Is Roberto Duran a top-10 All Time Great?

[LittleRed]

Ah. Oops. Boy that Larry Fitzgerald can catch...

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Senya13

Don't rip my words out of context. I said they viewed heavyweight division as a whole as bad all the time, filled with undeserving, slow, skillless, plodding, out-of-shape fighters. Again, not all of them, but most of them were seen as such.

I'm not. You said both of those things. You said that Ali and Frazier were only in one fight that mattered - which is nonsense.

Frazier did win the biggest fight between them though, that is true.

Look up how Norton was viewed before first Ali's fight and for a while after that, and he was seen as no better than, say, Glen Johnson, if not worse - a journeyman, B-level fighter at best. The hype made him IBHoF worthy all a sudden. Had we had a time machine and transfered the people who voted him in (ie voted an ATG) back into 1970s, they'd be turned over to mental hospital for such claims.

Still, he's much more respected than that these days, isn't he? And he very much proved himself in fights with Holmes and Ali. If you ask people at the beginning of a fighter's career, before his four career defining fights, if be belongs in the IBHOF, of course they are going to say no.

Glen Johnson himself is no longer viewed as the journeyman he was seen as before he KO'd Roy Jones, so you kind of make this point for me. Painting Norton as a poor win because of how he was seen before he boxed the important part of his career is ludicrous.

I fully understand that the Ring magazine's opinion wasn't the only one that should be considered. But they were similiar to a lot of other publications and experts in that they might praise other weight divisions as deep and rich, comes another era, they pointed out that it was weak and lacking talent. With heavyweights, there almost never was any praise. Not because they didn't like the division, they spent most of the time talking about heavyweights in their analytical write-ups and gossips, it was simply that - bad compared to other weights.

If you're trying to tell me the HW division is less historically deep than the lightweight division, we already agree.

If you're trying to tell me that it is so shallow that no fighter to emerge from it can be considered great, I can only tell you that I thoroughly disagree. I personally haven't really seen boxing done much better than career HW Joe Louis did it and guys like Ali, Lewis, Holyfield and Frazier look absolutely exceptional to me too.

As I said in something like the second post of this go-around, the difference in our perceptions of the HW division is likely the main reason we see things so differently.

Superb for a heavyweight, that's at least debatable. Compared to the very best fighters from other divisions his resume is awful. And head to head he didn't show himself *that* great (as compared to Duran, for example) to be deserving such high ratings on a P4P basis.

Well if we look at the five best opponents Duran faced excluding shot perfromances:

Leoanrd (win, loss)
Hagler (loss)
Benitez (loss)
Hearns (loss)
DeJesus (loss, win, win)

We see he is 3-5. If we doe the same with Ali

Frazier (2-1)
Foreman (1-0)
Liston (2-0)
Norton (2-1)
Patterson (2-0)

We see he is 7-2, a much, much better return. Yes, Leonard is better than Frazier, Hagler is better than Foreman, Benitez is better than Liston, Hearns is better than Norton and DeJesus is probably better than Patterson. But so what? Ali is a winner, Duran, in this regard, is a loser. This is natural in facing a higher level of competition, but it's a fact that Ali did better against the greats he met. That fact holds a lot of weight with a lot of people, naturally enough.

[Flea Man]

Marcel is better than DeJesus. Even then.

[Senya13]

Achievement-wise, only the first fight between them really mattered. The 2nd and the 3rd was between two "has-beens", of a lot less significance.

Norton was still seen as a poor boxer in 1981, so even if you transfered those voters into the 1980's, they'd still be forced to go see a doctor. Glen Johnson was a journeyman, good fighter, but not great. His KO of Jones is like Leon Spinks' decision over Ali, on that level.
Let's pick another one, Montell Griffin, if he were a heavyweight, would have a lot more reason to be considered a great, much better boxer than Norton, and with better achievements. He's not getting to IBHOF any time soon, possibly never.
Norton lost to Holmes. If you want to praise fighters based on Holmes winning very closely or even controversially over them, that'd make a lot of 1980s heavyweight tomato cans ATGs. Norton's win over Young was a robbery.
Whenever Ali chose to dance around on his toes, Norton was clueless at what to do. It's only that Ali could not keep moving the whole fight, only had done these during several rounds, that made the fights close. This lack of ring generalship on the part of Norton makes me confident that younger Ali would have gained an easy victory over Norton.

