Duran is not a top ten ATG

[wpink1]

I agree that duran faced better opposition. Hmmmm but what was his record vs these fighters. Since when does a fighter get praise for loss, or hmmmm 1-5 record.

Now i would agree that duran moved up, to fight these fighters& this is different than say hagler who fought his entire career @ middleweight. But this arguement loses its logic when you factor in that everyother fighter is measured by the success/losses that they have north of their originsl weight class. Do we look at dlh at lightweight only, or roy @ middleweight. No they are ranked based on every weight class they competed in. Why do duran fans want Duran to get a bye for what happened north of 135, except of course for his wins. Classic duran fan logic!

Only thing duran has on Roy Jones, is the name SRL. in Roys 57 fights he beat more champs, than championship fights duran fought in, he beat two all time top fighters vs Duran beating one, barely. The two Roy beat he beat easily, the one all time great duran beat, he won by one round, and this legend beat him in their next two figjts. Roy didnt lose any fights except for a dq til 35, yet he faced and beat 23 champions, 18 world champions. He won titles at middleweight, supermiddle, lightheavy, and defended each title at least 5 times. How many times did duran defend any titles successfully above 135? Hmmmmm 0 times.

Someone rries to comparw duran's jump to 160, to Roys jump to heavy. First off that is a ****** comparison. Duran did not have any thing meaningful @ 118, 5 trainer less fights. Then he had 10 more @ featherweight. His real career was at lightweight. Check your facts! Roy win a championship @ 160! Secondly, was duran outweighed by 20-30 pounds by barkly like Roy was by Ruiz? Did duran have to add 20 pounds for that one particular fight or was he campaigning at that weight, unlike roy who had to add 20 pounds immediately for a direct jump to heavyweight.

Finally, again yes duran faced 4 greats and roy only had two. But agaim duran LOST! You usually give credit when a fighter winz! Do we credit DLH for all his fights, or those he won. Does mosly get credit for his fights vs winky and forrest? Well why tge. Does Duran fans try to elevate Duran simply cuz he faced these great 4. You get credit for wins!

[Kid McCoy]

are you aware that diego corrales was the IBF champ at 130 and that before the floyd fight the IBF stripped him, so you say floyd never unified he didn't need to when you have the #1 and #2 facing each other, the same scenario you just put forth with ken buchanan..what a hypocrite you are.

Unified means uniting all the belts. That means all four in this day and age and unfortunately an impossible task for the WBC company man.

and the question I have for you is how come duran never unified 135 from the time he beat buchanan in 1972 up until 1978 his last fight at 135. you like to ask this question of floyd so hopefully you can answer why duran gets a pass on not unifying the division for over 6 years he was at lightweight.

was duran a 50% champion at 135 for 6 years. was he a 25% champion the night he beat duran, what about the night he beat moore was he a 25% champion then as well.

Buchanan was the legitimate linear unified champion. Who cares if the WBC stripped him for some political reason? He was the man and Duran beat him, which made him the man. Two of the guys he'd already beaten as champion went on to hold the WBC strap afterwards. It isn't the same as Floyd at all.

you sound ****** duran has never been recognized as the man of any weight class other than 135. floyd has been recognized as the best fighter in each weight class he campagined in, and would not be favored to loose against anyone in any division he fought in, can duran say the same.

To be the "man" in any division, you have to beat all the other titlists in your division. Tell me, when has Floyd ever done this? Casamayor, Freitas, Spadafora, Tszyu, Margarito, Williams, Cotto, Winky have all held titles in Floyd's divisions when he was there, and he never faced them.

was davey moore the ring/lineal champ at 154, what about barkely at 160 was he recognized as the real champ or just a belt holder.

No Moore was the not unified linear champ. But in his next fight Duran took on the WBC titlist Hearns, for which he was stripped of his title. When has Floyd ever done this?

Barkley beat Hearns, who was considered the best at 160 after Hagler's departure.

please list these other title holders that duran so-called chased. besides getting his ass beat against every top fighter of his era who did he really chase. after getting koed by hearns he didn't fight for a title again in over 6 years. can you explain that...who was he chasing from age 32-38 besides the pat lawlors and robbie sims of the world.

Marvin Hagler, Iran Barkley?

I mean the guy only fought in 22 championship fights and that's out of 119 fights. you are really clueless about what you are saying.

