The REAL Legacy of Roberto Duran

With his impending induction into the International Boxing Hall of Fame, I feel it apt to air my views on where Duran will ultimately be remembered. It is a little unfortunate that Duran's name is inextricably linked these days with Leonard, Hagler and Hearns (due in part to the excellent DVD "The Fabulous Four"). It is understandable then that some may compare the four and look at Duran's performances as being not so great... he lost 2/3 to Leonard, lost to Hagler and got knocked out (in spectacular fashion) by Hearns. His only redemption was in his epic introduction to the 'middle' weight (not middleweight!!) divisions against Ray Leonard in 'The Brawl in Montreal' (still one of the most exciting fights ever IMO!!). What sometimes escapes notice is that when he bagen fighting at welter weight (and higher) Duran was mixing in company 2 weight divisions higher and 10 years after his peak. He is guilty of complicating his legacy even further by going on to win 'world' titles at Junior Middleweight and Middleweight (he claims a 5th weight - Super Middleweight.. but it was only the NBA title he won), and fighting into his 50's (he reamains the only boxer to fight professionally in 5 different decades!!!).

When remembering Roberto Duran I believe ultimately he will be remembered as the number one lightweight of all time.

Does anyone have a link to the first SRL-Duran fight?

Oh, Dav, Duran was a beast.

Yes i will find it for you tommorow Unknowndonor as for Duran great Lightweight but he sometimes lost to fighters he shouldn't have like Kirkland Laing he totally outboxed Duran and Simms beat Duran aswell imo he is right where he should be in the opinions of the fans and where he is ranked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

Yes i will find it for you tommorow Unknowndonor as for Duran great Lightweight but he sometimes lost to fighters he shouldn't have like Kirkland Laing he totally outboxed Duran and Simms beat Duran aswell imo he is right where he should be in the opinions of the fans and where he is ranked.

---

Yeah... but that's exactly my point Ice! Duran lost to Kirkland Laing just after he lost to Wilfred Benitez... which was at Light Middleweight!! Duran was a lightweight -and the only guy he lost to at lightweight was Esteban de Jesus (which he later avenged). He lost alot of fights after he moved through the wieghts.... which is why I believe tha he will ultimately be remembered as a great (the greatest??) lightweight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dav

With his impending induction into the International Boxing Hall of Fame, I feel it apt to air my views on where Duran will ultimately be remembered. It is a little unfortunate that Duran's name is inextricably linked these days with Leonard, Hagler and Hearns (due in part to the excellent DVD "The Fabulous Four"). It is understandable then that some may compare the four and look at Duran's performances as being not so great... he lost 2/3 to Leonard, lost to Hagler and got knocked out (in spectacular fashion) by Hearns. His only redemption was in his epic introduction to the 'middle' weight (not middleweight!!) divisions against Ray Leonard in 'The Brawl in Montreal' (still one of the most exciting fights ever IMO!!). What sometimes escapes notice is that when he bagen fighting at welter weight (and higher) Duran was mixing in company 2 weight divisions higher and 10 years after his peak. He is guilty of complicating his legacy even further by going on to win 'world' titles at Junior Middleweight and Middleweight (he claims a 5th weight - Super Middleweight.. but it was only the NBA title he won), and fighting into his 50's (he reamains the only boxer to fight professionally in 5 different decades!!!).

When remembering Roberto Duran I believe ultimately he will be remembered as the number one lightweight of all time.

---

I agree.

Duran was the greatest lightweight of all time.

Lotsa people will remember him for "No Mas" but there morons. I will remember him for kicking the crap outta of Davy Moore after looking like a shot fighter losing against Kirkland Lang. And that obviously wasnt even his best weight or prime era.

The Hearns KO was just brutal...like chopping a tree , but Duran just epitomized the great Latino fighter and his body of work is long and legendary. Congratulations "Manos De Piedra"
you were one of a kind.

