Is Roberto Duran overrated?

[Asterion]

In his lightweight prime he was amazing to watch, and also in some of his few fights at welterweight. But does his resume justify him being Top5 P4P of all time?

Did he really clean the Lightweight division? He didn't beat contenders of his era like Jimmy Heair, Angel Mayoral, Vicente Saldivar, etc.

Does he deserve to rank high at Welterweight just because of defeating and then losing against Ray Leonard, beating ex Champ Carlos Palomino and a few unranked guys?


His resume against contenders is basically this:

Hiro Kobayashi
Ken Buchanan
Guts Ishimatsu
Saoul Mamby
Esteban De Jesús
Vilomar Fernandez
Ray Lampkin
Edwin Viruet
Edwin Viruet
Esteban De Jesus
Carlos Palomino
Ray Leonard
Luigi Minchillo
Pipino Cuevas (past his best)
Davey Moore (had less than 17 pro fights)
Iran Barkley (incredible win, but Iran wasn't really a "consistent" fighter)

But he also had 6 losses before turning 35 years old (and then had much more Ls):

Esteban De Jesus
Ray Leonard
Wilfred Benitez
Kirkland Laing
Marvin Hagler
Thomas Hearns

[Mantequilla]

Who cares what the minute details of his resume are

It's not as if he's a Ricaro Lopez with an almost complete and utter lack of good fighters defeated.

He's at a level where if you think he's overrated it really should be about his inherent ability as a fighter.

[robert ungurean]

Yes and so is Babe Ruth-Jack Niclouse-Dick Butkus-Wayne Gretzky ect.ect.

[bigtime9]

Who cares what the minute details of his resume are


I care. great post asterion..duran is overrated only if you have him top ten. I would never rank him over hagler, leonard, or hearns in terms of all-time greatness

[True Writer]

NO he is not over rated - end of story.

[True Writer]

NO he is not over rated - end of story.

[smokin joe]

there is more then records watch the fight, duran is not 1 and 1 with leanord he is 1 and 0 the 2nd fight he took the money and ran, many people beleive duran is the best boxer then ever saw

[jackiebrown]

i think ray leonard is more over rated then duran myself...
leonard had the big wins but he also didnt fight half the competition duran fought in his career ...

[achillesthegreat]

In his lightweight prime he was amazing to watch, and also in some of his few fights at welterweight. But does his resume justify him being Top5 P4P of all time?

Did he really clean the Lightweight division? He didn't beat contenders of his era like Jimmy Heair, Angel Mayoral, Vicente Saldivar, etc.

Does he deserve to rank high at Welterweight just because of defeating and then losing against Ray Leonard, beating ex Champ Carlos Palomino and a few unranked guys?


His resume against contenders is basically this:

Hiro Kobayashi
Ken Buchanan
Guts Ishimatsu
Saoul Mamby
Esteban De Jesús
Vilomar Fernandez
Ray Lampkin
Edwin Viruet
Edwin Viruet
Esteban De Jesus
Carlos Palomino
Ray Leonard
Luigi Minchillo
Pipino Cuevas (past his best)
Davey Moore (had less than 17 pro fights)
Iran Barkley (incredible win, but Iran wasn't really a "consistent" fighter)

But he also had 6 losses before turning 35 years old (and then had much more Ls):

Esteban De Jesus
Ray Leonard
Wilfred Benitez
Kirkland Laing
Marvin Hagler
Thomas Hearns
I think you proved yourself wrong.

5 of the 6 guys you named are champions.

Lost to arguably the best 140, 147, 154 and 160 pounder in history. Nevertheless he went 2-1 against De Jesus and 1-1 with Leonard before the age of 35.

Not making excuses for his losses but one would admit that against Laing and Benitez he was hardly 100%.

His losses at 154 and 160 are his sixth division or something. He started at bantam or super banta,.

[Marnoff]

No.

[Marnoff]

there is more then records watch the fight, duran is not 1 and 1 with leanord he is 1 and 0 the 2nd fight he took the money and ran, many people beleive duran is the best boxer then ever saw

The loss does still count.

[Russell]

His longevity and multitude of weights fought at alone make me believe he's great.

I think his career pre-Leonard is a lot less accessible and studied than he became after he got involved with the fab four and really came into the spotlight.

But he was 71-1 going into the first Leonard fight. He'd already been boxing for 11 years.

In over a decade of fighting he lost once, and those were the years he was at his seemingly optimal weight.

Yeah he lost to Hagler and Hearns, among others... But he'd been boxing for years and years and moved up considerably in weight once he started accumlating these losses to those champions. And he still gave them (Halger) hell.

[red cobra]

NO he is not over rated - end of story.

Let me echo that one.....NO HE IS NOT OVER RATED!!!!!!! Duran had old-timers, who after seeing him on tv would compare him favorably to ANYONE of the past!! End of story!!!

[Asterion]

Who cares

NO he is not over rated - end of story.

NO HE IS NOT OVER RATED!!!!!!! End of story!!!

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Asterion]

5 of the 6 guys you named are champions.

Lost to arguably the best 140, 147, 154 and 160 pounder in history. Nevertheless he went 2-1 against De Jesus and 1-1 with Leonard before the age of 35.

Not making excuses for his losses but one would admit that against Laing and Benitez he was hardly 100%.

His losses at 154 and 160 are his sixth division or something. He started at bantam or super banta,.


Solid argument.

[Lex]

For a while I wondered whether the brutal Panama City climate favored Duran early in his career. But he fared pretty well outside of Panama too, where the indoor conditions shouldn't have been a factor.

Duran was notorious for having a huge appetite for life and, especially, food. It's amazing he stayed at the lightweight limit and did well there for as long as he did.

To me, there are two Roberto Durans: the lightweight; and everything else.

The lightweight Duran is in the all time top 10.

The other Duran is in the all time top 20 on the Senior's Tour. :hey

[mightyd40]

i have always thought that duran was a great fighter but was a little bit overrated.....i wouldnt put him in my top 10 p4p list.

[Shake]

Top 5 P4P is a tall claim, and I don't believe it's the consensus on Duran. However, Duran reached heights even few ATG's can claim to have reached -- the match he fought aganst Barkley and the Brawl in Montreal were of a level rarely seen. The thing that sticks with people about Duran is, I believe, that he was always at a physical disadvantage from the point he moved up to Welterweight on. Reach, natural weight, often even power. In comparison fighters like Hearns and Roy Jones always seemed to be at a physical advantage -- which does count for the way you're perceived.

Duran is my favorite fighter, and I'm perfectly willing to accept he isn't top 5 P4P. It's an ancient and widely practiced sports, simply said -- there's been a lot of boxers. The fact that he managed to be more than just competitive with bigger fighters such as Leonard, Hagler, Moore and Barkley after +70 fights only adds to his resume. The few losses should not detract -- after all, a lot of good boxers would have more losses if they only fought as many greats as Duran did. No cherry-pickin' here.

He was a gift. You're not going to reach a conlusion in this online message board forum wether he was #6 or #8 or perhaps #13 and it would be arrogant to pretend otherwise. We're not all-knowing, and everything is subjective, so I personally won't give a ranking, but I'll just say I enjoyed him as a fighter.

[Asterion]

Top 5 P4P is a tall claim, and I don't believe it's the consensus on Duran. However, Duran reached heights even few ATG's can claim to have reached -- the match he fought aganst Barkley and the Brawl in Montreal were of a level rarely seen. The thing that sticks with people about Duran is, I believe, that he was always at a physical disadvantage from the point he moved up to Welterweight on. Reach, natural weight, often even power. In comparison fighters like Hearns and Roy Jones always seemed to be at a physical advantage -- which does count for the way you're perceived.

