard. Clinching Duran is easier said than done because he was amazingly strong for a lightweight and would push you against the ropes, much like Hatton did to Mayweather, but he didn't smother his own offense.

Leonard had nowhere near the ability to fight off the ropes as Mayweather and Whitaker did. He wasn't as defensive savvy as Mayweather and Whitaker. To use that, is another bad example.

No but he could be drawn into one. Mayweather wasn't all that cautious at 130-135. I'm not saying he was reckless, he was and is safety first but you didn't see him potshotting and doing what he did against Baldomir in the late rounds when he fought Castillo, Corrales, Genaro Hernandez.

Neither of the four are anywhere near as dangerous or great as Duran. You'd have to believe he would be extra careful against Duran. Knowing Duran, It's hard to believe Mayweather would ever get into any sort of slugfest with him.

No but it's required to be able to hold off the opponent in the clinches. Surely what Castillo troubled Mayweather with wasn't his superior boxing skill or speed but his strength and aggressiveness. He also wasn't a "dumb" aggressor, just walking in with little regard for defense and smothering his own offense like Ricky Hatton did.

I've already established that I don't believe the Mayweather in the Castillo fight was the best version of him. Take the Mayweather from the Corrales fight (which I consider one of his best solo performances) and it would be a different story.

Duran would be one of the better defensive fighters Mayweather has ever fought though, despite being a constant aggressor.

Duran had neither the better connect percentage or defensive abilities as Mayweather.

Castillo has an inch in height and 2 inches in reach, not significant advantages by any means. Do you see Castillo ever bulling Ray Leonard around like Duran did? Was he even competitive at 140 the way Duran was at 154-160? Duran was extremely strong, all of his opponents noted this.

Considering that Castillo weighed in as a welterweight against Leonard and Leonard was a natural welterweight, I doubt Castillo would bully Leonard.

However, Castillo would be able to bully someone smaller than him. Someone smaller than him by, say, 10 pounds.

A 148 pound Castillo would've likely been stronger than a 135 pound Duran. He was simply a bigger opponent, at the time.

I think you're being a bit unfair with this because Duran using some questionable tactics is in no way comparable to loading your gloves like Margarito supposedly did, or arguably being KO'd in the first like Benn and having a biased referee officiating the bout. You'd have to take away credit for a lot of fighters if you take away credit from Duran.

Who says I don't? I just don't think that minor things like occasional low blows, some rabbit punching and accidental elbows really compare to hindering the vision of someone with glove laces. Don't you?

Basically he was able to overpower Cotto. He could take his best punch, he was able to match his strength and he was able to hurt Cotto with every punch he landed.

His power, not his strength, was what won him the fight. He was able to take Cotto's punches, but who really landed more?

Pacquiao landed double the amount of punches. The amount of punches landed doesn't really have anything to do with strength. So to use strength as a reason of why it won him the fight is ******. He wasn't holding and pushing Cotto against the ropes. Cotto might have backed up, at times, but that wasn't due to strength.

I said I don't have a list. I say he is among the 20 best fighters I've ever seen. Where exactly I'd rate him isn't clear to me.

Some do and since Duran should rate above the two, who are possibly top 30 or even top 20 all-time greats, then there's a very good case Duran makes top 20, top 15 or even top 10. Especially since a lot of people don't rate early 1900's fighters.

I'd also rank him within the top 20. I've already established that. I just said I wouldn't rank him in the top 10 P4P all-time and as the best lightweight of all-time. That's where I think he's overrated.

And just because other people might do it, that doesn't mean I have to do it. If you let others decide your opinions for you, your opinion is worthless.

I'd say the great majority rate him top 3 at lightweight. In that case it's not really an opinion, it's consensus.

Like I said, I don't let others decide for me. I leave that to myself.

He was supposed to lose. I'd like to know the examples of all-time great lightweights who went onto beat all-time great welterweights and middleweights.

Joe Gans managed a draw with 140 lb Barbados Joe Walcott.

Benny Leonard was losing and fouled himself out against welterweight Jack Britton.

Ike Williams had little success above 135 pounds. Ortiz never tried.

So you can maybe point out to Henry Armstrong, Pernell Whitaker and Floyd Mayweather. None of those men were exactly facing a prime Ray Leonard during their welterweight campaign and neither did they ever even think about stepping up to face a prime Hagler at 160.

Naming you a fighter that beat an all-time great welterweight and lost to an all-time great middleweight as an example to prove why he's a top 10 all-time great is ******. I can ask you something that hasn't been accomplished before, regarding other fighters.

1st example: name me one other featherweight champion that bet more HOFers and featherweight champions after coming back from a plane crash, besides Pep.

2nd example: name me one other fighter who was an undefeated heavyweight champion of the world, besides Marciano.

3rd example: name me one other fighter who was an Olympic gold medalist and was a titlist from welterweight to light heavyweight, besides SRL.

Some things haven't been accomplished before, but that doesn't automatically entitle them to become a top 10 all-time great.

