BoxRec

What is to debate? Duran was the better fighter, and beat the shit out of poor Moore.

I Feel Fine wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Robinson vs Olson...Sugar Ray was considered WASHED UP after the loss to Tiger Jones. Wait a minute! Ain't he beat Olson twice already?

Yeah, but to my understanding Olson was the favorite in the third fight.

Ali-Foreman is way more impressive. Holyfield was considered past it, and so it was a similar situation to Duran-Moore where Duran was considered washed up and so I guess was made the underdog. But beating Tyson is more impressive. I would agree with alp that most/all of those wins were more impressive than Duran's win over Moore; and Duran was by no means shot, in his next fight he went the distance with Hagler in a somewhat competitive fight.

I think elmer is going too far with this, and I find it hypocritical how many, including elmer, can criticize Ali for clinching in some fights and yet look past Duran's much more serious fouls in this and other fights, but I do think that the win was good and that Duran's performance was impressive. I wouldn't put it in his top five biggest wins, but its one of his better post-Lightweight wins.

I Feel Fine...Do you really believe that Duran was still in his best days after the "No Mas"? This guy Duran was BURIED by the world press as finished. At least Ali was not finished when he fought Foreman, even though the judges gave him the second Norton fight.

Tell me what fouls did you see in the beating of Moore? I did not see any fouls. Duran was fighting a guy much taller, much younger, much stronger, much powerful in his fists and bigger and was a NATURAL JR MIDDLEWEIGHT. I thought Duran was going to get killed. But the one who got killed was Moore.

THE ONLY THING DURAN WAS OVER MOORE WAS EXPERIENCE.

But this guy Moore beat the crap out of Ayub Kalule with only 11 fights, but nobody says nothing then. Now Duran beat the crap out of Moore and here is the HIPOCRISY of "Moore had 12 fights" "Moore had 12 fights"...But then, he beat the crap out of Benitez and now "Benitez is DRUGGED UP", "Benitez is DRUGGED UP".

I cannot understand the Duran's haters.

Tyson was past his best when he went to prison. When he came back, he seemed to be the "invencible" Tyson, the one that was mad at the world, the one that he was going to take revenge, but if we look at Tyson when he came back, he beat the crap out of Frank Bruno just like the first time, and then fought Bruce Seldon...Who is Bruce Seldon I Feel Fine? A scary cat that won a title? A great fighter?

Did Tyson beat someone of CALIBER when he came back? You know the answer.

Holyfield's win over an unproved Tyson coming out of jail could not match Duran's win over Moore either.

Sugar Ray Robinson already beat Bobo Olson twice. No matter if Olson was the favorite. It was not a weight class that Robinson was not accostumed to. Plus, the great Archie Moore already beat the crap out of Olson...Can we say that Archie softened him up for Sugar Ray?

Still, this win cannot match Duran's win over Moore.

I am talking in a win that is considered a turnaround point. An unbelievable win for the ages.

Robinson win over Olson it did not meant nothing. He already beat him twice.
Holyfield win over Tyson was better and could match Duran's a little bit. The difference was that Duran at the time was more washed up than Evander and even Ali at the time in '74.

At least Evander was bigger than Tyson if you look at the tape.

elmersalsa wrote:I Feel Fine...Do you really believe that Duran was still in his best days after the "No Mas"? This guy Duran was BURIED by the world press as finished. At least Ali was not finished when he fought Foreman, even though the judges gave him the second Norton fight.

I don't know if you're a troll or just the slowest poster on boxrec. The fact that Ali was given no chance against Foreman is common knowledge even among people who don't know anything about boxing. If your point is that Duran's win was impressive because the media thought that he was finished, then you have to say the same for Ali and Robinson and Holyfield and some of those others.

Duran went the distance with Hagler in his next fight, and a few years later at 37 had a great fight with a naturally much bigger man in Barkley. He had put on some bad performances because he had been coming into fights out of shape, like in the Laing fight. We know in hindsight that he was not a shot fighter.

Where do you get that I'm a Duran hater? Are you retarded? Well, I'll withdraw that question, we already know the answer; at least I do. But may I just say that Ali beat Norton just as clearly in their second fight as a prime Holmes did in his fight against a 34 year old Norton; you mean to tell me that you didn't have Norton beating Holmes? Not even before you saw the fight? Shocking.

I Feel Fine wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:I Feel Fine...Do you really believe that Duran was still in his best days after the "No Mas"? This guy Duran was BURIED by the world press as finished. At least Ali was not finished when he fought Foreman, even though the judges gave him the second Norton fight.

I don't know if you're a troll or just the slowest poster on boxrec. The fact that Ali was given no chance against Foreman is common knowledge even among people who don't know anything about boxing. If your point is that Duran's win was impressive because the media thought that he was finished, then you have to say the same for Ali and Robinson and Holyfield and some of those others.

Duran went the distance with Hagler in his next fight, and a few years later at 37 had a great fight with a naturally much bigger man in Barkley. He had put on some bad performances because he had been coming into fights out of shape, like in the Laing fight. We know in hindsight that he was not a shot fighter.

