The overrated Roberto Duran

[TheGreatA]

You make excuses and then you make more excuses. I can do the same to Duran's victories, if I wanted to.

What are these excuses? Is it not true that Sugar Ramos was a natural featherweight? Is it not true that Joe Brown was 36 years old? Should I now claim that Buchanan beat the best version of Ortiz?

I rate Ortiz as the best Puerto Rican fighter of all time but I don't think his lightweight reign was quite as dominant as Duran's.

Show me once, in this thread, where I discredited Duran's win over Buchanan. Show me where I discredited Duran's two wins over De Jesus.

I never said you discredited them. What's there to discredit? I didn't discredit Ortiz's wins over Laguna either but the wins over Ramos and Brown in particular have questions over them. I wouldn't give Duran a whole lot of credit for beating a featherweight at 135 or a 36 year old.

I didn't take anything away from his victory. Leonard brawled one fight and boxed the other. Leonard lost the brawl. I keep repeating that over and over but you somehow find the need to keep bringing it up. He lost, then won.

We may leave it at that. It seemed to me that you were indeed discrediting Duran's victory in the first post. It should be considered a career-defining victory for Duran, much like the rematch was for Leonard.

I would give Leonard the full advantage over Mayweather. However, I think he would've had some trouble with Whitaker and that fight could go either way.

I believe he would have beaten both. But I can see Whitaker's southpaw style and slickness possibly troubling him.

I didn't say he was a bully throughout his whole career. You're falsely claiming I did. The only time I said he was a bully, in this thread, was during the Leonard fights. Show me where I said elsewhere.

I assumed you did.

"It also showed how a bully wasn't able to take a beating mentally and then quit from embarrassment."

"Duran was a bully. Anyone who thinks he wasn't doesn't know what they're talking about."

One can easily get the impression that you were talking about his overall career. I make no excuses for Duran's quitjob against Leonard but he showed heart plenty of times and thus shouldn't be considered a mere bully.

Of course, they deserve to be bashed over what they did, but the quitting part doesn't take away anything extra from their losses. The quitting part just casts a shadow over their profiles.

Not once in this thread did I say that Duran's quitting should take anything away from his legacy. I just stated the fact that he lost by quitting. It doesn't matter whether he quit, got knocked out or lost a decision. He just lost and that's how I rate it.

You made a thread about Duran being overrated. Since Duran quitting against Leonard was part of your argument, and you highlighted the fact, I was given the impression that you don't rate Duran because of it.

It's quite clear that you're very fond of Duran. I just find it disgraceful that you have to make an excuse to cover up a loss in his prime.

Of course I respect Duran but I've found myself defending Sugar Ray Leonard more often than Duran actually. If I feel someone is simply trying to pick apart a fighter's resume, I'll respond to it whether it was about Duran, Leonard, whoever.

Again I don't see how I'm making any excuses for the DeJesus loss. What I'm saying is something that's proven by the films. Young Duran's early style worked very well against Buchanan but it did not work against DeJesus. Thus Duran had to improve in order to beat DeJesus, which he did do, twice in fact. This proves what I'm saying. It's not like I'm saying Duran was weight-drained, Duran was injured, Duran was wearing the wrong socks, etc. I'm saying he did not have the necessary experience to deal with DeJesus's style at that point.

Funny, but you've done that a lot more than I have.

To display how one can do what you're doing.

"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."

I pointed out more wins on his record than just those.

"The reason Leonard lost was because he chose to fight Duran how Duran liked to fight; which was a brawl. The rematch was fought differently, however. Leonard chose to use his boxing skills and he embarrassed Duran in a one-sided beating that made Duran quit."

You said here that Leonard chose to fight the way he did against Duran. I argued that Duran forced Leonard to fight the way he did.

"You left out the fact that the Davey Moore fight is highly controversial. And, somehow, it's so amazing for Duran to lose to a fighter in a division where he was a titleholder. Many fighters have gone up in weight and won titles in more divisions and you're praising him for losing."

You claimed the Davey Moore fight is "highly controversial" and discredit the win. I do not see anything warranting a DQ in the bout and Moore was soundly beaten from round 1 until the end.

So you think you're winning, now, do you? Tell me, did you convince me that Duran is overrated? No, you haven't. I, on the other hand, have given you more reasons why I consider him overrated.

I don't concern myself with winning or losing arguments. Such things are futile as no one's going to admit to "losing" over the internet. You made a thread about Duran being overrated and I gave you my opinion.

My opening post on this thread displays that Duran clearly rates among the best of all time. A dominant lightweight champion for 7 years, who went up to the welterweight division and beat two of the best welterweights of the era and also successfully competed at light middleweight and middleweight. I don't force you to rate him in the top 10 or anything.

You can make comparisons of any fighter. That doesn't mean they fought the same.

Point out what Castillo did better than a prime Roberto Duran.

Whitaker and Mayweather had enough of a good punch, however, in order to gain respect from their opponents.