I wouldn't give a cent for the other fighters. I saw Saad Muhammed and Julian Jackson and with all due respect the should just induct Duran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dav

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

Yes i will find it for you tommorow Unknowndonor as for Duran great Lightweight but he sometimes lost to fighters he shouldn't have like Kirkland Laing he totally outboxed Duran and Simms beat Duran aswell imo he is right where he should be in the opinions of the fans and where he is ranked.

---

Yeah... but that's exactly my point Ice! Duran lost to Kirkland Laing just after he lost to Wilfred Benitez... which was at Light Middleweight!! Duran was a lightweight -and the only guy he lost to at lightweight was Esteban de Jesus (which he later avenged). He lost alot of fights after he moved through the wieghts.... which is why I believe tha he will ultimately be remembered as a great (the greatest??) lightweight.

---

Agreed :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dav

With his impending induction into the International Boxing Hall of Fame, I feel it apt to air my views on where Duran will ultimately be remembered. It is a little unfortunate that Duran's name is inextricably linked these days with Leonard, Hagler and Hearns (due in part to the excellent DVD "The Fabulous Four"). It is understandable then that some may compare the four and look at Duran's performances as being not so great... he lost 2/3 to Leonard, lost to Hagler and got knocked out (in spectacular fashion) by Hearns. His only redemption was in his epic introduction to the 'middle' weight (not middleweight!!) divisions against Ray Leonard in 'The Brawl in Montreal' (still one of the most exciting fights ever IMO!!). What sometimes escapes notice is that when he bagen fighting at welter weight (and higher) Duran was mixing in company 2 weight divisions higher and 10 years after his peak. He is guilty of complicating his legacy even further by going on to win 'world' titles at Junior Middleweight and Middleweight (he claims a 5th weight - Super Middleweight.. but it was only the NBA title he won), and fighting into his 50's (he reamains the only boxer to fight professionally in 5 different decades!!!).

When remembering Roberto Duran I believe ultimately he will be remembered as the number one lightweight of all time.

---

10 years after his prime was when Duran fought at welterweight? So he was prime in 1969-1970 when he was 18 years old???? This is more ridiculous nonsense about Duran. He was prime in about 1977/1978 or so I think which would make 10 years after his prime in 1987-1988.. And he fought Ray in 1980.. And was Ray prime when he fought Duran? No,, not either time, Ray was inexperienced when he fought Duran in 1980 and over the hill when he fought him in 1989..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegendBoxing65

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dav

With his impending induction into the International Boxing Hall of Fame, I feel it apt to air my views on where Duran will ultimately be remembered. It is a little unfortunate that Duran's name is inextricably linked these days with Leonard, Hagler and Hearns (due in part to the excellent DVD "The Fabulous Four"). It is understandable then that some may compare the four and look at Duran's performances as being not so great... he lost 2/3 to Leonard, lost to Hagler and got knocked out (in spectacular fashion) by Hearns. His only redemption was in his epic introduction to the 'middle' weight (not middleweight!!) divisions against Ray Leonard in 'The Brawl in Montreal' (still one of the most exciting fights ever IMO!!). What sometimes escapes notice is that when he bagen fighting at welter weight (and higher) Duran was mixing in company 2 weight divisions higher and 10 years after his peak. He is guilty of complicating his legacy even further by going on to win 'world' titles at Junior Middleweight and Middleweight (he claims a 5th weight - Super Middleweight.. but it was only the NBA title he won), and fighting into his 50's (he reamains the only boxer to fight professionally in 5 different decades!!!).

When remembering Roberto Duran I believe ultimately he will be remembered as the number one lightweight of all time.

---

10 years after his prime was when Duran fought at welterweight? So he was prime in 1969-1970 when he was 18 years old???? This is more ridiculous nonsense about Duran. He was prime in about 1977/1978 or so I think which would make 10 years after his prime in 1987-1988.. And he fought Ray in 1980.. And was Ray prime when he fought Duran? No,, not either time, Ray was inexperienced when he fought Duran in 1980 and over the hill when he fought him in 1989..

