Roberto Duran Infighting and Sensitivity

[PivotPunch]

Yes I am. I have seen boxing matches, and when I see someone hug their opponent they are trying to stall the action because they are losing. But is it legal to actually do that and hit from there, or do you get points deducted if you do it excessively? As for the neck, can you put a glove behind the neck and tug on it while you hit them

if you are behind the opponent the ref will pause the fight and restart, obviously you can be on the side which is where you wanna be anyway if possible and if you break the clinch then obviously you can punch (if you have a ref who doesn't break the clinch for you immediately)

And holding behind the had is considered holdiing and hitting which is like he said illegal. Doesn't mean though that you CAN'T see Lennox Lewis vs Frank bruno or lennox lewis vs Michael grant or Lennox Lewis vs Mike tyson or Lewis in about all of his fights

 

[Pro Killer]

Fantastic video

 

[Pro Killer]

Also liked the Mayweather ones too! Thanks for posting them

 

[Discipulus]

The probelm is that Wlad ties you up so well that you have to do something illegal under modern boxing rules to hit him in the clinch. On top of that you need strength or size and preferably both.

But his opponents should fight dirty cause Wlad does as well Chambers wrestled him and Samuel Peter bullied him almost to a stoppage and if you can't do that at least do a Haye and drop to the floor instead of letting him lean on you and tire you out.

But that's why Tyson Fury will give him hell and possibly beat him not only is he taller than Wlad, can fight on the outside with a good jab and decent footwork AND switch southpaw and fight well out of both stances but once Wlad clinches which he always does he's up close with a guy bigger than him who is strong,the best inside fighter at HW today and is dirty as fuck when he needs to as shown in the Cunningham fight.

Peoiple call em crazy for giving Fury a chance but I consider everyone crazy who doesn't see why Wlad is facing his toughest opponent since his first fight with Peter.

And Maidana did give Floyd trouble up close so it's not like no one ever tried and in the Cotto and Castillo fights he had trouble tying the other guy up.

But the issue with Floyd is that he isn't as fragile as Wlad and that Floyd is a pretty good inside fighter himself even if he didn't clinch you can probably count the boxers at his weight who would beat him on the inside on one hand

I agree with the fighting dirty bit to an extent. Kubrat Pulev, for example, hammered Wlad continually in the back of the head. I didn't really have a problem with it, because Wlad repeatedly tied up and held onto his other arm (a foul in and of itself) and then turned his head away from Pulev to prevent strikes on the scoring areas. So Pulev was crafty, albeit dirty, in choosing to answer one foul with another.

Bryant Jennings, on the other hand, did some nice work with his free arm in the clinches without ever having to do anything dirty. He simply hammered away at Wlad's ribs whenever his left arm got tied up. Nothing illegal about that.

I'm also coming around on Fury's chances against Klitschko. His in-fighting skills could very well be the difference. Not long ago I said that Wilder was the most dangerous opponent for Klitschko, but Tyson seems more and more capable every time I see him.

 

[shpboris]

Just came across this Duran-Barkley fight . Fck, Barkley was VERY(!) solid guy back then. Based on his fight with Toney, I always thought that he was slow, plodding fighter with not that great technique. This video is a big surprise. And still Duran won ...

[YT]knjh-ucbrKg[/YT]

 

[Fire of Youth]

Great video with some nice accompanying music. Out of the Magificent Four, Duran was always the one that I had the least respect for. That video enlightened me to more of his technique and now I think I initially misjudged him. I'm going to look forward to watching more of his fights again but with a different eye/mindset.

 

[Discipulus]

Great video with some nice accompanying music. Out of the Magificent Four, Duran was always the one that I had the least respect for. That video enlightened me to more of his technique and now I think I initially misjudged him. I'm going to look forward to watching more of his fights again but with a different eye/mindset.

Duran was the greatest of the bunch, if also the least stable.

 

[NVSemin]

Duran around 40 years old was beating the young guys the same way Hopkins was doing it : he forced these guy go forward. Duran himself could no longer go forward at a good pace as the fight with Leonard showed.

 

[thugpoet]

Duran was the greatest of the bunch, if also the least stable.

Debatable...

 

[Sinister]

^Not really.

 

[Sinister]

Just came across this Duran-Barkley fight . Fck, Barkley was VERY(!) solid guy back then. Based on his fight with Toney, I always thought that he was slow, plodding fighter with not that great technique. This video is a big surprise. And still Duran won ...

Barkley was damaged goods by the time he fought Toney, he was nearly blind and the bout should have never been sanctioned.

 

[MEGAhorse]

IMO Duran was the best of the fab four, nearly untouchable at lightweight. Most versatile offensively/defensively, can box and hit, amazing in-fighting and he moved up in weight to make fights happen against true middleweights.

 

[Fire of Youth]

Duran was the greatest of the bunch, if also the least stable.

