Win you rate higher....Duran over Barkley or Hearns over Hill?

[BENNY BLANCO]

Both got there wins in weight classes they should have probably not even been in and beat two very good fighters.

So which win you rate higher and why, Roberto Duran over Iran Barkley or Tommy Hearns over Virgil Hill?

[mr. magoo]

I voted for Hearns over Hill. Tommy was stepping up in class to beat an undefeated champion in his prime and one who was the best of his division. It's an underrated win that I think most have forgotten about.

[Jorodz]

duran. the performance was incredible, the opponent had demolished hearns himself, it was a tremendous brawl in which he took serious punishment and outthought an opponent who had NUMEROUS physical advantages. one of duran's best victories.

hearns' win is impressive, a terrific boxing exercise but not quite on the same level for me

[mr. magoo]

duran. the performance was incredible, the opponent had demolished hearns himself, it was a tremendous brawl in which he took serious punishment and outthought an opponent who had NUMEROUS physical advantages. one of duran's best victories.

hearns' win is impressive, a terrific boxing exercise but not quite on the same level for me

Good points.

[BENNY BLANCO]

I have to choose Hearns over Hill as the higher rated win. Virgil Hill was better than Barkley and just like the middleweight division is 4 weight classes from 135 where Duran established himself, the light heavyweight division is 4 weight classes from 147 where Hearns started and established himself. So the weight division issue is a moot point so you have to go with which beaten fighter was better and Virgil Hill was obviously better.

[Bummy Davis]

Duran was incredable vs Barkley and Iran was a tough son of a gun...the kd capped a great win....for one of the best 135lbers ever

[mr. magoo]

I have to choose Hearns over Hill as the higher rated win. Virgil Hill was better than Barkley and just like the middleweight division is 4 weight classes from 135 where Duran established himself, the light heavyweight division is 4 weight classes from 147 where Hearns started and established himself. So the weight division issue is a moot point so you have to go with which beaten fighter was better and Virgil Hill was obviously better.

This is basically how I see it to. Only, you added a very good point about how far removed both men were from their original starting weight classes. Moving up to light heavyweight was a gutsy move for an aging veteran who had been previously stopped on three occasions in lighter classes, even if his next opponent wasn't much of a hitter.

[Jorodz]

I have to choose Hearns over Hill as the higher rated win. Virgil Hill was better than Barkley and just like the middleweight division is 4 weight classes from 135 where Duran established himself, the light heavyweight division is 4 weight classes from 147 where Hearns started and established himself. So the weight division issue is a moot point so you have to go with which beaten fighter was better and Virgil Hill was obviously better.

i can definitely see your point. it's close really. for me it's the nature of the wins and the respective points in their careers. Duran was running hot and cold for YEARS and he was not expected to last against a monster middle. hearns had the build to support light heavy and as noted, was not facing a monsterous puncher. essentially it came down to a jabbing contest, which almost ensures a hearns win. duran had to use every tool in his arsenal and display a heart which many doubted. different types of wins which are hard to compare

[Popkins]

duran. the performance was incredible, the opponent had demolished hearns himself, it was a tremendous brawl in which he took serious punishment and outthought an opponent who had NUMEROUS physical advantages. one of duran's best victories.

hearns' win is impressive, a terrific boxing exercise but not quite on the same level for me

Exactly this IMO.

[bodhi]

I voted for Hearns over Hill. Tommy was stepping up in class to beat an undefeated champion in his prime and one who was the best of his division. It's an underrated win that I think most have forgotten about.

I agree. Hill is seriously underated. He lost his bouts with his best opposition (Hearns, DM, Jones) but he has a decent resume, many title defences, bounced back from loss very well, fought the most championship rounds since Griffith. Very good win for Hearns. :good

[bodhi]

duran. the performance was incredible, the opponent had demolished hearns himself, it was a tremendous brawl in which he took serious punishment and outthought an opponent who had NUMEROUS physical advantages. one of duran's best victories.

hearns' win is impressive, a terrific boxing exercise but not quite on the same level for me

All his is right but Hill was a much better lhw than Barkley mw. That should be taken into account.

[bodhi]

This is basically how I see it to. Only, you added a very good point about how far removed both men were from their original starting weight classes. Moving up to light heavyweight was a gutsy move for an aging veteran who had been previously stopped on three occasions in lighter classes, even if his next opponent wasn't much of a hitter.

You are right but do you agree that it's harder to move up from lw to mw than from ww to lhw? Imo it is.

[Arriba]

I'd go with Hearns over Hill (STOPPED WITH A BODYSHOT!) because I rate Hill higher than I do Barkley. The Barkley win was great for Roberto but beating the undefeated Virgil Hill at a level above his optimal weight was big for Hearns.

[Sister Sledge]

I'd go with Hearns over Hill (STOPPED WITH A BODYSHOT!) because I rate Hill higher than I do Barkley. The Barkley win was great for Roberto but beating the undefeated Virgil Hill at a level above his optimal weight was big for Hearns.

Roy Jones stopped Hill with a bodyshot. Hearns decisioned Hill, but it was very impressive, nontheless

[Arriba]

Roy Jones stopped Hill with a bodyshot. Hearns decisioned Hill, but it was very impressive, nontheless

I was making a reference to Ya'll Musta Forgot.

Whenever Virgil Hill is brought up, that lyrics is the first thing that pops into my head :lol:

[Sister Sledge]

Duran-Barkley was a very emotional fight, and a memorable one, so most fans will choose this. Barkley had lead feet, lead hands and was easy to hit, though, so it very hard to rate him more than a glorified Gatekeeper with a big lucky punch. Barkley was the weakest MW champion at that time and, any other MW champion would have beaten Duran.
Hill was a very good fighter who was in his prime and tough to beat. He was very well respected at that time, He never ducked anybody, and was undefeated at that time. Hearns boxed his ears off. I have to go with Hearns because he fought a better fighter, and made him a 5 division champion

[Sister Sledge]

I was making a reference to Ya'll Musta Forgot.

