The overrated Roberto Duran

[BennyST]

Castro was hardly a good fighter. Have you actually seen him fight? He's below average of any kind of championship material.

Yet he was able to beat the very good champion and slick southpaw boxer Reggie Johnson (one of the best wins in both Jones' and Toney's careers) twice as well as another very slick, quick, undefeated champion fighter in John D. Jackson. How about that?

For someone well below any kind of championship material to win a world championship and defend it five or six times against some very fine other champions is rather remarkable is it not?

Also fascinating is that someone well below any kind of championship material was able to compile a record of 126-11-3 while winning and defending a world title and beating champions as well as facing the greatest fighters of their era and going from JMW to CW without losing much. Why would the greatest fighters of their era face someone well below any kind of championship material? What would be the point?

It would be like Mayweather fighting Henry Bruseles, except that Castro was a champion that beat other good champions and faced the best of his era while Brusles was never even a good contender.

Anyway, GreatA: I would let this one go. This dude is obviously a bit deluded. He came in, seemingly not overly biased, but in the usual fashion of people that can't see past their own illusions, it quickly degraded into nothing but biased ignorance. What's really funny though is that he thought he was making sense and that his arguments were unbiased and 'beating' yours (whatever that means).

It's fascinating reading how deluded some people can be though whilst thinking they are making perfect sense. The whole bit about you supposedly resorting to personal attacks was strange though...

Still can't figure out where he got that one from.

From what I read there was a lot more insulting of you from him and a lot more insinuations from him. It's probably just whats-is-name....Brandish.

[Method Checker]

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.

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 said it was easy to discredit any fighter's wins, in the manner that you just did.

For example: one of Duran's two lineal champions he beat in Kobayashi came off of a knockout loss in his previous fight against a journeyman (who also came off a loss). Kobayashi must have not been in top form, considering that his last fight before Duran (which he lost) was at a lower division. Maybe Duran only beat one legit lineal champion, then?

I still count it as a win over a lineal champion, even though he was the champion at a smaller weight class and he was slipping. Perhaps we're different in how we rate fighters.

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.

It was a career defining win for Duran. He also had a career defining loss, in the rematch, did he not?

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

You're entitled to your opinion.

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.

You assumed I did, yet there's no proof.

Duran was a bully in both fights. He showed no sense of respect to Leonard and had terrible sportsmanship. Only in the second fight did Leonard retaliate like I kid who was being picked on and out-bullied the bully mentally. Duran quit due to embarrassment. I know that you very much dislike hearing that but it's true.

After the first fight was over, Duran pushed Leonard, with a face of disgust. Was that a nice man with plenty of heart?

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.

I obviously still have to rate him. I just find the loss very shameful.

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.

Experience has nothing to do with it. Duran and De Jesus both had about the same number of fights. In fact, Duran's resume before fighting each other was much greater than De Jesus'.

Duran fought two lineal champions and one ABC titlist. De Jesus, however, only fought one ABC titlist.

The reason Duran lost was not due to the lack of experience. He just couldn't beat De Jesus because it was a bad style match-up (like you said). HOWEVER, Duran's style did not change to that one style throughout the rest of career. He improved in the second and third fights, only enough to beat De Jesus.

But the proclaimed "greatest lightweight of all-time" got beat by a journeyman, at the time, even though he had a lot more championship experience. Bahaha.

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.

That was your opinion and the opinion of his trainer. Does Dundee fully control what Leonard is doing throughout the whole fight?

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.

With the help of laces, yes. Just because he's considered an all-time great by many doesn't mean he wasn't a cheater. Look at Sandy Saddler.

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

I never said he did anything better. I only said they could have comparisons. A comparison means you can compare what they did in a similar manner. You've already elaborated, on that.

Never did I say that Castillo did anything better than Duran, nor have I said the opposite. Now, are you done with putting words into my mouth?

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.

A one punch knockout isn't all it takes to beat Duran. I know that it hurts to hear the truth, but he was able to be out-boxed. Every fighter he is.

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.

Show me where I said that Whitaker would knock Duran out. I simply said that Whitaker had enough of a punch to gain the respect of Duran.

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

One fight defines a whole career? Even you should know better.

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.

A bit biased towards Duran, in that prediction, aren't we? Why don't you talk about how Duran is such a nice guy, as well?

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.

Never did I say they were allowed. You seem to love putting words into my mouth.

