BoxRec

Posted: **04 Sep 2009, 23:55**

i bet you guys think roberto duran would knock out paul williams and kelly pavlik.

Posted: **05 Sep 2009, 00:03**

Duran was a very capable defensive fighter.

Like I said, I'm of the opinion people are a little too high on Duran, but to say he wasn't good defensively tells me (& I don't mean to be offensive, but there's no other way to put this) you just don't understand what it is you're looking at.

Posted: **05 Sep 2009, 00:23**

big train express wrote:rolled and slipped punches extremely well? wtf he was hit so often whenever he fought elite competition. not to mention he got knocked senseless by tommy hearns. im not saying hes not a great fighter im saying people overly praise him for his losing efforts. yeah its not about keeping a perfect record but its about beating the best and he clearly couldnt handle the best. get off his old balls. he is an ATG nonetheless.

You clearly aren't getting any smarter.

Posted: **05 Sep 2009, 07:19**

big train express wrote:rolled and slipped punches extremely well? wtf he was hit so often whenever he fought elite competition. not to mention he got knocked senseless by tommy hearns. im not saying hes not a great fighter im saying people overly praise him for his losing efforts. yeah its not about keeping a perfect record but its about beating the best and he clearly couldnt handle the best. get off his old balls. he is an ATG nonetheless.

the immensity of the vacuous quality of this statement can not properly be measured without proper state of the art equipment.

By the way....was Tommy Hearns one that tops your list? Or were his losses to Iran Barkley enough to reduce him to an also ran? He of course was whupped by that sad sack Hagler as well in what might be considered by some in an even more embarrassing fashion with the KO and all.

If Duran does not make the cut, who the hell does?

After some investigation you will find that the finest leather has some dramatic imperfections.....Naugahyde is vinyl in a state of perfection in its most alluring and flawless manifestation.

Now if you come back here singing the praises of Ottke perhaps we will better understand your perspective. He was so good not only did he effectively miss a massive amount of punches, he also completely missed some of the very best fighters. Can you get any better than that? Now that's a pure Naugahyde defense!

Or would that be a "Noggin Hide" defense?

Posted: **05 Sep 2009, 08:28**

delete

Posted: **05 Sep 2009, 08:32**

big train express wrote:rolled and slipped punches extremely well? wtf he was hit so often whenever he fought elite competition. not to mention he got knocked senseless by tommy hearns. im not saying hes not a great fighter im saying people overly praise him for his losing efforts. yeah its not about keeping a perfect record but its about beating the best and he clearly couldnt handle the best. get off his old balls. he is an ATG nonetheless.

"Overly praise him" in comparison to who?

How many Duran fights have you seen start to finish?

Posted: **05 Sep 2009, 18:21**

He slipped punches well and was adept at rolling with punches and was thus difficult to hit square. Of course it takes a bit of knowledge to pick up on this, which you apparently do not have, "big" train. Duran was not un-hittable, but he was hardly Ricardo Mayorga, as he was sometimes obscenely compared to. Duran was what is known as a "cute" fighter. Calling him overrated is not quite as cute.

Posted: **05 Sep 2009, 18:36**

to assume i dont have any boxing knowledge is stupid. i probably have more experience in the ring than most here. i know all about the science and i know fighters that were sweeter than duran. i only think the people on this site overate him. for real. most of yall stuck in the past. ive seen the full benitez-duran fight. ive seen all the leonard and duran fights. ive seen the hagler and duran fight. he has a brilliant resume but fell short when he stepped up to the big dogs.

Posted: **05 Sep 2009, 18:39**

Well, move up in weight so that you can watch yourself lose to fighters who are not quite good as you. And do it in your 30s. Duran dominated three hall of famers and several belt holders. He was the best pound for pound fighter in the world for at least half of the 70s, arguably the best era in boxing history. You did not mention having seen any of those 70s fights of his, so perhaps you should look them up. You claim that this site overrates Duran; Duran is almost universally regarded as a top 10-15 pound for pound all time fighter and one of the two best Lightweights, it is not just this site that rates him so. Get serious, friend.

