Duran

First topic message reminder :

Been watching more videos of his lightweight career.

He would of beat the sh1t out of Floyd and Manny, as if they stole something. Maybe at Welter Floyd might win. However lightweight? No chance in hell.

Definitely my fav all time fighter.

Fair enough but why not fight Pacquiao then in 09-10?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

AdamT wrote:Well he did accuse another fighter and refused to fight him.

Big black hole for me in his career.

I like Paula Radcliffe and Mo Farah.  Recently both have come under scrutiny for possible doping.  If they get caught I’ll become disheartened, until then it’s only possible.  A lot of things in life are merely possible.

Exactly...I often wondered how slobs like Tubbs and Witherspoon..............Could go 15 at a fast pace........When my lungs used to come out of my mouth after 2......

Often wondered how Duran regularly got down from 170 to 135.........

But that's all it is wondering....................If you're not guilty you're not guilty...........

I often wonder how he went from 135 to 170 in a couple of months. Now that's hard work and dedication!

Like me he liked a good steak...........

Truss I have to admit, I envy you and others on here, that got to live through the 80's. Some fantastic fighters then and to see a young Tyson take the world by storm.

Boxing was class back then.

...you wouldn't envy us getting trying to get out of bed on a morning

I couldn't see Pacquiao beating Duran even if he had two or three bites at the cherry, really. Just a bad one for Manny in terms of styles and how their respective strengths / weaknesses match up.

Pacquiao developed good all-round skills as his career progressed to become more of an aggressive boxer-puncher rather than a brawling whirlwind, but he was never and has never been comfortable or a natural fighting on the back foot. His body mechanincs fell apart against Morales in the first fight when Morales made him have to try and box in reverse. Manny struck the balance perfectly against Margarito (in terms of using boxing skill to get in and out without necessarily being in reverse) but as we know, Margarito had little to threaten Pacquiao with by that stage.

At 135, and even including Palomino and Leonard at 147, we know it took disciplined fighters who could keep Duran outside for long periods or frustrated to beat him. I don't think Pacquiao is savvy enough to get the job done like that as he's always primarily traded on his power, hand speed, output and confidence. The likelihood is that he's forced to brawl with Duran and Duran was just too way too cerebral, vicious and tough in this one, for me.

Pacquiao's speed and heart keep him in it but I see Duran chopping him down eventually. I think it's a case of Duran just being able to match and then better Pacquiao in all areas (aside from raw speed), which is beared out by the gap in their respective resumes. Pacquiao outstanding, but a level below Duran.

thing with this if you're not guilty you're not guilty thing is, is it black and white? Never caught means it's ok? Does anyone feel confident that Florence Griffith's Joyner's meteric performance improvements, muscle tone, acne and her voice going from soprano to baritone were from a change of diet and a few more lunges in training?

milkyboy wrote:thing with this if you're not guilty you're not guilty thing is, is it black and white? Never caught means it's ok? Does anyone feel confident that Florence Griffith's Joyner's meteric performance improvements, muscle tone, acne and her voice going from soprano to baritone were from a change of diet and a few more lunges in training?

It's not the not getting caught, Milky. It's making a final judgement when the evidence just isn't enough to hang someone. The IV situation is a little suspicious, but it's not enough for me. Much like Mo's coach making Mo guilty by association or Radcliffe's training data meaning she must have cheated, I need more proof than that and so do the governing bodies or they would prosecute ( I would like to think ).

I personlly don't care if he uses. If he does (not implying on here he is, he hasn't been found guilty) then it was low to accuse Manny and dodge the fight with him, over blood testing.

I honestly now suspect he believes, there was a very real chance Manny would of won, or at the very least put a bit of a beating on him.

milkyboy wrote:thing with this if you're not guilty you're not guilty thing is, is it black and white? Never caught means it's ok? Does anyone feel confident that Florence Griffith's Joyner's meteric performance improvements, muscle tone, acne and her voice going from soprano to baritone were from a change of diet and a few more lunges in training?

You going to mark someone down because you think they are bent........

I'll mark down every top class American, Panamanian, Puerto Rican, Filipino and Mexican from the slums then with nothing to lose......

nah truss, it's not about whether i think someone is... as DH says we don't have any choice but to give the benefit of the doubt without hard evidence to the contrary. Does hard evidence have to mean a failed drug test?

The example I used was of someone who never failed a test, but who's performance change, physical changes, sudden retirement at her peak when they changed the  testing program all adds to good reason to 'mark someone down'.

Maybe sometimes the 'evidence' is overwhelming without a failed drug test. Everyone will have their own barometer of that. Whichever, it was meant as an open question rather than a statement... does never caught always mean we have to give the benefit of the doubt, even if you don't believe there is any doubt?

It is ironic isn't it?

Pacquiao was the one a few years back, who was looked at as a "supposed cheat."

Now his accusser has a dark shadow cast over him.

Anyway who knows what goes on in top level pro sport.s

Dark shadow my a**e.................

He's just retired with hundreds of millions of dollars.......and is regarded as a top alltimer...

Who gives a f**k If someone has an IV in his arm in a sport as sullied and as bent as Boxing....

Sorry to break it to you but Boxing has never had a good reputation..

The fans care.

Been taken in by the Hauser guff I see then Adam, you are far too easily swayed.

AdamT wrote:The fans care.

You know them all do you ??

Not taken by it alone. Why does he announce his fights late?

What proof did he have to think Pac used, other than his great performances?

Nobody can take away his talent, or achievements, but the guy is as crooked as f..k.

milkyboy wrote:nah truss, it's not about whether i think someone is... as DH says we don't have any choice but to give the benefit of the doubt without hard evidence to the contrary. Does hard evidence have to mean a failed drug test?

The example I used was of someone who never failed a test, but who's performance change, physical changes, sudden retirement at her peak when they changed the  testing program all adds to good reason to 'mark someone down'.

Maybe sometimes the 'evidence' is overwhelming without a failed drug test. Everyone will have their own barometer of that. Whichever, it was meant as an open question rather than a statement... does never caught always mean we have to give the benefit of the doubt, even if you don't believe there is any doubt?

I would say that if not caught, then there has to be pretty concrete evidence and a general consensus that someone is cheating ( almost like a social media Jury ) before I’ll jump on the bandwagon, so to speak.

The issue is if you train harder, smarter AND clean, work your way to the top only for people to speculate you’re a cheat because of big improvements this tarnishes your name and is also a major injustice. The IV issue is a little different as Mayweather’s criticism is self-inflicted, even so there was no failed drug test, just an IV which raises speculation around cheating the drug test system. I can understand a little reservation regarding cases like Floyds but there's a reason we have to be careful what we say.

i appreciate it was another mayweather thread that has been highjacked into a doping one. My argument was a generic one and not aimed at floyd in the slightest... there are some unanswered questions on the subject with him, as there are with countless others... and that's all they are - unanswered questions

I willl be careful what I say on this forum, but I have a strong opinion on the subject.