Is Roberto Duran a top-10 All Time Great?

[LittleRed]

Originally Posted by Senya13

This is not just my viewpoint, this is an opinion shared by a whole lot of contemporary (for each era) experts. I pointed out before, that Ken Norton, for example, was seen as the 5th worst heavyweight titlist of all time in 1981. Jimmy Ellis, who is also often brought up as one of the better contenders, was voted 7th worst, Ernie Terrell - 8th, Leon Spinks - 4th. Ie, 4 titlists from Ali's career were voted among the 9 worst of all time. A fair assessment, in my opinion.
Start reading Ring magazines, years by year, decade by decade, they are moaning that the heavyweight division is bad-bad-bad.

Im not sure that's relevant. You have guys in 1910 saying George Zettlein threw as hard as Walter Johnson. Contemporary evaluations of a historical nature are often useless.

[Bokaj]

These lists are damn difficult, but I can't see how it would be wrong to have in the top 10. One of the best, perhaps the, best LWs ever with two epic wins and several very creditable ones above that weight. Looks great on film as well.

You can't ask for much more than that.

[Hands of Iron]

Originally Posted by the cobra

Those sick bastards!

Might have something to do with the word that Charles wasn't particularly heralded even in his own time, something Burt has claimed probably a countless number of times on here, rarely ceasing to mention it, or that Ken Overlin - the "poor man's Greb" - outclassed him.

[Pachilles]

Originally Posted by Hands of Iron

Pachilles has him in his top ten last I saw.

When you've been around here long enough you see that this forum works in a zodiac cycle. When i first joined here it was the year of Duran. With many and more people championing him and willingly accepting his excuse of needing a poo, amongst other warped and convenient excuses.

Its no longer the year of Duran and hasnt been for sometime, so i can stop pretending i dont consider him a top 10 ATG.

Who is beating him at LW? - Nobody

Who is beating Ray Leonard at WW? Maybe only Robinson - But Duran did

Which 30+ career LW is taking Hagler the distance and actually winning rounds? Or stepping in the ring with him in the 1st place? - Nobody, but Duran did

[Hands of Iron]

Originally Posted by LittleRed

Im not sure that's relevant. You have guys in 1910 saying George Zettlein threw as hard as Walter Johnson. Contemporary evaluations of a historical nature are often useless.

And these days they say Walter Johnson threw as hard as Randy Johnson.

Pedro > Koufax.

For he's the GOAT.

[Hands of Iron]

Originally Posted by Pachilles

When you've been around here long enough you see that this forum works in a zodiac cycle. When i first joined here it was the year of Duran. With many and more people championing him and willingly accepting his excuse of needing a poo, amongst other warped and convenient excuses.

Its no longer the year of Duran and hasnt been for sometime, so i can stop pretending i dont consider him a top 10 ATG.

Who is beating him at LW? - Nobody

Who is beating Ray Leonard at WW? Maybe only Robinson - But Duran did

Which 30+ career LW is taking Hagler the distance and actually winning rounds? Or stepping in the ring with him in the 1st place? - Nobody, but Duran did

[LittleRed]

Originally Posted by Hands of Iron

And these days they say Walter Johnson threw as hard as Randy Johnson.

Pedro > Koufax.

For he's the GOAT.

Koufax isn't even the best lefty out there. And Maddux> Pedro if only because the greatest pitcher of all time shouldn't bear such a striking resemblance to a fat Britney Spears.

[Hands of Iron]

As far as peak is concerned, he certainly is. And really, that's all that matters.

Peak Pedro is Untouchable, Montreal Duran is Untouchable, etc.

It's just the way things are.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Senya13

This is not just my viewpoint, this is an opinion shared by a whole lot of contemporary (for each era) experts.

A "whole lot of contemporaries" think that Frazier and Ali were "only in one good fight" and that Liston "wasn't that good?" I doubt it very much.

I pointed out before, that Ken Norton, for example, was seen as the 5th worst heavyweight titlist of all time in 1981.

Might be reasonable, i'm not sure. It wouldn't stop him being an excellent contender which is the way he is generally viewed these days.

Jimmy Ellis, who is also often brought up as one of the better contenders, was voted 7th worst

A weak champion can still be a good contender. In fact, becomes so almost by definition.

Start reading Ring magazines, years by year, decade by decade, they are moaning that the heavyweight division is bad-bad-bad.

I have yet to read an era Ring opinion that views the HW division as strong. In the 90's, it was weak, Charles era, very weak, Louis era, weak, there are articles that claim boxing is dying due to the weakness of the HW division almost from the moment it was in print.

Either it was never strong even relative to itself or something else is going on.

You need to look a good deal further and farther than Ring to understand what was really happening.


Ali's resume is superb, and Ring magazine will almost certainly agree with me. The WBC certainly do.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[LittleRed]

If peak Pedro could pitch more than 6 innings a shot...

[Hands of Iron]

Originally Posted by LittleRed

If peak Pedro could pitch more than 6 innings a shot...

He averaged closer to 8 than 6, actually. Stamina wasn't ever an issue until he tore his shoulder in 2001.

[LittleRed]

Originally Posted by Hands of Iron

He averaged closer to 8 than 6, actually. Stamina wasn't ever an issue until he tore his shoulder in 2001.

Of course. I just forgot seeing as how he pitched so few innings. I mean, Pedros best season is no better than Dwight Goodens best season.

[dyna]

Originally Posted by Senya13

The heavyweight division was always awful. Foreman was somewhere at the level of Dal Hawkins as a fighter. Liston is grossly overrated, he looks good on film, but his achievements are rather poor and he struggled against even mediocre opposition; maybe Jack Blackburn level of fighter. Frazier beat Ali the first time, the only fight that mattered between them. He is also overrated, because he only had one meaningful win - first fight with Ali. Other than that, he beat fighters of Kid McPartland or Dave Holly level. Norton, I'm tired to even speak about him. He was a journeyman of Henry Cooper level, basically. Somewhere between mediocre and good. Patterson - was past prime and a cripple when Ali beat him. If you look at either Gans' or Leonard's eras, they were ten times deeper and richer with talent than Ali's epoch at heavyweight.

[Hands of Iron]

Originally Posted by LittleRed

Of course. I just forgot seeing as how he pitched so few innings. I mean, Pedros best season is no better than Dwight Goodens best season.

This is equivalent to not considering level of opposition in boxing and going strictly by W-L ratio, only more multifaceted.

[LittleRed]

Had I compared him to Carl Hubbell or Pete Alexander than quality of opposition might be an issue. But the mid 80's are barely over a decade away so the difference is not that great. Plus there's a theory that Pedros fantastic numbers are both a result of his low innings pitched and separation due to a high offensive environment.