Duran is my favorite fighter, and I'm perfectly willing to accept he isn't top 5 P4P. It's an ancient and widely practiced sports, simply said -- there's been a lot of boxers. The fact that he managed to be more than just competitive with bigger fighters such as Leonard, Hagler, Moore and Barkley after +70 fights only adds to his resume. The few losses should not detract -- after all, a lot of good boxers would have more losses if they only fought as many greats as Duran did. No cherry-pickin' here.

He was a gift. You're not going to reach a conlusion in this online message board forum wether he was #6 or #8 or perhaps #13 and it would be arrogant to pretend otherwise. We're not all-knowing, and everything is subjective, so I personally won't give a ranking, but I'll just say I enjoyed him as a fighter.


:good

[jonesjrp4p1]

i have always thought that duran was a great fighter but was a little bit overrated.....i wouldnt put him in my top 10 p4p list.

i agree

[Marciano Frazier]

In his lightweight prime he was amazing to watch, and also in some of his few fights at welterweight. But does his resume justify him being Top5 P4P of all time?

Did he really clean the Lightweight division? He didn't beat contenders of his era like Jimmy Heair, Angel Mayoral, Vicente Saldivar, etc.

Does he deserve to rank high at Welterweight just because of defeating and then losing against Ray Leonard, beating ex Champ Carlos Palomino and a few unranked guys?


His resume against contenders is basically this:

Hiro Kobayashi
Ken Buchanan
Guts Ishimatsu
Saoul Mamby
Esteban De Jesús
Vilomar Fernandez
Ray Lampkin
Edwin Viruet
Edwin Viruet
Esteban De Jesus
Carlos Palomino
Ray Leonard
Luigi Minchillo
Pipino Cuevas (past his best)
Davey Moore (had less than 17 pro fights)
Iran Barkley (incredible win, but Iran wasn't really a "consistent" fighter)

But he also had 6 losses before turning 35 years old (and then had much more Ls):

Esteban De Jesus
Ray Leonard
Wilfred Benitez
Kirkland Laing
Marvin Hagler
Thomas Hearns No, I don't believe he's overrated. First, "age of 35" is a standard you apparently picked out arbitrarily- Duran was past his prime and fighting far above his natural weight for at least four of those losses. When you're an old-school champion with over 75 professional fights, a hard-slugging swarmer style, and have moved up 25 pounds in weight, "age of 35" is hardly a reasonable benchmark. Duran had exactly one twice-avenged loss at his natural weight in over 65 fights, had a highly-impressive 12 successful title defenses in one of the most dominant championship reigns in history before moving up in weight, defeated several top fighters at welterweight and pulled off a win over one of the greatest welterweights in history, and even as high as middleweight was able to take arguably the greatest in the history of boxing 15 rounds in a close battle. A guy like that can be reasonably rated about as high as one would like.

[JohnThomas1]

I think he's top 10 without any drama at all and 5 would be quite defendable. I must do my top 10 soon. I know he is definitely (for me) behind SRR, Greb, Hank and Pep somewhere. He will contend strongly for spot 5 tho i am betting.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I care. great post asterion..duran is overrated only if you have him top ten. I would never rank him over hagler, leonard, or hearns in terms of all-time greatness


Post of the day. :dead

[Senya13]

Yes. His resume doesn't justify All-Time Top 10 placement.

[sweet_scientist]

Yes. His resume doesn't justify All-Time Top 10 placement.
I don't think many would argue against the fact that he doesn't have a top ten resume. It's a bit harder to argue that he doesn't have top ten talent. That might not mean that he takes his place in the top ten, but if he doesn't, he definitely knocks on the door.

[Senya13]

I'd guess from my Top10 Armstrong, Pep, and Charles have less talent than Duran, but better resume. Gans, B. Leonard, Robinson, Jones Jr, Langford, Gavilan, Ross, have at least as much or more talent than Duran, and I could probably name another dozen of fighters who had at least as much talent as him.

[META5]

I'd guess from my Top10 Armstrong, Pep, and Charles have less talent than Duran, but better resume. Gans, B. Leonard, Robinson, Jones Jr, Langford, Gavilan, Ross, have at least as much or more talent than Duran, and I could probably name another dozen of fighters who had at least as much talent as him.

Don't shrink from your own challenge ... name them.

I think it's interesting ... the distinction between résumé and actual talent. Does reaching the highest pinnacles of p4p success include a marriage of talent and perserverance, or is hard work and a sharp boxing mind more an indicator?

Senya, you may have inadvertently raised a whole avenue of interesting debate on the issue :good

[JohnThomas1]

I don't think many would argue against the fact that he doesn't have a top ten resume. It's a bit harder to argue that he doesn't have top ten talent. That might not mean that he takes his place in the top ten, but if he doesn't, he definitely knocks on the door.

I know you've done the list umpteen times but where did you end up rating Duran P4P?

[Senya13]

Jones is top 10 pound for pound but Duran isn't? Jones is my second favorite fighter too, but gimme a break.
Jones Jr is my #1 talent/potential-wise. And he has very good achievements no matter how anyone tries to distort it (the thing is if we gonna apply the same picky aproach to other great fighters, we will find plenty of flaws about pretty much anyone). So summing two criterias up, he's my #4.

[META5]

Jones Jr is my #1 talent/potential-wise. And he has very good achievements no matter how anyone tries to distort it (the thing is if we gonna apply the same picky aproach to other great fighters, we will find plenty of flaws about pretty much anyone). So summing two criterias up, he's my #4.

If it were proved that he'd been a user of steroids as some suspect and has been suggested, how would that affect your ranking and perception of Roy?

[Shake]

Yes. His resume doesn't justify All-Time Top 10 placement.
Jones Jr is my #1 talent/potential-wise. And he has very good achievements no matter how anyone tries to distort it (the thing is if we gonna apply the same picky aproach to other great fighters, we will find plenty of flaws about pretty much anyone). So summing two criterias up, Jones is my #4.
:huh

[Senya13]

:huh
Imagine, boxer A (say, Ezzard Charles) ranked #1 for resume, and #12 for talent/potential, summing two criterias up, he can end up somewhere near #6 (although this is by no means an arithmetical operation). Or, vice versa, boxer B (say Roy Jones) ranked #1 talent-wise, but outside of Top 10 achievement-wise, but summing them up, he ends up inside Top 10.

[Shake]

Yes, but based on his resume, Roy Jones might very well place outside the top 75.

[Senya13]

If it were proved that he'd been a user of steroids as some suspect and has been suggested, how would that affect your ranking and perception of Roy?
Even if he were involved into such things (hypothetically speaking), what positive effects could that have on him? Handspeed? It may only get worse with more muscles/weight. Stamina - ditto (more muscles require more oxygen), plus he has been known as a very-hard working athlete (he was jogging every day, playing basketball, etc). Strength - he doesn't depend on it that much. Power - he's not a big puncher naturally, his power originates in speed and unpredictability. Mobility - he's not running around the ring, he's using in and out moves mostly.

[Senya13]

Yes, but based on his resume, Roy Jones might very well place outside the top 75.
You think I couldn't rip apart, say, Ray Robinson's or Ezzard Charles', or Harry Greb's resumes? Unfortunately, for most people their resumes are more a set of famous names, than details of particular fights or conditions they took place in (such as how far from peak and just how good this or that opponent was, etc).