---

He had been in the ring 13 years,and had gone up in weight to fight Leanord
And he won
He had all of 1 count em one loss at the lower weights
And he avenged that loss twice

he started fighting at 16 years old in 1967, but he was not prime until 1977-1978. Which would make 10 years after his prime in 1987 and 1988.. 1980 was pretty close to Duran's prime, and how is fighting at welterweight after years at lightweight and not being able to make weight that high in weight to diminish him? Especially since he was a big enough lightweight. He fought great at welterweight against Palomino and Leonard the first time he did well although even an inexperienced Leonard fighting Duran's fight, Duran could not stop Ray., Duran just fought better guys when he lost in higher weights. and when Duran fought Hearns or Benitez, he was still young enough. If he lost it was not because of age or peak.. It was because of speed and those guys were good. I think his legacy is good just a bit overrated. He is overrated in my mind and always has been .Feet too wide apart. opponents at lightweight he should have beaten, I mean was there any doubt when he fought at lightweight that he was not better than his opponents? The real question was when he fought in the 80s. He had real challenges and did not come through.. He was 30 when he fought Benitez and 32 when he fought Hearns. And he later fought until he was 50 years old in 2001.. If he was a shot fighter he would have been beaten up by the late 1980s since that is how it works with washed up guys. They get beaten up and then it is easier to beat them and soon a guy 4-10 are beating them. I will say that after Leonard beat Duran in no mas in Nov. 1980, Duran had his invincibility stripped. That was the biggest damage to Duran not that his skills went down, just that the bully in him was tamed a little.. But if things went his way his attitude came and he would sneer and beat the guy into submission with combinations and power. If he had the person in front of him and they weren't moving he looked great even though his feet were so wide apart. When he had a boxer or fast guy like Leonard or Benitez or Hearns the tables turned. He quit like bullies do. Duran was a bully mentality anyway, and that is how it works with bullies.. It worked well with the lesser competition at lightweight, but when he moved up he was put to the test and sure he lost more and sure he has the excuse that he was old at 30 even though he fought 20 more years until the age of 50, and then he was fighting 2 divisions up when all the legends fought higher in weight yet didn't have the excuses. What great fighters did not move up usually? And most of them won. Robinson lost when he moved up and had excuses? Emile Griffith? Jones? Virgil Hill? Hearns moved up and fought at light heavyweight and won 2 titles there.. 30 pounds over his welt. division. When Tommy lost he was beaten badly, but if Duran lost the same way he had an excuse. I think what has to be reevaluated are Duran's opponents at lightweight.. And lets face it they were not the same quality as Leonard,Hearns,Hagler,Benitez. Who can say they were. Who will say Dejesus and Buchanan are the quality of Leonard and Hearns. We also have to reevaluated how washed up Duran was in 1980-1984.. 28-32 years old is washed up?? I know for a fact Duran has been given far too many excuses. And what backs my opinion up is his foot positioning. Anyone who fights that wide will punch hard but will not have mobility with a guy who can move. And if the guy is nailing Duran like Hearns did Duran cannot move to get out of there. Either way his positioning was bad. , and that same positioning was there at lightweight. Guys like Leonard and Benitez and Hearns would all beat a guy with that positioning. Pernell would have beaten Duran I have no doubt. Floyd?? Maybe, but Floyd gets roughed up more than Ray or Tommy would have. But stylewise he would have beaten Duran I think.

What I loved about Duran was that he was a real fighter. He came to fight and was not preoccupied with not getting hit. He had a good defence but he was willing to trade and really fight in trenches. Duran is and was a man who knows how to fight and for me he defined what is is to be a champion in this sport. Top 5 boxer ever imo, Top Lightweight ever next to Leonard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoomBoom

What I loved about Duran was that he was a real fighter. He came to fight and was not preoccupied with not getting hit. He had a good defence but he was willing to trade and really fight in trenches. Duran is and was a man who knows how to fight and for me he defined what is is to be a champion in this sport. Top 5 boxer ever imo, Top Lightweight ever next to Leonard.