Whenever Virgil Hill is brought up, that lyrics is the first thing that pops into my head :lol:

:lol: I hate that song.

[abraq]

Duran. Had to overcome huge physical disadvantages which was not the case in the other instance.

[Sister Sledge]

this thread is not really fair to Hearns. Even though it's obvious that Hill was a much better fighter ans bigger threat, the Duran fight was an action-packed, emotion filled fight with an overachieving crude slugger. Duran went life-and-death with a bigger guy, so it's obvious he's going to get the votes, even though logic say's Hearns made the bigger accomplishment.

[Jorodz]

Duran-Barkley was a very emotional fight, and a memorable one, so most fans will choose this. Barkley had lead feet, lead hands and was easy to hit, though, so it very hard to rate him more than a glorified Gatekeeper with a big lucky punch. Barkley was the weakest MW champion at that time and, any other MW champion would have beaten Duran.
Hill was a very good fighter who was in his prime and tough to beat. He was very well respected at that time, He never ducked anybody, and was undefeated at that time. Hearns boxed his ears off. I have to go with Hearns because he fought a better fighter, and made him a 5 division champion

very reasonable post:good there's no disputing that hill was the better fighter at the time between he and barkley and the more dangerous, respectable opponent. however, barkley i think was more dangerous to duran than hill was to hearns. but you make a very good argument as to barkley's place in the grand scheme (though he did have some decent wins)

[Mantequilla]

Duran had been fighting a lot longer, had more fights and in general should have been a lot further gone than Hearns.

Barkley is the greater accomplishment imo, and the fights aren't that comparable.


Hill was seen by a lot of people as an unspectacular paper champ choker after the Hearns fight incidentally, if you want to do the limited slugger thing with Barkley.Both of which are true to an extent, but shouldn't take away from either win too much.

[Duodenum]

This thread really isn't fair to Tommy. Even before Hearns dethroned Cuevas, he was being projected as a potential four division champion, capable of eventually winning the light heavyweight title. For him to have surpassed early expectations, he would have needed to go from 147 to heavyweight contention like Walker did, and at least draw for a share of that title like Mickey did with Sharkey. Hill was a terrific win, but did it truly transcend what was originally expected of Tommy?

Barkley defeated Hearns both before and after losing to Duran, and eventually came off the deck to stop and retire Coetzee at HW. Roberto went far beyond what I remember anybody projecting for him while he was the world's greatest lightweight. Nobody was suggesting he might one day stake a claim to Monzon's title, let alone at age 37.

While Hearns was brilliant against Hill, it's also true that Virgil was kind of dismal in losing, even by his own admission, while Hearns was jivin' an' jukin' his way to victory. The Blade was sensational against Duran though, a fact sometimes overlooked. He was better against Roberto than Buchanan or Davey Moore had been. Critics claim that he won in Montreal only because SRL chose to use the wrong tactics, while Hagler was overly cautious and gave him too much respect. I don't recall any such claim being made for Duran-Barkley. Roberto floored and beat a triple crown champion at the top of his game.

[PowerPuncher]

Tough 1, but I think it has to be the Hill win. Hill is the better fighter with something like 20 title fights. Barkley is considered worse but he ofcourse beat the same Hearns twice although he did lose to Maske who Hill beat. Overall Hill has the better skillset with the much deeper resume and quality wins of his own. Barkley outside of the Hearns fights hasnt got any quality wins

After Hearns beat Hill he picked up 2 belts and had many successful defenses, after Barkley lost to Duran, he went on to lose to Nunn and only lasted 1 round with Benn.

Before Hill lost to Hearns he was undefeated, Barkley had lost a wide UD 18months prior to his Duran loss.

I saw 1 poster arguing Hill was made for Hearns, will Barkley was made for Duran too in that he was slow and easy to hit. Hearns may have lost to a LHW banger, but Duran would lose to a MW slick cookie, so it goes both ways

[ricardoparker93]

Hill is the better fighter and Hearns fought a great fight to beat him. However Tommy always had the dimensions to move up all the way to light heavy, although this shouldnt take away from his performance. Duran however was a natural lightweight beating a big middleweight champ at 38!

So although few would argue that Barkley is a better fighter than Hill, Durans victory is better IMO.

[PernellSweetPea]

I voted for Hearns over Hill. Tommy was stepping up in class to beat an undefeated champion in his prime and one who was the best of his division. It's an underrated win that I think most have forgotten about.That is what I think. This was thirty pounds higher than when Thomas Hearns fought Cuevas and against a guy who was undefeated and had 11 title defenses. The only reason Barkley was even champion for Duran was because he beat Hearns. Barkley lost more in those years than won against the top guys and his name recognition is because of a lucky punch against Hearns. Hearns vs. Hill is much much much better but the people on ESB seem to have some bias towards Duran so I think the vote will be 50 to 5 in favor or Duran, but Hearns beating Hill was much better and anyone who is honest will admit this.

[Mantequilla]

Bunch of hacks around here nowadays,

[PernellSweetPea]

this thread is not really fair to Hearns. Even though it's obvious that Hill was a much better fighter ans bigger threat, the Duran fight was an action-packed, emotion filled fight with an overachieving crude slugger. Duran went life-and-death with a bigger guy, so it's obvious he's going to get the votes, even though logic say's Hearns made the bigger accomplishment.Same way I see it. Hearns beating Hill was a huge accomplishment. Hill was champion for 4 years and Hearns had been going up and down in weight and he moved up and took the title by easy 12 round decision. I don't think the two fights compare. Hearns beat a really great undefeated champion.

[TheGreatA]

Barkley fought the fight of his life against Duran while Hill put up a lousy effort.

