Duran is not a top ten ATG

[Ch@mpBox@PR]

This is starting to get really frustrating.

Mayweather first fought for a title at the end of '98, not 96. He then had his last defense of that title at the end of '01, in between fighting a guy at 135 to test the waters but it ended up being one of his toughest fights, which was also against a guy that has never won a title. Three years Brandish, not six.

How many of his defenses or how many of his fights? See, this is where you are already off track here, which is why I posted another post to highlight this exact problem. There are numerous titles you can get today which is why anyone can get a fight with a titleholder or even get a belt themselves. You remember Ray (I think it's Ray or maybe Tim) Austin? The guy who fought a million title defenses and never once came up against a good fighter until Rafael Marquez and then was knocked out? You remember that? Someone that just fought for a title back then would have won a title today or be a multiple title holder in numerous weight divisions. That's the whole problem with boxing today and why you can't compare that type of thing from vastly different era's.

Anyway, so we do we say fights or title defenses? Being a vastly different era in which title fights were not nearly as common and much harder to get, I'll go with fights against title holders. Marcel, Kobayashi, Buchanan, De Jesusx3, Ishimatsu, Mamby. That's the guys that I know held titles. See, that doesn't include the guys who fought for a title that would be title holders today. Guys like Robertson who Duran knocked out in five beat title holders like Sugar Ramos (the HOF'er) and Ruben Navarro or other great fighters that Duran beat who would easily be title holders like Hector Thompson, or Villa, the Viruet brothers, Lou Bizzaro, Takayama, Lampkin, Fernandez, Rojas, etc etc. In my opinion all would have been title holders today quite easily. They were a hell of a lot better fighters than guys like Manfredy.

You have consistently said Duran's lightweight run was no good throughout this thread. These are just a few of the things you posted directly in regards to Duran's lightweight run:
'anybody can rackup a record against a bunch of tomatoo cans'
'I was never impressed with ken sort of like the ricky hatton of his time'
'you can tell he had poor comp at lightweight'
'and to say he is top ten all time based on weak comp at 135 no way'
'when you say cleaned the divison out that was easy since there weren't that many great lightweights for duran to fight. sweet pea fought much tougher lightweights then duran'

The simple fact that you compared Buchanan to Ricky Hatton, of all people, is so absurd and ridiculous. You have not seen Buchanan fight if you think he's anything like Hatton. He's the complete opposite. He was considered one of the slickest fighters of his time. He was defensive, counter oriented fighter and based his fight game off slick, fast movement and pure boxing skills. He had one of the best jabs in the game when he was fighting. He was a very underrated great fighter who beat great fighters himself.

There are now four main titles. WBO, IBF, WBA and WBC. The WBC titlists are no different than any other now. It doesn't make you a better fighter because you win the WBC title. Having the WBC title does not make you the 'man' at the weight either.

Great post!!!!!!!! You just owned this guy!!!!!!!

[BennyST]

You have got not a shred of proof for any of this. To say fighters are bigger, stronger and faster today is a joke. again, where is your proof?

Even if they are different vs today's fighters what matters is that they were beating the top fighters of their day. It is respective to today, not vs today that matters.

In the early 1900's the top fighters were fighting other top fighters. If someone beat a long slew of the best fighters of the day, that means they are comparable to the same fighters doing the same today. If today's fighters are bigger, stronger, faster, it means nothing. You can't say Mayweather is better than Pep because today's fighters are faster, better conditioned, stronger etc etc. If Pep was fighting today he would have had the same conditions and therefore be just as good as he was in this era as he was in his era.

They were all fighting under the same conditions back then and if someone ruled a division for a decade and fought the best fighters of his day and beat them, then it is no different than someone from today's era doing it. That is how you rank the older fighters. You can't say because they were less evolved then they aren't as good as their contemporaries.

[wpink1]

You have got not a shred of proof for any of this. To say fighters are bigger, stronger and faster today is a joke. again, where is your proof?

And if you want to get into dumb statements, read your last sentence. Besides forming your own opinions, going by a historians superior knowledge is much more credible than going by boxrec and then forming an opinion.

I got no problem with you Pink, but you have lost this debate no matterv what you think. Not because I say so, but because the overwhelming majority says so. And when you are talking about something as subjective as where a fighter ranks p4p, that is the end all.

jab the reason why I have recieved 3 notifactions, maybe you have too, regarind great work, good job pointing out the bias towards duran....etc. is because I and Brandish has posted facts. Just take a look.

Now you say I need to provide one shred of evidence regarding fighters being bigger, better,stronger. I love that you want me to provide evidence, and I have been begging duran fans to please but the biased and different measuring sticks away when measuring Duran, but nobody will, duran for some will forever be the unbeatable king of boxing,,even though he kept getting his ass kicked repeatedly.

Just look throught this thread, how many times, some reference historians as a source for qualifying Duran as top 10. However when I compare Durans best wins even at lightweight, vs leoanrd and point out the not one person on Durans lightweight resume is on any of *again* not one of these Historians that they use to back Durans greatness, not one of the same historians rank marcel, kyobashi, Buchanon, Dejesus in their top 100. To rant and rave about Duran lightweight resume being so dominant, and have him over a person that beat 4 top 100 fighters, including owning a 2-1 head to head record vs Duran baffles me. Also many have duran over dejesus because he has a 2-1 record against him, but then they have duran over leonard because hmmmmm he has a 1-2 record vs him. & no I dont want to hear the Duran only excuse that we should not rank duran on this since Ray was a welter. Do you all when trying to tear down Roy, say hey we should not count his fighters vs Tarver, when this was after he moved up the lightheavy, in fact after he destroyed his body by having to lose (in a short time frame) 18 pounds of muscle to meat the lightheavy limit. Oh and Duran was 29 when he got his ass handed to him by ray...how old was roy, 35.