Where do you get that I'm a Duran hater? Are you retarded? Well, I'll withdraw that question, we already know the answer; at least I do. But may I just say that Ali beat Norton just as clearly in their second fight as a prime Holmes did in his fight against a 34 year old Norton; you mean to tell me that you didn't have Norton beating Holmes? Not even before you saw the fight? Shocking.

NEVER called you a Duran hater. The hater issue was directly to Ambling Alp...He knows he is a Duran's hater just like I am with Oscar De La Hoya.

Well, it never FAILS YOU to call someone "retarded" or "slow" or "stupid" to get your point across. I am not going to fall in that game of name calling. All I know is that you probably NEED TO GROW UP. THAT'S ALL. GROW UP, BOY.

Ali vs Foreman was given by the media as the people fearing for his life. Duran did not even had the skills like when he fought Leonard in Montreal. At least Ali had his skills.

At least Ali was in his own weight class.

At least Ali had more experience and better boxing skills than Foreman.

What did Duran had over Moore? Only experience.

If Davey Moore outboxes Duran, which he could have, but chose to knock Duran out, then we would have been talking something different.

You DEEP INSIDE knew that Ali was not as finished like they labeled Duran. You want to play possum. You want to deny all my facts.

Concerning Ali vs Norton, I have said that "I was not SURPRISED if Norton won the second fight", which he CLEARLY DID WIN. Ali's face looked like he knew he lost the fight. Just the same thing that Davey17 was talking and pointing about. I admit, as an Ali fan, that HE CLEARLY LOST TO NORTON 3 TIMES. Why cannot you accept that? It ain't convenient for you?

Holmes did beat Norton. I would not be surprised if Holmes beat Ali in Ali's prime. Is there something wrong with that opinion?

There's no logical reason why someone who had Holmes beating Norton would fail to have Ali beating Norton in their second meeting. Norton gave away all the early rounds to both of them. Ali won the last round more clearly than Holmes did; like many here I thought Holmes lost that round, though I had him winning anyway. It's also nice to remember that Ali was fighting a prime Norton and was himself in his 30's, while with Holmes it was the opposite and Holmes' fight with Norton was not much less competitive. And while I thought that Ali lost the third fight, a 34 year old Holmes would likely not have beaten that version of Norton either.

Maybe you've adopted an affirmative action policy towards these two fighters, and are giving Holmes points that you wouldn't give to Ali, but Holmes' victory was not much more convincing, and he received more than one gift during his career. I'm not saying that he wasn't a great fighter, of course.

But, again, what surprises me the most is that you didn't have Norton beating Holmes before you saw the fight; why was that? Were your psychic powers not working that day?

Duran was clearly better than Moore in nearly every facet of the game. It was an impressive win, but simply because the prevailing wisdom of the time said that Duran was shot does not mean anything; we know in hindsight that he was not, and if you don't agree with that then you don't know what you're talking about. He was not in his prime, sure, but he wasn't finished.

Foreman was one of the greatest Heavyweights of all time coming off wins over other great Heavyweights; Moore was a good prospect who had scored a couple of nice wins. Not even comparable.

Duran going the full 15 rounds with Hagler a fight later summed up the kind of man Moore was facing. Light-middleweight Duran took on a middleweight who Leonard and everyone else wanted NO part of at that time and who had just destroyed Sibbo and Scypion, physically and mentally. Make no mistake, Hagler was an absolute monster in 1983, a scary, scary guy.
Yet Duran showed no fear, smacking Hagler in the balls in the opening exchanges, and proceeding to make Marvin look quite mechanical. It wasn't a great fight because Duran was too small to trade with Hagler for long, but he outsmarted Hagler much of the way and, in many ways, this fight is a forerunner to Leonard-Hagler a few years later. Hagler backed off at crucial times in the fight, worried about being made to look bad by a more naturally-talented fighter, and seemed to pick up bad advice from the corner. In he end he won on brute strength and a big finish.
Leonard emulated the movement Duran used that night to beat Marvin.

I agree. Another thing is he had 15 rounds with Duran, he didn't with Leonard. Duran could have benefited if it had been 12. I don't know what the exact scores were in the 12th, but Hagler apparently needed the last two rounds to win on the judges scorecards against Duran.

I, of course, had Hagler winning by more than that.

I Feel Fine wrote:I agree. Another thing is he had 15 rounds with Duran, he didn't with Leonard. I don't know what the exact scores were in the 12th, but Hagler apparently needed the last two rounds to win on the judges scorecards against Duran.

Yes, Duran was ahead after 13 rounds. Hagler certainly didn't like the cuties.

Terry D wrote:I think those scorecards were pretty poor. It was close but I had Hagler ahead by that point.

You are right, Terry. The scorecards are bizarre (including an early 10-8 round for Hagler when he hardly dominated the round and certainly didn't score a knockdown). Ultimately, Hagler nearly blew it. He didn't heed the warning.

World middleweight title; Caesars' Palace Sports Pavilion, Las Vegas, Nevada; November 10, 1983.

