if Roberto duran was a lightweight in the 40s

This.

Though head to head I take Duran over any lightweight in history. He would have just had to work a lot harder at it in the 1940s. And he would have. Duran was everything a prizefighter should be- fast, strong, powerful, mobile, skilled, durable, adaptable and mean.

 

I think Duran may have had an even tougher time in the 1930s. Canzoneri, Ross, Petrolle, Ambers, Ramey, Rodak and a prime Angott. Yikes....that's a rough bunch.

 

Hey, steady on, surely you know that boxing peaked around 100 years ago? When a trainer says a guy that was around when they were young was much much better than the next generation...and the next...and the next, then it's obviously true. In fact, it's incredible how boxing is the only sport that has completely regressed in the past 100 years. :yep

 

Actually, in a lot of ways, it has indeed. Guys who fight twice a year cannot master their craft in the same way as someone who fights every week or every month and is in the gym most of the time in between, getting instruction from a master trainer (an almost extinct breed these days).

Back in years past boxing was a trade. Nowadays it's a hobby. Back then they were angry and hungry. Nowadays, they have one fight, make tens of thousands (sometimes hundreds of thousands or even millions) doing so, then do nothing for the next 6 months to a year but spend their money, eat, party and dissipate. That's a long time between fights, so why train? Why be disciplined? How to stay focused?

I definitely think boxing has regressed. Badly.

 

It hasn't. I think the only decent argument in that much of the talent is lost to another sport. For a start, fighters from close on 100 years ago- ok, let's say the 1920s, as we have more evidence on film, simply don't throw as many quality punches as a fighter from the modern era. I'm referring to good straight combinations at a high intensity, throughout a fight; i'm not talking volumes through 'head down windmilling' either. When I first saw Tunney i was surprised how good he looked compared to most people from back then. Most people I know who are interested in classic boxing all felt the same.

And you're asking yourself- why train? They do, most of them, and are in tremendous shape. I'm really not sure what you're talking about there to be honest. Of course, some fighters were hungrier back then, but that's just a personal thing and champions have that extra quality, i'd never dispute that but also, fighting so often, while it has advantages of being in consistent shape, also means a fighter is receiving far more damage to their body than those competing a few times a year.

1940s champs were mostly, all better than their counterparts from 20+ years earlier...I think the gaps closes as time goes on but i'd still bet on virtually every world champ from, say, the 1960s beating those from 40 years earlier for sure. Of course, this isn't always the case- in a fight of brawler vs brawler from totally different era i'd say it's more even as great heart and determination will always come into play; but take a master boxer at the highest level from the 1920s vs a master boxer from today and i'd bet on the modern guy at least 95% of the time.

People too often confuse fame with ability, e.g. "everyone could name the champs in those days nobody knows who the **** anyone is now" (which usually translates as there's not enough good Yanks around). But this just a fame thing, mostly due to the TV channels that broadcast boxing, and is no representation of ability. You no longer get a Hagler-Hearns shown at prime time on ITV like you did when I was young.

For example, show me a fighter with the defensive ability of, say, a Whitaker/Mayweather on film from the 20s or 30s- and yes, I can easily gauge a problem with the speed of the movie- you can still make out styles, methods, punches defended/landed/thrown on many of the old films. It's a ****-poor excuse doled out when footage is finally found of an old fighter- of course, they'd look better in the flesh and with modern TV equipment but, lets face it, we didn't think they'd look that bad.

And a quote from a Fleishcer, Marti Cohen or Banana Sam, that "I saw him in training and we threw bags of rice at him and none landed" isn't a proper answer to anything. I think it was Jim Jacobs who said they weren't even "throwing decent combinations until Benny Leonard came on the scene", so even in the 1920s 'modern' boxing as in its infancy. It's gotten so much better since.

 

1913-02-28 The Cleveland Leader (page 10)
Fighters Are in Need of Constant Practice
--Slattery.
--------
Few Pugilists Study and Try for Improvement Between Battles.
--------
BY WALTER C. KELLY.

"Nine-tenths of our present day pugilists do not pay sufficient attention to the numerous fine little details of the game," remarked Bug Slattery to the fans at the Elks' club, last night.

"How do you mean, Brother Slattery?" asked Tommy Delahanty, former ball player.

"They do not devote enough time to study and practice," replied Bug. "The boys nowadays seem to content themselves with their workout bouts while in regular training for a contest. You seldom hear of their going in private and practicing moves or blows to be used in the coming battle. And it's dollars to dimes they never think of practicing at home. When they leave the gymnasium after the regulation grind they are done till they go to the gym next day."

