How unprofessional was Roberto Duran

First topic message reminder :

No question Duran was one of the most loved fighters of any generation a fighters fighter. He embodied Latin pride better then any fighter and was a hero to most. Duran's style of fighting has been the inspiration to many fighters after him and can be viewed as the greatest lightweight of all time. However the man was a disgrace out side the ring and as disrespectful as any fighter I have ever seen. Lets just clear a few things up here....

1) He never admitted to punching Ken Buchannon low effectivley ending their contest. Poor Ken still lives with the effects of that injury to this day yet Duran has stated that Buchannon was play acting in order to find a way out of the fight.

2) Never gave Leonard any credit after the 2nd fight where he was outboxed. Duran claimed he was humiliated and called Leonard's skill and movement cowardice and running he never gave Leonard the credit for being brave enough to fight his fight in the first bout. He then blamed his woeful performance on the fact that his manager had been offered a great deal of money to except the fight straight away leaving Duran little time to prepare. Now this fight was a re-match any fighter will remain disciplined enough to be in shape for the inevitable re-match.

3) Lied about No mas and is still lying to this day. Claims he had stomach cramps.

4) Admitted to not training for the Hearns slappage. Poor professionalism.

5) Never gave his opponants any credit after their fights a trait carried on by Julio Ceasar Chavez wholooked up to Duran.

Great fighter but a terrible human being.

Balti - I'm pretty sure that only death and a deep burial following a thorough cremation will stop Michael Bay polluting cinema history with his unmitigated rubbish.

Anyhoo, it's become de rigour to paint Ali as some kind of demon - I think the hopelessly one sided Thrilla documentary has a lot to answer for.

Superfly think it has been happening a little since the turn of the century. Inevitably there were any number of greatest sportsman polls around at that time which Ali invariably won, and then countless tributes to him which even as a commited fan I found almost vomit inducing in how effusive they were. When such over the top tributes are flowing non stop is perhaps equally as likely there will be a backlash.

Do agree with the point about the thrilla documentary, one of the most horribly one sided pieces of journalism I have ever seen.

[quote="HumanWindmill"]

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:This seems to be merely sensationalist jingoism designed to curry favour with Truss.

'Curry favour with Truss'... intentional pun there windy?

Agreed jeff, although I lost count of the numerous invasions from the football pages on 606 from people who had seen the documentary and wanted to tell us what a bad man Ali was.

I think Duran was overrated he lost most of his big fights, yes he beat Leonard but it was very close and Leonard beat him after Duran quit coz he was getting schooled. I think it was shameful to quit like that and lets not forget he also lost to Hearns and Hagler.

Waingro, I normally try to avoid direct criticism of your peculiar brand of "thinking", but this is just one step too far.

Your knowledge of boxing can be written on the back of a postage stamp with room for the Lord's Prayer next door to it. You haven't the faintest idea about Duran, with the exception of about six fights, and you know nothing about all but a handful of boxers in any case. I don't mind people not knowing anything, as long as they are prepared to learn, but you continue to sound off ill-formed platitudes, half-truths and the most ignorant twaddle I've ever had the misfortune of reading. It wouldn't matter, but your ham-fisted and leaden prose now seems to seep over almost every thread. Please, please, PLEASE research something about a topic before posting on it; there's just a chance that you may end up better informed.

Waingro wrote:I think Duran was overrated

Coming from the bloke that thinks Kevin Mitchell is a modern day Benny Leonard.

How can you be 72-1 at lightweight then move up to welter to take the title from Ray Leonard and be overrated? Buy the Duran career set, watch it then come back and if you still think he's overrated you've got problems pal.

What a week on the board... robbo comes in for some stick, then it's duran and ali.

Then the illuminati turn on onetwo and now, finally, as the rebellion reaches fever pitch, the hereto untouchable waingro gets in the neck.

The hall of fame is in tatters. Is nothing sacred?

captain carrantuohil wrote:Waingro, I normally try to avoid direct criticism of your peculiar brand of "thinking", but this is just one step too far.