I said it's all very common in the fight game and all fighters have been known to do it occasionally. You should know that. Not all fighters are as innocent as they claim to be.

Raking the eyes of a fighter with laces, however, is too far for compared to the other illegal things.

If he was going to win so comfortably, then why do it?

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.

Pacquiao was smaller than Duran so I doubt he would be able to take on Hagler or Leonard. At the same time, do you think Duran would be able to beat Roy Jones? Didn't think so.

However, Pacquiao did go up more weight divisions than Duran and certainly beat more elite fighters.

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.

He started out as a bantamweight, most likely due to malnutrition and still being a kid. Just as Pacquiao started out as a flyweight when he was kid. Eventually, Duran's normal fighting weight was 135, while Pacquiao's was still around flyweight.

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.

Don't act like you don't. If you didn't concern yourself with winning or losing, but simply just stating your opinion, you would've walked away from this thread a long time ago. But you didn't. You exposed your true colors. You know that you can't walk away because it might make you look like you lost the debate.

I've also angered you to full extent where you feel the absolute need that you must defend Roberto "Quitto" Duran.

[Method Checker]

Yet he was able to beat the very good champion and slick southpaw boxer Reggie Johnson (one of the best wins in both Jones' and Toney's careers) twice as well as another very slick, quick, undefeated champion fighter in John D. Jackson. How about that?

Two close split decisions to Johnson and a lucky comeback after behind absolutely outclassed by Jackson up until the stoppage.

For someone well below any kind of championship material to win a world championship and defend it five or six times against some very fine other champions is rather remarkable is it not?

Also fascinating is that someone well below any kind of championship material was able to compile a record of 126-11-3 while winning and defending a world title and beating champions as well as facing the greatest fighters of their era and going from JMW to CW without losing much. Why would the greatest fighters of their era face someone well below any kind of championship material? What would be the point?

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.

Anyway, GreatA: I would let this one go. This dude is obviously a bit deluded. He came in, seemingly not overly biased, but in the usual fashion of people that can't see past their own illusions, it quickly degraded into nothing but biased ignorance. What's really funny though is that he thought he was making sense and that his arguments were unbiased and 'beating' yours (whatever that means).

I simply state it how I see it. And I hope you don't think that the 'beating' part was serious. I just say it because I find it funny and I think that's what TheGreatA tries to do. If not, he wouldn't have been so dedicated to proving a "biased" poster wrong.

It's fascinating reading how deluded some people can be though whilst thinking they are making perfect sense. The whole bit about you supposedly resorting to personal attacks was strange though...

Making excuses to bash another fighter's wins just to defend your favored fighter is a lack of respect towards the opposing fighter. Why would I debate with someone like that?

On the other hand, I do debate with TheGreatA.

[TheGreatA]

I said it was easy to discredit any fighter's wins, in the manner that you just did.

For example: one of Duran's two lineal champions he beat in Kobayashi came off of a knockout loss in his previous fight against a journeyman (who also came off a loss). Kobayashi must have not been in top form, considering that his last fight before Duran (which he lost) was at a lower division. Maybe Duran only beat one legit lineal champion, then?

I still count it as a win over a lineal champion, even though he was the champion at a smaller weight class and he was slipping. Perhaps we're different in how we rate fighters.

I thought you were talking about lineal lightweight champions because resume in the lightweight division is what we're talking about here. As I said, I wouldn't give Duran a huge amount of credit for beating former featherweight titlists at 135.

Your criticisms about the Kobayashi wins are actually legit, although it should be said that the Marcano loss was an upset in a fight he was winning. A very young Duran actually dominated and KO'd Kobayashi in highlight reel fashion. However I disagree that Marcano was a journeyman. Journeymen don't defeat several world champions such as Marcano did. Clearly your definition of a journeyman is as bit off.

It was a career defining win for Duran. He also had a career defining loss, in the rematch, did he not?

No he did not. As I said, one loss does not define a career. It was the only time Duran lost in that fashion. One win also doesn't define a career, but Duran has numerous great wins along with the Leonard win which defines his career. A lightweight champion, thought to be past his prime, taking the fight to an ATG champion bigger, younger and faster than him and winning. That's a great accomplishment.

You assumed I did, yet there's no proof.

