The overrated Roberto Duran

[Method Checker]

Did I say I don't give credit to Ortiz for beating Brown or Ramos? I said I wouldn't give him a huge amount of credit.

I'm putting it in perspective. Let's say that Duran beat an old Ortiz (whom he was scheduled to fight) and say, a declining Kuniaki Shibata at 135 while actually being knocked down and winning controversially? Comparable to Ortiz's fights against Joe Brown and Sugar Ramos. Few would give Duran much credit for such victories.

If Ortiz was the reigning champion, I would give Duran credit for that win. And if Shibata was on a winning streak and a still young 25 years old, I would give Duran credit for that win, as well.

I didn't say they don't matter. I said I acknowledge the criticisms and would never try to make the case that Duran was a great fighter because he beat Hiroshi Kobayashi. It's just a good victory but not a great one.

I view is as a pretty good victory and yet I still think Duran is overrated. How's that for being biased?

You must have a very different definition of "journeyman" than I do because journeymen do not defeat Hiroshi Kobayashi, Rene Arredondo, Bernardo Caraballo, have two close losses to Ernesto Marcel nor are they rated in the top 5 contenders in the division.

I've already stated that I view a journeyman and a top contender as the same thing. If you wanna call him a top contender, fine. I'm sure it'll make you so much happier to know that I used a different word to describe him when I really meant the same thing.

As career-defining as Leonard's shutout loss to Terry Norris, Hearns's KO loss to Iran Barkley, Roy Jones's KO losses to Tarver & Glen Johnson?

Considering Leonard wasn't in his prime against Norris, no. Leonard's career defining (most significant) loss is a close decision loss to Duran.

Hearns' career defining was to either Leonard or Hagler.

Jones' career defining loss never happened. He wasn't in his prime against Tarver or Johnson. If you're asking which is the worst loss of his career, it would be to Tarver.

I just don't see the relevance of the whole thing about Duran being a "bully". He wasn't overly respectful to the opponent who was trying to bash his face in but that doesn't make him a terrible human being or a coward nor does it have any impact on his legacy as a boxer.

Once again, I never said it had an impact on his legacy. Just on his character.

[QUOTE]You seem to like to think of certain fighters as "bullies". However I could come up with as many examples of Ali and Leonard being "bullies" as Duran and Foreman. See Ali-Frazier rivalry or Leonard-Hagler build-up/fight.
Who was the aggressor in the Ali vs Frazier fights? Who attacked who in a studio pre-fight interview?

Regarding Leonard vs Hagler, who was the aggressor? Who cried about the outcome?

Mind games isn't really bullying. Just a manner of trying to psych the opponent out.

If it has no relevance to the discussion, which is about Duran being overrated, then don't bring it up in the first place. You can talk about the aspects of loss but with all the talk about Duran being a "bully", "quitter", "embarrassed" against Leonard you're making it a point.

Are you saying that because I'm talking to you, I'm not allowed to have free speech?

I've already told you that I don't take anything away from the loss. Go ahead and enlighten me on the losses of Leonard. See if I care.

The definition of a journeyman is a fighter who goes from town to town to lose to rising prospects and contenders. Marcano and DeJesus were far from that. They were contenders.

Fair enough. He was called a contender. Does it make you feel better, even though I don't think of him any differently?

Yes, he fought the way he felt he should have fought against Duran. But his gameplan was never to be trapped against the ropes and to take trendemous body punishment which sapped his energy. It was to keep the fight in the middle of the ring which he could not do.

As I said previously, Leonard had fought most of his professional fights in a more flat-footed stance to generate greater punching power and to excite the crowds.

Then that was Leonard's fault. He snapped out of it, in the second fight, and took Duran to school.

Then refrain from making comparisons in the first place.

To me, the Mayweather is the Corrales fight was a much better version of him. Of course, Corrales and Castillo aren't the same. I just think that Mayweather was a lot sharper, had better quickness and had his head in a great state of mind. It was one of his best performances, in his whole career.

And Leonard/DeJesus had superior punching power to Whitaker/Mayweather. Leonard especially was a much more of an offensive threat with his handspeed and power. Can Mayweather or Whitaker discourage Duran from forcing them to fight his fight with their lesser punching ability? Is defense going to win the fight on the judges' eyes (see Whitaker-Chavez robbery)? And if you make the fight for 15 rounds, Mayweather and Whitaker would be in uncharted territory. Make Castillo-Mayweather I a 15 round fight and Castillo would have won decisively.