Your knowledge of boxing can be written on the back of a postage stamp with room for the Lord's Prayer next door to it. You haven't the faintest idea about Duran, with the exception of about six fights, and you know nothing about all but a handful of boxers in any case. I don't mind people not knowing anything, as long as they are prepared to learn, but you continue to sound off ill-formed platitudes, half-truths and the most ignorant twaddle I've ever had the misfortune of reading. It wouldn't matter, but your ham-fisted and leaden prose now seems to seep over almost every thread. Please, please, PLEASE research something about a topic before posting on it; there's just a chance that you may end up better informed.

Ouch, takes a lot to raise the Captain's ire but is always a joy when it happens. Heres hoping the day never comes when Waingro turns his particular brand of analysis to Ken Buchanan, that could get extremely messy.

rowley wrote:

captain carrantuohil wrote:Waingro, I normally try to avoid direct criticism of your peculiar brand of "thinking", but this is just one step too far.

Your knowledge of boxing can be written on the back of a postage stamp with room for the Lord's Prayer next door to it. You haven't the faintest idea about Duran, with the exception of about six fights, and you know nothing about all but a handful of boxers in any case. I don't mind people not knowing anything, as long as they are prepared to learn, but you continue to sound off ill-formed platitudes, half-truths and the most ignorant twaddle I've ever had the misfortune of reading. It wouldn't matter, but your ham-fisted and leaden prose now seems to seep over almost every thread. Please, please, PLEASE research something about a topic before posting on it; there's just a chance that you may end up better informed.

Ouch, takes a lot to raise the Captain's ire but is always a joy when it happens. Heres hoping the day never comes when Waingro turns his particular brand of analysis to Ken Buchanan, that could get extremely messy.

Jeff, I agree to a point, but I can't help thinking the inimitable waingro has a lot of people on here dancing to his own particular tune. To me, he is clearly on a wind up, and gets his kicks out of the fact, much the same as D4. I think either humouring him or completely ignoring him is the best option. Getting frustrated and valiantly attempting to educate him is only adding fuel to his own strange little bonfire.

I could be wrong, but I imagine this is what gets his juices flowing.

You may be right mate, whatever is the truth I'm in, is too much fun either way. Just need to stay on board long enough for him and coxy to lock horns over Roy Jones, at that point my faith and patience will be repaid in full.

rowley wrote:You may be right mate, whatever is the truth I'm in, is too much fun either way. Just need to stay on board long enough for him and coxy to lock horns over Roy Jones, at that point my faith and patience will be repaid in full.

I was thinking, as I was tyoing the other post, just how funny it used to be watching Coxy implode further with every D4 post. Coxy won't want to hear it, but D4 had him on the tightest bit of string I have ever seen.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

rowley wrote:You may be right mate, whatever is the truth I'm in, is too much fun either way. Just need to stay on board long enough for him and coxy to lock horns over Roy Jones, at that point my faith and patience will be repaid in full.

I was thinking, as I was tyoing the other post, just how funny it used to be watching Coxy implode further with every D4 post. Coxy won't want to hear it, but D4 had him on the tightest bit of string I have ever seen.

Too right was like a dancing bear, only slightly more cruel.

Tino, I'm not so sure that he is in the D4 mould. I don't think that there is anything malicious about him, only something remarkably bovine. Stupidity is not a crime in itself, although perhaps it should be. Stupidity plus a tendency to argue the toss is unpardonable - the perpetrator really needs to be silenced forever.

Regarding the Thrilla in Manilla documentary.

My interpretation of it was that it was insightful background to the most brutal boxing match that I have watched. I think it's a good study of the two men and how they differ, the cultural context of the fight (I was born in 1977 so wasn't around to remembe), and the personal motivations of both men by the time they got in the ring.

I actually felt physically sick at the end when we hear Frasier's answer machine message ... so let's not think that the film portrays him as 'the good guy' or 'the victim'.


