Heavyweight Rankings

[Dubblechin]

And NOW we see the agenda. Apparently you've never heard of Esteban DeJesus who is considered an ATG Lightweight.




Because no one (except YOU and assorted NSB ignoramuses with an agenda) hold fights that occurred when a fighter was washed-up against the fighter.

Poet

I don't have an "agenda" ... I just asked question. And I know who the hell Esteban DeJesus is. I watched their third fight live. Did you? Were you even born then?

But I certainly don't consider Esteban DeJesus MILES ahead of Marco Antonio Barrera, or Erik Morales or other great fighters Pacquiao has beaten. Hell, I think Morales and Barrera were better than DeJesus.

And you named ONE guy. Who were ALL the great Lightweights he beat that leave Pacquaio's biggest wins in the dust?

A lot of fighters are AWESOME for a period of time. Duran was one of them. The problem was the VAST MAJORITY of his career he WASN'T. And if a guy was mediocre to terrible for 2/3 of his career, I have a hard time rating him near the top of every fighter who ever fought ALL-TIME. That certainly doesn't make me ignorant. It makes me clear-headed and unbiased.

[IronDanHamza]

I'm just curious to hear your answer. Who did Roberto Duran beat (in your mind) to justify ranking him so high all-time?

Because I remember when Duran was a lightweight (and I don't get the impression some of you guys do). I watched him on television defending his lightweight title. I also remember the incredible hype surrounding him when he moved up to welterweight and beat Palomino and Leonard (which, to me, were bigger than ANY wins he had at lightweight). My dad led the charge. He loved Duran.

But I also remember watching in disgust when Duran quit after getting punched in the armpit against Pat Lawlor on the Tyson-Ruddock undercard.

So could you do me a favor and name all the great lightweights Duran beat that render his victories so far superior to Manny Pacquiao's wins over Marco Antonio Barrera, Erik Morales, Miguel Cotto, Juan Manuel Marquez, etc.?

Because for the life of me I don't get this bull about Pacquiao being 60 spots below Virgil Hill garbage.
Play a video of Pacquiao's WORST moment in the ring, and play a video of Duran quitting against Pat Lawlor, and I can tell which is FAR more pathetic in my mind. Not to mention the No Mas fight, or the UNO MAS fight, which I paid to see and sat their cursing Duran all night for clearly just showing up to collect a paycheck.

I have no idea where Pacquiao will finish up all-time, because his career is not over yet, and I don't think he's beaten anyone as good as the Leonard that Duran beat, but Pacquiao has NEVER looked as bad as Duran did against Lawlor or in the second and third Leonard fights. And, in my mind, you have to consider ALL of it. The same human being who beat a lot of, frankly, nobody-that-great at Lightweight was the same person who quit against Leonard (twice) and quit against Lawlor and stunk out the joint plenty later on.

How anyone can look at Duran's entire career and rate him near the top spot is beyond me ... and I watched the guy fight for the better part of three decades. The only way you can do it is if you have selective amnesia ... and if you're going to do that for Duran and other old-timers, you should selectively forget the worst moments of someone like PAcquiao's career. Otherwise, you aren't judging them fairly.

If Duran had quit after beating Leonard with a record of 72-1, he'd have had solid claim. But you can't simply ignore all the terrible performances that followed over the next 20 YEARS! For 2/3 of his career, he looked like crap most of the time.

From 1942-1946, Jimmy Bivins might have been the best fighter on the planet. But that was only a fraction of his overall career, so you don't see him at the top of a lot of lists. I view Duran similarly.

Who said that?

Who would dare say something so blasphemous?!

He is only 2 or 3 spots lower..

But Pernell Whitaker on the other hand? He's atleast 60 places lower.

But that's common knowledge, obviously.

[StarshipTrooper]

I don't have an "agenda" ... I just asked question. And I know who the hell Esteban DeJesus is. I watched their third fight live. Did you? Were you even born then?

I've been watching boxing since 1973 so you can secure that **** right now Junior.

But I certainly don't consider Esteban DeJesus MILES ahead of Marco Antonio Barrera, or Erik Morales or other great fighters Pacquiao has beaten.

Yeah? You also think what a washed-up Duran did against Lawler is relevant to Duran's all-time standing which destoys any pretense of credibility you might have thought that you had.

