Duran is not a top ten ATG

[Chunk..]

Anyone on here ever seen the fight Duran had with Ken Buchanan?

One of my favorite fights ever, and one of the most controversial finishes to a fight in the history of this sport.

Anyone who has seen this fight will know what am talking about?

[Brandish]

How can you be recognised as the best in the division when you haven't fought everyone?

did duran fight every fighter ranked in the top 10 at 147, 154 and 160 don't worry I'll wait

So, you're saying that Mayweather doesn't even need to fight the champs, he should just be recognised as the unified champion or the proper champion because you think he's the best or most skilled even if he doesn't fight all the champs?

youi sound ******ed. floyd was recognized as the ring/lineal champ at 130, 135, and 147. do you have any idea what that means. duran never gained that distinction in his career, becasue he wasn't good enough to beat the reining champs of his era from 147-160 duran was not an elite fighter and couldn't win the big one. comparing floyd to that is ******ed.

This is a point that I've noticed is just not getting through to you. There used to be two belts when Duran was fighting. The WBC and the WBA. That means that there were only two champions in each division. Ok? To have been the unified champion back then you would have had to beat the guy or both guys and you first had to become the top contender by beating all the other guys. In effect, today, it would be the same as going through every single contender first, then going up and beating every single alphabet title holder and then going up to beat the recognised true champion of the division.

did floyd and duran fight for the same wbc title in their era's. a simple yes or no will suffice.

Also, you keep bringing up someone like Genaro who had 18 title defenses or something whereas a guy like Buchanan or even Marcel only had five or so each and saying that that makes him better. Tell me this Brandish, would Genaro have had all those if there had only been two belts altogether? You know he didn't have to face everyone? He could have one of those titles and no one really cares that much about it because there are another three titles to go for and you can pick and choose which one to go for. Also, if you are Hernandez' team or promoter you pick and choose the opponents instead of having to fight the top guy immediately. It is so different now and you just don't seem to get that.

genaro defended his wbc title 11 times successfully, buchanan 3 times, the difference between the two is that genaro was a much better fighter. any idiot can see that. so while you ramble on about the medicore champs duran beat at 135 floyd still gets the nod over duran's comp at the lower weights.

duran never faced any threat at 135 that was bigger then diego corrales.

This might make it easier to understand. Before and including Duran's era, how many titlists were there who had fought more than fifteen title defenses? You will struggle to find even a few. Now, since about 1980 or a bit later, maybe the late eighties, who many fighters have there been who have racked up more than fifteen title defenses? I can think of a lot off the top of my head. Guess why mate?

you're losing it, duran had over 12 title defenses at 135, you know why he had so many title defenses because he was better then the guy trying to take his title. same principle applies in any era. buchanan wasn't good enough to defend his title if he had been he would have beaten duran when they faced each other an kept his belt.

your excuses get ******er and ******er as we go on. I can only imagine what comes next, duran had stomach cramps or hagler was too big for him, or hearns was too tall. floyd was 5'8 and defeated a 6'0 tall diegeo corrales so don't give me that height bull ****, ray was shorter then hearns and found a way to win.

There have probably been as many, or probably a lot more, fighters in the last two decades that have racked up more than fifteen title defenses of the same belt than there have been in the entire history of the sport previous to those last couple of decades that have done the same thing. , $.

you are full of it.. please list all these fighters with the 12 or more title defenses in this era and I can find those on the past who did the same.

joe luis over 21 title defenses, duran 12 title defenses, you are blowing smoke up your ass with that argument

You bring up Mayweather's title winning effort against Gatti at 140. In the '70's etc, Gatti would not have even held that belt and it would not have been for a title. It would have been just a normal fight with an older guy on his last legs and it would have been for nothing. It's the same with the 154 title that he fought Oscar for. Oscar got that off Mayorga who won the vacant title against Piccirillo. Again, Oscar would never have even held that belt back then and that fight would not have been for a title. Also, even if you were a champ back then, it was very, very rare that you could jump a division straight into a title fight. Even if you were a unified champ considered P4P number one by most, if you jumped into another division you would have had to work up through the ranks just like every other fighter, just like Duran did when he jumped to 147. Today's championship boxing is not the same.