However I won't take anything away from Hearns's victory but I just don't know how great Hill truly was. He consistently proved himself better than the average contender of the day but failed to beat any of the greats. Atleast Barkley rose to the occasion against Hearns even if people call those wins a fluke. Barkley beat the same Hearns that Hill lost to right afterwards.

[Mantequilla]

Hill blatantly choked against Hearns.

One of the worst chokejobs since Ronnie Harris against Hugo Corro.


The amount of people picking it over Duran Barkley is dismaying.

[MAG1965]

Tommy beating Virgil was the better win. This poll will prove how Duran gets overrated for wins which are not that great. Anyone here knows that the Hearns win over Hill is better and that Hill was a HOF LtHW with near 25 title fights. Barkley lost to Kalambay and Nunn and Benn all in the same time span he lost to Roberto. So this poll actually proves the unfairness and overrating of Duran. Barkley is not a better win. Better fight but not a better win. Hearns outboxed Hill which was not an exciting fighter, but the win was exceptional.

[MAG1965]

Hill blatantly choked against Hearns.

One of the worst chokejobs since Ronnie Harris against Hugo Corro.


The amount of people picking it over Duran Barkley is dismaying.Easy to say a guy choked when fighting Thomas Hearns. Hill couldn't do anything with a guy who jabbed with him. His jab was always effective, and then he fights Hearns and Hearns is outjabbing him. No one has ever outjabbed Hill other than Hearns. No one ever outboxed Benitez but Hearns. Hearns is that great. Hearns beat real ATG's, and Duran beats Moore and Barkley and gets credit. I like Duran, but the way people overrate him is a little ridiculous and then it makes me want to mention some facts which Duran fans will discredit. But the facts you cannot discredit is how many greats he actually did beat. The facts speak for themselves. Duran gets more credit for beating Moore than Hearns for beating ATG Benitez (who beat Duran easily), and then Duran gets more credit for beating Barkley than Hearns does for HOF Hill. See the nonsense and overrating?

[MAG1965]

Barkley fought the fight of his life against Duran while Hill put up a lousy effort.

However I won't take anything away from Hearns's victory but I just don't know how great Hill truly was. He consistently proved himself better than the average contender of the day but failed to beat any of the greats. Atleast Barkley rose to the occasion against Hearns even if people call those wins a fluke. Barkley beat the same Hearns that Hill lost to right afterwards.If Barkley would have beaten more guys who were top rated then you could say he beat Hearns with skills, but he lost too much to most top rated guys for it to have been anything more than a style matchup. And as a matter of fact, Hearns would have stopped Iran Barkley in the 4th round had he not become careless and Barkley would have just been another title defense. Fact is that Barkley was not a great fighter and that is who Duran beat.

[TheGreatA]

If Barkley would have beaten more guys who were top rated then you could say he beat Hearns with skills, but he lost too much to most top rated guys for it to have been anything more than a style matchup. And as a matter of fact, Hearns would have stopped Iran Barkley in the 4th round had he not become careless and Barkley would have just been another title defense. Fact is that Barkley was not a great fighter and that is who Duran beat.

He won world titles in 3 weight classes didn't he? He beat Thomas Hearns twice, Darrin Van Horn, Michael Olajide, James Kinchen, Wilford Scypion and gave Michael Nunn a good fight. Against Duran he clearly fought his best fight.

I'd say Barkley was more than the clubfighter who got lucky that he is made out to be. Hill might have accomplished more but he was always short of being great and he never beat a great fighter. I don't think that beating 20 decent fighters in a row in title defenses proves that you are suddenly great even though you lost to every great fighter you ever fought. It just proves that you have consistently been above average.

But you are correct that it was just a styles thing. If you exchange their opponents, Duran likely loses to Hill while Hearns again loses to Barkley as proven by their second fight. Hill was a good style for Hearns because he was a jabber and didn't push for the knockout. Barkley was much more physical but Duran was adept at dealing with that.

However I don't think there's a comparison when it comes to the size disdvantage Hearns and Duran faced. They may have gone up as many weight classes, although Duran started at bantam, but Duran looked like a midget next to the natural light heavy Iran Barkley while Hearns was eye-to-eye with Hill and had a longer reach.

[MAG1965]

He won world titles in 3 weight classes didn't he? He beat Thomas Hearns twice, Darrin Van Horn, Michael Olajide, James Kinchen, Wilford Scypion and gave Michael Nunn a good fight. Against Duran he clearly fought his best fight.

I'd say Barkley was more than the clubfighter who got lucky that he is made out to be. Hill might have accomplished more but he was always short of being great and he never beat a great fighter. I don't think that beating 20 decent fighters in a row in title defenses proves that you are suddenly great even though you lost to every great fighter you ever fought. It just proves that you have consistently been above average.

But you are correct that it was just a styles thing. If you exchange their opponents, Duran likely loses to Hill while Hearns again loses to Barkley as proven by their second fight. Hill was a good style for Hearns because he was a jabber and didn't push for the knockout. Barkley was much more physical but Duran was adept at dealing with that.

However I don't think there's a comparison when it comes to the size disdvantage Hearns and Duran faced. They may have gone up as many weight classes, although Duran started at bantam, but Duran looked like a midget next to the natural light heavy Iran Barkley while Hearns was eye-to-eye with Hill and had a longer reach.He beat Hearns 2 times, otherwise Barkley would have never become a 3 time champ. Hill never beat an ATG you say, but has Duran?

[Jorodz]

He beat Hearns 2 times, otherwise Barkley would have never become a 3 time champ. Hill never beat an ATG you say, but has Duran?

he beat leonard :D

[MAG1965]

he beat leonard :DRay beat him easily in the rematch. All Ray had to do was stay on his toes and it was an easy fight, which is something Duran fans do not see or do not want to see.