Yes, for P4P (ie ATG, regardless of weight) ratings I compare fighters not only for how great they were at some particular division, but who has more depth overall, who beat better opponents and in much greater quantities. Limiting the rating to heavyweight division, Ali is a great, same as the other names you mentioned. But compared to a lot of ATG smaller fighters Louis and Ali are light years behind, like I said. Had Louis beaten Jeffries, Ali and Lewis, he would have deserved to join the company of Gans and Leonard. But the guys he had beaten are laughable compared to the guys both these lightweights had beaten. To put Ali above them is a horrible disgrace. Head to head both were also much better than Ali.

You saw the words "head to head" right? You quoted them. What are you bringing Duran's and Ali's resumes for? Head to head, make Ali a lightweight, or Duran a heavyweight, while keeping their styles and fighting qualities, I'd bet my house on Duran.

[MoJoGoodie]

First off....Duran is easily Top 15....BUT

He may be the only fighter to get a shyt ton of credit for LOSING!!

[Flea Man]

Yuck. I hate 'put them in a different body' arguments. Pure spastification.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Senya13

Achievement-wise, only the first fight between them really mattered. The 2nd and the 3rd was between two "has-beens", of a lot less significance.

Nah, you can't say that really. Ali would become the HW champion of the world for 2 and was the HW champion of the world for 3. Past his best? Yeah. A has been? No. The third fight has great significance. It was contested between two past-prime HW's for sure, but is arguably the most beloved HW title fight in history. Winning this fight is a signficant achievment, and beating a past-prime but highly charged Frazier was also a significant achievment.

Norton was still seen as a poor boxer in 1981

No he was not. Don't be so ridiculous. He might have been seen as an underwhelmig champion having won his strap during legal wranglings, but to say he was labelled a "poor boxer" is ludicrous.

A quick rummage in google newspapers sees him labelled "a major force" by The Pittsburgh Press (1979). He entered the ring a prohibitive favourite to beat Earnie SHavers (who presumably was regarded as some sort of joke fighter having pushed Ali all the way and nearly having stopped Larry Holmes the year before?). He's a "good boxer" (not a poor one) according to the The Montreal Gazette (1974), and "the toughest man I ever met...better than anybody I have fought" according to Muhammad Ali himself.

"Not a great fighter? Perhaps, but he was a good fighter." That's the Star News from the year you claim he was viewed as a "poor boxer", 1981. That's pish Senya. You're confusing a poll that writes him off as a poor champion and his being viewed as a poor boxer. It doesn't seem to have been true at all.

Bet Pepe could come up with some quotes for you if you wanted though

Glen Johnson was a journeyman, good fighter, but not great.

There is a huge swathe of categorisation between j"ourneyman" and "great" that you seem to want to ignore. I don't agree with you that Johnson was a journeyman, and neither would most boxing fans.

Norton lost to Holmes. If you want to praise fighters based on Holmes winning very closely or even controversially over them, that'd make a lot of 1980s heavyweight tomato cans ATGs.

You need to read what i'm writing. I'm not claiming any kind of ATG status for Norton. I'm saying that your insisting he wasn't seen as that good BEFORE he fought all the most important fights of in his career saying that he wasn't that great is a stupid thing to do.

And it inarguably is. Of course he wasn't seen as that good before he did anything good. To me, the Holmes Norton contest taken in tandem with his fights against Ali prove that Norton was excellent. Not that he was ATG. Beating Ali and going life-and-death with Holmes means the results protect each-other. It is harder to write both of them off. That's obvious.

Norton's win over Young was a robbery.

Accordomg to you, of course it was.

"Norton put himself in the driver's seat by concentrating his attack on the body and by keeping cool...[in his] hard fought win over Young."

No mention of controversy at all.

"Ken Norton overcame the slight of hand of Jimmy Young with a blasting body attack that carried him to a fifteen round decision...[h]e closed out the fight with a tremendous body attack as the crowd openly rooted for Young....the associated press had it 143-142 for Norton."

This was a close fight that could have gone either way, not some "robbery". Please don't waste my time with bullshit Senya.

Whenever Ali chose to dance around on his toes, Norton was clueless at what to do. It's only that Ali could not keep moving the whole fight, only had done these during several rounds, that made the fights close. This lack of ring generalship on the part of Norton makes me confident that younger Ali would have gained an easy victory over Norton.

You think that Ali would have beaten Norton in his prime? That's an astonishing piece of detective work given that he beat him twice when past-prime. Norton beat Ali once, could have won twice. You can't change that and it speaks highly for him. On film Norton looks absolutely superb against two of the greatest fighters in history. Your attempts to paint him as a "poor boxer" who robbed Young are pathetic, and beneath you as a poster.

Yes, for P4P (ie ATG, regardless of weight) ratings I compare fighters not only for how great they were at some particular division, but who has more depth overall, who beat better opponents and in much greater quantities. Limiting the rating to heavyweight division, Ali is a great, same as the other names you mentioned. But compared to a lot of ATG smaller fighters Louis and Ali are light years behind, like I said. Had Louis beaten Jeffries, Ali and Lewis, he would have deserved to join the company of Gans and Leonard. But the guys he had beaten are laughable compared to the guys both these lightweights had beaten. To put Ali above them is a horrible disgrace. Head to head both were also much better than Ali.

You have your criteria, I have mine.

Head to head all-time I rank Ali above Gans and Leonard both.

You saw the words "head to head" right? You quoted them. What are you bringing Duran's and Ali's resumes for? Head to head, make Ali a lightweight, or Duran a heavyweight, while keeping their styles and fighting qualities, I'd bet my house on Duran.

What you would bet on a mythical match up between a HW and a LW were they magically transformed into the same division means literally absolutely nothing to me.

[Senya13]

Ali-Frazier 2 only served to prove which of the two had been less a "has been".

Ali-Frazier 3 being "arguably the most beloved HW title fight in history" is the hype. It was a horrible fight to watch. Take out Ali and Frazier and replace them with two unknown heavyweights, and if they had given the same performance as Ali and Frazier did, it'd be called one of the worst heavyweight fights of the year. You have probably seen the semi-recent thread about this bout at CBZ forum.

Being a major force in 1979 heavyweight division? Wow, that means a lot! I suppose you picked up an early 1974 article, ie between Ali 2 and Foreman? Ali's words about Norton being the best (better than Moore, Liston, Patterson, Frazier, Foreman) are pure BS, that can't be taken seriously. Look up what Ali was saying about Ken before Norton I, between Norton I and Norton II and for a while after Norton II.

As I said before in this thread, Norton is somewhere in between the mediocre and the good, depending how you look at it. Being called one of the worst title holders in heavyweight history certainly doesn't show much respect for him as a boxer, and not just for him as a titlist.

I don't know what else you can call Glen Johnson. A boxer, who is doing the best that his abilities allow him, but due to being limited, being very inconsistent and only being able to outwork (not outbox) either shot great fighters or second-tier contenders.

What? I said 1970s, notice the 's'. Meaning any period of the 1970's, including after the Holmes bout. Anybody back then who would make a claim that Norton would be inducted in a boxing hall of fame (where ATG boxers are supposed to be) would be laughed at at best. That modern historians, or some of them voted him in, only shows that the whole Ali hype has worked very well, and now nearly every fighter that Ali faced is seen as a better fighter than they really were. Norton was inducted in 1992. Ahead of plenty of more deserving fighters. Was Ken Norton better/mode deserving than, say, Joey Giardello, Joe Brown or Nicolino Loche?

I didn't say otherwise. To me, that was a robbery. I had Young taking 10 rounds and Norton 4, with last round even.

It's been a long time since I watched these last time, but look up the rounds where Ali started to move around the ring, rather than plod around. Norton was clueless in those rounds. He was clueless vs Young. He was clueless was punchers. He lacked cleverness and ability to adjust.

Head to head Ali was better than Leonard and Gans? This is the end of our conversation. Adieu!

[TBooze]

To my mind, he is the greatest living fighter, I can only put Robinson and Armstrong ahead of him.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Senya13

Ali-Frazier 2 only served to prove which of the two had been less a "has been".

I think you'll find it also crowned the world's #2 ranked contender, so it was significanly more important than you yourself see it.

Ali-Frazier 3 being "arguably the most beloved HW title fight in history" is the hype.

It's also "the truth".

It was a horrible fight to watch.

I loved it. Many more people see it my way than yours.

Being a major force in 1979 heavyweight division? Wow, that means a lot! I suppose you picked up an early 1974 article, ie between Ali 2 and Foreman?

I picked up numerous articles, and was sure to date them so you know that. I also picked up one calling him a good but not a great fighter in the very year you falsely claimed he was being seen as a "poor boxer", which is the worst kind of nonsense.

Ali's words about Norton being the best (better than Moore, Liston, Patterson, Frazier, Foreman) are pure BS, that can't be taken seriously.

I take it very seriously, not in terms of literal meaning, of course, but in terms of the general regard that Ali held Norton. Given that Norton arguably caused him more problems than literally any fighter he met, he's obviously going to see him as good.

Look up what Ali was saying about Ken before Norton I, between Norton I and Norton II and for a while after Norton II.

Why don't you look it up, and share it with us instead of asking me to do it? How about I hold up my side of the argument and you try to hold up yours? How about you explain why when Ali says something that supports my position it's BS, but when he says something that (allegedly) supports yours it is God's own truth?

As I said before in this thread, Norton is somewhere in between the mediocre and the good, depending how you look at it. Being called one of the worst title holders in heavyweight history certainly doesn't show much respect for him as a boxer, and not just for him as a titlist.

Given that the champion is by very general definition one of the best fighters in the world I think he is closer to my definition of him as a good fighter than yours of him as a "poor boxer".

Regardless, Ali's legacy hardly rests upon his two victories over Ken Norton.

I don't know what else you can call Glen Johnson. A boxer, who is doing the best that his abilities allow him, but due to being limited, being very inconsistent and only being able to outwork (not outbox) either shot great fighters or second-tier contenders.

Again, this is a very limited and unhelpful definition. The flipside of the coin (which you blatantly ignore) is that he is a former champion of the world who beat fellow titlist Clinton Woods, Montel GriffnAntonio Tarver and Roy Jones, some of the premier light-heavies of his era. This is not a journeyman. If this is how you definie journeyman, you are coming from an extremely lonely place. Almost no boxing fans would so define him.

What? I said 1970s, notice the 's'. Meaning any period of the 1970's, including after the Holmes bout. Anybody back then who would make a claim that Norton would be inducted in a boxing hall of fame (where ATG boxers are supposed to be) would be laughed at at best. That modern historians, or some of them voted him in, only shows that the whole Ali hype has worked very well, and now nearly every fighter that Ali faced is seen as a better fighter than they really were. Norton was inducted in 1992. Ahead of plenty of more deserving fighters. Was Ken Norton better/mode deserving than, say, Joey Giardello, Joe Brown or Nicolino Loche?

I have literally no interest in discussing the Hall of Fame and what merits or doesn't merit his inclusion. It's bullshit and has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand.

I didn't say otherwise. To me, that was a robbery. I had Young taking 10 rounds and Norton 4, with last round even.

Again, you are coming from an extremely lonely place. Either a personal prejudice informs your opinion or your bizarre point of view informs your opinion. Either way, it is becoming clear why your view of Norton is so far from the true mark.

it's been a long time since I watched these last time, but look up the rounds where Ali started to move around the ring, rather than plod around. Norton was clueless in those rounds. He was clueless vs Young. He was clueless was punchers. He lacked cleverness and ability to adjust.

Yeah, he was utterly clueless and beat Muhammad Ali, Young, Quarry went life-and-death with a primed Holmes but he was utterly clueless, a "poor boxer" without smarts.

He must be the most gifted physical athlete to ever have boxed, in this case, because his record and reputation speak of a completely different fighter to the one you are pitifully trying to paint here.

Head to head Ali was better than Leonard and Gans?

Unquestionably in my opinion. Because i'm not interested in magical spells that make fighters the same size, I'm interested in how these men would perform against a field of ATG's from their weight division throughout boxnig history. Leonard's last performance v a great - 1923 - would arguably be on the cusp of the fulfilment of boxing technique and he may have a better case than the admittedly ahead-of-his times Gans, but I would expect both men to lose to guys like Buchanan, Duran, Armstrong and most especially Whitaker who may epitomise evolution in boxing pre-Jones. Ali was Whitaker. There may be literally no fighter in HW history whom I would make a favourite to beat him, though I perhaps lean slighly to Frazier.

Furthermore, if you are comparing them skill for skill and in terms fo physical attributes, Ali looks better to me than Leoanrd (hard to say with the footage of Gans).

That being the case, I rate Ali above Gans and Leonard h2h.

This is the end of our conversation. Adieu!

What is outrageous about any of the above? I think that your cliam that a magically shrunk Ali would lose to Leoanrd is far more preposterous (if this is what you are proposing). It's an impossible notion to take seriously.

If you care to debate any matters technical relating to any of these fighters and my reasons for seeing Ali as their superior, I'll be very happy to debate them.

[cuchulain]

Originally Posted by McGrain

I think you'll find it also crowned the world's #2 ranked contender...

... I'll be very happy to debate them.

[fists of fury]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

Yuck. I hate 'put them in a different body' arguments. Pure spastification.

[cuchulain]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Originally Posted by cuchulain

I made two posts on here in response to Pea before I realized this was TWO YEARS OLD.

(At least I said the same thin as two years ago).



I now have a reason to look forward to Alzheimers.

I can watch all the great fights (and movies) again, for the first time !




( BTW, haven't seen Senya around for a while. I used to enjoy arguing with him. )

Earlier in the thread, Senya characterized Ali as a "chinless windbag" who had "no heart."

He said a good many other things to, but of course, you were in the thread.

Both times !

[Hookie]

Yes, I do think at least 25 people in the history of boxing have been better than Roberto Duran.

IMO, Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, and Benitez were better for starters... as a matter of fact these guys went 5-1 (2) vs. Duran... how 'bout that!

Robinson, Armstrong, Pacquiao, Morales, Marquez, Barrera, DeLaHoya, Mosley, Ali, Holyfield, Jones, Hopkins, Toney... and others.

Martinez, Ward, Mayweather, the Klitschko's, and some others will probably prove to be better as well.

He stepped up and won a very close fight vs. Leonard (great job), what else did he do that was so great? He was great, but top 25? I don't think so!

[cuchulain]

Originally Posted by Hookie

Yes, I do think at least 25 people in the history of boxing have been better than Roberto Duran.

IMO, Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, and Benitez were better for starters... as a matter of fact these guys went 5-1 (2) vs. Duran... how 'bout that!

Robinson, Armstrong, Pacquiao, Morales, Marquez, Barrera, DeLaHoya, Mosley, Ali, Holyfield, Jones, Hopkins, Toney... and others.

Martinez, Ward, Mayweather, the Klitschko's, and some others will probably prove to be better as well.

He stepped up and won a very close fight vs. Leonard (great job), what else did he do that was so great? He was great, but top 25? I don't think so!

You've given us a lot to ponder.