Hagler: 157 1/2 lbs
Duran: 156 1/2 lbs
Referee: Stanley Christodoulou (South Africa)


Judge: Guy Jutras (Canada)
Hagler scores on left:
10-10
9-10
9-10
9-10
10-9
10-8
10-9
10-10
10-9
10-9
9-10
9-10
9-10
10-9
10-9

Hagler 144 - Duran 142



Judge: Yusaku Yoshida (Japan)
10-10
10-10
9-10
10-9
10-10
10-9
10-9
10-10
10-10
9-10
10-10
9-10
9-10
10-9
10-9

Hagler 146 - Duran 145



Judge: Ove Ovesen (Denmark)
10-9
9-10
9-10
10-9
9-10
10-9
10-10
10-9
10-10
10-9
9-10
9-10
9-10
10-9
10-9

Hagler 144 - Duran 143

Besdies elmer, doesn anyone really believe that Duran's win over Moore was that big of a deal?

There are several other fights the opponent was much better than Davey Moore and the guy winning was written off.

Braddock had been written off for several years when he beat Baer.
Foreman was 45 when he won the heavyweight championship against Moorer.
Leonard was given virtually no chance of beating Hagler after being off for almost 5 years. Hagler was still considered a great fighter going into the fight.
Holyfield beating Tyson. Holyfield was considered shot. Tyson had only loss going into this fight and had looked great in his fight after coming out of prison. This wasn't supposed to be a competitive fight at all.

Other fights that weren't quote that special but were certainly worth mentioning:
A past his prime Ali beating the supposedly invincible Foreman
The 37 year old Walcott beating Charles. Charles had already beat Walcott twice.
42 year old Holmes beating Ray Mercer. It was Mercer's first loss. 4 years later, Mercer gave Lennox Lewis all that could handle; and easily could have got the decision.
36 year old Robinson knocking out Olson in two rounds for the title. (In Robinson's 5 previous fights, he had a loss and two Split Decisions wins. Robinson had a lot more trouble in their two previous fights which were closer to Robinson's prime.)

All of these guys had to beat fighters that were better and far more experienced than Davey Moore. Beating Davey Moore doesn't compare to beating Baer, Moorer,Hagler, Tyson,Foreman,and Mercer. Not to mention almost all were much older than Duran.

On paper, by far Moore's biggest win was over Benitez. However, Benitez was already through as a world class fighter by then. He had drug problems and wasn't training much. Before the Moore fight, he had looked terrible in losing a lopsided decision to Mustapha Hamsho. If Benitez was anywhere near his best, he would have boxed rings around Davey Moore. Lets also not forget, Benitez broke his ankle and couldn't continue against Moore. That not exactly a convincing win.

Going into the fight with Duran, there were a lot of questions about Moore. Yes he was taller and younger than duran. Obviously he didn't have near the experience of Duran. 12 fights and less than 3 years of pro experience means an awful lot.
Obviously he hadn't had a lot of experience against a a wide variety of styles.
We had no idea how good of chin he had, he had never went against a hard puncher. His stamina was a question mark since had never been past 10 rounds, and had only been past 8 rounds one time. We really didn't know if he had the punching power to hurt or even bother Duran.
He never had a big fight with anywhere near this much pressure either and we didn't know he he would react.

Some of the fights were long ago and most of us aren't old enough to remember them (Baer-Braddock, Walcott-Charles etc.) However many of these fights some of us can remember.

There was a lot of shock when Holyfield beat Tyson, when Leonard beat Hagler, when Foreman beat Moorer. It created a lot of excitement and people were still talking about these fights for several days.
When Duran beat Moore, people weren't going around saying "I can't believe Davey Moore lost."

I Feel Fine wrote:There's no logical reason why someone who had Holmes beating Norton would fail to have Ali beating Norton in their second meeting. Norton gave away all the early rounds to both of them. Ali won the last round more clearly than Holmes did; like many here I thought Holmes lost that round, though I had him winning anyway. It's also nice to remember that Ali was fighting a prime Norton and was himself in his 30's, while with Holmes it was the opposite and Holmes' fight with Norton was not much less competitive. And while I thought that Ali lost the third fight, a 34 year old Holmes would likely not have beaten that version of Norton either.

Maybe you've adopted an affirmative action policy towards these two fighters, and are giving Holmes points that you wouldn't give to Ali, but Holmes' victory was not much more convincing, and he received more than one gift during his career. I'm not saying that he wasn't a great fighter, of course.

But, again, what surprises me the most is that you didn't have Norton beating Holmes before you saw the fight; why was that? Were your psychic powers not working that day?

Duran was clearly better than Moore in nearly every facet of the game. It was an impressive win, but simply because the prevailing wisdom of the time said that Duran was shot does not mean anything; we know in hindsight that he was not, and if you don't agree with that then you don't know what you're talking about. He was not in his prime, sure, but he wasn't finished.

Foreman was one of the greatest Heavyweights of all time coming off wins over other great Heavyweights; Moore was a good prospect who had scored a couple of nice wins. Not even comparable.

Well, at least you are having some DECENCY this time around. Holmes vs Norton I saw the fight at the same time that it happened. I didn't especulate who won the fight before seeing it. Ali vs Norton II was never shown on replay. Of matter of fact, this fight Ali vs Norton II rarely is shown...I wonder why?

Maybe the networks are trying to protect "The Greatest" reputation....In a way, and in many ways, Granberry is right. It is all about an industry of one fighter that the media picks as the best. They don't show his fights when he lose. They show Ali vs Liston, Ali vs Foreman or Ali vs Frazier III more times than I go to take a shit.