[Jorodz]

Ray beat him easily in the rematch. All Ray had to do was stay on his toes and it was an easy fight, which is something Duran fans do not see or do not want to see.

right or wrong, duran did beat an all time great. course that is possibly the only one....

[BENNY BLANCO]

Ray beat him easily in the rematch. All Ray had to do was stay on his toes and it was an easy fight, which is something Duran fans do not see or do not want to see. You're very consistent when it comes to your Duran bias.:lol:

[TheGreatA]

Ray beat him easily in the rematch. All Ray had to do was stay on his toes and it was an easy fight, which is something Duran fans do not see or do not want to see.

I didn't even talk about all-time greats. Fighters like Buchanan, DeJesus, Marcel, Palomino were all very, very good if not great. Of course the Ray Leonard win doesn't count because it goes against your argument.

What are Virgil Hill's best wins, a split decision over Henry Maske and a KO of Fabrice Tiozzo? Or Bobby Czyz perhaps? Not all that impressive. You are probably not going to see any of these fighters make the hall of fame.


He beat Hearns 2 times, otherwise Barkley would have never become a 3 time champ. Oh yes, Barkley beat an all-time great Thomas Hearns whom Virgil Hill was outboxed by, thus his achievements do not count. I forgot about that.

[MAG1965]

You're very consistent when it comes to your Duran bias.:lol:Thank you. I will take that as a compliment. These are just opinions. I do not mean to upset anyone. My favorite fighter is Thomas Hearns and I don't care who insults him. Just opinions, but I do think my opinions are based more on facts. Duran does not have the wins over ATG fighters, which is why I do not get his overrating especially his win over Barkley. Iran Barkley. A guy who lost to Kalambay and Nunn and Benn and Toney etc etc etc. He was dropped by Olajide in a great fight at the Felt Forum.

[MAG1965]

I didn't even talk about all-time greats. Fighters like Buchanan, DeJesus, Marcel, Palomino were all very, very good if not great. Of course the Ray Leonard win doesn't count because it goes against your argument.

What are Virgil Hill's best wins, a split decision over Henry Maske and a KO of Fabrice Tiozzo? Or Bobby Czyz perhaps? Not all that impressive. You are probably not going to see any of these fighters make the hall of fame.

Oh yes, Barkley beat an all-time great Thomas Hearns whom Virgil Hill was outboxed by, thus his achievements do not count. I forgot about that.Dejesus and Palomino are not ATG fighters. Very good but not ATG. The Leonard win was neutralized by the losses in the rematch. All Ray had to do was move and the fight was easy for him. Compare the 1st and second fights. Duran is fighting the same but Ray is not. The variable was Ray Leonard. Once he changed his fight plan the head to head matchup was his.

[MAG1965]

I didn't even talk about all-time greats. Fighters like Buchanan, DeJesus, Marcel, Palomino were all very, very good if not great. Of course the Ray Leonard win doesn't count because it goes against your argument.

What are Virgil Hill's best wins, a split decision over Henry Maske and a KO of Fabrice Tiozzo? Or Bobby Czyz perhaps? Not all that impressive. You are probably not going to see any of these fighters make the hall of fame.

Oh yes, Barkley beat an all-time great Thomas Hearns whom Virgil Hill was outboxed by, thus his achievements do not count. I forgot about that.Maske,Tiozzo,Tate,Stewart,Czyz etc. HOF fighter for sure and has some records. Not a knockout puncher, but borderline great fighter. No one is overrating Virgil Hill, but Duran is certainly overrated.

[MAG1965]

right or wrong, duran did beat an all time great. course that is possibly the only one....The only one he beat beat him easily in the rematch. And the guys Ray could beat Wilfred,Tommy and Marvin all beat Duran easily. I think Ray comes out on top in comparisons to Duran.

[TheGreatA]

Dejesus and Palomino are not ATG fighters. Very good but not ATG. The Leonard win was neutralized by the losses in the rematch. All Ray had to do was move and the fight was easy for him. Compare the 1st and second fights. Duran is fighting the same but Ray is not. The variable was Ray Leonard. Once he changed his fight plan the head to head matchup was his.

All-time great is a different term for me than great. Being great means you're one of the greatest of your own time, being an all-time great means you're one of the greatest of all time. That's how I see it atleast.

I don't have a problem with Virgil Hill never having beaten top 50 p4p all-time great. I have a problem with him not beating anybody who had a claim to being the best other than perhaps Henry Maske in 20 years of fighting. He just wasn't that great. For the most part he came up second place against the very best.

How does a win get neutralized if the winner goes onto lose in a rematch?

You're clearly not putting it into a perspective. Duran was the lightweight champion of the world. Leonard was the welterweight champion of the world. Leonard is arguably top 2 ATG at welterweight. The Leonard who fought Duran was the same Leonard who beat Wilfred Benitez and would have likely beaten Thomas Hearns too. But Duran managed to beat him.

Now how many lightweights have beaten a top 3 ATG at welterweight? I guess you could say Ike Williams if you rate Kid Gavilan in the top 3. But Williams got beat in rematches and Gavilan is not quite as great as Leonard, arguably. That's still a huge win for Williams. It's even bigger for Duran. It's one of the greatest wins of all time and you're talking about counting it out as if it was nothing. That's silly.

[TheGreatA]

Maske,Tiozzo,Tate,Stewart,Czyz etc. HOF fighter for sure and has some records. Not a knockout puncher, but borderline great fighter. No one is overrating Virgil Hill, but Duran is certainly overrated.

The Hall Of Fame's standards are at an all-time low if those fighters make it.

[MAG1965]

The Hall Of Fame's standards are at an all-time low if those fighters make it.A decent list of guys who he was better than. But Duran's lightweight list is not much better if any. That is why Duran gets credit for machismo attitude and power, but still a win is a win against guys you are better than. Still, Duran never knocked out an ATG fighter and had he not beaten Ray on a night Ray fought his fight, he would have never beaten and ATG fighter.

