BoxRec

Elmer...I like what you have to say...uh except that Archie Moore stuff . no sense mixing conjecture in with all those facts......you could've left that out..I'd go back and edit it and voila! the perfect manuscript of support for Duran.

So what your saying is your not bias...the facts are simply irrefutable and to walk away with any other opinion would be be foolish. I tend to agree on this one. A concise and compelling case.

I have studied the careers of almost every ALL TIME GREAT IN HISTORY, and to see Duran's accomplishments, and to call it overrated is a slap to the face to me. If Duran was OVERRATED so was Mayweather, Tito or Leonard. Wiith the exception of Archie Moore and Hearns, Not of them above lasted no more than 20 years in the ring like Duran did. Even in his 22nd year as a pro, Duran was still competitive, even when he was washed up and at 37 years of age, an age that people got to hang the gloves, he wins the middleweight title??? THAT IS effing AWESOME!!! NO MATTER HOW WE LOOK AT I

T.

Going by your logic Duran reached his peak right after the first Leonard fight, so the losses to Leonard in the rematch, his loss to Benitez, Laing and Simms shouldnt count, but his victories over Moore and Barkley should? Not to mention his tough loss to Hagler should be considered a victory of sorts, being that he was sooo past it and waaay over weight.

Also by your logic, Duran should be considered nothing more than a blown up lightweight throughtout his career after leaving the division. That makes it very convienant to over exhault all his victories and explain away all his failures.

I dont call all of the Great Duran's accomplishments overrated, just most of them, at least on these boards, above 135lbs. So I guess you can go ahead and considered yourself slapped.

Roberto Duran is definitely an alltime great fighter who had a wide array of boxing skills, and I say that as someone who's two favorite Duran fights are Leonard v Duran II and Hearns v Duran. Like any fighter in history though, his legacy can be pushed (and does on this forum) to the point of ridiculousness. Sugar Ray Robinson is boxing's alltime consensus greatest fighter, but it would be overrating even him to say, since he only succombed to the heat against Joey Maxim, a guy who fared well against heavyweights, that under more favorable conditions, Robinson would have won the Heavyweight title.

Duran's accomplishments as he went up in weight were outstanding when you consider he started at featherweight, but they don't make him an alltime great JMW or MW. Something I hear quite often on here. And I don't accept the case closed-no argument Duran is the greatest LW ever claims I often hear.

dr_devious wrote:Mugabi wasnt as skillful as Nigel Benn, who developed into a very effective box-puncher after the first Eubank fight.
Mugabi would have a punchers chance against Duran, other than that its Duran all the way

Mugabi was an Olympic Silver Medallist and Commonwealth Games Gold Medallist who went 195 - 5 as a world class amatuer.

He was a far better boxer than Benn.

In his prime, Mugabi was better than Benn in every department.

The 1983 - 85 Mugabi at 154 would have Ko'd Duran in 4 rounds.

Ill take Mugabi .Too strong.
And as far as Hagler moving up, he used to say in interviews that he had no interest whatsoever in being anything other than the best Middleweight.
As far as I recall he never talked about going for the lightheavyweight title.

In 103 starts, he fails to finish 3 times. Once in the very twilight of his career. It's beyond anything else anyone can even talk about in modern times. Their is no type of fighter from middleweight on down that would simply outclass him though a few could and did defeat him. Even those might not be guaranteed best two out of three. Pretty astonishing facts.

I'm not overestimating just recognizing reality.

I dont see this as a good matchup for Duran.
Mugabi was a BIG jr middle and middle tremendous strength.
He might overpower Duran . Roberto would feint a lot but Beast would just punch right through his feints.
I dont see him being able to keep Mugabis respect over the long haul as at that weight Duran didnt have as much pop in his punches.
Duran was one of the greatest lightweights maybe the greatest.
At these heavier weights he could turn in some sub par performances.

expug I think your not far off, however he hung in there with Marvin rather well. His achilles heel is, for all his boxing skill he always wanted to fight. With all the humility I can muster I would say my guess is he could have been better if he would have boxed even more and brawled a bit less. Which is of course what would be needed for Mugabi.

Yes I do feel inept offering much in the way of "advice" or "critique points" even in theory to someone as gifted as Duran. But with everyone else putting there thoughts out there I have some cover I suppose.

