The overrated Roberto Duran

[eli porter]

LOL, the great A you have the patience of a saint.

method checker, you are massively irrational. view your own posts and try to see how wrong they are.

[check hook]

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.

Posted this in another unrelated thread:

DURAN: 103-16-0

- Lightweight kingpin for almost a decade
- Beat SRL in his prime, moving up in weight.
- Trilogy with the incredibly underrated Esteban De Jesus who holds a victory over Duran.
- Slapped Davey Moore around like a cheap whore @ JMW when he was 32 years old.
- Very close fight with Hagler not long after slapping Moore. He told MH after the fight "You're not so marvelous"
- Beat Iran Barkley @ MW. Yes beat him at 160. For those who don't know Barkley was a HUUGEE MW. Watch the James Toney vs Barkley fight and lok at the size difference!!! Toney still credits Barkley as one of the hardest hitters he fought....stating he hurt me everytime he hit me!

Others:

- Wilfred Benitez
- Hearns
- Comacho

[HaglerSteelChin]

@BennyST



I think you misunderstood what i said about reach. It does help if the opponent makes it an issue. Benitez is was not on his bike and doing potshots or pittypat, or using his slight reach advantage. Benitez was willing to allow Duran to engage him on the inside. Hearns has much bigger reach than Benitez; but Benitez made him miss 11 consecutive blows since he is better at slipping and ducking. In addition, i said if small guys beating bigger guys is a sign of greatness than why would Duran be rated higher than Marciano who a shorter reach than literally all of his opponents; yet never lost a fight. Why is he higher than Jack Dempsey who murdered Jess "the giant" willard who was much bigger than him and many of his opponents. Even Mike Tyson beat alot of guys like TNT Tucker, Bonecrusher Smith, Bruno, Ribalda, etc., who had greater reach than him. Yet nobody would rate Tyson higher than bigger heavyweights as Foreman, Holmes, Holyfield, or even Lewis.

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 Dick 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.

You mention that Duran fought in many divisions but he won titles in 4. Something that has been done numerous times with alphabet soup belts. THomas Hearns won a title in 6 divisions if you count his cruiser title; yet i still rank Duran higher than both Hearns and Hagler. How many defenses does Duran have between 147-160? A total of 0. He never defended any title he had over 135. Something that guys like DLH and even Arguello have done. In fact, when discussing the greatest latin fighters Duran pretty much put Arguello in his class. He also put Trinidad up there a guy who defended his WW title 17 times and did have several defenses of his JR MW title. I myself rate Trinidad much lower than Duran and Arguello slightly lower than Duran. Duran himself admitted " i can't rate guys like Kid Chocolate or Gavilan since they were before my time and he said he didnt see enough of Napoles to rate him. Duran himself rated Chavez, Benitez, and Wilfredo Gomez high. An argument can even be made of Chavez vs Duran; although i would favor Duran in that battle.

This whole thread can go back and forth until the cows come home. If people want to think Duran is a top 10 PFP fighter or the greatest latin fighter than fine; but they can force that opinion on anyone.

BUMP.

Monzon also avenged his only three losses and i said later in that same thread with GREATA, Monzon won fights with lasting tissue and tendon damage on his leg after being shot. Floyd Mayweather SR. was shot in the leg and that did derail him as a contender. With limited mobility due to the tendon and tissue damage Monzon still won ways to win.

Many fighters who start as teenagers like Duran and Pacquiao will naturally start in lower weights since their body is not fully matured. George Carpentier fought like from the modern flyweight all the way up to heavyweight. Mayweather and Cotto were like flyweights when they were 17. Once again, i am a bigger fan of Duran than Monzon, but i don't think someone is insane or off their rocker for making the case for Monzon.

[IronDanHamza]

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.



Can you point out where in the fight Duran rubbed laces in Moore's eyes? Is this not an excuse?



Best welterweight of the decade? Surely you can't be talking about Miguel Cotto? I don't even care to begin to describe what Duran would do to Cotto.

Cotto is good no doubt but he is no prime Marvin Hagler.

Also the fact that Pacquiao's own trainer Freddie Roach doesn't think Manny could have beaten Duran is very telling.



Smith and Weaver were also 40+ year old men almost as old as Holmes himself and it's rather debatable whether they were better than Castro. And talking about lucky champions, there's no more luckier a punch thrown than the one Weaver felled John Tate with in the 15th round of a fight he was clearly losing on the cards. Or when Smith stopped Bruno in the 10th and final round after having lost the 9 previous rounds.



So bring up all these examples then. Bernard Hopkins? Archie Moore? Any more?

Great posts all round but I don't agree at all with this.

Ortiz most certainly can be at the very least argued to be above Duran at LW.

[Daddy T]

lol can't believe there were so many replies to this stoopid thread. What's next the 'Why is everybody so hot for Sugar ray Robinson, he was no Joe Calzaghe' thread?

[Bolo Punch]

This thread should've ended after the second post.

[broadwayjoe]

We will have to disagree on where he's rated, yes. But I would say that I've won this debate.

You could say that, but you would be wrong. TheGreatA made his points based on knowledge of the fighters being discussed and your comments showed a bias against Duran and your knowledge base is clearly BoxRec driven.

If this "debate" was a title fight, Howard Cosell would be threatening to quit doing boxing broadcasts.

[Panamaniac]

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.

That you were able to say all that while omitting the words "no mas" is either a remarkable achievement in self-restraint or a product of selective memory loss.

That aside, any failure to comprehend his stature in the sweet science can be chalked-up to the ol' Roberto Duran mystique.