De Jesus and Leonard basically tried to brawl with Duran. Whitaker and Mayweather wouldn't. They're all about keep their opponents at bay, landing counter punches and using their defense. It would not be similar to Duran's fights against De Jesus or Leonard, at all.

I like how you bring up the robbery part. So what if they're robbed in a fantasy fight? Non biased fans would know who the real winner was.

I'm sure that Whitaker and Mayweather would prepare themselves for a 15 round fight if they knew they were going to be in one.

And I'm bringing up examples in Mayweather's career that may indicate he wouldn't have such an easy time with Duran after all.

Fair enough.

Benitez was slick. But I think Mayweather was slicker. Benitez had good defense, but I think Mayweather's defense is better.

Benitez beat Duran.

Rabbit punching could kill. Headbutting and elbows causes cuts. No one wants to get hit below the belt.

It's just a bit pointless to discredit Duran's victories because he was a rough fighter, unless you're going to discredit all the other fighters who were also equally as dirty or even more so.

In the rarest of rare circumstances do rabbit punches kill someone. That doesn't mean I'm saying it shouldn't be frowned upon. All of the things you mentioned should be.

I just think that lacing the opponent's eyes with your gloves and thus hindering his vision is worse, considering you're in the middle of the fight and you need your vision.

I didn't say anything about Pacquiao facing Hagler at middleweight. I said Duran fighting Hagler at 160 is the equal of Pacquiao fighting Leonard or a 147 lb version of Hagler. Do you think Pacquiao could win? Would he even be competitive? Duran was competitive against Hagler for 15 rounds.

I didn't say anything about Pacquiao facing Hagler at middleweight. I said Duran fighting Hagler at 160 is the equal of Pacquiao fighting Leonard or a 147 lb version of Hagler. Do you think Pacquiao could win? Would he even be competitive? Duran was competitive against Hagler for 15 rounds.

Your response to when I said Pacquiao climbed up more divisions than Duran and beat the champion/titlist at the highest division he won a title at:

Best welterweight of the decade? Surely you can't be talking about Miguel Cotto? I don't even care to begin to describe what Duran would do to Cotto.

Cotto is good no doubt but he is no prime Marvin Hagler.

Also the fact that Pacquiao's own trainer Freddie Roach doesn't think Manny could have beaten Duran is very telling.

I'm not saying he cut weight for his first fight but he was cutting a lot of weight in his last fights at flyweight. He was a natural super bantam at 19 years of age, when Duran fought naturally at 130, and in today's boxing fighters put on 10+ lbs after the weigh-ins so Pacquiao was probably coming in at 130 to his super bantamweight fights. I question whether Pacquiao is all that much smaller than Duran.

You said Duran started at bantamweight and I said Pacquiao started at flyweight. The question wasn't how long they were at that weight. The question was which weight did they start at.

If he was shorter and weighed less than Duran, when they were around the same age, Pacquiao was the smaller man.

My case is that Duran was never a natural 160 lber while Pacquiao seems to have grown into a solid welterweight.

I would say Duran was natural, considering he gained so much weight in between fights. The fact that he might have not took proper care of himself shouldn't be an excuse. Either way, Duran was naturally heavier than Pacquiao.

I have numerous debates going on at this very moment on other forums. It's not a big deal to me to have long debates with people and I don't care if I "win" or "lose". How could I possibly prove you wrong? It's plainly obvious that you're not going to change your mind on this subject but I can atleast bring up some interesting viewpoints that you may or may not agree with. Just take a less of a hostile attitude towards me and other members of this section of the forum.

If you don't care about winning or losing a debate, what's the point in debating? If you don't think you have the skills to win a debate, what's the point in debating?

[F l i c k e r]

What has he done to be considered by many as the greatest lightweight of all-time? Now I can understand him being a top 5 and even top 3 lightweight, but the greatest?

Also, why is considered a top 10 P4P all-time great? It doesn't make sense.

He has losses to the greatest fighters he's ever fought. They include Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Benitez. Yet, somehow, he's rated highly above all of them, by most people.