The film discusses how Ali was brave and morally strong enough to be a consciencious objector to a war which history would later tell us was wrong.

The film explains Ali's ideological contempt for Frasier's 'white' financial backing. From the point of view of black rights movement in the 70's, being concerned about where the financial clout that backs actually comes from ... the film also demonstrates how as an idealistic man in that situation, Ali was vulnerable and niaive. How, using his charisma he was able to use such abhorent rascist language and sway public opinion his way ... but at the same time was perhaps being used as a puppet for more sinister forces. But is seemed clear to me that he his vulnerability came from the fact that he was and is a thinking man and a man of ideals?

I belive there is a section (apologies if I'm getting confused) where it describes how he 'turns' on Frasie and how his attitiude toward his opponents became vitriolic before fights, is the psychological process of many champions, not just in boxing.

Ultimately, if we watch a film , read a book, turn on the TV we'll all take something different away from it, and more often than not take what we want away from it ... there is no right or wrong interpretation.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Tino, I'm not so sure that he is in the D4 mould. I don't think that there is anything malicious about him, only something remarkably bovine. Stupidity is not a crime in itself, although perhaps it should be. Stupidity plus a tendency to argue the toss is unpardonable - the perpetrator really needs to be silenced forever.

You may be right Captain. As I said, it was a truly valiant attempt to educate the young chap, but I fear, however long it took you to type out that post, is time you have lost forever!

Twitchey I am really torn on the Ali Frazier issue, am by no means an apologist for Ali as his actions were over the line and he definitely deserves to be called on it but also think there is an argument Frazier needs to get over himself a bit. Remember reading his autobiography some years ago and the bitterness that comes through on every page is so apparent it is embarrasing.

For me Frazier is a great fighter, is a top ten heavy in many peoples mind, a gauranteed hall of famer by any criteria and was involved in some of the greatest fights the division has ever seen, needs to focus on these rather than some 30 odd year old insults, as his career gives him plenty to be rightfully proud of.

...that's pretty much where i sit jeff. I think these things depend on the personality type of the assessor.... whether you're a grudge holder yourself.

For me the greater 'crime' is being unable to accept the olive branch when offered. Ali, when he matured was clearly embarrassed by some of his earlier behaviour, but Frazier still can't forgive him.

I guess when the insults effect your family etc, i can understand the bitterness at the time, but its been 40 years, Ali grew up eventually, so should frazier imo.

I'm not sure if its been mentioned but Frazier went up to the President and said i'm going to beat Ali for you. I think this was what triggered the abuse Frazier recieved - either he was doing it deliberately to raise Ali's ire or he was a bit daft and didn't see what it would look like to the multitude of black people still suffering from oppression. Either way - it was a free for all after that, Ali may have been a bar steward pre-fight but both of them were at it - to wholly blame Ali for it is indicative of Frazier not being able to overcome other obstacles and blaming it all on someone else - a fact backed up by the bitterness still shown for years after. Especially when the subject of Ali's parkinsons came up - Frazier claimed "Credit" for it. Its just easy to make money on dissing Ali. Sensationalist carp documentary worthy of the sun and its ilk.

I differ on this.

Many of the stories about Frazier's supposed "uncle Tom status" came from the Ali camp, or Ali himself.

Frazier helped Ali when Ali was banned. Frazier opposed Ali's ban - and always wanted to fight him.

Ali did not honour Frazier's actions towards him, pure and simple.

That Frazier still feels that raw, primal emotion called revenge is hardly surprising. Ali approaches sainthood with his veneration (even though, frequently, his actions have been less than pleasant). Frazier is largely forgotten. Philly could put up a statue to Rocky. But not to Frazier, who gave Stallone the material.

Ali triggered Frazier's hatred.

I think people are being harsh on Ali imo he is the best boxer of all time. Frazier was good dont get me wrong but he was not in Alis class lets not forget Frazier got absolutely destroyed by Foreman who Ali knocked out. I think Frazier needs to accept Ali was just a better boxer.

