The overrated Roberto Duran

[Method Checker]

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.

What has he done to be considered by many as the greatest lightweight of all-time? Now I can understand him being a top 5 and even top 3 lightweight, but the greatest?

Also, why is considered a top 10 P4P all-time great? It doesn't make sense.

He has losses to the greatest fighters he's ever fought. They include Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Benitez. Yet, somehow, he's rated highly above all of them, by most people.

I can understand that he's got a few good wins at lightweight over the likes of Buchanan, De Jesus and Kobayashi, but the rest are either paper champions or average journeymen.

How he's so highly rated is beyond me.

Notice the parts in bold

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.

I don't have him in my top 10. I do have him in my top 20. I think that putting him in the top 10 is overrating him. Hence, people overrate him. Meaning he's overrated by a lot of people.

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.

In my opening post I said that it's understandable to have him amongst the top 3 lightweights. I, myself, didn't have him in it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

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.

Like I said: putting him in the top 10 (not top 20) is overrating him. Claiming that he's the number one greatest lightweight of all-time is overrating him.

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?"

That's funny coming from you. You've made up numerous lies in your replies against me and you said I'm biased? Why don't you just come out with it and say you don't like me?

[Method Checker]

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.

All of that is in your opinion. Don't try to act like it's a fact.

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.

He tried to show me that Duran is not overrated. He failed. I asked if he can be overrated. He said yes. What's so wrong, there?

Is it because he agreed that your lover can in fact be overrated by some people?

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.

In the debate, I brought up Leonard, Ortiz, Whitaker, Mayweather and Pacquiao. Not all of them are in the top 10/20. Plus, they're used as a means of debating and I don't see why bringing them up to prove examples is so wrong.

What's interesting, in my opinion, is the fact that you keep responding to replies that I made to TheGreatA. Unlike you, TheGreatA doesn't put words into my mouth in every reply that he makes. He's actually been a good debater, while you have not.

[HaglerSteelChin]

@BennyST


The last time i quoted your message and put my reply the system wouldn't allow the post since it said " you have exceeded the maximum number of limits." This thread will give anyone a migraine reading the length of it.

As far who had the greater career Duran at LHW or Monzon at MW, i give the edge to Monzon. Monzon had 5 wins against Hall of Famers and the only HOF that Duran beat at LW was Buchanan, i will give him the win despite the whole controversey surrounding if it was a low bow or not? Mainly since i had beating Ken by atleast 3 points at the time. Monzon had more defenses at MW which is more competitive than the LW division, also he was pretty much undisputed champ unlike Duran at his reign at LW. Taking nothing away from duran; as I have him as the 3rd greatest LW behind Leonard and Gans. The whole greatest LW debate is a thread upon itself. But when you have a guy like Benny Leonard beating guys like Johnny Dundee, Willie Ritchie, Lew Tendler, Freddie Welsh, Jack Britton etc. He even fought Ted Lewis to a draw even if it was at WW; Benny came in a half pound over the LW limit. I don't regard Monzon as the greatest fighter to fight at the MW division; that belongs to SRR and Greb, but i think his record as a MW alone is equal to anyone. Hagler fought a close fight scored a draw against Antuofermo for his first chance at a title, Monzon instead took the decision out of the judges by KTFO of Hall of Famer champ Benenvenuti in his home country. He also did it again this time in 3rds to put the exclamation point. Its very close between Marvelous and esopeta, but i give the sllight edge to Monzon. SRL didnt physically beat marvelous; SRL mentally beat hagler something no fighter could do to Monzon. The fact that hagler started to fight orthodox instead of southpaw shows that SRL already got into his head.

If you look at techinical skill alot of it has to do with how you minimize your decifincies and increase your strengths. Duran did find ways to win being smaller in height and reach; something guys like whitaker, dempsey, walker, marciano, tyson all have done. A reason why Greb is highly rated was the fact he fought with a blind eye toward the end of his career. Like Greb, Monzon found many more ways to win even with lasting tissue and tendon damage to his leg after being shot. He knew how to find ways to win even after being less mobile and agile. Monzon was unorthodox and never over comitted to a punch to avoid being countered. He never would say No Mas even after being behind in the cards; he would say more like no hay riendi..sigo hasta el fin"(no surrender I continue until the end).

