The overrated Roberto Duran

[Calilloyd]

[QUOTE=TheGreatA;7354588]Who would you rate over him?



I disagree. Leonard, for the most part, fought as the aggressor in the majority of his professional fights. Coming into the fight, Dundee said Leonard would be too strong for the former lightweight Duran. However Leonard didn't exactly "brawl" with Duran, he was forced to brawl with Duran.





It was Leonard's plan to trade with Duran. He didn't just decide to do it once he got in the ring. Leonard will say that in any interview you can find pertaining to that fight.




Leonard wanted to keep the fight in the middle of the ring but Duran was constantly pressuring him, feinting him and fighting in the clinches. The relentless body attack in the early rounds took away Leonard's legs and he had no choice but to stand and trade.

Leonard stood in front of Duran and traded from the opening bell. Not once did he use his legs as he did in rematch.


Leonard did attempt to use his movement in the middle rounds but by then Duran had his number and made him flinch with every feint he threw. The fight was Duran's at that point but Leonard made a courageous rally in the late rounds.

In the rematch Leonard came in with his Olympic style and danced away from Duran. However he was so negative that the judges had the bout near even at the time of the unexpected stoppage. Duran quit then, but it was not because he was badly beaten, it was because his ego had taken a hit from Leonard's taunting. Or something else which we'll probably never know. Leonard won fair and square but so did Duran in the first fight.



Agreed. But Leonard fought the way he wented to fight in both fights. One fight he came up short. He adjusted for the second fight and prevailed.
With that said I don't think Duran is overrated.

[Calilloyd]

[QUOTE=TheGreatA;7354902]You could argue Leonard & Gans but not Ortiz in my opinion. And I'm a fan of Ortiz.



Calling Duran a brawler is a bit misleading. The man could box with the best of them but giving away 6 years in age, 3-4 inches in height and 8 in reach, he was forced to "brawl". And he also forced Leonard to brawl with him. You give him no credit for doing so while I do.

Leonard didn't truly embarrass Duran, Duran embarrassed himself by quitting. The judges had Leonard leading by one point at the time of the stoppage. Leonard fought very negatively in this fight.



Excuse? Duran had just turned 21 years of age. It's very obvious that he got better as a boxer as his career went on. Stylistically, young Duran's relentless pressure was great against Buchanan, a great boxer but without great punching power. However against Esteban DeJesus, a clever counter puncher with dynamite in his fists, it was the wrong way to go on about it. Duran showed he was the better man in their two rematches.

You should know this if you have viewed the careers of Duran, DeJesus, Buchanan.



Whitaker and Mayweather weren't DeJesus. They were better defensively but offensively they don't pose the threat to Duran that DeJesus did. Who is to say that Duran simply wouldn't walk down Mayweather like Castillo did? With three more rounds to go, Floyd would have lost very decisively to Castillo, who as good as he was, was not in Duran's class.

Mayweather also fought the first fight with a dislocated shoulder. He did remtach Castillo and beat him much more clearly. If you can give Duran the benefit of the doubt for the first Dejesus fight you can do the same for Mayweather.

[Calilloyd]

This is why I point out that as recently as the 1980s Mayweather's pot-shot and run like **** tactics wouldn't have played well in the eyes of the judges (ie. the people who determine who wins the decision) and would have cost him fights.Poet

Please show even ONE fight where Mayweather fought the way Leonard did in the Duran rematch. Or any fights of him "running". I'll wait.

[BennyST]

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. But that's still not overrating him if you did have him at No. 1.

The title of the thread by you is "The overrated Roberto Duran". That implies that having him in the top three as a lightweight and being somewhere around the top five to twenty, depending on who is rating the P4P list, is still not overrating. Him being 'overrated' would imply that anywhere in the top three or even top five and being in the top twenty P4P is overrated. If you think Duran is overrated, you wouldn't have him anywhere near the top three or top twenty. If you think he is among the top three and at or within the top twenty P4P, you're not overrating him at all. The consensus is that he's somewhere in the top twenty, whether it's eighteen or eight is irrelevant, and also a top three LW.

If you have him somewhere in those numbers then you yourself don't think he is overrated at all. You just dislike him. If you really thought he was overrated you wouldn't have him near the top ten/twenty or thirty nor would you have him near the top three at LW.

You have been slagging him off as if he was not worthy of being in the top three, or being a top five to twenty P4P guy. He is nearly always in the top three at LW and around the top ten P4P by most people.

If you have him in the top three or very near and in the top twenty P4P then you are also saying he's not overrated. You just have a different version and you dislike him which may slightly could your judgment. The fact you have him that high means that someone having him in the top three, or number one, and around the top ten, or in the top ten, is not overrating him either.