[Sister Sledge]

:lol::rofl Boy, this Duran-Leonard flame-war is transcending threads now.

[MAG1965]

All-time great is a different term for me than great. Being great means you're one of the greatest of your own time, being an all-time great means you're one of the greatest of all time. That's how I see it atleast.

I don't have a problem with Virgil Hill never having beaten top 50 p4p all-time great. I have a problem with him not beating anybody who had a claim to being the best other than perhaps Henry Maske in 20 years of fighting. He just wasn't that great. For the most part he came up second place against the very best.

How does a win get neutralized if the winner goes onto lose in a rematch?

You're clearly not putting it into a perspective. Duran was the lightweight champion of the world. Leonard was the welterweight champion of the world. Leonard is arguably top 2 ATG at welterweight. The Leonard who fought Duran was the same Leonard who beat Wilfred Benitez and would have likely beaten Thomas Hearns too. But Duran managed to beat him.

Now how many lightweights have beaten a top 3 ATG at welterweight? I guess you could say Ike Williams if you rate Kid Gavilan in the top 3. But Williams got beat in a rematch and Gavilan is not quite as great as Leonard, arguably. That's still a huge win for Williams. It's even bigger for Duran. It's one of the greatest wins of all time and you're talking about counting it out as if it was nothing. That's silly.Not silly. Ray was not stopped. This is not like Curry/McCrory or Honeyghan/Curry. It went the distance when Ray fought Duran's fight. And Ray adjusted and won fighting his fight. That is why that fight can be disregarded more. I disagree that Ray would have necessarily beaten Hearns the night he fought Duran in Montreal. If that Ray fought Hearns then Hearns would have knocked him out with that attitude. The Ray who fought Hearns in 1981 would have beaten the Benitez and Duran 1 easily enough. He learned the whole game and the inside and outside game. Ray who fought Hearns in Sept. 1981 was the best Leonard who fought. Had he kept on fighting he would have probably peaked around 1982 or 1983.

[TheGreatA]

A decent list of guys who he was better than. But Duran's lightweight list is not much better is any. That is why Duran gets credit for machismo attitude and power, but still a win is a win against guys you are better than. Still, Duran never knocked out an ATG fighter and had he not beaten Ray on a night Ray fought his fight, he would have never beaten and ATG fighter.

I rate DeJesus and Buchanan among my top 20 best lightweights of all time.
Marcel gave a lesson to young Alexis Arguello.

Maske, Tiozzo, Czyz, as good as they may have been, wouldn't make the top 30 LHW's nor the hall of fame. Again, Hill beat a decent bunch and I wouldn't oppose him being in the hall of fame for his longevity and consistency but he never proved himself against a great. An aging Thomas Hearns beat him, Roy Jones KO'd him, Michalczewski beat him.

How did it turn into Duran not ever KO'ing an ATG now? I could come up with quite a few all-time greats who didn't. He beat Ray Leonard, simple as that. Leonard also beat him in a rematch. I don't know why people just can't face the facts, they both beat each other. It's either Leonard "fighting Duran's fight" or Duran being "weight-drained", "out of shape".

As far as I'm concerned, if you fight the other guy's fight and lose or come in out of shape and lose, you still lose. And the opponent wins. And don't tell me that Duran had nothing to do with Leonard "fighting his fight". Leonard could have fought that fight against any other fighter in the division and won.

[TheGreatA]

Not silly. Ray was not stopped. This is not like Curry/McCrory or Honeyghan/Curry. It went the distance when Ray fought Duran's fight. And Ray adjusted and won fighting his fight. That is why that fight can be disregarded more. I disagree that Ray would have necessarily beaten Hearns the night he fought Duran in Montreal. If that Ray fought Hearns then Hearns would have knocked him out with that attitude. The Ray who fought Hearns in 1981 would have beaten the Benitez and Duran 1 easily enough. He learned the whole game and the inside and outside game. Ray who fought Hearns in Sept. 1981 was the best Leonard who fought. Had he kept on fighting he would have probably peaked around 1982 or 1983.

So you have to stop your opponent to credit for a win now? Well, that's too bad for Harry Greb, Willie Pep and Pernell Whitaker.

What was the big difference between the Leonard who fought Hearns and the Leonard who fought Duran? Leonard was "fighting Hearns's fight" for 13 rounds and was getting outboxed, outjabbed, outpointed. He had to rally in order to win, make a brawl out of it, show the heart that he did against Duran in the late rounds. The attributes that he showed against Duran in losing won him the Hearns fight.

[Sister Sledge]

The Hall Of Fame's standards are at an all-time low if those fighters make it.

No. That day was the day Barry McGuigan was inducted.

[MAG1965]

So you have to stop your opponent to credit for a win now? Well, that's too bad for Harry Greb, Willie Pep and Pernell Whitaker.

What was the big difference between the Leonard who fought Hearns and the Leonard who fought Duran? Leonard was "fighting Hearns's fight" for 13 rounds and was getting outboxed, outjabbed, outpointed. He had to rally in order to win, make a brawl out of it, show the heart that he did against Duran in the late rounds. The attributes that he showed against Duran in losing won him the Hearns fight.The stopping is significant since we are talking about Duran. That just shows how he was not dominant ever with an ATG and the one guy he beat was inexperienced, and then when he fought his fight Ray outclassed him. The facts are there. I am not making them up. Ray was not fighting Hearns fight for 13 rounds. Ray started off moving and avoiding Hearns punches. He started to slowly get his rhythm and stand in front of Tommy since Tommy's jab was landing so moving around was not working, so he started to stand more but slip Hearns punches, but he was in Hearns range , but Tommy was in Ray's range also and hurt Tommy, and then he became the aggressor with Tommy boxing. Then Tommy slowly started to stand in front of Ray again. But that Ray who fought Hearns had much more experience and timing and knew the whole game inside and out. Hearns fought the better Sugar Ray Leonard. I think that is obvious that the Ray who fought Hearns in Sept. 1981 was very elite compared to the Ray who fought Duran in Montreal. Beating Duran and making him quit showed what a fighter Ray was and that once he learned to fight his fight and be smart he beat everyone.

