BoxRec

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

big train express wrote: someone explain

-- You pretty much covered his highlights. A big tomato can who would be lucky to win a half dozen fights against bums much less 100+.

It's like a hunerd fighters all accidentally tripped when stepping into the ring. Durndest thing I've ever seen in my life!

What happen to you? Did the big train express left your brain behind? What stupid and ignorant post. Duran at lightweight was a beast and he won his fights in a very dominant fashion. Yes he lost to De Jesus and then came and beat him twice to prove his was the better man. Please take the time to educate yourself before you make another moronic post like that.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

big train express wrote: someone explain

-- You pretty much covered his highlights. A big tomato can who would be lucky to win a half dozen fights against bums much less 100+.

It's like a hunerd fighters all accidentally tripped when stepping into the ring. Durndest thing I've ever seen in my life!

OK I've entered the twilight Zone....not only for the subject matter which is bizarre enough, but in the fact that You and I see eye to eye....sarcastic as it may be stated. That's once today for granny and once for you.....gotta be a glitch in the whole time space continuum for this to happen.

Calling Duran overrated does not mean that you are a rebel and an iconoclast, it means that you are losing perspective.
Being undefeated is not the name of the game. Trying to nitpick the record of a fighter who before 1980 was 69-1 is quite myopic, to say the least, especially when he avenged the one loss with two over-powering knockouts. Duran was very good when he won the Lightweight title against Buchanan, a hall of fame Lightweight who should not be so carelessly dismissed, but Duran was still young and was still developing. In the first DeJesus fight Duran was a bit one-dimensional and probably had not taken DeJesus too seriously. However, by the third fight, Duran was the complete package and was a near perfect Lightweight, out-doing DeJesus in every facet of boxing before violently stopping him. Duran has the Lightweight defense record and knocked out all but one title challenger, he beat the best names in his division, and only the great Benny Leonard rivals him at this weight class.
Boxing fans, especially the young boxing fan, also tend to forget variables like age and size disadvantages. Duran at 147 and above was out sized by nearly everyone he met. He dominated Palomino in their fight, looking like a pit bull against a hall of fame Welterweight. Leonard may have fought a dumb fight the first time and did win the rematch, but it is still impressive that a prime Leonard with his size advantage and good power and great hand speed was not able to beat the smaller Duran toe to toe, and had to fight an extremely cautious fight to win the next time. Not just anyone could do that to Leonard. Leonard showed more caution against Duran than he did against Hearns, even saying later that he thought Duran was the bigger puncher. Though I have never fought either fighter I am quite sure that Leonard is wrong and that Hearns almost certainly did hit harder than Duran, but it shows the respect that Ray gained for Roberto Duran, who was so much smaller than Hearns and yet with his inside boxing skills was able to badly rough Ray up like no one else ever did.
Duran's conditioning was inconsistent at times, he was in abysmal shape against the much bigger Laing and was easily confused for a shot fighter by some of his contemporaries having looked so bad in that matchup, but he rebounded with wins over Cuevas and Moore, winning his third belt, and fought a great fight in losing to Hagler, a top three all time Middleweight, Duran being the first to go the full distance in one of Hagler's defenses; to write off his performances in these weight classes is quite foolish. He was already a legend and an all time great before he, at 37, fighting a future Heavyweight, was able to win a Middleweight belt against a guy who stopped Hearns in three and who in his next fight gave Michael Nunn a tough fight; to not even mention that win over Barkley shows a clear beef with Duran that has nothing to do with his ability or accomplishments.

I assumed this was a thread about Jack Dempsey, not the greatest fighter of the last half century, and arguably the GOAT. Watching some film would probably be the best explanation for you.

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 agree on the notion Duran is over-rated, but that's where the similarities for you & I end. He had a brilliant, brilliant career --- the produce of brilliant, brilliant talent (among other tremendous attributes).

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I assumed this was a thread about Jack Dempsey, not the greatest fighter of the last half century, and arguably the GOAT. Watching some film would probably be the best explanation for you.

I just bet you did. Picked yourself up off the deck yet, Saad?

I can see why people hold Duran in such high esteem. Most people
think of 1980s-90s Duran. The guy was a force in the 70s and
showed time and time again at higher weights that he was still
a damned fine fighter.