Duran had 12 defenses at LW? How many more defenses did he have in any other division? A total of 0. This means Monzon had more defenses of his undisputed crown than Duran had for his entire boxing career. He beat SRL by one point and than his defense of his WW crown ended in NO MAS. His chance at LMW champ ended with a boxing lesson by Benitez who even mocked DUran by telling him to fight him in the ropes as he stayed stationary; no reach issue when a guy tells you to fight in the ropes and isn't that how he beat SRL in the first fight? Monzon would murder an opponent who did to him.
So than he beats Davey Moore the WBA alphabet soup champ and never defends his title. He got a SD win over Barkley that many had the other way. You mention Duran fought in 10 divisions but he never won titles at Bantam, FW, SFW, LWW etc. With the paper title system Hector macho camacho and Pacquiao have won in 7 divisions. BTW, those are two fighters that i rate Duran higher than. I don't put a guy higher simply because he won more titles or lower because he won fewer. I have DUran higher than guys like Hearns, Mayweather, and Pacquaio who all won more belts. Yet i won't rate Duran higher than guys like Armstrong, Ali, Louis, Moore, or Monzon who won less belts.

Nothing against Ray Arcel or Freddie Brown but having quotes from people associated with his own camp is not exactly unbiased. Promoter Arum use to say hearns was the greatest thing he ever saw but changed that when he had Mayweather and did it again when he had Pacquiao recently.


I do agree that Durans wins at 147 and 160 do count for something. In fact, i think by putting Manos de Piedra at #21 P4P over many great fighters cleary show i have high regard for him. Personally, I hate monzon and i am glad he wasent allow to get out of jail in a few years after he killed his 2nd wife. If it wasent for the car crash he would have been a free man in a few years. I go simply on what they accomplished in the ring, techinical skill, quality of competition, won-loss records, intangibles(desire to win), ability to assimilate etc. Overall, i do slightly rate Monzon over Duran.

I will give you the last word as i know this whole thread may get locked anyway for sheer over activity.

[BritishBoxing92]

What has he done to be considered by many as the greatest lightweight of all-time? Now I can understand him being a top 5 and even top 3 lightweight, but the greatest?

Also, why is considered a top 10 P4P all-time great? It doesn't make sense.

He has losses to the greatest fighters he's ever fought. They include Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Benitez. Yet, somehow, he's rated highly above all of them, by most people.

I can understand that he's got a few good wins at lightweight over the likes of Buchanan, De Jesus and Kobayashi, but the rest are either paper champions or average journeymen.

How he's so highly rated is beyond me.

i do not think he is overrated

[Roy Hobbs]

What has he done to be considered by many as the greatest lightweight of all-time? Now I can understand him being a top 5 and even top 3 lightweight, but the greatest?

Also, why is considered a top 10 P4P all-time great? It doesn't make sense.

He has losses to the greatest fighters he's ever fought. They include Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Benitez. Yet, somehow, he's rated highly above all of them, by most people.

I can understand that he's got a few good wins at lightweight over the likes of Buchanan, De Jesus and Kobayashi, but the rest are either paper champions or average journeymen.

How he's so highly rated is beyond me.

i think just having the guts to get in the ring with all these greats win, lose, or draw just improves his greatness as oppose to carefully manicuring a glossy record that looks flashy on the outside but lacks substance on the inside.

Perfect example today would be the glossy records of a floyd mayweather & joe calzaghe. I prefer & hold to a higher esteem records of a erik morales, marquez, & pacquiao. Those losses & draws signify wars & challenges. They are battle scars & mark of a truly great career.

[BennyST]

Why don't you just come out with it and say you don't like me?

I don't like you. You have one of these minds which only allow certain things to be taken in. You are blind to reality and have a liking based on some form of demented hate and prejudice. You can see it in the way you write stuff.

You probably can't appreciate a certain type of fighter if they don't fit into your standards of what a great fighter should be, and that's small minded.

Happy? I can't stand people that rant on about a fighter as if they are being completely objective, especially when they start out their thread with an obvious biased agenda ('The Overrated Roberto Duran'. WHy not just title it 'Roberto Duran. Discuss?' and then put your little overrated spiel in). Why don't you just come out and say that you dislike Duran and that's the only reason you think people overrate him? You yourself rate him nearly as high as everyone so how do you think he is overrated, when the majority of people rate him slightly higher than you and are more objective because most of them see him as simply another fighter in the long history of the sport?

Are you the only person that is right?

Anyway, so you say you dislike him but you still have him in your top three LW's and in your top twenty somewhere P4P, but anyone who has him a few places higher is overrating him?

I love it!

[BennyST]

@BennyST


The last time i quoted your message and put my reply the system wouldn't allow the post since it said " you have exceeded the maximum number of limits." This thread will give anyone a migraine reading the length of it.