Posted: **05 Sep 2009, 20:43**

ive read numerous all time p4p lists and duran seems to always be in the top 5 on here. can you seriously say hes the 5th best p4p fighter ever?

Posted: **05 Sep 2009, 21:31**

big train express wrote:ive read numerous all time p4p lists and duran seems to always be in the top 5 on here. can you seriously say hes the 5th best p4p fighter ever?

Let's see your list then...

Posted: **06 Sep 2009, 09:39**

big train express wrote:ive read numerous all time p4p lists and duran seems to always be in the top 5 on here. can you seriously say hes the 5th best p4p fighter ever?

It appears YOU couldn't say that or anything close to that. Which if I'm not mistaken is the topic here.

Posted: **06 Sep 2009, 11:42**

big train express wrote:to assume i dont have any boxing knowledge is stupid. i probably have more experience in the ring than most here. i know all about the science and i know fighters that were sweeter than duran. i only think the people on this site overate him. for real. most of yall stuck in the past. ive seen the full benitez-duran fight. ive seen all the leonard and duran fights. ive seen the hagler and duran fight. he has a brilliant resume but fell short when he stepped up to the big dogs.

With all due respect, if you have not seen any of Duran's pre-Leonard I fights, then you do not know what you are talking about. As I wrote earlier, I believe that Duran had moved past his prime after the 1970s. To understand Duran, you have to know about him from the 1970s. In his prime, he was a monster. (And don't you guys who love that p4p stuff, always rate a fighter p4p based on the fighter's prime?)

Even at that, winning three world titles post-prime is a major accomplishment.

Posted: **06 Sep 2009, 11:59**

big train express wrote:i dont get why roberto duran gets all the praise that he gets. he beat sugar ray leonard once and quit the second fight. he stepped in with tommy hearns and marvin hagler and lost. no one talks about his losses to wilfred benitez and kirkland laing. no one mentions when he got beat by a tomato can robbie sims. as far as being the greatest lightweight of all time, what ATG lightweight has he beat? he lost once to estaban de jesus. yet for every little thing a current fighter does he gets criticized for it. someone explain

I do agree Duran's defeats (same for Tyson) often seem to be brushed under the carpet & his biggest devotees always seem to make excuses for them, but I will not accept that Duran is overrated.

He was a monster at LW & the fact the he could move up in weight & still win world titles right up until the age of 37 must show that he is a shoo-in as an ATG.

Posted: **08 Sep 2009, 09:28**

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:
big train express wrote:im not an idiot with no perspective and i havent lost my mind. i think this man is a great fighter and he had no fear. the problem is people are so easy to dismiss his losses. today when a current fighter is brought up to discuss where he belongs in the ATG list, their past is always brought up. their controversial wins or losses are always brought up. for example wlad, pacquiao and mayweather. so much criticism for guys who have proven that they deserve to be mentioned with ATG's such as duran and leonard. if people are going to argue about resumes and who he fought, then the losses should be mentioned. would you rather have lost to ATG's such as hagler, leonard and benitez or to have wins over ATG's such as barrera, morales, marquez that were arguably slightly passed their primes.
- We hear ya loud and clear big train, and feel your pain.

It's idiots on this forum who prefer ODGs(old dead guys or might as well be dead guys) over the young blood. Not only should losses be mentioned, but KOs also, but they won't. That's why Roberto and Manny get all the acclaim when we have new blood Edwin Valero, 25-0, 25 KOs being held back. Is there any doubt that he would mow over everyone Roberto or Manny beat including them, themselves?

Or Omar Henry, 5-0, 5 KOs. You think SR Leonard of Mr. Moneywether would ever want to fight him as long as they got him on a short lease. Nobody could stand up to him, obviously, but nooooooooooo, everyone bigs up the ODGs.

Same deal with Tyson Fury, just turned 21, 6-9, 270 lbs of fistic fury, 7-0, 7 KO. Everyone toots their horns for Ali or the Klitschkos, but who in the ODG pantheon could stand for more than a few minutes in front of young Mr. Fury before being blasted into the 5th row of the Kuiper Belt?