This whole thread comes across as either biased or written with an obvious dislike. Anyone that starts a thread with "The Overrated .... " comes across that way and when you have written the way you have it seems even more so.

Writing a thread that was genuinely unbiased stating Duran is too high, you would not have started it with the title "The overrated Duran". If you look at those who are genuinely unbiased and simply discussing something in here, it would usually be along the lines of "Rocky Marciano: Too High?"

[BennyST]

Fair enough. So he can be overrated. Thank you for establishing that.

Man, you're hilarious. Not only that but you're completely missing GreatA's point. Rating him anywhere from top ten to twenty is not overrating him. Rating him top three P4P would be overrating him. But you could put him inside the top ten without overrating him or you could put him at twenty and you wouldn't be over or underrating him.

A list this subjective can only go on averages really. Duran is always within the top twenty somewhere and within the top three at LW. So, you saying that GreatA is agreeing with you that he's overrated because he is saying he doesn't have to be in the top ten is ******.

What he is saying is that you can have him in the top twenty or ou can have him in the top ten and neither is over or underrating him. Overrating him would be having him in the top five or calling him the GOAT. Having him in the top twenty somewhere, which you may do, means you agree with GreatA and that he is not overrated at all. Not everyone has him in the top ten and not everyone has him as the best LW.

What's interesting is that whenever you have brought up someone else in regards to similar accomplishments of his, they have also been top ten/twenty fighters.

[BennyST]

I believe overrating Duran would be calling him the best fighter of all time, which he clearly is not, or top 5 at welterweight which he isn't either. Or the Jack Dempsey example since many rate him in their top 10 pound for pound. If a solid case can be made that Duran is top 10 or the number 1 at lightweight then it's not truly overrating him, in my opinion.

How can you say that GreatA agreed with you that Duran can be overrated when he very clearly states the above. You read this post and then said "So, you agree that he can be overrated. Great"

Then "I won this debate because GreatA agreed with me that he can be overrated" and yet, it so clearly states that he never said any such thing but said the opposite in fact.

I can't stand when people don't look at what is written and then just make **** up because otherwise they can't get what they want. He disagreed with you. It is written right there in front of you and you keep saying you won because he agreed with you?

[BennyST]

@BennyST

BTW, Benitez was once knocked down three times in a fight and still got up to beat Curry. The Moore fight ended with Benitez having a broken ankle.

My issue is more simply techinicall skill ask Angelo Dundee who was the more technical fighter Duran or Monzon. Dundee the man who trained Ali and Leonard said: "Monzon is the complete fighter......he can box you...he can outpunch you.....or he can even outhink you....he is game all the way." That is more to my point that guys like Monzon or Salvador Sanchez can assimilate and adapt to any style. When DUran fought Hearns the trainer and commentator Gil Clancy said: "Duran needs to get low against a much taller fighter to make it harder for him to hit you and force him to get in the inside." Hearns was KOD by both Hagler and SRL two guys much smaller than him. Benitez took Hearns to the full 15 RDS but Hearns destroyed Duran in 2rds. Monzon had alot of boxing IQ and i doubt he ever will be in a position where he would say NO MAS. I see things like the sport of tennis there is hard courts, decca turf, Clay, and Grass. Monzon was a fighter who could fight any style- a guy like Duran had trouble with slick fighters who use both speed and movement. Monzon neutrailzed speed with timing and clinching if needed, he neutralize power with a granite chin, he neutralize superior skill by intelligence.

If you want to be critical of Monzon and has early losses, than trash bernard
hopkins for his early loss at LHW. Also throw in Henry Armstrong for losing 3 of his first 4 fights. Also question Salvador Sanchez for an early loss in his career. But i guess the fact that he didn't lose his last 13 years of fighting and he defended his MW title a record 14 times at the time perhaps may offset some of those early losses? Also Monzon was KD only once in his entire career in his 100th fight and never was KO'D.

We will discuss the whole issue of moving up and size again. Monzon fought many guys like Licata who was about the same height and was 50-1. He also beat Benevenuti a Hall of Famer twice by KO who had same size dimensions. He beat Hall of Famer Jose Napoles and Hall of Famer Emile Griffith twice. That is 5 wins against Hall of Famers and two wins against Valdez who is bordeline HOF material. You mention that all his fights were at MW. That is not correct. Monzon had a few non title fights and what would be classified as the SMW division nowadays. Guess what? He won all those fights by early KO which suggests he possibly was weight drained in alot of those 160 fights. There are numerous stories of him starving or burning down calories to make weight. He was much more methodical than Duran, Duran got tired in the last 2 Rds against hagler. Monzon knew how to conserve energy and how to maintain stamina.