Duran was a bully in both fights. He showed no sense of respect to Leonard and had terrible sportsmanship. Only in the second fight did Leonard retaliate like I kid who was being picked on and out-bullied the bully mentally. Duran quit due to embarrassment. I know that you very much dislike hearing that but it's true.

After the first fight was over, Duran pushed Leonard, with a face of disgust. Was that a nice man with plenty of heart?

The proof is pretty much right there. You say you only consider Duran a bully in the Leonard fights but these fights seem to define his career for you. Yes, he did not act like a nice man towards his opponent. Duran was angered by the claims that he stood little chance against Leonard and that he made less money than Sugar Ray despite having fought over 70 times and having dominated for a decade.

"At the final bell, Leonard approached Duran to touch gloves, but Duran waved him away and stalked to his corner. He could not cut off his mood of ferocity so abruptly. He mellowed in the locker room enough to say, "Leonard, you're my friend now," but by then the ring was dark and Leonard was in another room and it seemed a bit late for sentiment."

You'll have a hard time finding a man who has as much time for his fans than Duran. There's a reason he had such a large fanbase and it's because he was a likable person but not towards his opponents.

Again, you treat Duran as if he was some schoolyard bully while Leonard was the one being bullied. They were both professional fighters and did whatever they could to gain a mental advantage. Leonard was the master of mind games himself, much like his idol Muhammad Ali.

I obviously still have to rate him. I just find the loss very shameful.

In your last post you said you do not care whether it was a decision loss, knockout loss or a quit. Obviously you do seem to care about the manner in which Duran lost. But many other greats quit in their careers as well, yet no one in their right mind will call the likes of Willie Pep, Joe Gans or Sam Langford "quitters" or "bullies".

Experience has nothing to do with it. Duran and De Jesus both had about the same number of fights. In fact, Duran's resume before fighting each other was much greater than De Jesus'.

Duran fought two lineal champions and one ABC titlist. De Jesus, however, only fought one ABC titlist.

The reason Duran lost was not due to the lack of experience. He just couldn't beat De Jesus because it was a bad style match-up (like you said). HOWEVER, Duran's style did not change to that one style throughout the rest of career. He improved in the second and third fights, only enough to beat De Jesus.

But the proclaimed "greatest lightweight of all-time" got beat by a journeyman, at the time, even though he had a lot more championship experience. Bahaha.

Why did Duran improve? Because of added experience. That's the point I'm trying to make. And he did change his style a lot in between the first and third fights. He went from a raw, aggressive pressure fighter to a more intelligent boxer.



Also please don't tell me that you're calling Esteban DeJesus a journeyman.

That was your opinion and the opinion of his trainer. Does Dundee fully control what Leonard is doing throughout the whole fight?

No he doesn't but Leonard said he did what he felt he had to do to win the fight.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...6847%2C3706149

Duran was simply the better man the first time while Leonard had the better of it the second time.

With the help of laces, yes. Just because he's considered an all-time great by many doesn't mean he wasn't a cheater. Look at Sandy Saddler.

A lot of fighters have "cheated" or bent the rules to their advantage. I don't see how this takes away from Duran's legacy unless you'll take credit away from all the others who have done so as well.

I never said he did anything better. I only said they could have comparisons. A comparison means you can compare what they did in a similar manner. You've already elaborated, on that.

Never did I say that Castillo did anything better than Duran, nor have I said the opposite. Now, are you done with putting words into my mouth?

So if Duran is comparable to Castillo in style but better in almost all areas then how come the Mayweather-Castillo fight is not a better comparison than Mayweather-Corrales on how a Mayweather-Duran match-up would have gone?

A one punch knockout isn't all it takes to beat Duran. I know that it hurts to hear the truth, but he was able to be out-boxed. Every fighter he is.

Obviously but if you're going to compare the outcomes of Duran vs DeJesus I/Leonard II to how Duran vs Whitaker/Mayweather would have gone, then you have to take into account that DeJesus and Leonard were a lot different from either Whitaker or Mayweather and Duran did beat both DeJesus and Leonard as well.

Show me where I said that Whitaker would knock Duran out. I simply said that Whitaker had enough of a punch to gain the respect of Duran.

Enough of a punch to gain respect but not as big of a punch as Leonard or DeJesus who did pose the threat of a one punch knockout to Duran. Duran is going to have a much easier time applying pressure because of this.

One fight defines a whole career? Even you should know better.