I can understand that he's got a few good wins at lightweight over the likes of Buchanan, De Jesus and Kobayashi, but the rest are either paper champions or average journeymen.

How he's so highly rated is beyond me.

Now that you mention it, it does seem a bit overrated in the p4p discussion. But for the most part he is rated highly as a lightweight.

He lossed to SRL, Hagler, Hearns, and Benitez as a welterweight. So, I understand where your comming from for the overall p4p discussion. But as a lightweight i think he is rated just fine.

[Suckmedry]

TheGreatA's opening post summed it up for me, anyone who reads that and doesn't realise how good the man was is a ****ing idiot

[GJC]

I think GreatA has pretty much covered all the points all I would add as a quick summary is when rating ATG fighters p4p some weight their lists by the amount of titles won at different weights, some weight their lists on how long a fighter dominated a particular division and others weight their list on how good a fighters resume was.
Duran ticks all three boxes.
Whether you rate him top ten or top 20 if you rate him outside of your top 20 i'd be interested to see how many of the 20 fighters you rank over him tick all 3 boxes.

[Jim Jeffries]

Well when a career lightweight jumps up to WW and beats an undefeated ATG like Leonard. Jumps up to MW and is even/slightly ahead after 12 rounds against a top 2 or 3 ATG MW like Hagler. When he fights over 5 different decades. Wins a world title in fight of the year at age 38, 17 years after he won his first world title. Fights for a world title at age 47. Wins a world title in 4 different weight classes. 11 world title defenses at LW. etc etc etc.

[HaglerSteelChin]

I rated him #21 on my P4P list and i don't think that is being disrespectful considering the sport has over 120 years of modern title fights.


In my list, i have him higher than these guys

22-Tony Canzonieri
23-Manny Pacquiao
24-Julio Cesar Chavez
25-Sandy Saddler
26-Stanley Ketchel
27-Barney Ross
28-Ezzard Charles
29-Marcel Cedan
30-Kid Chocolate

My main issue is when they put duran as top 10 P4P and rate him as the greatest latin fighter of all time. The greatest latin fighter dosen't get outbox by Wilfred Benitez at 154 quite easy. Also Benitez started at 140 and 154 was his third weight class. But i will rate Duran higher mainly due to his LW career.

[Method Checker]

I rated him #21 on my P4P list and i don't think that is being disrespectful considering the sport has over 120 years of modern title fights.

My main issue is when they put duran as top 10 P4P and rate him as the greatest latin fighter of all time. The greatest latin fighter dosen't get outbox by Wilfred Benitez at 154 quite easy. Also Benitez started at 140 and 154 was his third weight class. But i will rate Duran higher mainly due to his LW career.

I agree very much with this.

[TheGreatA]

If Ortiz was the reigning champion, I would give Duran credit for that win. And if Shibata was on a winning streak and a still young 25 years old, I would give Duran credit for that win, as well.

Would you regard them as better wins than a prime Ken Buchanan or a prime Esteban DeJesus though? Both arguably top 20 all-time lightweights at the peak of their abilities. Buchanan also had the better of Ismael Laguna, perhaps Ortiz's best win.

Considering Leonard wasn't in his prime against Norris, no. Leonard's career defining (most significant) loss is a close decision loss to Duran.

Hearns' career defining was to either Leonard or Hagler.

Jones' career defining loss never happened. He wasn't in his prime against Tarver or Johnson. If you're asking which is the worst loss of his career, it would be to Tarver.

You brought up the Hearns loss though. Duran was as old/older than the above while they lost.

The term "career-defining" to me means that something in particular defines the whole career of a boxer. I don't really think of losses as career-defining unless the boxer puts up his best ever performance in losing, for example Rogers Mtagwa vs Juan Manuel Lopez.

Regarding Leonard vs Hagler, who was the aggressor? Who cried about the outcome?

Mind games isn't really bullying. Just a manner of trying to psych the opponent out.

I don't necessarily think of aggressors as "bullies". A bit of an odd term to describe Hagler or Duran. Hagler cried about the outcome much like Leonard probably would have had he been on the losing end of the split decision.

I'd say that what Ali did to Frazier is a better example of bullying than anything else.

Are you saying that because I'm talking to you, I'm not allowed to have free speech?

I've already told you that I don't take anything away from the loss. Go ahead and enlighten me on the losses of Leonard. See if I care.