I think read on hear someone else whining that Roy got beat down by tarver, johsnon. True but are we indeed now comparing Roy at 35, and after what he did to damage his body, to Duran at 28-32..... come on..I guess the other great duran excuse will be used, he aged differently. So by this logic, you can excuse any loss on Duran resume, and claim the victory's when ever you want too, as you do with Moore, ad Barkly. What freaking joke.

As for you...You can look across the sports spectrum and see that athletes are bigger, better, stronger...So I guess it does not pertain to boxing hmmmm. Lets see outside of Ray Robinson, who else did you see in that era that had the speed, power etc.. now you see many with this combination of speed, power...Mosley, leoanrd, Mayweather at lightwitht, Roy. Name the middlewieght that had the speed, size, power, at middle. Name the middleweight that was as gifthed athletically at roy, or as cut. The only weight range you can point too is heavyweight now, and this is because these possibe fighters have went to other sports. To ignore that fighters today come from a pool of people who are on average better athletically, bigger, stronger faster, is simly just beig ignorant of the fact.

Fighters of today do not appear to be on the tough side, like the lamatto's etc. However, tough does not mean your better, especially when we see what happens when fighters like gotti, duran,, chavvez, liston go up against the fighters that use speed, tecnique, mobility..etc.

[El Dominicano]

I don't get why people are making a big deal out of Duran's loses...Not only was he the oldest out of the Fab 4 he was CLEARLY the smallest. You've got to be crazy if you think you can compare Mayweather's resume to Duran...

Then Bradish says that Mayweather was considered the best everytime he moved up in weight...Well guess what?! Mayweather doesn't have a Hearns, SRL and Hagler in this time...Mayweather had a B-Hop at 160, a RJJ at 168... Duran would ATLEAST have the ballz to face em...I don't blame Mayweather for not facin them but keep in mind Mayweather- Duran = Same size. That is the kind of disadvantage Duran was in

Now let the thread die

[UnDeniable]

If your comparing Duran and Mayweather skill wise then its a fair argument

But Durans resume ****s all over Floyds. Duran and Floyd were the same size and yet Duran took on the best at 160, this should'nt really be discussed. Duran is clearly Top 10 all time

[Brandish]

If your comparing Duran and Mayweather skill wise then its a fair argument

But Durans resume ****s all over Floyds.

Duran and Floyd were the same size and yet Duran took on the best at 160, this should'nt really be discussed. Duran is clearly Top 10 all time

uh no it doesn't why don;t you post duran's resume at any weight and floyd beats it hands down. you are kind of late to the party but I will give you a detailed breakdown later on ..

as far as duran fighting the best at 160 I don't think losing to marving hagler and then sic years later beating a barkley is dominanting 160..lol I mean you duran groupies are amazing. I keep hearng how small he was. is that the reason why he lost all his big fights. and if he was so mall and couldn't win the big one why are you trying to rank him ahead of fighters who actually could win

[El Dominicano]

uh no it doesn't why don;t you post duran's resume at any weight and floyd beats it hands down. you are kind of late to the party but I will give you a detailed breakdown later on ..

as far as duran fighting the best at 160 I don't think losing to marving hagler and then sic years later beating a barkley is dominanting 160..lol I mean you duran groupies are amazing. I keep hearng how small he was. is that the reason why he lost all his big fights. and if he was so mall and couldn't win the big one why are you trying to rank him ahead of fighters who actually could win

How would Mayweather fair against a prime B-Hop at 160?

[Brandish]

This is starting to get really frustrating.

why are you frustrated we are having a debate..why are duran fans so defensive

Mayweather first fought for a title at the end of '98, not 96. He then had his last defense of that title at the end of '01, in between fighting a guy at 135 to test the waters but it ended up being one of his toughest fights, which was also against a guy that has never won a title. Three years Brandish, not six.

I wasn't basing length of nce on when he first won a title, it was based on not losing at his prime weight. floyd reigned as champ for 4 years at 130 ring/lineal, and was undefeated at his prime weight. 98, 99,2000,2001. esteban de jesus broke duran's aura of invincibility at 135 floyd's aura ha never been broken.

I notice how you like to mention fighters that floyd fought never winning a title. how many of fighters who have won titles at 135 did duran face? please give a specific number

How many of his defenses or how many of his fights? See, this is where you are already off track here, which is why I posted another post to highlight this exact problem. There are numerous titles you can get today which is why anyone can get a fight with a titleholder or even get a belt themselves.

wrong again floyd fought for the same sanctioning body that duran fought for. you would be correct if floyd had fought for a WBO or IBO, or IBA or NABF title but he didn't he fought for and defended one of the oldest titles in boxing

[Brandish]

I'll go with fights against title holders. Marcel, Kobayashi, Buchanan, De Jesusx3, Ishimatsu, Mamby. That's the guys that I know held titles.

genaro hernandez, jesus chavez, carlos hernandez, diego corrales, jose luis castillo the guys you listed were good comp floyd has even better comp. what's your point are you saying the guys you listed were better then floyds comp if so in what way.

[mellow_mood]

genaro hernandez, jesus chavez, carlos hernandez, diego corrales, jose luis castillo the guys you listed were good comp floyd has even better comp. what's your point are you saying the guys you listed were better then floyds comp if so in what way.

tanto nadar para morir en la orilla!!!!

ajjajajajajajjaja