They went hell for leather in 3 bouts that pushed them both to their very limits, waingro. Nobody is doubting that Ali was the better boxer, however Frazier's style was horrible for him, Ali even admitted this himself as he was always susceptible to the short left hook - Frazier's trademark punch.

To say he wasn't in Ali's class is a bit off the mark, when there clearly wasn't a great deal to separate them. Ali just had that bit more of a rounded game that allowed him to deal with the likes of Foreman where Frazier couldn't. Styles make fights, remember.

Waingro wrote:I think people are being harsh on Ali imo he is the best boxer of all time. Frazier was good dont get me wrong but he was not in Alis class lets not forget Frazier got absolutely destroyed by Foreman who Ali knocked out. I think Frazier needs to accept Ali was just a better boxer.

Yep. And Taylor beat Hopkins. Pavlik beat Taylor. So Pavlik beat Hopkins right?

Styles make fights - Frazier's style was all wrong for Ali.

Ali was not the best boxer of all time - even he didn't claim that.

Ali beat Frazier and Foreman Hopkins did not beat Pavlik and Taylor

Frazier also beat Ali, lest we forget. The only time Ali ever faced a peak Frazier.

Furthermore, your point seemed to be that Frazier wasn't in Ali's "class" as he lost to Foreman who Ali beat. Well, Hopkins lost to Taylor who Pavlik beat, did that mean Hopkins wasn't going to be in Pavlik's class?

If Frazier wasn't in Ali's class, why did he give him hell and beat him in the fight of the century?

A 1-eyed old Frazier still was on the cusp of victory in Manila.

Waingro wrote:Ali beat Frazier and Foreman Hopkins did not beat Pavlik and Taylor

Jesus Christ troglodyte, the point is that Frazier wasn't a walkover for Ali, even when he was supposed to have been past it. There are numerous such paper-scissors-stone scenarios in the history of boxing. Perhaps if you bothered to educate yourself even a little you'd know these things and wouldn't make yourself look a fool EVERY SINGLE TIME you type something.

Why did Norton give Ali hell for three fights, win one of them, be arguably unlucky not to take the decision in the second fight and get absolutely ripped off in the third, when Norton cowered from Foreman and got KO'd in as embarrassingly one-sided a title fight as the heavyweight division has ever seen?

Styles make fights. Educate yourself, for your own sake.

oxring wrote:Frazier also beat Ali, lest we forget. The only time Ali ever faced a peak Frazier.

Furthermore, your point seemed to be that Frazier wasn't in Ali's "class" as he lost to Foreman who Ali beat. Well, Hopkins lost to Taylor who Pavlik beat, did that mean Hopkins wasn't going to be in Pavlik's class?

If Frazier wasn't in Ali's class, why did he give him hell and beat him in the fight of the century?

A 1-eyed old Frazier still was on the cusp of victory in Manila.

I dont think Pavlik was in Hopkins class tbh yes he beat Taylor but I think he was overrated.

Lets not forget Ali was banned for years so imo ye was not at his best for the fights with Frazier but he still beat him 2-1 and also knocked out Foreman who destroyed Frazier this is why I do not think Frazier was in Alis class.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Why did Norton give Ali hell for three fights, win one of them, be arguably unlucky not to take the decision in the second fight and get absolutely ripped off in the third, when Norton cowered from Foreman and got KO'd in as embarrassingly one-sided a title fight as the heavyweight division has ever seen?

Styles make fights. Educate yourself, for your own sake.


Waingro, I normally try to avoid direct criticism of your peculiar brand of "thinking", but this is just one step too far.

