Tweet
Duran seems to enjoy an unparalleled status in the minds of boxing fans. This is made more incredible by the fact that he outright quit in one of the biggest matches of all time. To restore his reputation after the bold stain of this dishonor would require something extra in the way of pugilistic heroics, which Duran indeed found within himself.
I will go out on a limb and say Duran is one of the greatest welterweights of all time, as well as a hot contender for greatest lightweight.
The nearest of all time greats to Duran in temperament, also happens to be near him in weight. Mickey Walker was at one time the welterweight champion, and moved up to become a small middleweight champion. Duran might have done that, too, if not for the presence of some very great middleweights roaming the division in his day. That is probably all that prevented it. Give Duran a mediocre division and champion, and he could easily have ruled that division for a while (with same day weigh-ins).
I am rock solid sure Duran is a top three AT lightweight. But I really do wonder about his AT credentials as a welterweight. The KO loss to Hearns reflects very badly. The same shots would have KO'd most welters. Duran was much too lackadaisical in that fight, as if he hadn't even considered that Tommy was not a man you should give all that punching room to while you relaxed for a few rounds. Talk about a lousy game plan! That is why I think his mind was not in the fight the way it should have been. I believe he could have done better, though not necessarily have won. It was possible for him to give a much better account of himself, even in defeat, I am saying. Hearns was great, and had every physical advantage, but he was not invincible. Duran probably did hit hard enough to daze Tommy, if not KO him outright.
One has to wonder if Mickey Walker would have fared much better against the Motor City Cobra that night. For danger, the instant fury of a Hearns attack at least matches in my mind the measured advance of Schmeling, a bigger man who KO'd Walker.
When I look around, I do not see a lot of welterweights in history I would bet on against Duran.
The questrion is: In a realistic world, is Duran a top ten all time welterweight?
I am quite willing to concede the spots of Robinson, Leonard and Hearns above him. My memory is not good today, I know I am forgetting names. The latin black they called butter, I can never remember his name. He has a lot of respect, but I do think he was rather average in the speed department, though a smooth boxer.
After you concede three or four positions at the top, isn't eveyone after that quite debatable? I do not feel there are any other welterweight shoo-ins against Duran, than the three named. I feel everyone else is debatable (though I am having a bad memory day, and may have forgotten some important names in the mix), so that he must come very close to top ten welterweight of all time, as well as a top three lightweight. I see no shoo-ins at lightweight against Hands of Stone at all, who was also a man whose skin practically refused to cut.
What do you think?
I will go out on a limb and say Duran is one of the greatest welterweights of all time, as well as a hot contender for greatest lightweight.
The nearest of all time greats to Duran in temperament, also happens to be near him in weight. Mickey Walker was at one time the welterweight champion, and moved up to become a small middleweight champion. Duran might have done that, too, if not for the presence of some very great middleweights roaming the division in his day. That is probably all that prevented it. Give Duran a mediocre division and champion, and he could easily have ruled that division for a while (with same day weigh-ins).
I am rock solid sure Duran is a top three AT lightweight. But I really do wonder about his AT credentials as a welterweight. The KO loss to Hearns reflects very badly. The same shots would have KO'd most welters. Duran was much too lackadaisical in that fight, as if he hadn't even considered that Tommy was not a man you should give all that punching room to while you relaxed for a few rounds. Talk about a lousy game plan! That is why I think his mind was not in the fight the way it should have been. I believe he could have done better, though not necessarily have won. It was possible for him to give a much better account of himself, even in defeat, I am saying. Hearns was great, and had every physical advantage, but he was not invincible. Duran probably did hit hard enough to daze Tommy, if not KO him outright.
One has to wonder if Mickey Walker would have fared much better against the Motor City Cobra that night. For danger, the instant fury of a Hearns attack at least matches in my mind the measured advance of Schmeling, a bigger man who KO'd Walker.
When I look around, I do not see a lot of welterweights in history I would bet on against Duran.
The questrion is: In a realistic world, is Duran a top ten all time welterweight?
I am quite willing to concede the spots of Robinson, Leonard and Hearns above him. My memory is not good today, I know I am forgetting names. The latin black they called butter, I can never remember his name. He has a lot of respect, but I do think he was rather average in the speed department, though a smooth boxer.
After you concede three or four positions at the top, isn't eveyone after that quite debatable? I do not feel there are any other welterweight shoo-ins against Duran, than the three named. I feel everyone else is debatable (though I am having a bad memory day, and may have forgotten some important names in the mix), so that he must come very close to top ten welterweight of all time, as well as a top three lightweight. I see no shoo-ins at lightweight against Hands of Stone at all, who was also a man whose skin practically refused to cut.
What do you think?
Comment