BoxBuzz wrote:expug I think your not far off, however he hung in there with Marvin rather well. His achilles heel is, for all his boxing skill he always wanted to fight. With all the humility I can muster I would say my guess is he could have been better if he would have boxed even more and brawled a bit less. Which is of course what would be needed for Mugabi.

Yes I do feel inept offering much in the way of "advice" or "critique points" even in theory to someone as gifted as Duran. But with everyone else putting there thoughts out there I have some cover I suppose.

I agree he did well against Hagler, but Hagler was no puncher. He was a great boxer as opposed to Mugabi who was a devastating puncher at that weight class and I honestly think that Duran wouldn't be able to cope with that power. Duran was the better all around fighter by far, but the difference in strength is too much. Mugabi by KO inside of 6 to 8 rounds.

KO Artist wrote: Mugabi was an Olympic Silver Medallist and Commonwealth Games Gold Medallist who went 195 - 5 as a world class amatuer.

He was a far better boxer than Benn.

In his prime, Mugabi was better than Benn in every department.

The 1983 - 85 Mugabi at 154 would have Ko'd Duran in 4 rounds.

If Mugabi was better than Benn in every department, what did he ever achieve in his career?

Mugabi would go on to win a version of the J.rMw Title winning the bout by stoppage He never achieved much because he was a ruined fighter after the Hagler fight

John "The Beast" Mugabi achieved cult status in the 80s after his epic challenge to MMH; he probably was ruined by this fight, he really didnt do much after. Rene Jacqout, the French fighter whom he won the Jnr MW title from must have been one of the worst world titlists in history.
The Hagler-Mugabi and Hagler-Hearns fights are my favourites and got me into boxing

theone wrote:

I have studied the careers of almost every ALL TIME GREAT IN HISTORY, and to see Duran's accomplishments, and to call it overrated is a slap to the face to me. If Duran was OVERRATED so was Mayweather, Tito or Leonard. Wiith the exception of Archie Moore and Hearns, Not of them above lasted no more than 20 years in the ring like Duran did. Even in his 22nd year as a pro, Duran was still competitive, even when he was washed up and at 37 years of age, an age that people got to hang the gloves, he wins the middleweight title??? THAT IS effing AWESOME!!! NO MATTER HOW WE LOOK AT I

T.

Going by your logic Duran reached his peak right after the first Leonard fight, so the losses to Leonard in the rematch, his loss to Benitez, Laing and Simms shouldnt count, but his victories over Moore and Barkley should? Not to mention his tough loss to Hagler should be considered a victory of sorts, being that he was sooo past it and waaay over weight.

Also by your logic, Duran should be considered nothing more than a blown up lightweight throughtout his career after leaving the division. That makes it very convienant to over exhault all his victories and explain away all his failures.

I dont call all of the Great Duran's accomplishments overrated, just most of them, at least on these boards, above 135lbs. So I guess you can go ahead and considered yourself slapped.

I have NEVER SAID that his wins over Moore and Barkley should count. I said that is REMARKABLE for a fighter that started his career at bantamweight and wins titles at 154 and 160. Not to forget that DURAN IS THE ONLY LIGHTWEIGHT CHAMPION TO WIN A PIECE OF THE MIDDLEWEIGTH TITLE...If that to you is not impressive, then what is???

Ohh I know, Tito's accomplishments were more impressive.

Sugar Ray Leonard NEVER went up in weight and beat someone bigger and stronger than him. The Hagler fight, many see that Hagler won that night, meanwhile NOBODY argues the whipping that Duran put on Leonard. A lightweight beats a prime welterweight in his own weight class.

I CANNOT phantom see Danny Lopez, Eusebio Pedroza, Wilfredo Gomez or Salvador Sanchez, great featherweights, beat Duran at lightweight and at his best...Do you???

Or see Leonard, Hagler or Hearns go to lightheavyweight and beat Michael Spinks, Mattew Saad Muhammad or Dwight Braxton...could you see it??? Do you think that does guys would have beat the lightheavywight greats???

Well, Duran went up 12, 20 and 25 pounds to fight those guys and I do not think it was a shame to lose to those terrific guys in their own weight classes. A BIG AND TALENTED GREAT FIGHTER, ALWAYS BEAT 90% of THE TIMNE A SMALL AND GREAT FIGHTER...ALMOST ALWAYS!!!