Still not got your head around the concept of championship fights in Duran's and Floyd's era? There are four belts around now. There were only two in Duran's heyday. There are now A LOT MORE championship fights these days, which distorts stats when comparing eras. If it wasn't for the alphabet era, guys like Gatti, Baldomir and De La Hoya would likely never have held the titles Floyd took from them.

you say duran could have held onto his trap and had a glossy championship record, the fact remains he didn't and after getting koed by hearns he doesn't fight for a title again in over 6 years.

the fact that you try and put down floyd for holding onto his title's and defending them is laughable when duran did the same thing at 135

Defending against whom? Floyd has made ONE defence of his last three titles, and that was against a man coming up in weight. Floyd hasn't faced the best in his own division since his 135lb days.

Ernesto Marcel: 5-0-1 in championship fights 10.8% of his fights were for championships. 4-0 in title defenses..finsihed career 40-4-2. Notable win Alexins Arguello
Genaro Hernandez: 13-2 in championship fights, which means 36.5% of his fights were championship fights. 11 successful title defenses..finished career 38-2-1..Notable win Azumah Nelson

do you still think marcel was the better fighter.

LOL you do know how old Azumah Nelson was when Hernandez beat him, right? I'll take a prime Arguello over a 93-year-old Nelson thank you very much.

Earlier I asked you to tell me what you know about Marcel that isn't found on Boxrec and you didn't answer. The challenge still stands.

ken buchanan: 3-2 in championship fights, 3-1 in title defenses..which translates to a 7.2% championship fight ratio. champion for 2 years 1970-1972. notable wins: none, after to losing to duran in 1972 never went on to win another title at the weight retired in 1982.

Esteban de jesus: 4-4 in championship fights, 3-1 in title defenses.. which translates to a 12.9% championship fight ratio. champion for 1 year 1976-1977, never regained the title. notable wins: roberto Duran

Jose Luis Castillo: 6-3-1 in championship fights, 5-3 in title defenses.. which translates to a 15% championship fight ratio. 2 time champion first run was champ for 2 years..second run was 1 year. notable wins: diego corrales, joel casamayor, stevie johnston

Diego Corrales: 7-2 in championship fights, 4-1 in title defenses, which translates to a 20% championship fight ratio. 2 divison champion (130, 135) unified the WBC and WBO lightweight title became ring/lineal champion by defeating jose luis castillo. reigned as lightweight champion for 2 years and jr.lightweight champ for 2 years. notable wins: jose luis castillo, joel casamyor

you were saying who had better comp at the lower weights again.

Buchanan won his title from a prime Hall of Famer, and lost it to a prime Hall of Famer. Never heard of Ismael Laguna and Carlos Ortiz? I didn't think so. Which prime Hall of Famers did Castillo and Corrales win their titles from?

DeJesus has a victory on his resume that Castillo and Corrales could never replicate. These days Buchanan and DeJesus could be alphabet boys, racking up dozens of defences of paper titles, while the other champions in their division did the same, which apparently would impress you more.

good victory for duran but it was a fluke in the rematch the better fighter won. and eventhough duran spent 2 years at 147 he was only able to win the title once and never defended it.

Don't let Pink hear you say that. Sacrilege!

floyd at least defended his title in his fourth weight class. can duran say the same.

Against a 140lber who had already looked ropey in his previous outing at 147. Whose only noteworthy win was against an inactive Tszyu? Well done Floyd, now start defending against some legit 147lbers.

160 was duran's fourth weight class, 160 would be floyd's 6th weight class you do the math. by the way did duran ever win a title at 168, or 175 his 5th and 6th weight classes.

Both fought at 130, only Duran didn't fight for a title there. Both fought at 135. Duran skipped 140 to go direct to 147. Both fought at 154. Floyd never made it to 160. They are the same size. If you wanna trash Duran for losing to prime Hall of Famers at 147 through 160, you have to trash Floyd for not even daring to go that high.

he wasted good prime years of his career fighting bums

Sums up Floyd better than I ever could. Well done.

duran had over 16 fights at 160 and fought at that weight for 7 years but was only able to win one title and never defended it.

Again, he was in his mid-30s at this point. You give Floyd a pass for not meeting the best throughout his career, yet you want Duran to be cleaning out the middleweights in old age. What were you saying about hypocrites?

he was never recognized as the best fighter in the world throughout his career like floyd has been recognized.

Floyd the only fighter in history to get to p4p #1 by constantly saying he is rather than by proving it in the ring.

floyd dominated multiple weight classes jumping from 147 to 154 without a tuineup to take on the legendary oscar de la hoya for the WBC 154 title, something duran never did or could do in his career.