[META5]

Even if he were involved into such things (hypothetically speaking), what positive effects could that have on him? Handspeed? It may only get worse with more muscles/weight. Stamina - ditto (more muscles require more oxygen), plus he has been known as a very-hard working athlete (he was jogging every day, playing basketball, etc). Strength - he doesn't depend on it that much. Power - he's not a big puncher naturally, his power originates in speed and unpredictability. Mobility - he's not running around the ring, he's using in and out moves mostly.

Steroids don't just bulk you up ... they can do a whole lot of things for a fighter and athlete. I think Roy is a big puncher naturally actually. I think him to be of the Mike Tyson mould in that he is naturally quite heavy handed, but mixed in with insane speed and explosion ... whilst I appreciate that this seems counterintuitive, it's just the nature of their fighting styles that makes one assume that they are wholly opposites as punchers.

It may well be the case that steroids helped him add the bulk for his transition up to heavyweight, or that steroids allowed him to train harder and for longer without the wear and tear that would come from that kind of training in its most natural unassisted format. Steroids can significantly shorten recovery time and as we discovered with Ben Johnson, steroids can make a well tuned athlete out of this world fast and explosive ... and Roy did indeed seem ... well ... out of this world fast and explosive.

I make no accusations, but please don't be so narrow minded to assume that adding weight is the only benefit that an athlete such as Roy may seek from the use of steroids.

[enquirer]

No offense senya but your knowledge of what steroids do is incorrect....
Steroids dont necessarily just make you muscle bound or increase muscle mass immensely,it depends how you train with them,and your body type...Used in certain ways steroids can increase stamina,speed,reactions,agressiveness,punch resistance and decrease body fat while increasing strength....Jones' style was perfect for the benefits of steroids,and the guy got caught against richard hall...
Dont fall for the stereotype that every steroid user is super muscled or muscle bound,tennis players,cricketers,footballers and guys with relatively small mucle mass can still get great benefits from gear...

[Shake]

You think I couldn't rip apart, say, Ray Robinson's or Ezzard Charles', or Harry Greb's resumes? Unfortunately, for most people their resumes are more a set of famous names, than details of particular fights or conditions they took place in (such as how far from peak and just how good this or that opponent was, etc).

No, I just want to know if there was any reasoning to these before you came to your conclusion or if you reached your conclusion first and then based your reasoning around whom you preferred to watch.

For instance -- Roberto Duran's resume, while not P4P top ten in your estimation, was by far and wide better than that of Roy Jones. It is your primary reason to exlude him from your top 10. You then place Roy Jones at #4.

Then I have to conclude that you consider Roy to be several levels above Roberto Duran in boxing ability, that he's so far out of Roberto's league that Roy Jones not only makes up the difference in resume, but overtakes him by a big margin, at least as big as #11-#4.

After thinking this through, I arrived at the following.

:huh

[Mendoza]

In his lightweight prime he was amazing to watch, and also in some of his few fights at welterweight. But does his resume justify him being Top5 P4P of all time?

Did he really clean the Lightweight division? He didn't beat contenders of his era like Jimmy Heair, Angel Mayoral, Vicente Saldivar, etc.

Does he deserve to rank high at Welterweight just because of defeating and then losing against Ray Leonard, beating ex Champ Carlos Palomino and a few unranked guys?


His resume against contenders is basically this:

Hiro Kobayashi
Ken Buchanan
Guts Ishimatsu
Saoul Mamby
Esteban De Jesús
Vilomar Fernandez
Ray Lampkin
Edwin Viruet
Edwin Viruet
Esteban De Jesus
Carlos Palomino
Ray Leonard
Luigi Minchillo
Pipino Cuevas (past his best)
Davey Moore (had less than 17 pro fights)
Iran Barkley (incredible win, but Iran wasn't really a "consistent" fighter)

But he also had 6 losses before turning 35 years old (and then had much more Ls):

Esteban De Jesus
Ray Leonard
Wilfred Benitez
Kirkland Laing
Marvin Hagler
Thomas Hearns

Sometimes it takes a lot of balls to speak the truth about a popular fighter. I want to be up front by saying that Duran is not among my favorite fighters, but at the same time I want to be fair with him in this thread. Duran as a light weight is not over rated. He is an ALL time top 5 light weight. A speical fighter. He simply was too strong ( but not a big puncher ) and active for most light weights. He had an under rated defense too. Fans love Duran for his scowl in the ring. However, I do think Duran as a welter and middle weight is vastly over rated. Duran is the only HOF fighter I can think of who was KO’d by one punch and quit in a fight without a major injury. I’ve always felt he was a dirty fighter. I believe that Roberto threw an intentional low blow vs Buchanan to win the lightweight crown. While Duran was up on the cards, winning the title this way is dishonorable. Buchanan never got the re-match.

[JohnThomas1]

Yes, but based on his resume, Roy Jones might very well place outside the top 75.

Not a hope in hell.

[enquirer]

There is no shame in losing to a peak and hardest 147/154 puncher of all time in tommy hearns,when past your peak,above your best weight and fighting your sylistic nightmare....That final right hand would have stopped or knocked out many hall of famers at middle.....
Im sure there are many hall of famers who got knocked out with one punch,walcott,charles,fullmer,liston just of fthe top of my head...
Of course quitting against ray is a big knock,but i really dont understand fully what happened,maybe an ego meltdown or something? As he never quit before or since in tough fights i think we can call that a freak occurence....
When looking at duran we have to say that as lightweight he is venerated by ALL the old timers,who even say he is the no1 of all times....This is high praise indeed from the all timers who would probably put tyson,jones and pbf in the category of very good champions but not top atgs....
As well as the old timers,all the modern guys rate duran as the no1 of all times at lightweight...
I find it a little hard to rank with durans resume at lightweight,but he did beat buchanan and dejesus who are both hall of famers as well as some good contendors...I wonder if someone could rank and rate durans resume at lightweight for the forum?
Anyway,those who saw him at lightweight say he was the best ever....
If we then take what he achieved in his short time at welter,beating one of the true atg welters in leonard and beating world champ palamino,thats another two hall of famers there....
He also beat hall of famer cuevas at lt middle.
He lost of course to benitez (a hall of famer.) and the awkward laing. (not a hall of famer!!.) He beat davey moore and gave a near peak marvin an excellent fight for the middle crown,probably marvins toughest fight up till then....Now bear in mind,can any of you imagine any lightweight world champ in history not only competing but running close arguably the best middle of all time? Try picturing chavez,whitaker,pbf,benny leonard or any other going 15 v a peak marvin hagler...:yikes
To me duran was a demon at lightweight and welter,one of true atgs head to head,i mean just beating a peak ray at welter is something once again no lightweight could ever do....chavez,b.leonard,whitaker or pbf v ray leonard anyone?
All the things that duran did above welter to me are icing on the cake/resume,beating a huge middle in barkley for the world title,beating world champ castro at super middle past 40,being competitive with pazienza,camacho at such an advanced age and such like are great achievements for a way overweight and past peak fighter....
His longevity and amazing performances v great and good fighters is awesome.....The biggest knock on duran is he should have been more disciplined and stayed no higher than welter....
Judge him on his lightweight and welter career where he was something like 80 fights, 78 wins,two losses (one avenged twice,and 1-1 with ray leonard.) and roughly 58 kos ,with 16 winning world title fights out of 17 over 13/14 years...He also started at super bantam or 122 lbs,won titles at 4 weights (three original weights.) and finished at world level at 168....
The word p4p is invented for duran,who i think has a case for no1 p4p of all times,given the subjective nature of the sport,and the presence of so many great contendors for the no1 title making there no clear cut number one.....At this dizzying level of greatness level no one can really say that robinson was so much better than duran p4p......