Your knowledge of boxing can be written on the back of a postage stamp with room for the Lord's Prayer next door to it. You haven't the faintest idea about Duran, with the exception of about six fights, and you know nothing about all but a handful of boxers in any case. I don't mind people not knowing anything, as long as they are prepared to learn, but you continue to sound off ill-formed platitudes, half-truths and the most ignorant twaddle I've ever had the misfortune of reading. It wouldn't matter, but your ham-fisted and leaden prose now seems to seep over almost every thread. Please, please, PLEASE research something about a topic before posting on it; there's just a chance that you may end up better informed.

Captain > Trunchbull

Interesting that you should say so, Shah, as my 7 year-old daughter has just been ploughing through Matilda with some relish. I think, however, that even Agatha Trunchbull would have had her work cut out here. I'm not sure that even Roald Dahl ever imagined the possibility of a pupil with the speed of thought of a snail with gout.

Not sure why people have to use insults just saing my opinion. I do not think Frazier was in Alis, dont get me wrong he was still quality but Ali was the best of all time imo he beat Frazier twice and knocked out Foreman who also destroyed Frazier what more do people want??

The reason that people get fed up with you, Waingro, is that you persist in clinging to beliefs that are so ludicrous as to appear from another dimension. A lot of people here seem to think that you are mounting a calculated campaign of idiocy so as to ruin the board. I disagree - I think that you are probably a genuine fan of the sport, but one who doesn't actually know that much about it. As I have already said, that doesn't matter per se. Things become boring, though, when someone who is relatively ignorant persists in delivering ignorant opinions as though they are tablets of stone from Mount Sinai.

One of two explanations is possible: that you are either genuinely not the brightest spark in the grate, or that you are as stubborn as a mule. I prefer to believe that the latter is the case; however, patience is not an inexhaustible commodity, and I can only be bothered to try to make you see sense for so long before washing my hands of you completely, as so many others have already understandably done. Try to listen and learn, just a little bit. You never know, it might help you to enjoy boxing even more than you already do.

Hahaha - interestingly enough - I went to an age concern charity store after seeing a ton of books outside so I went in and bought a few books - they had about 10 copies of various Roald Dahl books so I bought em all. Timeless classics I should think.

Waingro - seems to think everyone is overrated - If you can endure looking through the rest of his posts when you come across. I think his saving grace is that he is enthusiastic at least.

Waingro - its your reasoning thats probably irritating everyone. X beats Y Who beats Z who beats X - Who is the best? These sort of things should be taking in context. The styles vary and what is good for one isnt good for the other. Yes Ali was superior to Frazier - but Frazier gave him all he can handle - that means Frazier wasn't out of his depth - which is what you are saying.

Also your post on Duran - It would be fair if Duran was a middleweight - but he was a lightweight - a small fighter who held his own in an exceptional circle. He beat Leonard once and was doing reasonably well in the no mas. He just lost to Hagler and the only one he got totalled in was Hearns - who was quite simply much too big for him.

If you gave credible reasons and said everything in context - then you wouldn't be so abused.

Duran with the attitude to training of Hagler could possibly been the greatest fighter of all time, he just didnt have it in him to be dedicated and lost some big fights because of it. When he was at his best as Leonard found out in the first fight he was a fighting machine with no equal, unfortunately he wasn't properly prepared for the rematch and suddenly Leonard looks incredible against an ill prepared Duran. The truth in my opinion is Leonard outsmarted and won the rematch with Duran outside the ring by offering him a huge purse for him to take a rematch 90 days after the contract was signed knowing full well of his poor physical condition and that his greed would overide his basic common sense.
The same could be said for Hagler fight he came into the ring in great condition and although well overmatched in strength and size almost produced an upset, but then lets himself down when didnt bother to train for Hearns and gets blown away like a journeyman.
Duran was a great, great fighter but his love for the high life and his refusal to ever turn down a good purse no matter what shape he was in has done damage to his place in history.

ShahenshahG wrote:

If you gave credible reasons and said everything in context - then you wouldn't be so abused.