What about Ali vs Frazier I or Ali vs Norton I, II or III? Why those fights are not shown? Why they don't show Ali vs Jimmy Young?

I have said: "I would not be surprised if Norton won the second fight"...And it turned out. I did not see Ali winning the fight by no means. As far that I am concern, Norton won all the fights.

Let's look at the truth. Duran was clearly better than Davey Moore? In what? The only thing is that EXPERIENCE was the only thing Moore lacked. Duran had all the disadvantages ever seen in a fight. Moore was clearly bigger than Hagler for cripe's sake.

You are saying that I don't know what I am talking about, is like you are trying to dismiss me as an retard or something. Go head "great expert" It looks that you are not getting your way.

It is clear that is a FACT that this was not Duran's best weight class. He was too small from 154lbs and beyond

It is clear that is a FACT that Duran looked terribly AWFUL after the "No Mas"...He struggled with NOBODIES like Nino Benvenutti and Luigi Minchillo. He looked like CRAP with Benitez and Laing. The crowd was leaving the stadium when he fought Jimmy Batten in the undercard/post fight of Pryor vs Arguello I.

He beat up a washed up legend in Pipino Cuevas in order to continue his career. Cuevas would have not beaten Davey Moore, not even in his prime. And if Duran would never trained he would have lost by KO easily. Even when Duran won the fight, Duran was already tired. That showed me that he cannot handle the weight class because of his size. It got to be a MIRACLE. If Moore fights Duran the following year, he would have beaten Duran....Better believe it.

At least Ali looked better than Duran when he lost to Norton twice. He had SPEED.
How did Duran looked against the first FIVE 154 pounders before Cuevas and Moore?...TERRIBLE. His skills were not up to par. He did no had the SPEED just like when he fought at lightweight or welterweight. EVEN when he beat Cuevas or Moore, his speed, HIS SPEED was not there.

IT DOES NOT HAVE NO COMPARISION Ali vs Foreman with Duran vs Moore. Duran was more in decline, FAR MORE than Ali at the time. Duran was fighting a weight class that is not his. At least Ali was fighting in his weight class, was as big as Foreman, was faster than Foreman, and was as strong as Foreman...NOt comparable in terms of the times and size advantages.

That interesting. You are complaining that some of Ali's best wins are shown too much. You are also still claiming that Ali shouldn't have gotten the decison either the 2nd or 3rd Norton fights? Almost everyone thinks he won the 2nd fight, and the 3rd fight has always been debatable.
I noticed that you aren't complaining that they almost never show the Jimmy Ellis fight, or the Jones fight, or the Buster Mathis fight. Or Durans fights with Benitez, Laing, Hearns etc. Or of course his quit job against one your other favorite fighters?

And you are still pretending that Ali is one of your favorite fighters, right?
Ali-Liston? How often is the first fight shown on TV?
The Norton fights were all broadcast in the 1970's. Periodically they have all been shown on. ESPN Classic. ESPN showed the 3rd fight constantly throughout the 1980's.
The Ali-Foreman fight was never broadcast on national TV until 1990.
The third Ali-Frazier fight was never broadcast on national TV until 1990.
What a conspricacy

As for Duran and Moore, didn't it ever occurr to you that Duran would do better against Moore after he gotten used to the weight?
Interesting that you now try to downplay Durans wins before he fought Moore.
Previously, Duran win over Cuevas was a big win over a Hall of Famer. Now it's just a win over a washed up fighter. You used to be impressed by Durans many easy ko's against fighters no one has ever heard of.
Now a win over Luigi Minchillo is a win over a nobody and Duran looked awful. Well, he won almost every round. Minhcullo went the distance with Hearns, lasted until the 13th against McCallum, and beat Maurice Hope. An easy points decision is about one would expect Duran to do.

Roberto "Forever a Lightweight" Duran fought at 140 as far back as 1973. He was fighting at 151 by 1978. He had 6 straight fights at Jr Middleweight before he fought Moore. He was used to fighting guys this size and was used to carrying this weight. He was 32, past his prime but certainly not shot.

elmer said "Moore was clearly bigger than Hagler for cripe's sake." Priceless.

What advantages did Duran have? Besides the gigantic advantage in experience, how about stamina, defense, punching power, chin? It's not really that surprising that these factors outweighed a height disadvantage.

Oh my gosh, the legendary Davey Moore lost. Who can believe it. It's a miracle.

elmersalsa wrote:Well, at least you are having some DECENCY this time around. Holmes vs Norton I saw the fight at the same time that it happened. I didn't especulate who won the fight before seeing it. Ali vs Norton II was never shown on replay. Of matter of fact, this fight Ali vs Norton II rarely is shown...I wonder why?

Maybe the networks are trying to protect "The Greatest" reputation....In a way, and in many ways, Granberry is right. It is all about an industry of one fighter that the media picks as the best. They don't show his fights when he lose. They show Ali vs Liston, Ali vs Foreman or Ali vs Frazier III more times than I go to take a shit.

What about Ali vs Frazier I or Ali vs Norton I, II or III? Why those fights are not shown? Why they don't show Ali vs Jimmy Young?

I have said: "I would not be surprised if Norton won the second fight"...And it turned out. I did not see Ali winning the fight by no means. As far that I am concern, Norton won all the fights.