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.

pacquiao he lost to marquez twice blah blah blah but got the "gift" decision. at least he got the W. it could have went either way and theres no shame to having fought a close match with a great fighter. wlad got knocked out by two bums wah wah. hes proved his dominance in the heavyweight division. no one can touch the guy at heavy. you praise a guy who gave up against leonard and put down a man who fought with all he had against marquez. its biased out here.

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.

Wlad deserves to be mentioned with Duran?

big train express wrote:pacquiao he lost to marquez twice blah blah blah but got the "gift" decision. at least he got the W. it could have went either way and theres no shame to having fought a close match with a great fighter. wlad got knocked out by two bums wah wah. hes proved his dominance in the heavyweight division. no one can touch the guy at heavy. you praise a guy who gave up against leonard and put down a man who fought with all he had against marquez. its biased out here.

You seem to have little or no perspective.

Collins2000 wrote:

big train express wrote:pacquiao he lost to marquez twice blah blah blah but got the "gift" decision. at least he got the W. it could have went either way and theres no shame to having fought a close match with a great fighter. wlad got knocked out by two bums wah wah. hes proved his dominance in the heavyweight division. no one can touch the guy at heavy. you praise a guy who gave up against leonard and put down a man who fought with all he had against marquez. its biased out here.

You seem to have little or no perspective.

so far no one gave me a good point. over here its old fighters>>>>>>>new fighters

Klitschko ranks with Duran & Leonard, now?

Train, get a grip on things. That is not reality --- if people are reluctant to explain, it is only because the reasoning is so self-evident, it is considered tedium to break it down.

i admit wlad cant be in there with leonard duran and company but imo pac and mayweather can. im just giving examples of how people easily dismiss current fighters/champions. resume wise pac can be mentioned with duran

big train express wrote:i admit wlad cant be in there with leonard duran and company but imo pac and mayweather can. im just giving examples of how people easily dismiss current fighters/champions. resume wise pac can be mentioned with duran

This forum is mainly about boxers of the past.

When Pac and Mayweather have finished their careers an assessment can be made.

I have no doubt they will then be talked about in here whenever the greats are discussed.

Unlike Wlad.

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!

I am always reluctant to proclaim some one as a great midst their
career, no matter how much talent that they do have.

I seldom use that word and as much as I love my HWs I still have
never made a head to head top ten, as I have not seen enough
fights of them to satisfy my decision making.

To say Duran is over rated, is an opinion, I guess it depends on whose
'rating' of him your challenging. In another thread I said that Ray
Robinson gets absolute praise, and to say a bad thing about him is
almost sacrilege, so in an effect we share the same opinion in a way.

But, Wlad has not really stamped his career with any finality to warrant
the proclamation that Duran has earned. Duran is considered one of the
best at LW. Would we say Wlad is this at HW ? as talented and dominant
the man has been of late?

Pacman and PBF are guys that on a sure fire journey to being boxing
legends, they have done enough to warrant it for many..but lets sit
back and watch first. Those guys are only at the Duran-Leonard 1
stage of things...they still have their Davey Moores, Barkley's ahead
of them...though the Hearns, Haglers and Pazienza's may also be
lurking in the coming years...

In any case no one proclaim's "this is the best book ever" until they have
read the final page.

Pacquiao and especially Mayweather (and I'm a big Mayweather fan) are not in Duran's realm. As others have said, they still have a lot left in their careers and they have a chance. For one thing it is rare for a champion to win three title fights in three different decades, even Duran with his incredible longevity did not do this, but both Floyd and Manny will almost certainly accomplish this... possibly one against the other (Floyd is my pick.)

At LW the man was a beast he beat a prime Buchanan, Ishimatsu, DeJesus I think he is in th top 3 LW's ever to live he is a true great stupid question he's not overrated at all

big train express wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

big train express wrote:pacquiao he lost to marquez twice blah blah blah but got the "gift" decision. at least he got the W. it could have went either way and theres no shame to having fought a close match with a great fighter. wlad got knocked out by two bums wah wah. hes proved his dominance in the heavyweight division. no one can touch the guy at heavy. you praise a guy who gave up against leonard and put down a man who fought with all he had against marquez. its biased out here.