As far who had the greater career Duran at LHW or Monzon at MW, i give the edge to Monzon. Monzon had 5 wins against Hall of Famers and the only HOF that Duran beat at LW was Buchanan, i will give him the win despite the whole controversey surrounding if it was a low bow or not? Mainly since i had beating Ken by atleast 3 points at the time. Monzon had more defenses at MW which is more competitive than the LW division, also he was pretty much undisputed champ unlike Duran at his reign at LW. Taking nothing away from duran; as I have him as the 3rd greatest LW behind Leonard and Gans. The whole greatest LW debate is a thread upon itself. But when you have a guy like Benny Leonard beating guys like Johnny Dundee, Willie Ritchie, Lew Tendler, Freddie Welsh, Jack Britton etc. He even fought Ted Lewis to a draw even if it was at WW; Benny came in a half pound over the LW limit. I don't regard Monzon as the greatest fighter to fight at the MW division; that belongs to SRR and Greb, but i think his record as a MW alone is equal to anyone. Hagler fought a close fight scored a draw against Antuofermo for his first chance at a title, Monzon instead took the decision out of the judges by KTFO of Hall of Famer champ Benenvenuti in his home country. He also did it again this time in 3rds to put the exclamation point. Its very close between Marvelous and esopeta, but i give the sllight edge to Monzon. SRL didnt physically beat marvelous; SRL mentally beat hagler something no fighter could do to Monzon. The fact that hagler started to fight orthodox instead of southpaw shows that SRL already got into his head.

If you look at techinical skill alot of it has to do with how you minimize your decifincies and increase your strengths. Duran did find ways to win being smaller in height and reach; something guys like whitaker, dempsey, walker, marciano, tyson all have done. A reason why Greb is highly rated was the fact he fought with a blind eye toward the end of his career. Like Greb, Monzon found many more ways to win even with lasting tissue and tendon damage to his leg after being shot. He knew how to find ways to win even after being less mobile and agile. Monzon was unorthodox and never over comitted to a punch to avoid being countered. He never would say No Mas even after being behind in the cards; he would say more like no hay riendi..sigo hasta el fin"(no surrender I continue until the end).

Duran had 12 defenses at LW? How many more defenses did he have in any other division? A total of 0. This means Monzon had more defenses of his undisputed crown than Duran had for his entire boxing career. He beat SRL by one point and than his defense of his WW crown ended in NO MAS. His chance at LMW champ ended with a boxing lesson by Benitez who even mocked DUran by telling him to fight him in the ropes as he stayed stationary; no reach issue when a guy tells you to fight in the ropes and isn't that how he beat SRL in the first fight? Monzon would murder an opponent who did to him.
So than he beats Davey Moore the WBA alphabet soup champ and never defends his title. He got a SD win over Barkley that many had the other way. You mention Duran fought in 10 divisions but he never won titles at Bantam, FW, SFW, LWW etc. With the paper title system Hector macho camacho and Pacquiao have won in 7 divisions. BTW, those are two fighters that i rate Duran higher than. I don't put a guy higher simply because he won more titles or lower because he won fewer. I have DUran higher than guys like Hearns, Mayweather, and Pacquaio who all won more belts. Yet i won't rate Duran higher than guys like Armstrong, Ali, Louis, Moore, or Monzon who won less belts.

Nothing against Ray Arcel or Freddie Brown but having quotes from people associated with his own camp is not exactly unbiased. Promoter Arum use to say hearns was the greatest thing he ever saw but changed that when he had Mayweather and did it again when he had Pacquiao recently.


I do agree that Durans wins at 147 and 160 do count for something. In fact, i think by putting Manos de Piedra at #21 P4P over many great fighters cleary show i have high regard for him. Personally, I hate monzon and i am glad he wasent allow to get out of jail in a few years after he killed his 2nd wife. If it wasent for the car crash he would have been a free man in a few years. I go simply on what they accomplished in the ring, techinical skill, quality of competition, won-loss records, intangibles(desire to win), ability to assimilate etc. Overall, i do slightly rate Monzon over Duran.

I will give you the last word as i know this whole thread may get locked anyway for sheer over activity.

Nah, it's cool mate. I think I'll leave it that. I'm confused by your post.

[BennyST]

Actually mate: I'll just bring up one quick thing.

I think a lot of the points you make are great, but, a lot of them are also complete conjecture. You can't know a lot of the stuff that makes you rate him as high as you do. Like the Leonard thing psyching out Hagler and Duran. You can't possibly know that Monzon wouldn't fall into the same trap because he never faced anyone that was as good as Leonard, nor anyone that psyched opponents out as well. So, that's pure conjecture which is cool to discuss but I only rate guys on what they did do in their career, not what I think they could and would have done.

Also, that post was a repeat of the other one you write. It didn't actually answer anything. I don't really get the points you're making. Like Leonard losing by one point. What does that mean? He still won. Did Monzon never win by only one point? Did he always win every single round....Hold on, he never even fought anyone as good Leonard, nor did he move up many divisions to do it.



I can't figure it out mate.

[Mud]

bump


..........

[HaglerSteelChin]

bump


..........

The more you read and see Monzon fighting the more you realize how good he was, even if he was a horrible human being.