---

Leonard beat great fighters to get that spot, Duran did not. As much as I like Duran's style, he did not beat great fighters to be top 5 boxer ever. He sure dominated, but the guys he dominated would have to be the lightweights, and are they really the caliber to warrant top 5 ever?? I thought the guys Chavez fought were better than Duran's caliber at lightweight with the exception of maybe Dejesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegendBoxing65

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoomBoom

What I loved about Duran was that he was a real fighter. He came to fight and was not preoccupied with not getting hit. He had a good defence but he was willing to trade and really fight in trenches. Duran is and was a man who knows how to fight and for me he defined what is is to be a champion in this sport. Top 5 boxer ever imo, Top Lightweight ever next to Leonard.

---

Leonard beat great fighters to get that spot, Duran did not. As much as I like Duran's style, he did not beat great fighters to be top 5 boxer ever. He sure dominated, but the guys he dominated would have to be the lightweights, and are they really the caliber to warrant top 5 ever?? I thought the guys Chavez fought were better than Duran's caliber at lightweight with the exception of maybe Dejesus.

---

He fought lots of all time greats at many different weights. Hes top 5 boxer in any class imo because of his ability to have sucess in many different divsions for decades and his accomplishments. Duran has fought far better opposition in his prime than Chavez. Benitez, De Jesus, Buchanan, Vuruet, Palomino he fought all while in his prime at Lightweight. And he fought the best at weights above that and won titles. No he was not a better lightweight than Leonard but he was just as good for different reasons imo.

I think Legend makes some very good points cc even though I love Duran

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegendBoxing65

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoomBoom

What I loved about Duran was that he was a real fighter. He came to fight and was not preoccupied with not getting hit. He had a good defence but he was willing to trade and really fight in trenches. Duran is and was a man who knows how to fight and for me he defined what is is to be a champion in this sport. Top 5 boxer ever imo, Top Lightweight ever next to Leonard.

---

Leonard beat great fighters to get that spot, Duran did not. As much as I like Duran's style, he did not beat great fighters to be top 5 boxer ever. He sure dominated, but the guys he dominated would have to be the lightweights, and are they really the caliber to warrant top 5 ever?? I thought the guys Chavez fought were better than Duran's caliber at lightweight with the exception of maybe Dejesus.

---

Lol.. Not that im arguing top five ever.. I think he makes top 15 at least..Possibly cracks top ten..

But the point which you make saying aside from de jesus.. who did he fight to get to that point..

Well who did anyone fight when they was building up a record and earning money when they were young.. The record and number of ranked fighters made up his ranking and thats how he got there..

Tell me know..Could you name the top 30 fighters in any specific weight class as of right now..
Well if you lived in durans time you probably couldnt say all the ranked lightweights then..
But i'll bet a fair few of the people he fought were pretty fairly ranked..

But all asumption aside.. None of it matters because when he got there you could have argued he didnt earn his way there.. But when he left he'd whooped Sugar ray..
And from there on he never ducked a fighter and he fought great competition cos he actually had recognition..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

Yes i will find it for you tommorow Unknowndonor as for Duran great Lightweight but he sometimes lost to fighters he shouldn't have like Kirkland Laing he totally outboxed Duran and Simms beat Duran aswell imo he is right where he should be in the opinions of the fans and where he is ranked.