Hell, I think Morales and Barrera were better than DeJesus.

And THERE'S your first problem: You should leave the thinking to those who are qualified.....it's an activity you clearly can't handle.

Poet

[joseph5620]

I'm just curious to hear your answer. Who did Roberto Duran beat (in your mind) to justify ranking him so high all-time?

Because I remember when Duran was a lightweight (and I don't get the impression some of you guys do). I watched him on television defending his lightweight title. I also remember the incredible hype surrounding him when he moved up to welterweight and beat Palomino and Leonard (which, to me, were bigger than ANY wins he had at lightweight). My dad led the charge. He loved Duran.

But I also remember watching in disgust when Duran quit after getting punched in the armpit against Pat Lawlor on the Tyson-Ruddock undercard.

So could you do me a favor and name all the great lightweights Duran beat that render his victories so far superior to Manny Pacquiao's wins over Marco Antonio Barrera, Erik Morales, Miguel Cotto, Juan Manuel Marquez, etc.?

Because for the life of me I don't get this bull about Pacquiao being 60 spots below Virgil Hill garbage.

Play a video of Pacquiao's WORST moment in the ring, and play a video of Duran quitting against Pat Lawlor, and I can tell which is FAR more pathetic in my mind. Not to mention the No Mas fight, or the UNO MAS fight, which I paid to see and sat their cursing Duran all night for clearly just showing up to collect a paycheck.

I have no idea where Pacquiao will finish up all-time, because his career is not over yet, and I don't think he's beaten anyone as good as the Leonard that Duran beat, but Pacquiao has NEVER looked as bad as Duran did against Lawlor or in the second and third Leonard fights. And, in my mind, you have to consider ALL of it. The same human being who beat a lot of, frankly, nobody-that-great at Lightweight was the same person who quit against Leonard (twice) and quit against Lawlor and stunk out the joint plenty later on.

How anyone can look at Duran's entire career and rate him near the top spot is beyond me ... and I watched the guy fight for the better part of three decades. The only way you can do it is if you have selective amnesia ... and if you're going to do that for Duran and other old-timers, you should selectively forget the worst moments of someone like PAcquiao's career. Otherwise, you aren't judging them fairly.

If Duran had quit after beating Leonard with a record of 72-1, he'd have had solid claim. But you can't simply ignore all the terrible performances that followed over the next 20 YEARS! For 2/3 of his career, he looked like crap most of the time.

From 1942-1946, Jimmy Bivins might have been the best fighter on the planet. But that was only a fraction of his overall career, so you don't see him at the top of a lot of lists. I view Duran similarly.

Duran beat a prime Sugar Ray Leonard who was better than Cotto, Morales, Juan Manuel Marquez, and Barrera. Paquiao also lost to Morales who was past his prime in the first fight and well past his prime in the rematches(coming off a loss too). And no, Pacquaio was not a "child" in 2005. I'll also add that when Duran moved up he wasn't asking for silly weight catches or winning titles from fighters like Margarito who doesn't have one significant win at 154. And Duran was fighting killers like Hagler and Hearns with no weight clauses. Nobody on Pacquaio's resume compares to that. 37 year old Duran beating Iran Barkley (coming off a KO of Hearns)moving to 160 is far more impressive than Pacquaio fighting a past it Margarito(coming off brutal KO loss,inactivity) at a 150 pound catchweight for a bogus title. Even Duran beating Davey Moore at 154 was was a better win than that.



Lightweights? Duran also became undisputed lightweight champion by beating an ATG in Dejesus. That's a lot more impressive than beating David Diaz. Paquiao hasn't been undisputed in any of his weight classes. Since you want to use Pacquaio's youth as an excuse, when Duran was only 19 he stopped Ernesto Marcel who went on to became a successful champion. Pacquiao is a great fighter and always will be. He still has time to do more. But if you try to compare him to Duran you're going to lose.



*The Pacquiao "below Virgil Hill" is a running joke because SCtrojans ridiculously believes Virgil Hill ranks higher than Pernell Whitaker on an all time list.

[Dubblechin]

Poet, you are the only person with an agenda here.

Clearly. Duran was among the best fighters in boxing for eight years. From 1972 when he beat Buchanan to 1980 when he beat Leonard. Then he quit against Leonard because he either didn't want to get embarrassed or had to go poop,whichever you prefer to believe. And from then on, he was just ordinary and often terrible.

This run Manny Pacquiao has been on -- starting with Barrera in 2003 -- has now gone on for eight years (the same length of time Duran was on top).

If Manny Pacquiao QUITS Saturday night because he has to go to the bathroom, and then he fights Mayweather and quits in the sixth when he gets punched in the armpit, and he gets knocked out in two rounds by -- take your pick -- are you telling me you are going to IGNORE THOSE LOSSES like you're doing with Duran?

Of course not, because you have an agenda. But every big win counts, just like every bad loss counts. The whole career counts.

"Historians" (if that's what you think you are) don't get to pick and choose which part of history they want to remember and which part they want to forget. By definition, it's ALL HISTORY.

If you don't agree, you're just a FANBOY, like the others.

Getting back to the point of this thread, most guys have Frazier ranked in the top 10 all-time at heavyweight. But if he'd continued fighting, and racked up 10 or more losses to guys like Young, and Lyle and LeDoux and every other schmoe, like Holyfield did, his ranking wouldn't be where it is now. Because, at some point, the bad losses can't be ignored.

When too many bad losses and bad performances start adding up, the bad losses start to outweigh the big wins.

And, in Duran's case, 10 years of greatness tend to get drug down by 20 years of mostly crap. That holds true for him and everyone else.

Just ask Roy Jones, who, after he beat Ruiz, was considered one of the very best ever. Now, after losses to Tarver, and Johnson, and Hopkins and Green and Lebedev and who knows who else coming up ... NOT SO MUCH. Because the bad performances are adding up.

[StarshipTrooper]

Poet, you are the only person with an agenda here.

Clearly. Duran was among the best fighters in boxing for eight years. From 1972 when he beat Buchanan to 1980 when he beat Leonard. Then he quit against Leonard because he either didn't want to get embarrassed or had to go poop,whichever you prefer to believe. And from then on, he was just ordinary and often terrible.

This run Manny Pacquiao has been on -- starting with Barrera in 2003 -- has now gone on for eight years (the same length of time Duran was on top).

If Manny Pacquiao QUITS Saturday night because he has to go to the bathroom, and then he fights Mayweather and quits in the sixth when he gets punched in the armpit, and he gets knocked out in two rounds by -- take your pick -- are you telling me you are going to IGNORE THOSE LOSSES like you're doing with Duran?

Of course not, because you have an agenda. But every big win counts, just like every bad loss counts. The whole career counts.

"Historians" (if that's what you think you are) don't get to pick and choose which part of history they want to remember and which part they want to forget. By definition, it's ALL HISTORY.

If you don't agree, you're just a FANBOY, like the others.

Getting back to the point of this thread, most guys have Frazier ranked in the top 10 all-time at heavyweight. But if he'd continued fighting, and racked up 10 or more losses to guys like Young, and Lyle and LeDoux and every other schmoe, like Holyfield did, his ranking wouldn't be where it is now. Because, at some point, the bad losses can't be ignored.

When too many bad losses and bad performances start adding up, the bad losses start to outweigh the big wins.

And, in Duran's case, 10 years of greatness tend to get drug down by 20 years of mostly crap. That holds true for him and everyone else.

Just ask Roy Jones, who, after he beat Ruiz, was considered one of the very best ever. Now, after losses to Tarver, and Johnson, and Hopkins and Green and Lebedev and who knows who else coming up ... NOT SO MUCH. Because the bad performances are adding up.

Translation: Boxing Historians are wrong and YOU, Fan Boi with the DubbleChin, know better than they. GTFOH Junior, you aren't even qualified to form conclusions about what color trunks a fighter's wearing let alone form them about anything significant.