There were many other fights in which Mayweather couldn't hurt the opponent either. However since the Castillo fight was at 135 and since we've established that Castillo was likely the most similar to Duran out of all the opponents Mayweather fought, it's best to bring up this fight.

A bit biased towards Duran, in that prediction, aren't we? Why don't you talk about how Duran is such a nice guy, as well?

I don't get it. I could claim that you're biased towards Mayweather and Whitaker as well but there's no point to it.

Never did I say they were allowed. You seem to love putting words into my mouth.

I said it's all very common in the fight game and all fighters have been known to do it occasionally. You should know that. Not all fighters are as innocent as they claim to be.

Raking the eyes of a fighter with laces, however, is too far for compared to the other illegal things.

If he was going to win so comfortably, then why do it?

"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."

How is lacing so much more illegal than headbutting, elbowing, hitting below the belt or rabbit punching? Larry Holmes did it in every fight of his, Willie Pep did it frequently.

[TheGreatA]

Pacquiao was smaller than Duran so I doubt he would be able to take on Hagler or Leonard. At the same time, do you think Duran would be able to beat Roy Jones? Didn't think so.

Not sure what you mean by this. Cotto was no Roy Jones either. Pacquiao taking on Leonard at 147 is about equal to Duran taking on Hagler at 160. Both would be taking on all-time greats in the prime at their best weight. Cotto is very good but doesn't rate with the likes of Hagler, Leonard.

However, Pacquiao did go up more weight divisions than Duran and certainly beat more elite fighters.

He started out as a bantamweight, most likely due to malnutrition and still being a kid. Just as Pacquiao started out as a flyweight when he was kid. Eventually, Duran's normal fighting weight was 135, while Pacquiao's was still around flyweight.

Duran started fighting at bantamweight and ended up fighting as high as super middleweight. Pacquiao was killing himself to make flyweight and went up to super bantamweight immediately after losing his title. Keep in mind that in Duran's time it wasn't an option to put on 10+ pounds after the weigh-ins. Pacquiao, while fighting at 130, frequently came into his fights around the welterweight limit, while Duran weighed in at 135 and fought at 135.

Pacquiao has grown into a solid 147 lbs while Duran was always a bit out of shape above 147 lbs.

Don't act like you don't. If you didn't concern yourself with winning or losing, but simply just stating your opinion, you would've walked away from this thread a long time ago. But you didn't. You exposed your true colors. You know that you can't walk away because it might make you look like you lost the debate.

I've also angered you to full extent where you feel the absolute need that you must defend Roberto "Quitto" Duran.

Seems like the only one angered and concerned with winning this debate is you. I do this frequently and enjoy discussions, even if they get a bit heated. In the end there are no winners or losers. At no point have I felt the need to call any fighters names such as "quitto" or "bully" as you have.

[GJC]

3:02 - 3:06.

You fellows have obviously never seen a good lacing
Duran pulled out his full range of tricks but he didn't lace Moore.

[Method Checker]

I thought you were talking about lineal lightweight champions because resume in the lightweight division is what we're talking about here. As I said, I wouldn't give Duran a huge amount of credit for beating former featherweight titlists at 135.

That's you. I'm different. I give credit for beating legit world champions if they aren't completely past their prime. You don't.

Your criticisms about the Kobayashi wins are actually legit, although it should be said that the Marcano loss was an upset in a fight he was winning. A very young Duran actually dominated and KO'd Kobayashi in highlight reel fashion. However I disagree that Marcano was a journeyman. Journeymen don't defeat several world champions such as Marcano did. Clearly your definition of a journeyman is as bit off.[/QUOTE]
It's nice to know that you think the circumstances didn't matter in Duran's case.

At the time, Marcano was a journeyman. And please name me the "several world champions" he beat besides Kobayashi. If I'm correct, he only defeated one other titlist. Not another world champion.

No he did not. As I said, one loss does not define a career. It was the only time Duran lost in that fashion. One win also doesn't define a career, but Duran has numerous great wins along with the Leonard win which defines his career. A lightweight champion, thought to be past his prime, taking the fight to an ATG champion bigger, younger and faster than him and winning. That's a great accomplishment.

By career defining loss, I meant that was the most significant loss of his career among his other losses.

On the other hand, you could argue about him being KTFO by Hearns as a much more significant loss. Bahaha.