Sugar Ray Leonard NEVER went up in weight and beat someone bigger and stronger than him. The Hagler fight, many see that Hagler won that night, meanwhile NOBODY argues the whipping that Duran put on Leonard. A lightweight beats a prime welterweight in his own weight class.

Actrually alot of people would argue with you that Duran gave Leonard a whipping but rather edge him in a very competitive fight. Alot of folks would also say that the fight could have gone either way.
What should not be argued was that Duran was far from a lightweight as you keep refering him as. What definitly cant be argued is the humiliating defeat Duran suffered at the hands of Leonard in the rematch.

I CANNOT phantom see Danny Lopez, Eusebio Pedroza, Wilfredo Gomez or Salvador Sanchez, great featherweights, beat Duran at lightweight and at his best...Do you???

I think you mean fathom, but I agree with you. Duran was an outstanding lightweight and it's tough to imagine fighter south of the lightweight class ever being able to rise to the occassion. His career at lightweight and his victory of Leonard is the stuff of legend I agree, its everything else after that, that I believe gets overrated.

Or see Leonard, Hagler or Hearns go to lightheavyweight and beat Michael Spinks, Mattew Saad Muhammad or Dwight Braxton...could you see it??? Do you think that does guys would have beat the lightheavywight greats???

I dont see your point here. Besides Leonard, the fighters Duran beat for his other titles were not of the calibre of the lightheavyweights you mentioned. Leonard did go up in weight and defeated an all time great middle in Hagler. And thats after being out the ring for a few years, and fighting at that wieght for the first time. Hearns did beat Virgil Hill, who was probably the top lighheavy at the time.

the one said:
Actrually alot of people would argue with you that Duran gave Leonard a whipping but rather edge him in a very competitive fight. Alot of folks would also say that the fight could have gone either way.
What should not be argued was that Duran was far from a lightweight as you keep refering him as. What definitly cant be argued is the humiliating defeat Duran suffered at the hands of Leonard in the rematch.

Duran whupped him my friend, Duran whupped him!!! Nobody, agrees that the fight was gone in either way. See the first 5 rounds for example. In the other hand, Sugar Ray, according to many people, DID NOT BEAT HAGLER....THE JUDGES GAVE HIM THE FIGHT.
Sugar Ray never said in the first fight that he won. He admittely agreed that he LOST TO A LIGHTWEIGHT.
The ONLY thing you can come back is the no mas match. I do not think that Duran was at his best. Just like Ali was not as his best with Ken Norton in the first fight or Carlos Ortiz was not at his best against Ismael Laguna. It was a calculating trick by Leonard's management team to lure Duran into a rematch right away because he knew that Duran used to party big between tough fights. Then, WHY SUGAR RAY DID NOT GAVE HIM A REMATCH THEN??? BECAUSE HE KNEW HE COULD NOT BEAT DURAN AT HIS BEST, THAT IS WHY.

I think you mean fathom, but I agree with you. Duran was an outstanding lightweight and it's tough to imagine fighter south of the lightweight class ever being able to rise to the occassion. His career at lightweight and his victory of Leonard is the stuff of legend I agree, its everything else after that, that I believe gets overrated.

THEN SUGAR RAY VICTORY OVER DONNY LALONDE SHOULD BE OVERRATED
LEONARD VICTORY OVER AYUB KALULE SHOULD BE OVERRATED.
TITO VICTORY OVER WILLIAM JOPPY SHOULD BE OVERRATED
AND JULIO CESAR CHAVEZ VICTORY OVER TAYLOR SHOULD BE OVERRATED.
Duran beats Leonard, loses the crown back to him, but the pretty boy does not give him a rubber match but 9 years later??? What an overrated guy this Leonard is.

Or see Leonard, Hagler or Hearns go to lightheavyweight and beat Michael Spinks, Mattew Saad Muhammad or Dwight Braxton...could you see it??? Do you think that does guys would have beat the lightheavywight greats???