[Senya13]

As can be seen from my post, I described several effects usage of banned substances could result in, but none of them could make Jones show what he did. No matter how much you use them you will never achieve his handspeed if you didn't have naturally ultra-fast (as in one in a million or even more rare) hands.

Him training longer than can be usually achieved, the thing is young Jones had been training 6 to 8 hours every day for many years under guidance of his father, and he kept the habbit of keeping himself in good shape ever since, so that part came naturally as well, not because of banned substances.

His voyage to heavyweight is described on Shilstone site, with details of what methods Mackie uses for that. When he was preparing for Tarver I, he had done that without Shilstone's help and he regreted that, as it was done in a bad way. That was basically the only fight in his pro career where he had problems with stamina, all the rest (even the fight vs Glen Johnson) he didn't look visibly winded as the fight went on, so unless you want to think that he's been able to conceal usage of banned substances in 20+ only title fights alone, and many more without a title, there's only one conclusion - it came naturally with hard training he is known for.
Even at 38 years of age Roy has the fastest hands of any light heavyweight in history, no steroids will let you show such results at this age, if it wasn't given to you by nature (genetics).

And the last thing is, of course, the fact that Jones was known for all these qualities since he was an amateur, you can see him already ultra fast in Victor Levine bout that was in 1986.

[Senya13]

hardest 147/154 puncher of all time in tommy hearns
The #1 place at 154lb belongs to Julian Jackson, not to Hearns.

[sweet_scientist]

I know you've done the list umpteen times but where did you end up rating Duran P4P?

Actually had him at no 5. Perhaps a little high, but he is as good (probably the best along with Henry Armstrong) that I've seen on film.

[Senya13]

For instance -- Roberto Duran's resume, while not P4P top ten in your estimation, was by far and wide better than that of Roy Jones. It is your primary reason to exlude him from your top 10. You then place Roy Jones at #4.
How exactly is Duran's resume better than Jones's?

Then I have to conclude that you consider Roy to be several levels above Roberto Duran in boxing ability, that he's so far out of Roberto's league that Roy Jones not only makes up the difference in resume, but overtakes him by a big margin, at least as big as #11-#4.
Who looked more unbeatable and impressive at their peak? For me it's Jones Jr, hands down. Hopkins (middleweight), Toney (super middleweight) and Hill (light heavyweight) were very good tests and none had any chances at all, one-sided fights (despite what the judges gave 4 rounds to Hopkins, B-Hop didn't really prove his superiority to win a single round of that fight).

[JohnThomas1]

Actually had him at no 5. Perhaps a little high, but he is as good (probably the best along with Henry Armstrong) that I've seen on film.

Fair enough mate, 5 is quite reasonable. There's plenty of pristine film of Duran.

[sweet_scientist]

What was so impressive on film to you about Armstrong? You found him more impressive to watch than SRR, SRL, Whitaker, Jones Jr., Hagler, Hearns, etc? Perhaps I need to see more of him.:huh
In a word, his indefatigability. Is that a word? :D

The guy's workrate is the best I've ever seen, he had a granite chin, and his skills were excellent, if a notch below SRL, Whitaker and Jones. I won't say anything about SRR because I have seen him at middleweight and in one five min clip as a welter where you couldn't see shit. I haven't seen the best of him, and what I have seen, he was not at his best, although still outstanding, don't get me wrong.

Not sure, what you've seen of Armstrong, I have the following:

Henry Armstrong vs. Ernie Roderick (3 min.)
Henry Armstrong vs. Barney Ross (20 min.)
Henry Armstrong vs. Baby Arizmendi III & IV (12 & 25 min.)
Henry Armstrong vs. Ceferino Garcia I (27 min.)
Henry Armstrong vs. Ceferino Garcia II (22 min.)
Henry Armstrong vs. Lou Ambers II (30 min.)

[enquirer]

Duran did not lose his biggest fights as compared to robinson...
If you look at duran up until the end of 1981 at age 30 he had 86 fights,two losses (one avenged twice.) and 56 stoppage wins. He had also had 17 world title fight and won all but one of them,the leonard rematch...This incredible span lasted 14 years,two original weight divisions and encompassed buchanan,de jesus,ray leonard and palamino,as well as some very good fighters,all while looking superb on film...
Ray robinson had a similar run of 12 years (1940-1952.) which featured three losses (la motta,turpin and maxim,the first two avenged.) the last of which was at 32 against maxim,after which robbie temporarily retired...Robbie had about 130 or so fights in this period and many kos,had 12 world title bouts (7 at welter,four at middle,one at lt heavy.) of which he lost two....
He beat hall of famers gavilan,la motta and graziano in this run....
I dont see a massive difference between the two,bearing in mind that after these runs both of these men won good fights and lost good fights,both sustained many losses after 30.....
Why hold robertos past his prime and unnatural weight losses against him while discounting robbies? Robbie also fought and lost a lot at middle which was close to his best weight of welter/lt middle,whereas roberto sustained many losses at lt middle,middle and supermiddle which was way past his best of lightweight/welter....
Roberto won titles at three original weight classes (four including lt middle.) robbie won two and failed a the the third weight and never tried again......Cant robbies retiring in the corner against maxim be compared to durans no mas? How many guys considered no1 all time retired on their stool in a world title fight? (devils advocate by the way!.)
Anyway,durans run at lightweight/welter is as good as robbies run til the maxim fight......Disuss....:smoke :bbb

[enquirer]

I feel hearns was the harder one punch hitter at 154,but jackson was a murderous puncher at 154 as well....Anway,its defintely clear they are one and two,rank them as you will,i dont think you can say jackson was much better than tommy for one punch power....
And i feel duran could have beaten and avoided jacksons shots,but not tommys.....Power+speed=even more destruction.....:happy
As for jones,yes he was phenomenally gifted,nobody can dispute this,but taking steroids could have increased his level to the point that like ben johnson being transformed from a world class sprinter to the greatest of all time....(time and perfomance wise.) nobody dominated like ben johnson when he was at his best in the 100m,his time is still only 1 hundreth slower than the current world record and he was EASING off before the finish line....Ben johnson could have run 9.75 or even 9.7 and this was back in 88,powell is only just doing this now about 20 years later.....steroids work,no doubt at all.....Especially given the right natural frame and attributes ala jones.....