Let's look at the truth. Duran was clearly better than Davey Moore? In what? The only thing is that EXPERIENCE was the only thing Moore lacked. Duran had all the disadvantages ever seen in a fight. Moore was clearly bigger than Hagler for cripe's sake.

You are saying that I don't know what I am talking about, is like you are trying to dismiss me as an retard or something. Go head "great expert" It looks that you are not getting your way.

It is clear that is a FACT that this was not Duran's best weight class. He was too small from 154lbs and beyond

It is clear that is a FACT that Duran looked terribly AWFUL after the "No Mas"...He struggled with NOBODIES like Nino Benvenutti and Luigi Minchillo. He looked like CRAP with Benitez and Laing. The crowd was leaving the stadium when he fought Jimmy Batten in the undercard/post fight of Pryor vs Arguello I.

He beat up a washed up legend in Pipino Cuevas in order to continue his career. Cuevas would have not beaten Davey Moore, not even in his prime. And if Duran would never trained he would have lost by KO easily. Even when Duran won the fight, Duran was already tired. That showed me that he cannot handle the weight class because of his size. It got to be a MIRACLE. If Moore fights Duran the following year, he would have beaten Duran....Better believe it.

At least Ali looked better than Duran when he lost to Norton twice. He had SPEED.
How did Duran looked against the first FIVE 154 pounders before Cuevas and Moore?...TERRIBLE. His skills were not up to par. He did no had the SPEED just like when he fought at lightweight or welterweight. EVEN when he beat Cuevas or Moore, his speed, HIS SPEED was not there.

IT DOES NOT HAVE NO COMPARISION Ali vs Foreman with Duran vs Moore. Duran was more in decline, FAR MORE than Ali at the time. Duran was fighting a weight class that is not his. At least Ali was fighting in his weight class, was as big as Foreman, was faster than Foreman, and was as strong as Foreman...NOt comparable in terms of the times and size advantages.

Yes elmer. The networks are trying to save Ali's reputation by not showing his fights with Norton, just as they are trying to save Robinson's reputation by never showing his Gavilan fights (ignoring the fact that they and all but one of Robinson's Welterweight fights were never actually filmed). Granberry is correct; Big Brother is watching, and he's an avid Ali fan.

Or maybe if you had "Versus" you would know that Ali's fights with Norton are shown every so often.

If you don't understand the notion of "this is how he looked at the time" and "this is what we know in hindsight" then I can't help you. Duran was not a shot fighter, and he probably had as much left at that age (32) as Ali did (also 32.) And Moore is not comparable to Foreman.

Duran fought Nino Benvenutti? Wow; that must have been something. How old was Benvenutti in 1983; 42? 43? Been retired for over a decade? Looks like another figment of elmer's imagination working its way into one of his posts.

There is a big conspiracy. How many times has the networks shown Duran losing to Lawlor or Laing. How many times do those fights have been shown on ESPN Classics?
Are they protecting Duran’s legacy? Are the networks protecting Duran’s reputation?

ON the Moore fight it was a big win by Duran and Duran was by far the better fighter. However, it is clear that Moore was still pretty green and I’m sure that fighting in MSG for the first time with most of the crow in favor of Duran had and impact on him mentally. Duran had all the advantages going into this fight except for height.

I was not aware the Duran fought Nino Benvenutti, can you provide more info on that fight? Or is this another Elmer fantasy?

Borinken25 wrote: I was not aware Duran fought Nino Benvenutti, can you provide more info on that fight? Or is this another Elmer fantasy?

Borinken, I bet elmo has been reading those Jim Trunzo fantasy fights and he got confused again...

Ambling Alp wrote:Besdies elmer, doesn anyone really believe that Duran's win over Moore was that big of a deal?

There are several other fights the opponent was much better than Davey Moore and the guy winning was written off.

Braddock had been written off for several years when he beat Baer.
Foreman was 45 when he won the heavyweight championship against Moorer.
Leonard was given virtually no chance of beating Hagler after being off for almost 5 years. Hagler was still considered a great fighter going into the fight.
Holyfield beating Tyson. Holyfield was considered shot. Tyson had only loss going into this fight and had looked great in his fight after coming out of prison. This wasn't supposed to be a competitive fight at all.

Other fights that weren't quote that special but were certainly worth mentioning:
A past his prime Ali beating the supposedly invincible Foreman
The 37 year old Walcott beating Charles. Charles had already beat Walcott twice.
42 year old Holmes beating Ray Mercer. It was Mercer's first loss. 4 years later, Mercer gave Lennox Lewis all that could handle; and easily could have got the decision.
36 year old Robinson knocking out Olson in two rounds for the title. (In Robinson's 5 previous fights, he had a loss and two Split Decisions wins. Robinson had a lot more trouble in their two previous fights which were closer to Robinson's prime.)

All of these guys had to beat fighters that were better and far more experienced than Davey Moore. Beating Davey Moore doesn't compare to beating Baer, Moorer,Hagler, Tyson,Foreman,and Mercer. Not to mention almost all were much older than Duran.