you have presented no proof only specualtion and innuendo. gatti held the same wbc title that duran held. so the fact that you don't think gatti should be ranked by the wbc is your opinion, not a fact.

the wbc has been around longer than duran and gatti, and I am sure they rank fighters based on not just their boxing skill but their marketability. duran was a marketable fighter that's why he got ranked to fight barkely at 160 he damn sure didn't earn a shot aganst him, same with 154 who did duran beat to get a dhot at davey moore, or even hagler....just admit you are biased towards duran and can't think or judge him properly.

[BennyST]

I couldn't help throwing this out there.

The guy that has been arguing most vehemently for Duran being worse than Mayweather, Leonard etc etc (apart from the insanely mad Brandish who doesn't count), has actually written a massive article factually comparing them and guess what he came up with? Duran being the better, at least P4P.

I was always a bit suss with it Wpink. I remember in our early conversations that you thought Duran was always just a little bit higher than Leonard, that he would have beaten Whitaker, Mayweather etc etc at lightweight or welterweight, but now you go and take it all back suddenly. Confusing.

Anyway, here you go.

http://www.********boxing.com/news.php?p=9375&more=1

[Brandish]

Anyone on here ever seen the fight Duran had with Ken Buchanan?

One of my favorite fights ever, and one of the most controversial finishes to a fight in the history of this sport.

Anyone who has seen this fight will know what am talking about?

you must be taking about the nut shot ko

[BennyST]

did floyd and duran fight for the same wbc title in their era's. a simple yes or no will suffice.

Alright, I'm done after this post because this is getting completely absurd.

What does therm having fought for the same belt mean? Ok, get this Brandish? Listen, read what is being written and then think about it for more than one second so it actually sinks into that thick skull of yours.

There are four title belts today!!!!!!!! That means there are four champions, plus a few ridiculous minor belts as well. That means the entire divisional competition is watered down as you have the top contenders for four different belts. Do you understand or is this just not getting through to you?

So what if they both fought for the WBC title? What the **** does that even mean? Who cares?

The difference is that today each belt has it's own contendership, if you will, and that means that there are champions that don't have to face all the top contenders nor do they have to face the other champions. Is this com*****g yet?

There are four title to win today and that means there are four times the contender ranks, which means the competition is four times as watered down as it would have been when there was one champion and just the WBC/WBA. Get it? There are few people that I've encountered as thick as you mate.

Wow, so you came up with Joe Louis and his 21. Hence me saying you could find as many in the last era as in the whole of the history previously. You came up with one. Well done.

[BennyST]

you have presented no proof only specualtion and innuendo. gatti held the same wbc title that duran held. so the fact that you don't think gatti should be ranked by the wbc is your opinion, not a fact.

the wbc has been around longer than duran and gatti, and I am sure they rank fighters based on not just their boxing skill but their marketability. duran was a marketable fighter that's why he got ranked to fight barkely at 160 he damn sure didn't earn a shot aganst him, same with 154 who did duran beat to get a dhot at davey moore, or even hagler....just admit you are biased towards duran and can't think or judge him properly.

Man, you have just lost it. First off, Leonard changed the face of boxing. Before his massive fame boxers had to go through the rank. After Leonard and the Fab Four thing, it allowed the popular fighters to get basically anyone they wanted. Hence Mayweather being able to fight anyone, at any weight without having to through the proper loops. It's good and bad. More money for the fighters: Great! Ridiculous title shots and absurd undefeated records against has-beens, never-rans and other various ****e.