I'm saying that if it's not of any substance to the discussion then why take shots at Duran's character with terms such as "quitto", saying he was a bully and so on. It does make you appear a bit biased even if you aren't. It's a bit unnecessary.

Fair enough. He was called a contender. Does it make you feel better, even though I don't think of him any differently?

The term "journeyman" holds a negative connotation and isn't usually used to describe contenders unless one wants to insult their abilities. But if it's the term you use to describe a contender then go ahead. But you seemed to use it in an insulting way by saying that "Duran lost to a journeyman, Bahaha", "Kobayashi was coming off a loss to a journeyman". It's not like saying Duran lost to a top contender.

Then that was Leonard's fault. He snapped out of it, in the second fight, and took Duran to school.

It wasn't Leonard's fault. Leonard's plan was never to be pressured against the ropes, take a bad body beating and lose a decision. He couldn't hold off Duran and keep the fight in the middle of the ring the first time. It's as if people think that Leonard willingly went against the ropes. He didn't, that was never the plan.

To me, the Mayweather is the Corrales fight was a much better version of him. Of course, Corrales and Castillo aren't the same. I just think that Mayweather was a lot sharper, had better quickness and had his head in a great state of mind. It was one of his best performances, in his whole career.

And I brought up that Corrales's style was better for Mayweather to fight against, and that there were only a couple of years in between those fights. I don't think there was any significant decline in Mayweather's skills during that time, he was just in there with a different opponent.

De Jesus and Leonard basically tried to brawl with Duran. Whitaker and Mayweather wouldn't. They're all about keep their opponents at bay, landing counter punches and using their defense. It would not be similar to Duran's fights against De Jesus or Leonard, at all.

They didn't exactly try to brawl with Duran, they were forced to brawl with him. It's not like Leonard and DeJesus went against the ropes on their own. Whitaker wasn't afraid to stand and trade, while Mayweather was dragged into a brawl by Castillo. The lesser offensive firepower of Pernell and Floyd is going to bother them.

I like how you bring up the robbery part. So what if they're robbed in a fantasy fight? Non biased fans would know who the real winner was.

I'm being realistic. I'm not saying that Duran is going to win a robbery, but the judges do favour aggressive fighters. Since I imagine both of these fights would be close, the aggression could win it for Duran. It's just something to think about.

I'm sure that Whitaker and Mayweather would prepare themselves for a 15 round fight if they knew they were going to be in one.

Sure they would but they would definitely have the advantage in a 12 round bout. Duran had great stamina at 135 and had several KO's into the last three rounds and always came on strong.

Benitez was slick. But I think Mayweather was slicker. Benitez had good defense, but I think Mayweather's defense is better.

Benitez beat Duran.

Benitez was also 5'10-5'11 at 154 pounds against a 30+ year old Duran. Whitaker had quite a few struggles post-30 years of age at 147 & 154 but I'm talking about a match-up at 135 here.

Also Benitez was great at fighting off the ropes, more so than Mayweather or Whitaker.

In the rarest of rare circumstances do rabbit punches kill someone. That doesn't mean I'm saying it shouldn't be frowned upon. All of the things you mentioned should be.

I just think that lacing the opponent's eyes with your gloves and thus hindering his vision is worse, considering you're in the middle of the fight and you need your vision.

It's debatable if it's worse or not. For me, excessive fouling should be taken into consideration but I do not feel that Duran did anything to warrant a disqualification in that bout. I think it's often exaggerated. The really controversial fights are the likes of Luis Resto vs Billy Collins. I simply can't give credit to the fighter under those circumstances.

Pryor's career-defining win over Alexis Arguello had big controversy about it, especially with recent statements by Luis Resto and Emmanuel Steward. However I still won't take away Pryor's win over Arguello.

Your response to when I said Pacquiao climbed up more divisions than Duran and beat the champion/titlist at the highest division he won a title at:

You said Duran started at bantamweight and I said Pacquiao started at flyweight. The question wasn't how long they were at that weight. The question was which weight did they start at.

If he was shorter and weighed less than Duran, when they were around the same age, Pacquiao was the smaller man.