---

I see him as a HOF'er easily....but as for an all time great that's a big push for me...what makes someone an all time great is the fact that they make all the right decisions in their boxing career...Duran going up in weight because he was out of shape was not a good decision.....His lack of training for some of his fights was evident...he looked out of shape in quite a few fights in the 80's-retirement.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegendBoxing65

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dav

With his impending induction into the International Boxing Hall of Fame, I feel it apt to air my views on where Duran will ultimately be remembered. It is a little unfortunate that Duran's name is inextricably linked these days with Leonard, Hagler and Hearns (due in part to the excellent DVD "The Fabulous Four"). It is understandable then that some may compare the four and look at Duran's performances as being not so great... he lost 2/3 to Leonard, lost to Hagler and got knocked out (in spectacular fashion) by Hearns. His only redemption was in his epic introduction to the 'middle' weight (not middleweight!!) divisions against Ray Leonard in 'The Brawl in Montreal' (still one of the most exciting fights ever IMO!!). What sometimes escapes notice is that when he bagen fighting at welter weight (and higher) Duran was mixing in company 2 weight divisions higher and 10 years after his peak. He is guilty of complicating his legacy even further by going on to win 'world' titles at Junior Middleweight and Middleweight (he claims a 5th weight - Super Middleweight.. but it was only the NBA title he won), and fighting into his 50's (he reamains the only boxer to fight professionally in 5 different decades!!!).

When remembering Roberto Duran I believe ultimately he will be remembered as the number one lightweight of all time.

---

10 years after his prime was when Duran fought at welterweight? So he was prime in 1969-1970 when he was 18 years old???? This is more ridiculous nonsense about Duran. He was prime in about 1977/1978 or so I think which would make 10 years after his prime in 1987-1988.. And he fought Ray in 1980.. And was Ray prime when he fought Duran? No,, not either time, Ray was inexperienced when he fought Duran in 1980 and over the hill when he fought him in 1989..

---

What I said was Duran should not be remembered for his fihgts with the likes of Leonard, Hagler and Hearns which spanned the years 1980 -1989. Taking my statement that these fights were 10 years past his peak, this means that he was at his best between 1970 and 1979. I didn't mean that he was 10 years past his peak when he first went in with Leonard. Alot of people have only seen Duran on dvds like the Fabulous 4 which, good as that is, gives a false impression of a fighter who should be remembered primarily for his previous work.

In my opinion although he was not young and at his peak when he fought his best competition in leonard, hagler and hearns..

He is rightful of his place in the group of four as he was a genuine threat to any of them and he was a veteran and a man fighting rather then a young up coming boy..

His fight with Leonard the first time just shows how great he was in his prime..

His fight with hearns is just testiment to how good hearns was.. If one thing has been confirmed.. A natural middleweight who had an undoubted solid chin was plain sparked by hearns and that just builds legacy of not only hearns but the fighters of the time..

And having been past his best he still went the distance and fought a great fight against one of the best middleweights in history in hagler..

His great wins over barkley and moore.. The only man to have won titles in five separate decades..

His career prime or not and the fact he has been such a great character in the sport of boxing is why he is a legend..

If he isnt hall of fame material then no one is!

One thing I notice when people speak on Duran is that they only speak on his fights against SRL, Hagler, Hearns.

For the most part on accasion someone will mention the Barkley fight and say he got a gift decision. (Which I find amusing to read that).

People tend to forget his great trilogy with one of Puerto Ricos greatest Esteban De Jesus what a trilogy that was IMO one of the lesser talked about trilogies but boy whas it a good one. Duran came back from an early loss to De Jesus to win the second meeting in which he went down early in the fight. The third fight was a unification bout which Duran also won. You also gotta note his win over the then Lighweight champ. Buchanan who would have been the Undisputed champ. had he kepted his WBC belt when he faced Duran. What about the fight against Moore where he showed what he was made of you gotta mention that....

To me at Lightweight it's Duran then the rest.
In ANY list as far as P4P, all times or whatever it may be in that sense for me Duran comes in at top 5 without a doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

One thing I notice when people speak on Duran is that they only speak on his fights against SRL, Hagler, Hearns.

For the most part on accasion someone will mention the Barkley fight and say he got a gift decision. (Which I find amusing to read that).