[bodhi]

The stopping is significant since we are talking about Duran. That just shows how he was not dominant ever with an ATG and the one guy he beat was inexperienced, and then when he fought his fight Ray outclassed him. The facts are there. I am not making them up. Ray was not fighting Hearns fight for 13 rounds. Ray started off moving and avoiding Hearns punches. He started to slowly get his rhythm and stand in front of Tommy since Tommy's jab was landing so moving around was not working, so he started to stand more but slip Hearns punches, but he was in Hearns range , but Tommy was in Ray's range also and hurt Tommy, and then he became the aggressor with Tommy boxing. Then Tommy slowly started to stand in front of Ray again. But that Ray who fought Hearns had much more experience and timing and knew the whole game inside and out. Hearns fought the better Sugar Ray Leonard. I think that is obvious that the Ray who fought Hearns in Sept. 1981 was very elite compared to the Ray who fought Duran in Montreal. Beating Duran and making him quit showed what a fighter Ray was and that once he learned to fight his fight and be smart he beat everyone.

:rofl:rofl:rofl you are so desperate and with you biased postings in this sort lose every credibility.

[MAG1965]

:rofl:rofl:rofl you are so desperate and with you biased postings in this sort lose every credibility.I don't think so. I am stating facts. I think the biased Duran fans lose credibility especially in this poll, and it shows how Duran is overrated. This poll is proof. To say Duran had a greater win with a fighter like Iran Barkley than Hearns over Hill is just absurd- Barkley, who fought Duran in 1989 -lost, and he lost to other fighters the years around this. In 1987 he lost to Kalambay, He lost to Nunn in 1989 as well as to Duran, In 1990 he lost to Benn in one round. To see a guy lose to all those fighters and then say Duran's win over him is better than Hearns win over Hill (who was undefeated and had 10 title defenses-30 pounds above Tommy starting welterweight) is completely ridiculous. And you guys do not see this bias or overrating? You probably see it now. This proves it.

[anarci]

Man this is eaaaaaaaaaasy Duran over Barkley was more impressive he was so much smaller than Barkley and had been a pro for over 20 years compared to 13 for Hearns. He was also going on 39 Hearns only 32.

[bodhi]

I don't think so. I am stating facts. I think the biased Duran fans lose credibility especially in this poll, and it shows how Duran is overrated. This poll is proof. To say Duran had a greater win with a fighter like Iran Barkley than Hearns over Hill is just absurd- Barkley, who fought Duran in 1989 -lost, and he lost to other fighters the years around this. In 1987 he lost to Kalambay, He lost to Nunn in 1989 as well as to Duran, In 1990 he lost to Benn in one round. To see a guy lose to all those fighters and then say Duran's win over him is better than Hearns win over Hill (who was undefeated and had 10 title defenses-30 pounds above Tommy starting welterweight) is completely ridiculous. And you guys do not see this bias or overrating? You probably see it now. This proves it.

I voted Hearns and defended my vote in the beginning of the thread. I still hink you are one biased hater with no credibility on any subject that somehow involves Hearns or Duran. :good

[arther1045]

You're very consistent when it comes to your Duran bias.:lol:


He sure is. I had conversations with him about it years ago and couldn't believe it then. He doesn't like Duran and its obvious, even though he tries to deny it. If you listen to him you would think that Duran started boxing in Nov of 1980. He never changes. He has said that Duran was actually a bigger fighter then Hearns, and he actually says Duran had to be in his prime against Hearns because he fought so long afterwords. This is what he has to do to justify his opinion.

Duran had much more phycial disadvantages against barklay then Hearns did against Hill. Some will compate the weights that Duran and Hearns moved up for these fights and act like its the same but its not. uran was still fighting 135 at 27 years old. He was a small fighter who had to put weight on around the middle to get to the higher weights. he was giving up about 6 inches to Barklay. Heanrs while he did fight at 147 in his early 20s moved up when he was younf ebcause he had to. He grew into his weight. It was obvious in his early 20s that he wasn't going to be able to stay at 147 or even 154 for that matter. There is no question when comparing these fights that Duran was giving up alot more then Hearns was.

[MAG1965]

I voted Hearns and defended my vote in the beginning of the thread. I still hink you are one biased hater with no credibility on any subject that somehow involves Hearns or Duran. :goodI don't think so. I do not hate Duran, my whole argument comes from the fact that I think he is being overrrated. I am a Hearns fan and Tommy beat Duran. Why wouldn't I want Duran to be the greatest fighter who ever lived? That would help Tommy's rating. But this poll and result so far 24-14. Not a blowout, but still in favor of Duran beating Iran Barkley shows the bias towards him. This is actual proof because Tommy beat a legit champion with 10 defenses who was undefeated and 30 pounds above his starting weight. Because Duran was older he gets more credit? Barkley was not that great a fighter so why is this such an accomplishment? Duran couldn't beat Sims a few years before. I never gave Foreman much credit for beating Moorer either. He lost to Holyfield and Morrison prior to this. His power and the law of averages was bound to come into affect eventually if he fought enough times for a title. Duran beating Barkley is overrated. His whole is a little. Not a lot, but a little. His lightweight reign was great. But how high does that get Duran's ranking? Then all you have after that is beating Ray but losing the next two fights making Ray better head to head, and then beating Barkley but losing to the legends. This is fact. Saying I hate Duran yet I am mentioning facts does not make sense.