[cotto16]

We all rate differently and I rate like I see it. No matter what the excuse you use (age, weight class, etc.), I view it as a simple win. No excuses from me. In the end, Ortiz beat more lineal champions and more HOFers at that weight, than Duran. That's enough for me to rate him ahead of Duran

So you're saying for example, that William Joppy's win against Duran, is a great win for Joppy? Sometimes you have to judge a win, on what stage the fighter was at? How finished was he etc. Not always, but sometimes.

And in cases like Duran's lost to Joppy, or Louis's lost to Marciano. There not outstanding wins due to the version they got of the fighter they beat.

Your acting like Marciano's win over Louis was amazing and deserves full credit, like he has beat a prime Louis.

[Method Checker]

So you're saying for example, that William Joppy's win against Duran, is a great win for Joppy? Sometimes you have to judge a win, on what stage the fighter was at? How finished was he etc. Not always, but sometimes.

And in cases like Duran's lost to Joppy, or Louis's lost to Marciano. There not outstanding wins due to the version they got of the fighter they beat.

Your acting like Marciano's win over Louis was amazing and deserves full credit, like he has beat a prime Louis.

I was specifically referring to Ortiz' victories and Johnson's victory.

I don't Joppy the full credit, for his win over Duran. Duran wasn't even rated in the top 10 middleweights, at the time. But I'd still say that he has a victory over a hall of famer.

Louis, on the other hand, was rated as the number one heavyweight behind the champion Ezzard Charles, when Marciano fought him. So I do give him the credit for that win.

[TheGreatA]

Note the parts in bold.

I find it very ironic for you tell me that I'm wrong when rating fighters, when you don't even have a list of your own ratings.

We all rate differently and I rate like I see it. No matter what the excuse you use (age, weight class, etc.), I view it as a simple win. No excuses from me. In the end, Ortiz beat more lineal champions and more HOFers at that weight, than Duran. That's enough for me to rate him ahead of Duran.

Also, I do give Marciano full credit for those wins. The only person I rank ahead of him, amongst his opponents, is Louis. It's not Marciano's fault that he wasn't fighting in one of the best eras.

I don't have a pound for pound or all-time great list, yes, but I'm pretty sure about my divisional ratings. And if someone were to claim, for example, that **** Tiger or Jake LaMotta was a greater middleweight than Marvin Hagler then I could surely respond to it. Both Tiger and LaMotta arguably have a greater list of wins at middleweight than Hagler by the way.

Don't you think Marciano's wins over Louis, Charles, Walcott & Moore are better than Louis's best wins over Schmeling, Baer, Walcott & Conn? Better names atleast.

You can't be serious, when using Ali vs Quarry I, as an example..

Ali was bouncing on his toes, but he wasn't dancing and moving around the ring like he did previously or like he did in Ali vs Frazier II. Also, Frazier pressured a lot more than Quarry did. To use that as an example is weak.

He wasn't?



He didn't ever even try to "dance" against Frazier because he felt the best way to beat him was in the middle of the ring. Not too many could have stood up to the punishment Frazier absorbed early.

I'm not saying that's how he fought for only that fight. I'm just saying that he had the opportunity. Look at how it worked out for him, with his opponents. He beat them all in good fashion. If it wasn't working for him against Duran, he would've changed and started to dance around and not stand toe to toe. He didn't because he wanted to prove a point. He let Duran fight his fight.

Or maybe it's because he took a trendemous body beating in the early rounds.

He wanted to go toe to toe with Duran. We've already established that multiple times. Read the newspaper article that you sent to me, again, if you wish.

I'm well aware that Leonard's plan was to beat Duran in the middle of the ring while setting his feet to punch with full power. However I disagree that he voluntarily went against the ropes, took a beating and lost a decision.

Leonard had nowhere near the ability to fight off the ropes as Mayweather and Whitaker did. He wasn't as defensive savvy as Mayweather and Whitaker. To use that, is another bad example.

Leonard was awesome at fighting off the ropes against Duran. He also did it great against Marvin Hagler. No he wasn't defensively as savvy but that's because he didn't go to a shell, he would throw flurries of punches which caught the judges' eyes.

Neither of the four are anywhere near as dangerous or great as Duran. You'd have to believe he would be extra careful against Duran. Knowing Duran, It's hard to believe Mayweather would ever get into any sort of slugfest with him.

All of them were certainly dangerous. Mayweather wouldn't necessarily get into a slugfest but there'd be moments when he would be drawn into Duran's fight. The likes of Hatton, Castillo, De La Hoya were all able to put him against the ropes for extended periods of time, so I don't see why Duran couldn't since he was a master at that. Mayweather would either have the choice to try his best in order to defend Duran's savage combinations to the body and head or stand his ground and trade punches with him. Either way he would have major problems against Duran.

I've already established that I don't believe the Mayweather in the Castillo fight was the best version of him. Take the Mayweather from the Corrales fight (which I consider one of his best solo performances) and it would be a different story.

Wouldn't this be the same as me saying that Duran wasn't the best version against Leonard, Benitez?

No, what I'm trying to explain here is that Whitaker/Mayweather weren't Leonard or Benitez, nor was Castillo the same as Diego Corrales. Styles do make fights. I imagine the Mayweather of the Corrales fight would still have problems with Castillo.