I meant to compare the greatness of Marvin Hagler to Miguel Cotto. I said that while Pacquiao's recent success is comparable to Duran's in a way, he hasn't exactly fought calibre of fighters that Duran has. One could say that he went up as many divisions and beat the champion while Duran didn't, but is Cotto anywhere near as great as a prime Hagler? Of course not. Would Pacquiao have beaten the equivalent of a prime Marvin Hagler at 147, for example, Ray Leonard? I doubt it seriously.

I would say Duran was natural, considering he gained so much weight in between fights. The fact that he might have not took proper care of himself shouldn't be an excuse. Either way, Duran was naturally heavier than Pacquiao.

He gained a ton of weight but so does Ricky Hatton. He was just fat and a lot of people make excuses for that but I don't. However it's very clear that he was rather out of shape above 147 pounds most of the time and was not at his natural fighting weight by any means.



Pacquiao at 147:

If you don't care about winning or losing a debate, what's the point in debating? If you don't think you have the skills to win a debate, what's the point in debating?

I don't think of debates as winning or losing. I think that's a bit silly. It's not competition. I believe the point is to have a civil, well-mannered discussion about a certain subject which could possibly broaden the views of both parties involved. You can either attempt to learn from such debates or try to understand the others' point of view or just think of the other as an "enemy" who has to be "defeated" in a war of words.

[Method Checker]

Would you regard them as better wins than a prime Ken Buchanan or a prime Esteban DeJesus though? Both arguably top 20 all-time lightweights at the peak of their abilities. Buchanan also had the better of Ismael Laguna, perhaps Ortiz's best win.

I wouldn't regard Shibata as a better win. You brought him up, not me.

I would regard a win over the reigning champion Ortiz better than either Buchanan or De Jesus, yes.

You brought up the Hearns loss though. Duran was as old/older than the above while they lost.

I used that as a bit of a joke. Didn't mean it to be serious..

His career defining loss was when he quit against Leonard. I regard him as still being in his prime, just at a higher weight.

The term "career-defining" to me means that something in particular defines the whole career of a boxer. I don't really think of losses as career-defining unless the boxer puts up his best ever performance in losing, for example Rogers Mtagwa vs Juan Manuel Lopez.

When I say career-defining losses, I'm not talking about his whole career (wins, losses, draws, etc.). I'm talking only talking about his losses. Maybe I shouldn't use the term "career-defining" any longer. I'll just use "the most significant".

I don't necessarily think of aggressors as "bullies". A bit of an odd term to describe Hagler or Duran. Hagler cried about the outcome much like Leonard probably would have had he been on the losing end of the split decision.

I didn't say only the aggressor. Mix aggressiveness and the huge lack of respect (ie. refusing to touch gloves and pushing Leonard after the fight was over), and I call him a bully. If you don't, that's your opinion.

I'd say that what Ali did to Frazier is a better example of bullying than anything else.

I think of them as mind games to try and psych the bully out. But you're entitled to believe what you want.

I'm saying that if it's not of any substance to the discussion then why take shots at Duran's character with terms such as "quitto", saying he was a bully and so on. It does make you appear a bit biased even if you aren't. It's a bit unnecessary.

I don't like Duran. But I don't let that get in the way of a fair judgment. I don't like Calzaghe but I rate him as the greatest super middleweight of all-time.

It wasn't Leonard's fault. Leonard's plan was never to be pressured against the ropes, take a bad body beating and lose a decision. He couldn't hold off Duran and keep the fight in the middle of the ring the first time. It's as if people think that Leonard willingly went against the ropes. He didn't, that was never the plan.

His plan was to go toe to toe with during fight a brawl. That didn't work out and he only has himself to blame. When he chose to use his boxing skills, in the next, he won.

And I brought up that Corrales's style was better for Mayweather to fight against, and that there were only a couple of years in between those fights. I don't think there was any significant decline in Mayweather's skills during that time, he was just in there with a different opponent.

Corrales' style was better for him, but that doesn't mean he lost any of his speed and quickness. I just think that it was one of the greatest performances of his career. Not only one of the greatest wins.

They didn't exactly try to brawl with Duran, they were forced to brawl with him. It's not like Leonard and DeJesus went against the ropes on their own. Whitaker wasn't afraid to stand and trad, while Mayweather was dragged into a brawl by Castillo. The lesser offensive firepower of Pernell and Floyd is going to bother them.

Whitaker and Mayweather would only brawl if they felt they could do it without much consequence. I doubt they would do it very much against Duran.