People tend to forget his great trilogy with one of Puerto Ricos greatest Esteban De Jesus what a trilogy that was IMO one of the lesser talked about trilogies but boy whas it a good one. Duran came back from an early loss to De Jesus to win the second meeting in which he went down early in the fight. The third fight was a unification bout which Duran also won. You also gotta note his win over the then Lighweight champ. Buchanan who would have been the Undisputed champ. had he kepted his WBC belt when he faced Duran. What about the fight against Moore where he showed what he was made of you gotta mention that....

To me at Lightweight it's Duran then the rest.
In ANY list as far as P4P, all times or whatever it may be in that sense for me Duran comes in at top 5 without a doubt.

---

Can i just ask what your top 10 list would be then ?? because top 5 of all time is way too high for Duran there is much more deserving fighters in top 5 than Duran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

One thing I notice when people speak on Duran is that they only speak on his fights against SRL, Hagler, Hearns.

For the most part on accasion someone will mention the Barkley fight and say he got a gift decision. (Which I find amusing to read that).

People tend to forget his great trilogy with one of Puerto Ricos greatest Esteban De Jesus what a trilogy that was IMO one of the lesser talked about trilogies but boy whas it a good one. Duran came back from an early loss to De Jesus to win the second meeting in which he went down early in the fight. The third fight was a unification bout which Duran also won. You also gotta note his win over the then Lighweight champ. Buchanan who would have been the Undisputed champ. had he kepted his WBC belt when he faced Duran. What about the fight against Moore where he showed what he was made of you gotta mention that....

To me at Lightweight it's Duran then the rest.
In ANY list as far as P4P, all times or whatever it may be in that sense for me Duran comes in at top 5 without a doubt.

---

Can i just ask what your top 10 list would be then ?? because top 5 of all time is way too high for Duran there is much more deserving fighters in top 5 than Duran.

---

The Ring magazine didn't think so. When they celebrated their 80th anniversary they published their top 80 P4P fighters during their 80 year run and Duran came 4th, behind (from memory) Robinson, Ali and Armstrong.

I stand corrected... I've just found the magazine in question and Duran was 5th. The top 10 were as follows:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Joe Louis
5. Roberto Duran
6. Willie Pep
7.Harry Greb
8. Benny Leonard
9. Sugar Ray Leonard
10. Pernell Whitaker

Considering the thread of this topic others of note were....

17. Marvin Hagler
67. Thomas Hearns (?)
68. Wilfred Benitez

Pick the bones out of that lot!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dav

I stand corrected... I've just found the magazine in question and Duran was 5th. The top 10 were as follows:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Joe Louis
5. Roberto Duran
6. Willie Pep
7.Harry Greb
8. Benny Leonard
9. Sugar Ray Leonard
10. Pernell Whitaker

Considering the thread of this topic others of note were....

17. Marvin Hagler
67. Thomas Hearns (?)
68. Wilfred Benitez

Pick the bones out of that lot!!

---

Willie Pep should be higher than Duran i honestly don't rate Duran as high as that yes he had great reign at Lightweight and imo is probably the best Lightweight ever but when he moved up he lost alot of the big fights and got outboxed by lowely regarded Kirland Laing and Simms yes he is a legend and i like Duran personally but top 5 he should not be imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

One thing I notice when people speak on Duran is that they only speak on his fights against SRL, Hagler, Hearns.

For the most part on accasion someone will mention the Barkley fight and say he got a gift decision. (Which I find amusing to read that).

People tend to forget his great trilogy with one of Puerto Ricos greatest Esteban De Jesus what a trilogy that was IMO one of the lesser talked about trilogies but boy whas it a good one. Duran came back from an early loss to De Jesus to win the second meeting in which he went down early in the fight. The third fight was a unification bout which Duran also won. You also gotta note his win over the then Lighweight champ. Buchanan who would have been the Undisputed champ. had he kepted his WBC belt when he faced Duran. What about the fight against Moore where he showed what he was made of you gotta mention that....