But they don't truly pose a threat of a one punch KO as DeJesus and Leonard did. Duran had to be a lot more wary against them.

While Whitaker didn't go for the knockout, he still had a good punch when he wanted to use it. Observe his fight with Louie Lomeli. He was pretty aggressive in that fight and he knew that he could take him out of there if he wanted to. He did.

With all due respect to Louie Lomeli, he's not in the class of a Roberto Duran. He walked in with his chin up and got caught with a big punch. It's not like Duran dropping a very tough Iran Barkley up at 160.

The same with Mayweather. He was all about fighting a safe fight and not getting hit. When he wanted to use his power, he did.

I'm sure he wanted to use his power against Castillo but Floyd couldn't budge him.

I see both of them out-boxing Duran, en route to a decision. Duran would try to pressure but would get caught with counter-punches and would be missing more than he ever has before.

Duran was very accurate and creative with his combination punching and had a peach of a counter right hand. Surely he'll be missing against two of the best defensive fighters of all time, but Duran's own defensive ability is often overlooked. You may catch him once but not twice. And he is very quick to close the gap and force you to fight his fight in close. Give Duran 15 rounds and he'll give Whitaker and Mayweather hell at 135.

Using your laces against someones eyes is a lot different than low low blows, elbows and hitting behind the head. That's all common in the game of boxing. Using laces against the eyes, however, is not.

So low blows, rabbit punches, elbows and headbutts are allowed now? Duran wasn't nearly as "dirty" against Moore as he is made out to be. Moore was having more trouble dealing with Duran's defense on the inside, his counter punching and the relentless body beating he was administering.

The original response from me was about you asking if there was another fighter than went from bantamweight to middleweight and fight a competitively against the middleweight champion.

This is what I originally said:

"Tell me the equivalent of Roberto Duran, who started out as a bantamweight, was in his prime as a lightweight, went up to welterweight and went 15 rounds with a prime ATG Marvin Hagler at middleweight. There's no comparison."

I gave you an example using Pacquiao. He climbed higher divisions and actually beat the champion instead of lost to the champion.

It's debatable if Cotto was in his prime and he is certainly not an ATG on the level of Hagler. It's a fair example but do you think Pacquiao would have beaten a Ray Leonard, or a 147 lb version of Hagler? I doubt it. I believe Duran would have beaten Cotto.

I am in no way comparing Hagler's legacy to Cotto's. I'm only comparing how much Duran and Pacquiao climbed up in and what weight division champions they beat. You're thinking I'm saying something different when, in fact, I'm not.

My original argument was that no one went up as many weight divisions as Duran and could have beaten an all-time great like Hagler. Thus it's difficult to discredit Duran because of this loss.

[TheGreatA]

Right of the top of the head; Mundine and Benevenuti had about the same height and reach. He also Kod them. In addition, Mundine was kind of wide build and won national titles in the LHW and Cruiser divisions. He also beat a fighter called Roy Dale who was MUCH bigger than him like 5 inches taller; and of course Monzon murdered him in 5 rounds.

Mundine was talented and a pretty big middleweight but he had trouble making weight and suffered from having a glass jaw. Benvenuti wasn't small but he was better off at 154 in my opinion. The point is that Monzon never fought anyone bigger. Can you imagine him fighting a 175 lb version of Ray Leonard who had several inches over him in height and reach? Simply an impossible feat for Monzon who relied on his reach. Bob Foster would have had his number if you ask me.

Monzon was shot and fought the same year with an injured leg, he was tougher than people think; even if he was a thug. There are many great fighters like ALi, Lewis, Hagler,Wilde who all fought in one division. Monzon was obviously interested in having the most defense record which he held until BHOP broke it. Nowadays, with all those belts it's not as great as back in the day. Its pure subjective and speculation; but i have no doubt if Monzon was fighting today with the alphabet divisions he could have won titles at 168 and 175.

Monzon did in fact get shot and he was an incredibly tough and focused man but I disagree that he faced all kinds of opposition. He never truly fought anyone bigger than him which Duran did numerous times. Duran was 5'6-5'7 with a 66" reach, yet he competed as high as middleweight with the likes of 6'1 Iran Barkley who later fought at heavyweight.

I rate Monzon highly and don't think it's outrageous to have him over Duran but I felt I had to point out Duran's ventures into divisions above his natural weight and the way he frequently competed against bigger men.

[t.boone.pickenz]

nicee sig.

[DeepSleep]

Seemed more like he was pushing Moore off of him, and Moore was a beaten man at that point. The fight should have been stopped. I don't see anything DQ-worthy in that sequence.

Moore certainly landed his share of low blows as well.

I think we will have to agree to disagree because to me that is a clear eye rake. I think though this is all moot though because I think Duran would beat Moore decisively with or without the thumbs/low blows/eye rake anyways.

[AddiX]

I can't believe there is a thread on a boxing website that is calling Duran over-rated. SMH, dude was a complete animal.

[bojangles1987]

Come on.