The proof is pretty much right there. You say you only consider Duran a bully in the Leonard fights but these fights seem to define his career for you. Yes, he did not act like a nice man towards his opponent. Duran was angered by the claims that he stood little chance against Leonard and that he made less money than Sugar Ray despite having fought over 70 times and having dominated for a decade.

"At the final bell, Leonard approached Duran to touch gloves, but Duran waved him away and stalked to his corner. He could not cut off his mood of ferocity so abruptly. He mellowed in the locker room enough to say, "Leonard, you're my friend now," but by then the ring was dark and Leonard was in another room and it seemed a bit late for sentiment."

You'll have a hard time finding a man who has as much time for his fans than Duran. There's a reason he had such a large fanbase and it's because he was a likable person but not towards his opponents.

Again, you treat Duran as if he was some schoolyard bully while Leonard was the one being bullied. They were both professional fighters and did whatever they could to gain a mental advantage. Leonard was the master of mind games himself, much like his idol Muhammad Ali.

Just because he apologized for being a bully doesn't suddenly erase the fact that he was a bully, at the time.

No matter what you think, refusing to touch gloves and pushing a fighter after the actual fight is over is a huge sign of disrespect. He was angry and ferocious, much like a bully.

By the way, Leonard was the one bullied and did use mind games to beat Duran. He embarrassed Duran and made him quit. Ali also used mind games against the bully in Foreman. That worked out for him, as well.

In your last post you said you do not care whether it was a decision loss, knockout loss or a quit. Obviously you do seem to care about the manner in which Duran lost. But many other greats quit in their careers as well, yet no one in their right mind will call the likes of Willie Pep, Joe Gans or Sam Langford "quitters" or "bullies".

I rate is as a loss. I don't take away anything extra because of the manner of losing. I just consider it a loss. I just like to enlighten the fact that he quit. I've already stated this before.

What do you care, anyways? I rate a loss as a loss. I'm fair. I should be allowed to talk about the aspects of a loss. It affects his character, not his record or legacy. And I don't rate fighters by their character.

Why did Duran improve? Because of added experience. That's the point I'm trying to make. And he did change his style a lot in between the first and third fights. He went from a raw, aggressive pressure fighter to a more intelligent boxer.

Also please don't tell me that you're calling Esteban DeJesus a journeyman.

The lack of experience against a certain fighter shouldn't be used as an excuse when he loses to that fighter. Duran never fought someone named De Jesus before. And De Jesus never fought someone named Duran before.

I said at the time, De Jesus was a journeyman. What would you call someone who's rising up in the ranks but never won a title. A top contender? Maybe that's a more suitable meaning. I sort of consider journeymen and top contenders the same. However, for your benefit, let's say he was a top contender.

No he doesn't but Leonard said he did what he felt he had to do to win the fight.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...6847%2C3706149

Duran was simply the better man the first time while Leonard had the better of it the second time.

Direct quote from one of the articles:

"I said I would fight Duran flat-footed and I did," he said. "I had no alternative. I wouldn't change if I had to do it all over again."

Critics questioned why Leonard, the slick, lightning-fast craftsman with Muhammad Ali's ability to move and stick, chose to mix it up with the awesome veteran who is nicknamed "Hands of Stone." "People questioned whether I could take the big punch," Sugar Ray said softly. "I showed them."

So if Duran is comparable to Castillo in style but better in almost all areas then how come the Mayweather-Castillo fight is not a better comparison than Mayweather-Corrales on how a Mayweather-Duran match-up would have gone?

You can draw certain aspects of their style and compare them to style of other fighters. Castillo and Duran had some comparisons, but they also had a lot of differences. Thus, they're not the same.

And I will not elaborate on what Corrales, Castillo, Duran or even Mayweather have in common any longer. This is about how overrated Duran is. Not a comparison debate between other fighters.

Obviously but if you're going to compare the outcomes of Duran vs DeJesus I/Leonard II to how Duran vs Whitaker/Mayweather would have gone, then you have to take into account that DeJesus and Leonard were a lot different from either Whitaker or Mayweather and Duran did beat both DeJesus and Leonard as well.

Whitaker and Mayweather's defense were far more superior to that of De Jesus' and Leonard's.

Enough of a punch to gain respect but not as big of a punch as Leonard or DeJesus who did pose the threat of a one punch knockout to Duran. Duran is going to have a much easier time applying pressure because of this.