I dont see your point here. Besides Leonard, the fighters Duran beat for his other titles were not of the calibre of the lightheavyweights you mentioned. Leonard did go up in weight and defeated an all time great middle in Hagler. And thats after being out the ring for a few years, and fighting at that wieght for the first time. Hearns did beat Virgil Hill, who was probably the top lighheavy at the time.

You know definately what I am talking about, the one, you know what I am talking about. Leonard, according to MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, DID NOT BEAT HAGLER...THAT IS A FACT....Duran beat Palomino one sided, beat Leonard and also beat Barkley a man that beat Hearns twice. Barkley was a triple crown champion...What was Donny Lalonde??? What was Ayub Kalule??? Oooohhhh....Ain't Davey Moore massacred Kalule MUCH EASIER THAN LEONARD IN JUST 5 ROUNDS???...Ain't he almost killed Benitez in just 2 rounds???
And you want to throw the Hearns victory over Hill as if Hill was like the caliber of Hearns, Hagler or Leonard....Heck, Hill WAS NOT OF THE CALIBER OF MATTHEW SAAD MUHAMMAD, NOR MICHAEL SPINKS NOR DWIGHT BRAXTON, my friend. Those guys would have killed Tommy, Hagler or Leonard at 175.

See, you want to compare Leonard and Hearns when they went up in weight and win crowns as greater achievements than Duran's without forgetting the fact that Virgil Hill was NEVER IN THE SAME LEAGUE OF HEARNS, HAGLER OR LEONARD, guys that Duran lost to. But that would have happened even to Sugar Ray Robinson if he had to go up in weight class and fight Hagler, Leonard or Hearns. The Saad Muhammads, the Spinks and the Braxtons or Bob Fosters are in the same level of skill of Leonard, Hearns or Hagler for the Haglers, Hearns or Leonards to challenged them. It did not happened, we all know, but if Leonard or Hearns or Hagler would have challenged Michael Spinks or Matthew Saad Muhammad, BELIEVE ME, it would have been a lot of Ls in their ledgers, not Ws.
Even if Leonard jump to 160 and fight for a long period of time there or fight at 175, he would have not be SUCCESSFUL...Would have we called him overrated because he did not beat those guys if he lost to them???

Decagon wrote:The largest text in the internet wouldn't convince anyone that Duran-Leonard I wasn't close.

I did not said that the fight was not close...I said that Duran whupped him and that Leonard admitted that he went to school. I do not see Hagler admitting at no point that he CLEARLY LOST to Leonard.

I am not trying to convice anyone...Just throwing facts.

Duran whupped him my friend, Duran whupped him!!! Nobody, agrees that the fight was gone in either way. See the first 5 rounds for example. In the other hand, Sugar Ray, according to many people, DID NOT BEAT HAGLER....THE JUDGES GAVE HIM THE FIGHT.

No matter how many time Leonard haters say it or how big and bold they write it, Leonard beat Hagler. Deal with it.

The ONLY thing you can come back is the no mas match. I do not think that Duran was at his best.

I can make excuses for Leonard too, he underestimated Duran the first fight, he stupidly fought Durans fight, blah blah blah...
The fact remains, Duran narrowly defeated Leonard in the first fight, and Leonard totally humiliated Duran in the second.

It was a calculating trick by Leonard's management team to lure Duran into a rematch right away because he knew that Duran used to party big between tough fights.

What kinda BS is this? What was Duran a seven year old or a grown man? Duran didnt have to agree with anything, he was holding all the cards. He won the first match, he was champion, and as popular if not more than Leonard.
Duran didnt deserve another match, first quiting like a baby when the fight wasnt going his way, then trying to make excuse that his tummy hurt. Tough shit.

THEN SUGAR RAY VICTORY OVER DONNY LALONDE SHOULD BE OVERRATED
LEONARD VICTORY OVER AYUB KALULE SHOULD BE OVERRATED.

Actually very few people even bring these two fights up when talking about Leonard's greatness. Strike them from the record and it does little to diminsh him.

TITO VICTORY OVER WILLIAM JOPPY SHOULD BE OVERRATED

Tito's victory against Joppy, especially how easy it was, was pretty impressive at the time. Rightfully so. I think it gets rated exactly the way it should. No one ever makes a bigger deal of it then they should.

AND JULIO CESAR CHAVEZ VICTORY OVER TAYLOR SHOULD BE OVERRATED.