Roberto Duran is the best or second best lightweight ever. He is top 10 p4p easily, and he would embarrass Floyd Mayweather. He would probably beat Whitaker as well, though not as easily.

[mickey malone]

Over the duration of his carrer, Duran had many peaks and troughs.. He'd beat the best then rest on his laurels and depreciate until it was time to do it all over again.. He was probably the 2nd best LW whoever lived.. Just behind Joe Gans and ahead of Benny Leonard in my poinion..

[BennyST]

If you want to understand why Duran is considered a top ten P4P ATG, this is one reason. Duran won his first title at 135 in 1972.

Five years later Thomas Hearns had his first pro fight at 147. Eight years later, in 1980, Hearns won his first title at 147.

Eight years after Hearns first won his 147 title he lost the middleweight title in 1988.

Duran, after winning the 135 pound title in 1972, and after starting his career at super-bantamweight in 1968, won that same 160 pound title that Hearns lost in 1989. The guy he beat would go on to become a three division world champion from MW to LHW, also winning a minor HW title against HW champion Gerry Coetzee.

That's over twenty years after he started his career and seventeen years after he first won a title eight divisions below 160.

With wins over great world champions and many HOF'ers from 1970 to 1997 and a career that spanned across five decades, what else would he be?

Oh, and I saw you bring up the old argument that he lost to the best fighters he faced. Like I said, Duran started his career in 1968 at super-bantamweight and won his first title in 1972 right?

Hearns started his career at the end of 1977, basically in 1978, five years after Duran first won a world title. Hearns is arguably the greatest light-middleweight ever and that's where they fought.

Leonard started his career in 1977 also. Again, five years after Duran first won a world title and nearly ten years after he first started as a pro.

Hagler started his a little earlier. He had his first pro fight only one year after Duran first won a title and over five years after Duran had his first pro fight.

Nonetheless, each of these guys won their first titles around twelve years after Duran first started fighting as a pro and about eight years after he had already won his first title. They all started a minimum of six divisions higher than Duran. Duran fought each guy at their best weight, not his, and beat the best fighter out of the lot while being the older, much smaller, more worn fighter. He was a LW that started at 118. They were big 147 pounders that started at 147, or in the case of Hagler at 160.

What would you say if Mayweather moved up to LHW to face a prime, peak Roy Jones Jr, while Mayweather was old and well past his best , and still did better than every one of his opponents? Would you still say "Oh, well he lost to the best fighters he faced"? What if Mayweather moved up to face a prime Hopkins at MW and beat him but then lost the rematch? Would you say "Well, Hopkins still beat him"?

[EzzardFan]

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.

Because at lightweight he was unbeatable. His defeats came at higher weights, although he did very well at welterweight when the division was particularly strong. That's what makes him the greatest lightweight ever. Although personally I prefer Benny Leonard.

[EzzardFan]

If you want to understand why Duran is considered a top ten P4P ATG, this is one reason. Duran won his first title at 135 in 1972.

Five years later Thomas Hearns had his first pro fight at 147. Eight years later, in 1980, Hearns won his first title at 147.

Eight years after Hearns first won his 147 title he lost the middleweight title in 1988.

Duran, after winning the 135 pound title in 1972, and after starting his career at super-bantamweight in 1968, won that same 160 pound title that Hearns lost in 1989. The guy he beat would go on to become a three division world champion from MW to LHW, also winning a minor HW title against HW champion Gerry Coetzee.

That's over twenty years after he started his career and seventeen years after he first won a title eight divisions below 160.

With wins over great world champions and many HOF'ers from 1970 to 1997 and a career that spanned across five decades, what else would he be?

Oh, and I saw you bring up the old argument that he lost to the best fighters he faced. Like I said, Duran started his career in 1968 at super-bantamweight and won his first title in 1972 right?

Hearns started his career at the end of 1977, basically in 1978, five years after Duran first won a world title. Hearns is arguably the greatest light-middleweight ever and that's where they fought.

Leonard started his career in 1977 also. Again, five years after Duran first won a world title and nearly ten years after he first started as a pro.

Hagler started his a little earlier. He had his first pro fight only one year after Duran first won a title and over five years after Duran had his first pro fight.

Nonetheless, each of these guys won their first titles around twelve years after Duran first started fighting as a pro and about eight years after he had already won his first title. They all started a minimum of six divisions higher than Duran. Duran fought each guy at their best weight, not his, and beat the best fighter out of the lot while being the older, much smaller, more worn fighter. He was a LW that started at 118. They were big 147 pounders that started at 147, or in the case of Hagler at 160.

What would you say if Mayweather moved up to LHW to face a prime, peak Roy Jones Jr, while Mayweather was old and well past his best , and still did better than every one of his opponents? Would you still say "Oh, well he lost to the best fighters he faced"? What if Mayweather moved up to face a prime Hopkins at MW and beat him but then lost the rematch? Would you say "Well, Hopkins still beat him"?

Amen to that!