If Monzon goes to LHW he could have met a guy like **** Tiger. Tiger was smaller than Monzon but looking at the people who beat Tiger there is nothing preventing from saying he coudnt beat him or Conteh who lost to Muhammad twice. I think Bob Foster would have been the opponent at LHW who can given him is greatest challenge. Brawn alone is not going to beat Monzon; because he was a thinking and methodical fighter.

Hey man, I'm not forcing any opinion on you at all. You can rate Monzon wherever, but by saying you can't see at all how Duran is rated as the best Latin fighter and that Monzon is defintely higher, well, I am just pointing out some facts that are saying Duran accomplished a lot more overall, thus rating Monzon higher would be based on personal liking more than subjective rating.

I think if Monzon had moved up he would have done brilliant but the whole point is he didn't.

Curry beat Benitez. That fight was a robbery. A real robbery, not an NSB robbery. Benitez made it seem close by coming back a bit but he lost it.

Anyway, you rate Monzon highly based on his MW career (and I don't count non title fights a few pounds above MW as being a different division, otherwise most of Duran's non title fights were at 140 because both guys would weigh in a bit over 135. Every fighter back then did that) right? But, then you rate Duran down because of fights he had against JMW's and MW's. Saying he got tired against Hagler and that Monzon didn't and was good at conserving energy is way off base IMO. That was in Duran's tenth division. Would Monzon have had good stamina as a 200 pound HW? No.

Duran's stamina as a lightweight was unheard of. In the last rounds of a fifteen round fight he would always come on as if he was just starting out the fight. But, you are arguing that Monzon was better in stamina etc, because f a fight that Duran had against one of the greatest middleweight of all time. Duran was fat, small, old and slow at MW. He was a lightweight.

I rank Monzon and Duran together according to their respective best weights. Monzon only had one. Duran's was LW. They are comparable in their weights. We went over this already previously though.

Now, my issue comes with you saying you rate Monzon higher due to losses Duran had as a LMW and MW. From 118 to 147, Duran's stamina was as good as anyone's has ever been. At those weights he was usually fighting guys that were the same or a similar size, apart from most of the fights at 147. Above that he was fighting younger, bigger great fighters and yes, he lost. But, he was a LW fighting JMW and MW's.

If Monzon had gone up to LHW and HW he might have done great. I don't know because he didn't do it. That's my only problem. Can you sort of see where I am coming from?

You are basing stuff on losses that Duran had against middleweight and then comparing those losses to Monzon, but he was always a middleweight, never moved up. If you are going to talk about losses etc, then you should look at Duran's LW losses as compared to Monzon.

Oh, and I do take into account the loses of all those guys you mentioned. Hopkins's loss against Mitchell, Pac's KO losses early and the Morales loss, Armstrong's losses etc. It's like Castillo. Many forgot that he lost numerous times by TKO early on before having a few peak years. It doesn't mean he didn't lose. I do take all of that into account.

But, what I am still confused about is the losses you look at that put Duran below Monzon is your eyes. If he had lost more as a LW, then I would agree. He lost once from 118 to 135, defended that loss twice by KO. But, you rate him below Monzon because of stuff that happened at JMW and MW. Where he was tiny compared to his opponents, older, had fought twice as long in some cases etc etc. Benitez and Leonard either beating or goign the distance with Hearns means nothing as compared to Duran. They had always been in the same weight classes, were the same age, much close to the same height etc etc.

Those losses are like if Monzon had moved up to HW and he had lost to some of the greatest HW's that had ever fought.

Swap it around for a second to get a different perspective. You rate Monzon for his greater MW run compared to Duran's run at ten divisions and his best run at LW.

Would you rate Monzon lower than Duran if Duran had retired after his LW career with one loss and a record twelve defenses, unification and one of the most dominant ever title reigns at any weight etc and if Monzon had, after his legendary reign, then gone on to SMWand beat top conetdners etc, then to LHW, won a title against one of the greatest ever LHW's as well as another HOFer, then gone on to HW competed brilliantly and even nearly won against a top three/five HW but he also lost to some of the greatest HW's ever by decision and one by KO to the biggest puncher in the sport and arguably in history? Especially if this HW stood head and shoulder, literally, above Monzon?

You wouldn't say "Well, other HW's were able to go the decision or even beat him, so why couldn't the ATG middleweight Monzon?"