On paper, by far Moore's biggest win was over Benitez. However, Benitez was already through as a world class fighter by then. He had drug problems and wasn't training much. Before the Moore fight, he had looked terrible in losing a lopsided decision to Mustapha Hamsho. If Benitez was anywhere near his best, he would have boxed rings around Davey Moore. Lets also not forget, Benitez broke his ankle and couldn't continue against Moore. That not exactly a convincing win.

Going into the fight with Duran, there were a lot of questions about Moore. Yes he was taller and younger than duran. Obviously he didn't have near the experience of Duran. 12 fights and less than 3 years of pro experience means an awful lot.
Obviously he hadn't had a lot of experience against a a wide variety of styles.
We had no idea how good of chin he had, he had never went against a hard puncher. His stamina was a question mark since had never been past 10 rounds, and had only been past 8 rounds one time. We really didn't know if he had the punching power to hurt or even bother Duran.
He never had a big fight with anywhere near this much pressure either and we didn't know he he would react.

Some of the fights were long ago and most of us aren't old enough to remember them (Baer-Braddock, Walcott-Charles etc.) However many of these fights some of us can remember.

There was a lot of shock when Holyfield beat Tyson, when Leonard beat Hagler, when Foreman beat Moorer. It created a lot of excitement and people were still talking about these fights for several days.
When Duran beat Moore, people weren't going around saying "I can't believe Davey Moore lost."

It was a big deal. This guy was way bigger than Duran. Was young, stronger, taller, and hit harder. In terms of a guy being LABELED AS SHOT, IT WAS A BIG DEAL. You want to make an excuse for Davey as INEXPERIENCED, but when it comes to his victories with Wilfred Benitez (who was in the same predicament as Duran's at the time) and Ayub Kalule (who Leonard struggled with him more than Moore), now, as he ONLY HAD 12 FIGHTS.

I have never seen in my lifetime, a guy completely written off by the press like they wrote Duran off. Not even Evander Holyfield going to his fight with Mike Tyson was like that. What people feared of Holyfield was his heart condition, can he hold up, but I saw many POSSIBILITIES for Evander to win. With Duran, well, ONLY EXPERIENCE could carry him. Many say that Holyfield vs Tyson should not be competitive because the way Tyson demolished Frank Bruno and Bruce Seldon, but, HE WAS NOT YET TESTED after he came back from prison. Many writers asked about Tyson if TESTED, what would he do? And that's what happened. Tyson did not rise to the occasion. I knew before the fight, if Evander hold on for a couple of rounds, Tyson would wilt mentally and psychologically.

Braddock was a MEDIOCRE fighter just like Buster Douglas that beat Max Baer. He was not shot.

At LEAST Foreman had more punching power, was stronger, had more advantanges physically than Moorer. With the heavyweights, all you need is a KO Punch. Did Duran had the KO punch prior to Cuevas and Moore? He struggled to stop fighters before the Cuevas fight. His las KO was in February 1980.....Three years before the Cuevas KO win!!!
After that, Duran had 7 fights, 7 fights!!! before he scored a KO win.

What is that? Lack of punch or he is not accostumed the weight class?

When in his record has you seen Duran going 0 for 7 in KO wins?...This is a sign of a WASHED UP FIGHTER or a guy that is in his prime or close to it?

Ali vs Foreman: At least Ali had the skills and speed. He was 32 at the time. A better 32 than what Duran was. At least Ali had almost the same physical advantages with Foreman. They were the same height, BOTH NATURAL HEAVYWEIGHTS, and both had same reach. At least had better boxing skills than Foreman. At least he was faster.
Was Duran FAST at 154 pounds? Not even close.
Was it Duran weight class?...every body knows it was not.

Walcott at least was as good, better than Duran at that age. Plus, like I have said, with the heavyweights, all you need is a KO punch. He KO'd a blown up middleweight in the great Ezzard Charles for cripe's sake!!!

Robinson already beat Olson twice. A loss with Olson would not meant nothing but to retire from boxing. He at least knew Olson well. At least, this was a weight class Robinson was accostumed for years. Was Duran was a good jr middleweight like Robinson was at middle? You know the answer.

Holmes vs Mercer: How in the world you bring this up again? Mercer? a MEDIOCRE FIGHTER could not match Davey Moore's talent. Even though Davey had only 12 fights. Still, if I ask the people in this forum, who had more talent: Mercer or Davey Moore? the MAJORITY will say Davey Moore, well, BOTH Davey Moores were better than Ray Mercer


then you said:
"All of these guys had to beat fighters that were better and far more experienced than Davey Moore. Beating Davey Moore doesn't compare to beating Baer, Moorer,Hagler, Tyson,Foreman,and Mercer. Not to mention almost all were much older than Duran."

I have never said that Duran's win over Moore was greater. I said it was a MIRACLE. It was huge in the terms of the circumstances Duran was facing at the time after the NO MAS. Many of his closest "friends" abandoned him, many of his "fans" were not loyal anymore. He was going through a lot of things. But I could mention Duran win over Leonard was BIGGER and more SIGNIFICANT than the ones you want to mention. Even Duran's win over Moore, like I have explained above, were in terms, at the time, a great miracously victory.

Lots of people could not believe Duran pulled this win. You was not around the Duran's fans.

I believe it was an exceptional win and rates up there with many mentioned by Alp but it is not the best of them, somewhere towards the bottom of the list.