Get him on the subject of Dempsey, makes this look like the work of Hank Kaplan.

hogey wrote:Duran with the attitude to training of Hagler could possibly been the greatest fighter of all time, he just didnt have it in him to be dedicated and lost some big fights because of it. When he was at his best as Leonard found out in the first fight he was a fighting machine with no equal, unfortunately he wasn't properly prepared for the rematch and suddenly Leonard looks incredible against an ill prepared Duran. The truth in my opinion is Leonard outsmarted and won the rematch with Duran outside the ring by offering him a huge purse for him to take a rematch 90 days after the contract was signed knowing full well of his poor physical condition at that his greed would overide his basic common sense.
The same could be said for Hagler fight he came into the ring in great condition and although well overmatched in strength and size almost produced an upset, but then lets himself down when didnt bother to train for Hearns and gets blown away like a journeyman.
Duran was a great, great fighter but his love for the high life and his refusal to ever turn down a good purse no matter what shape he was in has done damage to his place in history.

I'm not sure it has - he is top 5 and at the very least top 10 of anyone with a half decent knowledge of boxing. Had he won those fights he would be in my mind the greatest of all time, yet still i'd imagine the consensus would put Robinson etc in front of him. The fact that he made 3-4 even after those losses points out how great he was. Bit of a win win situation for fighters going so high up a weight - and a handicap for heavies.

Waingro wrote:I think people are being harsh on Ali imo he is the best boxer of all time. Frazier was good don't get me wrong but he was not in Alis class lets not forget Frazier got absolutely destroyed by Foreman who Ali knocked out. I think Frazier needs to accept Ali was just a better boxer.

I suggest you look at Smokin Joe's career,beat the teak tough Oscar Bonevena,stopped George Chuvalo (takes some doing) beat Ali and gave him arguably the hardest fights of his boxing career , Smokin Joe might have been knocked out by Foreman but he was still a great fighter.I thought slating Frazier was bad enough but then you call Duran overrated,one of the best Lightweights in history,a man who fought everyone there is to fight at the higher weights , 3 weight world champion,and beaten on points against one of the best middleweights ever been going for the 4th weight, your of course entitled to your opinion.
My opinion is that your opinion is total rubbish, I suggest you follow another sport or start educating yourself on the history of boxing because at this moment your looking a bit silly.

ShahenshahG wrote:

hogey wrote:Duran with the attitude to training of Hagler could possibly been the greatest fighter of all time, he just didnt have it in him to be dedicated and lost some big fights because of it. When he was at his best as Leonard found out in the first fight he was a fighting machine with no equal, unfortunately he wasn't properly prepared for the rematch and suddenly Leonard looks incredible against an ill prepared Duran. The truth in my opinion is Leonard outsmarted and won the rematch with Duran outside the ring by offering him a huge purse for him to take a rematch 90 days after the contract was signed knowing full well of his poor physical condition at that his greed would overide his basic common sense.
The same could be said for Hagler fight he came into the ring in great condition and although well overmatched in strength and size almost produced an upset, but then lets himself down when didnt bother to train for Hearns and gets blown away like a journeyman.
Duran was a great, great fighter but his love for the high life and his refusal to ever turn down a good purse no matter what shape he was in has done damage to his place in history.

I'm not sure it has - he is top 5 and at the very least top 10 of anyone with a half decent knowledge of boxing. Had he won those fights he would be in my mind the greatest of all time, yet still i'd imagine the consensus would put Robinson etc in front of him. The fact that he made 3-4 even after those losses points out how great he was. Bit of a win win situation for fighters going so high up a weight - and a handicap for heavies.

I agree with what your saying, but it clearly damaged his place in history when so many of us who think he was an all time great fighter have to make excuses for his failure when found wanting due to his own lack of dedication. For what its worth i think at his peak he was the best pound for pound fighter since Robinson and the fact when he is compared to Hagler, Leonard and Hearns who were great fighters and bigger men too many forget he was only a natural lightweight.

Never denied Duran was great...

Just take issue with the guys who use Barkley, Moore and the Hagler fights as a staple to his alltime top 10 status..

and then write of the Hearns defeat...who weighed the same as two of them and lesss than the third off..