[sweet_scientist]

Duran did not lose his biggest fights as compared to robinson...
If you look at duran up until the end of 1981 at age 30 he had 86 fights,two losses (one avenged twice.) and 56 stoppage wins. He had also had 17 world title fight and won all but one of them,the leonard rematch...This incredible span lasted 14 years,two original weight divisions and encompassed buchanan,de jesus,ray leonard and palamino,as well as some very good fighters,all while looking superb on film...
Ray robinson had a similar run of 12 years (1940-1952.) which featured three losses (la motta,turpin and maxim,the first two avenged.) the last of which was at 32 against maxim,after which robbie temporarily retired...Robbie had about 130 or so fights in this period and many kos,had 12 world title bouts (7 at welter,four at middle,one at lt heavy.) of which he lost two....
He beat hall of famers gavilan,la motta and graziano in this run....
I dont see a massive difference between the two,bearing in mind that after these runs both of these men won good fights and lost good fights,both sustained many losses after 30.....
Why hold robertos past his prime and unnatural weight losses against him while discounting robbies? Robbie also fought and lost a lot at middle which was close to his best weight of welter/lt middle,whereas roberto sustained many losses at lt middle,middle and supermiddle which was way past his best of lightweight/welter....
Roberto won titles at three original weight classes (four including lt middle.) robbie won two and failed a the the third weight and never tried again......Cant robbies retiring in the corner against maxim be compared to durans no mas? How many guys considered no1 all time retired on their stool in a world title fight? (devils advocate by the way!.)
Anyway,durans run at lightweight/welter is as good as robbies run til the maxim fight......Disuss....:smoke :bbb
In Ray's run, he beat Sammy Angott (multiple times), Fritzie Zivic (multiple times), Jake LaMotta (multiple times), Kid Gavilan (multiple times), Carl Bobo Olson (multiple times), Randy Turpin, Henry Armstrong and Rocky Graziano. That just flat out trumps Roberto's run, great as it was.

Even after that, you had Robinson beating the likes of Olson, Fulmer and Basilio, which is more impressive than beating a washed up Cuevas, Davey Moore and Iran Barkley.

Oh and let me just nip it in the bud, NO Duran did not come close to beating Hagler.

[enquirer]

How many of those robbie beat were past it,like armstrong and graziano for example?
I also didnt mention the guys like mamby,Viruet or other contendors /future world champs that duran beat....And durans perfomance v marvin certainly surpasses robinson v maxim,no?
Even duran v barkley is as good as some of robbie wins....How good were olsen and turpin really?
Beating a peak ray leonard a full 13 lbs above your original championship weight is certainly the trump of the lot......:cool:

[sweet_scientist]

How many of those robbie beat were past it,like armstrong and graziano for example?

Yeah they were. Even so, Robinson's resume is still awesome.

I also didnt mention the guys like mamby,Viruet or other contendors /future world champs that duran beat

I also didn't mention many contenders Robinson beat.


....And durans perfomance v marvin certainly surpasses robinson v maxim,no?

In a way yes, in a way no. Robinson nearly won his fight, Duran nearly robbed Hagler. Obviously Hagler is better than Maxim.


Even duran v barkley is as good as some of robbie wins....How good were olsen and turpin really?

Better than Barkley and Moore imo.

Beating a peak ray leonard a full 13 lbs above your original championship weight is certainly the trump of the lot......:cool:

It keeps Duran in the discussion, for sure. It's a greater win than any single win Robinson ever had, but Robinson had quite a few better wins than Roberto's second best.

[enquirer]

Robertos' slight problem was the slight lack of hall of famers in the lightweight division in his time there,although he did fight de jesus three times and buchanan...At welter beating peak leonard and a good palamino are all top....Thats 7 fights against atg opposition.....And he beat all of them at least once.....
Not only is roberto still live and kicking in the discussion,but he has shown that its not silly at all to put him in contention for the no1 p4p of all time......Note also roberto goes head to head very well with any fighters in history at 135/147...(except for tommy hearns.)
As a side note,how do you feel the duran that beat leonard would do against the prime welter robinson over 15 rounds?

[Senya13]

As for jones,yes he was phenomenally gifted,nobody can dispute this,but taking steroids could have increased his level to the point that like ben johnson being transformed from a world class sprinter to the greatest of all time....(time and perfomance wise.) nobody dominated like ben johnson when he was at his best in the 100m,his time is still only 1 hundreth slower than the current world record and he was EASING off before the finish line....Ben johnson could have run 9.75 or even 9.7 and this was back in 88,powell is only just doing this now about 20 years later.....steroids work,no doubt at all.....Especially given the right natural frame and attributes ala jones.....
Can you imagine Ben Johnson with the help of any steroids he can find, coming to the track at 38 years of age, and still being faster than any other runners?

[Minotauro]

I have him in my top ten p4p look at his performances in his prime and then takes on one of the best welterweights of all time and beats him also when he is way past his prime manages to beat Barkley who was a good fighter not great but after that Barkley still managed to go to 175 and beat Hearn’s so he wasn't done or anything.

For those who don't have him in their top ten p4p I would like to see your list out of interest on who you consider to be above him.

[enquirer]

Carl lewis won the long jump at 35. Linford christie was the fastest man in the world at 32 and set an indoor world record for the 200m at 35.....Funny,he tested positive as well.....
Do you think jones is a fast as he was ten years ago? If not,then your point is invalid......

[Senya13]

Do you have examples of 38-years-old fastest runners? Jumping requires more technique than pure athletism (plus some luck as his main opponents had injuries). Lewis "finished eighth in the 100 m final at the Olympic Trials", ie there were 7 men faster than him in USA team alone.
Jones is not as fast as he was ten years ago, but neither is any other man in history between two such ages, without exception.

[Street Lethal]

He's one of the two or three best boxers I ever saw. His accomplishments put him among the best ever. No, he's not overrated.

[dmt]

Do you have examples of 38-years-old fastest runners? Jumping requires more technique than pure athletism (plus some luck as his main opponents had injuries). Lewis "finished eighth in the 100 m final at the Olympic Trials", ie there were 7 men faster than him in USA team alone.
Jones is not as fast as he was ten years ago, but neither is any other man in history between two such ages, without exception.agreed here

[hopkinsfan07]

Duran is underated :nut

[enquirer]

Linford christie and carl lewis both had their fastest times in their thirties,so got faster with age,this happens a lot with fast twitch sport such as sprinting and weightliftiing....In weightlifting its even more pronounced as guys in their late thirties and fourties break world records...So lewis and christie were faster 10 years later from when they were in their twenties.....
Jones is faster than who you say? His weight division,all the weights? What? You cant strictly compare boxing speed of punch with sprinting because it not the point to be the fastest puncher to win a fight,wheras it is the point to be the fastest runner in a sprint....
And what comp does jones have to be the current titlest of fastest puncher? No meldrick taylor,leonard,lighter pbf,camacho or such like....Thats like johnson coming back now and competing with no lewis,powell,christie,burrell or atgs,just like facing allen wells for the title of fastest bloke in the world in moscow 1980....

[enquirer]

:good Top post....

[Senya13]

Linford christie and carl lewis both had their fastest times in their thirties,so got faster with age
For bigger men the point after which they start getting slower is usually between 30 and 32 years old. Carl Lewis ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) is an example of this rule. For Christie it was a year later ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (at 33).

So lewis and christie were faster 10 years later from when they were in their twenties.....
In this one it's more about methods of training and performing, in general, developing, than them personally.

Jones is faster than who you say?
Faster than any other light heavyweight in history (of whom the film exists), regardless of age. He is also the fastest middleweight and super middleweight, although those were near or at his peak years. He is possibly the fastest heavyweight in history too on handspeed (at 34 years).

You cant strictly compare boxing speed of punch with sprinting because it not the point to be the fastest puncher to win a fight,wheras it is the point to be the fastest runner in a sprint....
One of the goals of any fighter is to deliver a punch faster than their opponent.

And what comp does jones have to be the current titlest of fastest puncher? No meldrick taylor,leonard,lighter pbf,camacho or such like....
Leonard had slowed down considerably by the age of 34 (vs Norris he looked very slow). Mayweather (even his young super featherweight version) wasn't as fast as Jones at any weight. Camacho wasn't faster than 1990's Jones either. Only young Meldrick Taylor showed handspeed faster than Jones, but where series of power punches were involved he was slower than Jones too. Even though all these men were smaller than Jones (and smaller men are usually faster).