I'm mindful not to derail this thread with a debate on who was the best out of the four but I always perferred Hagler out them.

 

[Sinister]

Hagler never moved up. Middleweight pretty much his entire career, one of the greatest of them? Sure. But Leonard and Duran's prowess spanned multiple weight classes. They were lightweights who moved up and gave Hagler two of his toughest bouts.

 

[PivotPunch]

Hagler never moved up. Middleweight pretty much his entire career, one of the greatest of them? Sure. But Leonard and Duran's prowess spanned multiple weight classes. They were lightweights who moved up and gave Hagler two of his toughest bouts.

Tbf though Hagler was in a shitty situation he had to really work his way to titles and big fights and by the way he got the big fights and established himself at MW against the other big 4 he was old and past his best.

It's hard to rate the big 4. SRL was the smartest in and outside the ring and did abosultely everything right and got wins against all the big 4 and went through different weigth classes.

Duran was incredible at LW and beat SRL at a weight that favoured Leonard more in my opinion and gave Hagler a real fight at a weight he shouldn't have fought to begin with, he was inconsistent against the worst possible guy in hearns at a weight he shouldn't have been (not saying it wasn't great for his legacy) and had great wins and competitive fights at weights and ages he shouldn't hav been competitive in. maybe he was the most talented.

Hearns was h2h one of the scariest guys ever and if you lose to him (and 99% of every boxer ever would lose to him) he would beat you like no one else and he went up to LHW and even past his best did very good at that weight (tbf he was big).

And Hagler was the least flashy of them but had the toughest path and was the most consistent and you can argue that he should ahve wins over all the otgher big 4 without losing to a single one of them. The weight jumping was the only thing he was lacking but tbf he wasn't a big MW at all not height wise and not weight wise

 

[Sinister]

Hagler wasn't in any worse a position than Duran early. Also, many people debate Leonard's "win" against Hagler. He won depending solely on who you ask. Duran got stopped by Hearns, yes, but he also revitalized his career long after it should have been over better than any of the others.

 

[PivotPunch]

Hagler wasn't in any worse a position than Duran early. Also, many people debate Leonard's "win" against Hagler. He won depending solely on who you ask. Duran got stopped by Hearns, yes, but he also revitalized his career long after it should have been over better than any of the others.

Yes but it's very arguablke how you rank longevity. It can tell us a lot about a fighter if he has a long career but at the same time it's very vague and only mindgames if we score a win higher just because a fighter is older.
Obviously it's impressive but it's a fantasy thing to think about how it affects a fighter's ranking.
Just based on longevity prime Hopkins should have been the greatest fighter ever h2h but at their respective bests RJJ was better.
It's in general very hard to rank fighters who has only success for a short time at elite level

 

[Jaxxstatic]

Other than Jack Johnson, wasn't Duran's career the only other one to span five decades?

 

[Sinister]

^Yes.

Yes but it's very arguablke how you rank longevity. It can tell us a lot about a fighter if he has a long career but at the same time it's very vague and only mindgames if we score a win higher just because a fighter is older.
Obviously it's impressive but it's a fantasy thing to think about how it affects a fighter's ranking.
Just based on longevity prime Hopkins should have been the greatest fighter ever h2h but at their respective bests RJJ was better.
It's in general very hard to rank fighters who has only success for a short time at elite level

That it's hard isn't really an argument in this case, though. At their "respective bests" Duran was a pretty much indestructible lightweight. My point is that prime to prime he defeated Leonard, then moved up and out of all of them that moved up, he remained relevant the longest due to the combination of skill and grit. Duran is also within the top 3 greatest Hispanic fighters ever to put on gloves and some people have him as #1, with guys like Monzon and Chavez behind him. So he has the same accolade as Hagler in being one of the greatest Champions of a single division, then takes it a step further due to his longevity and is considered one of the best fighters of an ethnic group ever to live.

 

[PivotPunch]

^Yes.



That it's hard isn't really an argument in this case, though. At their "respective bests" Duran was a pretty much indestructible lightweight. My point is that prime to prime he defeated Leonard, then moved up and out of all of them that moved up, he remained relevant the longest due to the combination of skill and grit. Duran is also within the top 3 greatest Hispanic fighters ever to put on gloves and some people have him as #1, with guys like Monzon and Chavez behind him. So he has the same accolade as Hagler in being one of the greatest Champions of a single division, then takes it a step further due to his longevity and is considered one of the best fighters of an ethnic group ever to live.

yeah ok this sounds reasonable. I think he is the greatest Hispanic fighter ever but I never really thought about the rankings by ethnicity and I dont think it should your legacy any extra point

it's interesting to think about it though SRR or Armstrong would be the #1 black boxer, Dick tiger or Azumah Nelson the greatest African boxer. Who would be the best Asian boxer? Khaosai ? Would Greb be the greatest white boxer? and who would be the greatest European boxer?
I'm sure I forgot some