Because he was too big!!!!!

Do me a favor..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Never denied Duran was great...

Just take issue with the guys who use Barkley, Moore and the Hagler fights as a staple to his alltime top 10 status..

and then write of the Hearns defeat...who weighed the same as two of them and lesss than the third off..

Because he was too big!!!!!

Do me a favor..

Spot on people on here are very sensitive about Duran, yes he was great but people have him in there top tens of all time this is much too high imo thats why I think he is overrated, top ten is far too high for someone who lost most of there big fights and lets not forget he quit against Leonard which was shameful. Dont get me wrong, he was good but he should not be top 10 imo.

Waingro wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Never denied Duran was great...

Just take issue with the guys who use Barkley, Moore and the Hagler fights as a staple to his alltime top 10 status..

and then write of the Hearns defeat...who weighed the same as two of them and lesss than the third off..

Because he was too big!!!!!

Do me a favor..

Spot on people on here are very sensitive about Duran, yes he was great but people have him in there top tens of all time this is much too high imo thats why I think he is overrated, top ten is far too high for someone who lost most of there big fights and lets not forget he quit against Leonard which was shameful. Dont get me wrong, he was good but he should not be top 10 imo.

According to you Oscar De La Hoya, who only had two fights at middleweight, is a top ten middle from the last fifty years, with Monzon nowhere to be seen.

How many of his big fights did Oscar lose?

HumanWindmill wrote:

Waingro wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Never denied Duran was great...

Just take issue with the guys who use Barkley, Moore and the Hagler fights as a staple to his alltime top 10 status..

and then write of the Hearns defeat...who weighed the same as two of them and lesss than the third off..

Because he was too big!!!!!

Do me a favor..

Spot on people on here are very sensitive about Duran, yes he was great but people have him in there top tens of all time this is much too high imo thats why I think he is overrated, top ten is far too high for someone who lost most of there big fights and lets not forget he quit against Leonard which was shameful. Dont get me wrong, he was good but he should not be top 10 imo.

According to you Oscar De La Hoya, who only had two fights at middleweight, is a top ten middle from the last fifty years, with Monzon nowhere to be seen.

How many of his big fights did Oscar lose?

De la Hoya was quality but he would not be top ten of all time imo

Six of them?

Duran made his name at light where he rightly is viewed as a top 4 light of alltime if not higher...

My guess is the top 10 of alltime rating is mainly down to catching Leonard on a night where he stupidly felt too macho...and wanted to cream the vulgar brute...I think a lot of his high standing in the alltime stakes is due to Leonard 1...A fight I thought he lost narrowly lost but fairplay..
great win and all...

As I say a great fighter but not top 10....For me no top 10 alltime great who goes on to achieve gets humiliated and made to look hopeless like he did....Excuses aside for that fight he never pursued Hearns again!!!

Add to that no mas...........

Won't go as far as my alias in rubbishing Duran's alltime status but not top 10 for me...

Waingro wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Waingro wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Never denied Duran was great...

Just take issue with the guys who use Barkley, Moore and the Hagler fights as a staple to his alltime top 10 status..

and then write of the Hearns defeat...who weighed the same as two of them and lesss than the third off..

Because he was too big!!!!!

Do me a favor..

Spot on people on here are very sensitive about Duran, yes he was great but people have him in there top tens of all time this is much too high imo thats why I think he is overrated, top ten is far too high for someone who lost most of there big fights and lets not forget he quit against Leonard which was shameful. Dont get me wrong, he was good but he should not be top 10 imo.

According to you Oscar De La Hoya, who only had two fights at middleweight, is a top ten middle from the last fifty years, with Monzon nowhere to be seen.

How many of his big fights did Oscar lose?

De la Hoya was quality but he would not be top ten of all time imo

Perhaps not, but despite having had only two fights at middle - one of which he lost - he makes your top ten middles, whereas Monzon doesn't.

How does that work?