Duran is not a top ten ATG

[Hagler★]

You can kiss my ass

[Steak]

you just lost the argument..I asked you why do you think duran lost all of his big fights and you bring up another fighter. stay on topic and answer the question.

youre the one who brought up Mayweather in the first place you nut, hahaha.

the reason why Duran lost to those guys was because he was way smaller than them. I mean, size can make a pretty big difference in boxing, thats why theres weight classes, see?

so you admit fighters can only fight the best of their era, floyd can't fight robinsons comp or duran's comp all he can do is shine against the best of his era which he has done and remained undefeated.

as much as I respect Floyd and as much as hes accomplished, he has not fought the best available competition. hes fought the best from 130 to 140, and thats about it. which is actually very good, but when you compare him to Duran....

you didn't answer the question do you think duran is a top ten atg

and yea I think Duran is in the top 10. alongside the majority of the boxing community that also thinks so.

[Brandish]

People,Durans greatest weight was at lightweight!!He only went up in weight cause he had cleaned house at light w.and for those who dont know,he said no mas because Sugar Ray was doin more running than fighting and Duran got tired of chasing him!Again, at least Duran had the heart to engage all those fighters that were mentioned and above his true weight to boot!!

and what was his excuse when he lost to benitez, hagler, hearns, kirkland laing, and leoanrd for the third time.

[TheGreatA]

I don't see why anyone would even waste their time with the thread starter. It is obvious to me that he has never even followed Duran's boxing career.

wpink1 on the other hand is knowledgeable and has made fair points, but calling Duran's resume "weak" is a bit of a stretch. Actually it's completely ridiculous.

Duran wasn't the only one who fought "sparring partner level" fighters between his title defenses. For example Pernell Whitaker (who had 46 fights overall) fought complete no-hopers after winning titles such as Jim Flores (0-3), Antonio Carter (4-7), Davey Montana (15-8), Martin Galvan (7-16), Benjie Marquez (17-8), Jerry Smith (12-13), Ben Baez (7-4) to stay active.

The truth is that Duran dominated a whole decade, the 70's, and beat many fighters who are underappreciated today. He won some and lost some against the best fighters in the 80's when he was over 30 years old and past his best weight classes.

Those who say it's an excuse, look at how Hagler, Hearns, Leonard did after they were over 30 years old. Hagler retired at the right time, Leonard and Hearns did not.

Those who saw Duran at his best or have made the effort to watch him at his best after his career was over, know how great he was in his prime. They know that he was not the same fighter after losing to Ray Leonard, but was still capable of accomplishing great things in the ring.

[pistol whip]

So let's see the thread starter makes a thread asking "Do you think Duran is an ATG" and then spends the next couple days telling people no he's not!!! Ok why even start the thread if you already have the answer.

So here is my question to the person who started this thread. Doesn't being considered the greatest lightweight ever make you an ATG? If not then why???

[Brandish]

the reason why Duran lost to those guys was because he was way smaller than them. I mean, size can make a pretty big difference in boxing, thats why theres weight classes, see?

you're argument is garbage, point being didn't he beat leonard the first time what is your excuse for his victory over leonard

as much as I respect Floyd and as much as hes accomplished, he has not fought the best available competition. hes fought the best from 130 to 140, and thats about it. which is actually very good, but when you compare him to Duran....

who was better then floyd at 140, 147 and 154. you see duran is a notch below floyd skill wise so I expect duran to be the underdog, while floyd is always favored.

but please list the fighters in floyd's era that were better than him and what they accomplsihed to be labeled as such

and yea I think Duran is in the top 10. alongside the majority of the boxing community that also thinks so.

so you can't stand on your own two feet and efend your ranking, typical duran fan he is not nor will he ever be recognized as top ten unless you are a fan of his then you ncan say he is top 5 based on your own nuthuggery

[krispy kreme]

I don't see why anyone would even waste their time with the thread starter. It is obvious to me that he has never even followed Duran's boxing career.

wpink1 on the other hand is knowledgeable and has made fair points, but calling Duran's resume "weak" is a bit of a stretch. Actually it's completely ridiculous.

Duran wasn't the only one who fought "sparring partner level" fighters between his title defenses. For example Pernell Whitaker (who had 46 fights overall) fought complete no-hopers after winning titles such as Jim Flores (0-3), Antonio Carter (4-7), Davey Montana (15-8), Martin Galvan (7-16), Benjie Marquez (17-8), Jerry Smith (12-13), Ben Baez (7-4) to stay active.

The truth is that Duran dominated a whole decade, the 70's, and beat many fighters who are underappreciated today. He won some and lost some against the best fighters in the 80's when he was over 30 years old and past his best weight classes.

Those who say it's an excuse, look at how Hagler, Hearns, Leonard did after they were over 30 years old. Hagler retired at the right time, Leonard and Hearns did not.

Those who saw Duran at his best or have made the effort to watch him at his best after his career was over, know how great he was in his prime. They know that he was not the same fighter after losing to Ray Leonard, but was still capable of accomplishing great things in the ring.

He doesn't know much about boxing back then. He can't even spell or show a high school level of grammar when he types.

[Brandish]

I don't see why anyone would even waste their time with the thread starter. It is obvious to me that he has never even followed Duran's boxing career.

wpink1 on the other hand is knowledgeable and has made fair points, but calling Duran's resume "weak" is a bit of a stretch. Actually it's completely ridiculous.

Duran wasn't the only one who fought "sparring partner level" fighters between his title defenses. For example Pernell Whitaker (who had 46 fights overall) fought complete no-hopers after winning titles such as Jim Flores (0-3), Antonio Carter (4-7), Davey Montana (15-8), Martin Galvan (7-16), Benjie Marquez (17-8), Jerry Smith (12-13), Ben Baez (7-4) to stay active.

The truth is that Duran dominated a whole decade, the 70's, and beat many fighters who are underappreciated today. He won some and lost some against the best fighters in the 80's when he was over 30 years old and past his best weight classes.

Those who say it's an excuse, look at how Hagler, Hearns, Leonard did after they were over 30 years old. Hagler retired at the right time, Leonard and Hearns did not.

Those who saw Duran at his best or have made the effort to watch him at his best after his career was over, know how great he was in his prime. They know that he was not the same fighter after losing to Ray Leonard, but was still capable of accomplishing great things in the ring.

if duran didnot want to be compared with the best oif his generation then he never should have fought them dominanting medicore oppositon at 135 does not make you top ten atg

[pistol whip]

if duran didnot want to be compared with the best oif his generation then he never should have fought them dominanting medicore oppositon at 135 does not make you top ten atg

Name one of these average fighters Duran fought at Lightweight and tell me somthing about them that made you think they were average.

Also why are you ignoring my comment.

[Brandish]

He doesn't know much about boxing back then. He can't even spell or show a high school level of grammar when he types

since you can't seem to add anything constructive to the debate kick rocks