Duran had neither the better connect percentage or defensive abilities as Mayweather.

There was no compubox in his era so we don't know about his connect percentage, although he was a deadly accurate puncher at 135, but he was among the best to mix both sheer aggression and also defense.

Considering that Castillo weighed in as a welterweight against Leonard and Leonard was a natural welterweight, I doubt Castillo would bully Leonard.

However, Castillo would be able to bully someone smaller than him. Someone smaller than him by, say, 10 pounds.

A 148 pound Castillo would've likely been stronger than a 135 pound Duran. He was simply a bigger opponent, at the time.

Duran was able to outmuscle Ray Leonard while weighing 145, I imagine he would be able to do the same to a smaller Floyd Mayweather while weighing 135-140. Castillo being stronger than a prime Duran is very debatable despite a weight difference.

Who says I don't? I just don't think that minor things like occasional low blows, some rabbit punching and accidental elbows really compare to hindering the vision of someone with glove laces. Don't you?

The examples I've brought up weren't just "occasional" though. Headbutts cause cuts that hinder vision, low blows can take the fight out of you at a crucial moment (for example you've been hurt and hit the opponent low to buy time), rabbit punching is simply dangerous (see Benn-McClellan) and elbows in Mayweather's case were hardly accidental, he uses them constantly.

His power, not his strength, was what won him the fight. He was able to take Cotto's punches, but who really landed more?

Pacquiao landed double the amount of punches. The amount of punches landed doesn't really have anything to do with strength. So to use strength as a reason of why it won him the fight is ******. He wasn't holding and pushing Cotto against the ropes. Cotto might have backed up, at times, but that wasn't due to strength.

Cotto was competitive early yet it was he who ended up on the canvas twice. Pacquiao simply didn't look like a small guy coming up from flyweight against Cotto. In fact you could say that he is at his very best now while fighting at 140-147. The same can't be said for Duran at 160 where he was clearly under-sized.

Saying that one fighter is "stronger" than the other doesn't necessarily always mean physical strength. Pacquiao was physically overpowering Cotto. He didn't necessarily put on a boxing clinic, he was just too strong, powerful, durable and fast for Cotto to handle.



Cotto arguably winning round 4 until being knocked down at 6:40.

[TheGreatA]

I'd also rank him within the top 20. I've already established that. I just said I wouldn't rank him in the top 10 P4P all-time and as the best lightweight of all-time. That's where I think he's overrated.

And just because other people might do it, that doesn't mean I have to do it. If you let others decide your opinions for you, your opinion is worthless.

You're saying that you can't see how others could rate Duran in the top 10 or number 1 at lightweight though. Obviously you're not going to change your own opinion but I'm making the case that he can be rated as highly due to all his accomplishments. ATG lists are such a subjective thing really. If I see a fighter like Jack Dempsey rated in the top 10 p4p then I consider that overrating him, considering that there are many fighters who are clearly more accomplished than he is. But Duran scores highly in many categories. You can criticize just about any fighter for the same things that you're criticizing Duran for.

Naming you a fighter that beat an all-time great welterweight and lost to an all-time great middleweight as an example to prove why he's a top 10 all-time great is ******. I can ask you something that hasn't been accomplished before, regarding other fighters.

I said that's only one way to make a case for him.

You can say he was a dominating champion for 7 years who took on all comers, you can say he won a world title from a terrific champion at just 21 years of age, you can say he holds a win over an all-time great welterweight champion, you can say he won world titles at lightweight, welterweight, light middleweight and middleweight, you can say he went the distance with an all-time great middleweight, you can say he beat a middleweight titlist who had KO'd Hearns at 37 years of age, you can say he competed until 50 years of age, etc. That's impressive no matter how you look at it.

1st example: name me one other featherweight champion that bet more HOFers and featherweight champions after coming back from a plane crash, besides Pep.

2nd example: name me one other fighter who was an undefeated heavyweight champion of the world, besides Marciano.

3rd example: name me one other fighter who was an Olympic gold medalist and was a titlist from welterweight to light heavyweight, besides SRL.

Some things haven't been accomplished before, but that doesn't automatically entitle them to become a top 10 all-time great.

Still, all of these fighters, with the possible exception of Marciano, have a case to be in the top 10 p4p.

[Method Checker]

Before I respond, A, let me ask you something:

Do you find it understandable if someone didn't put Duran in a top 10 all-time P4P list and didn't rank him as the greatest lightweight of all-time?

[TheGreatA]

Before I respond, A, let me ask you something:

Do you find it understandable if someone didn't put Duran in a top 10 all-time P4P list and didn't rank him as the greatest lightweight of all-time?

Yes. A lot of people don't rate Joe Gans, Sam Langford, Barbados Joe Walcott, because that's simply far too back for them. Duran is definitely one of the greatest modern fighters and it's no surprise to see him rated above the previously mentioned names because of this.

Benny Leonard has the best resume of wins at lightweight for me. However Duran could very well beat him in a head-to-head match-up.