[enquirer]

Even if we believe you (and its a big if.) so what? Hes not the best lt heavy in history at the moment,nor was he ever that.....Hes not even the best lt heavy in the world currently,not by a long shot! He has retained some of his speed but lost much of his fighting prowess hey?
He took steroids,maybe thats why hes faster than some of the old timers,thought of that? Many times the faster fighter loses to the better fighter on the night.....Remember johnson and tarver?
You also saying he was faster than ali and patterson at heavy?
Maybe he has very good longevity for the same reasons as hopkins,years of weaker opposition and cherry picking.....Put chemical assistance in there as well.......:bbb

[brooklyn1550]

Head to head at lightweight, he might be number 1 and in my opinion, is number 1, but looking at his resume at that weight, his best wins are over De Jesus and Buchanan. There are other fighters with more big wins at 135 - Benny Leonard and Carlos Ortiz for example.

[Mantequilla]

Duran's wins over Dejesus and Ken are on the same level as anything Ortiz did in my opinion.

And unlike Ortiz, Duran didn't lose when it really mattered...in a championship bout.

[Senya13]

So you can't come up with 38-years old runner who was faster than all his world-class opponents even if he took steroids or anything, and had been known for his ultra quickness ever since his teens? Maybe he was taking steroids ever since he was born, his mother was feeding him with steroids instead of milk?
Who's the best whatever is irrelevant to handspeed. But nice try nevertheless.

[mcvey]

In his lightweight prime he was amazing to watch, and also in some of his few fights at welterweight. But does his resume justify him being Top5 P4P of all time?

Did he really clean the Lightweight division? He didn't beat contenders of his era like Jimmy Heair, Angel Mayoral, Vicente Saldivar, etc.

Does he deserve to rank high at Welterweight just because of defeating and then losing against Ray Leonard, beating ex Champ Carlos Palomino and a few unranked guys?


His resume against contenders is basically this:

Hiro Kobayashi
Ken Buchanan
Guts Ishimatsu
Saoul Mamby
Esteban De Jesús
Vilomar Fernandez
Ray Lampkin
Edwin Viruet
Edwin Viruet
Esteban De Jesus
Carlos Palomino
Ray Leonard
Luigi Minchillo
Pipino Cuevas (past his best)
Davey Moore (had less than 17 pro fights)
Iran Barkley (incredible win, but Iran wasn't really a "consistent" fighter)

But he also had 6 losses before turning 35 years old (and then had much more Ls):

Esteban De Jesus
Ray Leonard
Wilfred Benitez
Kirkland Laing
Marvin Hagler
Thomas Hearns
He makes the top 10p4p,or he makes mine anyway,top 5 may be a bit high.

[NickHudson]

good post mate, interesting set of comparisons.

Duran did not lose his biggest fights as compared to robinson...
If you look at duran up until the end of 1981 at age 30 he had 86 fights,two losses (one avenged twice.) and 56 stoppage wins. He had also had 17 world title fight and won all but one of them,the leonard rematch...This incredible span lasted 14 years,two original weight divisions and encompassed buchanan,de jesus,ray leonard and palamino,as well as some very good fighters,all while looking superb on film...
Ray robinson had a similar run of 12 years (1940-1952.) which featured three losses (la motta,turpin and maxim,the first two avenged.) the last of which was at 32 against maxim,after which robbie temporarily retired...Robbie had about 130 or so fights in this period and many kos,had 12 world title bouts (7 at welter,four at middle,one at lt heavy.) of which he lost two....
He beat hall of famers gavilan,la motta and graziano in this run....
I dont see a massive difference between the two,bearing in mind that after these runs both of these men won good fights and lost good fights,both sustained many losses after 30.....
Why hold robertos past his prime and unnatural weight losses against him while discounting robbies? Robbie also fought and lost a lot at middle which was close to his best weight of welter/lt middle,whereas roberto sustained many losses at lt middle,middle and supermiddle which was way past his best of lightweight/welter....
Roberto won titles at three original weight classes (four including lt middle.) robbie won two and failed a the the third weight and never tried again......Cant robbies retiring in the corner against maxim be compared to durans no mas? How many guys considered no1 all time retired on their stool in a world title fight? (devils advocate by the way!.)
Anyway,durans run at lightweight/welter is as good as robbies run til the maxim fight......Disuss....:smoke :bbb

[NickHudson]

In defending his Olympic 100m title from 1992, Linford Christie made the final of the 1996 Olympics aged 37 (i.e top 8 in the world). Unfortunately, he tore his hamstring in the lead up and ran badly by his standards . But, his form was good enough for 3rd or 4th IMO.

agreed here

[Lex]

To appreciate Duran you must watch his filmed fights against top competition. Hopefully, that eliminates the pesky but unavoidable factor, "Oh, sure, but were the 1970s lightweights as good as the 1930s, 1990s, etc.?"

Nobody will ever agree on that factor and, besides, there aren't enough good quality films available from each decade for a fair comparison. Fact is, many of the expert opinions about certain top fights are not based on first-hand accounts of Fighter A vs. Fighter B, but are hypotheses drawn from having seen the performances of Fighter A vs. Fighter C and Fighter B vs. Fighter C.

We all know the cliche, "Styles make fights," and fighters aren't seeded like tennis players or scheduled like team sports. Between scoring for boxing, gymnastics and figure skating, we could make a helluva lotta fudge.

The way Duran relentlessly, unceasingly ran down and mowed over top competition in the lightweight division is undeniable. The usual terms like "pressured" and "stalked" hardly do justice to Duran's style back then. You can actually watch his opponents wilt under the pressure while Duran slowed down only to sit between rounds.

When I first watched him (a live televised bout against Ray Lampkin) I thought he was just a ferocious slugger - a damned impressive ferocious slugger, sure. But it wasn't until later that I appreciated the way he moved in quickly behind the jab and avoided punches with quick twists of the head, his lank hair flinging sweat in halos. His footwork was excellent and he had the complete arsenal of punches.

How would he have ranked against earlier generations of lightweight greats? Who knows. I haven't seen enough film of those boxers against competition comparable to Duran. I'm confident that Duran would easily blow by every modern lightweight except Chavez, Whitaker and Mayweather. I'd call it even between Chavez and Durn. I'd give Whitaker an edge over Duran compared with Mayweather-Duran; I think Mayweather's defensive tactics would work against him with Durn. Moving straight backward (tho' he does this less often now), the shoulder roll, etc. I think Duran would outwork him for a slight edge. Whitaker would give Duran more trouble.

Oddly enough the P4P riddle seems easier to answer. I'd rank Duran easily in the Top 10 P4P if he retains every capability he had at his lightweight prime. Even during his first bout against SRL, I thought Duran seemed bloated, musclebound and sluggish compared with Duran against Lampkin, Buchanan, Kobayashi and others.

But those are the vagaries of P4P and simple Top 10 lists. Do we really believe that a bantamweight Muhammad Ali, identical in every other respect, would be considered The Greatest... bantamweight? Not with that style and recklessness, not against men who were equally quick and hit harder.

Oh, well, this is a fun conversation anyway.

[Lex]

BTW, the issue of Roy Jones, Jr.'s athleticism and punching power comes up occasionally...