To me at Lightweight it's Duran then the rest.
In ANY list as far as P4P, all times or whatever it may be in that sense for me Duran comes in at top 5 without a doubt.

---

Can i just ask what your top 10 list would be then ?? because top 5 of all time is way too high for Duran there is much more deserving fighters in top 5 than Duran.

---

Def. you can ask... :) Here it is...

1. SRR
2. Ali
3. Henry
4. Duran
5. Pep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dav

I stand corrected... I've just found the magazine in question and Duran was 5th. The top 10 were as follows:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Joe Louis
5. Roberto Duran
6. Willie Pep
7.Harry Greb
8. Benny Leonard
9. Sugar Ray Leonard
10. Pernell Whitaker

Considering the thread of this topic others of note were....

17. Marvin Hagler
67. Thomas Hearns (?)
68. Wilfred Benitez

Pick the bones out of that lot!!

---

Willie Pep should be higher than Duran i honestly don't rate Duran as high as that yes he had great reign at Lightweight and imo is probably the best Lightweight ever but when he moved up he lost alot of the big fights and got outboxed by lowely regarded Kirland Laing and Simms yes he is a legend and i like Duran personally but top 5 he should not be imo.

---

Yes, the problem with Duran was that he sometimes failed to get into shape for fights and lost some howlers he should have won easily

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

One thing I notice when people speak on Duran is that they only speak on his fights against SRL, Hagler, Hearns.

---

That is not true since if people are saying he is top 5 p4p ever, then he would not be that with his fights with those guys. So why is he being regarded as top 5 ever? Like someone said earlier. His fights with Buchanan. Dejesus, Viruet and Palomino.. That makes him p4p 5 ever?? That has to be a joke. His lightweight career is good but not great to warrant that. And his reputation carried over where people hoped he would do well against the legends of the 80s. And when he won against Moore and Barkley, people said, wow look how great he is, but when he lost he had excuses. His foot positioning was too wide apart and that was a problem later. When a boxer moved Duran could not be mobile enough to catch him, when he was nailed by fast punchers like Benitez or Hearns he would sit there and take the punch cleanly.. He had his weaknesses. He was a great fighter but not 5 p4p.. If he is 5 p4p he would have beaten Hearns and Hagler and he didn't.. I know someone will say, well he was past his prime and overweight, well if a guy is p4p 5 he should have been able to do the impossible. 5p4p is a high place to be, and not beating them means he does not deserve to be there, not on his lightweight career.

I actually think Ray Leonard who had only 40 fights in his career has more of a case for being p4p 5.. He beat betters guys than Duran. Duran fought all the guys Leonard did who were great. Benitez, Hearns, Hagler, but Leonard beat them and Duran did not. Why is Duran even considered as p4p number 5???? 5 in the history of boxing for what??? beating Buchanan and being dominant against guys he should have beaten. Look at the list of guys Chavez fought in the 80s and early 90s. That is just as good as Duran's lightweight list, and Whitaker would have beaten Duran.

Although he lost to the rest of the Fab 4, I think considering the fact that he was originally a LW, what he did was remarkable. He cleary beat Leonard (soemthing Hearns and Hagler were not able to do) and, even though he lost, put up a much more respectable performance against the great Marvin Hagler than both Hearns and Leonard (who ran for 12 rounds)

Duran is the greatest lightweight that ever lived.

Duran won 73 of his first 74 fights with 56 KO's in twelve years of boxing and avenged that only defeat at Lightweight.
His greatest moment was the win against Leonard in 1980 and his lowest 6 months later.
If he had of retired then his legacy was assured, the fact he went on and lost to Hearns, Hagler and a few bums who he would have destroyed in his prime is irrelevant to the fact that Duran has to be included in anyone's Top ten list of all time fighters.
What position he is placed is up to the indiviidual but you can't leave him out.
Duran at his best was a monster!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Although he lost to the rest of the Fab 4, I think considering the fact that he was originally a LW, what he did was remarkable. He cleary beat Leonard (soemthing Hearns and Hagler were not able to do) and, even though he lost, put up a much more respectable performance against the great Marvin Hagler than both Hearns and Leonard (who ran for 12 rounds)