I'm being realistic. I'm not saying that Duran is going to win a robbery, but the judges do favour aggressive fighters. Since I imagine both of these fights would be close, the aggression could win it for Duran. It's just something to think about.

If Duran won a robbery, would you consider it a legit win? His record might but I wouldn't.

Sure they would but they would definitely have the advantage in a 12 round bout. Duran had great stamina at 135 and had several KO's into the last three rounds and always came on strong.

We'll never know. I can just see Whitaker and Mayweather on their best nights beating Duran on his best night.

Benitez was also 5'10-5'11 at 154 pounds against a 30+ year old Duran. Whitaker had quite a few struggles post-30 years of age at 147 & 154 but I'm talking about a match-up at 135 here.

Also Benitez was great at fighting off the ropes, more so than Mayweather or Whitaker.

They all fought off the ropes in a different manner. It depends how you rate who was 'better'. Mayweather was good at slipping punches with his shoulder roll. Whitaker used his athleticism to avoid punches.

It's debatable if it's worse or not. For me, excessive fouling should be taken into consideration but I do not feel that Duran did anything to warrant a disqualification in that bout. I think it's often exaggerated. The really controversial fights are the likes of Luis Resto vs Billy Collins. I simply can't give credit to the fighter under those circumstances.

No one should give Resto even the smallest amount of credit.

I see raking the eyes with laces worse than a small headbutt, a little rabbit punching and an occasional low blow. They're all bad but I would consider the latter to be the least worst.

Pryor's career-defining win over Alexis Arguello had big controversy about it, especially with recent statements by Luis Resto and Emmanuel Steward. However I still won't take away Pryor's win over Arguello.

All you have to do is look at the second fight. But please, let's not bring this fight into the debate since it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I meant to compare the greatness of Marvin Hagler to Miguel Cotto. I said that while Pacquiao's recent success is comparable to Duran's in a way, he hasn't exactly fought calibre of fighters that Duran has. One could say that he went up as many divisions and beat the champion while Duran didn't, but is Cotto anywhere near as great as a prime Hagler? Of course not. Would Pacquiao have beaten the equivalent of a prime Marvin Hagler at 147, for example, Ray Leonard? I doubt it seriously.

He wouldn't have beat Leonard, but I could see him being competitive. Much like Duran was against Hagler. Which proves my point, in the end. I did name a fighter who was able to do what Duran did.

He gained a ton of weight but so does Ricky Hatton. He was just fat and a lot of people make excuses for that but I don't. However it's very clear that he was rather out of shape above 147 pounds most of the time and was not at his natural fighting weight by any means.

Pacquiao wasn't at his best at 147, as well.

[QUOTES]I don't think of debates as winning or losing. I think that's a bit silly. It's not competition. I believe the point is to have a civil, well-mannered discussion about a certain subject which could possibly broaden the views of both parties involved. You can either attempt to learn from such debates or try to understand the others' point of view or just think of the other as an "enemy" who has to be "defeated" in a war of words.[/QUOTE]
I look at debates as a means of proving a point. Meaning you can either win or lose.

Anyways, I'm signing off for the night. If you make a reply, I'll respond to it, tomorrow. Goodnight.

[TheGreatA]

I wouldn't regard Shibata as a better win. You brought him up, not me.

I would regard a win over the reigning champion Ortiz better than either Buchanan or De Jesus, yes.

Well, I happen to disagree with that. Not to mention that Buchanan beat an older Ortiz. Brown was the reigning champ, although he had lost in non-title bouts and had won controversially against Dave Charnley, but the clear signs of decline were there, much like they were for Ortiz before he fought Buchanan. Brown never went onto be any good afterwards. I don't think it's the same as beating a 29 year old Joe Brown at the peak of his powers.

I brought up Shibata to compare him to Sugar Ramos. Ramos was hall of famer for sure but for what he did at featherweight, not what he accomplished as a lightweight. In fact Ortiz's fights with Sugar Ramos have some legit questions over them since the first fight was very controversial. Ortiz was actually stripped of his WBC title over the controversy. I'd say that if Duran had similarly struggled with a former featherweight then there'd be questions about those fights too.

His career defining loss was when he quit against Leonard. I regard him as still being in his prime, just at a higher weight.