Looking back it may have been more to do with the fact that Duran was (1) overly criticised by the US boxing media and (2) was so unprepared for many of his bouts at this time that he actually looked worse than he really was. He was undervalued at the time as a boxer and had more left than many thought.

At the time the win was seen as being a very big deal. People were talking about redemption, etc... Moore was being talked up as the future of the MWs.

I guess there is no need to address elmers' comments since he just continues to ignore the points that other make.

Ezzard- I don't know how old you were when the fight took place, but I remember this time period. It never even occurred to me that Duran would lose.
The Cuevas fights was always considered one of his best. (elmer used to claim this as a big win over a Hall of Famer. Now it's just a win over a washed guy that means nothing.)
Cuevas was past his best, but he was still a live opponent. It was clear that Duran was motivated again, which was really the biggest issue, not his age or weight.

Davey Moore did beat Kalue, who was a decent boxer but not much power.
There was still a lot questions about Moore:

His defense was suspect.
We didn't know if he had stamina.
He hadn't fought anyone with power, so we didn't know if he could take a shot.
We really didn't know if he had that much power. The only guy that he had fought that was any good at all was Kalue, and it took him 10 rounds to stop him and he hit him a lot.
We had no idea if he could handle the pressure of fighting a big name.
We had no idea how he would handle someone of Durans' style, he had never fought anyone like that in his extremely limited career. Kalue was his only decent opponent and he didn't fight similar to Duran at all.

The future of the middleweight division? Well I certainly never heard anyone say that and I certainly didn't think that. Hagler was still in his prime and would have eaten him alive. Moore hadn't really proved himself at Jr Middleweight, much less middleweight. Moore was considered to be a fighter who had some promise but who certainly hadn't proved himself against a variety of tough competition.

Going into the fight, I thought Duran would win. I also don't know of anyone I knew or any so called expert saying he had no chance.
Under what scenario would Moore win? You knew he wasn't going to knock Duran out. Assuming Duran was motivated (and he was in last fight against Cuevas and had every reason to be since this was a title fight), it would be hard to imagine Moore winning a decison.

After the fight happened, people weren't going around saying "I can't believe Davey Moore lost". People were saying that about the loser in the other fights that we were talking about.
I thinks it's a stretch to even call this an upset. To call this a "miracle" is unbelievably ridiculaus.

I Feel Fine wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Well, at least you are having some DECENCY this time around. Holmes vs Norton I saw the fight at the same time that it happened. I didn't especulate who won the fight before seeing it. Ali vs Norton II was never shown on replay. Of matter of fact, this fight Ali vs Norton II rarely is shown...I wonder why?

Maybe the networks are trying to protect "The Greatest" reputation....In a way, and in many ways, Granberry is right. It is all about an industry of one fighter that the media picks as the best. They don't show his fights when he lose. They show Ali vs Liston, Ali vs Foreman or Ali vs Frazier III more times than I go to take a shit.

What about Ali vs Frazier I or Ali vs Norton I, II or III? Why those fights are not shown? Why they don't show Ali vs Jimmy Young?

I have said: "I would not be surprised if Norton won the second fight"...And it turned out. I did not see Ali winning the fight by no means. As far that I am concern, Norton won all the fights.

Let's look at the truth. Duran was clearly better than Davey Moore? In what? The only thing is that EXPERIENCE was the only thing Moore lacked. Duran had all the disadvantages ever seen in a fight. Moore was clearly bigger than Hagler for cripe's sake.

You are saying that I don't know what I am talking about, is like you are trying to dismiss me as an retard or something. Go head "great expert" It looks that you are not getting your way.

It is clear that is a FACT that this was not Duran's best weight class. He was too small from 154lbs and beyond

It is clear that is a FACT that Duran looked terribly AWFUL after the "No Mas"...He struggled with NOBODIES like Nino Benvenutti and Luigi Minchillo. He looked like CRAP with Benitez and Laing. The crowd was leaving the stadium when he fought Jimmy Batten in the undercard/post fight of Pryor vs Arguello I.

He beat up a washed up legend in Pipino Cuevas in order to continue his career. Cuevas would have not beaten Davey Moore, not even in his prime. And if Duran would never trained he would have lost by KO easily. Even when Duran won the fight, Duran was already tired. That showed me that he cannot handle the weight class because of his size. It got to be a MIRACLE. If Moore fights Duran the following year, he would have beaten Duran....Better believe it.

At least Ali looked better than Duran when he lost to Norton twice. He had SPEED.
How did Duran looked against the first FIVE 154 pounders before Cuevas and Moore?...TERRIBLE. His skills were not up to par. He did no had the SPEED just like when he fought at lightweight or welterweight. EVEN when he beat Cuevas or Moore, his speed, HIS SPEED was not there.

IT DOES NOT HAVE NO COMPARISION Ali vs Foreman with Duran vs Moore. Duran was more in decline, FAR MORE than Ali at the time. Duran was fighting a weight class that is not his. At least Ali was fighting in his weight class, was as big as Foreman, was faster than Foreman, and was as strong as Foreman...NOt comparable in terms of the times and size advantages.

