Roberto Duran v. Bernard Hopkins at 160

Duran came up just short against Hagler. How would he fair against Hopkins?

Easy answer. Duran's peak was at lightweight, where he was unbeatable and an all-time great. Middleweight was just too much for his frame. Hopkins, as a natural middleweight, would've roughed up Duran. Not a fair comparison.

I mostly agree with TITO
but as P4P i think Durans just TOO slick for bernard.
Maybe here's where I'm guilty of wearing the "rose colored glasses"
But I really like Duran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Easy answer. Duran's peak was at lightweight, where he was unbeatable and an all-time great. Middleweight was just too much for his frame. Hopkins, as a natural middleweight, would've roughed up Duran. Not a fair comparison.

---

I agree, and disagree. FIrst I agree that Hopkins beats Duran, and far more desively than Hagler, but I disagree that Duran was unbeatable at lightweight... one reason isthat he lost at lightweight(by ko or TKO I believe). Second I think he would had trouble with a number of fighters at lightweight including Mayweather, Mosley, ODLH, and others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Easy answer. Duran's peak was at lightweight, where he was unbeatable and an all-time great. Middleweight was just too much for his frame. Hopkins, as a natural middleweight, would've roughed up Duran. Not a fair comparison.

---

Agreed ! O0

Duran lost to Esteban De Jesus when he was a young fighter at lightweight but at his peak he was pretty bad ass.

Duran could get ANYONE to brawl with him...I doubt Floyd would beat him....Mosely, eh, maybe he'd have a better shot than Floyd...Oscar would have a tough time with him.

Many forget Duran was not JUST a brawler he was a really good boxer...with a mean streak and some power


Hopkins would win at 160 of course....by the time Duran got up there he was fat and old.