---

What did he do remarkable? He beat Ray when Ray decided to brawl with him, and still Duran could not knockout an inexperienced guy with one title defense at welterweight who was fighting his inside fight. I am amazed at all this talk about Duran. He moved up to welterweight when he was 28 years old.. Something alot of fighters do. He beat Ray Leonard the first time and then Ray beats him the next two times easy. Not just barely but easy, which proves that Ray fought the wrong fight the first time. Duran then loses to Hearns,Hagler,Benitez.. what is remarkable about what he did after lightweight really? Yet when Hearns went up and beat Virgil Hill 30 pounds above where he beat Pipino Cueves, that was not remarkable to most people. and I see Hearns moving up much more impressive than Duran since Hearns beat better guys when he moved up. And Cueves was better than Buchanan was and Virgil had 10 defenses at light heavyweight. I just do not see what was remarkable about losing to all the legends he fought in the 80s.. Had Ray boxed him like he should have Duran would have lost bigtime to all the legends of the 80s.. Look at the scorecards of his fight to Ray in Dec. 1989.

Duran has one of those careers that you can be overly critical about and still come to the conclucion that he was one of the all time greats 8)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

Duran has one of those careers that you can be overly critical about and still come to the conclucion that he was one of the all time greats 8)

---

Because he fought mediocre guys at lightweight whom he dominated so much that it made an impression that he was brutal in the ring with his sneer and all that. The way he knocked out Lampkin was frightening. And that impression has never gone away, even though an inspection of his lightweight competition shows they were not top top notch. He did not fight a guy equal to him except for Buchanan and Dejesus at lightweight. He was a great fighter, but his nonability against boxers and fast guys means that if you match him up with the boxers of all time he loses to them. The fighters he was in the ring with Benitez, Hearns,Leonard show that he would have probably lost to Whitaker,Mayweather, Mosley. I think he would have beaten Oscar. A good fight for Duran would have been Vargas or Mayorga.. This is how Duran's career went. if he fought now, he would lose to Mayweather and Mosley, then get excuses like he was drugged or had trouble losing 50 pounds,, then he would fight Vargas or Mayorga, knock either of them out and his fans say "look how great he was to beat those guys so savagely" After knocking out Vargas or Mayorga, Duran would say "I was in the best shape of my life this time" That is the career of Duran. When he won he did wipe guys out and that is hard to forget. Doesn't matter if the opponents were not as great as we think. yet he has the weakness of speed of boxers. I am not sure why I am one of the few who sees Duran as not as great as all seem to think he was.

Sweet Pea and Mayweather, yeah probably. (Two longstanding P4P no.1's.... Not bad IMO)

Oscar would have been way too big for Duran at most weights.
Too fast at the rest. (Ala Tommy Hearns)

But Mosley. Im not too sure about that one. Its debatable. At lightweight at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

Sweet Pea and Mayweather, yeah probably. (Two longstanding P4P no.1's.... Not bad IMO)

Oscar would have been way too big for Duran at most weights.
Too fast at the rest. (Ala Tommy Hearns)

But Mosley. Im not too sure about that one. Its debatable. At lightweight at least.

---

yeah I see what you are saying. The reason I think Mosley might beat him and not Oscar is that Oscar does not give much lateral movement which he needs since his handspeed is not backed up by the type of defense you need to outpoint Duran. Oscar has handspeed but Duran would come on later when Oscar tires as he does in recent fights and sort of leans forward and gets nailed. I just see Oscar getting tired with Duran and Roberto landing his right hand and start to take Oscar apart. Mosley had more consistency and fast punches which could really frustrate Duran even though Mosley does not have good lateral but his handspeed and nice short punches would make Duran frustrated I think.