When I say career-defining losses, I'm not talking about his whole career (wins, losses, draws, etc.). I'm talking only talking about his losses. Maybe I shouldn't use the term "career-defining" any longer. I'll just use "the most significant".

I can understand calling it the most significant loss of Duran's career.

I didn't say only the aggressor. Mix aggressiveness and the huge lack of respect (ie. refusing to touch gloves and pushing Leonard after the fight was over), and I call him a bully. If you don't, that's your opinion.

I'd call that an aggressive or ferocious fighter. The term "bully" can come off as negative. Kind of like saying Mayweather, Leonard, Whitaker are "clowns" or something like that.

I don't like Duran. But I don't let that get in the way of a fair judgment. I don't like Calzaghe but I rate him as the greatest super middleweight of all-time.

That's fair. I don't necessarily have a huge amount of respect the likes of Carlos Monzon, Jake LaMotta or even Sugar Ray Robinson for some of the things he did as human beings, but that doesn't take away from their legacy as I'm sure you'll agree.

His plan was to go toe to toe with during fight a brawl. That didn't work out and he only has himself to blame. When he chose to use his boxing skills, in the next, he won.

He wasn't really planning a brawl like it turned out to be. From the very beginning Leonard tried to stay in the middle of the ring and counter Duran's rushes but he wasn't successful in doing so.

Corrales' style was better for him, but that doesn't mean he lost any of his speed and quickness. I just think that it was one of the greatest performances of his career. Not only one of the greatest wins.

It was probably Mayweather's best ever performance, however I'd say he would have still had a lot of trouble with Castillo even in that form.

Whitaker and Mayweather would only brawl if they felt they could do it without much consequence. I doubt they would do it very much against Duran.

I just struggle to come up with too many examples of fighters who were able to completely avoid fighting Duran's fight. Maybe Leonard in the rematch but Leonard was able to use his advantages in height and reach. He was also much more of a mover than either Mayweather or Whitaker. I imagine if Leonard had been Duran's height and fought him at 135, he would have had even more trouble holding off Duran than he did.

If Duran won a robbery, would you consider it a legit win? His record might but I wouldn't.

No but a lot of times fights end up in close decisions that could go either way. See Cotto vs Clottey, people give Cotto credit for beating Clottey but the fight could have very well been scored for Clottey as well.

They all fought off the ropes in a different manner. It depends how you rate who was 'better'. Mayweather was good at slipping punches with his shoulder roll. Whitaker used his athleticism to avoid punches.

I'd say that Benitez was more comfortable at fighting off the ropes than either though. In fact he spent almost the whole fight against Maurice Hope against the ropes and picked him apart, KO'ing him in highlight reel fashion.

I see raking the eyes with laces worse than a small headbutt, a little rabbit punching and an occasional low blow. They're all bad but I would consider the latter to be the least worst.

What if it was not just a small headbutt but one that may have impacted the outcome, such as Hopkins's against Wright which caused a huge cut on Wright's eye, Trinidad low blowing Vargas after being knocked down and hurt, Benn rabbit punching McClellan repeatedly and possibly causing further injury...

Duran seemed to have Moore's number from the beginning so for me it was a legit victory.

All you have to do is look at the second fight. But please, let's not bring this fight into the debate since it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Then again Arguello could have been damaged goods after the beating he suffered in the first fight which could be tainted depending on if you believe Pryor was cheating or not. I brought it as just one example but it doesn't have any further relevance to this topic.

He wouldn't have beat Leonard, but I could see him being competitive. Much like Duran was against Hagler. Which proves my point, in the end. I did name a fighter who was able to do what Duran did.

I wonder just how competitive Pacquiao would be against Ray Leonard though. Could he have survived 15 rounds or if he did, would he lose one-sidedly on the scorecards? I think Mayweather vs Pacquiao will answer a lot of questions about both of their greatness, if such a match-up ever happens.

Pacquiao wasn't at his best at 147, as well.

I'd say he is better off at 147 than Duran was at 160. Pacquiao didn't seem to look any smaller than Cotto while Duran looked like a midget next to Iran Barkley. The size difference was absurd.

I look at debates as a means of proving a point. Meaning you can either win or lose.

A lot of times there's no real proof about either view being right or wrong though. Especially in a discussion about all-time great lists. It's safe to say that everyone has a different one.