If he had done all that extra stuff, would you then rate him lower because of it? That's what you are doing. If Monzon had gone on to SMW, LHW and HW and won titles against some of the greatest ever fighters there as well as losing fights because he was much older and smaller than his natural HW opponents, how would you defend then rating him lower than Duran who had retired straight after his great LW run with only one loss?

I think Monzon's run was amazing. Don't get me wrong. He has always been one of my favourite fighters ever. I do look at his wins over Griffith and Napoles as rather foregone conclusions. They were old and very small compared to him. He was meant to beat and KO them. Could you imagine if the much older and smaller Napoles had given Monzon hell and even nearly beaten him and been his hardest opponent over all the other MW's? It's hard to imagine isn't it? Anyway, that didn't happen and he beat them pretty easy as he was meant to. Great names but they don't compare to his wins over Benvenuti and Valdez.

[BennyST]

My issue is more simply techinicall skill ask Angelo Dundee who was the more technical fighter Duran or Monzon. Dundee the man who trained Ali and Leonard said: "Monzon is the complete fighter......he can box you...he can outpunch you.....or he can even outhink you....he is game all the way." That is more to my point that guys like Monzon or Salvador Sanchez can assimilate and adapt to any style. When DUran fought Hearns the trainer and commentator Gil Clancy said: "Duran needs to get low against a much taller fighter to make it harder for him to hit you and force him to get in the inside." Hearns was KOD by both Hagler and SRL two guys much smaller than him. Benitez took Hearns to the full 15 RDS but Hearns destroyed Duran in 2rds. Monzon had alot of boxing IQ and i doubt he ever will be in a position where he would say NO MAS.

I don't disagree with any of that. Monzon was a great technical fighter. He was very smart and knew what to do.

I thin you'll also find Dundee said the same about Duran too though. Before the Leonard fight: Angelo Dundee watched the Duran bout very carefully. “Duran is thought of as a rough guy, but he’s not rough,” he observed, “he’s smart and slick.”, and "One gets the impression of Duran is that he’s a tough, rough brawler who just wades in and ducks nothing. But all you have to do is look at his face to see that is nonsense. He’s not marked up. He does a lot of cute things in there."

He also said, with Gil Clancy that Duran was up too high. He didn't have the body to fight above 147. He said that he would have kept him at or below 147 because his body didn't adjust to 154. He was too slow, too fat and couldn't move the same way because of it and needed to lose the weight and get back down.

Ray Arcel on Duran "Duran knew how to fight. He knew what to do. If he looked at the corner the only thing I ever had to do was pretend to jab, once he was using his jab I knew he’d have no trouble. Even more important he knew how to think. When you talk about great fighters, always remember there was a guy named Roberto Duran. He was never given the opportunity to really display his wares because at his peak, he was overshadowed by Muhammad Ali."

Freddie Brown on Duran “The only guy we had like him,” Brown told Pete Hamill, “is Henry Armstrong.” Arcel trained Armstrong after Ross retired and understood the intricacies of explosive boxing. Both trainers knew the value of intelligence in the ring. “Boxing,” said Arcel whenever the subject came up, “is brain over brawn…if you can’t think, you’re just another bum in the park.” Duran was not only “one of the most vicious fighters we’ve ever had,” said Brown, he was “one of the smartest.”

[StarshipTrooper]

Please show even ONE fight where Mayweather fought the way Leonard did in the Duran rematch. Or any fights of him "running". I'll wait.

Just off the top of my head Baldomir, De La Hoya, and Marquez. I don't doubt I can find others if I go back and rewatch the films. The issue isn't whether Floyd uses his legs: Hell Ali used his legs. It's more a matter of his lack of offense ie. the potshotting. Ali (and Whitaker for that matter) used his legs without letting his work rate slide. It's a fallacy that you can't move and throw punches at the same time. In the Duran rematch Leonard potshotted and it cost him in terms of rounds won: Judges took a much dimmer view of that kind of offensive activity back then. Mayweather gets away with potshotting now, he wouldn't have at the time of the Leonard - Duran fights.

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

How can you say that GreatA agreed with you that Duran can be overrated when he very clearly states the above. You read this post and then said "So, you agree that he can be overrated. Great"

Then "I won this debate because GreatA agreed with me that he can be overrated" and yet, it so clearly states that he never said any such thing but said the opposite in fact.

I can't stand when people don't look at what is written and then just make **** up because otherwise they can't get what they want. He disagreed with you. It is written right there in front of you and you keep saying you won because he agreed with you?

He's using High School debate team tactics to try and score cheap points. Unfortunately for him it doesn't work when anyone with half an adult brain is judging the so-called debate.

Poet