Originally posted by JoartCC
To be honest, Duran is the least great of the four greats in his time. He's not the best flyweight also because he had numerous losses which were really bad losses. Losses to Hagler, Hearns, Sugar Ray.
On the other hand, PAC's era is also quite similar to the era of Sugar Ray and company.
Comparing PAC with a poor man's Duran is quite frankly, quite dumb and has really little or no basis to it.
PAC is dominating in a fashion that Duran never did, PAC has not only defeated Mexican all-time greats but also pummels them so bad, that it leaves no doubt as to who the winner is. Duran on the other hand, got beat by all his nemesis.
PAC like Duran posseses KO power, both are sluggers, small in size but makes up for it with a granite chin (although Duran was KO'd by Hearns), and both have similar styles. But that is where Duran's comparison with PAC ends.
PAC has improved and continues to peak where Duran was never able to accomplish. Duran got humiliated from slick boxers like Leonard, he was never able to answer the puzzles of fighters who have quick feet and quick hands. And there was never any controversy to his losses, he got beat because he had no answer to their slick moves. In fact, Duran quit. How can you compare PAC with Duran when he has never quit in any of his fights while Duran quit in frustration whenver his opponents won't face him toe to toe? PAC has found answers to difficult questions. Life long questions of how pure sluggers will be able to beat slick boxers. Throughout history, slick boxers have always been able to dominate sluggers (although sometimes, they achieved it with controversies) thus the saying that "styles make fights". PAC has improved and was able to demolish his enemies in ways Duran was never able to accomplish.
End of part 1
On the other hand, PAC's era is also quite similar to the era of Sugar Ray and company.
Comparing PAC with a poor man's Duran is quite frankly, quite dumb and has really little or no basis to it.
PAC is dominating in a fashion that Duran never did, PAC has not only defeated Mexican all-time greats but also pummels them so bad, that it leaves no doubt as to who the winner is. Duran on the other hand, got beat by all his nemesis.
PAC like Duran posseses KO power, both are sluggers, small in size but makes up for it with a granite chin (although Duran was KO'd by Hearns), and both have similar styles. But that is where Duran's comparison with PAC ends.
PAC has improved and continues to peak where Duran was never able to accomplish. Duran got humiliated from slick boxers like Leonard, he was never able to answer the puzzles of fighters who have quick feet and quick hands. And there was never any controversy to his losses, he got beat because he had no answer to their slick moves. In fact, Duran quit. How can you compare PAC with Duran when he has never quit in any of his fights while Duran quit in frustration whenver his opponents won't face him toe to toe? PAC has found answers to difficult questions. Life long questions of how pure sluggers will be able to beat slick boxers. Throughout history, slick boxers have always been able to dominate sluggers (although sometimes, they achieved it with controversies) thus the saying that "styles make fights". PAC has improved and was able to demolish his enemies in ways Duran was never able to accomplish.
End of part 1
Good post. right on the money!
Comment