Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Roberto Duran the best lightweight of all time?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    No sour g****s here...

    Originally posted by Sweet Pete View Post
    I think we all know why you wouldn't rate Benitez.
    No need to be coy, Roy. We all (most of us anyway) know Benitez beat Durán. But that's irrelevant. The fact remains that I wouldn't rate an equally succesful defense-oriented (counterpuncher) fighter above a offense-oriented (aggressive) fighter, even if the former beats the latter.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Panamaniac View Post
      No need to be coy, Roy. We all (most of us anyway) know Benitez beat Durán. But that's irrelevant. The fact remains that I wouldn't rate an equally succesful defense-oriented (counterpuncher) fighter above a offense-oriented (aggressive) fighter, even if the former beats the latter.
      You don't rate them as high personally, in terms of favorites? Or you actually rate them lower as boxers in general?

      Comment


        Originally posted by Sweet Pete View Post
        You don't rate them as high personally, in terms of favorites? Or you actually rate them lower as boxers in general?
        Both characterizations (of my position) is accurate. Given the nature of Boxing, the primary objective is to inflict bodily harm on the opponent (offense). Minimizing or preventing one's own bodily harm by the opponent is the secondary objective (defense).

        Fighters whose philosophical approach to boxing is offense-oriented are far more exciting (Dempsey, Tyson, Duran, Pryor), as opposed to fighters who are defense-oriented (Benitez, Whitaker, Byrd, Wright)

        If you match two defensive boxers, you've got a waltz on your hands; if you match an offensive with a defensive fighter, you've got a cat and mouse game; if you match two offensive fighters, you've got yourself a war! (Gatti/Ward, Barrera/Morales,Catillo/Corrales)

        In summation, everything else being equal, I place a higher premium on fighters who take the fight to their opponent. In the final analysis the foregoing is only a reflection of my personal taste.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Panamaniac View Post
          Both characterizations (of my position) is accurate. Given the nature of Boxing, the primary objective is to inflict bodily harm on the opponent (offense). Minimizing or preventing one's own bodily harm by the opponent is the secondary objective (defense).

          Fighters whose philosophical approach to boxing is offense-oriented are far more exciting (Dempsey, Tyson, Duran, Pryor), as opposed to fighters who are defense-oriented (Benitez, Whitaker, Byrd, Wright)

          If you match two defensive boxers, you've got a waltz on your hands; if you match an offensive with a defensive fighter, you've got a cat and mouse game; if you match two offensive fighters, you've got yourself a war! (Gatti/Ward, Barrera/Morales,Catillo/Corrales)

          In summation, everything else being equal, I place a higher premium on fighters who take the fight to their opponent. In the final analysis the foregoing is only a reflection of my personal taste.
          So do you then rate someone like Diego Corrales a greater fighter than someone like Pernell Whitaker, despite the fact that he was nowhere near as effective?

          Comment


            Originally posted by Panamaniac View Post
            if you match two offensive fighters, you've got yourself a war! (Gatti/Ward, Barrera/Morales,Catillo/Corrales)
            Not always...


            Duran vs Hagler


            Wilfred Benitez vs Maurice Hope


            Whitaker vs Nazario
            Last edited by TheGreatA; 03-18-2008, 06:34 PM.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Sweet Pete View Post
              So do you then rate someone like Diego Corrales a greater fighter than someone like Pernell Whitaker, despite the fact that he was nowhere near as effective?
              Not necessarily, as I'm not familiar enough with the records of either fighter to make an immediate judgement. But that aside, it seems like language is getting in the way of communication here. Revisit, if you will, my self-quote below with emphasis on the red print. I use aggressiveness as a tie-breaker, if two fighters are equally talented or succesful in every other aspect, I'd rate the fellow who initiates the hostilities in the ring above the other. I can't make it any clearer than that.

              Originally posted by Panamaniac View Post

              In summation, everything else being equal, I place a higher premium on fighters who take the fight to their opponent. In the final analysis the foregoing is only a reflection of my personal taste.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Panamaniac View Post
                Not necessarily, as I'm not familiar enough with the records of either fighter to make an immediate judgement. But that aside, it seems like language is getting in the way of communication here. Revisit, if you will, my self-quote below with emphasis on the red print. I use aggressiveness as a tie-breaker, if two fighters are equally talented or succesful in every other aspect, I'd rate the fellow who initiates the hostilities in the ring above the other. I can't make it any clearer than that.
                Gotcha. I personally disagree, but I now get your point.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Sweet Pete View Post
                  Gotcha. I personally disagree, but I now get your point.
                  Cool. So we agree to disagree. That's what the forum's all about...

                  Peace.

                  Comment


                    Duran is by far the greatest lightweight ever. His only loss to Esteban De Jesus was avenged twice. As a lightweight he was a perfect wrecking machine.

                    It shows the ability of the man that he was able to go up as high as Middleweight and still compete with the best in that division.

                    Awesome fighter, those who judge him purely against the likes of Benitez, Leonard, Hagler and Hearns should imagine the likes of Juan Diaz fighting the likes of Kelly Pavlik. Pavlik would be arrested for murder whilst Duran was able to compete with those fighters!

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Panamaniac View Post
                      Cool. So we agree to disagree. That's what the forum's all about...

                      Peace.
                      Honestly I think it's not something where either is right or wrong but rather a diasagreement over something that comes down to personal taste. Some people like aggressive fighters some like slick boxers. It doesn't make one better than the other it's just what a particular observer prefers. Personally I don't have a prediliction one way or the other: I've been watching boxing for so long I've come to apprecriate all styles. Well, that's an exaggeration: John Ruiz type clutchers and grabbers I've yet to appreciate

                      Poet

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP