How good was Duran - P4P GOAT? [Archive]

PowerPuncher

10-11-2007, 05:07 PM

Duran was undoubtably a great fighter, but just how good? Some go as far as saying hes P4P no1 or P4P top 5. Whats undoubtable abotu Duran is his magnificent lightweight reign & his magnificent Leonard victory. What about the fighters he didn't face from 135-147 though? Whats also up for debate how good his career at 154 and 160 truly were.

Lightweight Reign - Excellent

An extremely dominant 6 year reign but as a whole the quality of competition is poor with no real ATGs. Highlights:

Buchanon - strengths - very skilled, jab, movement, tall, conditioned.

Dejesus - excellent fighter - but great? Probably not, Duran showed his mantle by dominating Dejesus a further 2 times. Cervantes also dominated Dejesus at 140. Duran-Cervantes would have been a great fight to make.

135 - Who was missed: Buchanon rematch (the first fight ended with a low blow), Arguello, Laguna (could the ex-champ have had a shot)

Welterweight (1hit wonder?)

SRL 1 - stupendous win, the highlight of Durans careera and a masterful performance. The only criticism of the win is SRL was still slightly green but it was a great win.
SRL 2 - dreadful doesn't win a round.
Palomino - very good win over an ex-belt holder

Who he missed at 140-147: Hearns, Pryor, Cervantes

Light Middleweight

Benitez - similarly sized Benitez outfoxes Duran

Kirkland Laing - very skilled operator that never proved himself above British level outside of Duran. A very embarassing defeat

Hearns - destroys Duran

Davey Moore - only a 12 fight veteran. Needless to say a very weak belt holder despite wins over Kalule and a past prime version of Benitez who was unfortunate to break his ankle. Moore would go onto be a journeyman

Cuevas - Cuevas was clearly on the slide and past prime but a good win none the less

Who he missed at 154 - McCallum, Curry, Julian Jackson

Middleweight

Hagler - Hagler was not at his best and Duran really pushed him but Hagler did seem to overly respect Duran.

Barkley - decent win BUT Barkley was not a top 5 middleweight when Duran edged a SD over him. Nunn, Benn, Kalambay, McCallum, Eubank, Bomber Graham, Mike Watson would all have whooped Duran and Barkley. BEnn took Barkley out in 1 round, Toney completely dominated Barkley who became something of a journeyman.

SRL 3 - 1 sided loss at a ripe age it must be said

Who Duran missed at 160 - Nunn, Benn, Kalambay, McCallum, Eubank, Bomber Graham, Steve Collins, Mike Watson

Total List Of Top Contenders Duran Didn't face 135-160 - Buchanon rematch (the first fight ended with a low blow), Arguello, Laguna (could the ex-champ have had a shot), Pryor, Cervantes, Julian Jackson, Nunn, Benn, Kalambay, McCallum, Eubank, Bomber Graham, Steve Collins, Mike Watson

Conclusion

Durans lightweight reign was dominant but with only 2 stand out wins. His win over Leonard was remarkable but his Welterweight reign is a 1hit wonder. At 154 he wasn't top5. At 160 his sole achievement was to beat a journeymen beltholder in Barkley who got lucky against Hearns. In fairness at this stage he was a side-show fighter

I have listed the fighters he didn't face not to downplay him but to show that he wasn't a dominant forced from 147-160 that some like to paint him as. He also wasn't facing and beating top fighters at either 154 or 160. He was only truly successfull at 135 and 147.

His success at 135 and 147 is truly great. How good? Very but not P4P GOAT in this writers opinion.

brooklyn1550

10-11-2007, 05:08 PM

Agreed...I'd put him anywhere from 5-10

McGrain

10-11-2007, 05:20 PM

True or False:

Duran lost to every truly great fighter he ever took on?

Black Eyes To You

10-11-2007, 05:29 PM

I have him at about 14. Right behind Lewis.

Just kidding he isn't in my top 15.

PowerPuncher

10-11-2007, 05:30 PM

True or False:

Duran lost to every truly great fighter he ever took on?

Define Great - do Buchannon, Palomino (past prime), Cuevas (past prime) qualify as great?

apollack

10-11-2007, 05:30 PM

Man you guys are harsh. I disagree. Duran fought a lot of very solid lightweights. Look at their records. Vilomar Fernandez had a win over Arguello. So did Ernesto Marcel. Duran beat both. Duran fought a lot of tough lightweights with good records, some of whom gave him difficulties before getting stopped. Beating Ray Leonard, a natural ATG welter, even once, is something very special. Not to mention Carlos Palomino, who was no slouch. We are talking a natural lightweight here, folks. Cuevas was no slouch either and Duran didn't exactly run from him or have the height and reach ad that Hearns had. He got up in his face and KO'd him. Davey Moore was green, but he was a champion and had some successful defenses prior to Duran, and if I'm not mistaken, was actually the odds favorite over Duran in that fight. Iran Barkley was no journeyman. That was one really tough, strong dude with a punch and solid chin and great will to win. Beating Hearns was no fluke. In fact, he did it twice. Barkley-Duran was a great fight in which both men proved their mettle. Just look at Duran at 135 and then look at him at 160 against Barkley, a natural 160, and tell me you aren't really impressed to see him move up that much in weight and still be able to go to war with a guy like that. I think Duran is owed more props than he's getting.

That said, you make a well stated argument, but there's always two sides to every argument.

McGrain

10-11-2007, 05:31 PM

Define Great - do Buchannon, Palomino (past prime), Cuevas (past prime) qualify as great?

I would say no personally...but define it for yourself. If you think otherwise, i'll have no problem with that, what do you think?

McGrain

10-11-2007, 05:32 PM

False obviously, but he did lose to most, and his resume is not nearly as good as some would think, given the love he gets on these boards.

OK, which ATG fighters - try to exclude those who are borderline, but sort the definition as you please - did Duran fight and beat without losing to in a rematch or the first match or whatever.

China_hand_Joe

10-11-2007, 05:35 PM

Duodenum

10-11-2007, 05:36 PM

1) Robinson
2) Duran

Roberto's performance in Montreal clinched it for me. I am among the apparent minority who expected that version of Duran to unify the WW title against Hearns. Forget his second and third fights against SRL ever happened.

McGrain

10-11-2007, 05:37 PM

Well, he lost the Leonard rematch, but otherwise beat no real greats, beat Buchanan though, and the guys PP mentioned. But otherwise, nah, no real greats I wouldn't say.

That's what I mean - I think Duran is overated by resume because every time he came up against a top .1% fighter he got beat.

Because no-one has an easy night of it with Duran - because he can stretch literally anyone from light to middle who ever fought, and you know that when you watch him - he gets overated.

But Duran would get beaten by anyone else on you top 10 ww list IMO, though he might get 1/3 against most of them.

PowerPuncher

10-11-2007, 05:38 PM

I would say no personally...but define it for yourself. If you think otherwise, i'll have no problem with that, what do you think?

I think I'd have to agree that he lost to every great he faced. However hes slightly unlucky from a legacy stand point he didn't get a Arguello type of fighter at 135.

Theres a fine line between a great and very good fighter and many very good fighters may beat greats.

Its very disapointing we didn't see Duran fight at 140 against Pryor, Benitez, Cervantes because 140 may have been his best weight.

Then again he may not have had the chance to take Leonard down if he got beat at 140.

McGrain

10-11-2007, 05:39 PM

Duran was obviously relatively poor at moving through the weight, at least compared to how he was at lightweight. His reign at lightweight is all that matters, Duran was never really good enough to be SRL. Forget the first fight ever happened.

DeJesus was the best fighter that Duran fought at LW and DeJesus beat him

Duran was plenty ready to move to WW when he moved, he was the right size and shape.

McGrain

10-11-2007, 05:40 PM

I think I'd have to agree that he lost to every great he faced. However hes slightly unlucky from a legacy stand point he didn't get a Arguello type of fighter at 135.

Theres a fine line between a great and very good fighter and many very good fighters may beat greats.

Its very disapointing we didn't see Duran fight at 140 against Pryor, Benitez, Cervantes because 140 may have been his best weight.

Then again he may not have had the chance to take Leonard down if he got beat at 140.

Good post.

PowerPuncher

10-11-2007, 05:49 PM

DeJesus was the best fighter that Duran fought at LW and DeJesus beat him

Duran was plenty ready to move to WW when he moved, he was the right size and shape.

He hadn't peaked when he lost to DeJesus and it probably made him come back better. I think hes aloud that 1 learning loss that he avenged twice.

When taking a closer look at Durans lightweight resume though it looks very very thin outside of Dejesus and Buchannon

McGrain

10-11-2007, 05:55 PM

He hadn't peaked when he lost to DeJesus and it probably made him come back better. I think hes aloud that 1 learning loss that he avenged twice.

I wouldn't neccesarily disagree with this but my original point still holds.

Put it this way, and i'm interested in what you might come up with: which other fighter considered for ATG top 15 status has lost to every ATG they've ever fought?

I think there are none post 1930.

Arminius

10-11-2007, 05:57 PM

PowerPuncher

10-11-2007, 06:31 PM

He dominated a division for a decade. Name some of the so called greats who did that. And just consider that when there is a dominant champion who beats everyone it allows none of the beaten to be considered great.

His lightweight opponents were as good as any list of opponents of any era.

His losses to the greats were when he was slowing and above, sometimes much above, his natural weight.

I would disagree that Hagler was slowing when he met Duran. Hagler had 8 consecutive KO's prior to Duran and 4 more following Duran.

NO NO NO

He did dominate a division for a decade - try 6-7years. Castillo dominated the lightweights for 5 years (excluding the mayweather losses)

Did he beat everyone in a lightweight era as good as any other? NO, the only good names are Dejesus and Buchannon, many were journeymen

Were his losses when he was slowing? Maybe but this was when he stepped up his opposition too. And if your going to boast about winning a few rounds against Hagler you can't discount losses to Leonard, Hearns, Benitez and the great Kirkland LAing

Stonehands89

10-11-2007, 06:50 PM

Stonehands89

10-11-2007, 06:51 PM

#9.

List # 1-8 please. Also, I'd like to see your measures.

PowerPuncher

10-11-2007, 06:54 PM

I could give you a better argument demonstrating that the world is flat.

Please bring forward anything you disagree with regarding Duran. I obviously wouldn't expect someone called 'stonehands' to be biased on the matter :roll:

Stonehands89

10-11-2007, 06:55 PM

True or False:

Duran lost to every truly great fighter he ever took on?

True or False:

Joe Louis lost to every truly great HW he ever took on.

Luigi1985

10-11-2007, 07:01 PM

1. Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Muhammad Ali
5. Sam Langford
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Pernell Whitaker
8. Ray Leonard

I rate them on a mixture of resume/accomplishments(about 60%) and head to head ability/in-ring performance(40%). And yes I have Whitaker above Duran.

Ali and Whitaker are way too high... :bart

warchild

10-11-2007, 07:31 PM

True or False:

Duran lost to every truly great fighter he ever took on?

There's no correct answer to the question.

That's like saying that Lennox Lewis is the best heavyweight of all time because "he beat every opponent who he ever faced"....except that to say that and neglect to mention that two of those wins were in rematches after he was easily stopped, wouldn't be telling it like it is.

Luigi1985

10-11-2007, 07:50 PM

Well, I could make the same argument for Duran etc.

I agree, IMO Duran is also a bit overrated, but Ali and Whitaker can´t be p4p Top-10- material IMO...

Luigi1985

10-11-2007, 08:03 PM

I don't see it personally, Ali was the best HW of all time, defeated all the best in the best era of HW boxing ever, and was the biggest star in the sport, as well as the most impressive HW to ever fight aside from maybe a prime Tyson. No HW before or since has fought like him.

Whitaker, well, when it gets past those top notch guys like Armstrong, Greb, Robinson, etc. a lot of the guys have question marks, like Moore, Duran, etc, and Whitaker has a better body of work than a Monzon or Hagler, so why is it so wrong to put him up there with the very best?

You know, we don´t need to discuss Whitaker´s greatness, because it´s out of question, I also rank him pretty high, for me personally you just have him a bit too high, but making a p4p-list from all-times is so difficult, it´s not easy and it´s normal that some agree or disagree with such lists...

JimboDs

10-11-2007, 08:25 PM

Are you people insane?

Duran beat everyone he faced at lightweight. His only loss at that weight was a decision loss to a guy who would be considered a great fighter had Duran not been there to knock him out in their next two fights (as well as his going to jail).

Duran was so dominant as a lightweight that no other lightweight at the time even had a chance to be considered an ATG. Buchanan was an extremely talented fighter, as were several others he faced. He was just that good at that weight.

Duran skipped an entire weight class when he moved up and beat SRL.

Duran didn't get knocked out until he fought 20 lbs over his natural weight against one of the best p4p punchers of all time.

Aside from SRR, I can't think of anyone who was a more complete all-around fighter skill-wise than Duran.

For Christ's sake, the guy as close to invincible at his natural weight than any fighter in history has ever been. He had no glaring weaknesses. He fought in 5 decades, won world titles at multiple weights, decisively beat a prime SRL, never ducked soul, and is a member of the exclusive 50+ KO club.

Overrated? He's a fucking legend. Top 5 p4p easily.

Stonehands89

10-11-2007, 08:27 PM

Please bring forward anything you disagree with regarding Duran. I obviously wouldn't expect someone called 'stonehands' to be biased on the matter :roll:

You make assumptions, my friend. Duran is indeed my favorite fighter, but after a long process of deductive reasoning, not because I like his beard. He had limitations, and he had weaknesses like all of his peers. He was a complete fighter and his accomplishments speak for themselves. If you don't know that, then you should take up tennis.

I do not think that his critics out here are fully aware of Duran: his effectiveness, or his unprecedented accomplishments. And it shows -painfully.

Stonehands89

10-11-2007, 08:29 PM

Well, I could make the same argument for Duran etc.

And you could make a fool out yourself. Duran in the double digits? Come on.

Stonehands89

10-11-2007, 08:35 PM

Still, he lost to every great he faced and his resume at LW, while very good, was not the best at LW of all time, and his record at higher weights was not good enough even for ATG status IMO, it was that combined with his career at LW and his longevity that do it. Top 10 ATG perhaps, but not much higher.

Your credibility, which was high in my book at least, is absolutely plummeting with every post you put in this thread.

What is this --"he lost to every great he faced"? Is it the phrase of the day?

--Name a lightweight who would have defeated Ray Leonard.

--Name a lightweight who, at 32, could have gone 15 rounds with a 29 year old Hagler.

--Name a lightweight who could have taken the MW title against a peak, 28 year old, 6'1, 160 lb power punching champion 21 years into his career. Duran was 37, and 5'7 in shoes.

THERE ARE NONE. THAT IS GREATNESS. Now, please, stop making dunces of yourselves.

Stonehands89

10-11-2007, 09:13 PM

Can you deny it? Honestly, can you? No, you can't. He can do well against all of them, but if he loses at the end of the day, then that isn't top 5 ATG material. Overall though, his career was a great one.
Stop ranting. It is a biased, deceptive, and stupid statement to make ..."he lost to every great he faced." The man stepped up from the lightweights and defeated a top 2 or 3 WW of all time. There goes your criticism of the quality of his competition in the LWs. He proved his greatness once and for all. Duran beat Leonard and honestly, he should not have had the capability. Great little guys don't beat great bigger guys. Then he goes 15 with Hagler. He fought everyone and anyone and the man was small and far past his prime while doing this. If you know anything about boxing, you know that this does not happen often. Maybe once in generations.

I can't think of any, but I bet you Whitaker could have given him a damn good fight, and sure as hell would never have quit, in fact I can think of none other that would have quit. Again, you mention only the good, and act as if the bad don't count.
Whitaker, though great, wasn't going to beat Ray Leonard. He's simply not strong enough and you don't outbox Ray -not unless you have guns like Hearns. Whitaker had relative (sweet) pea shooters.

Good stuff, I consider Duran a top 10 ATG, I don't think that's too amazingly bad, do you really think so?
I don't care where you rank him. I'm out here calling you and a few others out because some of these posts defy reason and sense. Call it quality control.

Not one, good accomplishments, but someone like DLH was able to go from 130 to 160 and win titles as well, Duran fit the higher weights and had a bigger body frame than someone like Whitaker and others, therefore was able to compete at the higher weights better. But that still doesn't mask the fact that even as low as 147 and 154 he was losing to guys like Benitez and lesser fighters.
De La Hoya was 5'10. He had the frame to compete. And Sturm was no where near as dangerous as Iran that night. And De La Hoya's win was three times more controversial than Duran's over Barkley. And Whitaker never took a MW title or fought anyone near the size and capability of Leonard, Hearns, or Hagler.

So, no dice.

By the way, Duran was a small man. He was box-shaped -he had short arms and had a frame that would have been problematic even as a WW. He was also past prime and had about twice the fights Whitaker had. Duran also did not have the mobility or the speed to finesse his way through the heavier divisions. He had to take it and give it.

He is a top 10 ATG, point out who said he was not great please. I said his resume is overrated, and that he lost to every great he ever faced, both statements are positively true. His career at LW, his prime fighting skills, and his longevity do it for him, but his inconsistency, which you fail to realize, only pointing out the good, detracts a bit as well, but not enough to keep him out of the top 10. I have a problem with top 5, nothing else.

I have already quoted those posts of yours that would have been better off deleted and I told you why.

I have a problem with anyone who doesn't have him in the top 5. When examining a fighter's greatness, especially head to head, you have to take him at his best. Duran was inconsistent, which is why he can't be #1, and he quit. You are upholding a double standard here. Langford and Armstrong were not exactly consistent either.

I don't fail to realize anything. My argument is designed to attack yours and thus I won't waste time on the obvious and on points I have made consistently for 2 years out here. His resume is not overrated because it is full of unprecedented achievements that you are minimizing.

I see you added in "prime fighting skills" here. Do you factor in longevity? Experience? Dominance in natural division? Performance against larger men outside of his division? Your position just keeps on shrinking.

Robbi

10-11-2007, 09:28 PM

Duran happens to be my favourite fighter of all time. You could easily make a case for Duran being considered a top 20 "pound for pound" fighter with his 7 year lightweight reign. Especially as he's considered among the greatest lightweights of all time, actually the greatest in the eyes of the majority.

Something which gets overlooked beyond belief, he had 22 non-title bouts during his reign between 1972 and 1978. He was much busier during the 70's than he's given credit for, no question.

I don't think he's unbeatable at lightweight, I'd take Whitaker to beat Duran.

Stonehands89

10-11-2007, 09:31 PM

I clearly said that. What does experience have to do with anything? It basically goes hand in hand with longevity. His dominance was absolute in the LW division, but his resume at LW is bettered by others. He fought good the first fight against Leonard, good against Hagler, and good against guys like Barkley and Moore, who, while bigger, were far from great, but he did have great performances, despite the losses, also having crap performances like against Hearns and losing handily to Benitez. Also, he showed a lack of adaptibility against movers and boxer of that kind, like Leonard and Benitez.

You're coming around. Experience is a subset of longevity. If you fight Tomato Ken and Glass Joe in Massachusetts armories for 10 years, it ain't worth spit. Duran fought every style imaginable. Your examples of Leonard and Benitez are not persuasive. Duran was in his 30s and slowing down against larger and faster men.

Fought "good" against Leonard, Hagler, and Barkley? Allow me to rehabilitate that. Try "great". That's like saying that Einstein was a smart guy. He was brilliant.

You said nothing about Langford and Armstrong.

JimboDs

10-11-2007, 10:01 PM

Still, he lost to every great he faced and his resume at LW, while very good, was not the best at LW of all time, and his record at higher weights was not good enough even for ATG status IMO, it was that combined with his career at LW and his longevity that do it. Top 10 ATG perhaps, but not much higher.

Many experts have Duran as the best LW of all time, and I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the ones who don't have him in the top 3. The rest shouldn't be called experts.

Many of the WW's and MW's that Duran lost to were ATG's who were natural to that weight. Not to mention, this occurred after Duran had been fighting for almost 15 years.

I don't get this criticism of his LW 'resume'. He beat all the best LW's he could face and did so as convincingly as possible. I'm sorry the guy can't time travel for you.

JimboDs

10-11-2007, 10:05 PM

Oh and by the way, as good as Whitaker was, I can't see him beating Duran at LW. Duran was too strong and physical at that weight. He wasn't some crude puncher that Whitaker would be able to make a fool of.

JimboDs

10-11-2007, 10:19 PM

Being too strong and physical doesn't deter Whitaker. He thrived against that style really, you really had to outox him to beat him, and Duran ain't doing that. However, Duran's ability to switch it up and put it all together means he can present Whitaker with many different angles, and he wouldn't just be some brawler. But you also have to look at how Duran fared against the other top notch slicksters he faced like Benitez and Leonard. Then again, they were at higher weights past his prime, but as far as styles were concerned, they seemed to have given him trouble.

I'd take Pea by Decision based on styles. Robbi gives quite an analysis of this fight, even with Duran being his favorite fighter.

Leonard had to literally run from Duran to beat him that way. Duran would have been quicker at LW. Not to mention, Duran did face some very slick boxers at LW and destroyed them.

Whitaker was a very good LW, though. I'll admit that. I think it would be a great fight, but I see Duran scoring a few KD's and winning a decision or late stoppage.

JimboDs

10-11-2007, 10:20 PM

Duran could outbox a lot of boxers by the way. He did it many times at LW.

He just wasn't as fast after moving up in weight.

PowerPuncher

10-11-2007, 10:23 PM

Your credibility, which was high in my book at least, is absolutely plummeting with every post you put in this thread.

What is this --"he lost to every great he faced"? Is it the phrase of the day?

1. Name a lightweight who would have defeated Ray Leonard.

2. Name a lightweight who, at 32, could have gone 15 rounds with a 29 year old Hagler.

3. Name a lightweight who could have taken the MW title against a peak, 28 year old, 6'1, 160 lb power punching champion 21 years into his career. Duran was 37, and 5'7 in shoes.

THERE ARE NONE. THAT IS GREATNESS. Now, please, stop making dunces of yourselves.

1./2. SRayRobinson (also a lightweight and he arguably has better wins as lightweight than Duran) maybe Mayweather, maybe Armstrong, maybe Whitaker, Langford, maybe not Delahoya but maybe
3. 100s of former lightweights could have whipped Barkley

JimboDs

10-11-2007, 10:44 PM

I don't think it's even possible for him to get a stoppage, and I mean that, he was nowhere near that much better, and I can;t really see the KD's either, as Duran wasn't a big power puncher, more of an accumulation puncher, and most of Pea's KD's came due to being off-balance than anything.

I think you underrate Pea or overrate Duran head to head, because this matchup is a lot closer than that, and styles-wise, I'd give Pea the edge, as would quite a few others I've spoken to.

Duran had plenty of power. Most of his KO's were only accumulation KO's to the extent that at lower weights, it's common that one has to wear his opponent down before he can catch him with flush punches.

I mean, he's floored MW's. I think it's safe to say he had plenty of power at LW.

Duran was also a lot faster at LW than you seem to want to give him credit for. He walked through styles at that weight. Style didn't become a factor for him until he moved up in weight he was THAT GOOD at LW.

Robbi

10-11-2007, 10:59 PM

Duran could outbox a lot of boxers by the way. He did it many times at LW.

He just wasn't as fast after moving up in weight.

Duran was a fast lightweight, but his handspeed wasn't as quick as Whitaker's. And Duran had more problems with boxers at lightweight than Whitaker did with come forward aggressive fighters.

Lou Bizzaro caused Duran a few problems with being slick, and Ray Lampkin as well. However, I won't look soley at those two fights and say because Whitaker was better than both those opponents he automatically wins. Standing right in front of Duran would be suicide, and Whitaker's style is the polar opposite. He doesn't just have the reflexes and ring generalship to cause Duran a major headache, but also had so much ability up his sleeve in many areas to adjust to heated situations. If he went against the ropes and Duran clearly had success against him there, he would seldom be back on the ropes. Especially with George Benton getting his ear.

Duran did have very good power at 135lbs, but not quite lethal enough to KO Whitaker with a single shot. He would need to hit Whitaker on a regular basis and wear him down to get the stoppage, like he did with most of his opponents at lightweight. Whitaker had superb instincts when judging range, and he could pop the jab out while moving back in a straight line, not just laterally. Very versataile in terms of being effective while boxing no matter where he was moving inside the ropes.

Looking at Duran's stoppage wins over his 7 year reign, most came after 10 rounds. Now, I'm not for one moment saying Duran was a powder puff puncher at lightweight, but for someone who fought so aggressively he wasn't despatching his opponents early. Buchanan, De Jesus, Lampkin, Viruet, Fernandez, all took Duran deep into the late rounds. Thats just some. His power came into play down the stretch when an opponents fatgue set in with the ferocious pace and workrate Duran put together throughout the fight.

I can't see Duran hitting Whitaker enough to get a stoppage, and he would be getting outboxed in the proccess. Whitaker has the style to not just go into a defensive shell and make things awkward for someone with Duran's aggression, but would also make him pay while doing so. Probably the key area for Whitaker would his ability to land effective jabs while Duran was advancing.

Whitaker could move effectively all night long, no stamina issues when he looked out on his feet during the late rounds. He played the percentage game extremely well when it came thinking defense and offense.

JohnThomas1

10-12-2007, 02:48 AM

You could easily make a case for Duran being considered a top 20 "pound for pound" fighter with his 7 year lightweight reign.

It would be a hard long road trying to make a case for him not being top 20 i think.

PowerPuncher

10-12-2007, 06:45 AM

He walked through styles at that weight. Style didn't become a factor for him until he moved up in weight he was THAT GOOD at LW.

Duran didn't fight any truly elite fighters at lightweight and thats a fact. Allot of the guys he fought were journeymen level. There were no stand out fighters, none that went onto do anything

The best fighter he beat in DeJesus went onto lose 1sidedly to Cervantes.

The elite guys around his weight were Benitez, Cervantes, Pryor and Arguello. The only 1 of those happened at 154 and Benitez won. Benitez was also past his prime at that stage

Durans 6year lightweight reign alone doesn't make him top20 because he simply does not have good enough fighters on his resume. It probably wouldn't make him top5 at lightweight

Mendoza

10-12-2007, 06:50 AM

JohnThomas1

10-12-2007, 06:51 AM

The best fighter he beat in DeJesus went onto lose 1sidedly to Cervantes.

How much higher than Buchanan do you rate DeJesus?

The only 1 of those happened at 154 and Benitez won. Benitez was also past his prime at that stage

I'll actually beg to differ on this one. Benitez was widely considered to have found his niche at 154 pounds. He was young and carried 154 very very well. His punch, never huge, was likely as good at 154 as anywhere. After the Duran victory many thought he could extract revenge on SRL at 154, and a surprising amount also gave him a good shake at Hagler if and when he grew or moved to 160. When he beat Duran he was considered at that time to be at the top of his game and one of the best 3 or 4 fighters P4P going.

JohnThomas1

10-12-2007, 06:52 AM

Stonehands89

10-12-2007, 07:10 AM

Langford and Armstrong had better resumes by far in the case of Langford, and better accomplishments in the case of Armstrong, which is why they are rated higher, despite being inconsistent as well(though Armstrong in his prime was anything but inconsistent).

Are you a single issue politician? No, because the point of comparison changes depending on who you are choosing over Duran. I call that bias.

What's next? Ray Leonard beat better fighters, so he's over Duran. Whitaker would have beaten Duran so he's over Duran. Tommy Morrison never quit, so he's over Duran.

Lefty Supremacy

10-12-2007, 08:00 AM

Duran was a fast lightweight, but his handspeed wasn't as quick as Whitaker's. And Duran had more problems with boxers at lightweight than Whitaker did with come forward aggressive fighters.

Lou Bizzaro caused Duran a few problems with being slick, and Ray Lampkin as well. However, I won't look soley at those two fights and say because Whitaker was better than both those opponents he automatically wins. Standing right in front of Duran would be suicide, and Whitaker's style is the polar opposite. He doesn't just have the reflexes and ring generalship to cause Duran a major headache, but also had so much ability up his sleeve in many areas to adjust to heated situations. If he went against the ropes and Duran clearly had success against him there, he would seldom be back on the ropes. Especially with George Benton getting his ear.

Duran did have very good power at 135lbs, but not quite lethal enough to KO Whitaker with a single shot. He would need to hit Whitaker on a regular basis and wear him down to get the stoppage, like he did with most of his opponents at lightweight. Whitaker had superb instincts when judging range, and he could pop the jab out while moving back in a straight line, not just laterally. Very versataile in terms of being effective while boxing no matter where he was moving inside the ropes.

Looking at Duran's stoppage wins over his 7 year reign, most came after 10 rounds. Now, I'm not for one moment saying Duran was a powder puff puncher at lightweight, but for someone who fought so aggressively he wasn't despatching his opponents early. Buchanan, De Jesus, Lampkin, Viruet, Fernandez, all took Duran deep into the late rounds. Thats just some. His power came into play down the stretch when an opponents fatgue set in with the ferocious pace and workrate Duran put together throughout the fight.

I can't see Duran hitting Whitaker enough to get a stoppage, and he would be getting outboxed in the proccess. Whitaker has the style to not just go into a defensive shell and make things awkward for someone with Duran's aggression, but would also make him pay while doing so. Probably the key area for Whitaker would his ability to land effective jabs while Duran was advancing.

Whitaker could move effectively all night long, no stamina issues when he looked out on his feet during the late rounds. He played the percentage game extremely well when it came thinking defense and offense.

I don't know if I'd call Bizzaro running around in a gigantic ring "being slick".

PowerPuncher

10-12-2007, 08:23 AM

1. How much higher than Buchanan do you rate DeJesus?

2. I'll actually beg to differ on this one. Benitez was widely considered to have found his niche at 154 pounds. He was young and carried 154 very very well. His punch, never huge, was likely as good at 154 as anywhere. After the Duran victory many thought he could extract revenge on SRL at 154, and a surprising amount also gave him a good shake at Hagler if and when he grew or moved to 160. When he beat Duran he was considered at that time to be at the top of his game and one of the best 3 or 4 fighters P4P going.

1. Thats a hard 1, DeJesus has to be higher for his Duran win but Buchanon achieved allot pre-Duran

2. Benitez had looked good BUT it was all down hill after Duran and that was his last good win. The Hearns and Hamsho losses followed by pure mediocracy. It makes you question, was he at the end or slide then or did Hearns ruin him

JohnThomas1

10-12-2007, 08:43 AM

1. Thats a hard 1, DeJesus has to be higher for his Duran win but Buchanon achieved allot pre-Duran

Fair comment.

2. Benitez had looked good BUT it was all down hill after Duran and that was his last good win. The Hearns and Hamsho losses followed by pure mediocracy. It makes you question, was he at the end or slide then or did Hearns ruin him

Interesting. I would say that Hearns "ruined" him, but not in the usuallly used sense. He did little damage physically but i think the simple fact that Hearns beat him did the damage here. I think his dedication and interest took a real dive. (For some reason i think if i don't otherwise make this present statement Duo is going to chime in and comment on the dedication front. Dedication tho can entail various points rather than just doing 4 weeks training instead of 3 etc.)

PowerPuncher

10-12-2007, 08:54 AM

Didn't Benitez claim he only did 1-2weeks training in his prime? Maybe he was like 1 of those kids in class that pretended they didnt revise for tests but revised their ass off

JohnThomas1

10-12-2007, 08:58 AM

Didn't Benitez claim he only did 1-2weeks training in his prime? Maybe he was like 1 of those kids in class that pretended they didnt revise for tests but revised their ass off

I'm hearin' ya.

My dinner with Conteh

10-12-2007, 09:32 AM

I don't know if I'd call Bizzaro running around in a gigantic ring "being slick".

True. He never won a round, unless you're from the Bizarro world. :p

JohnThomas1

10-12-2007, 09:36 AM

True. He never won a round, unless you're from the Bizarro world. :p

:lol:

My dinner with Conteh

10-12-2007, 09:36 AM

Robbi gives quite an analysis of this fight, even with Duran being his favorite fighter.

Is he? He seems to go on and on about Whitaker regardless. :huh

My dinner with Conteh

10-12-2007, 09:48 AM

True or False:

Duran lost to every truly great fighter he ever took on?

Joe Lous didn't do that well vs every 'true great' he ever took on either, unless he happened to be a blown up middleweight. Lost to Rocky, Ezzard, gifted vs Jersey Joe. By the way, I'm not having a pop at Joe it's just that I feel Buchanan and De Jesus weren't afforded the chance to be 'true greats' because of one man.

Robbi

10-12-2007, 09:52 AM

Is he? He seems to go on and on about Whitaker regardless. :huh

Hardly. I do like Whitaker but wouldn't say I go on and on about him.

My dinner with Conteh

10-12-2007, 09:58 AM

Hardly. I do like Whitaker but wouldn't say I go on and on about him.

I'm just surprised that's all. If I was in a quiz and the question arose about who was your fave fighter, I'd have put money on Whitaker, not that I read your stuff much mind. You mention him first in your 'favourites' to watch also (something I clicked on 'after' my post above) despite being nowhere near as good to watch as Duran 'your favourite fighter', yet your instinct was to mention him first. :huh

Robbi

10-12-2007, 12:01 PM

You mention him first in your 'favourites' to watch also (something I clicked on 'after' my post above) despite being nowhere near as good to watch as Duran 'your favourite fighter', yet your instinct was to mention him first. :huh

Because I mentioned Whitaker first, doesn't mean to say he's rated as first. I never rated 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. I simply put forward a few names of fighters off the top of my head I like to watch. If Whitaker was mentioned first or last shouldn't matter, he's in the mix afterall.

Favourite fighters to watch is strictly what goes on inside the ropes only. Duran has a legendary background outside the ring which Whitaker doesn't have, and his career in general is more interesting in my opinion.

Who said Whitaker was NOWEHERE NEAR as good to watch as Duran "my favourite fighter?. You said it, not me. :huh

laxpdx

10-12-2007, 01:02 PM

Duran was also lucky Tony Ayala went to jail.

Robbi

10-12-2007, 02:27 PM

True. He never won a round, unless you're from the Bizarro world. :p

He won a round. Im from the Bizzaro world. :bush

mcvey

10-12-2007, 03:54 PM

PowerPuncher

10-12-2007, 04:11 PM

good interesting post with a balanced argument,.A great fighter but not "the greatest"[even at Lightweight].imo.

Well SRR was a lightweight and fought champions and ex title challengers at the lightweight and light-welter limits

Ofcourse there are many other ATG lightweights that will give Duran a close run or outdo him - Whitaker, Leonard, Armstrong

Arminius

10-12-2007, 05:14 PM

Incorrect, as Power Puncher said, about 6 years.

6 years? Hagler did for a lot more at MW, as did Monzon, and guys at other weights like Whitaker for about 6 anyway, and really so many others, examples are meaningless.

Duran had one loss during the entire 1970's. If that is not considered to be dominating I would like to see the criteria.

Buchanan is the only one he beat who was borderline great, Dejesus is up there more for his fights with Duran than anything, though he was a very good fighter.

Relevance is the key. When there is a dominator there is no room for other greats. Do you thnk Jake LaMotta would be considered great if he had not defeated and given SRR fits in subsequent fights? I am not sure if that makes my point clear.

No. I think you know this also, not even CLOSE to being true.

Not sure but I am betting, at least at lightweight. That would be a good discussion though.
Well, Duran was on quite a streak prior to his loss to Leonard, and prior to some of his other losses, does that mean he was also not past his prime? You say it for Duran, but not for Hagler, sounds a little biased.

Two fights after Leonard he had suffered two more losses. In a 14 year career with only one loss and a loss caused by quitting I would say that he was declining. He had the remarkable ability to step up temporarily when he needed money. Very few others have done that. As far as Hagler goes, he had 8 consecutive KO's prior to the Duran fight and 4 more after the Duran fight. That is not biased.
The bottom line is, he lost to a lot of fighters, and all opf the best, above his natural weight, but the truth is, based on resume at least, he was not the best lightweight of all time at all.

I guess SRR should be judged by his losses to Joey Maxim, Gene Fullmer,Carmen Basilio, Paul Bender et al.

Stonehands89

10-12-2007, 05:36 PM

Well SRR was a lightweight and fought champions and ex title challengers at the lightweight and light-welter limits

Ofcourse there are many other ATG lightweights that will give Duran a close run or outdo him - Whitaker, Leonard, Armstrong

Tell us how old Robinson was when he "was a lightweight".

The lightweight division is also probably the deepest division in recent history. The fact that Duran is the man to beat is yet another factor that is disregarded out here by some.

Stonehands89

10-12-2007, 05:37 PM

Joe Lous didn't do that well vs every 'true great' he ever took on either, unless he happened to be a blown up middleweight. Lost to Rocky, Ezzard, gifted vs Jersey Joe. By the way, I'm not having a pop at Joe it's just that I feel Buchanan and De Jesus weren't afforded the chance to be 'true greats' because of one man.

Precisely. Buchanan and De Jesus weren't afforded the chance to be 'true greats' because of one man. And there may be a few others out there too.

Stonehands89

10-12-2007, 05:45 PM

1./2. SRayRobinson (also a lightweight and he arguably has better wins as lightweight than Duran) maybe Mayweather, maybe Armstrong, maybe Whitaker, Langford, maybe not Delahoya but maybe
3. 100s of former lightweights could have whipped Barkley

What?! I can't believe I overlooked this post earlier.

It is "arguable" that Robinson had better wins at LW than Duran? Ray was 19 years old and had 9 fights at or under 135! Do your homework!

"100s of former lightweights could have whipped Barkley." That takes it as single most moronic comment on this thread.

Stonehands89

10-12-2007, 05:52 PM

What are you even talking about? You asked why they rate over him,and I said because they accomplished more and had better resumes, it's pretty damn simple, what is so hard to grasp about it?

You have Langford and Armstrong over Duran because of deeper resumes. You have Armstrong over Duran because of greater accomplishments. I usually rank Armstrong over Duran but it is not because of the level of competition. Duran has 2 major, unprecedented accomplishments that neither Armstrong, Robinson, or Whitaker can touch.

You say that Armstrong was anything but inconsistent in his prime. And what? Duran was?

For the record, I have no problem with people ranking Duran anywhere in the top 10 -but the arguments have to have merit. Yours don't. Power punchers' have less merit than yours.

Let me put it succinctly: Your arguments against Duran being a top 5 are backed up with a stacked deck.

Robbi

10-12-2007, 06:00 PM

Precisely. Buchanan and De Jesus weren't afforded the chance to be 'true greats' because of one man. And there may be a few others out there too.

Agreed. If Duran wasn't around during the 1970's, it would have been either Buchanan or De Jesus who dominated the division for longer patches throughout the 70's than they did. They both more than likely would have met at some stage no doubt, possibly in a unification fight during the mid-70's. However, not sure both had enough "greatness" in them to dominate for over 7 years like Duran.

Stonehands89

10-12-2007, 06:12 PM

good interesting post with a balanced argument,.A great fighter but not "the greatest"[even at Lightweight].imo.

Duran was not the greatest and any assertion promoting that fails for two big reasons --but PowerPuncher and Sweet Pea instead latch on to arguments that are actually imbalanced.

McVey, take another look at that post you commented on, but now consider these points:

--performances against larger men. To wit: Name a lightweight who would have defeated Ray Leonard. Name a lightweight who, at 32, could have gone 15 rounds with a 29 year old Hagler. Name a lightweight who could have taken the MW title against a peak, 28 year old, 6'1, 160 lb power punching champion 21 years into his career. Duran was 37, and 5'7 in shoes. That is unprecedented stuff.

--Longevity. Duran was active from 1968-2001 with 2 years off.

--Head-to-head in prime. Extremely difficult to defeat for anyone in
history. Duran rose up in weight after fighting in his natural division
over 60 times and dominating it. Robinson was never a true lightweight -he was a 19 year old kid with about 6 fights before he grew out of the division. Duran was a LW through and through. He challenged giants when long past his prime.

-- level of skill.

.............those are perspective injections. Any argument demoting Duran below #5 must consider them, and they have the burden of overcoming them. They haven't. They ignore and/or minimize these points.

Robbi

10-12-2007, 06:13 PM

not that I read your stuff much mind.

God, my posts must suck :yikes

PowerPuncher

10-12-2007, 06:48 PM

What?! I can't believe I overlooked this post earlier.

1. It is "arguable" that Robinson had better wins at LW than Duran? Ray was 19 years old and had 9 fights at or under 135! Do your homework!

2. "100s of former lightweights could have whipped Barkley." That takes it as single most moronic comment on this thread.

1. Ray Robinson had 24 fights below 140, he could have made 135 for any of those fights. He beat the likes of Angott (lightweight champ at 136), Servo (future Welterweight champ), Zivic (ex-Welterweight champ). These are better than Durans comp and he could have made the lightweight limit for any of those fights if a title was at stake.

2. Barkley was a below average middleweight, he was arguably not top 10 in the world. SRR, Langford, Whitaker, Mayweather, Benny Leonard, Mosley, Delahoya, Napoles, Henry Armstrong are ex-lightweights who would all beat the unskilled Barkley.

Benn KO'd Barkley in 1 round

Luigi1985

10-12-2007, 07:04 PM

PowerPuncher

10-12-2007, 07:27 PM

Not a good example, Benn was a big MW, Duran a LW...

I was unaware the lightweight limit had been raised to 156 for Duran. Actually Benn could have made 154 but the big fights were at 160 so he fought there.

Luigi1985

10-12-2007, 07:28 PM

I was unaware the lightweight limit had been raised to 156 for Duran. Actually Benn could have made 154 but the big fights were at 160 so he fought there.

You can´t compare them pysically, watch Benn against McClellan, even there Nigel looked just fucking big at SMW...

mcvey

10-12-2007, 08:11 PM

Well SRR was a lightweight and fought champions and ex title challengers at the lightweight and light-welter limits

Ofcourse there are many other ATG lightweights that will give Duran a close run or outdo him - Whitaker, Leonard, Armstrong
I would put Leonard ,Gans and Williams above him,at Light weight,just my opinion,but his accomplishments at higher weights put him up there.

My dinner with Conteh

10-12-2007, 10:28 PM

God, my posts must suck :yikes

No, not at all, that came out wrong actually. I just wanted to reassure you I wasn't stalking you or anything. :good

Robbi

10-12-2007, 10:43 PM

No, not at all, that came out wrong actually. I just wanted to reassure you I wasn't stalking you or anything. :good

No worries man. :good

Stonehands89

10-13-2007, 08:25 AM

1. Ray Robinson had 24 fights below 140, he could have made 135 for any of those fights. He beat the likes of Angott (lightweight champ at 136), Servo (future Welterweight champ), Zivic (ex-Welterweight champ). These are better than Durans comp and he could have made the lightweight limit for any of those fights if a title was at stake.
Ray Robinson was a kid when he was 135. If you take a look at the trend of his weight, you see that he could not maintain the LW limit for long because he was growing out of it. The LW limit is not below 140. The Servo fights were not LW bouts. Your argument clearly implies that Robinson was a better resume at LW than Duran -that is wrong.

2. Barkley was a below average middleweight, he was arguably not top 10 in the world. SRR, Langford, Whitaker, Mayweather, Benny Leonard, Mosley, Delahoya, Napoles, Henry Armstrong are ex-lightweights who would all beat the unskilled Barkley.

Benn KO'd Barkley in 1 round

To write off Barkley as "unskilled" and use the Benn fight as a measure is simply insufficient.

Barkley was a huge, big punching MW who had serious endurance and also had Hearns' number. Whitaker, Mayweather, Benny, Shane, Oscar, Napoles, and ARmstrong would have been physically overwhelmed by him in 1989. The Barkley who fought Duran was working behind a jab, showed an excellent body of work to the body, used angles, and was dangerous. Period. I don't believe for a moment that he was ever the same after that fight, but still managed to take two more titles against Van Horn and then the LHW against Hearns.

Stonehands89

10-13-2007, 08:28 AM

I was unaware the lightweight limit had been raised to 156 for Duran.

Where are you going with this... Will you assert that Duran was actually a natural MW? Come on.

Shake

10-13-2007, 08:54 AM

Iran Barkley would walk through Mayweather -- he walked through Hearns, and Duran had to box him. I don't see Mayweather taking the kind of punishment Roberto did and staying level.

JohnThomas1

10-13-2007, 08:59 AM

Iran Barkley would walk through Mayweather -- he walked through Hearns, and Duran had to box him. I don't see Mayweather taking the kind of punishment Roberto did and staying level.

Tho i'm not saying Barkley couldn't go at Mayweather i'd hardly say he walked thru Hearns. Truth be told Hearns flogged the living shit out of him until all but the very end. He walked into leather is what he did. In the rematch he got thru Hearns offense quite easily, which certainly showed Tommy to be over the hill, no pun intended.

Stonehands89

10-13-2007, 10:01 AM

Tho i'm not saying Barkley couldn't go at Mayweather i'd hardly say he walked thru Hearns. Truth be told Hearns flogged the living shit out of him until all but the very end. He walked into leather is what he did. In the rematch he got thru Hearns offense quite easily, which certainly showed Tommy to be over the hill, no pun intended.

Hearns was still pretty dangerous for Barkley II... I suspect that Barkley had the necessary tools to defeat Hearns most of the time --he was Hagleresque in that he was physically very strong, durable, good chin, and hit hard.

But no, no one walks through Hearns.

enquirer

10-13-2007, 10:16 AM

I find it puzzling that a guy that DOMINATED his natural division for seven years then went up TWO divisions to defeat the top 3 atg welter champ (no1 welter of all time in my book.) as well as a great champ in palamino,and at the time of the second leonard fight had something like one loss in 70 odd contests (avenged twice emphatically.) with 50 odd stoppages AND stylistically LOOKED and fought great is not in the mix in the top 5 p4p atgs in the book of some....Never mind the fact that there is almost universal consensus between old timers and modern folks that roberto is THE no1 lightweight in history....
After this we see the man competing with one of the greatest middleweights of all times over 15 tough rounds and finally beating a rugged strong huge natural world middleweight champ in his 37th year and 21 years after his pro debut....All this while being in essence a natural lightweight/lt welter,with a 67 inch reach and 5 ft 7 in height...
We must consider this guy a fistic phenomenon,he achieved things that no other fighter could have done,not whitaker,armstrong or robinson...
For these feats i consider roberto as being the greatest gloved fighter of them all in a p4p sense.....

My dinner with Conteh

10-13-2007, 10:30 AM

What amuses me here is the people who may think that Esteban or Kenny couldn't have easily dominated the lightweight division in Whitaker's era. :lol:

JohnThomas1

10-13-2007, 10:36 AM

Hearns was still pretty dangerous for Barkley II... I suspect that Barkley had the necessary tools to defeat Hearns most of the time --he was Hagleresque in that he was physically very strong, durable, good chin, and hit hard.

But no, no one walks through Hearns.

Fair enough, but i was surprised at the fact Hearns couldn't keep Barkley off him at all in the rematch. This was in stark contrast for most of the original. I know he'd just come off a sensational performance vs Hill but i knew Tommy was done after seeing the rematch. He was getting well on tho and had many years and fights behind him, some quite gruelling.

sweet_scientist

10-13-2007, 10:41 AM

All except Whitaker, and Chavez if you're including him.

I'd add Nelson too, though I'd favour Ken and Esteban over him.

My dinner with Conteh

10-13-2007, 10:50 AM

I'd add Nelson too, though I'd favour Ken and Esteban over him.

Probably because Azumah did next to diddly squat at lightweight.

My dinner with Conteh

10-13-2007, 10:52 AM

All except Whitaker, and Chavez if you're including him.

I'm talking about swapping Pernell for one or both of the two. And I don't recall Whitaker fighting Chavez at 135, although I do recall him signing not to fight him at lightweight. :D

sweet_scientist

10-13-2007, 10:53 AM

Probably because Azumah did next to diddly squat at lightweight.

Probably becuase Azumah ran into one of the greatest fighters of all time on their best night at lightweight.

My dinner with Conteh

10-13-2007, 10:58 AM

Probably becuase Azumah ran into one of the greatest fighters of all time on their best night at lightweight.

...just like Kenny Buchanan did. Big difference being Ken beat two all-time great lightweights in Laguna and Ortiz.

sweet_scientist

10-13-2007, 11:25 AM

...just like Kenny Buchanan did. Big difference being Ken beat two all-time great lightweights in Laguna and Ortiz.

How many years had it been since Ortiz had beaten anyone with a pulse? I'm pretty sure Nelson beats that Ortiz too.

I'd give Nelson a decent chance against Laguna as well, though of course, Nelson wasn't fortunate enough to run into a Laguna level fighter who hadn't been training properly when he went up to lightweight.

Robbi

10-13-2007, 11:43 AM

Tho i'm not saying Barkley couldn't go at Mayweather i'd hardly say he walked thru Hearns. Truth be told Hearns flogged the living shit out of him until all but the very end. He walked into leather is what he did. In the rematch he got thru Hearns offense quite easily, which certainly showed Tommy to be over the hill, no pun intended.

Nice avatar JT. Never seen that particular one before, a rare picture indeed.

Agreed regarding Hearns' loss to Barkley. While Barkley was cut over both eyes, he never took a pounding. Hearns' sharp jabs opened the cuts I believe. Hearns' heavy artillery came into serious play during the 3rd round, with mostly left hooks to the body doing the damage. Barkley was clearly losing, but wasn't taking a serious beating. Only during patches in the 3rd round did he look in any kind of trouble.

Robbi

10-13-2007, 11:48 AM

Probably because Azumah did next to diddly squat at lightweight.

I'm not in anyway trying to make Whitaker's win over Nelson look even better than it was, but Nelson measured up to Whitaker physically on the night. He wasn't just taller than Whitaker, but from the legs right up to the shoulders he was on par with Whitaker thickness wise. They certainly looked like fighters from the same division. Nelson never fought at lightweight again, which I thought was strange considering those circumstances.

Robbi

10-13-2007, 11:50 AM

Id have to favour Buchanan over Nelson at lightweight. Kenny was a superb boxer.

My dinner with Conteh

10-13-2007, 11:53 AM

How many years had it been since Ortiz had beaten anyone with a pulse? I'm pretty sure Nelson beats that Ortiz too.

I'd give Nelson a decent chance against Laguna as well, though of course, Nelson wasn't fortunate enough to run into a Laguna level fighter who hadn't been training properly when he went up to lightweight.

Nelson was no lightweight chum, hence the reason he barely fought there, so him beating Laguna is a hideous call. Oh, and it's funny how all-time greats seem to be considered when Duran loses to one of them, yet when a guy Duran beat up easily defeats one he's way past his best. Can't have it both ways.

ps. That last setence was aimed at the general thread rather than just to you.

JohnThomas1

10-13-2007, 11:57 AM

My dinner with Conteh

10-13-2007, 11:57 AM

Nelson never fought at lightweight again, which I thought was strange considering those circumstances.

He did....and lost.

sweet_scientist

10-13-2007, 12:10 PM

I'm not in anyway trying to make Whitaker's win over Nelson look even better than it was, but Nelson measured up to Whitaker physically on the night. He wasn't just taller than Whitaker, but from the legs right up to the shoulders he was on par with Whitaker thickness wise. They certainly looked like fighters from the same division. Nelson never fought at lightweight again, which I thought was strange considering those circumstances.
Nelson did look pretty much on par with Whitaker (he looked a tad smaller frame-wise imo), but you have to remember that Whitaker was himself always on the small side as a lightweight. Guys like Mayweather, Pendleton, Ramirez, Jones, Diaz often dwarfed him in comparison.

Though small as Nelson was, he was still about as strong a fighter as Whitaker faced there. He pushed Whitaker back and had him on the retreat more than any other lightweight managed to with the exception of Ramirez, (and that was a Whitaker basically fighting with one hand). Whitaker, though nothing near a big puncher, still managed to rattle just about every lightweight he ever faced. Nelson was one of the exceptions. And when you consider that Whitaker hit him more than just about any other lightweight he ever faced, that tells you something about Nelson's ability to take a punch.

There was really no point in Nelson fighting at lightweight again, especially since Whitaker unified the division in his very next fight.

He could have re-entered the lightweight division a couple of years later when Whitaker vacated, but he was probably a little too far past his prime by then to make a decent fist of it.

Had Whitaker not been there, I think there's every chance he could have unified the division. I think he beats Haugen, Ramirez and Nazario there.

Robbi

10-13-2007, 12:12 PM

Would you say Nelson grew into a lightweight out of neccessity or add the weight gradually, or did he artificially add the weight to compete there? Bottom line - Whitaker was definitely a natural 135 pound fighter, Nelson was not. Weight, height, wrist measure etc doesn't matter one iota. A great big man almost always beats a great little one with all things being equal.

I in turn am taking nothing away from Whitaker, i have immense respect for him. Beating Nelson was a fabulous win, but lets not make him out to be a natural 135. I don't doubt he could have beat many a fine fighter there however.

I couldn't care if Nelson started off at flyweight, all I'm saying was on the night when he fought Whitaker they looked the same size physically. They never looked like fighters from different divisions, which usually happens when a fighter moves up in weight against a natural at the weight above. Whitaker moved up to light-middleweight, and no way was that particular division for him, and Nelson doing the same was never going to happen in a million years.

Not too sure I'd use "a great big man always beats a great little one" with Whitaker beating Nelson. As i stated above they looked the same size on the night. Bowe over Holyfield, Hopkins over De La Hoya, are fights I'd say "a great big man always beats a little great one".

Afterall that, I don't think Nelson was a natural lightweight by any means. Doesn't sound right I know, but he looked like a lightweight fighting Whitaker.

Robbi

10-13-2007, 12:13 PM

He did....and lost.

His last fight with Leija, correct.

sweet_scientist

10-13-2007, 12:20 PM

Nelson was no lightweight chum, hence the reason he barely fought there, so him beating Laguna is a hideous call. Oh, and it's funny how all-time greats seem to be considered when Duran loses to one of them, yet when a guy Duran beat up easily defeats one he's way past his best. Can't have it both ways.

ps. That last setence was aimed at the general thread rather than just to you.

I didn't say I'd favour Nelson to beat Laguna, but I would give him a decent shot at it. Flash Elorde, who was no natural lightweight himself, managed the feat, so I wouldn't discount Nelson's chances either.

JohnThomas1

10-13-2007, 12:22 PM

So what you're saying is someone's matural weight is the weight they start off at? Duran was a natural 118 pounder? So in essence, Dejesus should get no credit for beating him because he was not a natural LW?

That is basically what you said, whether you meant to or not. If you fit a weight perfectly, as Nelson did Lightweight, you are natural there.

Get a grip Sweet Pea. Did Duran win titles at a weight less than 135? Was the 135 title his first? Did he spend the majority of his career there? Certainly the prime and peak of it? Now ask yourself the same questions of Nelson. How many fights did Nelson have at 135 again? How many did Duran have?

That was just silly mate.

sweet_scientist

10-13-2007, 12:23 PM

So what you're saying is someone's matural weight is the weight they start off at? Duran was a natural 118 pounder? So in essence, Dejesus should get no credit for beating him because he was not a natural LW?

That is basically what you said, whether you meant to or not. If you fit a weight perfectly, as Nelson did Lightweight, you are natural there.

JT probably means that if you spend the majority of your prime at a certain weight, you are to be considered a natural there. That's pretty much the definition I use for natural.

JohnThomas1

10-13-2007, 12:26 PM

I couldn't care if Nelson started off at flyweight, all I'm saying was on the night when he fought Whitaker they looked the same size physically. They never looked like fighters from different divisions, which usually happens when a fighter moves up in weight against a natural at the weight above. Whitaker moved up to light-middleweight, and no way was that particular division for him, and Nelson doing the same was never going to happen in a million years.

Not too sure I'd use "a great big man always beats a great little one" with Whitaker beating Nelson. As i stated above they looked the same size on the night. Bowe over Holyfield, Hopkins over De La Hoya, are fights I'd say "a great big man always beats a little great one".

Afterall that, I don't think Nelson was a natural lightweight by any means. Doesn't sound right I know, but he looked like a lightweight fighting Whitaker.

Hearns looked a natural light heavyweight too, but we all know it was at least 21 pounds north of his greatest weight. Sometimes looks can be deceiving. Arguello looked at home at 140 vs Pryor, but we all know it was a jump too many. Sometimes we just have to deal with the simple facts of the matter.

JohnThomas1

10-13-2007, 12:37 PM

What about fighters who have won titles in different weight classes, who is to say which is their natural weight, if they are successful at all of them?

You will find with most the higher they go the more vulnerable they get. Some peak at a weight one up from their initial title tho, like Arguello and possibly Hearns IMHO. Mate, this is why these guys are the greatest and frequent the top 25 ever. Again, bottom line - Nelson didn't do it!

Take Armstrong for instance, he was likely a top 10 ATG in 3 weight classes, and was probably better at 147 than he was at 135.

That's a Sweet Pea special claiming Armstrong is better at 147 than 135. Some might even claim his best was at 126.

If you fit a certain weight class, then it really doesn't matter how much you fit another.

I have little doubt Nelson could have been a fine fine lightweight, but lets not even begin to claim it his best weight.

The only reason Nelson didn't stay at 135 and prove he belonged there is because, with Whitaker there, he really didn't have much of a chance.

Whitaker moved up from 135 never to return a little short of 2 years after he fought Nelson. Nelson fought a full 6 years after this. Why didn't Nelson move up then? (after Whitaker went)

Want to retract that statement??

Robbi

10-13-2007, 12:43 PM

Get a grip Sweet Pea. Did Duran win titles at a weight less than 135? Was the 135 title his first? Did he spend the majority of his career there? Certainly the prime and peak of it? Now ask yourself the same questions of Nelson. How many fights did Nelson have at 135 again? How many did Duran have?

That was just silly mate.

JT. Thats why I said Nelson measured up to Whitaker physically, yet wasn't a natural lightweight. He never fought at lightweight for any lengthy period of time whatsoever to be considered a natural at that weight. And he moved straight back down to super-featherweight right after he lost to Whitaker.

Here is my take on fighters moving up in weight. Thomas Hearns started off at welterweight and ended up at cruiserweight. What was his natural weight?. I'd probably say Hearns was a natural welterweight who grew into a natural middleweight. His height certainly was the main the reason he could carry the weight. Had Hearns been 5' 6" he would never have been able to move up as effectively. He'd probably have looked like Tony Galento and his speed would have evaporated.

Marvin Hagler was a middleweight throughout his professional career. Yet he met Hearns who had previously fought at two divisions below. Was Hagler bigger than Hearns just because he faced a fighter moving up in weight. Nope, and I'm not just talking about height either, overall frame.

4 years ago Toney fought Holyfield. And I'll put my hand on my heart here, I picked Toney to win. Many people on another forum I was on at the time picked Holyfield "Too big and strong for Toney" they said. When they gave their prediction it was all centered around Holyfield being too big and strong for Toney. Want to know what fooled them all, Toney had previously fought at middleweight, which was his best division arguably. Personally speaking, couldn't care if Toney had previously fought at featherweight years before sharing a ring with Holyfield. I never seen much of a size difference, and on the night Toney looked solid up against Holyfield and in shape at 217lbs. He never had any problem with Holyfield's size, and ended up with by stoppage.

JohnThomas1

10-13-2007, 12:49 PM

JT. Thats why I said Nelson measured up to Whitaker physically, yet wasn't a natural lightweight. He never fought at lightweight for any lengthy period of time whatsoever to be considered a natural at that weight. And he moved straight back down to super-featherweight right after he lost to Whitaker.

You've basically verified my whole debate Robbi. I won't reply in depth because i think it's sorted really.

Asterion

10-13-2007, 12:51 PM

Top5.

Robbi

10-13-2007, 01:03 PM

You've basically verified my whole debate Robbi. I won't reply in depth because i think it's sorted really.

Nelson. Featherweight, super-featherweight, lightweight.

Whitaker. Lightweight, light-welterweight, welterweight, light-middleweight.

Whitaker v Nelson, lightweight. Looked the same size or at least a sheet of paper difference between them. I can't see anyone making a case for Whitaker having a size advantage on the night. The bottom line here is, they looked like fighters from the same division as they matched up the same physically.

Not a "good big man beats good little man" scenario.

Agree?

JohnThomas1

10-13-2007, 01:10 PM

Nelson. Featherweight, super-featherweight, lightweight.

Whitaker. Lightweight, light-welterweight, welterweight, light-middleweight.

Whitaker v Nelson, lightweight. Looked the same size or at least a sheet of paper difference between them. I can't see anyone making a case for Whitaker having a size advantage on the night. The bottom line here is, they looked like fighters from the same division as they matched up the same physically.

Not a "good big man beats good little man" scenario.

Agree?

Not one bit to be honest. Whitaker had the obvious size advantage over Nelson. Pryor had it over Arguello. Hagler had it over Hearns. Tyson had it over Spinks. Spinks would have had it over Hagler if it happened. Nelson had it over Fenech.

All these names are great, follow?

My dinner with Conteh

10-13-2007, 01:21 PM

Nelson. Featherweight, super-featherweight, lightweight.

Whitaker. Lightweight, light-welterweight, welterweight, light-middleweight.

Whitaker v Nelson, lightweight. Looked the same size or at least a sheet of paper difference between them. I can't see anyone making a case for Whitaker having a size advantage on the night. The bottom line here is, they looked like fighters from the same division as they matched up the same physically.

Not a "good big man beats good little man" scenario.

Agree?

No. Nelson didn't even venture in the division when Whitaker vacated in 92, so a natural at the weight he was not. Clearly. :huh

Robbi

10-13-2007, 01:49 PM

Whitaker had the obvious size advantage over Nelson. Pryor had it over Arguello. Hagler had it over Hearns. Tyson had it over Spinks. Spinks would have had it over Hagler if it happened. Nelson had it over Fenech.

All these names are great, follow?

Where is the obvious size advantage?. I fail to see it. Are you telling me Whitaker was bigger than Nelson when they fought on the night?.

Hagler had a size advantage over Hearns. Disagree entirely. Why, because Hearns previously fought two divisions below?. That seems to fool you, not me. Hearns even went past middleweight, and you previously said he looked like a natural light-heavyweight.

Its all about on the night I'm talking about, two fighters matching up physically.

Toney's fight against Holyfield is a good example as well, which I previously mentioned. Comparable size on the night, and I failed to see how Holyfield was bigger and stronger.

Stonehands89

10-13-2007, 01:54 PM

Fair enough, but i was surprised at the fact Hearns couldn't keep Barkley off him at all in the rematch. This was in stark contrast for most of the original. I know he'd just come off a sensational performance vs Hill but i knew Tommy was done after seeing the rematch. He was getting well on tho and had many years and fights behind him, some quite gruelling.

Barkley seemed to get physically stronger as a LHW, oddly enough, at least for Hearns. Perhaps it was just has style -he forgot about the jab and his defense had devolved into a "I'm coming in with my hands up, your shots be damned" -Barkley would psyche himself up to get and give punishment. Neither Van Horn nor Hearns could deal with that.

Iran's "devolved" style seemed to work better for him against Hearns.

Robbi

10-13-2007, 01:58 PM

JohnThomas1

10-13-2007, 02:02 PM

Because he faced Whitaker.

Exactly, the great big man beats the great little man.

Well, he fought and beat better opposition at WW than he did at LW, proving he was fine at the weight.

Which doesn't mean he was better at 147, not at all.

I haven't done that, I said he was fine there, and not smaller than Whitaker.

I'm not worried what the scale says.

He was past his prime, pretty obvious on that one. Why, when past your prime, would you move up to a bigger, better weight class?

Your words mate, look

The only reason Nelson didn't stay at 135 and prove he belonged there is because, with Whitaker there, he really didn't have much of a chance.

Whitaker left not that long after in the context of their careers. Nelson had plenty of time to go again.

Fact is Nelsons rematch win over Fenech around the time Whitaker was gone from 135 was an enormous win, yet he still stayed at 130. Nelson was 32 at the time of Whitaker and we could say he was on the decline even then, so why did he go up in the first place? You could make a good argument on this whole thing (Nelson 135) but you IMO have it arse about and are barking up the wrong tree.

Still the bottom line is that Nelson was far from his greatest at 135. I still give Whitaker enormous credit for beating Nelson there, Hagler gets big credit for Hearns, Tyson for Spinks, Pryor for Arguello yada yada, but this still isn't quite enough for you. I can't give anymore sorry, we've got to retain some balance here.

I'd be interested on SS's view of my debating meriot actually, as i have the utmost respect for his opinion even tho i might be on a fine line regarding his views.

JohnThomas1

10-13-2007, 02:03 PM

Where is the obvious size advantage?. I fail to see it. Are you telling me Whitaker was bigger than Nelson when they fought on the night?.

Hagler had a size advantage over Hearns. Disagree entirely. Why, because Hearns previously fought two divisions below?. That seems to fool you, not me. Hearns even went past middleweight, and you previously said he looked like a natural light-heavyweight.

Its all about on the night I'm talking about, two fighters matching up physically.

Toney's fight against Holyfield is a good example as well, which I previously mentioned. Comparable size on the night, and I failed to see how Holyfield was bigger and stronger.
I'll bow out of our little debate on this one Robbi, there's nothing more i can say mate.

JohnThomas1

10-13-2007, 02:05 PM

Barkley seemed to get physically stronger as a LHW, oddly enough, at least for Hearns. Perhaps it was just has style -he forgot about the jab and his defense had devolved into a "I'm coming in with my hands up, your shots be damned" -Barkley would psyche himself up to get and give punishment. Neither Van Horn nor Hearns could deal with that.

Iran's "devolved" style seemed to work better for him against Hearns.

You could well be right mate. My only defense is that Hearns was substancially more past it than Iran. IMO if Barkley was born to fight at 147 - 154 and faced peak Tommy then Hearns would prevail given the P4P differences.

Robbi

10-13-2007, 02:08 PM

I'll bow out of our little debate on this one Robbi, there's nothing more i can say mate.

Look at my last post, I wanna see what you come up with on that one.

Stonehands89

10-13-2007, 02:08 PM

4 years ago Toney fought Holyfield. And I'll put my hand on my heart here, I picked Toney to win. Many people on another forum I was on at the time picked Holyfield "Too big and strong for Toney" they said. When they gave their prediction it was all centered around Holyfield being too big and strong for Toney. Want to know what fooled them all, Toney had previously fought at middleweight, which was his best division arguably. Personally speaking, couldn't care if Toney had previously fought at featherweight years before sharing a ring with Holyfield. I never seen much of a size difference, and on the night Toney looked solid up against Holyfield and in shape at 217lbs. He never had any problem with Holyfield's size, and ended up with by stoppage.

Toney was only solid and in shape from a relative perspective --compared to the potato sack he resembled later.

Question: The Holyfield that Toney challenges is the 1993 version. Who wins?

JohnThomas1

10-13-2007, 02:12 PM

JT. I'll ask you this. De La Hoya started off at 130lbs, and ended up at 147lbs going up against Trinidad and Quartey. However, Trinidad ended up going past welterweight and fought at middleweight and KO'd Joppy. He carried the weight better past welterweight than De La Hoya did, and measured up much better to Hopkins as well.

Trinidad v De La Hoya at welterweight?. Do you see a size difference on the night?. Ive never heard one journalist or fan saying it.

I don't see a size difference at all between De La Hoya and Trinidad on the night.

Just how great was Trinidad at 147 tho Robbi? How would DLH go vs Leonard or Hearns here? You've said this week he loses to both. Is Joppy great? The near great little man beat the million miles from great big man. Great effort by DLH vs Trinidad, but it's a lot different than Whitaker - Nelson. Whitaker is top 5 135 ever mate. Felix isn't close at 147.

Stonehands89

10-13-2007, 02:15 PM

You could well be right mate. My only defense is that Hearns was substancially more past it than Iran. IMO if Barkley was born to fight at 147 - 154 and faced peak Tommy then Hearns would prevail given the P4P differences.

And we agree on that one.

Interesting musings.... Barkley's style and assets can be overcome by a wider range of boxers -defensive masters, counterpunchers, mobile sharp shooters, etc. Hearns' style by contrast is extremely difficult to beat --Leonard, frankly, had luck on his side -complemented by his indomitable will. Leonard was savvy enough to delay fighting him both times as much as politics and his legacy allowed.

The way to beat Hearns is with superior physical strength and endurance, superb conditioning, heavy punching, and a good chin... the Hagler model... and even that is high risk. Barkley just made it the first time. Roldan, tough as he was, couldn't quite do it, even though he had the tools due to that fiercesome firepower.

My dinner with Conteh

10-13-2007, 02:18 PM

Robbi

10-13-2007, 02:24 PM

Just how great was Trinidad at 147 tho Robbi? How would DLH go vs Leonard or Hearns here? You've said this week he loses to both. Is Joppy great? The near great little man beat the million miles from great big man. Great effort by DLH vs Trinidad, but it's a lot different than Whitaker - Nelson. Whitaker is top 5 135 ever mate. Felix isn't close at 147.

My post was soley on fighters going up against others physically, with fighters moving up, and others moving past divisions with more ease.

Just how great was Trinidad?. Whats that got to do with our debate regarding weight. And the rest of your post you mention how great Whitaker was at 135lbs compared to Trinidad at 147lbs.

You said Whitaker had a size advantage over Nelson, and even went as far to say about that fight "a good big man always beats a good little man".

We went onto disagree about Hagler having a physical size advantage over Hearns. I then gave you a comparison with De La Hoya moving up four divisions and fighting Trinidad at welterweight, who then went onto carry the weight better past the division they squared off at.

You quoted me, yet dodged my question. Nothing to do with me saying De La Hoya would lose to Leonard and Hearns and how great a fighter Joppy is. The worst reply ever JT lol.

Robbi

10-13-2007, 02:33 PM

Toney was only solid and in shape from a relative perspective --compared to the potato sack he resembled later.

Question: The Holyfield that Toney challenges is the 1993 version. Who wins?

Holyfield at heavyweight against the 1993 version of Toney. Holyfield wins. If thats what you mean.

But even though Toney was previously a middleweight, don't matter. The truth of the matter is that on the night Holyfield never looked bigger. I will say after he fought Holyfield, he couldn't sustain the same physical shape and ended up putting on over a stone.

Minotauro

10-13-2007, 02:34 PM

I don't many think Duran is the greatest of all time most would probably have him in the top ten p4p which is were he belongs. I not sure why so many people are talking about he lost to the best fighters he fought the fact is most of the all time greats he fought were in higher weight classes.

Not really sure why Whittaker has been mentioned so many times in this thread since it's about Duran. And people need to remember the number of fights Duran had and was still beating good opponents like Barkley when he was way past his prime. The way I see it Duran is a great if you have him at number 1 or 15 he deserves a lot of respect for what he has achieved.

JohnThomas1

10-13-2007, 02:38 PM

Of course, also Felix and Oscar felt comfortable at the weight, Nelson obviously didn't feel as good, mentally if anything, hence the reluctance to challenger at 135 again.

Fair assumption that one.

Stonehands89

10-13-2007, 02:39 PM

Holyfield at heavyweight against the 1993 version of Toney. Holyfield wins. If thats what you mean.

But even though Toney was previously a middleweight, don't matter. The truth of the matter is that on the night Holyfield never looked bigger. I will say after he fought Holyfield, he couldn't sustain the same physical shape and ended up putting on over a stone.

Evander Holyfield 2003 = Iran Barkley 1993. And Toney eats the slowed-down sluggers up with his pristine counterpunching and angles... beautiful to watch... about as beautiful (and challenging) as watching Robinson on the speed bag.

My dinner with Conteh

10-13-2007, 02:40 PM

Whatever it is we are talking about, i disagree with conteh.

...unless it's Larry. :D

JohnThomas1

10-13-2007, 02:44 PM

Holyfield at heavyweight against the 1993 version of Toney. Holyfield wins. If thats what you mean.

But even though Toney was previously a middleweight, don't matter. The truth of the matter is that on the night Holyfield never looked bigger. I will say after he fought Holyfield, he couldn't sustain the same physical shape and ended up putting on over a stone.

Holyfield was looking really big, big as ever so we should take this to be an example of why Nelson was oh so dangerous to Whitaker? Whitaker was one og the greatest lightweights in history at the peak of his game. How did Holyfield stand in comparison?

My dinner with Conteh

10-13-2007, 02:45 PM

JohnThomas1

10-13-2007, 02:55 PM

My post was soley on fighters going up against others physically, with fighters moving up, and others moving past divisions with more ease.

But you aren't comparing apples with apples, we are talking greats here.

Just how great was Trinidad?. Whats that got to do with our debate regarding weight. And the rest of your post you mention how great Whitaker was at 135lbs compared to Trinidad at 147lbs.

Greatness has everything to do with it Robbi. Everything. Hearns moved to 160 after Leonard and beat Singletary, does this prove anything at all?

You said Whitaker had a size advantage over Nelson, and even went as far to say about that fight "a good big man always beats a good little man".

ALMOST always beats them with most things being equal thanks. Which stood the test of Whitaker - Nelson of course. Why do you think Duran's win over Leonard is so revered? It was a very very rare achievement. Like Ray over Hagler.

We went onto disagree about Hagler having a physical size advantage over Hearns. I then gave you a comparison with De La Hoya moving up four divisions and fighting Trinidad at welterweight, who then went onto carry the weight better past the division they squared off at.

DLH moved up 3 divisions, not 4, unless my math is way out. Again, your words back me. Trinidad, probably not as great as DLH, never the less held him out in their actual fight (deserved or not) and was stronger at the higher weights. This backs my argument.

You quoted me, yet dodged my question. Nothing to do with me saying De La Hoya would lose to Leonard and Hearns and how great a fighter Joppy is. The worst reply ever JT lol.

:patsch

sweet_scientist

10-13-2007, 02:58 PM

Exactly, the great big man beats the great little man.

Which doesn't mean he was better at 147, not at all.

I'm not worried what the scale says.

Your words mate, look

Whitaker left not that long after in the context of their careers. Nelson had plenty of time to go again.

Fact is Nelsons rematch win over Fenech around the time Whitaker was gone from 135 was an enormous win, yet he still stayed at 130. Nelson was 32 at the time of Whitaker and we could say he was on the decline even then, so why did he go up in the first place? You could make a good argument on this whole thing (Nelson 135) but you IMO have it arse about and are barking up the wrong tree.

Still the bottom line is that Nelson was far from his greatest at 135. I still give Whitaker enormous credit for beating Nelson there, Hagler gets big credit for Hearns, Tyson for Spinks, Pryor for Arguello yada yada, but this still isn't quite enough for you. I can't give anymore sorry, we've got to retain some balance here.

I'd be interested on SS's view of my debating meriot actually, as i have the utmost respect for his opinion even tho i might be on a fine line regarding his views.
I'll give you my view JT.

Nelson was never by my definition a natural lightweight. My definition of 'natural' is 'the weight at which you spend the majority of your prime at'. That for Nelson was at 126. That for Hearns was (imo) at 147, possibly 154 (as we've debated before), at 130 for Arguello, at 175 for Spinks etc.

Nelson was in terms of size on the night he fought Whitaker, quite similar to Whitaker, and though he was strong as an ox there, he was stronger still in a p4p sense at 126 and 130, where he was much stronger in comparison to his opponents.

My best guess for why he didn't re-enter the lightweight division after Whitaker left was that he was already starting to have problems dealing with the guys he was facing at 130 at that stage, and probably felt a move to 135 was beyond him at that time.

A decent question to ask, as you have, is why he even bothered moving up to lightweight in the first place, past his peak as he was. Well, imo at that stage he had the confidence that he could beat the lightweights around (he was even bragging after wins at 130 that he wanted to move up and take on welterweights), and probably fancied himself against Whitaker in particular, who he matched up quite evenly with in terms of size (Whitaker of course, was also relatively light hitting, so there was no threat of a knockout awaiting in taking that bout).

That confidence was probably dinted after he had started to struggle at 130
(Fenech, Ruelas, Leija), and he probably thought it best to hold the fort rather than try and conquer new territory.

This wasn't just a psychological barrier though, it was a physical one too. He continued to decline after the Whitaker fight and by the time Whitaker had vacated he was no longer the fighter he was even 2 years earlier. Though he had a good 1992 (in which he beat a somewhat faded Fenech - a bout he had to take after the larceny in the first fight, and then beating Grove) he struggled mightily in 1993 and that was probably the end of any wish to go up in weight.

JohnThomas1

10-13-2007, 03:00 PM

Anyway, I rank top 10 pfp usually on how good they were at their best weight, hence the reason Duran's a lock for top 10 and challenging for Top 5. Weight jumpers only impress me greatly when they beat 'The Man' at the division above.

And that's a decent call. Hearns beat Benitez at 154. Arguello had the sense and great grace to go after the man (Pryor)for top honours at 140. Spinks beat Holmes. Gomez tried Sanchez. Pintor - Gomez. Camacho didn't beat em.

JohnThomas1

10-13-2007, 03:09 PM

I'll give you my view JT.

Nelson was never by my definition a natural lightweight. My definition of 'natural' is 'the weight at which you spend the majority of your prime at'. That for Nelson was at 126. That for Hearns was (imo) at 147, possibly 154 (as we've debated before), at 130 for Arguello, at 175 for Spinks etc.

Nelson was in terms of size on the night he fought Whitaker, quite similar to Whitaker, and though he was strong as an ox there, he was stronger still in a p4p sense at 126 and 130, where he was much stronger in comparison to his opponents.

My best guess for why he didn't re-enter the lightweight division after Whitaker left was that he was already starting to have problems dealing with the guys he was facing at 130 at that stage, and probably felt a move to 135 was beyond him at that time.

A decent question to ask, as you have, is why he even bothered moving up to lightweight in the first place, past his peak as he was. Well, imo at that stage he had the confidence that he could beat the lightweights around (he was even bragging after wins at 130 that he wanted to move up and take on welterweights), and probably fancied himself against Whitaker in particular, who he matched up quite evenly with in terms of size (Whitaker of course, was also relatively light hitting, so there was no threat of a knockout awaiting in taking that bout).

That confidence was probably dinted after he had started to struggle at 130
(Fenech, Ruelas, Leija), and he probably thought it best to hold the fort rather than try and conquer new territory.

This wasn't just a psychological barrier though, it was a physical one too. He continued to decline after the Whitaker fight and by the time Whitaker had vacated he was no longer the fighter he was even 2 years earlier. Though he had a good 1992 (in which he beat a somewhat faded Fenech - a bout he had to take after the larceny in the first fight, and then beating Grove) he struggled mightily in 1993 and that was probably the end of any wish to go up in weight.

Well i am glad i prompted you SS, because i agree with absolutely everything you said. A superbly balanced post.

I'll add that besides your points on a Whitaker fight (light hitter, fancied his chances etc) i think Azumah was chasing a bit of legacy. Whitaker had some excellent wins by then and was very definitely the man. Full credit to Nelson for going after Numero Uno. A great fighter and courageous champion was Nelson. He came out to take on Fenech in his own backyard cauldron after the first fight drama's and kudo's to him for that. I'm sure you can read between the lines and realise i am taking nothing away from Whitakers win.

JohnThomas1

10-13-2007, 03:11 PM

And we agree on that one.

Interesting musings.... Barkley's style and assets can be overcome by a wider range of boxers -defensive masters, counterpunchers, mobile sharp shooters, etc. Hearns' style by contrast is extremely difficult to beat --Leonard, frankly, had luck on his side -complemented by his indomitable will. Leonard was savvy enough to delay fighting him both times as much as politics and his legacy allowed.

The way to beat Hearns is with superior physical strength and endurance, superb conditioning, heavy punching, and a good chin... the Hagler model... and even that is high risk. Barkley just made it the first time. Roldan, tough as he was, couldn't quite do it, even though he had the tools due to that fiercesome firepower.

Fair post. Just let me add that Hearns vulnerabilities became a little more accentuated at 160.

Robbi

10-13-2007, 03:16 PM

But you aren't comparing apples with apples, we are talking greats here.

Greatness has everything to do with it Robbi. Everything. Hearns moved to 160 after Leonard and beat Singletary, does this prove anything at all?

ALMOST always beats them with most things being equal thanks. Which stood the test of Whitaker - Nelson of course. Why do you think Duran's win over Leonard is so revered? It was a very very rare achievement. Like Ray over Hagler.

DLH moved up 3 divisions, not 4, unless my math is way out. Again, your words back me. Trinidad, probably not as great as DLH, never the less held him out in their actual fight (deserved or not) and was stronger at the higher weights. This backs my argument.

:patsch

JT. Im measuring up fighters physically, and thats what I have been debating the last few pages with you. I'm not in anyway trying to make a case for a fighter being greater than another, with one failing to beat a bigger fighter, and another getting a win over an even greater bigger fighter from a different era. I haven't drifted away and compared how great Whitaker was to Trinidad.

Our debate was going along nicely, with the Whitaker and Nelson the centre of it all. You then said, Hagler clearly had a size advantage over Hearns. I disagree.

So I then gave you an example between De La Hoya and Trinidad who fought at welterweight. And I will stand corrected, De La Hoya moved up three divisions. He started off at 130lbs.

Trinidad carried the weight better past welterweight than De La Hoya did as well. Your reply never awnsered my question, as you went onto comparing Trinidad with Whitaker which has nothing to do with what I asked you. And what did me saying De La Hoya would lose to Leonard and Hearns have to do with a size disagreement?. You went totally off the subject, totally.

Its about weight, not about greatness.

I could make a comparsion with Leonard fighting an unknown at middleweight in a tune up fight before Hagler, and De La Hoya fighting Hopkins at middleweight. Its about weight/size, nothing to do with the outcome of the fights and who was greater.

Robbi

10-13-2007, 03:25 PM

Well i am glad i prompted you SS, because i agree with absolutely everything you said. A superbly balanced post.

I'll add that besides your points on a Whitaker fight (light hitter, fancied his chances etc) i think Azumah was chasing a bit of legacy. Whitaker had some excellent wins by then and was very definitely the man. Full credit to Nelson for going after Numero Uno. A great fighter and courageous champion was Nelson. He came out to take on Fenech in his own backyard cauldron after the first fight drama's and kudo's to him for that. I'm sure you can read between the lines and realise i am taking nothing away from Whitakers win.

Agreed as well about SS's post. We both agree Nelson was not a natural lightweight no matter how much we disagree on the size difference as he never fought at lightweight long enough to be considered natural at that weight. If you go back and look at SS's qoute on my take on how Whitaker measured up against Nelson on the night, he said "on par physically". He agreed with my post.

SS, question for you. Would you come to the conclusion that Whitaker beating Nelson on the night was "a good big man beating a good small man"?

sweet_scientist

10-13-2007, 03:26 PM

Well i am glad i prompted you SS, because i agree with absolutely everything you said. A superbly balanced post.

I'll add that besides your points on a Whitaker fight (light hitter, fancied his chances etc) i think Azumah was chasing a bit of legacy. Whitaker had some excellent wins by then and was very definitely the man. Full credit to Nelson for going after Numero Uno. A great fighter and courageous champion was Nelson. He came out to take on Fenech in his own backyard cauldron after the first fight drama's and kudo's to him for that. I'm sure you can read between the lines and realise i am taking nothing away from Whitakers win.

For sure JT, and after Whitaker went 24-0 in rounds against Haugen and Ramirez in 1989, Nelson had every right to stay where he was at 130 and forget a move up all together, but he went for the legacy fight and truth be told made a decent go of it all things considered (performed better than any other lightweight of the time did against Whitaker). Nelson had balls there's no doubting that and he always gave rematches when they were warranted and usually left no doubts when they were over.

Nelson was an excellent win for Whitaker, and let me just clear it up if it isn't clear, I think the Dejesus and Buchanan wins are better wins (for Duran) than the Nelson win (for Whitaker), and so I'm not one who thinks that Whitaker's resume was in any way superior to Duran's at 135.

Whitaker was somewhat more dominant as a lightweight than Duran was imo, but there's no question that Duran faced a higher level of comp imo.

sweet_scientist

10-13-2007, 03:43 PM

Agreed as well about SS's post. We both agree Nelson was not a natural lightweight no matter how much we disagree on the size difference as he never fought at lightweight long enough to be considered natural at that weight. If you go back and look at SS's qoute on my take on how Whitaker measured up against Nelson on the night, he said "on par physically". He agreed with my post.

SS, question for you. Would you come to the conclusion that Whitaker beating Nelson on the night was "a good big man beating a good small man"?

Well in terms of size they were just about the same Rob, and as I said, I think Whitaker was maybe just a tad bigger but it was negligible.

But the best way I would characterise the fight is a a guy who is at his most potent at 135 beating a guy who is at his most potent at 126.

Nelson filled out nicely and looked extremely strong at 135, but he was, especially in comparison to the opposition, at a much bigger advantage at 126 and 130, where the opponents struggled to deal with what Nelson had to offer.

If we define 'natural' as I have, as 'the weight where one spends the majority of one's prime at', then we can say that Whitaker was going up against a naturally smaller man and it makes sense, even though Nelson, for all intents and purposes, was similar in size to Pea.

As you know, fighters who move up in weight often weigh the same as the fighter who has always been in the division on the day of the weigh-in and sometimes even on the night of the fight, but they are still naturally smaller because they leave their prime weight where they were most advantageously placed to fight, and so in a way leave their natural habitat, even though they appear the same as their opponent on the night of the fight.

dmt

10-13-2007, 04:10 PM

I am sorry but put Whitaker,Gans, Benny or any other atg lightweight in the ring vs Leonard, Hearns, Hagler and Benitez at higher weights and see what they are really able to do. "Lost to every great fighter", nonsense. He was not only fighting great fighters who were in their primes but also physically bigger. And except Benitez, who was still excellent, Hagler, Hearns and Leonard were all in/near their primes when he met them

Robbi

10-13-2007, 04:25 PM

.As you know, fighters who move up in weight often weigh the same as the fighter who has always been in the division on the day of the weigh-in and sometimes even on the night of the fight, but they are still naturally smaller because they leave their prime weight where they were most advantageously placed to fight, and so in a way leave their natural habitat, even though they appear the same as their opponent on the night of the fight.

I seen a picture of Shane Mosley with his arm around John Brown inside the ring after they fought, which was Mosley's last fight at lightweight. Mosley weighed-in the day before bang on the limit, and Brown weighed 134 1/2. To see both these guys standing next to each other was pretty astonishing after they both contested a fight in the same division. They looked at least three divisions apart. Probably because Mosley was so big at the weight, rather than Brown being the opposite.

Another interesting one about Mosley. Emanuel Steward attended the weigh-in for the De La Hoya-Mosley fight at the Staples Center, June 2000. Trainer, Robert Alcazar, who was confident De La Hoya would prevail turned around to Steward after Mosley weighed-in and said "Manny, this guy is a lightweight". To which Steward replied with "How can he be a lightweight, he's just stepped onto the scales at 147".

Mosley was no lightweight then, he had been a lightweight. Fighters mature and fill out more than others as the clock ticks. Mosley never even felt comfortable enough to drop by and make a challenge at 140lbs. Its up for debate if Mosley could have made 140lbs, with his move up to welterweight strictly being a big money fight against De La Hoya on the horizon. But looking back at the fight, Mosley measured up very well against De La Hoya, although he's an inch or two shorter in height.

De La Hoya thought he was going to walk through Mosley and get the KO, and that came back to haunt him. De La Hoya certainly fought like a man who thought he was in with someone smaller.

My dinner with Conteh

10-13-2007, 04:38 PM

And that's a decent call. Hearns beat Benitez at 154. Arguello had the sense and great grace to go after the man (Pryor)for top honours at 140. Spinks beat Holmes. Gomez tried Sanchez. Pintor - Gomez. Camacho didn't beat em.

Yeah, Tommy's at light heavy is definitely valid too, middleweight debatable because it was vacant. But defeating Vasquez is hardly beating Terry Norris; 'Beating' (ofiicially anyway) Sturm isn't like winning against Hopkins. So this achievement thing requires closer examination if we're talking Top 10/20 of all-time.

Robbi

10-13-2007, 04:52 PM

Yeah, Tommy's at light heavy is definitely valid too, middleweight debatable because it was vacant. But defeating Vasquez is hardly beating Terry Norris; 'Beating' (ofiicially anyway) Sturm isn't like winning against Hopkins. So this achievement thing requires closer examination if we're talking Top 10/20 of all-time.

Since your in the UK. Hatton coming on Parkinson at 10pm talking about his fight with Mayweather.

My dinner with Conteh

10-13-2007, 04:58 PM

Since your in the UK. Hatton coming on Parkinson at 10pm talking about his fight with Mayweather.

Yep. About to watch it. Just downing a chilled cider, whilst revelling in our rugby win. :good

sweet_scientist

10-13-2007, 11:55 PM

I seen a picture of Shane Mosley with his arm around John Brown inside the ring after they fought, which was Mosley's last fight at lightweight. Mosley weighed-in the day before bang on the limit, and Brown weighed 134 1/2. To see both these guys standing next to each other was pretty astonishing after they both contested a fight in the same division. They looked at least three divisions apart. Probably because Mosley was so big at the weight, rather than Brown being the opposite.

Another interesting one about Mosley. Emanuel Steward attended the weigh-in for the De La Hoya-Mosley fight at the Staples Center, June 2000. Trainer, Robert Alcazar, who was confident De La Hoya would prevail turned around to Steward after Mosley weighed-in and said "Manny, this guy is a lightweight". To which Steward replied with "How can he be a lightweight, he's just stepped onto the scales at 147".

Mosley was no lightweight then, he had been a lightweight. Fighters mature and fill out more than others as the clock ticks. Mosley never even felt comfortable enough to drop by and make a challenge at 140lbs. Its up for debate if Mosley could have made 140lbs, with his move up to welterweight strictly being a big money fight against De La Hoya on the horizon. But looking back at the fight, Mosley measured up very well against De La Hoya, although he's an inch or two shorter in height.

De La Hoya thought he was going to walk through Mosley and get the KO, and that came back to haunt him. De La Hoya certainly fought like a man who thought he was in with someone smaller.

Yeah I get your drift, there are definitely bigger and smaller guys for every weightclass, and fighters can mature into a new weightclasses, like Mosley did.

And probably by my definition he could be termed a natural welterweight, though I'd still probably call him a natural lightweight because that's where the peak of his prime was imo, short as that period might have been.

One thing that always has to be kept in mind, and which I keep in mind is the fighter's opposition. Though a fighter might mature into a weight class, it doesn't mean that they will be as strong or as potent there in comparison to their opponents. E.g, Mosley was stronger as a welter than as a lightweight, but can you see a lightweight version of Vernon Forrest stunning Mosley so badly and nearly knocking him out at 135? I don't think it would have happened. Becuase at 135, Mosley was stronger for his size than he was for 147, even though Mosley had filled out into a decent sized welter.

JohnThomas1

10-14-2007, 02:15 AM

For sure JT, and after Whitaker went 24-0 in rounds against Haugen and Ramirez in 1989, Nelson had every right to stay where he was at 130 and forget a move up all together, but he went for the legacy fight and truth be told made a decent go of it all things considered (performed better than any other lightweight of the time did against Whitaker). Nelson had balls there's no doubting that and he always gave rematches when they were warranted and usually left no doubts when they were over.

Nelson was an excellent win for Whitaker, and let me just clear it up if it isn't clear, I think the Dejesus and Buchanan wins are better wins (for Duran) than the Nelson win (for Whitaker), and so I'm not one who thinks that Whitaker's resume was in any way superior to Duran's at 135.

Whitaker was somewhat more dominant as a lightweight than Duran was imo, but there's no question that Duran faced a higher level of comp imo.

We're on the exact same page SS, with the complete topic and pretty much every single comment you have given. I'm a big fan of both i must say. I think Nelson gets a little short changed to be honest. A fantastic fighter.

brownpimp88

10-14-2007, 04:59 PM

What about fighters who have won titles in different weight classes, who is to say which is their natural weight, if they are successful at all of them? Take Armstrong for instance, he was likely a top 10 ATG in 3 weight classes, and was probably better at 147 than he was at 135. If you fit a certain weight class, then it really doesn't matter how much you fit another.

The only reason Nelson didn't stay at 135 and prove he belonged there is because, with Whitaker there, he really didn't have much of a chance.
how is armstrong top 10 at 126 and 135 when his resume at those weight classes is so thin. Beating pettey srron at 126 and going 1-1 against lou ambers at 135 doesnt make you top 10 in those weight classes.

Whitaker, gans, leonard, beau jack, montgomery, joe brown, duran, ortiz, canzoneri and ike williams all have better lightweight resumes than henry armstrong.

teeto

10-15-2007, 08:43 AM

I think if you are going to assess a fighter's p4p status , the first and foremost factor to be looked at should be how the fighter fared in his prime. Therefore , mentioning the Hearns, Hagler , Benitez Laing fights is just unfair . His prime was at lightweight , we all know that. His record there was impeccible. Dethroning Ken Buchannan, losing just once at 135 to a top-drawer fighter of the day , and then totally proving his dominance over his rival with 2 stoppage defeats, his lightweight record is underreated, Marcel , Viruet , Fernandez etc. the best around. These are some feats. And if you must look at what happened when he stepped out of his own weight class - he skipped a weight class and beat Leonard - 1 of the very best to ever walk.

I have Duran at number 3 , after Robinson and Ali , although I couldn't argue with someone for putting him behind Armstrong , Greb , Jofre , maybe Benny Leonard , lets not be silly and say he's not in the top 15

McGrain

10-15-2007, 08:46 AM

True or False:

Joe Louis lost to every truly great HW he ever took on.

False - he fought Walcott twice and beat him.

McGrain

10-15-2007, 08:49 AM

There's no correct answer to the question.

That's like saying that Lennox Lewis is the best heavyweight of all time because "he beat every opponent who he ever faced"....except that to say that and neglect to mention that two of those wins were in rematches after he was easily stopped, wouldn't be telling it like it is.

The two situations are hardly the same. Most of all because this argument is about the greatest fighter of all time - or men who are there or thereabouts.

If you want to find a parallel argument you must find it by looking at the guys who are top 3 or 6 EVER, not a top 3 or 6 heavyweight ever.

Stonehands89

10-15-2007, 06:10 PM

False - he fought Walcott twice and beat him.

I didn't miss that --but it was clear to all and sundry that Louis lost the first one. Louis himself knew it -having gone down in the 1st and the 4th..

McGrain

10-16-2007, 04:43 AM

I didn't miss that --but it was clear to all and sundry that Louis lost the first one. Louis himself knew it -having gone down in the 1st and the 4th..

Very close but I had Walcott winning. I don't see it as clearly as you do and it certainly isn't hard for me to see why Louis could shade a fight like that on the cards.

Regardless, the fact remains.

I know you love Duran, and I know it's a sore point. I also want you to know that I really like Duran too. But let's hear what you have to say.

My position on Duran is that he lost so many great fights to the great fighters he faced was because he was 1% below that class - an incredible fighter who would make it hard for anyone but not quite in the Armstrong/Ali class.

What is your position on this?

ps - totally unlrealted but given that you compared Duran's record to Louis' I also want to mention that I rate that version of Braddock very very highly.

young griffo

10-16-2007, 05:23 AM

False - he fought Walcott twice and beat him.
Don't forget he also beat Baer,Sharkey and Schmeling who were all very good to great fighters.

McGrain

10-16-2007, 05:26 AM

Don't forget he also beat Baer,Sharkey and Schmeling who were all very good to great fighters.

True, but he lost to Schmeling aswell.

Stonehands89

10-16-2007, 07:13 AM

Very close but I had Walcott winning. I don't see it as clearly as you do and it certainly isn't hard for me to see why Louis could shade a fight like that on the cards.

Regardless, the fact remains.

I know you love Duran, and I know it's a sore point. I also want you to know that I really like Duran too. But let's hear what you have to say.

My position on Duran is that he lost so many great fights to the great fighters he faced was because he was 1% below that class - an incredible fighter who would make it hard for anyone but not quite in the Armstrong/Ali class.

What is your position on this?

ps - totally unlrealted but given that you compared Duran's record to Louis' I also want to mention that I rate that version of Braddock very very highly.
I think that Joe clearly lost against Walcott. We'll just have to disagree. I don't believe that any version of Braddock was great.

Duran was anything but loveable as a person. He disgraced his name and did untold damage to the sport in New Orleans. He got far too inconsistent as he aged against inferior competition, however larger they were than he.

I don't get "sore" when people criticize Duran--- I get sorely annoyed not by positions, but by positions that are either not defended or defended so stupidly that they should not have been made in the first place. Ignorance may be bliss, but on a site like this, it really should be attacked, if only for quality control.

That being said, Duran's accomplishments are really virtually unprecedented. To dominate a division and then step up from the LWs -where the height and frames are undeniably smaller than WW and the upper divisions -is not to be dismissed like it has on this thread. To later challenge a top 2-3 WW king and beat him, and then to challenge a top 1-3 MW king -and go 15, and then take a piece of the title against a larger MW champion 6 years later... this is serious stuff.

I go back and forth about whether Armstrong was greater than Duran. Armstrong had a stuttering start and didn't hit his stride until later and then faded relatively fast. Duran was a born fighter and was capable of maintaining greatness, though inconsistent, for decades.

I believe that you propel Ali too high. I have him inside the big 10 p4p but he is not near Duran. The HWs are glorified for obvious reasons but their talent pool has always been among the lowest of the divisions. It's the glory division, and Ali was glorious, yes.

Where do you rate Robinson?

McGrain

10-16-2007, 07:27 AM

I think that Joe clearly lost against Walcott. We'll just have to disagree. I don't believe that any version of Braddock was great.

There's not as much air between our positions as you suggest, I think. After all, we both have Walcott winning.

Duran was anything but loveable as a person. He disgraced his name and did untold damage to the sport in New Orleans. He got far too inconsistent as he aged against inferior competition, however larger they were than he.

Whilst I enjoyed the book that shares you name and I like swapping anecdotes about fighters this type of thing - positive or negative - doesn't interest me that much when rating a fighter. Don't think I hit out at Duran because of who he was.

That being said, Duran's accomplishments are really virtually unprecedented. To dominate a division and then step up from the LWs -where the height and frames are undeniably smaller than WW and the upper divisions -is not to be dismissed like it has on this thread. To later challenge a top 2-3 WW king and beat him, and then to challenge a top 1-3 MW king -and go 15, and then take a piece of the title against a larger MW champion 6 years later... this is serious stuff.

He's a great fighter, unquestionably. He was in my 10 until very recently. I'm not sure he is any more but I can't imagine a situation where he would drop further.

I believe that you propel Ali too high. I have him inside the big 10 p4p but he is not near Duran. The HWs are glorified for obvious reasons but their talent pool has always been among the lowest of the divisions. It's the glory division, and Ali was glorious, yes.

I may actually have Ali above Duran now. Close for me.

Where do you rate Robinson?

High high high. Probably #1, though I do wonder about all the great names from his era that he just didn't tackle. Burley, Booker, Williams are all guys who could have beaten him, perhaps.

Put it this way, the fighters he took on are not as good as the fighters he didn't and that is troublesome. That is also something you could NEVER say about Duran, who constatly sought out ridiculous challanges.

Having said all that, and whilst this is interesting, I don't feel like I have an answer to my original question.

Got to shoot of now, but I'll look in tonight or tomorrow and see what you have for me.

My dinner with Conteh

10-16-2007, 02:40 PM

My dinner with Conteh

10-16-2007, 02:44 PM

Don't forget he also beat Baer,Sharkey and Schmeling who were all very good to great fighters.

Again, Buchanan's rated higher than the likes of Sharkey and probably the other two also.

McGrain

10-16-2007, 06:18 PM

Why is Walcott an all-time great and not Buchanan then? I'd say the probably rank somewhere simlar on all-time lists in their respecvtive divisions. In fact, it could be Kenny that's higher if anything.

I'd be very interested to hear an argument for Buchanan having ATG status, i'd love it to be true. I have him outside that class at the moment, but not firmly.

Stonehands89

10-16-2007, 06:30 PM

There's not as much air between our positions as you suggest, I think. After all, we both have Walcott winning.
My mistake, I thought you had Louis winning.

Whilst I enjoyed the book that shares you name and I like swapping anecdotes about fighters this type of thing - positive or negative - doesn't interest me that much when rating a fighter. Don't think I hit out at Duran because of who he was.
Duran gets no points for allegedly knocking out a horse from this corner either. His accomplishments, longevity, performance against larger men, and especially his level of skill is what do it for me.

He's a great fighter, unquestionably. He was in my 10 until very recently. I'm not sure he is any more but I can't imagine a situation where he would drop further.
You are one of the posters who has long since earned my respect out here but I just cannot see any argument justifying Duran being outside of the top 10, p4p, ATG. It suggests either bias, ignorance, or measures that are highly unusual.

Having said all that, and whilst this is interesting, I don't feel like I have an answer to my original question.
Perhaps I was unclear on the question... I thought you were comparing Duran to Ali and Armstrong. I presented points that I thought defend Duran's belonging in that echelon. The first sentence in that paragraph is unclear... Duran was 1% below his later challengers?

If you mean that he simply wasn't "as good" as Benitez, Hagler, or Hearns then I would assert that you are way off. Way off! Read any of several of my earlier posts about his physical/natural disadvantages... I know I don't need to argue about the difficulty a naturally small man (not smaller as in Toney or Jones or Conn...these are average sized men---Duran favored his indian mother -short and box-shaped. He was naturally a small man and he was past his prime) has in facing bigger men with bigger guns, more strength or more speed and usually both. Chavez would have been destroyed by Hearns regardless of how thick his cranium was. Gans would have not have beaten Hagler. And I truly doubt that any natural LW great would have ever beaten Leonard.

Which natural LW would have defeated a 6'1 naturally 200 pounds, 28 year old Iran Barkley at 37?

What's more, few of them would have been crazy enough to try.

A second argument would compel you to argue that guys like Chavez could not be considered as skilled or as great as De La Hoya or Randall because he lost to them at a higher weight division. Or Benny Leonard wasn't as skilled as McClarnin because he lost at age 36 to the bigger man. It just doesn't hold up.

McGrain

10-16-2007, 06:55 PM

You are one of the posters who has long since earned my respect out here but I just cannot see any argument justifying Duran being outside of the top 10, p4p, ATG. It suggests either bias, ignorance, or measures that are highly unusual.

If we say that Langford would fight at 147 in the modern era and then go up to 154, 160 and then doing 168 or 175 as a tourist looking for superfights. Now we look at what actually happened, and we see he has victories of a HW PowerPuncher rates as one of the very greatest to have ever breathed (Will, of course).

All this means is I have Langford at the absolute top of the mountain, top 5.

Now let's look at Duran and how he did against the four best he took on: Leonard (W, L, L), Hearns (L), Hagler (L), DeJesus (W,W,L) .

He lost at least once to all of them, he fails to dominate all aside from DeJesus who is probably the pound for pound worst out of these.

Duran compares negatively to Langford.

Now the losses against Leonard and Hearns and Hagler are above his best weight. This is not the case with Langford. Nor is it the case with Armstrong. Nor is it the case with Sugar. Nor is it the case with Leonard. These men all beat ATG fighters above their best weight. You see what i'm getting at.

Duran was 1% below his later challengers?

Duran is 1% below the very best ever. That is what I am suggesting to you.

Which natural LW would have defeated a 6'1 naturally 200 pounds, 28 year old Iran Barkley at 37?

An astonishing achievment. I would say it is impossible even knowing that it has been done. It's stuff like this that makes him one of the greatest fighters that ever lived.

Duran's physical skills are pretty astonishing. I've argued in the past that he's amongst the most physically gifted fighters that's ever been.

But when he came up against the very very best he tended to lose. Didn't he?

Mantequilla

10-16-2007, 07:57 PM

Langford was moving about in weights while still very much prime.

Duran was clearly past his best a few years after moving up, after dominating lightweight for the better part of a decade.

Shake

10-16-2007, 08:29 PM

I do not agree that Duran is one of the most physically gifted in boxing history. I feel that from the moment he moved up from Lightweight, he was outgunned in every fight, boxing men that were taller, bigger, stronger and sometimes even faster.

Against Moore, Hagler, Leonard, Hearns, Barkley, he was physically outgunned, and was competitive mostly because of focus and craft.

When you speak of physically gifted, I see a Meldrick Taylor, a Thomas Hearns, a Julian Jackson, even a Jermain Taylor, who can compete at the world level without much craft.

Duran was masterful. I like him because he shows us that boxing well can overcome disadvantages, added to that is that he boxes usually to do damage rather than go for a decision solely.

Especially against Barkley, he gave up reach, power, weight, stamina and age.

He remained competitive because he rested intelligently and was so relaxed in there despite facing the biggest puncher in his life. He countered all night with the right hand at one precise point, the eye, and capitalized on the weakness when it shut closed. He defended himself with subtle movements while closing in and being close to a Hercules of a man, simultaniously looking for openings to attack.

Finally, he showed his grit by taking punches and remaining focussed and composed, surviving a long, long round. Hurt, dazed, thirty-eight, and persevering.

He used everything he had learned in twenty-two years of boxing. It was a masterclass. I have never seen a display of boxing craft since, nor before. People call the Mayweathers and Roy Joneses of this world technical phenoms -- they are nor, they are athletes, with so many advantages over their opponents matches seem like a showcase of their superiority.

Not Duran. He defied the odds time and time again, and sometimes, overcame them.

McGrain

10-17-2007, 04:49 AM

Duran was clearly past his best a few years after moving up, after dominating lightweight for the better part of a decade.

Past his best when he took out Leonard? Surely that's his greatest perfromance.

And I wish people would stop saying decade when they talk about Duran's Lightweight reign, even if they quantify it with "best part of". Six years seems to be the accepted number.

I'm not gunning for Duran or anything. I'm just having another long hard look and not particularly liking what I see in terms of the #7 slot I had him in last time I did a list.

Stonehands89

10-17-2007, 06:57 AM

Now the losses against Leonard and Hearns and Hagler are above his best weight. This is not the case with Langford. Nor is it the case with Armstrong. Nor is it the case with Sugar. Nor is it the case with Leonard. These men all beat ATG fighters above their best weight. You see what i'm getting at.

But when he came up against the very very best he tended to lose. Didn't he?
This is the crux of your argument --and I think it fails at many levels.

You are reaching back 90 years to give me Langford. Langford fought in a different era under different rules against different men -men that I would argue were more durable but less skilled. Some of them were hobos. What fights of Langford's have you analyzed? Comparisons with Langford bolster Duran's standing, if you think about it.

Duran fought and beat the top 1% WW all time. Had he died in a plane crash after Montreal he'd be one of the very best.... the rest is icing. Your criticisms are a stretch. In his 30s, and third decade as a pro, he went 15 rounds with arguably the best MW of all time. He fought the 2 best Junior MW ever. No one else in history has those kinds of challenges to present. And you ignore the fact that he is a small, not an average sized man. You also ignore most of the post.

McGrain

10-17-2007, 07:21 AM

This is the crux of your argument --and I think it fails at many levels.

You are reaching back 90 years to give me Langford. Langford fought in a different era under different rules against different men -men that I would argue were more durable but less skilled. Some of them were hobos. What fights of Langford's have you analyzed? Comparisons with Langford bolster Duran's standing, if you think about it.

Fiar enough, we shall ditch Langford. Let's look at Robinson (Armstrong or Charles might suit also).

Beats some good fighters in the Lightweight division including the champ, Agnott. Steps up a division and beats some good fighters ( Burns, Servo, Doyle etc.) and accounts for three ATG fighters in Zivic, LaMotta and Gavlin.

He moves up again, and again beats some great fighters, LaMotta again, Graziano, Olson has a crack at the LHW champ and fails.

Robinson lost fights but he aveged them. When he took on all time great fighters two divisions above his starting weight, a division above his natural weight, he tended to win and/or dominate. Robinson is arguably the best Middleweight of all time.

Duran is NOT arguably the greatest Welter of all time. Every all time great he fought atg Welter or above beat him. Hearns utterly destroyed him.

Duran does not compare favourably with Robinson. What Duran DID do was try to take on the very very best at all weights. I'm not saying he wasn't great just that he might not belong in this company because he tended to LOSE these massive fights above his best weight. Guys like Armstrong and Robinosn really didn't.

Duran fought and beat the top 1% WW all time. Had he died in a plane crash after Montreal he'd be one of the very best

I agree. But he didn't die in a plane crash on the way to Montreal, so we have a broader, more detailed career to examine. Let's do that.

In his 30s, and third decade as a pro, he went 15 rounds with arguably the best MW of all time.

Lost

He fought the 2 best Junior MW ever.

Lost.

No one else in history has those kinds of challenges to present. And you ignore the fact that he is a small, not an average sized man.

The things he tried to do were amazing. I could watch Duran fight all day. But he mostly lost when he stepped into the lions den. I think the credit you are trying to give him for these losing efforts - when there are many other fighters who have gone above weight in WINNING efforts - is a bit of a stretch.

You also ignore most of the post.

I certainly didn't do that. I didn't quote it all or anything like that, but a couple of times our back and forth posts have got ridiculously long. I tried to bullet-point your ideas. No offence intended.

NickHudson

10-17-2007, 08:20 AM

Hey McGrain,

Have been an avid spectator of your to-and-fro with Stonehands.

A few additions to the debate:

1) The fact that you have elected (resorted?!) to choosing SRR to find a superior set of stats when considering Duran's move up divisions could be telling, given that SRR is consensus P4P1! Noone is arguing Duran is above SRR so this may be a strawman approach, I think.

In an earlier post you seem to be arguing that Duran is outside top10, so some (9, in fact) other examples need careful support and detailing...

2) The multiple losses to 'greats' is clearly a sticking point between your position and that of Stonehands (and me).

When comparing Duran to the other P4P 'division movers' in history 3 things have to be considered:

a) The fact that Duran was between 14 and 23 years into his pro career and well over 70 fights when he made those moves.

My viewings of his performances, an analysis of his age, an awareness of the number of fights he had been through, and his increased passion for over indulging between fights, leads me to the conclusion that his prime was most likely between 1974-1978, not 1980 as you have suggested.

This means he beat prime SRL, when he was actually a little over-the-hill (and moving up an entire weight division). To my mind, even SRR struggles to match this feat when you factor in quality of opposition (see below).

b) The quality of his opposition. Duran did not only fight SRL, he fought the unbeaten 1980 version of SRL. Duran did not only fight Hagler, he fought the middle of reign '83 version of Hagler. Duran did not only fight Barkley, he fought the '89 version coming off the Hearns wins. Which other P4P weight movers in history can match this?

c) The fact that his opposition were in their natural weight class at the time.

In my analysis, I fail to find many others (aside from SRR) who can stack up the a, b and c of these criteria so well. If you can detail some more (from someone other than SRR) I would be very open to hearing them.

PS The lightweight run was from '67-'78. Even though he didn't hold the title all this time, he terrorised and dominated the division over the course of 12 years and 70 fights, with 1 points loss which was avenged twice. His opponents included the tremendous ('72 Buchanan, mid '70s DeJesus) as well as the merely excellent (Koboyashi).

Given the 3 contests with DeJesus, I dont think his choice of opponents can be considered particularly weak, although there should definitely have been a Buchanan rematch.

enquirer

10-17-2007, 09:11 AM

Did robinson dominate the welters like duran did the lightweights?
Robbie had some close fights at welter...
Robbie also lost his challenge at his third weight to maxim regardless of the circumstances (quit just like roberto no less!) Is this not similiar to duran losing to hearns or hagler at his third weight? Remember also,duran tried again at his third weight and won versus barkley at 37...
Robbie won and lost against many of the fighters he fought at middle (his second weight.) ,duran only lost once at his second weight to the incomparable ray leonard...
Think how most of durans losses came 19 pounds (154.) to 33 pounds (160-168.) above his lightweight prime and into his thirties and how relatively speaking he was less equipped for multiple divisions than robbie yet won titles in more weights than robbie did...
Bear in mind also that the welter division which duran inhabited contained leonard,hearns,palamino and cuevas,i dont think even robbie would get out of that lot unbeaten in his second natural division and coming into the age of 30 or more....Not to mention such tough challenges as a prime hearns and hagler in his third division....
Finally,i just want you guys to take in the magnitude of a former lightweight moving up to welter at age 29 after 70 fights and 13/14 years as a pro (12 pounds up.) and to face the 1st or second all time best reigning champ in his prime,and defeat him clearly over 15 rounds....I would be interested to know if this has any parallell in boxing history????? Just try imagine jc chavez,whitaker or benny leonard defeating ray robinson in his pomp and you may get some idea of the magnitude of durans win over leonard.....

My dinner with Conteh

10-17-2007, 11:50 AM

I'd be very interested to hear an argument for Buchanan having ATG status, i'd love it to be true. I have him outside that class at the moment, but not firmly.

Why does Walcott qualify then...and Braddock? Because they fought more often? Despite losing the big fights far more often than they won them (in Joe's case especially). Buchanan was billed as the best thing in boxing by most contemporary writers, with the arguable exception of Napoles, when he was champion. Walcott and Braddock were mostly regarded as fillers until the next big thing came along. Then again, a movie was made about Braddock so he must have been greater. :hey

Stonehands89

10-17-2007, 04:32 PM

Arminius

10-17-2007, 04:51 PM

In 20 years this will cease to be an argument. Duran will be by consensus a top 5 all time great just like SSR is today.

Stonehands89

10-17-2007, 05:12 PM

Fiar enough, we shall ditch Langford. Let's look at Robinson (Armstrong or Charles might suit also).

Beats some good fighters in the Lightweight division including the champ, Agnott. Steps up a division and beats some good fighters ( Burns, Servo, Doyle etc.) and accounts for three ATG fighters in Zivic, LaMotta and Gavlin.

He moves up again, and again beats some great fighters, LaMotta again, Graziano, Olson has a crack at the LHW champ and fails.

Robinson lost fights but he aveged them. When he took on all time great fighters two divisions above his starting weight, a division above his natural weight, he tended to win and/or dominate. Robinson is arguably the best Middleweight of all time.

Duran is NOT arguably the greatest Welter of all time. Every all time great he fought atg Welter or above beat him. Hearns utterly destroyed him.

Duran does not compare favourably with Robinson. What Duran DID do was try to take on the very very best at all weights. I'm not saying he wasn't great just that he might not belong in this company because he tended to LOSE these massive fights above his best weight. Guys like Armstrong and Robinosn really didn't.
Interestingly enough, Robinson, Armstrong, and Charles are three fighters who, along with Greb, are at the top for me. Them and Duran. Robinson at #1 is unchallenged by most and your statement that "Duran does not compare favourably with Robinson" does not inhibit my assertion that Duran belongs in the top 5. Duran does not belong at #1. That I have never asserted.

Let me give you this to think about though. Duran, taken for his dominance, skill, longevity, and performance against larger men -does indeed compare favorably.

Let me illuminate that: Duran didn't face just good/average/or great fighters at his inflated weight -he faced elites. Had he been around in Armstrong's era is their any doubt that he would have beaten Ross (WW champ) and Ceferino Garcia (~MW champ)? Armstrong would not have beaten Leonard and would have lost worse to Hagler and just as badly to Hearns for my money. Duran had bad timing --and you penalize him for it.

Hell, there has been a thundering debate out here about whether Robinson could beat Leonard. Achilles among other luminaries made good arguments for Leonard. It is hard to choose against Leonard -even with Robinson himself in the opposite corner...

Robinson is a mirror of Leonard physically.
Duran was shorter by 3 inches, shorter reach, older, and slower than Leonard...
Leonard was undefeated.
And yet Duran beat him.

--There is some perspective.

You throw out Duran's losing to Hagler as if it is a black mark on his record. Must I regurgitate why his stand against Hagler is unheard of? There is no consensus that either Robinson or Monzon could beat Hagler. Hagler according to many, is the best head to head and otherwise among any and all MWs. Duran did what no challenger could do until Leonard -he went 15. Not only that, but there is a solid argument that can be made that Duran's performance was more impressive than Leonard's against Hagler. I can give you 4 strong arguments supporting exactly that.

Duran's losses against Hearns and Benitez were bad performances. No doubt there. He was inconsistent and at times, very stupid (he didn't see Hearns as a true threat, he saw him as a "chicken" because of the KO against Leonard in 81).

However let's say Duran beat Hagler, Hearns, and Benitez. Where would you rank him then?

Put him in there at his best against Armstrong's WW or MW belted challengers or Robinson's WW or MW belted challengers and perhaps you will let go of what seems to be a double standard.

The things he tried to do were amazing. I could watch Duran fight all day. But he mostly lost when he stepped into the lions den. I think the credit you are trying to give him for these losing efforts - when there are many other fighters who have gone above weight in WINNING efforts - is a bit of a stretch.
You think it is a bit of stretch? That is only because you are trying to compare Zivic to Leonard and LaMotta to Hagler. Additionally, Robinson was rarely an underdog when he challenged bigger men. When wasn't Duran the underdog?

I certainly didn't do that. I didn't quote it all or anything like that, but a couple of times our back and forth posts have got ridiculously long. I tried to bullet-point your ideas. No offence intended.
You got that.

Robbi

10-17-2007, 06:12 PM

Past his best when he took out Leonard? Surely that's his greatest perfromance.

And I wish people would stop saying decade when they talk about Duran's Lightweight reign, even if they quantify it with "best part of". Six years seems to be the accepted number.

I'm not gunning for Duran or anything. I'm just having another long hard look and not particularly liking what I see in terms of the #7 slot I had him in last time I did a list.

Its always been a debatable topic regarding when Duran was past his best. Some fighters over the years have had their greatest wins when past their best, although the win was not neccesarily their greatest performance.

Ali's victory Foreman goes down as his greatest win, but up for arguement. Not sure it was his greatest performance as his prime skills were not on show.

Some people could well say Foreman's greatest win was against Moorer. Considering the odds were stacked against him, and the reward for the win was becoming the oldest heavyweight champion in history. And we all know Foreman was light years away from his prime when that right hand sparked out Moorer's lights.

Those examples above are over exaggerted when looking at Duran's performance over Leonard, and when he was/wasn't past his best. You could only make a case for Duran being past his prime by no more than 2 years if you think he was when sharing a ring with Leonard in Montreal.

Duran only really started to go downhill after "no mas". His consistency throughout the 70's up until his rematch with Leonard was nothing short of superb, even with his jump from lightweight to welterweight. Nobody was making noises that his game was evaporating after the move to welterweight. Power understandably wasn't quite as potenent as he was taken the distance more than at lightweight.

Duran's skills and effectiveness at welterweight would not have been the same had he not moved up due to problems with the scales. It doesn't seem sensible that if he jumped up around 1974-1975 that he would have been anywhere near as successful at welterweight. He gained strength with the move up, even though squaring off against bigger physically imposing fighters was a new challenge.

Duran beat a prime Leonard, who was probably the best fighter he ever fought, including Hagler and Hearns who beat him. His performance and the way he went about his business that night typifies more than any other fight. His defense was slick, handspeed quick, and attacks as varied as ever.

SugarRay

10-17-2007, 06:24 PM

McGrain

10-17-2007, 06:26 PM

Hey McGrain,

Hey buddy!

1) The fact that you have elected (resorted?!) to choosing SRR to find a superior set of stats when considering Duran's move up divisions could be telling, given that SRR is consensus P4P1! Noone is arguing Duran is above SRR so this may be a strawman approach, I think.

I used Langford first which my man didn't find agreeable. I used Robinson second because he has pretty clean lines. Langford, Greb, Armstrong and some others compare to Robinson quite evenly, so the fact that Duran doesn't is interesting to me.

What did you think of the Langford comparison?

Stonehands might consider Duran above Robinson, I don't know - I think it is a defendable position for reasons that might come up...

Basically i've used two different fighters and been criticised for two completely different reasons. If you want to have Duran at the very top of the p4p list, these are the guys he's going to be compared to. I mean...

b) The quality of his opposition. Duran did not only fight SRL, he fought the unbeaten 1980 version of SRL. Duran did not only fight Hagler, he fought the middle of reign '83 version of Hagler. Duran did not only fight Barkley, he fought the '89 version coming off the Hearns wins. Which other P4P weight movers in history can match this?

Probably not many, but Duran lost to Hagler and he lost 2/3 to Leonard (though he gets a lot of credit for the win over Sugar). Again here we are - what other top ten p4p contender lost in most of there fights v ATG's.

I am thoroughly impressed with Duran's competition. He may have fought better talent relative to his own (given weight class considerations) than any fighter ever. In this area he CRUSHES Ray Robinson - but he lost these fights. He lost all of his fights against the best fighters he fought, except two. Arguably three including Barkley. Arguably.

McGrain

10-17-2007, 06:30 PM

Why does Walcott qualify then

Kicked a lot of ass! Hard fighter to beat. Does he compare unfavourabley to Buchanan? I hope so. Show me!

...and Braddock?

Don't think either one of us is ready to have that conversation :lol:

I wrote it small hoping you wouldn't see :lol:

Despite losing the big fights far more often than they won them (in Joe's case especially). Buchanan was billed as the best thing in boxing by most contemporary writers, with the arguable exception of Napoles, when he was champion. Walcott and Braddock were mostly regarded as fillers until the next big thing came along. Then again, a movie was made about Braddock so he must have been greater. :hey

I hated that fucking movie.

Stonehands89

10-17-2007, 06:48 PM

Stonehands might consider Duran above Robinson, I don't know - I think it is a defendable position for reasons that might come up...

"Robinson at #1 is unchallenged by most and your statement that "Duran does not compare favourably with Robinson" does not inhibit my assertion that Duran belongs in the top 5. Duran does not belong at #1. That I have never asserted."

To remove any further confusion, I am perfectly comfortable with Duran at #5 or #4. I have him at #3 at times myself as well. #2 is a bit of a stretch. #1 is reserved for Robinson.

McGrain

10-17-2007, 06:50 PM

Let me illuminate that: Duran didn't face just good/average/or great fighters at his inflated weight -he faced elites. Had he been around in Armstrong's era is their any doubt that he would have beaten Ross (WW champ) and Ceferino Garcia (~MW champ)? Armstrong would not have beaten Leonard and would have lost worse to Hagler and just as badly to Hearns for my money.

I agree with you. I've said above (covered some of this with Nick, have a look and feel free to respond there) that Duran may have the best level of competition of ever fighter ever.

Duran had bad timing --and you penalize him for it.

If a fighter loses it needs to be considered. It must be considered. You can say, "it was as expected", but I have to ask you this - which other top 10 p4p candidate has a record as bad v ATG fighters?

I would not go so far as to exclude him entirely on the basis of the fact that there are none. But what does it tell us? Duran spent a great deal of time out of his depth? OK. Why was he out of his depth? Purely because of size? The history of the fight game is flushed with great fighters losing to smaller men. Much of it is early in boxing history, but I don't see that as a reason to throw it out.

Robinson is a mirror of Leonard physically.

The last time there was a thread comparing these two I postulated that there was literally no area where Robinson was exceeded by Leonard aside from elusiveness, and that that was partly because Robinson spent so much more time in the firing zone. A few people spoke up to agree with that statement or the possibility of it but I don't remember any disenting voices.

Duran was shorter by 3 inches, shorter reach, older, and slower than Leonard...
Leonard was undefeated.
And yet Duran beat him.

--There is some perspective.

An astonishing achievment. Comparable to Langford's defeat of Wills, Greb's defeat of Tunney - in excess of Armstrong's defeat of Zivic, yes indeed. What? What can I say? It's an amazing acheivment. He did nothing like it ever again.

You throw out Duran's losing to Hagler as if it is a black mark on his record. Must I regurgitate why his stand against Hagler is unheard of? There is no consensus that either Robinson or Monzon could beat Hagler. Hagler according to many, is the best head to head and otherwise among any and all MWs. Duran did what no challenger could do until Leonard -he went 15. Not only that, but there is a solid argument that can be made that Duran's performance was more impressive than Leonard's against Hagler. I can give you 4 strong arguments supporting exactly that.

This is eloquent and persuasive. Good work. But I feel I hand Duran enough credit for this loss as things stand.

Duran's losses against Hearns and Benitez were bad performances. No doubt there. He was inconsistent and at times, very stupid (he didn't see Hearns as a true threat, he saw him as a "chicken" because of the KO against Leonard in 81).

He wasn't inconsistent or stuped against Hearns he was outgunned and soundly beaten. Destroyed is not to strong a word. It is quite clear that Duran is at a serious physical disadvantage against Hearns. One of the reasons why he was soundly beaten.

However let's say Duran beat Hagler, Hearns, and Benitez. Where would you rank him then?

#1.

Put him in there at his best against Armstrong's WW or MW belted challengers or Robinson's WW or MW belted challengers and perhaps you will let go of what seems to be a double standard.

I don't think that Roberto Duran would beat LaMotta. Apart from that I agree with you. Put Robinosn in with Duran's comp and I pick him to win. Armstrong would not do as well as Duran. But then he started at Featherweight.

I hope this deals with your double standard accusation which I don't really understand.

You think it is a bit of stretch? That is only because you are trying to compare Zivic to Leonard and LaMotta to Hagler. Additionally, Robinson was rarely an underdog when he challenged bigger men. When wasn't Duran the underdog?

I think Zivic is comparable to Leonord although Sugar is superior, I think that LaMotta is comparable to Haggler though Marvin is superior.

McGrain

10-17-2007, 06:56 PM

"Robinson at #1 is unchallenged by most and your statement that "Duran does not compare favourably with Robinson" does not inhibit my assertion that Duran belongs in the top 5. Duran does not belong at #1. That I have never asserted."

To remove any further confusion, I am perfectly comfortable with Duran at #5 or #4. I have him at #3 at times myself as well. #2 is a bit of a stretch. #1 is reserved for Robinson.

Yeah, I was working my way down the replies to my posts and your position on this was below the post I replied to.

Stonehands89

10-17-2007, 07:31 PM

I agree with you. I've said above (covered some of this with Nick, have a look and feel free to respond there) that Duran may have the best level of competition of ever fighter ever.
okay...

If a fighter loses it needs to be considered. It must be considered. You can say, "it was as expected", but I have to ask you this - which other top 10 p4p candidate has a record as bad v ATG fighters?
If Roy Jones faced 1988 Tyson and got KOd, would it diminish his standing? How about if Willie Pep got KOd against Mike McCallum? Pep gets starched by Tyson in 12 seconds?

The point here is not to be trite, it is for you to see that context needs to be considered. I suspect that Duran would have greater standing had he died in July of 1980... his later failures, inconsistencies, and gluttonies should not erase or diminish his preceding accomplishments. You do not allow for real factors such as age and size and length of career. Duran was completely outgunned not just be Hearns, but by Leonard and Moore as well.

I would not go so far as to exclude him entirely on the basis of the fact that there are none. But what does it tell us? Duran spent a great deal of time out of his depth? OK. Why was he out of his depth? Purely because of size? The history of the fight game is flushed with great fighters losing to smaller men. Much of it is early in boxing history, but I don't see that as a reason to throw it out.
Again, Robinson was an average sized man. Leonard was an average sized man. Even Langford was a good sized man. Duran was a small man.

Duran had the following:
-size disadvantage
-a pronounced reached disadvantage
-usually a strength disadvantage
-speed disadvantage
-age disadvantage
-elite competition -among the top 1% of their division.
-a style that put him squarely in the danger zone. Toe-to-toe. Forcing him to rely on serious skill inside and forcing him to take shots from large men. Who were faster than him, stronger than him, and younger than him.

The last time there was a thread comparing these two I postulated that there was literally no area where Robinson was exceeded by Leonard aside from elusiveness, and that that was partly because Robinson spent so much more time in the firing zone. A few people spoke up to agree with that statement or the possibility of it but I don't remember any disenting voices.
Achilles? Are you out here? Is my memory getting goofy with age??

An astonishing achievment. Comparable to Langford's defeat of Wills, Greb's defeat of Tunney - in excess of Armstrong's defeat of Zivic, yes indeed. What? What can I say? It's an amazing acheivment. He did nothing like it ever again.
He didn't !#$?&* have to!!! That is why I suspected a double standard.

Michelangelo paints the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. He goes blind and almost dies doing it. McGrain stands underneath with the half-dead artist beside him:
McGrain: an amazing achievement. But.....well.... let's see you do it again. Donatello was better.
Michelangelo: huh?!

Duran's defeat of Leonard exceed both Langford and Greb. Neither Wills or Tunney are in the top 1% all time in their respective divisions.

This is eloquent and persuasive. Good work. But I feel I hand Duran enough credit for this loss as things stand.
Thank you. You are a formidable adversary and I enjoy this.

He wasn't inconsistent or stuped against Hearns he was outgunned and soundly beaten. Destroyed is not to strong a word. It is quite clear that Duran is at a serious physical disadvantage against Hearns. One of the reasons why he was soundly beaten.
Hearns was peaking. I'm not sure which LWs he would not have destroyed that night.

Duran was indeed stupid that night. He didn't train hard at all and his physique had the consistency of a roll of paper towels. And he fought exactly the wrong fight.

#1.
Okay. Now, let's say that Duran fought champion Armstrong at Jr. MW and beat him (I think he would have) and then rose up and whipped Ceferino Garcia for the MW title in '38. What say you then? Hypothetically of course.

I don't think that Roberto Duran would beat LaMotta. Apart from that I agree with you. Put Robinosn in with Duran's comp and I pick him to win. Armstrong would not do as well as Duran. But then he started at Featherweight.

I think Zivic is comparable to Leonord although Sugar is superior, I think that LaMotta is comparable to Haggler though Marvin is superior.

Zivic is leagues below Leonard and Lamotta is at least a level or two below Hagler. I think it is highly likely that the Duran who stepped in against Hagler would have beaten Lamotta. Lamotta was strong, determined, and skilled, but he came forward and Duran dealt with that style very well. Duran's skill exceeded Jake's by more than a bit.

--and that is my point. You could start a thread about Duran vs. LaMotta and plenty of analysts would choose Duran. And that is an argument for Duran as an elite (not ">#7")

My dinner with Conteh

10-18-2007, 01:41 AM

Kicked a lot of ass! Hard fighter to beat. Does he compare unfavourabley to Buchanan? I hope so. Show me!.

Well, he went 5-2 against fighters who were world champs, Walcott's is probably the opposite...he was regarded as a contender for best pfp fighter in boxing...beat Laguna 2 out of 2, beat Ortiz (if that shouldn't count then why should Duran defeat vs Hagler?). His reputation never reached the heights of Kenny's at their respective peaks. Buchanan was tipped to reign throughout the decade- until Duran came along, Walcott became champ mainly because he was given more chances than Frank Bruno. Jesus, they were bound to win one eventually. ;)

McGrain

10-18-2007, 04:48 AM

If Roy Jones faced 1988 Tyson and got KOd, would it diminish his standing?

No. But Jones' standing is what it is because he has a poor level of competition. He is generally not considered for p4p top 10 lists. Let's agree his best weight was SMW. If he had stepped up to LHW and fought (hypothetical) Archie Moore for 1/3, fights Hollfyield at Cruiserweight and loses, fights Tyson at Heavyweight and loses does he now somehow get into that p4p top 10 discussion?

The point here is not to be trite, it is for you to see that context needs to be considered. I suspect that Duran would have greater standing had he died in July of 1980...

What is becoming apparant here is that loses at the very highest level are more important to me than you. I have said that if we reverse the Duran big loses he could be considered for the p4p #1 spot.

Burley - Reverse his losses to Bivins, Charles, Marshall (in all of these fights he was the smaller man) and he can be considered for the #1 spot in my view.

Greb - Reverse his losses to Tunney and he is locked in the #1 spot.

Ali - Reverse his losses to Frazier, Holmes and Norton and the p4p #1 would be a heavyweight.

Duran lost his biggest fights context or no.

his later failures, inconsistencies, and gluttonies should not erase or diminish his preceding accomplishments. You do not allow for real factors such as age and size and length of career. Duran was completely outgunned not just be Hearns, but by Leonard and Moore as well.

The Moore win is a good one and as i've said, wins like that (plus his looks) are the reason he flies so very high. But the thing that got me started on Duran these past weeks are the fights that he lost, not the ones that he won. Maybe that would lead me to downgrade any fighter and the feeling will pass...

Again, Robinson was an average sized man. Leonard was an average sized man. Even Langford was a good sized man. Duran was a small man.

Duran had the following:
-size disadvantage
-a pronounced reached disadvantage
-usually a strength disadvantage
-speed disadvantage
-age disadvantage
-elite competition -among the top 1% of their division.
-a style that put him squarely in the danger zone. Toe-to-toe. Forcing him to rely on serious skill inside and forcing him to take shots from large men. Who were faster than him, stronger than him, and younger than him.

Duran had a series of disadvantages that led him to lose. This is the same with any fighter that loses. Because Duran's disadvantages were mostly physical you place him in the top 5. OK. Even though Duran's disadvantages were mostly physical, I don't have him in the top 5 because he lost against the best.

Achilles? Are you out here? Is my memory getting goofy with age??

I didn't mean to disupte out and out what you said about folks supporting Leonard - just to outline my own position.

He didn't !#$?&* have to!!! That is why I suspected a double standard.

Yes he does. Of course he does. I'm not going to slot a guy into any p4p slot of the back of one incredible win. I think that Burley's win over Moore is better than Duran's win over Leonard. I think that Langford's win over Wills is better than Duran's win over Leonard. I think that Greb's win over Tunney is better than Duran's win over Leonard. But I don't rate ANY of these guys specifically of the back of these wins. How did they do when they came up against OTHER agreat fighters at OTHER times. Really, really well.

I don't have Tunney above Duran by the way, and don't insist upon these results being better than the Duran result, i'm just saying that there are plenty of spectacular wins in the history of the sport. I don't understand the above really. He may not have to repeat a great win v an all time great to get onto your list, but it might be the case that he would have needed to to get onto mine.

Michelangelo paints the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. He goes blind and almost dies doing it. McGrain stands underneath with the half-dead artist beside him:
McGrain: an amazing achievement. But.....well.... let's see you do it again. Donatello was better.
Michelangelo: huh?!

:lol:

Nice. But you're equating the best peice of art of all time with a guy beating a great fighter at the weight above. An often acomplished feat.

Duran's defeat of Leonard exceed both Langford and Greb. Neither Wills or Tunney are in the top 1% all time in their respective divisions.

You're either vastly underating the size of the divisions or underating these two horrifically. These men you have mentioned are in the top .01% of their respective divisions. Tunney is a lock for the top 5 LHW's of all time and Wills is a top 20 HW for me, top 10 for some. If Langford were fighting fair he'd probably be fighting at MW/SMW.

Hearns was peaking. I'm not sure which LWs he would not have destroyed that night.

De La Hoya, Mayweather and Whitaker all might have achieved more.

Duran was indeed stupid that night. He didn't train hard at all and his physique had the consistency of a roll of paper towels. And he fought exactly the wrong fight.

I'm being very hard on Duran here, I know but we are talking about the ten best fighters who have ever breathed. It is acceptable to be really hard on all of them I think. Make a list of the eleven best fighters of all time. I would suggest that Armstrong, Greb and Langford aside a case can be made to slot any one of them at 11. We are talking about a hair's breadth. That hair can perhaps be described by a fighters losses above weight.

Okay. Now, let's say that Duran fought champion Armstrong at Jr. MW and beat him (I think he would have) and then rose up and whipped Ceferino Garcia for the MW title in '38. What say you then? Hypothetically of course.

Very very good wins, especially the Armstrong win. If every other aspect of Duran's career remains the same I would say he is a lock for the top 3.

Zivic is leagues below Leonard and Lamotta is at least a level or two below Hagler.

I'll agree that Hagler is above LaMotta a step but I dispute hotly that Zivic is "leagues" below Leonard. Under a 1940's ruleset I would give Zivic a very, very good chance against Leonard.

I think it is highly likely that the Duran who stepped in against Hagler would have beaten Lamotta. Lamotta was strong, determined, and skilled, but he came forward and Duran dealt with that style very well. Duran's skill exceeded Jake's by more than a bit.

p4p Duran is by far the better man. But at the weight I don't think Duran has anything like the power (or style!) to keep LaMotta off. Wide, wide points victory for LaMotta, in my opinion.

--and that is my point. You could start a thread about Duran vs. LaMotta and plenty of analysts would choose Duran. And that is an argument for Duran as an elite (not ">#7")

Plenty would, you're right my friend.

#11 IS elite.

Senya13

10-18-2007, 04:58 AM

Everyone makes so much of Duran's win over Leonard as if Leonard was some kind of superman back then. Ray only faced one good fighter at that point and he only got a very close win over him (that stoppage was stupid). That's not to forget Benitez was a natural light welter, and didn't achieve much at welterweight (barely getting past rather primitive Palomino in Benitez' hometown). That Duran's win is overrated like hell.

My dinner with Conteh

10-18-2007, 05:02 AM

Benitez's win over Palomino was convincing, as was Leonard's over Benitez. Try not to talk through your arse for just a few minutes. :huh

Senya13

10-18-2007, 05:07 AM

How exactly was Leonard's win over Benitez convincing other than it being a stupid stoppage? Leonard looked like an awkward novice in there.

My dinner with Conteh

10-18-2007, 05:13 AM

A fighter with the defensive skills of Benitez is always going make his opponent look sloppy at times. Despite this, Leonard was winning handily when the fight was (wrongly) stopped.

Senya13

10-18-2007, 05:20 AM

Like I said, it was a good win, but it wasn't something very impressive. And it was the only time Leonard had faced a good opponent by that point. Plus the wrong choice of tactics for the fight, different from the style Leonard showed in any of his other bouts. It is only in hindsight that Duran's win over that still unproven Leonard was given so much weight. Kind of like Greb-Walker if you ask me.

Holmes' Jab

10-18-2007, 05:28 AM

I think he deserves a place around the tail end of the top 10. I don't think his resume across the different weights warrants any higher than that, he just didn't claim the scalps of enough truely great fighters.

Around #9

Bummy Davis

10-18-2007, 05:36 AM

Lets put it this way, if you enlarged Duran to 6"2 215lbs, Ali would be in a world of trouble, or in you shrunk Ali to 135lbs, Durans Hook would be TOO MUCH for him......Duran at 135lbs was the Best Lb4Lb in the 70"s

Stonehands89

10-18-2007, 07:06 AM

"Detroit... I shall return." ~Thomas Hearns, 1981.
"McGrain... I shall return." ~ STonehands, 7:06 am.

--Gotta get to work. Your retort requires more time (and thought) than I have right now.

Stonehands89

10-18-2007, 07:07 AM

Shake

10-18-2007, 07:32 AM

Yeah, let's disregard that one.

McGrain

10-18-2007, 06:38 PM

"Detroit... I shall return." ~Thomas Hearns, 1981.
"McGrain... I shall return." ~ STonehands, 7:06 am.

--Gotta get to work. Your retort requires more time (and thought) than I have right now.

:lol:

It's a pleasure to talk with you. I am mad at work just now too, just looking in on this thread basically.

Manassa

10-18-2007, 07:27 PM

I saw Duran, ho ho ho.

I got his autograph, ha ha ha.

Robbi

10-18-2007, 07:39 PM

I saw Duran, ho ho ho.

I got his autograph, ha ha ha.

Join the club.

Manassa

10-18-2007, 07:51 PM

Join the club.

But did you see him waddle?

I did.

Stonehands89

10-18-2007, 09:48 PM

No. But Jones' standing is what it is because he has a poor level of competition. He is generally not considered for p4p top 10 lists. Let's agree his best weight was SMW. If he had stepped up to LHW and fought (hypothetical) Archie Moore for 1/3, fights Hollfyield at Cruiserweight and loses, fights Tyson at Heavyweight and loses does he now somehow get into that p4p top 10 discussion? If Jones stuck around for longer in the SMW division and dominated better competition for 6 years, stepped up and beat Archie, and then gave Holyfield all he could handle and lost over 15, he would indeed be arguably in the top 10.

Jones was an average sized man. Duran was a small man. I believe that it is scientifically provable that a man standing at 5'7 with a LW frame has more difficulties against a man standing 6'1 with a MW/LHW frame than a LHW would against a full-blown HW. This is physics.

What is becoming apparant here is that loses at the very highest level are more important to me than you. I have said that if we reverse the Duran big loses he could be considered for the p4p #1 spot.
He'd be a lock. One of things that I dispute with you is that Duran's comp that you criticize were more than great -they were elites in their primes and operating in the divisions where they were at their best. Duran was neither priming, and fighting relative monsters. Look at the stats.

Burley - Reverse his losses to Bivins, Charles, Marshall (in all of these fights he was the smaller man) and he can be considered for the #1 spot in my view.
No way.
Greb - Reverse his losses to Tunney and he is locked in the #1 spot.
Hypothetical. No film.

Ali - Reverse his losses to Frazier, Holmes and Norton and the p4p #1 would be a heavyweight.
No, I'd dispute that.

Duran lost his biggest fights context or no.
Lincoln didn't complete Reconstruction, murdered or no.
Hannibal lost at Zama, inferior numbers or no.

Duran had a series of disadvantages that led him to lose. This is the same with any fighter that loses. Because Duran's disadvantages were mostly physical you place him in the top 5. OK. Even though Duran's disadvantages were mostly physical, I don't have him in the top 5 because he lost against the best.
No. You too casually write off the extent of those disadvantages. Duran had damn near every disadvantage you could have against elites. That is unique. What LW fought the .1% best of the WWs, Jr. MWs, and MWs past his prime while they were at or near prime?

That fact that he won even one of them is outstanding. Would Benny Leonard beat Robinson? Or Leonard? I doubt it. Would Gans have beaten Hearns? I doubt that even more. Would Whitaker have beaten Hagler? Don't be silly.

Would Hagler have gone 15 against LHW Ezzard Charles in 1987? Would Hagler have beaten CW Carlos DeLeon in 1992?

Context, my man, context.

You're either vastly underating the size of the divisions or underating these two horrifically. These men you have mentioned are in the top .01% of their respective divisions. Tunney is a lock for the top 5 LHW's of all time and Wills is a top 20 HW for me, top 10 for some. If Langford were fighting fair he'd probably be fighting at MW/SMW.
I am not vastly underrating these men and the rest of your response proves it. Tunney was anything but unbeatable. Maybe top 5 among the LHW. Wills top 20? Big deal. Langford is great but not enough is known about his quality of competition, his style, and the shady politics surrounding the fights back then... I don't like going back that far because things get really murky.

De La Hoya, Mayweather and Whitaker all might have achieved more.
If Hearns decided to go straight at any of them, I am not sure about that at all. De La Hoya would have the best chance because of the guns and the relative height...

p4p Duran is by far the better man. But at the weight I don't think Duran has anything like the power (or style!) to keep LaMotta off. Wide, wide points victory for LaMotta, in my opinion.
I see a points victory for an inspired Duran... although he did tend to fade late against strong MW (except Barkley where everyone was waiting for him to fade. Hagler, Simms... he faded). Close call.

I don't have Tunney above Duran by the way, and don't insist upon these results being better than the Duran result, i'm just saying that there are plenty of spectacular wins in the history of the sport. I don't understand the above really. He may not have to repeat a great win v an all time great to get onto your list, but it might be the case that he would have needed to to get onto mine.
Duran simply should not have beaten Leonard. He should not have beaten Moore, 12 fights or no, because Duran had 15 years worth of fights, had been more or less a dud for 3 years, and was in against a younger, stronger, faster champion 17 pounds above his best weight. Duran should not have lasted 15 against Hagler at 25 pounds above his best weight. Duran never should have beaten Barkely in his 22nd year as a pro.

--all that after what is almost unanimously remembered as a reign of terror in the LW division in the 70s. And you got him at #11! I just can't see more than 3 or 4 guys who can top that resume. Add in other measures of greatness and Duran looks even better ---to wit, head-to -head.

Stonehands89

10-18-2007, 09:50 PM

But did you see him waddle?

I did.

He used to steal mangos. Now he wants to be one --a GIANT one.

Was he kissing and slobbering all over everyone? Hell, I'm glad he's happy, though I miss the menace.

Manassa

10-18-2007, 09:51 PM

He used to steal mangos. Now he wants to be one --a GIANT one.

Was he kissing and slobbering all over everyone? Hell, I'm glad he's happy, though I miss the menace.

Nah, but he was a bit pissed. Hilarious though. I thought the 'interview' might be a bit awkward but it wasn't at all. He should do stand-up.

SteveO

10-18-2007, 09:58 PM

According to Bert Sugar's "Boxing's Greatest Fighters", he ranks Duran #8.

Stonehands89

10-19-2007, 06:48 AM

Nah, but he was a bit pissed. Hilarious though. I thought the 'interview' might be a bit awkward but it wasn't at all. He should do stand-up.
He is funny -the way he described Hearns knocking the women and the booze out of him was good stuff.

Any interesting comments?

Ezzard

10-19-2007, 07:13 AM

In my opinion there is so much rubbish and lazy analysis of the Duran-Leonard fights.

Watch Leonard's fights. He didn't 'move' around as much as people claim. He moved around against Duran in the 2nd fight and against Hagler. Other than that he stalked most opponents and boxed his way in.

Besides which Leonard nearly gets dropped in the 2nd round, and said himself that he didn't really wake up for a few rounds after that. So, whatever game plan he did or didn't have went right out of the window in that second round. Duran was better on the outside in that fight which is why, once he's recovered, Ray went chest-to-chest.

The whole change of tactics in the 2nd fight was a point only made retrospectively.

Bill Butcher

10-19-2007, 12:03 PM

I personally have duran top 5 atg.

He`s defo a top 10 at least aswell as being the best ever at 135 lbs.

Duran wasnt the best ever p4p no1, that honour must go to ray robinson, the man of many talents.

McGrain

10-19-2007, 01:51 PM

If Jones stuck around for longer in the SMW division and dominated better competition for 6 years, stepped up and beat Archie, and then gave Holyfield all he could handle and lost over 15, he would indeed be arguably in the top 10.

Here we will have to agree to disagree.

Jones was an average sized man. Duran was a small man. I believe that it is scientifically provable that a man standing at 5'7 with a LW frame has more difficulties against a man standing 6'1 with a MW/LHW frame than a LHW would against a full-blown HW. This is physics.

I wouldn't neccesarily dispute this, although I won't make you a cake either. Conn v Lennox Lewis for example, may be a more difficult job for Conn than peak Hopkins would be for Mayweather, for example.

He'd be a lock. One of things that I dispute with you is that Duran's comp that you criticize were more than great -they were elites in their primes and operating in the divisions where they were at their best. Duran was neither priming, and fighting relative monsters. Look at the stats.

I'm happy to agree with you that Duran would be a major, major contender for #1 spot if you reverse these losses.

No way.

The above is your response to my claim about Burley by the way.

Now, I would like to hear about why not? If you reverse these losses, Burley has wins over a bigger man (Charles) who is a contender for the ATG #1 spot, Marshall who may be a push for a top 10 all time LHW head to head spot, and Bivins, another contender for ATG status at LHW. And Burley was a WW.

He'd also have a better win resume than Robinson would dare to dream of.

Hypothetical. No film.

Aye! This is a different argument, and not one we should have here probably. I would satisfy myself with saying we have his resume and film of his opponents blah blah blah. Some are happy to consider Greb in their thinking, some are not, I am one of the former but have no problem appreciating the later pont of view.

No, I'd dispute that.

He would have wins over A LOT of ATG fighters (including a peak Holmes as an old man) and an unblemished record coming from one of the strongest era's of any division. It's about criteria, I would guess. To me, p4p is about skills and getting the job done and resume. I'm not particularly interested in physics (as a tool of creating ratings I mean).

Lincoln didn't complete Reconstruction, murdered or no.

He fought and won a hugely significant war and freed the slaves though. So his ATG status is guaranteed.

Hannibal lost at Zama, inferior numbers or no.

I would be a fool to dismiss Hannibals greatness based upon this fact, but it should be considered when comparing him to every other great general who has ever made war.

You too casually write off the extent of those disadvantages. Duran had damn near every disadvantage you could have against elites. That is unique. What LW fought the .1% best of the WWs, Jr. MWs, and MWs past his prime while they were at or near prime?

I know I know I know! I know he was disadvantaged, but he LOST.

Listen though. You are getting through to me a little bit. I acknowledge what it is that you say here. But I will continue to insists, at this time, that the fact of the matter is more important.

That fact that he won even one of them is outstanding.

I absolutley agree with you, I mean it. I may OVERESTIMATE the impact of the losses - possible - but I do not underestimate the win.

Would Hagler have gone 15 against LHW Ezzard Charles in 1987? Would Hagler have beaten CW Carlos DeLeon in 1992?

I think that Hagler may have managed the 15, but not in 1987. But let me ask you this here - what did you think of Hagler's fight plan? I'm going to guess that you will have a different take, i'd be interested to hear it, but for me, Hagler fought wrong. The best way I can think of to put it is that he fought the p4p version of Duran rather than the MW version, if that makes any sense at all.

I have this fight on VHS. Give me your take and next week I will dig it out and watch it again.

I am not vastly underrating these men and the rest of your response proves it. Tunney was anything but unbeatable. Maybe top 5 among the LHW.

Maybe? Hmmm. A contender for #1 and IF you allow achievments from the HW division - in other words his fights with Dempsey - to impact his LHW rating, my choice for #1. Though I usually don't do that type of thing (import results i mean).

Wills top 20? Big deal.

One of the best 20 ever at your version of your sport? A VERY big deal.

If Hearns decided to go straight at any of them, I am not sure about that at all.

This will be said many times about Mayweather before someone gets him. I agree Hearns would be an ideal candidate though...still, i'll stick with my claim. Mayweather would be my LW choice to take out Hearns via the distance...

De La Hoya would have the best chance because of the guns and the relative height...

But this is a fine choice too. Both would do better than Duran.

Duran simply should not have beaten Leonard. He should not have beaten Moore,

Right. Because of his physicality.

Does his incredible mentality and technical ability over-ride these deficiencies in a p4p sense? Of course. Cancel them out? No. Why not consider a fighters physicality when rating them on the p4p scale? Why say, "he was short, rate him higher"? Why not say, "he was short, a disadvantage for a fighter, this make him a less good fighter, rate him lower"?

And you got him at #11!

Actually, no I don't...my p4p list is in ruins. But I AM looking long and hard at Duran and where I previously had him (7).

I just can't see more than 3 or 4 guys who can top that resume.

His resume isn't that great! When I say "Resume", I mean "resume of wins". He doesn't have that many great wins Stonehands.

EDIT: Of course he has a great resume. He's an ATG fighter. What I mean sort of brings me back to the original point...

Add in other measures of greatness and Duran looks even better ---to wit, head-to -head.

You got anyone beating him at Lightweight?

Duran is a "force of nature" type fighter/character. Like a lot of these guys he may have become overated due to love. People love Duran.

Think Tyson.

Stonehands89

10-19-2007, 06:36 PM

I wouldn't neccesarily dispute this, although I won't make you a cake either. Conn v Lennox Lewis for example, may be a more difficult job for Conn than peak Hopkins would be for Mayweather, for example.
I was thinking more about Dempsey and Marciano. They could take guys out 50 pounds heavier. Their physicality allowed them to generate objectively great power... by contrast Duran would never knock out Dempsey or Marciano.

Now, I would like to hear about why not? If you reverse these losses, Burley has wins over a bigger man (Charles) who is a contender for the ATG #1 spot, Marshall who may be a push for a top 10 all time LHW head to head spot, and Bivins, another contender for ATG status at LHW. And Burley was a WW.

He'd also have a better win resume than Robinson would dare to dream of.
Burley is interesting... but I don't think he would necessarily get propelled up as much as you argue. I'd have to think about it... feel free to convince me. I'm working hard over here -you owe me!

Aye! This is a different argument, and not one we should have here probably. I would satisfy myself with saying we have his resume and film of his opponents blah blah blah. Some are happy to consider Greb in their thinking, some are not, I am one of the former but have no problem appreciating the later pont of view.
I've had that argument upteen times. Greb is great. I give you that. I don't like to consider guys I can't see... it offends my analytical pride. But Greb is an exception.

He would have wins over A LOT of ATG fighters (including a peak Holmes as an old man) and an unblemished record coming from one of the strongest era's of any division. It's about criteria, I would guess. To me, p4p is about skills and getting the job done and resume. I'm not particularly interested in physics (as a tool of creating ratings I mean).
"I wish I was big. Then I'd kick Ali's ass." ~Duran, 1970s.

I don't have that high an opinion of HW skill... and skill is a key component for greatness.Even Ali's skill was suspect. His talent sure wasn't but he wasn't exactly well-rounded. Adaptable, yes.

He fought and won a hugely significant war and freed the slaves though. So his ATG status is guaranteed.
Duran whipped every LW they put in front of him, avoided no one, avenged his one loss with 2 KOs against a man who would otherwise be an ATG LW, IMO... then beat Leonard, then beat Moore, then beat Barkley when he should have been a mango in a rocking chair. His elite (read: top 5) status should be less malleable than you allow.

I would be a fool to dismiss Hannibals greatness based upon this fact, but it should be considered when comparing him to every other great general who has ever made war.
Aha. Hannibal is normally ranked top 5....

I am impressed with your confidence in discussing other topics. Nor am I surprised.

I know I know I know! I know he was disadvantaged, but he LOST.
Lincoln's was the commander in chief and was getting his ass kicked for 3 years before Gettysburg. Take a look at Washington's record on the field my friend. How many times did that general say "NO MAS"?!?! Haha.

I think that Hagler may have managed the 15, but not in 1987. But let me ask you this here - what did you think of Hagler's fight plan? I'm going to guess that you will have a different take, i'd be interested to hear it, but for me, Hagler fought wrong. The best way I can think of to put it is that he fought the p4p version of Duran rather than the MW version, if that makes any sense at all.
I have this fight on VHS. Give me your take and next week I will dig it out and watch it again.

I went round and round on this with John Thomas about a month back or so. If you can't find it, I'll try to quote from it over the weekend.

One of the best 20 ever at your version of your sport? A VERY big deal.
--Not compared to Leonard.

Does his incredible mentality and technical ability over-ride these deficiencies in a p4p sense? Of course. Cancel them out? No. Why not consider a fighters physicality when rating them on the p4p scale? Why say, "he was short, rate him higher"? Why not say, "he was short, a disadvantage for a fighter, this make him a less good fighter, rate him lower"?
The argument here is as follows: A good, no, a GREAT measure of greatness is how a given fighter performs with age, the deterioration of physical powers, against larger, younger, faster, stronger, and more energetic men. All Duran had was skill, savvy, experience, or however you want to label it. He had one advantage -his mind. And it was enough long after it should have been. That is why we see how great he could be --not consistently was, but the level of greatness he reached when inspired. It was objectively unprecedented in my opinion -at least in the past 80 years.

Actually, no I don't...my p4p list is in ruins. But I AM looking long and hard at Duran and where I previously had him (7).
Put him at 5 and let me rest my mutha fu**in' fingers.

You got anyone beating him at Lightweight?
Yes. but Shane Mosley would pose the biggest problems.

Duran is a "force of nature" type fighter/character. Like a lot of these guys he may have become overated due to love. People love Duran.

Think Tyson.
I am insulted. Here I am making nice and you have to go and throw an argument I have made against the legions of deluded Tyson and Jones fans at me. Those fans get drunk on speed and power. I do not.

Duran was not merely a force of nature, my friend. His skill rivalled Pep and exceeded Robinson's.

Duran is not overrated. He is coming into view as time marches on. Duran, still, to any sport's analyst is "Mr. No Mas."

I will grant you that while Hagler, LEonard, and Hearns had "fans"... Duran had full-blown "fanatics". The Panamanians had something great to hold on to --besides a canal.

McGrain

10-20-2007, 02:29 PM

Burley is interesting... but I don't think he would necessarily get propelled up as much as you argue. I'd have to think about it... feel free to convince me. I'm working hard over here -you owe me!

Here are the ATG wins Burley has:

Moore, Willimas (x3), Cocoa Kid (x2), Zivic ( x2),Chase (x3),

I won't add Soose or Leto, though they were very good figters. I think this compares well to Duran, for example. Most of the big wins are above weight, too.

All the confirmed wins were over ATG's between WW and MW, when Burley was a WW, often figting at "in between" for MW and LHW (for example, Moore), well above is favourite weight. He also as losses, of course.

Reverse some of those, especially the losses when he was WAY above weight and against some of the best who have ever lived at those weigts - Bivins, Marshall, Charles - plus the duck of some of the best ever - Armstrong, Robinson - when they were champ, and to me, it's comfusing who else you could christen #1.

I've had that argument upteen times. Greb is great. I give you that. I don't like to consider guys I can't see... it offends my analytical pride. But Greb is an exception.

Fair enough!

"I wish I was big. Then I'd kick Ali's ass." ~Duran, 1970s.

The film shows LaMotta containing the same sentiments - Prove it, is all I can say. Many tried, few succeeded.

I don't have that high an opinion of HW skill... and skill is a key component for greatness.Even Ali's skill was suspect. His talent sure wasn't but he wasn't exactly well-rounded. Adaptable, yes.

We have spoken briefly about generals and presidents. Marshalling GREAT power will be easier than marshalling lesser power as anyone of them will tell you. Heavyweights play a different game. Ali was it's best exponent. I see HW skill as a wonderful thing, no less than LW skill. Though he was just scraping into my ten p4p previously I have no difficulty absorbing him at top 5.

Duran whipped every LW they put in front of him,

Jones whipped every fighter put in front of him at MW, SMW, and although I think Duran shades it at for overall comp best weights, Jones has Hopkins and Toney, regardless of cirumstance (not a big fan) at these weights.

avoided no one,

I would never dispute that. Here, then, is the criteria for putting Duran at 1.

avenged his one loss with 2 KOs against a man who would otherwise be an ATG LW, IMO...

I think he IS an ATG at this weight, regardless ONLY of the fact that it was this fighter than beat him twice.

Seriously, who would you shy to put DeJesus in with at LW with fear to embaressment?

then beat Leonard, then beat Moore, then beat Barkley when he should have been a mango in a rocking chair. His elite (read: top 5) status should be less malleable than you allow.

Special. I think, just as you underestimate Wills and Tunney, you overestimate the differnce between #5 and #50.

Aha. Hannibal is normally ranked top 5....

Normally is no reason not to look again - and even if it was, there would be no reason after than to rate him as we did before if we found he had been beaten in is biggest battles - indeed if we were Military historians, this would be a deriliction of duty.

The argument here is as follows: A good, no, a GREAT measure of greatness is how a given fighter performs with age, the deterioration of physical powers, against larger, younger, faster, stronger, and more energetic men. All Duran had was skill, savvy, experience, or however you want to label it. He had one advantage -his mind. And it was enough long after it should have been. That is why we see how great he could be --not consistently was, but the level of greatness he reached when inspired. It was objectively unprecedented in my opinion -at least in the past 80 years.

What a great fighter. Here is what I think MAY be new to you in my criticisim. I love and respect Duran. Still I think, "?".

He lost.

Duran was not merely a force of nature, my friend. His skill rivalled Pep and exceeded Robinson's.

Well, maybe. But he can STILL be overated according to the process that see him overated where other force of nature fighters are concerned.

I do not flatter you when I name you amongst the most knowlegable guys I have ever spoken to boxing about, BECAUSE, i can still say you might be wrong about the thing you know the most about.

Duran is not overrated. He is coming into view as time marches on. Duran, still, to any sport's analyst is "Mr. No Mas."

And I say this to you as a man who recognises your disdain for foul language - Fuck Those People.

RafaelGonzal

10-20-2007, 06:10 PM

Robbi

10-20-2007, 06:32 PM

after a complete and stellar career at lightweight he wips Sugar Rays ass after skipping a Divison, sometimes things just dont happen but lets look at it this way a trained motivated Duran would have beat an Arguello,Pryor,Cervantes,and if he beat leanord he would beat a Sweetpea.....
the only reason Duran could deal with guys 20 and 30 pound over his weight later in his carreer is his ATG boxing ability, yet I saw sweer pea at the same stage get crushed by Trinidad and why? Pea's physical skills were gone and he had to rely on boxing skill of which in my opinion were not top 10 ATG status skills, with his reflexes and defense gone and no ATG boxing skill to rely on he was easy to crush. No way in Hell do I have P over Duran on any damn list!!!!! l

Agreed. Duran would have beat Whitaker at welterweight. However, at lightweight he would have came off second best over the distance.

If you don't think Whitaker had no ATG skills, maybe best leave the forum asap.

Robbi

10-20-2007, 06:42 PM

after a complete and stellar career at lightweight he wips Sugar Rays ass after skipping a Divison, sometimes things just dont happen but lets look at it this way a trained motivated Duran would have beat an Arguello,Pryor,Cervantes,and if he beat leanord he would beat a Sweetpea.....
the only reason Duran could deal with guys 20 and 30 pound over his weight later in his carreer is his ATG boxing ability, yet I saw sweer pea at the same stage get crushed by Trinidad and why? Pea's physical skills were gone and he had to rely on boxing skill of which in my opinion were not top 10 ATG status skills, with his reflexes and defense gone and no ATG boxing skill to rely on he was easy to crush. No way in Hell do I have P over Duran on any damn list!!!!! l

Whitaker was past his best at 35 years of age. The only significant win Duran had past 35 years was against Barkley.

Whitaker gave Vasquez a lesson at jr-middleweight. And Vasquez was a damn fine fighter at that particular weight, even though he wasn't a marquee name.

Whitaker handled his opponents with more ease throughout his prime than Duran. Both had totally different styles, with Duran relying more on power of course. If both had comparable power, Id take Whitaker's skills over Duran's. But Its close.

RafaelGonzal

10-20-2007, 07:13 PM

Agreed. Duran would have beat Whitaker at welterweight. However, at lightweight he would have came off second best over the distance.

If you don't think Whitaker had no ATG skills, maybe best leave the forum asap.

Duran beats sweetpea at any weight, and I said Top 10 ATG boxing skill.

Robbi

10-20-2007, 07:46 PM

Duran beats sweetpea at any weight, and I said Top 10 ATG boxing skill.

Duran happens to be my all-time favourite fighter, but Whitaker would have been too damn good for him at 135lbs. His ring generalship and overall speed, combined with sublime reflexes. Too much for Duran to handle.

And regarding Duran's power. No way can he KO Whitaker with a single blow. Duran did have very good power at lightweight, but most of his stoppages came after 10 rounds when fighters were mentally and physically drained with the pace Duran set. Accumulation of shots took its toll more than anything.

I can't see how Duran manages to hit Whitaker enough to A) win enough rounds, and B) slow down Whitaker enough to force a stoppage.

Whitaker's mobilty and razor sharp reflexes, Duran's worst nightmare. Whitaker's whole style was to take away an opponents strengths in everyway possible, and making them miss punches was his main attribute. And as good a pressure fighter Duran was, he wasn't quite superman.

Whitaker hits Duran, more than vice versa. Whitaker also never had stamina issues and was pretty much a finely tuned boxing machine over 12 rounds.

SugarRay

10-21-2007, 02:06 AM

JohnThomas1

10-21-2007, 03:09 AM

Tommy Hearns got lucky, but then again, Duran avenged that loss by defeating the man who owns Tommy's ass, Iran Barkley.

I'd hardly call such a decimation lucky. Stylistically Hearns was a nightmare in this one.

SugarRay

10-21-2007, 04:00 AM

I'd hardly call such a decimation lucky. Stylistically Hearns was a nightmare in this one.

Agreed. Hearns would have steamrolled Duran at whatever place and time. Hearns was a nightmare for whoever he ever faced. Although, Hagler was the only one who had the physical capability and capacity to figure him out. The other guys who beat Hearns got a beating of a lifetime in doing so.

ChrisPontius

10-21-2007, 12:43 PM

Tommy Hearns got lucky, but then again, Duran avenged that loss by defeating the man who owns Tommy's ass, Iran Barkley.

Yeah, and Frazier avenged his bad-luck loss to Foreman by having beat the man who owns Foreman's ass, Ali.

SugarRay

10-21-2007, 06:00 PM

Not Iran, baby. He looked ok both times!:hi:

Sorry dude. Iran was busted up so bad the first time it was painful. It looked like Hearns was going to end it until Iran starched him with a lucky wild shot. You can't convince me otherwise.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Stonehands89

10-21-2007, 08:32 PM

Here are the ATG wins Burley has:

Moore, Willimas (x3), Cocoa Kid (x2), Zivic ( x2),Chase (x3),

I won't add Soose or Leto, though they were very good figters. I think this compares well to Duran, for example. Most of the big wins are above weight, too.

All the confirmed wins were over ATG's between WW and MW, when Burley was a WW, often figting at "in between" for MW and LHW (for example, Moore), well above is favourite weight. He also as losses, of course.

Reverse some of those, especially the losses when he was WAY above weight and against some of the best who have ever lived at those weigts - Bivins, Marshall, Charles - plus the duck of some of the best ever - Armstrong, Robinson - when they were champ, and to me, it's comfusing who else you could christen #1.
Let us not forgot that when it comes to "performance against larger men" -Burley whipped a man 70 pounds heavier in '42 (Turner) and was never stopped. Granted this big man was no world beater. He had as many losses as wins.

I don't see Burley as having quite reached Duran in terms of accomplishments. Perhaps if Robinson gave him a shot we would see more, or Cerdan, or Conn. Burley is more of an X-factor. One manager of his potential rivals actually stooped so low as to buy Burley's contract to keep his stable in tact.

As to his style, he fought eerily similarly to Jones --jumping in and jumping out, moving backwards, leaning backwards, hands down. However, he combined this unorthodox presentation with more skill in my opinion and he would fight any man alive. Not so Jones.

The film shows LaMotta containing the same sentiments - Prove it, is all I can say. Many tried, few succeeded.
There are rules now, that's why they didn't try. Different era. I think that Duran would have & Lamotta was enough of a nut to try as well.

We have spoken briefly about generals and presidents. Marshalling GREAT power will be easier than marshalling lesser power as anyone of them will tell you. Heavyweights play a different game. Ali was it's best exponent. I see HW skill as a wonderful thing, no less than LW skill. Though he was just scraping into my ten p4p previously I have no difficulty absorbing him at top 5.
No, we disagree here. Ali was a fluke, a phenomenon -not an example of HW potential. He was unprecedented and unrepeatable. Even so, his level of skill pales compared to Robinson, who was his idol.

I am absolutely convinced that the HW skillset is inferior to LW, WW, or MW. There are a few reasons for this. One is that HWs are more prone to rely on power. They are big men and have less endurance, which means less output. They typically are simply "looking for the shot" -watch any sample of journeymen big man bouts. Mirror images.

Another, bigger reason, is simple demographics. Most men are not 6'4 and 220 pounds... there are fewer in the pool and therefore there can only be fewer with true talent -talent that transcends power and physical strength anyway. Is it any wonder that most of the great HWs were known for exactly those assets -Louis, Liston, Foreman, Lewis, Tyson, Dempsey, Marciano, Jeffries, Sullivan... their power was their lynchpin. Tunney, Ali, and yes, Holyfield ... these were exceptions.

I would guess that in the 20th century, the middleweight division was the most formidable. Why? Because most of the participants in the sport had an average size of 5'9, 175. Train that average sized man down and you have a middleweight. Now, in the 21st century, I see the lower weights as becoming the demographic to watch out for... why? The Hispanic peoples are swelling the ranks -and they are naturally smaller men -5'6, ~130lbs (to wit: Duran). So now that lower weights have more skill and greatness among them. Barrera has more skill in his sleep than Klitscko ever will.

Jones whipped every fighter put in front of him at MW, SMW, and although I think Duran shades it at for overall comp best weights, Jones has Hopkins and Toney, regardless of cirumstance (not a big fan) at these weights.
...and then he took about 9 years off to sit on his throne and eat tasty mailmen and pazmanians while his fans, with their ADD, glorified the flash and pizazz and overlooked the dearth of substance.

I would never dispute that. Here, then, is the criteria for putting Duran at 1.
Not at all. Consider the measures:

1. level of skill
2. dominance at natural weight
3. longevity
4. performance against larger men
5. formidability of challengers
6. win ratio during prime
....

Duran does well here -very well. You are apt to remove him from the top because of his "win ratio" and again, are not controlling for his age and the size and elite status of his challengers. I don't believe that Duran had any business in there against Hagler. The age and length of career factor, natural weight, Hagler was near prime and is consistently ranked top 3 MWs all time. Strength, power, etc., etc.

Keep in mind that making Greb and Tunney comparable is telling me that you need to go back 60 years. And Greb is often in the top 5!

Special. I think, just as you underestimate Wills and Tunney, you overestimate the differnce between #5 and #50.
It is simply more special to be ranked at 5 than 25 and surely more than 50. Being ranked at #5 is exactly 10 times more special than being ranked at 50. Unless you are a communist. Are you a communist?

Normally is no reason not to look again - and even if it was, there would be no reason after than to rate him as we did before if we found he had been beaten in is biggest battles - indeed if we were Military historians, this would be a deriliction of duty.
Let us then control for likelihood of success. Augustine listed exactly that as a necessary ingredient in his "just war" treatise. Duran's losses, while not to be tritely excused or dismissed for the good of his glory, should be considered in context.

Had Hannibal came back 9 years after Zama and after many sorry defeats, and had one more glorious victory, should he not have more statues erected in his honor? Would you not be hard-pressed not to put him a bit higher in your rankings instead of lower?

What a great fighter. Here is what I think MAY be new to you in my criticisim. I love and respect Duran. Still I think, "?".

He lost.
Who didn't?

Where do you rank Robinson among the MWs? Tread carefully here, my friend.

I do not flatter you when I name you amongst the most knowlegable guys I have ever spoken to boxing about, BECAUSE, i can still say you might be wrong about the thing you know the most about.
There are other things I know more about.
And this is nary a matter of "right" and "wrong"... it is a matter of presenting cogent and persuasive argumentation. You have. I have as well. Whose is more weighty is for individuals to sort out.

Duran happens to be a controversial character --a romantic figure who plummetted to the depths and rose again like a phoenix only to plummet again. He is loved and despised. Revered and rebuked and I am not one to deny anyone's right to either. I revere him and rebuke him readily.

I will say that Duran's failures were as unprecedented as his glories. But those triumphs -even that singular loss to Hagler- and that skill, are breath-taking for anyone from novices to crusty old stogie smokers.

Breath-taking --but only when you fully consider the context of these performances.

And I say this to you as a man who recognises your disdain for foul language - Fuck Those People.

HA! Excellent.

Fuck those ignorant mutha-fuckin' fucks. Our disdain for stupidity should transcend any disdain for foul language, yes?

Stonehands89

10-21-2007, 08:56 PM

Duran happens to be my all-time favourite fighter, but Whitaker would have been too damn good for him at 135lbs. His ring generalship and overall speed, combined with sublime reflexes. Too much for Duran to handle.

And regarding Duran's power. No way can he KO Whitaker with a single blow. Duran did have very good power at lightweight, but most of his stoppages came after 10 rounds when fighters were mentally and physically drained with the pace Duran set. Accumulation of shots took its toll more than anything.

I can't see how Duran manages to hit Whitaker enough to A) win enough rounds, and B) slow down Whitaker enough to force a stoppage.

Whitaker's mobilty and razor sharp reflexes, Duran's worst nightmare. Whitaker's whole style was to take away an opponents strengths in everyway possible, and making them miss punches was his main attribute. And as good a pressure fighter Duran was, he wasn't quite superman.

Whitaker hits Duran, more than vice versa. Whitaker also never had stamina issues and was pretty much a finely tuned boxing machine over 12 rounds.
Whitaker wouldn't beat Duran.

He wouldn't for more than one reason, but for the sake of argument, I will use your reasons why Whitaker will win to account for why he will not win. His lack of mobility accounts for one. You are err when you tout Whitaker's mobility as a key tool against Duran.

Whitaker was very elusive -but he was not a runner. He stayed in punching range more often than not and that allows Duran to pressure him and bang on him enough to wear him down and eventually force him to make a stand and punch. And then the little windows will open and Duran will find them when he isn't forcing them.

A note/ regardless of how defensively sound a man is, defense is inversely related to offense. The more you punch -or are forced to punch- the more opportunities you present.

Those razor-sharp reflexes of Sweet Pea's are also a non-factor here. Duran will miss and won't give a damn because he's throwing 6 punch combinations -4 of which are going to the body and 1 of which will stray down to the hip. Great reflexes only matter when the man punching is at a range where you can see and anticipate. Remember Ali-Williams? Everyone was so impressed. Be less so. Had that Ali fought a "stick-to-your-chest" Frazier, Ali would have been swelling up good. Believe that.

How is Whitaker going to keep Duran off of him?

Is there any doubt who is the stronger man here?

Does Whitaker's skill so far exceed Duran's that a prime Duran would be outclassed?

Watch Duran in 78. DeJesus III. I would argue that Duran indeed had more skill than Whitaker -he mastered the fundamentals and combined that with an indomitable will, serious power combined with an offensive onslaught reminiscent of both Ike Williams and perhaps even Harry Greb himself, a granite chin, conditioning, and versatility.

You are amazed by the defensive masters. I count Duran among them and have to say that his defense exceeded most of his peers precisely because it was apparant at the same time that he was in offensive mode. He was slipping and rolling at the same time he is throwing shots -be they big or subtle.

Whitaker had a great skill, but his was more talent-focused. He had beautiful reflexes, timing, and would set up shots based on how his man is likely to respond -and then counter him when he did respond as expected. In my gym, this is called "leading" and it is extremely sophisticated. However, Duran did this too... but it was mixed in with a body to head onslaught surrounding the technique. Whitaker would pop it and then step back and admire it. You admired it too.

But how is either you or him going to admire beautiful slick moves when Duran is all over Whitaker like a cheap Panamanian suit?

If there is one reason why Whitaker won't win it is because he did not have the kind of power that would keep Duran at bay. Nor did he have the strength. Duran will get inside, make no mistake there, and Pernell will not be the master inside. Those reasons, and the other reasons listed above, make this
an interesting fight
with a foregone conclusion
-especially over 15.

Robbi

10-21-2007, 10:22 PM

Whitaker wouldn't beat Duran.

He wouldn't for more than one reason, but for the sake of argument, I will use your reasons why Whitaker will win to account for why he will not win. His lack of mobility accounts for one. You are err when you tout Whitaker's mobility as a key tool against Duran.

Whitaker was very elusive -but he was not a runner. He stayed in punching range more often than not and that allows Duran to pressure him and bang on him enough to wear him down and eventually force him to make a stand and punch. And then the little windows will open and Duran will find them when he isn't forcing them.

A note/ regardless of how defensively sound a man is, defense is inversely related to offense. The more you punch -or are forced to punch- the more opportunities you present.

Those razor-sharp reflexes of Sweet Pea's are also a non-factor here. Duran will miss and won't give a damn because he's throwing 6 punch combinations -4 of which are going to the body and 1 of which will stray down to the hip. Great reflexes only matter when the man punching is at a range where you can see and anticipate. Remember Ali-Williams? Everyone was so impressed. Be less so. Had that Ali fought a "stick-to-your-chest" Frazier, Ali would have been swelling up good. Believe that.

How is Whitaker going to keep Duran off of him?

Is there any doubt who is the stronger man here?

Does Whitaker's skill so far exceed Duran's that a prime Duran would be outclassed?

Watch Duran in 78. DeJesus III. I would argue that Duran indeed had more skill than Whitaker -he mastered the fundamentals and combined that with an indomitable will, serious power combined with an offensive onslaught reminiscent of both Ike Williams and perhaps even Harry Greb himself, a granite chin, conditioning, and versatility.

You are amazed by the defensive masters. I count Duran among them and have to say that his defense exceeded most of his peers precisely because it was apparant at the same time that he was in offensive mode. He was slipping and rolling at the same time he is throwing shots -be they big or subtle.

Whitaker had a great skill, but his was more talent-focused. He had beautiful reflexes, timing, and would set up shots based on how his man is likely to respond -and then counter him when he did respond as expected. In my gym, this is called "leading" and it is extremely sophisticated. However, Duran did this too... but it was mixed in with a body to head onslaught surrounding the technique. Whitaker would pop it and then step back and admire it. You admired it too.

But how is either you or him going to admire beautiful slick moves when Duran is all over Whitaker like a cheap Panamanian suit?

If there is one reason why Whitaker won't win it is because he did not have the kind of power that would keep Duran at bay. Nor did he have the strength. Duran will get inside, make no mistake there, and Pernell will not be the master inside. Those reasons, and the other reasons listed above, make this
an interesting fight
with a foregone conclusion
-especially over 15.

Whitaker's lack of mobility?. I question your judgement on that statement. Whitaker would stand in the pocket with his opponents and trade, he was also known for standing flat-footed at arms length. But he could move fluidly in all directions. Laterally, and going backwards. He never just went into full defensive mode while moving and stopped throwing punches. He could box extremely well while backing up in a straight line. Crisp jabs cracking home as his opponent backed him up.

Whitaker wasn't a runner?. It was those such tactics which he was critisized for when was robbed against Ramirez, winning around 8-9 rounds exclusively behind the jab, before standing his ground to unleash quick flurries to the body and head, then get on his bike again. Whitaker's foot movement and circling the perimeter of the ring was his meal ticket for the entire fight.

Also watch his fight against Nelson. This will quite possibly change your view on Whitaker's so called lack of mobility.

Duran doesn't have it to make Whitaker stand and trade, nobody does. The only fighter who made Whitaker stand and throw bombs with him was Trinidad, but to make such a comparison is out of the question. Whitaker was years past his prime. Movement was eroded, reflexes gone, and his speed a thing of the past. His recovery powers still excellent, as he got off the canvas and fought with a broken jaw for most of the 12 rounds. It depends how effective Duran was at cutting down the ring, combined with Whitaker's decision making. But Whitaker has the all round ability and ring generalship to decide if he wants to stand and trade leather.

Ken Buchanan was a decent mover behind the jab, but was straight up and down like a telephone pole. Very open to the head, and he couldn't cover up anywhere near as effectively as Whitaker inside. Whitaker often went into a crouch when he dropped inside and covered up with both hands protecting his head and ribs.

Versatility?. Whitaker was one of the most versatile fighters to step in the ring. Both his performances against Ramirez support this to a high degree. Seen the rematch?. Whitaker's defense and punch volume, a lesson and domination over 12 rounds. He stood in front of Ramirez and smoked him to the body and head with various 3-4-5 punch flurries while slipping punches at the same time. Ramirez was so aware of Whitaker's offense, punches were seldom coming the other way.

And before you shake your head, these tactics would not be wise against Duran who eat people for breakfast who dared to use such a strategy. Due to Duran's lack of serious one punch knockout power, Whitaker could get away with standing his ground during those moments Duran closed the distance. Although only briefly.

How is Whitaker going to keep Duran off him?

Whitaker doesn't have the power to keep Duran at bay, agreed. But power he wouldn't need, as his style and defensive awareness were his main weapons. It seems your envisioning Duran coming forward aggressively like a bull and throwing bunches of punches. Whitaker's built in radar would keep Duran well and truely in check more often than not. Judgement of distance and the ability to anticipate an opponents oncoming rushes were what made Whitaker a very special genius.

I once seen Whitaker show defensive awareness against Nelson which left me speechless. A moment during the fight Whitaker was cornered and knew if he went further back he would have been against the ropes. Whats was coming next, a serious assulat from both hands in his direction. Whitaker sagged back into the ropes and crouched down while bringing his guard up to protect himself from headshots, tucking the elows into the side of the body. Then came Nelson's blistering assault from both hands. All missed or blocked. Its just his anticiaption, and how well he went into his defensive posture miliseconds before punches were zoomed his way. Genuis.

Lets not forget, Duran would be sharing a ring with one of the best defensive fighters ever to grace the sport. Perhaps the greatest.

Not a foregone conclusion. Whitaker aint Buchanan or De Jesus.

Stonehands89

10-22-2007, 03:25 PM

Whitaker's lack of mobility?. I question your judgement on that statement. Whitaker would stand in the pocket with his opponents and trade, he was also known for standing flat-footed at arms length. But he could move fluidly in all directions. Laterally, and going backwards. He never just went into full defensive mode while moving and stopped throwing punches. He could box extremely well while backing up in a straight line. Crisp jabs cracking home as his opponent backed him up.
When I stated that Whitaker had a lack of mobility, I thought it was clear from the ensuing sentences that he was not a runner -this is actually complementary. His defense was Pep-like --in the pocket. You state that he would stand and trade and would stand flat footed. He also moved laterally, fluidly, etc. This is not disputed. Whitaker was a true artist who had supreme confidence. He did not avoid exchanges, he sought to make you miss and pay.

Whitaker wasn't a runner?. It was those such tactics which he was critisized for when was robbed against Ramirez, winning around 8-9 rounds exclusively behind the jab, before standing his ground to unleash quick flurries to the body and head, then get on his bike again. Whitaker's foot movement and circling the perimeter of the ring was his meal ticket for the entire fight.

Also watch his fight against Nelson. This will quite possibly change your view on Whitaker's so called lack of mobility.

Whitaker should not be considered a runner. Elusive yes, but a runner? No. The tapes are clear on this. Need confirmation? Go watch Ramirez II or Chavez --arguably his best performances.

The Nelson fight is more confirmation of my argument. You are confusing being a runner with using angles and elusive movement. Whitaker wasn't simplistic -he was sophisticated. Simply staying out of range and running around is simplistic.

Duran doesn't have it to make Whitaker stand and trade, nobody does. The only fighter who made Whitaker stand and throw bombs with him was Trinidad, but to make such a comparison is out of the question. Whitaker was years past his prime. Movement was eroded, reflexes gone, and his speed a thing of the past. His recovery powers still excellent, as he got off the canvas and fought with a broken jaw for most of the 12 rounds. It depends how effective Duran was at cutting down the ring, combined with Whitaker's decision making. But Whitaker has the all round ability and ring generalship to decide if he wants to stand and trade leather.
Duran "doesn't have it to make Whitaker stand and trade"? I couldn't disagree more. Whitaker would trade with Duran partly because Duran's style during his prime would not allow Whitaker to stay away all night and Whitaker would oblige him by at least getting in the pocket enough.

Ken Buchanan was a decent mover behind the jab, but was straight up and down like a telephone pole. Very open to the head, and he couldn't cover up anywhere near as effectively as Whitaker inside. Whitaker often went into a crouch when he dropped inside and covered up with both hands protecting his head and ribs.
Duran was 21 and that is besides the point. Whitaker never faced anything nearly as formidable as Duran when it comes to pressure, heavy hands, durability, conditioning, and defense.

Versatility?. Whitaker was one of the most versatile fighters to step in the ring. Both his performances against Ramirez support this to a high degree. Seen the rematch?. Whitaker's defense and punch volume, a lesson and domination over 12 rounds. He stood in front of Ramirez and smoked him to the body and head with various 3-4-5 punch flurries while slipping punches at the same time. Ramirez was so aware of Whitaker's offense, punches were seldom coming the other way.
Have you seem Duran-Palomino??

And before you shake your head, these tactics would not be wise against Duran who eat people for breakfast who dared to use such a strategy. Due to Duran's lack of serious one punch knockout power, Whitaker could get away with standing his ground during those moments Duran closed the distance. Although only briefly.
Duran's shots hurt. Barkley is three times as strong as Whitaker and down he went in round 11. Leonard attested to the power. He wouldn't need 1 shot power...

Whitaker doesn't have the power to keep Duran at bay, agreed. But power he wouldn't need, as his style and defensive awareness were his main weapons. It seems your envisioning Duran coming forward aggressively like a bull and throwing bunches of punches. Whitaker's built in radar would keep Duran well and truely in check more often than not. Judgement of distance and the ability to anticipate an opponents oncoming rushes were what made Whitaker a very special genius.
I don't think you understand what Duran was. You are simplifying him woefully.

I once seen Whitaker show defensive awareness against Nelson which left me speechless. A moment during the fight Whitaker was cornered and knew if he went further back he would have been against the ropes. Whats was coming next, a serious assulat from both hands in his direction. Whitaker sagged back into the ropes and crouched down while bringing his guard up to protect himself from headshots, tucking the elows into the side of the body. Then came Nelson's blistering assault from both hands. All missed or blocked. Its just his anticiaption, and how well he went into his defensive posture miliseconds before punches were zoomed his way. Genuis.
Duran-Cuevas. Cuevas throws a blistering 5 punch combination at Duran who is directly in front of him. Duran slips all 5 by about an inch and then throws a right -Cuevas is hurt, then Duran pivots to his right and lands a textbook left hook. There are alot of examples of this for Whitaker but far more from Duran who had far more fights.

Lets not forget, Duran would be sharing a ring with one of the best defensive fighters ever to grace the sport. Perhaps the greatest.
And what would Whitaker face? A complete fighter who is arguably in the top 2 from the last 60 years.

Not a foregone conclusion. Whitaker aint Buchanan or De Jesus.
And Duran is Ramirez or Nelson?

Robbi

10-22-2007, 05:47 PM

Robbi

10-22-2007, 05:51 PM

Stonehands. I don't know how to quote each paragraph, so replied underneath with slopping letters so my points stood out, but it aint happened

brownpimp88

10-22-2007, 05:53 PM

Pernell Whitaker has the better lightweight resume IMO, i mean from 1975-1977 duran fought no one, just 2nd rate contenders. Pernell whitaker beat the better fighters at this weight class.

Robbi

10-22-2007, 06:51 PM

Pernell Whitaker has the better lightweight resume IMO, i mean from 1975-1977 duran fought no one, just 2nd rate contenders. Pernell whitaker beat the better fighters at this weight class.

How do you view a match between them both going at lightweight?

McGrain

10-22-2007, 08:08 PM

Let us not forgot that when it comes to "performance against larger men" -Burley whipped a man 70 pounds heavier in '42 (Turner) and was never stopped. Granted this big man was no world beater. He had as many losses as wins.

Yeah, JD Turner, he was a decent journeman type, if memory serves he held the Heavyweight Championship of Texas at the time of their fight.

Probably he would have been in Ruiz's class, though lost in a fight between those two.

When comparing Burley to Jones, I feel it's always important to remember that Burley is a WW, not the MW history has defined him as...

I don't see Burley as having quite reached Duran in terms of accomplishments. Perhaps if Robinson gave him a shot we would see more, or Cerdan, or Conn. Burley is more of an X-factor. One manager of his potential rivals actually stooped so low as to buy Burley's contract to keep his stable in tact.

...because, as you mention here, Zivic bought out his contract chasing him out of his natural division (Zivic was WW champ at that time having beaten Armstrong). Burley's resume suffers because of this. He was matched with much bigger men, often above the MW limit and when those men were world class as in the case of Charles or Marshall he was outmatched. But exchange these losses (which were ALWAYS competitive) to wins and you are talking about a guy beating some of the best ever from the weight above where he belongs, something like Hagler, Hearns and Leonord for Duran. In terms of resume, I think Burley may edge Duran, but no title (not his fault) no domination at his best weight (not his fault).

A difficult subject.

solutely convinced that the HW skillset is inferior to LW, WW, or MW. There are a few reasons for this. One is that HWs are more prone to rely on power.

Yes, but that has its own consequence. Men like Lewis, Louis, Johnson, and even guys who could survive a mule-kick like Ali and Jeffries get in with men who can effectively finish any given fight at any given time. They have to deploy and move keeping that in mind. It may look less pretty (apart from when we get fire-works) but it is still a very definite skills set. Take Lewis-Grant. Grant obviously had a cast iron chin. Didn't matter. Getting clocked by Lewis did for him, in the end, he never recoverd from that original big shot. No man could.

and have less endurance, which means less output.

Yes - it's certainly less like fun but stuff like great economical footwork, proper deployment of body weight in clinches are examples of skills that become more critical in this division. Again, they're not as much fun as some of the stuff you see at MW, but that doesn't make them any less difficult to master or cruial to success.

, bigger reason, is simple demographics. Most men are not 6'4 and 220 pounds... there are fewer in the pool and therefore there can only be fewer with true talent -talent that transcends power and physical strength anyway. Is it any wonder that most of the great HWs were known for exactly those assets -Louis, Liston, Foreman, Lewis, Tyson, Dempsey, Marciano, Jeffries, Sullivan... their power was their lynchpin. Tunney, Ali, and yes, Holyfield ... these were exceptions.

I think you grossly underestimate the proper deployment of power. This is the difference between the enormously powerful - Shavers, Lyle - and the great puncher, Louis, Lewis, some of the other guys you mention. If it were just a matter of power, we would be talking about other men when we talk about the best in the division. The greatest HW's are normally amongst the greatest composite punchers for me, even if it sometimes looks guff.

I agree with some of the belowthough. Especially the part about demographics, the MW div etc. Though as we've seen, the division is capable of throwing up great, great fighters without being as big as MW in the case of Ali. I'd suggest Louis is up there too, in terms of skills - specifically composite punching, where I suggest he bows to no-one from any weight, and footwork, which in terms of economy and baiting is up there.

guess that in the 20th century, the middleweight division was the most formidable. Why? Because most of the participants in the sport had an average size of 5'9, 175. Train that average sized man down and you have a middleweight.

Now, in the 21st century, I see the lower weights as becoming the demographic to watch out for... why? The Hispanic peoples are swelling the ranks -and they are naturally smaller men -5'6, ~130lbs (to wit: Duran). So now that lower weights have more skill and greatness among them. Barrera has more skill in his sleep than Klitscko ever will.

:lol:

Interesting! "We'll see" is the best I can do here!

consider the measueres:

1. level of skill
2. dominance at natural weight
3. longevity
4. performance against larger men
5. formidability of challengers
6. win ratio during prime
....

But you could add 7) Performance v the best faced and 8) Performances outwith prime (wins when a fighter is past best seems to be an important part of TBooze's proccess for example) and Duran is doing less well.

Keep in mind that making Greb and Tunney comparable is telling me that you need to go back 60 years. And Greb is often in the top 5!

Not at all. We have Burley and Moore more recently. The big difference? Burley won.

It is simply more special to be ranked at 5 than 25 and surely more than 50. Being ranked at #5 is exactly 10 times more special than being ranked at 50. Unless you are a communist. Are you a communist?

Steady! I didn't say there was NO difference, just that you might be overestimating it. The difference between the #4 rated fighter and the #11 rated fighter, all time, will be next to nothing.

Let us then control for likelihood of success. Augustine listed exactly that as a necessary ingredient in his "just war" treatise. Duran's losses, while not to be tritely excused or dismissed for the good of his glory, should be considered in context.

Yes, the context of the best fighters who have ever lived. Burley won against great fighters at MW, despite the fact that he was a WW. Langford beat great fighters at HW despite the fact that he was a MW (all be it a very long time ago). Greb beat great fighters at LHW despite being a MW (all be it a very long time ago). These are the guys that Duran would be compared to after all, these and others like them. You also have guys like Ali who took out multiple great fighters multiple times at their own weight. Duran did neither one of these things.

Had Hannibal came back 9 years after Zama and after many sorry defeats, and had one more glorious victory, should he not have more statues erected in his honor? Would you not be hard-pressed not to put him a bit higher in your rankings instead of lower?

Sure. Duran rates, but i'm interested in how he compares to the others in his class (top 15 ever) who also have astonishing achievments on their resume. Sometimes I think you are disputing that I rate Duran AT ALL, but all i am doing is questioning his position.

who didn't (lose)

Well of course, but again, I am talking in the context of his fights v his greatest advisaries.

Where do you rank Robinson among the MW's? read carefully here, my friend.

#1 :D

But as well as demonstrating near peerless levels of skill Robinson tended to win his biggest fights at this weight.

HA! Excellent.

Fuck those ignorant mutha-fuckin' fucks. Our disdain for stupidity should transcend any disdain for foul language, yes?

Hell yes.

brownpimp88

10-22-2007, 08:39 PM

Robbi

10-22-2007, 09:59 PM

I see it very similar to benitez vs duran, people can make excuses but then why did duran come back and destroy moore, cuevas and barkley. Its very clear that duran is strong against a certain style of fighters, and hes weak against another style, which is the movers. Leonard decided to outbox him in the next two fights and duran got beaten easily.

Just look at durans lightweight title run and compare it to whitakers title run. Duran has a couple good wins at that weight, other than that he fought a bunch of c level fighters, especially from 1975-1977. During whitaker's entire title reign, he fought solid b level fighters and a p4p great like azumah nelson.

The main problem I have with the people who pick Duran to win, Whitaker's lack of movement is a myth to them. And when people put forward a case for Duran winning, its always "Whitaker liked to stand and trade in the pocket, and wasn't a runner". They know that its only possible way to give their man a chance. Well not the only way, but its usually the main ingredient of the recipe.

brownpimp88

10-22-2007, 10:05 PM

brownpimp88

10-22-2007, 10:17 PM

You don't think you're underrating Duran just a bit?
no not really, i know hes a top 10 but the way he gets praised is ridiculous.

Robbi

10-22-2007, 11:01 PM

When I stated that Whitaker had a lack of mobility, I thought it was clear from the ensuing sentences that he was not a runner -this is actually complementary. His defense was Pep-like --in the pocket. You state that he would stand and trade and would stand flat footed. He also moved laterally, fluidly, etc. This is not disputed. Whitaker was a true artist who had supreme confidence. He did not avoid exchanges, he sought to make you miss and pay.

Whitaker should not be considered a runner. Elusive yes, but a runner? No. The tapes are clear on this. Need confirmation? Go watch Ramirez II or Chavez --arguably his best performances.

The Nelson fight is more confirmation of my argument. You are confusing being a runner with using angles and elusive movement. Whitaker wasn't simplistic -he was sophisticated. Simply staying out of range and running around is simplistic.

Duran "doesn't have it to make Whitaker stand and trade"? I couldn't disagree more. Whitaker would trade with Duran partly because Duran's style during his prime would not allow Whitaker to stay away all night and Whitaker would oblige him by at least getting in the pocket enough.

Duran was 21 and that is besides the point. Whitaker never faced anything nearly as formidable as Duran when it comes to pressure, heavy hands, durability, conditioning, and defense.

Have you seem Duran-Palomino??

Duran's shots hurt. Barkley is three times as strong as Whitaker and down he went in round 11. Leonard attested to the power. He wouldn't need 1 shot power...

I don't think you understand what Duran was. You are simplifying him woefully.

Duran-Cuevas. Cuevas throws a blistering 5 punch combination at Duran who is directly in front of him. Duran slips all 5 by about an inch and then throws a right -Cuevas is hurt, then Duran pivots to his right and lands a textbook left hook. There are alot of examples of this for Whitaker but far more from Duran who had far more fights.

And what would Whitaker face? A complete fighter who is arguably in the top 2 from the last 60 years.

And Duran is Ramirez or Nelson?

Whitaker wasn't a runner, at times. But against Ramirez and Nelson he was a runner. Just depends on how each of us define a runner. To me thats when a fighter keeps his distance for the vast majority of a fight, moves around the perimeter of the ring. Never looks to get into exhanges, thus avoiding playing into an aggressive fighters hands. A runner in my opinion aint a bad thing, as long as a fighter lets his hands go while doing so.

Whitaker wouldn't employ sitting in the pocket for too long with Duran. I could see your point of view if Whitaker constantly stayed within range and traded punches throughout all his prime. But he never, he was extremely versatile in terms of defense. Getting on the balls of his feet, skipping quickly out of range, and punching while on the move he could do with authority. You mentioned the Ramirez rematch above when he never ran, as we would both agree. I actually stated this in my last statement. But it was put forward simply to show Whitaker's versatility, not to support my arguement on how he would approach a Duran fight regarding strategy. If you think Whitaker fought in that type of manner for every fight at lightweight, so you have another thing coming. Your wrong.

Whitaker kept his distance against Nelson. Moving backwards, standing briefly to throw flurries, lead left hands, and showing angles. When Nelson did close the distance and have any type of success, he was made to miss as Whitaker's upperbody movement and ability to block was evident. Duran never liked movers, it was the best way to beat him. Leonard showed that against Duran in New Orleans. Although Duran wasn't quite at the peak of his powers. Lampkin and Bizzaro presented Duran with problems at lightweight with movement.

Duran had the style not allow Whitaker to stay away all night. Yes, as I said Whitaker would be forced to stand and trade briefly. And I'm pretty sure he'd decide to go in there briefly and vary his work. But Whitaker would know what was in front of him, and had the ability to adjust and make things easier for himself. Movement would be the key. I know how good Duran was at slipping punches, and moving his head at the moment of impact. Punches were parcialy landed by his opponents. But this type of defense was more effective when Duran faced aggressive fighters.

Duran never faced anything nearly as skilled as Whitaker throughout his lightweight reign. Reflexes, adaptablity, ring generalship, upperbody and head movement, good stamina, superb chin, and boxing ability. Whitaker had an excellent jab, which gets him mentions on this forum under "greatest jabs" category. Another weapon difficult weapon for Duran to face. Im pretty sure if Duran stood off Whitaker, which wouldn't be wise, he'd get a lesson. Im not underestimating Duran's boxing ability behind the jab, but getting into a jabbing contest with Whitaker spells disaster. Duran could never win a boxing match with Leonard, and put your bottom dollar on it he'd come off second best against Whitaker as well.

I sure have seen Duran v Palamino. Duran's was pretty sublime against Palamino, who was 2-3 years past his best. Taking nothing away from "hands of stone" he beat a top rated welterweight convincingly. His feinting, fluid technique, and varied attacks upstairs and downstairs, class.

Duran's shots sure did hurt, but not sure he hit as hard as Trinidad. Durability often gets overlooked when it comes to Whitaker. He wasn't a fighter who stood "mano a mano" but his chin was very sound when he needed it. Whitaker was 35 years old when he fought Trinidad. Lets not talk about Whitaker's ability in this fight, as it was poor to say the least. Cocaine was on the menu at this stage of Whitaker's career more than pasta. His durability against a lethal power puncher was remarkable considering how often punches bounced off his jaw. I will better watch what I say here. Trinidad wasn't a harder puncher than Hearns, but he could punch like a mule. This showed when Trinidad moved up to middleweight and KO'd Joppy and Cherifi. The hardest hitter Duran fought who had more power than Trinidad was Hearns. KO'd inside 2 rounds. Doesn't matter anyway, as its more to do with Whitaker absoring Duran's blows more than the otherway around, as Whitaker never had dynamite fists.

The thing about this match-up. Both were brilliant fighters, arguably the best lightweights ever. Ike Williams, Benny Leonard, Joe Gans, also have credentials and skills to be placed as high.

When I look at this fight, and envisioning both styles gelling, I think Whitaker just has too much for Duran. Only a fool would come to the conclusion its an easy fight for one or the other. Not a foregone conclusion in my opinion. If Whitaker had stamina issues and was knocked out in his prime, Duran would get the nod comfortably. But Whitaker was busy with his fists, had tremendous skills, especially variation when it came to defense, and he was a very smart fighter when it came to sticking to the gameplan. Duran would be the aggressor in this fight, and would find Whitaker too hard hit often enough, and that means losing more rounds than he'd win. I like Whitaker's all round ability, especially his ability to fight effectively on the backfoot which he'd need against Duran. He wasn't open inside, often twisting and blocking punches with his gloves. But Duran's office was in there, and Whitaker going in there for long periods what would be a fools game to play.

Its been a good debate stonehands, but I aint the quickest of typers, and these kind of posts by myself come along a couple of times a month. A post like this which you can do in 10 mins, maybe quicker, takes me longer.

Stonehands89

10-23-2007, 07:19 AM

...because, as you mention here, Zivic bought out his contract chasing him out of his natural division (Zivic was WW champ at that time having beaten Armstrong). Burley's resume suffers because of this. He was matched with much bigger men, often above the MW limit and when those men were world class as in the case of Charles or Marshall he was outmatched. But exchange these losses (which were ALWAYS competitive) to wins and you are talking about a guy beating some of the best ever from the weight above where he belongs, something like Hagler, Hearns and Leonord for Duran. In terms of resume, I think Burley may edge Duran, but no title (not his fault) no domination at his best weight (not his fault).

A difficult subject.

Burley took 3 rounds against Bivins, and Charles hurt him in the first bout. Competitive, but clear losses those.

I have Ezzard Charles ranked very high -often top 5 and at times top 7. He is overlooked because causual fans mistakenly consider him a HW. No shame in that loss. As for Bivins, it seemed more of a stylistic problem for Burley.

Yes, but that has its own consequence. Men like Lewis, Louis, Johnson, and even guys who could survive a mule-kick like Ali and Jeffries get in with men who can effectively finish any given fight at any given time. They have to deploy and move keeping that in mind. It may look less pretty (apart from when we get fire-works) but it is still a very definite skills set. Take Lewis-Grant. Grant obviously had a cast iron chin. Didn't matter. Getting clocked by Lewis did for him, in the end, he never recoverd from that original big shot. No man could.
By "deploy" you mean throw effective punches. You know as well as I do that big punchers in any division often have a great fault -lazy fundamentals and so-so conditioning. Now look at the HWs. This is often the case --no, it is very often the case.

Lewis-Grant was not a carnival of skills. Louis was an exception. Guys like Ali and even Byrd are anomalies. Damn, I was astounded by the skills that Golota showed in the Bowe fights -in fighting, defense, countering, angles, etc....

Yes - it's certainly less like fun but stuff like great economical footwork, proper deployment of body weight in clinches are examples of skills that become more critical in this division. Again, they're not as much fun as some of the stuff you see at MW, but that doesn't make them any less difficult to master or cruial to success.
The HW are usually more fun to watch, not less fun, which is why they have pretty consistently been the glory division. However, punching skills and clinching are lower level skills than countering, angles, leading and the like. Will you equate the skills apparant in Lewis-Klitschko with Marquez-Barrera?

I think you grossly underestimate the proper deployment of power. This is the difference between the enormously powerful - Shavers, Lyle - and the great puncher, Louis, Lewis, some of the other guys you mention. If it were just a matter of power, we would be talking about other men when we talk about the best in the division. The greatest HW's are normally amongst the greatest composite punchers for me, even if it sometimes looks guff.
Simply stated, HWs don't need the serious skill you see among the lighter guys. An athletic and coordinated big man with a punch and a chin will do well in the HW. Grant had a good run for man who really couldn't develop the requisite skills for this particular sport.

But you could add 7) Performance v the best faced and 8) Performances outwith prime (wins when a fighter is past best seems to be an important part of TBooze's proccess for example) and Duran is doing less well.
These are best qualified. If Duran fought Tyson in 1987 and got bombed out, you'd penalize him. That would have a chilling effect on accepting great challenges - Don't you agree? If Robinson fought Moore and got smashed would you penalize him?

Not at all. We have Burley and Moore more recently. The big difference? Burley won.
The big difference was tht Burley was not a small man. He sized up well with the best he fought. Burley was a WW -had he been a LW I would have been more impressed -you equate the two and I don't see why. He was a few inches shorter than Charles and 7 pounds less. Not alot. Moore had multiple losses. He got wrecked by Floyd and KOd by Marciano and there was no real size difference between him and they.... "he lost".

Steady! I didn't say there was NO difference, just that you might be overestimating it. The difference between the #4 rated fighter and the #11 rated fighter, all time, will be next to nothing.
I was being facetious!

Yes, the context of the best fighters who have ever lived. Burley won against great fighters at MW, despite the fact that he was a WW. Langford beat great fighters at HW despite the fact that he was a MW (all be it a very long time ago). Greb beat great fighters at LHW despite being a MW (all be it a very long time ago). These are the guys that Duran would be compared to after all, these and others like them. You also have guys like Ali who took out multiple great fighters multiple times at their own weight. Duran did neither one of these things.
Duran was a lightweight. I see no natural lightweight in your examples. I see Welters and middles and have already made an argument there.

young griffo

10-23-2007, 07:38 AM

McGrain

10-23-2007, 08:33 AM

No shame in that loss. As for Bivins, it seemed more of a stylistic problem for Burley.

More an arrogance problem i'm afraid. Burley thought he would walk that one and paid a nasty price. For all that he is romantacised about amongst his peers/historians, Burley could be pretty ignorant at times - it's rumoured he stopped up all night playing poker before the Moore fight for example.

Burley tended to lose to naturally bigger world class opponents.

By "deploy" you mean throw effective punches.

More deploy effective punches without getting knocked out, which is more likely to happen to a HW than a fighter from any other division (all things being equal).

Lewis-Grant was not a carnival of skills.

Of course! But it is a fine example of what I was talking about, an iron-chinned fighter who can only afford to make one mistake. I would go so far as to say that HW's are fighting in a different sport to Straweights, but using the same rules.

Louis was an exception. Guys like Ali...are anomalies.

So was Langford, Greb, Duran, SRR, Leonard, these exceptions, anomilies and freaks are the men that account for the top slots on any ATG list - I don't think the HW freaks are any different from the LW freaks.

The HW are usually more fun to watch, not less fun,

We disagree!

which is why they have pretty consistently been the glory

This, I agree with. But I think it is more to do with the primal nature of our sport - forces of nature, juggernauts appeals most broadly to the thing within a person that loves boxing.

However, punching skills and clinching are lower level skills than countering, angles, leading and the like.

I don't agree with you. They are different and sometimes less admirable but what makes you think they are less difficult to learn, then master, then deploy in such a way that they make an affective impact? In the meantimes, HW's do EVERYTHING that straweights do, just not as well.

Perhaps HW's are more skilled?:hey

Will you equate the skills apparant in Lewis-Klitschko with Marquez-Barrera?

Yes. Why not? Are you 100% convinced that timing and positioning (also in evidence in Lewis-Klitshcko, just not as much/as impressive) are "harder"? skills to master and use than the skills that allow a big man to surivive in a sporting contest with another man who could kill you or I stone dead with one punch?

Simply stated, HWs don't need the serious skill you see among the lighter guys. An athletic and coordinated big man with a punch and a chin will do well in the HW.

I would say this is true of any division personally, though it might be more true of the HW's than any other division, I take your point.