Poet

[Dubblechin]

[QUOTE=joseph5620;11398547][U]

Duran beat a prime Sugar Ray Leonard who was better than Cotto, Morales, Juan Manuel Marquez, and Barrera. Paquiao also lost to Morales who was past his prime in the first fight and well past his prime in the rematches(coming off a loss too). And no, Pacquaio was not a "child" in 2005. I'll also add that when Duran moved up he wasn't asking for silly weight catches or winning titles from fighters like Margarito who doesn't have one significant win at 154. And Duran was fighting killers like Hagler and Hearns with no weight clauses. Nobody on Pacquaio's resume compares to that. 37 year old Duran beating Iran Barkley (coming off a KO of Hearns)moving to 160 is far more impressive than Pacquaio fighting a past it Margarito(coming off brutal KO loss,inactivity) at a 150 pound catchweight for a bogus title. Even Duran beating Davey Moore at 154 was was a better win than that. Lightweights? Duran also became undisputed lightweight champion by beating an ATG in Dejesus. That's a lot more impressive than beating David Diaz. Paquiao hasn't been undisputed in any of his weight classes. Since you want to use Pacquaio's youth as an excuse, when Duran was only 19 he stopped Ernesto Marcel who went on to became a successful champion. Pacquiao is a great fighter and always will be. He still has time to do more. But if you try to compare him to Duran you're going to lose.

I said Pacquiao hasn't beaten anyone as good as Leonard a few posts ago.

Duran didn't beat anyone at lightweight better than Morales, Barrera, Marquez, Cotto, etc. Dejesus wasn't miles better than any of those guys. Neither was Marcel.

Their "big wins" are comparable, with the exception of Duran's win over Leonard.

But Pacquiao also doesn't have 20 years of terrible performances and losses, either. And you can't simply IGNORE those terrible performance that went on FOR DECADES.

For as incredible as Duran's win over Leonard was, his performances in fights 2 and 3 were huge public embarrassments. I was one of those people who cut Duran slack all through the eighties for his piss-poor showings, because of the great performances he had earlier. But when he came in fat and out of shape against a nobody like Pat Lawlor and QUIT when he got punched inthe armpit (no injury, it just hurt and he quit) ... THAT WAS IT FOR ME.

The best fighter EVER NEVER does that. He NEVER quits because he has to poop. Enough.

If Pacquiao wins Saturday and retires, he's rated above Duran in my opinion, because Duran's losses and poor showings drop him way down in my book.

But Pacquaio seems like he's going to hang on until he's old and lose alot later ... like Duran did ... and I will hold whatever poor showings he has down the road against him, too, just like I do others.

You have to judge them all equally by their entire careers.

[joseph5620]

Poet, you are the only person with an agenda here.

Clearly. Duran was among the best fighters in boxing for eight years. From 1972 when he beat Buchanan to 1980 when he beat Leonard. Then he quit against Leonard because he either didn't want to get embarrassed or had to go poop,whichever you prefer to believe. And from then on, he was just ordinary and often terrible.

This run Manny Pacquiao has been on -- starting with Barrera in 2003 -- has now gone on for eight years (the same length of time Duran was on top).

If Manny Pacquiao QUITS Saturday night because he has to go to the bathroom, and then he fights Mayweather and quits in the sixth when he gets punched in the armpit, and he gets knocked out in two rounds by -- take your pick -- are you telling me you are going to IGNORE THOSE LOSSES like you're doing with Duran?

Of course not, because you have an agenda. But every big win counts, just like every bad loss counts. The whole career counts.

"Historians" (if that's what you think you are) don't get to pick and choose which part of history they want to remember and which part they want to forget. By definition, it's ALL HISTORY.

If you don't agree, you're just a FANBOY, like the others.

Getting back to the point of this thread, most guys have Frazier ranked in the top 10 all-time at heavyweight. But if he'd continued fighting, and racked up 10 or more losses to guys like Young, and Lyle and LeDoux and every other schmoe, like Holyfield did, his ranking wouldn't be where it is now. Because, at some point, the bad losses can't be ignored.

When too many bad losses and bad performances start adding up, the bad losses start to outweigh the big wins.

And, in Duran's case, 10 years of greatness tend to get drug down by 20 years of mostly crap. That holds true for him and everyone else.

Just ask Roy Jones, who, after he beat Ruiz, was considered one of the very best ever. Now, after losses to Tarver, and Johnson, and Hopkins and Green and Lebedev and who knows who else coming up ... NOT SO MUCH. Because the bad performances are adding up.