The question, now, however, is would the pressure work against such good defensive fighters. Duran has never faced anyone that had such good defense as Whitaker. You could argue with Benitez but I think Whitaker's defense was far superior to Benitez' and would work in a more supreme manner.

There were many other fights in which Mayweather couldn't hurt the opponent either. However since the Castillo fight was at 135 and since we've established that Castillo was likely the most similar to Duran out of all the opponents Mayweather fought, it's best to bring up this fight.

They're have some similar comparisons but so do a lot of other fighters.

Like I said, though. This is about Duran's legacy. Not Mayweather's. Obviously Duran is rated as the greater lightweight than Mayweather. However, I still think Mayweather can beat Duran on both of their best nights.

How is lacing so much more illegal than headbutting, elbowing, hitting below the belt or rabbit punching? Larry Holmes did it in every fight of his, Willie Pep did it frequently.

A lot of fighters have "cheated" or bent the rules to their advantage. I don't see how this takes away from Duran's legacy unless you'll take credit away from all the others who have done so as well.

They're all considered illegal but every fighter breaks the rules once in a while. The manner in which they break the rules are observed differently by the public.

Raking the opponent's eyes to hinder their vision is far more disrespectful than the rest.

I don't know about you, but hindering the vision of someone's eyes is far more of a cheat than the rest. You wouldn't be able to see clearly and vision is needed in the ring.

Before you respond to this. Let me respond to the second part of your post.

[Method Checker]

Not sure what you mean by this. Cotto was no Roy Jones either. Pacquiao taking on Leonard at 147 is about equal to Duran taking on Hagler at 160. Both would be taking on all-time greats in the prime at their best weight. Cotto is very good but doesn't rate with the likes of Hagler, Leonard.

I'm not comparing Cotto to Jones. You were comparing Pacquiao and Duran. You asked me if Pacquiao would go up against Hagler and fight competitively, like Duran did. That's 11 divisions north of where Pacquiao started his career.

I responded by asking if Duran would be able to compete against Roy Jones at light heavyweight. That's 10 divisions north of where Duran started his career. One division less than Pacquiao.

Pacquiao would've been to small for Hagler, much like Duran would've been too small for Jones. So don't bring up the fact that Pacquiao wouldn't have been able to do what Duran did against bigger opponents. Pacquiao was simply a smaller man than Duran.

Duran started fighting at bantamweight and ended up fighting as high as super middleweight. Pacquiao was killing himself to make flyweight and went up to super bantamweight immediately after losing his title. Keep in mind that in Duran's time it wasn't an option to put on 10+ pounds after the weigh-ins. Pacquiao, while fighting at 130, frequently came into his fights around the welterweight limit, while Duran weighed in at 135 and fought at 135.

Both Pacquiao and Duran started low due to malnutrition and the fact that they were still teenagers. I very, very, highly doubt that Pacquiao cut weight for his first professional fight. You're acting as if Duran had a life of simplicity when he started fighting as a teenager.

[QUOTE]Pacquiao has grown into a solid 147 lbs while Duran was always a bit out of shape above 147 lbs.[QUOTE]
So the fact that he didn't take proper care of himself is my fault? I could care less how he "looked". Fighters look different.

Seems like the only one angered and concerned with winning this debate is you. I do this frequently and enjoy discussions, even if they get a bit heated. In the end there are no winners or losers. At no point have I felt the need to call any fighters names such as "quitto" or "bully" as you have.

You and your friends think I'm biased. If I'm so biased, why is it so important for you to continue debating. Obviously, you have a goal, in all of this. You're trying to prove me wrong and thus "win".

Exposed. Bahaha.

[TheGreatA]

That's you. I'm different. I give credit for beating legit world champions if they aren't completely past their prime. You don't.

Did I say I don't give credit to Ortiz for beating Brown or Ramos? I said I wouldn't give him a huge amount of credit.

I'm putting it in perspective. Let's say that Duran beat an old Ortiz (whom he was scheduled to fight) and say, a declining Kuniaki Shibata at 135 while actually being knocked down and winning controversially? Comparable to Ortiz's fights against Joe Brown and Sugar Ramos. Few would give Duran much credit for such victories.

It's nice to know that you think the circumstances didn't matter in Duran's case.

I didn't say they don't matter. I said I acknowledge the criticisms and would never try to make the case that Duran was a great fighter because he beat Hiroshi Kobayashi. It's just a good victory but not a great one.