[MAG1965]

He sure is. I had conversations with him about it years ago and couldn't believe it then. He doesn't like Duran and its obvious, even though he tries to deny it. If you listen to him you would think that Duran started boxing in Nov of 1980. He never changes. He has said that Duran was actually a bigger fighter then Hearns, and he actually says Duran had to be in his prime against Hearns because he fought so long afterwords. This is what he has to do to justify his opinion.

Duran had much more phycial disadvantages against barklay then Hearns did against Hill. Some will compate the weights that Duran and Hearns moved up for these fights and act like its the same but its not. uran was still fighting 135 at 27 years old. He was a small fighter who had to put weight on around the middle to get to the higher weights. he was giving up about 6 inches to Barklay. Heanrs while he did fight at 147 in his early 20s moved up when he was younf ebcause he had to. He grew into his weight. It was obvious in his early 20s that he wasn't going to be able to stay at 147 or even 154 for that matter. There is no question when comparing these fights that Duran was giving up alot more then Hearns was.No you guys were saying Duran was this little guy when he fought Ray. Somehow every other fighter like Leonard or Hearns easily moves up and is natural at the weights and Duran always weighs 135. I was saying in a rather light way how Duran was going up and weighing 200 between fights and Tommy was 170 walking around weight, so if you want to argue that point Duran was bigger naturally. Duran giving up more? Not as much as it seems and the fact that Tommy beat better guys is what should be the real criteria. Being older and saying if Duran beats just a mediocre guy because he is older and Hearns has a higher standard is tougher on Hearns and really not fair. Beating Hill is better. And still he passed this standard and Duran still gets more credit for beating a guy like Barkley. This is the bias. I am just stating fact. If we had a poll asking who was the greater fighter Virgil Hill or Iran Barkley the results would probably be unanimous for Hill. So how can Duran beating Barkley be the better win? Duran also fought at 154 before Hearns ever did, and had a championship fight there before Hearns did.

[arther1045]

No you guys were saying Duran was this little guy when he fought Ray. Somehow every other fighter like Leonard or Hearns easily moves up and is natural at the weights and Duran always weighs 135. I was saying in a rather light way how Duran was going up and weighing 200 between fights and Tommy was 170 walking around weight, so if you want to argue that point Duran was bigger naturally. Duran giving up more? Not as much as it seems and the fact that Tommy beat better guys is what should be the real criteria. Being older and saying if Duran beats just a mediocre guy because he is older and Hearns has a higher standard is tougher on Hearns and really not fair. Beating Hill is better. And still he passed this standard and Duran still gets more credit for beating a guy like Barkley. This is the bias. I am just stating fact. If we had a poll asking who was the greater fighter Virgil Hill or Iran Barkley the results would probably be unanimous for Hill. So how can Duran beating Barkley be the better win? Duran also fought at 154 before Hearns ever did, and had a championship fight there before Hearns did.


The problem with Mag is he never understands fighters and weight. he says that Duran fought at 154 before Hearns like that means anothing. Mag if Duran wanted to he could can 50 pounds and fight at heavyweight, doesn't mean he is as big as a heaveyweight. You are frustrating because you twist everything to be anti Duran. You bring up that Duran walked around at 200 like that has anything to do with his size. Duran should have never fought past 147 at the highest. His frame was too small. He was fighting guys with much bigger frames from 1980 on, and much younger guys. Do you honestly deny that you don't notice that Duran looks fat past 147. His frame didn't get bigger. You can even see it is a 147 fight in 1980 when the announcers were saying that Duran could never move up any higher, his frame was too small. That is very obvious.

Hearns on the other hand had a big frame and movied just as well at 160 as he did at 147. Hearns was bound to move up. There is no way he was going to stay at 147 even if he wanted too. His frame was too big. The size difference that Heanrs gave up to Hill is nothing compared to the size difference Duran gave up to Barklay. And the age differnce is not even close. Duran was giving up alot more. Why do you have trouble seeing this.

[arther1045]

No you guys were saying Duran was this little guy when he fought Ray. Somehow every other fighter like Leonard or Hearns easily moves up and is natural at the weights and Duran always weighs 135. I was saying in a rather light way how Duran was going up and weighing 200 between fights and Tommy was 170 walking around weight, so if you want to argue that point Duran was bigger naturally. Duran giving up more? Not as much as it seems and the fact that Tommy beat better guys is what should be the real criteria. Being older and saying if Duran beats just a mediocre guy because he is older and Hearns has a higher standard is tougher on Hearns and really not fair. Beating Hill is better. And still he passed this standard and Duran still gets more credit for beating a guy like Barkley. This is the bias. I am just stating fact. If we had a poll asking who was the greater fighter Virgil Hill or Iran Barkley the results would probably be unanimous for Hill. So how can Duran beating Barkley be the better win? Duran also fought at 154 before Hearns ever did, and had a championship fight there before Hearns did.


Fact..Duran had a better record against common opponents then Hearns, even though Hearns was the much bigger fighter and Duran was the smaller fighter in all fights. Duran was also older then all common opponents and Hearns had no age disadvatage in these fights. Thats a very impressive fact for Duran. And for once just ack the fact that I just told you. You have twisted this fact for years.

[PowerPuncher]

Fact..Duran had a better record against common opponents then Hearns, even though Hearns was the much bigger fighter and Duran was the smaller fighter in all fights. Duran was also older then all common opponents and Hearns had no age disadvatage in these fights. Thats a very impressive fact for Duran. And for once just ack the fact that I just told you. You have twisted this fact for years.

If only it wasnt for the H2H :lol:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[arther1045]

If only it wasnt for the H2H :lol:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I guess we should rate Hearns vs Barkley head to head. And they were the same age. Norris is also better then Leonard.

[Arriba]

That punch is still one of the greatest ever. Like Duran was struck with a lightning bolt.