You seem to have little or no perspective.

so far no one gave me a good point. over here its old fighters>>>>>>>new fighters

I'll take a shot at it:

1. Style: Combined quickness and aggression, especially when campaigning as a lightweight – and, with few exceptions, simply overwhelmed his opponents at lightweight and welterweight. Good defense – He rolled and slipped punches extremely well, and was much harder to hit than he was ever given credit for. Obviously a great puncher, especially when campaigning as a lightweight. He had a great chin. Utilized the feint better, perhaps, than any fighter since the 1950s.

2. ATG lightweight champion: Defended his title 12 times (with 11 kayos or stoppages), including twice stopping Esteban DeJesus – no lightweight of the 1970s ever seriously challenged him in a title fight. He defeated a formidable opponent in Kenny Buchanan for the title. Look at the resumes of the other fellows he steamrolled in the 1970s: Jimmy Robertson, Guts Suzuki (became WBC champion), Hector Thompson, Ray Lampkin (whom he hospitalized), Saoul Mamby (in a non-title fight), and Edwin Viruet – the only guy to last the full 15 rounds.

3. Named "The Greatest Lightweight of the 20th Century" by The Associated Press in 1999.

4. Inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame in 2007.

5. A "past-his-prime" Duran (yes, I think he was moving past his prime by the 1980s), managed to pick up the WBC Welterweight Title (defeating an a previously undefeated Sugar Ray Leonard to do it), the WBA junior middleweight title, and the WBC Middleweight title (at age 38 against Iran Barkley).

6. He defeated a number of good or great fighters after his reign as lightweight champion including Carlos Palomino, Davey Moore, Pipino Cuevas and was twice named Comeback Fighter of the Year in the 1980s by Ring Magazine.

7. At age 32, he nearly upset ATG middleweight champion Marvelous Marvin Hagler – a fellow some people on this board believe was the greatest all-time middleweight champion.

Even quitting against Leonard in the second fight, this is the resume of an ATG fighter. The losses to Benitez and Lang came when he was in a bit of a funk following the debacle in Leonard II. Most of his other losses came when Duran was w - a - y past his prime. Where do you see that he is overrated? Overrated when compared to whom?

Now that's laid out so's even the most diverse jury could understand.

"I'll take a shot at it:

1. Style: Combined quickness and aggression, especially when campaigning as a lightweight – and, with few exceptions, simply overwhelmed his opponents at lightweight and welterweight. Good defense – He rolled and slipped punches extremely well, and was much harder to hit than he was ever given credit for. Obviously a great puncher, especially when campaigning as a lightweight. He had a great chin. Utilized the feint better, perhaps, than any fighter since the 1950s.

2. ATG lightweight champion: Defended his title 12 times (with 11 kayos or stoppages), including twice stopping Esteban DeJesus – no lightweight of the 1970s ever seriously challenged him in a title fight. He defeated a formidable opponent in Kenny Buchanan for the title. Look at the resumes of the other fellows he steamrolled in the 1970s: Jimmy Robertson, Guts Suzuki (became WBC champion), Hector Thompson, Ray Lampkin (whom he hospitalized), Saoul Mamby (in a non-title fight), and Edwin Viruet – the only guy to last the full 15 rounds.

3. Named "The Greatest Lightweight of the 20th Century" by The Associated Press in 1999.

4. Inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame in 2007.

5. A "past-his-prime" Duran (yes, I think he was moving past his prime by the 1980s), managed to pick up the WBC Welterweight Title (defeating an a previously undefeated Sugar Ray Leonard to do it), the WBA junior middleweight title, and the WBC Middleweight title (at age 38 against Iran Barkley).

6. He defeated a number of good or great fighters after his reign as lightweight champion including Carlos Palomino, Davey Moore, Pipino Cuevas and was twice named Comeback Fighter of the Year in the 1980s by Ring Magazine.

7. At age 32, he nearly upset ATG middleweight champion Marvelous Marvin Hagler – a fellow some people on this board believe was the greatest all-time middleweight champion.

Even quitting against Leonard in the second fight, this is the resume of an ATG fighter. The losses to Benitez and Lang came when he was in a bit of a funk following the debacle in Leonard II. Most of his other losses came when Duran was w - a - y past his prime. Where do you see that he is overrated? Overrated when compared to whom?" - RayLaw

Game over...

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.