Floyd did not dominate a single division. You do not dominate a division by avoiding the other titlists. You are clueless.

[Brandish]

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.

please stick to the facts saying this fighter is better then this fighter is garbage, why don't you list the number of prime hofer's duran beat at 135,or better yet list all the hofer's duran beat including the washed up one's and let's see if his resume of victories is greater then floyd's.

and please don't list his losses to hofers we all know duran has the oscar de la hoya syndrome,I fight the best but can't beat the best

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'

list the prime hofers duran beat at 135. so far you named buchanan, only the guy who was 3-2 in championship fights genaro hernandez was 13-2 in championship fights in case you forgot.

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 unde great fighter who beat great fighters himself.

ricky hatton has more championship fights then ken buchanan so it is not absurd to compare them.

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.

floyd foight the same wbc title that duran fought for ehatsd your point

[JAB5239]

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.

You're right. Another great post!

[mellow_mood]

BRANDISH!!

[Kid McCoy]

Brandish, again the obsession with championship fights. It's a diluted term nowadays. Sam Langford beat a galaxy of Hall of Famers, but had exactly one "championship fight", a controversial draw. Hall of Famers like Eddie Booker and Charley Burley had no championship fights, because they were too good for their own good and highly avoided, but are still a class above PBF and his "p4p #1 5 division champion" nonsense.

There's more to boxing than stats and Boxrec, something you're having trouble grasping.

[JAB5239]

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.

No my friend, you are wrong. Evidence has been provided. You have just choosen to ignore it or manipulate it, while at the same time apply it towards fighters of today.

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.

See, you are just flat out making up that none of these historians have any of those named fighters in their top 100. I am respectfully asking you for a source to this claim.

As far as the Duran/Jones comparison.......Duran had twice as many fights and was beat by a legend he had previously beaten. His ass was never handed to him. Jones on the other hand was put to sleep by Tarver and Johnson. Both good fighters, but neither on the level of a Ray Leonard. Do you not agree?

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.

Is the amount of time a fighter has fought and the number of fights he has been in a joke? You don't think this puts wear and tear on a body?

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.

Again, you are picking out select fighters who are few and far between. and again, there are fighters like that in every era. Because you are not familiar with them does not mean they weren't around.

One more thing....you keep talking bigger, faster, stronger. Where do steroids come into play here? Because it is a fact that both Mosely and Jones have taken them, as well as many heavyweights. How this translates to better is beyond me.

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.

Duran, Liston and Chavez are some of the greatest fighters to ever lace em up. They conquered all styles. You are using extreme cases against some of the best fighters ever to try and make a point and it just doesn't work. I won't even bother addressing Gatti.

[Kid McCoy]

Finally, on "championship fights":

There was once a fighter who went 34-0 over his career, 22-0 in "championship fights" (compared with Floyd's 18-0) and made 21 successful title defences (Floyd made 12), before retiring an undefeated champion. He fought for a title in his 13th pro fight (Floyd did it in his 18th) and in his second year as a pro (Floyd did it in his 3rd). 64% of his fights were for championships, compared with Floyd's 46%, and he managed to unify two belts, something the Pretty Boy has never accomplished.

His name?

Sven Ottke.

[JAB5239]

Finally, on "championship fights":

There was once a fighter who went 34-0 over his career, 22-0 in "championship fights" (compared with Floyd's 18-0) and made 21 successful title defences (Floyd made 12), before retiring an undefeated champion. He fought for a title in his 13th pro fight (Floyd did it in his 18th) and in his second year as a pro (Floyd did it in his 3rd). 64% of his fights were for championships, compared with Floyd's 46%, and he managed to unify two belts, something the Pretty Boy has never accomplished.

His name?

Sven Ottke.

[Brandish]

Unified means uniting all the belts. That means all four in this day and age and unfortunately an impossible task for the WBC company man.

there is no need to unify when you recognized as the best fighter in that division. was floyd the lineal/ring 130 champ was he the ring/lineal 147 champ.

I thought so.

Buchanan was the legitimate linear unified champion.

carlos baldomir was the legitimate linear unified champion, what's your [point.

Who cares if the WBC stripped him for some political reason? He was the man and Duran beat him, which made him the man. Two of the guys he'd already beaten as champion went on to hold the WBC strap afterwards. It isn't the same as Floyd at all.

what a hypocrite, you do realize that baldomir was stripped for the same reasons. so you don't care about unification as long as duran is fighting in that division.