barry, you made this statement I did not. Doesn’t this imply that Duran had one “style” and in your opinion it was to “bull his way in”? I simply said that was a stupid statement. And it is.barry wrote:Duran would have to fight a fight that was completely opposite of his style...he would not bull his way in...
Your simplistic view of boxing is rather disappointing, considering the fact that you continually claim to be some type of boxing expert. I guess in your view a fighter is either a "defensive-genius" or uses a "bull rush" style, whatever that means. Do you mean he rushed towards his opponents without jabbing, upper body movement or feints? Or that he led with his chin like Sam Peter? Please explain barry, and give some examples of this fighter with the "bull rush" style that perhaps only you and Brocky are familiar with. And please do remember that most of us are capable of understanding that fighters often use different styles when they fight, which is the whole premise of me questioning your pompous arrogant statements. I've already admitted that the tactics Duran used in some fights could be referred to as aggression with little caution, but I also know that wasn't usaully the case. He was in general, a very good tactical fighter in addition to being a solid puncher. Your premise is that he could only fight one style -- the mysterious Chuck Wepner inspired "bull rush" style, whatever that is.barry wrote:Well then enlighten us all about the Pernell Whitaker-esque style that Duran used, or the dance around the ring defensive manner that Duran used...the only style that I can recall about Duran was seek and destroy as a lightweight...though I would like to hear about this defensive-genius that some of you feel Duran was and the boxer-style of his...how about explaining it, or even give some examples of it...I can give many, many examples of Duran just overwhelming opponents with a "bull-rush" style...many instances...though I do not recall but maybe two, or three instances where he was a defensive-minded fighter!
Teach us what it's all about then...if you can!
Duran was a great all around fighter? Everyone else on this thread has said Duran is great, but I thought you said he could only fight with a “bull rush” style? How can he be a great fighter if he had no skills? Or does a “bull rush” style imply skills? I can’t be sure since you’ve never explained what a “bull rush” style is. Please elaborate.barry wrote:Duran was a great all-around fighter...no doubt about it...one of the top three lightweights of all-time and one of the greatest fighters to ever step in the ring. However, as I mentioned earlier, apart from the stoppage of Cuevas and the win over Leonard, which was a clear win, but if was also a fairly close fight...it was not a runaway for Duran. The second bout was a disgrace for Duran and for boxing, but a very good performance by Leonard.
Duran may bot have had the stopping power at 160 that he had at 135 but he still had enough power to keep a peak Hagler on a defensive mode and to stand up to and floor the much bigger Barkley... I think Duran is very undrerated at 160....barry wrote:>>>im talkin about the fact duran was a much different fighter when he was a middleweight than when he was a lightweight<<<
Some people have a hard time realizing that, but then again, some people have a hard time realizing anything!!!
>>>Duran had possibly the greatest defence for an offensive fighter I have ever seen (if that makes sense).<<<
Duran was a great all-around fighter...no doubt about it...one of the top three lightweights of all-time and one of the greatest fighters to ever step in the ring. However, as I mentioned earlier, apart from the stoppage of Cuevas and the win over Leonard, which was a clear win, but if was also a fairly close fight...it was not a runaway for Duran. The second bout was a disgrace for Duran and for boxing, but a very good performance by Leonard.
As I said, Duran was a legend at 135, at 147 he was very good to great...at 154 he was very good...160 he was good, but nothing special though he did rise to the occasion in a couple of fights...over 160 he was good, but actually pretty ordinary. Above 135, Duran just simply was not the intimidating "killer" that beat the hell out of anyone in his path and he clearly did not have the punching power…hell, even the bout against Davey Moore was not a result of Duran’s punching power, but a result of him beating the crap out of Moore over several rounds…and without the kind of power to keep Jackson more defensive than offensive then Duran would be in trouble.
Also, it should be remembered that the 160 pound Duran was no where near as fast, or effective as the Duran that we all love to admire of 135 pounds. The 160 pound Duran still had the skill, smarts and confidence, but he was not able to execute those skills at the higher weight of 160 compared to when he could. He would almost always pretty easily beat the B-Level middleweights, but the A-Level fighters, especially with the brutal punching power of a Julian Jackson, at that weight, Duran would just have to have a mistake-free match to win, which he could do at 135, but with 25 added pounds Duran did not have the same speed, power or ability to execute the same extraordinary skills that he did at 135 and if Jackson landed even ¼ of the shots that Barkley did…Duran would be taking a nice little nap.
Could Duran win…absolutely, could he win by knockout…not likely, but absolutely it could happen, but at 160 Duran was not a level above everyone else…he was an ordinary top ranked fighter…not one of the top three greatest fighters of all-time at one certain weight.
I would choose Jackson to knock Duran out in the same kind of style that Hearns did. Does that mean I think that Jackson was a greater fighter overall than Duran…of course not, though there will be a few clueless individuals, who not being able to make any decent argument about the issue, will try to make that claim, but Jackson wasn’t the better fighter overall. Jackson was a lot better than some try to claim, which to those I would just recommend that they actually try to watch some of Jackson’s fights…and not the end of his career fights against Quincy Taylor, Verno Phillips, or Anthony Jones…check out the pre-1993 Jackson, who wasn’t nearly blind!
Percisely. Jacksons style was perfectly taylored to fully uytilize his biggest strenght, mind numbing power. He always kept his hands high and tight ,his chin down and stalked around the ring in a way that some saw as sluggish, but I saw as methodical.Barkley was not a much better all-round fighter than jackson(who was never a slugger).
It was Barkley that was the slower of the two and that liked to brawl and throw sloppy looping shots.jackson was a methodical textbook fighter with better footwork and more precise, short punches.he didn't have a great deal of technical talent, but certainly not a slugger.
I think we are in agreement about Duran winning, but fear the rest of the crowd are too dazzled by Jacksons punch... but would Duran be that easy to hit?... I think not!.... fully agree about the Duran vs Leonard 2 theory too... also explains why Duran has never publicly said what happened that night... he's not exactly the sort of man who would want to admit that he was having that kind of trouble....BoxBuzz wrote:I hope my somewhat ambiguous opinion is understood. I think Duran would win this.....as I think Duran would have done well in a return with Hearns...if he wasn't psyched by the previous pummeling he took. Which by the way he took pretty straightforwardly with no hint of cowardice. I've always thought the "no mas" moment was about the fight within his intestines....not a lack of guts. (Not that he was going to win that fight) I think I've mentioned this before. It really does make some sense, he had no problem taking a licking but I do think he was not about to let lose his bowels in the ring.
Nowadays fighters like Six Heads use it as an open excuse....Duran never made that an excuse but I do think it was the reason.