While I've never sparred with Roy (I was well past my boxing days when I met him), I did chat and shake hands with him. Roy has very soft hands, a basketball player's hands. Not surprising since I think he'd rather play ball, fish and mess with his roosters and dogs than box.

Anyway, soft hands don't make for "hard punchers," not in the sense that non-boxers think of it. Roy is a perfect example of Sugar Ray Robinson's comment that it's the punches you don't see coming that get you. A prime Roy was so fast, it was the bolt from the blue that kayoed opponents.

Breaking Virgil Hill's rib with a single right was an exception. I don't want to completely dismiss Roy's power - anybody his size in such good condition can hit hard. But before the Hill body shot KO, Roy wasn't really known as a body puncher. Maybe Virgil just wasn't wary enough and didn't anticipate a serious body blow from Roy. Again, assuming you're in condition, it's the body blows you don't expect that get you, not the one's you're ready for. Consider Hopkin's one shot to the liver KO of Oscar DLH.

[fists of fury]

[quote=Lex]

Anyway, soft hands don't make for "hard punchers," not in the sense that non-boxers think of it.
quote]

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate on this for me please?

PS-How did you find Roy as a person? Was he friendly, smug, arrogant, charming etc.?

[JohnThomas1]

So you can't come up with 38-years old runner who was faster than all his world-class opponents even if he took steroids or anything, and had been known for his ultra quickness ever since his teens? Maybe he was taking steroids ever since he was born, his mother was feeding him with steroids instead of milk?
Who's the best whatever is irrelevant to handspeed. But nice try nevertheless.

Tell me about these apples

Steroids will certainly "enhance" hand speed if used in conjunction with the correct training, which isn't exactly difficult. It's a myth that bigger muscles slow you down and all the usual crap. Look at the legs on 100m sprinters, then compare them to the marathon runners. Properly gained muscle gives more power for acceleration yada yada. Steroids let you train harder for longer, and one can actually put the onus fast twitch muscle fibre.

Not buying into the Jones/roids debate, no doubt at all Jones has freak handspeed from the start. Steroids can however gain you power and very possibly speed at the same time. Roids positive effect on training will likely allow you to retain handspeed later into a fight as well.

[enquirer]

Senya,the competition in the 100m is such nowadays that it is very unlikely for a guy these days to even retain an olympic title,never mind start in his twenties and stay till 38....I dont see the point you are trying to make...Bear in mind that there isnt much comp from the other boxers of todday for the 'fastest hands title',If meldrick taylor,leonard,camacho or some other guys were around today your arguement would be invalid,even if floyd were still at 130 he might lose....He may be the fastest today but thats because there is no comp today....I imagine chrisitie could still be the fastest today if all the other guys were absent,or the comp was very low.....
Allen wells won in 1980 with a time of 10.19 i think, because the americans boycotted the games and so the field was very weak....
That time wouldnt even get you eight in a high class field today...
Foreman winning the title at 45,was that an undisputed title? Do you think foreman could have won the undisputed title v holyfield at 45? (no,because he lost clearly anyway.) Being the best in a weak era is not as impressive as you make out,especially when the point of boxing is to win,not just to have the fastest hands.....whats the point in being the fastest boxer when you are not the best boxer in your current division,and you got easily beaten by tarver and johnson for the title,who are not even champs now????????????
Shall we give props to the boxer with the best 100m sprint time and call him the best boxer in the world and an amazing specimem?

[Senya13]

Calzaghe is considered to have very fast hands. He's still slower than today's 38 y.o. version of Jones at combinations at mid to close range (even though Joe puts less weight into his punches), against 168lb version of Jones Calzaghe looks as quick as a turtle. Pacquiao has exceptionally quick hands. But compare his combinations to a prime version of Jones, and again Roy is without a doubt faster. Sugar Ray Leonard as an amateur had quicker hands than the pro version of him (which was still exceptionally fast), but to me he was slightly slower than prime Jones at either 160 or 168 lb.

Basically only Meldrick Taylor has showed speed (in his flurries) slightly quicker than Jones at his prime, but I'm thinking if we could make Jones same size as Meldrick, he'd be slightly faster than Taylor. The rest, Camacho, Davis Jr, Mosley, Whitaker, and the like, none of them had as quick hands as prime Jones.

[enquirer]

But what is the point of all this? And why dont you reply to comments posters make?
I dont care if he was/is the fastest,hes not the best lt heavy in the world today....END of story......
If only speed was what made boxers great,meldrick taylor=no1 of all times at any weight....
Also,if have news for you,likely everyone of the sprinters in the olympic final over the last twenty years has taken drugs,as did jones who was caught......Put some of the old timers on drugs and see how much better they would have done before claiming jones as all time fastest guy.....
Is ben johnson faster and better than jesses owens?

[Senya13]

Which fight(s) did Camacho throw quicker combos than 168lb Jones? Leonard was slightly slower to me (I have 9 his amateur fights to compare, he was quicker as an ama, than as a pro).

[enquirer]

Subjectivity rules.....
And nicky hudson showed you a 37 year old who was amazingly fast for his age senya......Jones has no comp nowadays, speedwise,there is always comp in the 100m nowadays......

[Senya13]

1) Comparison of greatness has nothing to do with either speed or steroids.
2) I don't argue against Taylor being the fastest of all time. Jones, in my opinion, is #2, with Leonard 3rd.
3) Jones was not caught at taking drugs.
4) Jones has been known for ultra fast hands since amateurs and has preserved it at such age where it's impossible to be helped by any drugs of the world, unless the speed was given to you by genetics. He's been showing them in every fight he's been in so far, and if it was attributed to steroids, that means there were 50+ chances for him to get caught about it.

[enquirer]

He had a positive test for steroids v richard hall....Look it up....End of story....

[Senya13]

Subjectivity rules.....
And nicky hudson showed you a 37 year old who was amazingly fast for his age senya......Jones has no comp nowadays, speedwise,there is always comp in the 100m nowadays......
Jones has only one man in all history who was quicker than him, it has nothing to do with today's competition, with amateur Leonard at best being a tie for 2nd place (pro Leonard was slower than prime Jones, it's easy to compare).

[Senya13]

He had a positive test for steroids v richard hall....Look it up....End of story....
1) Test 'A' only, no test 'B' - no proof.
2) The authors of that letter that mentions anabolic steroids have showed pretty much zero knowledge about them, most probably confusing them with prohibited drugs, that were not anabolic steroids.
3) Androstenedione that is often mentioned as that substance he was tested positive for, was not on the list of banned substances at the time of Richard Hall fight, and was not even considered to be 'anabolic steroid' by definition at that time, so this version of what it was is false.

[enquirer]

Subjectivity on the speed,and its plain he took drugs,you can twist it which way you want but its clear what was in his body was not gatorade......
Also,he is not as fast as he was,or are you saying even now hes faster than prime leonard and such like?

[Senya13]

He admittedly took ripped fuel, there are no researches that have showed it increasing speed as far as I know.
He's not as fast as he was, but he is still faster than any other light heavyweight in history (those that have been filmed).

[laxpdx]

At the very least he is arguably the best lightweight that ever was, IMHO.

[Stonehands89]

....

ESB-Classic has had the critique of glorifying Duran in the past. Some would agree, I would take a different view -that any boxing historian or student who does not recognize the greatness that was Duran simply reveals their own shortcomings.

On the one hand, some of the critiques here are refreshing ... but some are really off. I'm off to the gym now and will take out some of my frustrations. Later, I'm coming back without the taint of emotion but with all guns blazing.