At the time, Marcano was a journeyman. And please name me the "several world champions" he beat besides Kobayashi. If I'm correct, he only defeated one other titlist. Not another world champion.

You must have a very different definition of "journeyman" than I do because journeymen do not defeat Hiroshi Kobayashi, Rene Arredondo, Bernardo Caraballo, have two close losses to Ernesto Marcel nor are they rated in the top 5 contenders in the division.

1969:

Hiroshi Kobayashi, Champion

1. Ruben Navarro
2. Antonio Amaya
3. Silverio Ortiz
4. Alfredo Marcano
5. Alton Colter
6. Ray Echevarria
7. Yoshiaki Numata
8. Jose Acosta
9. Rene Barrientos
10. Jose Smecca

By career defining loss, I meant that was the most significant loss of his career among his other losses.

On the other hand, you could argue about him being KTFO by Hearns as a much more significant loss. Bahaha.

As career-defining as Leonard's shutout loss to Terry Norris, Hearns's KO loss to Iran Barkley, Roy Jones's KO losses to Tarver & Glen Johnson?

Just because he apologized for being a bully doesn't suddenly erase the fact that he was a bully, at the time.

No matter what you think, refusing to touch gloves and pushing a fighter after the actual fight is over is a huge sign of disrespect. He was angry and ferocious, much like a bully.

I just don't see the relevance of the whole thing about Duran being a "bully". He wasn't overly respectful to the opponent who was trying to bash his face in but that doesn't make him a terrible human being or a coward nor does it have any impact on his legacy as a boxer.

By the way, Leonard was the one bullied and did use mind games to beat Duran. He embarrassed Duran and made him quit. Ali also used mind games against the bully in Foreman. That worked out for him, as well.

You seem to like to think of certain fighters as "bullies". However I could come up with as many examples of Ali and Leonard being "bullies" as Duran and Foreman. See Ali-Frazier rivalry or Leonard-Hagler build-up/fight.

I rate is as a loss. I don't take away anything extra because of the manner of losing. I just consider it a loss. I just like to enlighten the fact that he quit. I've already stated this before.


What do you care, anyways? I rate a loss as a loss. I'm fair. I should be allowed to talk about the aspects of a loss. It affects his character, not his record or legacy. And I don't rate fighters by their character.

If it has no relevance to the discussion, which is about Duran being overrated, then don't bring it up in the first place. You can talk about the aspects of loss but with all the talk about Duran being a "bully", "quitter", "embarrassed" against Leonard you're making it a point.

The lack of experience against a certain fighter shouldn't be used as an excuse when he loses to that fighter. Duran never fought someone named De Jesus before. And De Jesus never fought someone named Duran before.

I said at the time, De Jesus was a journeyman. What would you call someone who's rising up in the ranks but never won a title. A top contender? Maybe that's a more suitable meaning. I sort of consider journeymen and top contenders the same. However, for your benefit, let's say he was a top contender.

The definition of a journeyman is a fighter who goes from town to town to lose to rising prospects and contenders. Marcano and DeJesus were far from that. They were contenders.

Direct quote from one of the articles:

"I said I would fight Duran flat-footed and I did," he said. "I had no alternative. I wouldn't change if I had to do it all over again."

Critics questioned why Leonard, the slick, lightning-fast craftsman with Muhammad Ali's ability to move and stick, chose to mix it up with the awesome veteran who is nicknamed "Hands of Stone." "People questioned whether I could take the big punch," Sugar Ray said softly. "I showed them."

Yes, he fought the way he felt he should have fought against Duran. But his gameplan was never to be trapped against the ropes and to take trendemous body punishment which sapped his energy. It was to keep the fight in the middle of the ring which he could not do.

As I said previously, Leonard had fought most of his professional fights in a more flat-footed stance to generate greater punching power and to excite the crowds.

You can draw certain aspects of their style and compare them to style of other fighters. Castillo and Duran had some comparisons, but they also had a lot of differences. Thus, they're not the same.

What are the big differences though? As far as I'm concerned, they have similarities in style but Duran was better in all aspects.

And I will not elaborate on what Corrales, Castillo, Duran or even Mayweather have in common any longer. This is about how overrated Duran is. Not a comparison debate between other fighters.

Then refrain from making comparisons in the first place.