Yes elmer. The networks are trying to save Ali's reputation by not showing his fights with Norton, just as they are trying to save Robinson's reputation by never showing his Gavilan fights (ignoring the fact that they and all but one of Robinson's Welterweight fights were never actually filmed). Granberry is correct; Big Brother is watching, and he's an avid Ali fan.

Or maybe if you had "Versus" you would know that Ali's fights with Norton are shown every so often.

If you don't understand the notion of "this is how he looked at the time" and "this is what we know in hindsight" then I can't help you. Duran was not a shot fighter, and he probably had as much left at that age (32) as Ali did (also 32.) And Moore is not comparable to Foreman.

Duran fought Nino Benvenutti? Wow; that must have been something. How old was Benvenutti in 1983; 42? 43? Been retired for over a decade? Looks like another figment of elmer's imagination working its way into one of his posts.

When did I have said that Duran fought Benvenutti? When did Benvenutti came into the coversation?

Read your own post you illiterate retard.

Ambling Alp wrote:I guess there is no need to address elmers' comments since he just continues to ignore the points that other make.

Ezzard- I don't know how old you were when the fight took place, but I remember this time period. It never even occurred to me that Duran would lose.
The Cuevas fights was always considered one of his best. (elmer used to claim this as a big win over a Hall of Famer. Now it's just a win over a washed guy that means nothing.)
Cuevas was past his best, but he was still a live opponent. It was clear that Duran was motivated again, which was really the biggest issue, not his age or weight.

Davey Moore did beat Kalue, who was a decent boxer but not much power.
There was still a lot questions about Moore:

His defense was suspect.
We didn't know if he had stamina.
He hadn't fought anyone with power, so we didn't know if he could take a shot.
We really didn't know if he had that much power. The only guy that he had fought that was any good at all was Kalue, and it took him 10 rounds to stop him and he hit him a lot.
We had no idea if he could handle the pressure of fighting a big name.
We had no idea how he would handle someone of Durans' style, he had never fought anyone like that in his extremely limited career. Kalue was his only decent opponent and he didn't fight similar to Duran at all.

The future of the middleweight division? Well I certainly never heard anyone say that and I certainly didn't think that. Hagler was still in his prime and would have eaten him alive. Moore hadn't really proved himself at Jr Middleweight, much less middleweight. Moore was considered to be a fighter who had some promise but who certainly hadn't proved himself against a variety of tough competition.

Going into the fight, I thought Duran would win. I also don't know of anyone I knew or any so called expert saying he had no chance.
Under what scenario would Moore win? You knew he wasn't going to knock Duran out. Assuming Duran was motivated (and he was in last fight against Cuevas and had every reason to be since this was a title fight), it would be hard to imagine Moore winning a decison.

After the fight happened, people weren't going around saying "I can't believe Davey Moore lost". People were saying that about the loser in the other fights that we were talking about.
I thinks it's a stretch to even call this an upset. To call this a "miracle" is unbelievably ridiculaus.

Explain why is not a miracle, when Duran was fighting a bigger and younger opponent being washed up. It was not Duran's weight class, he struggled with CLUBFIGHTERS like Nino Gonzalez and Luigi Minchillo, he lost to Benitez and Laing and many of his fans deserted him.

IN TERMS OF A FIGHTER THAT HIT ROCK BOTTOM, THIS WAS ONE OF BOXING'S GREATEST COMEBACKS. He was The Ring Come Back Fighter of the Year for 1983 for cripe's sake!!!

Now, you want to include Moore's stability as a fighter. If he was tested.

Davey Moore was ALREADY TESTED as a fighter. He showed it when he went to Tokyo, Japan in another guy's BACKYARD AND WON THE CROWN.

Moore crucified Ayub Kalule in a title defense. Ain't this Kalule gave Sugar Ray Leonard fits?

Moore defended the crown against a good contender Gary Guiden...I saw the fight.

Now Duran beats Moore, and there comes PLENTY OF EXCUSES for him. "He was too young", "He was UNEXPERIENCED", "Benitez was drugged up", But this is the same Benitez that was in the same PREDICAMENT as Duran's. Davey Moore was NEVER a mediocre fighter, at LEAST IN MY VIEW. He was an excellent champion. An excellent puncher. A very confident fighter and very capable to beat Duran, who was 32 at the time AND NOT AT HIS VERY BEST...NOT IN HIS PRIME....CONSIDERED WASHED UP.

You thought that Duran would win...I thought that he was gonna get killed when I saw the physical advantages. I saw the fight on tv when it happened. As a Duran's fan, I was nervous. When Duran won, it was UNBELIEVABLE...Called what you call it..You will NEVER ACCEPT IT...IT WAS A MIRACLE.

I Feel Fine wrote:Read your own post you illiterate retard.

When guys like these start insulting and lying in something that I have never written or said, it means that I won the battle. I am satisfied that I got the facts right. Good night, BOY!!!

elmersalsa wrote:It is clear that is a FACT that Duran looked terribly AWFUL after the "No Mas"...He struggled with NOBODIES like Nino Benvenutti and Luigi Minchillo. He looked like CRAP with Benitez and Laing. The crowd was leaving the stadium when he fought Jimmy Batten in the undercard/post fight of Pryor vs Arguello I..

Can't even bother to read- let alone remember- his own posts. A very unfortunate poster.