This doesnt make sense. Chavez and Taylor at the time were without question the two best fighters in their division. Both were near the top of the p4p rankings and both were in undefeated and still in their glorious prime. Nothing underrated about the significance of that match.

See, you want to compare Leonard and Hearns when they went up in weight and win crowns as greater achievements than Duran's without forgetting the fact that Virgil Hill was NEVER IN THE SAME LEAGUE OF HEARNS, HAGLER OR LEONARD, guys that Duran lost to.

Sure, but Hill was more accomplished than both Barkley and Moore. Nothing else you say disproves the fact that Durans career after his first Leonard match, while impressive at times, is still overrated.

The Hagler-Leonard fight was close but Hagler won it 7-5 and the Duran Leonard fight was close but at the end of the day we all knew who the winner was..

theone wrote:

Duran whupped him my friend, Duran whupped him!!! Nobody, agrees that the fight was gone in either way. See the first 5 rounds for example. In the other hand, Sugar Ray, according to many people, DID NOT BEAT HAGLER....THE JUDGES GAVE HIM THE FIGHT.

No matter how many time Leonard haters say it or how big and bold they write it, Leonard beat Hagler. Deal with it. .

Just like every ALMOST Puerto Rican in this world, would always hate a Roberto Duran, instead of being proud of their Latin hero. Oooh I forgot, this Puerto Ricans think they are AMERICANS...SORRY GUYS
Since nono of their great boxers could not beat him at Duran's best, they always want to come up with the No Mas fiasco...And I will write it big so that you can read it....HATER!!!
NO PUERTO RICAN BEAT LEONARD AT HIS BEST AND THAT HURTS FOR LIKE PEOPLE LIKE THE ONE

I can make excuses for Leonard too, he underestimated Duran the first fight, he stupidly fought Durans fight, blah blah blah...
The fact remains, Duran narrowly defeated Leonard in the first fight, and Leonard totally humiliated Duran in the second.

Yeah he humiliated him just like Duran humiliated him in the first fight. He fought his fight ....Leonard alwways fights that way. he just got outbested and out classsed by a lightweight.

It was a calculating trick by Leonard's management team to lure Duran into a rematch right away because he knew that Duran used to party big between tough fights.

.

What kinda BS is this? What was Duran a seven year old or a grown man? Duran didnt have to agree with anything, he was holding all the cards. He won the first match, he was champion, and as popular if not more than Leonard.
Duran didnt deserve another match, first quiting like a baby when the fight wasnt going his way, then trying to make excuse that his tummy hurt. Tough shit.

HE HAD TO AGREE TO FIGHT LEONARD AGAIN BECAUSE OF THE POLITICS OF THE SPORT. If Duran did not give him a rematch then he would have been accused of a coward. He gave the rematch to Sugar Ray in only 5 months without having a tune up fight with someone like Dave Green. He coluld not enjoy his title. Then, why Leonard, your boy did not gave him a rematch??? Leonard said that it was not in the interest of the promoters for a third fight. THAT IS BS!!! THAT IS HOG WASH!!!
THEN SUGAR RAY VICTORY OVER DONNY LALONDE SHOULD BE OVERRATED
LEONARD VICTORY OVER AYUB KALULE SHOULD BE OVERRATED.

Actually very few people even bring these two fights up when talking about Leonard's greatness. Strike them from the record and it does little to diminsh him.

Lalonde nor Kalule nor Hill could carry Iran Barklllley or Carlos Palomino's jockstrop

See, you want to compare Leonard and Hearns when they went up in weight and win crowns as greater achievements than Duran's without forgetting the fact that Virgil Hill was NEVER IN THE SAME LEAGUE OF HEARNS, HAGLER OR LEONARD, guys that Duran lost to.

Sure, but Hill was more accomplished than both Barkley and Moore. Nothing else you say disproves the fact that Durans career after his first Leonard match, while impressive at times, is still overrated.

Hill was not Bob Foster or Michael Spinks. OOOOhhh Ain't this wortless fighter got KOd by a body shot????

What I am saying is that Leonard nor Hearns NEVER BEAT a guy bigger than them and of their quality like Duran did. The Hagler fight was a gift...At least Duran beat Leonard

Decagon wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Hill was not Bob Foster or Michael Spinks. OOOOhhh Ain't this wortless fighter got KOd by a body shot????