That's why, before Leonard, Duran had to go through the ranks of the welter division to become the top contender. He beat Palomino to do that, you know that HOF guy. To get the Moore shot he beat Cuevas which was the eliminator for the top contender. He went straight to Hagler because this was the start of the boxing 'superstar/superfight' era.

[wpink1]

I never said duran was better than leonard. Never ever. I said imo he is better than mayweather. I also said that mayweather simply has some unfinished business. If he comes back & fights pacman & margo, then imo he surpasses Duran.

Brandish , may be overly hyping Mayweather, but 85% of what he says is fact, & he is whipping you Duran fans ass!

[Brandish]

Alright, I'm done after this post because this is getting completely absurd.

it was absurd from the moment you tried justifying duran was a top ten atg.

What does therm having fought for the same belt mean? Ok, get this Brandish? Listen, read what is being written and then think about it for more than one second so it actually sinks into that thick skull of yours.

your argument would make sense if say gattin was a wbo or ibf champ, two titles duran never held. the fact that the same sanctioning body the wbc held title fights for duran and gatti makes you argument worthless and irrelvant.

There are four title belts today!!!!!!!!

of the four belts how many did floyd hold. what about duran. stick to the facts duran had 12 title defenses of his wba title floyd had 12 title defenses of his wbc title. those are the facts.

That means there are four champions, plus a few ridiculous minor belts as well. That means the entire divisional competition is watered down as you have the top contenders for four different belts. Do you understand or is this just not getting through to you?

nobody counts the wbo, or ibo, you can if you want to.

So what if they both fought for the WBC title? What the **** does that even mean? Who cares?

it means **** for brains that your argument about floyd fighting weaker comp is garbage. you would have a point if floyd was a wbo champion or IBO champion orgs that were established 15-20 years ago. floyd fought the same orgs that duran fought for no getting around it.

The difference is that today each belt has it's own contendership, if you will, and that means that there are champions that don't have to face all the top contenders nor do they have to face the other champions. Is this com*****g yet?

were not dicussing other belts jus t the WBC and the WBA the oldest.

There are four title to win today and that means there are four times the contender ranks, which means the competition is four times as watered down as it would have been when there was one champion and just the WBC/WBA. Get it? There are few people that I've encountered as thick as you mate.

no there isn't 4 titles to win, nobody counts the wbo as a title necessary for unification...

Wow, so you came up with Joe Louis and his 21. Hence me saying you could find as many in the last era as in the whole of the history previously. You came up with one. Well done.

and duran and his 12, see your argument is **** to begin with , just pack it up and call it a day

[Brandish]

Man, you have just lost it. First off, Leonard changed the face of boxing. Before his massive fame boxers had to go through the rank. After Leonard and the Fab Four thing, it allowed the popular fighters to get basically anyone they wanted. Hence Mayweather being able to fight anyone, at any weight without having to through the proper loops. It's good and bad. More money for the fighters: Great! Ridiculous title shots and absurd undefeated records against has-beens, never-rans and other various ****e.

you preface yoiur opening statement with I lost it, and then go on ramble about leoanrd changing boxing. history is replete with retired champions coming back to get title shots, jim jeffries vs jack johnson for one.

floyd is the greatest WBC champion in history and that org has been around for almost 50 years. I fail to see the point of your argument as it relates to the title thread.

That's why, before Leonard, Duran had to go through the ranks of the welter division to become the top contender. He beat Palomino to do that, you know that HOF guy. To get the Moore shot he beat Cuevas which was the eliminator for the top contender. He went straight to Hagler because this was the start of the boxing 'superstar/superfight' era.

so you have an excuse for him going straight to hagler but when floyd goes straight to hoya and castillo there is something wrong you are too easy.

[The Hammer]

Anyone on here ever seen the fight Duran had with Ken Buchanan?

One of my favorite fights ever, and one of the most controversial finishes to a fight in the history of this sport.

Anyone who has seen this fight will know what am talking about?

Duran's deliberate low blow after the bell actually burst one of Buchanan's testicles. He should have been disqualified.