Whoever would be reticent about placing Duran inside of the top 10 has alot of explaining to do. Whoever thinks he should be outside of the top 10 should either find and watch hours of film or find a golf forum and stay there.

[bumdujour]

In his lightweight prime he was amazing to watch, and also in some of his few fights at welterweight. But does his resume justify him being Top5 P4P of all time?

Did he really clean the Lightweight division? He didn't beat contenders of his era like Jimmy Heair, Angel Mayoral, Vicente Saldivar, etc.

Does he deserve to rank high at Welterweight just because of defeating and then losing against Ray Leonard, beating ex Champ Carlos Palomino and a few unranked guys?


His resume against contenders is basically this:

Hiro Kobayashi
Ken Buchanan
Guts Ishimatsu
Saoul Mamby
Esteban De Jesús
Vilomar Fernandez
Ray Lampkin
Edwin Viruet
Edwin Viruet
Esteban De Jesus
Carlos Palomino
Ray Leonard
Luigi Minchillo
Pipino Cuevas (past his best)
Davey Moore (had less than 17 pro fights)
Iran Barkley (incredible win, but Iran wasn't really a "consistent" fighter)

But he also had 6 losses before turning 35 years old (and then had much more Ls):

Esteban De Jesus
Ray Leonard
Wilfred Benitez
Kirkland Laing
Marvin Hagler
Thomas Hearns

as i recall, he did fight and beat jimmy heair. and he also beat top contender hector thompson, who had beaten jimmy heair.

[SgrRyLeonard]

No, he deserves to be rated as highly as he is.

[Bad_Intentions]

yes he is.

[mcvey]

In defending his Olympic 100m title from 1992, Linford Christie made the final of the 1996 Olympics aged 37 (i.e top 8 in the world). Unfortunately, he tore his hamstring in the lead up and ran badly by his standards . But, his form was good enough for 3rd or 4th IMO.
Assisted by what? Shades of Flo Jo!

[Stonehands89]

In his lightweight prime he was amazing to watch, and also in some of his few fights at welterweight. But does his resume justify him being Top5 P4P of all time?

Did he really clean the Lightweight division? He didn't beat contenders of his era like Jimmy Heair, Angel Mayoral, Vicente Saldivar, etc.

Does he deserve to rank high at Welterweight just because of defeating and then losing against Ray Leonard, beating ex Champ Carlos Palomino and a few unranked guys?


His resume against contenders is basically this:

Hiro Kobayashi
Ken Buchanan
Guts Ishimatsu
Saoul Mamby
Esteban De Jesús
Vilomar Fernandez
Ray Lampkin
Edwin Viruet
Edwin Viruet
Esteban De Jesus
Carlos Palomino
Ray Leonard
Luigi Minchillo
Pipino Cuevas (past his best)
Davey Moore (had less than 17 pro fights)
Iran Barkley (incredible win, but Iran wasn't really a "consistent" fighter)

But he also had 6 losses before turning 35 years old (and then had much more Ls):

Esteban De Jesus
Ray Leonard
Wilfred Benitez
Kirkland Laing
Marvin Hagler
Thomas Hearns

Duran doesn't belong at #1 and probably not at #2 either. No Mas hurts his legacy. His inconsistency hurts him. If not for these two negatives, he'd be higher. If he eaked Hagler and beat Hearns, I'd put him over Robinson.

When he stepped into the ring at Montreal, his record was 67-1, 56 KOs. That is a serious record and you mentioned several good to excellent fighters he defeated. Buchanan, DeJesus, Lampkin, and probably Ishimatsu would have been far more notable if not for Duran's dominance in the LW division. The detractors out here should ask themselves where they would put Duran had he died in plane crash after beating Leonard. He would have been almost myth.

But that was 1980. Duran fought on... and in so doing he was inconsistent, which I think keeps him from the very top. But there is gold in the 80s and even the 90s... when inspired, he beat monsters.

I put him at #3. It depends on what the measures are though. Part of the reason for that is the measures I use. They include these:

* dominance in his natural division
* ring generalship/skill level
* quality of competition
* longevity
* performance against "larger men."

Duran scores very, very highly in these categories.

Both "longevity" and "performace against larger men" goes far in revealing the level of skill in a great fighter because everything else is stripped away and you see the essentials. Well, Duran showed more than anyone this side of Langford.

Let me put it this way.... Duran had NO BUSINESS defeating an elite welterweight in Ray Leonard. He had NO BUSINESS fighting Hagler at 25 pounds out of his prime weight, inside (not outside a la Ray) the perimeter (where it was always dangerous) and taking him 15 rounds while Hagler was in his prime and had knocked out his previous 7(?) opponents. Duran had NO BUSINESS defeating Barkley who was larger and arguably stronger than even Hagler when Duran was a full TEN YEARS after his prime and 21 years into his career. Iran Barkley by the way just handed Hearns the most devestating KO of his career.

Damn it, I thought he defeated Camacho (who was a slick boxer and mover) when he was 45 years old and got ripped off.

We forget that this was a damn lightweight years past his prime, competing way out of his division. He had neither the height nor the frame to allow for it like most others. He wasn't even a large lightweight like De La Hoya. Duran was completely physically outgunned by everyone he fought from 1980 on. Commentator/trainer Gil Clancy observed during the Monroe Brooks Jr. WW fight (Dec. 1978) that "Duran's frame is too short and squared to compete against middleweights". Listen to Clancy during the Barkley fight 10 years later and keep in mind that Barkley had the frame of a light heavyweight although he fought as a middleweight. (By the way, Barkley was at his absolute best for this fight and if you watch him before and after Feb 1989, it is very clear.)

Clancy was in complete shock.

During the ref's instructions, Duran is looking up into the sky at Barkley's chin. He was a small man and we forget that. Can anyone see even the great Chavez posing a real challenge to Hagler? I sure as hell don't. I don't see Chavez faring too well against Barkley either.

Chavez is an all-time, top 20 great at the very least in my opinion. Duran was the same height as Chavez and had an inch shorter reach. And yet Duran's accomplishments dwarf Chavez's.

These nay-sayers out here need to do their homework.

PS/ Asterion, I think that Duran's "ranking" at WW is only head-to-head. At least, that is what I've noticed. Leonard would be tough for any WW in history this side of Robinson to defeat, and the idea of a LW doing it is very surprising.

[Marciano Frazier]

Duran is the only HOF fighter I can think of who was KO’d by one punch and quit in a fight without a major injury. Sonny Liston.

[NickHudson]

What fight are you referring to here?

Sometimes it takes a lot of balls to speak the truth about a popular fighter. I want to be up front by saying that Duran is not among my favorite fighters, but at the same time I want to be fair with him in this thread. Duran as a light weight is not over rated. He is an ALL time top 5 light weight. A speical fighter. He simply was too strong ( but not a big puncher ) and active for most light weights. He had an under rated defense too. Fans love Duran for his scowl in the ring. However, I do think Duran as a welter and middle weight is vastly over rated. Duran is the only HOF fighter I can think of who was KO’d by one punch and quit in a fight without a major injury. I’ve always felt he was a dirty fighter. I believe that Roberto threw an intentional low blow vs Buchanan to win the lightweight crown. While Duran was up on the cards, winning the title this way is dishonorable. Buchanan never got the re-match.

[Curtis Lowe]

I'm 49 years old, been a serious boxing fan since I was 15 and Roberto Duran is the best fighter I ever saw. Period!