[MAG1965]

Fact..Duran had a better record against common opponents then Hearns, even though Hearns was the much bigger fighter and Duran was the smaller fighter in all fights. Duran was also older then all common opponents and Hearns had no age disadvatage in these fights. Thats a very impressive fact for Duran. And for once just ack the fact that I just told you. You have twisted this fact for years.The common opponent issue does not come out better for Duran. The fact he fought Barkley is because Barkley won the title from Hearns. But Hearns against the legends Hearns fought better. Who beat two out of the 4 legends (and really 3 out of 4 when he fought Ray even in Ray's words). And say you are right about the common opponent thing for the sake of argument, then that proves Duran was natural at the weight and Hearns and Duran are equal, so then Hearns knocking out Duran and beating Benitez and then beating Hill was all better than what Duran did in beating Barkley, and the Benitez win is a legit loss since Benitez won his first title at 140. Tommy should have had the win over Ray in 1989. I guess Tommy should have knocked out Pat Lawlor so he could go ahead in the common opponent matchup by the numbers. Leonard outclassed Duran and never outclassed Tommy. Tommy outclassed Duran head to head and Duran was outclassed by Benitez and Tommy beat Benitez. Some common opponent advantage. All you are looking at are numbers, not the actual fights. Everything said by Duran fans is too much in his favor and then you look into the fights and facts. Fact is in all his career, you cannot give me many fights where he beat an ATG. One time, and then he lost the rematch easily. That gets him ATG top 10?. This is not me disliking Duran, I do not see how it adds up. If you are good enough to win titles when you are older- but lose to all the greats, that means you are ATG best ever? Doesn't make sense.

[MAG1965]

I guess we should rate Hearns vs Barkley head to head. And they were the same age. Norris is also better then Leonard. Not comparable. Duran was champion at 154 of the WBA when he fought Hearns. That was a unification fight but the WBA stripped Duran for not fighting McCallum. Leonard had not fought at the weight of the Norris fight for 10 years since Kalule. Duran was only 32 years old when he fought Hearns. Both were champs and Duran just fought Hagler and as people say he gave Hagler a good fight-but still lost. Saying Duran was washed up for Hearns should eliminate his fight against Hagler then, but Duran fans want to give Duran credit for taken Hagler 15, but then say he was washed up for Hearns. This is shaky argument. Duran was not washed up at all. He fought another 17 years and 35 times after Hearns. Duran lost legit to Hearns and was good enough, but Duran fans cannot accept that he was beaten in such a conclusive way. These were two legends fighting who were both champions. I do not see the argument. Had Duran beaten Hearns it would have been seen as his greatest win. No bad thing losing to Hearns. Cuevas,Benitez,Hill and Duran all lost relatively easy to Tommy.

[bodhi]

I don't think so. I do not hate Duran, my whole argument comes from the fact that I think he is being overrrated. I am a Hearns fan and Tommy beat Duran. Why wouldn't I want Duran to be the greatest fighter who ever lived? That would help Tommy's rating. But this poll and result so far 24-14. Not a blowout, but still in favor of Duran beating Iran Barkley shows the bias towards him. This is actual proof because Tommy beat a legit champion with 10 defenses who was undefeated and 30 pounds above his starting weight. Because Duran was older he gets more credit? Barkley was not that great a fighter so why is this such an accomplishment? Duran couldn't beat Sims a few years before. I never gave Foreman much credit for beating Moorer either. He lost to Holyfield and Morrison prior to this. His power and the law of averages was bound to come into affect eventually if he fought enough times for a title. Duran beating Barkley is overrated. His whole is a little. Not a lot, but a little. His lightweight reign was great. But how high does that get Duran's ranking? Then all you have after that is beating Ray but losing the next two fights making Ray better head to head, and then beating Barkley but losing to the legends. This is fact. Saying I hate Duran yet I am mentioning facts does not make sense.

You could have written this with three words: I hate Duran. No need to write this much. We got it by now.

[MAG1965]

You could have written this with three words: I hate Duran. No need to write this much. We got it by now.I respect you are a Duran fan. If someone said this about Tommy's I would discuss back also Tommy qualification. . I understand you admire him. So what should I do not post here? That is the point of message boards and comments. It isn't personal. I feel the same about Hearns as far as admiration, and I saw Duran fight in the 1970s, and then Hearns comes up in 1977 and the whole era of the great welterweights is started. So when I hear this stuff about Duran and his resume is so great-longevity and age and good performance at 38 and lightweight- in my mind it does not equal what most rank him as. I rank him top 25. But most of you rank him at top 5. And top 3 since SRR. Top 25 is not a bad ranking. Which is why I bring this up, I think Tommy is unfairly ranked lower because of losing to Ray and Marvin in his biggest fights, yet he beat top guys, and Duran in given credit and he lost to them all. I mean all Ray had to do was stay on his toes and he won easily. Duran was not that mugh higher than 135 in 1980. He should have been able to duplicate the win from June if he was top 5 ever. This is not personal, this is seeing an unfairness in ranking. Bringing up facts about boxing is what this message board is about. It isn't personal I don't know him. If you want to simplify everytime in boxing or sports someone says something about someone you like which you don't agree with, yeah just say they hate them so it is personal and you can discard it. But it isn't . This is about where people rank Duran and where I do. I brought up facts. Have I ever said I do not like Duran? When I say my opinions about Duran people get upset. Any other subject doesn't matter since it is rarely noticed. If I say Shane Mosley is a great fighter, no one gets mad. I am partial towards the great boxer like a Leonard who can fight both ways, -just admiration for certain styles and accomplishments. I always believed to be great you have to beat ATG fighters. Fighting at 70 and beating a top 20 contender in my mind would not be great. Fighting at 30 and beating an ATG is the real accomplisment.

[Gesta]

Man this is eaaaaaaaaaasy Duran over Barkley was more impressive he was so much smaller than Barkley and had been a pro for over 20 years compared to 13 for Hearns. He was also going on 39 Hearns only 32.

Short but sweet.

:good:good:good