These are best qualified. If Duran fought Tyson in 1987 and got bombed out, you'd penalize him.

No I wouldn't, there is a limit. I would have to question my devosion to the sport though.

If Robinson fought Moore and got smashed would you penalize him?

Yes! Robinson is supposed to be the best ever. If he fought Moore - at around his peak - and lost, I would penalise him. Of course, how much would depend on the specific details.

The big difference was tht Burley was not a small man. He sized up well with the best he fought. Burley was a WW -had he been a LW I would have been more impressed -you equate the two and I don't see why. He was a few inches shorter than Charles and 7 pounds less. Not alot. Moore had multiple losses. He got wrecked by Floyd and KOd by Marciano and there was no real size difference between him and they.... "he lost".

Burley is a WW, yes. When he fought Moore, Moore came in over-the-limit for MW. The only TITLE the two could possibly have contended that night was 175. Now, Burley walked around at around 153. Whatever Moore scaled at ringside (161 or 164 depending) he would have weighed more in pure fluid by fight. Burley was a WW fighting a SMW. There is a reasonable comparison with Duran-Hagler here.

Moore was well past his best when he lost to those two ATG HW's. And a HW is certainly not something Moore ever really was.

I'm sure Duran didn't weigh in at the LW limit the night of his fight with Hagler, you know?

Duran was a lightweight. I see no natural lightweight in your examples. I see Welters and middles and have already made an argument there.

There is a serious difference in "natural" size between Burley and Moore. Moore was an all time great Light Heavy fighting at between 165 and 170. Burley was a WW who, when weighing in at 155, was generally out of shape.

Burley won the fight is the biggest difference though.

What is the absolute minimum you think Duran could reasonabley be rated at? The rock bottom?

Stonehands89

10-23-2007, 07:01 PM

The main problem I have with the people who pick Duran to win, Whitaker's lack of movement is a myth to them. And when people put forward a case for Duran winning, its always "Whitaker liked to stand and trade in the pocket, and wasn't a runner". They know that its only possible way to give their man a chance. Well not the only way, but its usually the main ingredient of the recipe.
By "people who pick Duran to win" --you mean me.

Allow me to clarify: Whitaker's "lack of movement" isn't what I said -I said his lack of "mobility". Whitaker is right up their with Pep when it comes to defensive stylists. Pep wasn't a runner. Whitaker wasn't a runner -even if he did run a bit in a few fights. His style was far more sophisticated than that.

[By the way, this post is for your other post above as well.]

Duran could deal with "runners" --Viruets- Edwin and Adolfo (a southpaw who almost a year to a day -1979- took Leonard ten before dropping a decision) and he could deal with boxers -Bizarro, DeJesus, Mamby among them.

My argument against Whitaker revolves neither on his being a runner or a supreme stylist. It revolves on the plain fact that Duran was never defeated by man smaller or weaker than him or unable to hurt him. DeJesus could hurt him with that left hook of his. Leonard was bigger and packed a shot. Laing was bigger. Benitez was bigger. Hagler was far bigger, stronger, and could punch like cannonballs. Hearns was ridiculously bigger and had nukes on his fists... and on and on.

Duran had disdain in him... and he was very strong for his size. I just can't see anyone beating him who stands shorter than even he and who had 17 KOs out of 40 wins. Pernell was durable, absolutely, but he won't be moving Duran inside or out.

How do you beat Duran --mobility or evasiveness? No. Even a supreme stylist would have his hands more than full with prime Duran. Prime Duran mind you, not the inflated version. Whitaker lacks the guns to keep Duran off of him.

You have a fantasy that Pernell would somehow be able to play matador to Duran's bull for 15 rounds. The problem is that Whitaker's matador has no sword and Duran's bull has a level of skill -a boxing mind if you will-- that is on par or close to the matador's.

Brains beats Brawn -but Brains ain't beating Brainy Brawn.

Stonehands89

10-23-2007, 07:33 PM

Stonehands89 I haven't been paying much attention to this thread so this has probably been covered but how do you compare the achievments of Henry Armstrong,as probably a natural Featherweight, picking up belts all the way to Welterweight (whipping an ATG to do so) and making 20+ defenses (not to mention coming within a hairs breadth of winning the Middleweight title) with those of Duran?

In my opinion Duran's achievments pale next to those of Armstrong who has to be one of the most remarkable athletes this sport has ever produced.
I usually have Armstrong around #2. Always top 5.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Duran's accomplishments "pale" in comparison though. Do you think Armstrong would have beaten Leonard? I don't. Do you think that he would have stood against Hagler for long? I don't. The Middleweight "champion" he faced was none other than Ceferino Garcia who he already turned back as a WW challenge. Garcia wasn't even a MW until he was 32 -and he was a small one at that -no taller than Duran.

Armstrong took a while to hit his stride, but when he did, boy, what a stride it was. 1937 until about 1940. Armstrong dropped one decision to Ambers, no slouch there, and the decision was reportedly way off. That is the period where Armstrong is so glorified today... but that prime was relatively brief although it was more of a superprime. Later Armstrong went on to avenge himself against Zivic and even took the difficult Angott on for a win, but he faded fast.

He faded fast for the same reason Tyson faded fast. Swarmers fade fast. It's almost an ironclad rule.

Duran's prime in the lightweights lasted for roughly 8 years -and a decade later he's knocking down full blown Middles and taking a title at 37. Armstrong was done at 33.

And here's the thing. Duran was a swarmer. Who became a boxer-puncher. Who became a counterpuncher... as age and larger opponents demanded it. Against DeJesus II he became virtually a boxer. Against Leonard he went right back to the old days and became a relentless swarmer. Against Hagler he became a counterpuncher.

Armstrong hit a superprime, but it was brief. The fact that he would defend 3 titles simulaneously is the stuff of legend. Other than that, he had some losses -starting off with a record of 1-4 and at the end losing to guys like Reuben Shank who had <25 fights.

Duran had a longer prime and was able to offer high performances over a longer stretch and long after he should have been able to, but his lows were gutter-lows. He was also more skilled, more multidimensional, and fought monsters like Armstrong never did.

sweet_scientist

10-23-2007, 07:48 PM

I usually have Armstrong around #2. Always top 5.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Duran's accomplishments "pale" in comparison though. Do you think Armstrong would have beaten Leonard? I don't. Do you think that he would have stood against Hagler for long? I don't. The Middleweight "champion" he faced was none other than Ceferino Garcia who he already turned back as a WW challenge. Garcia wasn't even a MW until he was 32 -and he was a small one at that -no taller than Duran.

Bear in mind Armstrong was a natural featherweight, not a natural lightweight like Duran. It's more fitting to ask whether Armstrong could have beaten someone like Benny Leonard rather than Ray Leonard, and my answer to that is yes, I think he could. I also think he pushes Ray Leonard all the way as a welter, harder than Duran pushed Hagler, and on top of it all, I reckon Armstrong would give Hagler about as good a fight as Duran did himself.

Stonehands89

10-23-2007, 08:00 PM

Bear in mind Armstrong was a natural featherweight, not a natural lightweight like Duran. It's more fitting to ask whether Armstrong could have beaten someone like Benny Leonard rather than Ray Leonard, and my answer to that is yes, I think he could. I also think he pushes Ray Leonard all the way as a welter, harder than Duran pushed Hagler, and on top of it all, I reckon Armstrong would give Hagler about as good a fight as Duran did himself.

I don't think Armstrong would beat Benny even at his best, never mind Ray Leonard.

You have some work to do if you think Armstrong would do as well against Hagler. Alot of work.

Robbi

10-23-2007, 08:08 PM

By "people who pick Duran to win" --you mean me.

Allow me to clarify: Whitaker's "lack of movement" isn't what I said -I said his lack of "mobility". Whitaker is right up their with Pep when it comes to defensive stylists. Pep wasn't a runner. Whitaker wasn't a runner -even if he did run a bit in a few fights. His style was far more sophisticated than that.

[By the way, this post is for your other post above as well.]

Duran could deal with "runners" --Viruets- Edwin and Adolfo (a southpaw who almost a year to a day -1979- took Leonard ten before dropping a decision) and he could deal with boxers -Bizarro, DeJesus, Mamby among them.

My argument against Whitaker revolves neither on his being a runner or a supreme stylist. It revolves on the plain fact that Duran was never defeated by man smaller or weaker than him or unable to hurt him. DeJesus could hurt him with that left hook of his. Leonard was bigger and packed a shot. Laing was bigger. Benitez was bigger. Hagler was far bigger, stronger, and could punch like cannonballs. Hearns was ridiculously bigger and had nukes on his fists... and on and on.

Duran had disdain in him... and he was very strong for his size. I just can't see anyone beating him who stands shorter than even he and who had 17 KOs out of 40 wins. Pernell was durable, absolutely, but he won't be moving Duran inside or out.

How do you beat Duran --mobility or evasiveness? No. Even a supreme stylist would have his hands more than full with prime Duran. Prime Duran mind you, not the inflated version. Whitaker lacks the guns to keep Duran off of him.

You have a fantasy that Pernell would somehow be able to play matador to Duran's bull for 15 rounds. The problem is that Whitaker's matador has no sword and Duran's bull has a level of skill -a boxing mind if you will-- that is on par or close to the matador's.

Brains beats Brawn -but Brains ain't beating Brainy Brawn.

You said "lack of mobility". Are you trying to tell me Whitaker wasn't mobile, because in my opinion he was anything but. Please tell me how you define it

Benitez bigger, Hagler bigger, Laing bigger, Leonard was bigger and packed a shot. Those were not particularly physical fights Duran was involved in, I'm sure you agree. And nobody was better than Whitaker at negatating an opponent imposing his physical strength.

And Leonard did pack a punch, but apart from throwing a single lead right hand during the early rounds in New Orleans, his power punching was few and far between. Watch the fight and you'll notice it was mainly flurries Leonard threw when spinning off the ropes, apart from that it was a solid jab and constant lateral movement. This fight is fresh in my memory as I watched it around a month ago.

Whitaker was much better on the backfoot than Leonard when it came to scoring, especially backing up in a straight line behind the jab.

Again you mention Whitaker's lack of power, and the lack of artillery to keep Duran off him. Thats not what he needs, its skill and the ability inside the ropes. Whitaker proved so many times throughout his career he could offset come forward aggressors. You may well respond with "those opponents were not in the same class as Duran". Agreed.

But lets not forget the amount of C level fighters Duran fought, apart from Buchanan and De Jesus his level of opposition was moderate for around 90% of his defenses.

I think Whitaker had to deal with better fighters even though his reign was shorter. Haugen, Ramirez, Paez, and Nelson. Fighting a slightly higher quality of opponent would give Whitaker the edge to a certain degree. No substitute for it.

Afterall when both expressing our views and looking back over the history of their careers, especially at lightweight, the calibre of opponents each fought has to be taken into account strongly.

Whitaker had to deal with come forward aggressors mostly every fight. People who put pressure on him. Because they knew if they stood off such a fluid defensive boxing machine it was 12-0 in rounds. Whitaker's fight against Pineda, a classic example. He could lead off as well as counter.

Duran did have a very knowledgable and skilled mind to further enhance his raw aggression. This was finely tuned by Arcel and Brown as the 70's progressed. They taught Duran how to channel his aggression properly, and not go after opponents wrecklessly like a "bull in a china shop".

" a boxing mind - if you will - on par with the matadors". Your correct, but its all about the styles of each fighter more than anything. And as good as Duran was with his aggression, if this fight goes 15 rounds you honestly think Duran can win more rounds than Whitaker?.

A man who had every possible defensive move. Varying the height which he threw punches from, moving out of range with his left hand tucked beside his chin, thus not open to lead rights on the backfoot. The ability to cover up inside like a small crab and counter back at close quarters. Sublime judgement of distance behind a lightning right jab. An awesome arsenal of flurries inside and a very sharp lead left hand out his southpaw stance.

Duran was known for being a great inside fighter, and Whitaker's best work was from the outside. Reverse the roles. Id take Whitaker's inside work over Duran's outside work.

Chavez was among the greatest inside fighters ever, although not as fluid technically as Duran. Whitaker actually gave Chavez a working over inside and backed him up during the late rounds. Does Duran have an opponent on his record where he outboxed a boxer who was comparble to how good Chavez was at close quarters?

If Duran was an extremely tall lightweight, around 5' 11" with freaskish power to go with his style, he'd probably get the job done.

sweet_scientist

10-23-2007, 08:31 PM

I don't think Armstrong would beat Benny even at his best, never mind Ray Leonard.

You have some work to do if you think Armstrong would do as well against Hagler. Alot of work.

What distinguishes Armstrong-Leonard from Duran-Whitaker? Given your line of reasoning which leads Duran to a victory over Whitaker, what stops Armstrong from getting the victory over Leonard?

Is there any doubt that Armstrong would be stronger and more relentless than Benny, and with enough versatility to almost match Benny's flair?

I have a feeling you will say that Leonard is naturally bigger. To that I say, true, but so what? Hank is more than comfortable at 135 and beyond and he has proved it, time and again against tough, tough competition.

I think Armstrong would give Ray Leonard a real hard fight and if he thought Duran was relentless and had a huge workrate, well he better be prepared for Hank who has an even superior workrate and is even more relentless.

I think Armstrong would last about 8 or 9 rounds with Hagler. In that time, he should win about 3 or 4 rounds, much like Duran did against Hagler. He probably won't fight the cautious fight Duran did though and so won't survive, but really, Duran did little more than surive for most of the fight anyway.

Stonehands89

10-23-2007, 10:05 PM

You said "lack of mobility". Are you trying to tell me Whitaker wasn't mobile, because in my opinion he was anything but. Please tell me how you define it

Benitez bigger, Hagler bigger, Laing bigger, Leonard was bigger and packed a shot. Those were not particularly physical fights Duran was involved in, I'm sure you agree. And nobody was better than Whitaker at negatating an opponent imposing his physical strength.

And Leonard did pack a punch, but apart from throwing a single lead right hand during the early rounds in New Orleans, his power punching was few and far between. Watch the fight and you'll notice it was mainly flurries Leonard threw when spinning off the ropes, apart from that it was a solid jab and constant lateral movement. This fight is fresh in my memory as I watched it around a month ago.

By mobility, I mean legs. Whitaker was usually in range and usually would be in range... like he was against Ramirez II -a winning effort, and Chavez -perhaps his best performance. Whitaker's normal tendency to stay in striking distance is not a slap, it is a nod to his style. You are zeroing in on a point that I have long since discounted, namely, that Whitaker wasn't elusive. He was... but his legs were not often akin to Leonard in Duran II.. it was better than that.

The fact that Duran fought bigger guys bolsters the argument that Duran adjusted styles -he didn't simply go at large men. Except for Leonard -he tore into him to negate speed and force him to make a stand. And no, Leonard planted often in Montreal and went tit for tat. I disagree with you on that one.

Duran made big and surprising adjustments against Hagler. He was stale during Benitez, and a dud against Laing.

A note/ I think that we need to limit the discussion to skill and styles -and avoid the name dropping unless they are used to make a point of skill or style.

Whitaker was much better on the backfoot than Leonard when it came to scoring, especially backing up in a straight line behind the jab.

Again you mention Whitaker's lack of power, and the lack of artillery to keep Duran off him. Thats not what he needs, its skill and the ability inside the ropes. Whitaker proved so many times throughout his career he could offset come forward aggressors. You may well respond with "those opponents were not in the same class as Duran". Agreed.
This does little to dispute my analysis. Keep in mind that this fight goes 15. Whitaker may well have won it over 10 or 12... but not 15.

But lets not forget the amount of C level fighters Duran fought, apart from Buchanan and De Jesus his level of opposition was moderate for around 90% of his defenses.

I think Whitaker had to deal with better fighters even though his reign was shorter. Haugen, Ramirez, Paez, and Nelson. Fighting a slightly higher quality of opponent would give Whitaker the edge to a certain degree. No substitute for it.

Afterall when both expressing our views and looking back over the history of their careers, especially at lightweight, the calibre of opponents each fought has to be taken into account strongly.
That is not the major factor -especially since you concede that one's opponents are "slightly" better. Too subjective. Unless one of them had no real experience, it is not weighty. Duran had serious experience by the time he was 23. Duran proved his caliber against larger men and you cannot reasonably assume that because Duran's conquests are not quite as formidable as Whitaker's that it means much. It doesn't.

Haugen, Ramirez, Paez, and Nelson are not necessarily superior to Lampkin, Buchanan, Mamby, and DeJesus anyway.

Whitaker had to deal with come forward aggressors mostly every fight. People who put pressure on him. Because they knew if they stood off such a fluid defensive boxing machine it was 12-0 in rounds. Whitaker's fight against Pineda, a classic example. He could lead off as well as counter.

Duran did have a very knowledgable and skilled mind to further enhance his raw aggression. This was finely tuned by Arcel and Brown as the 70's progressed. They taught Duran how to channel his aggression properly, and not go after opponents wrecklessly like a "bull in a china shop".

" a boxing mind - if you will - on par with the matadors". Your correct, but its all about the styles of each fighter more than anything. And as good as Duran was with his aggression, if this fight goes 15 rounds you honestly think Duran can win more rounds than Whitaker?.
Precisely. I think Duran will do damage and force Whitaker to either run and blow rounds like De La Hoya did against Tito, or force him to make a stand -and Whitaker just isn't going to outpunch a prime Duran -no way, no how. And he is simply too small to keep Duran off of him!

Now look at what you wrote here. First you bring up how Whitaker did well against a "come forward aggressor" but then concede that Duran was more than that. Whitaker's sublime performance against Paez does not even hint at what Duran would do or not do anymore than Duran's eventual wrecking of Bizzaro hints at Whitaker.

A man who had every possible defensive move. Varying the height which he threw punches from, moving out of range with his left hand tucked beside his chin, thus not open to lead rights on the backfoot. The ability to cover up inside like a small crab and counter back at close quarters. Sublime judgement of distance behind a lightning right jab. An awesome arsenal of flurries inside and a very sharp lead left hand out his southpaw stance.

Duran was known for being a great inside fighter, and Whitaker's best work was from the outside. Reverse the roles. Id take Whitaker's inside work over Duran's outside work.
You have been examining Whitaker's tapes and have been neglecting Duran's. Duran's defense was subtle and again, it was combined with offense.. it was simultaneous. You seem to believe that Whitaker's defense was leagues above Duran's --and that is myth.

You'd take Whitaker's inside work over Duran's outside work? Don't see much difference there. I do see a difference between Duran's defense and Whitaker's offense. Duran was a defensive master. And he was an offensive killer. Whitaker was a defensive genius... but his offense was nowhere close. And that is another something that you are not quite grasping.

Chavez was among the greatest inside fighters ever, although not as fluid technically as Duran. Whitaker actually gave Chavez a working over inside and backed him up during the late rounds. Does Duran have an opponent on his record where he outboxed a boxer who was comparble to how good Chavez was at close quarters?

If Duran was an extremely tall lightweight, around 5' 11" with freaskish power to go with his style, he'd probably get the job done.

The Chavez fight is a big reason why I don't see Whitaker beating Duran. Duran would be far more fluid, far more elusive, and punch harder and faster. His skill was at a higher level than Chavez. He was fire to Chavez's ice. That fight gives you a clue because Chavez was aggressive and relentless... but Duran would be about 3 times what Chavez was.

If Whitaker were about 3 inches taller and stronger and had more of a whallop to keep Duran thinking twice about coming in, I'd give you Whitaker.

...Let's chant this together --Everybody!

Brains beat Brawn, but Brains don't beat Brainy Brawn

Manassa

10-23-2007, 10:33 PM

Duran was a very good defensive fighter, very underrated, but I wouldn't place him in the master category.

Well, for an offensive fighter at least, his defence was as good as it gets. I reckon Duran had the reflexes and skills to be as elusive as Whitaker or Pep had he chosen to fight the same way.

Robbi

10-23-2007, 10:33 PM

Stonehands. When I said "movement" I meant leg movement, and the ability to circle the perimeter of the ring. Now our definition is the same. Movement and mobility is the same in my eyes. Maybe I should have not said just "movement", but "leg movement.

"And no, Leonard planted often in Montreal and went tit for tat. I disagree with you on that one". I never mentioned Montreal, I said New Orleans and was stricly talking about Leonard's work during the rematch. So you never disagreed with me at all.

Robbi

10-23-2007, 10:50 PM

Whitaker used his offense differently to Duran, as his style was the opposite. Just because Duran had more power and came forward with more authority, doesn't automatically mean his offense was better. Depends which way you look at it. Whitaker was more accurate than Duran, no question about it. Although not as powerful. But Duran's offense had more effect on an opponent than Whitaker's did. Just depends which style you like.

"Whitaker was a defensive genius... but his offense was nowhere close". Something you don't quite grasp either.

"You have been examining Whitaker's tapes and have been neglecting Duran's. Duran's defense was subtle and again, it was combined with offense.. it was simultaneous. You seem to believe that Whitaker's defense was leagues above Duran's --and that is myth".

I'm not saying it was leagues above, but it was better. However, Duran's defense was better when fighters pressed the action against him.

Whitaker was virtually untouchable against Ramirez when he stood his ground throughout most of the rematch. Lets say Duran goes 12 rounds with Ramirez and doesn't pull out the stoppage and wins on the cards. Would Duran's defense prove as effective as Whitaker's?. I'll awnser that for you, nope.

Robbi

10-23-2007, 10:55 PM

Not sure about the second part, in fact I wouldn't go that far, but I agree with your first point, and I agree with Stonehands when he says Duran was a master at mixing the two, but so was Whitaker. His ability to counter-punch was amazing, among the best I've ever seen, especially his counter spin-off-the-opponent's-jab left hook/straight.

See around the -8:47 mark for just one example. Very young Whitaker in this one as well.

BU8hIzfKDFU

You aint going to convince Manassa about Whitaker. If Whitaker was 90 years old and in a wheelchair and fought over 200 fights, then he might well have been the best wizard Manassa ever seen.

But its a long wait, another 50 years to go.

sweet_scientist

10-24-2007, 03:33 AM

BU8hIzfKDFU

Nice little fight this one.

ALways LMFAO@ Alex Wallau criticizing Whitaker off of that performance. He basically did a paint job on a real tough veteran in only his tenth pro fight and Wallau was looking for more.

Manassa

10-24-2007, 05:25 AM

You aint going to convince Manassa about Whitaker. If Whitaker was 90 years old and in a wheelchair and fought over 200 fights, then he might well have been the best wizard Manassa ever seen.

But its a long wait, another 50 years to go.

Don't talk bollocks.

And to Sweet Pea - I'm pretty certain Duran could look just as good against an opponent so sluggish and methodical if he chose to fight like that. As it turns out, he preferred to just batter 'em.

I don't want to get dragged down into a long-winded debate, but I'll say this to everybody - looking flawless like Whitaker is not everything. Duran might take a few more punches but more than made up for it with the concussion he often induced.

Stonehands89

10-24-2007, 07:06 AM

More deploy effective punches without getting knocked out, which is more likely to happen to a HW than a fighter from any other division (all things being equal).
Sure, I agree. But you also have to factor in slower guys and more porous defenses.

Of course! But it is a fine example of what I was talking about, an iron-chinned fighter who can only afford to make one mistake. I would go so far as to say that HW's are fighting in a different sport to Straweights, but using the same rules.
I think it is a fine example of what we are both talking about. And you are correct about it being an almost different sport. An interesting observation!

So was Langford, Greb, Duran, SRR, Leonard, these exceptions, anomilies and freaks are the men that account for the top slots on any ATG list - I don't think the HW freaks are any different from the LW freaks.
I don't think so... Ali strides far above the vast majority of HWs... Robinson had more struggles because the skill level is simply higher among smaller men. I don't think that the demographic argument is surmountable. There are less big men in the world. Therefore, there are less good learners and thus good big men in the ring. That logic is very strong.

I don't agree with you. They are different and sometimes less admirable but what makes you think they are less difficult to learn, then master, then deploy in such a way that they make an affective impact? In the meantimes, HW's do EVERYTHING that straweights do, just not as well.

Perhaps HW's are more skilled?:hey
I don't think that the demographic argument is surmountable. There are less big men in the world. Therefore, there are less good learners and thus good big men in the ring. That logic is very strong!

I simply don't see the same level of skill among the HWs. Name three HW fighters who achieved the same level of skill as Mike McCallum. I think that Mike was technically better than Louis himself or Tunney.

Yes. Why not? Are you 100% convinced that timing and positioning (also in evidence in Lewis-Klitshcko, just not as much/as impressive) are "harder"? skills to master and use than the skills that allow a big man to surivive in a sporting contest with another man who could kill you or I stone dead with one punch?
If you see the same level of skill in that fight (just different) as in say, Toney-McCallum I, then we must part ways my friend.

Yes! Robinson is supposed to be the best ever. If he fought Moore - at around his peak - and lost, I would penalise him. Of course, how much would depend on the specific details.
Robinson 146. Moore 175. Both peaking. Robinson loses. I'd be more apt to congratulate him for trying.

I'm sure Duran didn't weigh in at the LW limit the night of his fight with Hagler, you know?
Come now.

There is a serious difference in "natural" size between Burley and Moore. Moore was an all time great Light Heavy fighting at between 165 and 170. Burley was a WW who, when weighing in at 155, was generally out of shape.

Burley won the fight is the biggest difference though.

What is the absolute minimum you think Duran could reasonabley be rated at? The rock bottom?
You haven't offered me a LW in the past 50 years as a point of contrast with Duran. If you cannot, then you should concede the uniqueness of Duran's accomplishments.

Duran belongs in the top 5, but never #1 in my opinion. Anyone ranking him at the lower end of the top 10 has a burden to explain it. If they meet that burden, I shut up. That being said, Duran in the top 10 if a cogent explanation is rendered, is okay. After that, I begin to question person's aptitude for understanding pugilism.

You have provided fair reasoning for ranking Duran at the lower end of the top 10 -although we must disagree on several points.

Stonehands89

10-24-2007, 07:40 AM

What distinguishes Armstrong-Leonard from Duran-Whitaker? Given your line of reasoning which leads Duran to a victory over Whitaker, what stops Armstrong from getting the victory over Leonard?

Is there any doubt that Armstrong would be stronger and more relentless than Benny, and with enough versatility to almost match Benny's flair?

I have a feeling you will say that Leonard is naturally bigger. To that I say, true, but so what? Hank is more than comfortable at 135 and beyond and he has proved it, time and again against tough, tough competition.

I think Armstrong would give Ray Leonard a real hard fight and if he thought Duran was relentless and had a huge workrate, well he better be prepared for Hank who has an even superior workrate and is even more relentless.

I think Armstrong would last about 8 or 9 rounds with Hagler. In that time, he should win about 3 or 4 rounds, much like Duran did against Hagler. He probably won't fight the cautious fight Duran did though and so won't survive, but really, Duran did little more than surive for most of the fight anyway.
First of all, Armstrong and Duran are different fighters. They share similarities -physical strength, swarming tendencies, great inside work, conditioning, good power, but Armstrong was slightly smaller and was more relentless and pressing. Duran paced himself more, and was more versatile, with a more sophisticated defense although Armstrong's defense was surprisingly good considering his style.

I think that Benny would be a tough fight for Duran. I go with Duran -not because of the strength factor, but because the skill was comparable even with the Great Leonard. Armstrong fought smaller -he was a bit shorter, more swarming, and is more likely to be matadored than Duran. Leonard also hit harder than Whitaker -alot harder. Duran respected power. Armstrong would have to be wary of the big shots that could catch him coming in.

Roberto did not beat Ray simply because of the workrate. Swarming alone isn't going to beat Ray. Duran combines it with chess. Armstrong is naturally smaller than Duran and is more one-dimensional. Ray would, in my opinion, be able to solve that kind of puzzle.

Your analysis of Hagler-Armstrong is more agreeable. Although the quick dismissing of Duran's performance against Hagler out here is annoying. Very annoying. Duran didn't fight a "survival" fight by the way -he was close and he was tactical and was seeking to counter Hagler.

McGrain

10-24-2007, 07:43 AM

You haven't offered me a LW in the past 50 years as a point of contrast with Duran. If you cannot, then you should concede the uniqueness of Duran's accomplishments.

I think it is fair to say that Duran is a unique Lightweight. I think there are other guys who have made leaps similair to his Hagler leap and won though.

Duran belongs in the top 5, but never #1 in my opinion. Anyone ranking him at the lower end of the top 10 has a burden to explain it.

Have a quick look at this:

1 - Harry Greb
2 - Sugar Ray Robinson
3 - Sam Langford
4 - Henry Armstrong
5 - Ezzard Charles
6 - Benny Leonard
7 - Bob Fitzimmons
8 - Muhammad Ali
9 - Sugar Ray Leonard
10-Roberto Duran

Now, what is it about this that lifts your paint? It's not how my list currently stands, but I don't think it's a bad one - defendable, certainly. Duran does look a little hard done by on this list, but perhaps not as hard done by as Willie Pep or Joe Louis or Charley Burley - and Burley is an interesting case in point. Burley would be an idiosyncratic choice, but again, one I think is defendable.

If they meet that burden, I shut up. That being said, Duran in the top 10 if a cogent explanation is rendered, is okay. After that, I begin to question person's aptitude for understanding pugilism.

The explanation would be simple - the quality of the other fighters around him. When you talk about the very very very best, there will always be the same names mentioned - and Duran is certainly one of them - but there will also be some variation in positioning because of difference in criteria and inherant bias.

You have provided fair reasoning for ranking Duran at the lower end of the top 10 -although we must disagree on several points.

It's been a lot of fun.