"And, despite what you think, Duran was very beatable. If De Jesus could knock down and beat Duran on route to a decision, I'm sure fighters such as Whitaker and Mayweather would be able to embarrass him."

"What about the Mayweather that fought Corrales? That sure looked like a better version of him. Better yet, since there were no before day weigh ins during Duran's time as a lightweight, lets use Mayweather as a super featherweight against Duran. A much more faster, defensively-better version of Mayweather."

Whitaker and Mayweather's defense were far more superior to that of De Jesus' and Leonard's.

The question, now, however, is would the pressure work against such good defensive fighters. Duran has never faced anyone that had such good defense as Whitaker. You could argue with Benitez but I think Whitaker's defense was far superior to Benitez' and would work in a more supreme manner.

And Leonard/DeJesus had superior punching power to Whitaker/Mayweather. Leonard especially was a much more of an offensive threat with his handspeed and power. Can Mayweather or Whitaker discourage Duran from forcing them to fight his fight with their lesser punching ability? Is defense going to win the fight on the judges' eyes (see Whitaker-Chavez robbery)? And if you make the fight for 15 rounds, Mayweather and Whitaker would be in uncharted territory. Make Castillo-Mayweather I a 15 round fight and Castillo would have won decisively.

Like I said, though. This is about Duran's legacy. Not Mayweather's. Obviously Duran is rated as the greater lightweight than Mayweather. However, I still think Mayweather can beat Duran on both of their best nights.

And I'm bringing up examples in Mayweather's career that may indicate he wouldn't have such an easy time with Duran after all.

They're all considered illegal but every fighter breaks the rules once in a while. The manner in which they break the rules are observed differently by the public.

Raking the opponent's eyes to hinder their vision is far more disrespectful than the rest.

I don't know about you, but hindering the vision of someone's eyes is far more of a cheat than the rest. You wouldn't be able to see clearly and vision is needed in the ring.

Rabbit punching could kill. Headbutting and elbows causes cuts. No one wants to get hit below the belt.

It's just a bit pointless to discredit Duran's victories because he was a rough fighter, unless you're going to discredit all the other fighters who were also equally as dirty or even more so.

[TheGreatA]

Q

I'm not comparing Cotto to Jones. You were comparing Pacquiao and Duran. You asked me if Pacquiao would go up against Hagler and fight competitively, like Duran did. That's 11 divisions north of where Pacquiao started his career.

I responded by asking if Duran would be able to compete against Roy Jones at light heavyweight. That's 10 divisions north of where Duran started his career. One division less than Pacquiao.

Pacquiao would've been to small for Hagler, much like Duran would've been too small for Jones. So don't bring up the fact that Pacquiao wouldn't have been able to do what Duran did against bigger opponents. Pacquiao was simply a smaller man than Duran.

I didn't say anything about Pacquiao facing Hagler at middleweight. I said Duran fighting Hagler at 160 is the equal of Pacquiao fighting Leonard or a 147 lb version of Hagler. Do you think Pacquiao could win? Would he even be competitive? Duran was competitive against Hagler for 15 rounds.

Both Pacquiao and Duran started low due to malnutrition and the fact that they were still teenagers. I very, very, highly doubt that Pacquiao cut weight for his first professional fight. You're acting as if Duran had a life of simplicity when he started fighting as a teenager.

I'm not saying he cut weight for his first fight but he was cutting a lot of weight in his last fights at flyweight. He was a natural super bantam at 19 years of age, when Duran fought naturally at 130, and in today's boxing fighters put on 10+ lbs after the weigh-ins so Pacquiao was probably coming in at 130 to his super bantamweight fights. I question whether Pacquiao is all that much smaller than Duran.

So the fact that he didn't take proper care of himself is my fault? I could care less how he "looked". Fighters look different.

My case is that Duran was never a natural 160 lber while Pacquiao seems to have grown into a solid welterweight.

You and your friends think I'm biased. If I'm so biased, why is it so important for you to continue debating. Obviously, you have a goal, in all of this. You're trying to prove me wrong and thus "win".

Exposed. Bahaha.

I have numerous debates going on at this very moment on other forums. It's not a big deal to me to have long debates with people and I don't care if I "win" or "lose". How could I possibly prove you wrong? It's plainly obvious that you're not going to change your mind on this subject but I can atleast bring up some interesting viewpoints that you may or may not agree with. Just take a less of a hostile attitude towards me and other members of this section of the forum.