?

Well, Spinks basically got knocked out from a body shot against Tyson, so doesn't that make him worthless?

Now you want to go against me too??? Spinks got intimidated from the opening bell. He knew that he did not had a chance. He took the money and run. Hill got KOd in his weight class. Spinks got KOd at heavyweight by a monster puncher like Tyson. Who hits harder??? Tyson or Jones??? I would have gone to the floor right away if I were Michael Spinks too. See, Michael NEVER came back.

elmersalsa wrote:What I am saying is that Leonard nor Hearns NEVER BEAT a guy bigger than them and of their quality like Duran did. The Hagler fight was a gift...At least Duran beat Leonard

Leonard's win over Hagler was just as close as Duran's win over Leonard.

Get out of here eith that BS. Hagler was not in his prime like Sugar Ray was in 1980.

Just like every ALMOST Puerto Rican in this world, would always hate a Roberto Duran, instead of being proud of their Latin hero. Oooh I forgot, this Puerto Ricans think they are AMERICANS...SORRY GUYS
Since nono of their great boxers could not beat him at Duran's best, they always want to come up with the No Mas fiasco...And I will write it big so that you can read it....HATER!!!
NO PUERTO RICAN BEAT LEONARD AT HIS BEST AND THAT HURTS FOR LIKE PEOPLE LIKE THE ONE

Dude, why are you taking this debate down this road?
I dont appreciate being acussed of being a racist nor having racist statements
slung at me either. You should be ashamed of yourself for writing a statement like that.

theone wrote:

Just like every ALMOST Puerto Rican in this world, would always hate a Roberto Duran, instead of being proud of their Latin hero. Oooh I forgot, this Puerto Ricans think they are AMERICANS...SORRY GUYS
Since nono of their great boxers could not beat him at Duran's best, they always want to come up with the No Mas fiasco...And I will write it big so that you can read it....HATER!!!
NO PUERTO RICAN BEAT LEONARD AT HIS BEST AND THAT HURTS FOR LIKE PEOPLE LIKE THE ONE

Dude, why are you taking this debate down this road?
I dont appreciate being acussed of being a racist nor having racist statements
slung at me either. You should be ashamed of yourself for writing a statement like that.

Yo man, my name is Elmer and not dude...It is true that most of the Puerto Ricans do not like Duran... I can see why. ....dude!!!

elmersalsa wrote:

Decagon wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Hill was not Bob Foster or Michael Spinks. OOOOhhh Ain't this wortless fighter got KOd by a body shot????

?

Well, Spinks basically got knocked out from a body shot against Tyson, so doesn't that make him worthless?

Now you want to go against me too??? Spinks got intimidated from the opening bell. He knew that he did not had a chance. He took the money and run. Hill got KOd in his weight class. Spinks got KOd at heavyweight by a monster puncher like Tyson. Who hits harder??? Tyson or Jones??? I would have gone to the floor right away if I were Michael Spinks too. See, Michael NEVER came back.

elmersalsa wrote:What I am saying is that Leonard nor Hearns NEVER BEAT a guy bigger than them and of their quality like Duran did. The Hagler fight was a gift...At least Duran beat Leonard

Leonard's win over Hagler was just as close as Duran's win over Leonard.

Get out of here eith that BS. Hagler was not in his prime like Sugar Ray was in 1980.

His comment about Leonard beating Hagler isn't BS.
Leonard was fighting for the first time in 3 years when he beat Hagler. It was his first fight at middleweight. It was Hagler who had the advantages. That was a very impressive victory for Leonard considering these factors.

As for the first Duran-Leonard fight, just because Leonard didn't cry about the decision doesn't mean that it wasn't a competitive fight.

[Hagler fight was a gift...At least Duran beat Leonard [/quote]

Leonard's win over Hagler was just as close as Duran's win over Leonard.

Get out of here eith that BS. Hagler was not in his prime like Sugar Ray was in 1980.[/quote]
His comment about Leonard beating Hagler isn't BS.
Leonard was fighting for the first time in 3 years when he beat Hagler. It was his first fight at middleweight. It was Hagler who had the advantages. That was a very impressive victory for Leonard considering these factors.