Instead they got him on house arrest in England fighting for some silly English Channel Title in front of the Queen instead of for the IATS(Intergalactic All-Time & Space) Belt?

Who cares about dusty old wrinkled ODGs losing to dreary ATGs when we gots Valero, Henry, and most importantly, FURY thundering across the space continuum RIGHT NOW obliterating everything in their path, including ODG history?

Why, my dear friend, patience, just a teaspoon more of patience please. They shall soon enough proffer their quivering, quaking carcasses in respect to the mightiest of Thor's children yet. I have seen the future and tis the utter alliteration of reality as we know it today!

so true! "BroughtonRulesRefuge" guys like Tyson Fury who is fight this Friday a ODG ,Omar Henry,and Edwin Valero is the new blood of boxing they destroy anything in there way and its only for so long that they can keep these new young bloods away from the lime light they are the future of boxing and this is what boxing needs

Posted: **10 Sep 2009, 17:30**

Sven never lost a fight my friends. Think about that for a good long time.

Yes, those who know boxing like granberry and collins know full well he was perhaps the best of all time though they don't publicly announce it here...yet Ottke goes unappreciated by the casual observers because he did not KO all of his victims.

Oh and just because some referees saw the good in the man and stood up for him now and again.....these are not reasons to turn your back on a perfect record and a man with the skills and prowess of an extraterrestrial.

Posted: **10 Sep 2009, 18:24**

BoxBuzz wrote: Yes, those who know boxing like granberry and collins

Fekk off and die you boring old twat.

Posted: **10 Sep 2009, 18:27**

Rob, your feeble and pathetic attempt at scoring the first two rounds of Ali vs Young has been noted.

Posted: **10 Sep 2009, 18:28**

You have been demoted to junior trainee boxing historian 4th class again.

Baz will be in touch soon.

Posted: **11 Sep 2009, 16:28**

Well I'll get around to it so's you'll have something to keep you in stitches at some point. But I've already let my bias be known that I didn't think that performance warranted a change of champion. And it absolutely was not the lopsided affair that, say a fella like granbaby goofishly claims.

I think I said if Young was the champion I wouldn't think the championship should have changed hands. I have a self advertized bias that the challenger must come and take what is not presently his. And that makes it less than a perfectly neutral affair to my way of thinking That school of thought is probably losing patronage as time goes on and the word "Champion" loses it's meaning.

Perhaps if we had actual champions rather than belt holders it might once again have some meaning.

A draw is given to the champion. I saw that fight as essentially a draw, and I viewed it several times that night. Not sure if my round count would back up my holistic summary however. I don't think anyone who scored the fight on that thread was out of line.

But the judges saw it differently live on the night of the fight. Possibly just to make granbaby mad as hell.

Posted: **11 Sep 2009, 16:29**

by the way neither you nor gran have given your opinion on Sven....I just assumed......care to set the record straight?

Posted: **11 Sep 2009, 16:41**

BoxBuzz wrote:Well I'll get around to it so's you'll have something to keep you in stitches at some point. But I've already let my bias be known that I didn't think that performance warranted a change of champion. And it absolutely was not the lopsided affair that, say a fella like granbaby goofishly claims.

I think I said if Young was the champion I wouldn't think the championship should have changed hands. I have a self advertized bias that the challenger must come and take what is not presently his. And that makes it less than a perfectly neutral affair to my way of thinking That school of thought is probably losing patronage as time goes on and the word "Champion" loses it's meaning.

Perhaps if we had actual champions rather than belt holders it might once again have some meaning.

A draw is given to the champion. I saw that fight as essentially a draw, and I viewed it several times that night. Not sure if my round count would back up my holistic summary however. I don't think anyone who scored the fight on that thread was out of line.

But the judges saw it differently live on the night of the fight. Possibly just to make granbaby mad as hell.

So, Buzz, are you saying that an official should always judge a title fight differently than a non-title fight? That in a non-title fight, the contestants are equal to one another in the eyes of the judge, but in a title fight, there should be a built in bias for the champion?