A lot of people don't ignore those type of losses which is why many feel that fighters like Jones Jr or Holyfield are tarnishing their legacies. I don't deny that. And in a way it does because of the perception from a lot of fans even though I personally don't see it that way. That's why you have admire fighters like Marciano, Ricardo Lopez, or Lennox Lewis who were smart enough to step away at the right time. Hagler knew when to retire too. But it doesn't change the fact that Holyfield and other past it fighters didn't suffer from embarrassing losses until they got old.


And I've seen plenty of people dumb enough to believe that Jones was still at or near his best when he lost to Calzaghe. Mainly because they really didn't follow Jones when he was at his best.

[joseph5620]

[QUOTE=Dubblechin;11398620]

[U]

Duran beat a prime Sugar Ray Leonard who was better than Cotto, Morales, Juan Manuel Marquez, and Barrera. Paquiao also lost to Morales who was past his prime in the first fight and well past his prime in the rematches(coming off a loss too). And no, Pacquaio was not a "child" in 2005. I'll also add that when Duran moved up he wasn't asking for silly weight catches or winning titles from fighters like Margarito who doesn't have one significant win at 154. And Duran was fighting killers like Hagler and Hearns with no weight clauses. Nobody on Pacquaio's resume compares to that. 37 year old Duran beating Iran Barkley (coming off a KO of Hearns)moving to 160 is far more impressive than Pacquaio fighting a past it Margarito(coming off brutal KO loss,inactivity) at a 150 pound catchweight for a bogus title. Even Duran beating Davey Moore at 154 was was a better win than that. Lightweights? Duran also became undisputed lightweight champion by beating an ATG in Dejesus. That's a lot more impressive than beating David Diaz. Paquiao hasn't been undisputed in any of his weight classes. Since you want to use Pacquaio's youth as an excuse, when Duran was only 19 he stopped Ernesto Marcel who went on to became a successful champion. Pacquiao is a great fighter and always will be. He still has time to do more. But if you try to compare him to Duran you're going to lose.

I said Pacquiao hasn't beaten anyone as good as Leonard a few posts ago.

Duran didn't beat anyone at lightweight better than Morales, Barrera, Marquez, Cotto, etc. Dejesus wasn't miles better than any of those guys. Neither was Marcel.

Their "big wins" are comparable, with the exception of Duran's win over Leonard.

But Pacquiao also doesn't have 20 years of terrible performances and losses, either. And you can't simply IGNORE those terrible performance that went on FOR DECADES.

For as incredible as Duran's win over Leonard was, his performances in fights 2 and 3 were huge public embarrassments. I was one of those people who cut Duran slack all through the eighties for his piss-poor showings, because of the great performances he had earlier. But when he came in fat and out of shape against a nobody like Pat Lawlor and QUIT when he got punched inthe armpit (no injury, it just hurt and he quit) ... THAT WAS IT FOR ME.

The best fighter EVER NEVER does that. He NEVER quits because he has to poop. Enough.

If Pacquiao wins Saturday and retires, he's rated above Duran in my opinion, because Duran's losses and poor showings drop him way down in my book.

But Pacquaio seems like he's going to hang on until he's old and lose alot later ... like Duran did ... and I will hold whatever poor showings he has down the road against him, too, just like I do others.

You have to judge them all equally by their entire careers.

If you're going to use that criteria then why would you not use it for Pacquiao's embarrassing knockout losses? You can't have it both ways.

[Dubblechin]

Translation: Boxing Historians are wrong and YOU, Fan Boi with the DubbleChin, know better than they. GTFOH Junior, you aren't even qualified to form conclusions about what color trunks a fighter's wearing let alone form them about anything significant.

Poet

Boxing historians aren't wrong, you are. Historians opinions change based on a fighter's losses. That's what I'm saying.You disagree. But I defy you to show me another Ring P4P list that has Duran rated #1 or #2 after that 1980 poll ... because after he started to suck, he dropped.

And I bet you $10,000 the next time Ring comes out with all-time heavyweight list, freaking Evander Holyfield isn't going to be rated #3, like he was after he beat Tyson. Because he's lost like 10 times since then, and he'll drop down.

And he'll drop because HISTORIANS COUNT LOSSES, too, because those are part of a fighter's OVERALL CAREER HISTORY.

They don't ignore losses, they weigh how much the losses take away from a fighter's wins. They don't pretend the losses didn't happen.

I don't know where the hell you got that. But you are wrong.