As for the first Duran-Leonard fight, just because Leonard didn't cry about the decision doesn't mean that it wasn't a competitive fight.[/quote]

LEONARD did not had nothing to cry about because he CLEARLY LOST AND GOT WHUPPED...HE EVEN MENTIONED IT THAT DURAN TOOK HIM TO SCHOOL...A ligtweight did that. He even embarrassed him in the last round with "hit my chin, hit my chin"...So for that, he had to ask for a rematch quickly.

AS FOR Hagler, he did not looked like the Marvelous fighter that I was accostumed to see in the early 80s. He even looked slow and clumsy, compared to the Leonard in 80 and in his prime, Leonard was better than that version of Hagler...Plus, Hagler was in his 30s, it was time to lose some how, some day. Do not expect to win as many fights when you are in your 30s just the same when you are in your 20s....It is not the same.

How can you explain that Leonard was better than Duran when Duran never lost his crown at lightweight, had more fights than Leonard, had more knocauts than Leonard had fights, had more world championship fights than Leonard, had more longevity and was more durable.

You may say that Leonard beat better fighters than Duran, well let's see:

Duran beat more world champions and more hall of famers than Leonard.
Duran, a lightweight, kick Leonard's butt.
When Duran was at his 13th year as pro, he was 72-1 with 56KOs
Leonard did not even made it into 5 years in the ring....Had ONLY one fight at middleweight, never defended the middle crown, fought 3 fights in 6 years and got a GIFT OF 2 TITLES IN ONE NIGHT, WHICH IS OVERRATED

You may say that he beat Benitez, Hearns, Duran and Hagler....Well let's see this: Benitez and Duran were not natural welters...one was a jr welter and the other one a lightweight that kick his ass IN THE BIGGEST AND MOST ANTICIPATED FIGHT OUTSIDE THE HEAVYWEIGHT FIGHTS...Beat his peer in Hearns, we give them that, but in the rematch, Hearns puts him to eat the dust of the ring twice and many people considered that Hagler really won in their match.

Duran starts at bantamweight...Beat a great champion at featherweight in Ernesto Marcel, the same guy that beat one of the greatest champions in history in Alexis Arguello in his prime, beat the shit out of Ken Buchanan, one of the 20 greatest lightweights in history, beats another great lightweight in Esteban DeJesus twice, and by KO and in SPECTACULAR FASHION after the Puerto Rican beat him in the first fight. Defended the lightweight crown for 7 long years and made 12 title defenses, 10 in a row by KO and 11 KOs in title defenses overall...Beat the shit out of Carlos Palomino, another great welterweight, like it or not, and then beats the pretty boy in Montreal...Nobody can say that the fight could be either way...Duran whupped him and he whupped him good for crying out loud. Then, the Sugar Man, seeing that he was EMBARRASSED the first time, asks for a quick rematch without Duran having the opportunity to have an easy title defense against Boy Green or somebody else like Bruce Finch??? Gimmie a break.

After the "No Mas", Duran was never the same, and he started losing. But the Duran's HATERS do not want to consider that:

Duran was over 30...He got to start losing at some point...Tell me which fighter, going up in weight won fights on the regular??? NOBODY...Not even Sugar Ray Robinson

Duran had to go in weight to 154 pounds, a weight class that is out of his range and it was difficult because of his FRAME (5'7") absorb all that weight. He did not had the speed, which was his most UNDERRATED ASSET, it was not his defense, BUT his speed. And with all those losses, he hang on and won 2 world titles??? He almost beat a man considered by many the greatest middleweight in Hagler in 15 rounds, meanwhile the fight with Leonard and Hagler was just 12 rounds??? The scorecards of Duran-Hagler at round 12, had Duran winning the fight. It was the rounds 13, 14 and 15 that he ran out of gas, but I ask myself who wouldn't?

Got decapitated against Hearns in 2 rounds at 154, not at welterweight, and still came back and won another title against the man that beat Hearns twice???

THAT IS INCREDIBLE, Mr Ampling Alp, that is incredible...This guy Duran, got to be in the top 5 greatest fighters of all time... I do not see it no other way.

Decagon wrote:Duran is so overrated at 147 and above, and in fact underrated at 135.

Didnt you rate Duran quite high at welterweight in a recent post?