Posted: **11 Sep 2009, 18:58**

raylawpc wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:Well I'll get around to it so's you'll have something to keep you in stitches at some point. But I've already let my bias be known that I didn't think that performance warranted a change of champion. And it absolutely was not the lopsided affair that, say a fella like granbaby goofishly claims.

I think I said if Young was the champion I wouldn't think the championship should have changed hands. I have a self advertized bias that the challenger must come and take what is not presently his. And that makes it less than a perfectly neutral affair to my way of thinking That school of thought is probably losing patronage as time goes on and the word "Champion" loses it's meaning.

Perhaps if we had actual champions rather than belt holders it might once again have some meaning.

A draw is given to the champion. I saw that fight as essentially a draw, and I viewed it several times that night. Not sure if my round count would back up my holistic summary however. I don't think anyone who scored the fight on that thread was out of line.

But the judges saw it differently live on the night of the fight. Possibly just to make granbaby mad as hell.
So, Buzz, are you saying that an official should always judge a title fight differently than a non-title fight? That in a non-title fight, the contestants are equal to one another in the eyes of the judge, but in a title fight, there should be a built in bias for the champion?

Yeah reluctantly I must admit I am, it's an old school way of thinking, and I think time has brought most people around to pure neutrality. Probably for the best since "champions" are few and far between. In war if you can simply defend your position and the aggressor can not get a foot hold then he is fended off, even if he imposes more damage on you than you do on him. It's a subjective thing I suppose. Defending just seems to naturally call for less overall effort that imposing and capturing.

I'm sure your "justice is blind" mentality would have nothing of this. And outside of this rare exception to that rule I'm on board with you on that. I'm not even saying I'm right, just that I'm sentimental I guess. But I assure you my bias would be "unbiased". It's not the person, it's the title that would get this ever so slight "edge".

Posted: **11 Sep 2009, 20:10**

BoxBuzz wrote:
raylawpc wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:Well I'll get around to it so's you'll have something to keep you in stitches at some point. But I've already let my bias be known that I didn't think that performance warranted a change of champion. And it absolutely was not the lopsided affair that, say a fella like granbaby goofishly claims.

I think I said if Young was the champion I wouldn't think the championship should have changed hands. I have a self advertized bias that the challenger must come and take what is not presently his. And that makes it less than a perfectly neutral affair to my way of thinking That school of thought is probably losing patronage as time goes on and the word "Champion" loses it's meaning.

Perhaps if we had actual champions rather than belt holders it might once again have some meaning.

A draw is given to the champion. I saw that fight as essentially a draw, and I viewed it several times that night. Not sure if my round count would back up my holistic summary however. I don't think anyone who scored the fight on that thread was out of line.

But the judges saw it differently live on the night of the fight. Possibly just to make granbaby mad as hell.
So, Buzz, are you saying that an official should always judge a title fight differently than a non-title fight? That in a non-title fight, the contestants are equal to one another in the eyes of the judge, but in a title fight, there should be a built in bias for the champion?
Yeah reluctantly I must admit I am, it's an old school way of thinking, and I think time has brought most people around to pure neutrality. Probably for the best since "champions" are few and far between. In war if you can simply defend your position and the aggressor can not get a foot hold then he is fended off, even if he imposes more damage on you than you do on him. It's a subjective thing I suppose. Defending just seems to naturally call for less overall effort that imposing and capturing.

I'm sure your "justice is blind" mentality would have nothing of this. And outside of this rare exception to that rule I'm on board with you on that. I'm not even saying I'm right, just that I'm sentimental I guess. But I assure you my bias would be "unbiased". It's not the person, it's the title that would get this ever so slight "edge".

Thanks Buzz

Posted: **11 Sep 2009, 20:44**

BoxBuzz wrote:by the way neither you nor gran have given your opinion on Sven....I just assumed......care to set the record straight?

He couldn't lose in the real world, and cannot win in the sim world. He's a contradiction of absolutes.

BoxRec

overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated

Re: overrated