"Would there not be danger of a boxer overworking himself previous to a bout if he practiced at home as well as in the gym?" asked Dr. Kyz.

"Not in the least," snapped the sport philosopher. "A little light practice of the various leads, guards, counters and sidesteps would entail no labor. It could not even be termed light exercise, for the fighter would only go through the movements, so to perfect them, and keep them constantly in mind. If he has no grown brother or friend to practice with at home, he could do so before a mirror with excellent results, for he could see the effect of his every move in the looking glass, and observe every unprotected spot when making his leads. Then he could work out his moves to much better advantage with his sparring parners in the gymnasium next day."

"There's a heap of logic in Mr. Slatter's remarks," said Dr. Downs. "I know that musicians have to do a lot of practicing before they become perfect."

"Yes, and so do stenographers," chimed Frank Swentner. "In order to become proficient at shorthand a person must practice several hours each day. In order to attain high speed this has to be done."

"Very true," concurred Slattery. "Kid McCoy was a seventh-rater when I first met him and introduced him to Parson Davies. The Parson lectured the Kid on the necessity of constant practice, and McCoy did as he was told. He became one of the world's fastest and best fighters. Jim Corbett used to practice three hours a day before he won the championship. All the stars of the old school did it. Johnny Kilbane, Packey McFarland and Jack Britton practice at every opportunity now; that is why they are so speedy and so clever. They realize that fighting is their business, and that they must devote a certain amount of time to it. Men in other lines of work give from six to twelve hours each day to their business. But nothing like that for the average mitt-slinger. To say the least, he appears to be careless. At all events he does not seem to like inconvenience of study and practice. The result is usually a very brief career for such fellows in the fistic world."

"Mr. Slattery, I believe you are right," said Lieutenant John Ruddy.

"I know demned well I'm right," snorted Bug.

 

Duran would definitely find this a much tougher era than the seventies. Of course he'd still be a major force,as h would in ANY era. He would n't be unbeaten at the weight,though. He'd win and lose the title a couple of times.



Roberto would ultimately win more than he'd lose.

 

Wow Armstrong vs. Duran how great would that be. The infighting would be incredible.

Duran would do good in any era even a stacked era like the 40's.

 

To compare fighters from other era's in a fantasy fight is pure conjecture. Sure is !
But purely on sheer dominance of the great Benny Leonard's run through the greatest
assembly of great lightweights he defeated I have to give him the nod of Roberto duran, who truly had very little to beat as a LIGHTWEIGHT...
Here is some of Benny Leonard's great lightweight opponents he whipped whilst holding the lightweight crown for about SEVEN years...
Johnny Kilbane, Johnny Dundee, Freddie Welsh, Charley White, Lew Tendler, Richie Mitchell, Rocky Kansas, Ever Hammer, Joe Welling, Leo Johnson,[ top black lightweight
of his era who made the mistake of mussing up Benny Leonard's brilliantine hair at the start of the bout, and Leonard flattened Johnson in the first rd], all top lightweights many HOFers...Benny Leonard in his day was considered every bit as domineering a lightweight as Ray Robinson was 20 years later as a Welterweight...Roberto Duran did not have nearly as good top lightweights he faced as did Leonard...So on this basis of
longevity as a lightweight [over 200 bouts]. and quality of lightweight opposition I pick Leonard over Duran H2H. Benny was boxing's greatest thinker in the ring, a master boxer
second to none, and a deadly two handed puncher, aLL as a Lightweight....

 

Just remind yourself about the time he was unconscious before he thudded against the mat fighting Hearns.
I have read Benny Leonard is one of the golden age boxers who could arguably by p4p all time. But Duran being a guy we saw live just makes him ever so more real, but he is not going to dominate those eras. Leonard takes him most times. Even the glitzy marketing machine sugar ray had his measure. That is not even the best Leonard in boxing.

 

Briefly after Duran's win over SRL, Ray stated with great difficulty he would now say Duran was the greatest (compared to Benny), however it was in the moment and especially after no mas he never repeated it. Apon his death his widow said that to Ray, Benny was always his favorite.

 

Aside from Benny Leonard, the prime uncuffed Ike Williams who "murdered" Beau Jack
in Philly in 1948, koing Beau in 6 rounds in a fight I saw ringside, would most assuredly
have beaten any "lightweight" version of Roberto Duran, I believe...Ike was tall, lean
and a smaller version of the great Welterweight Ray Robinson that fateful night...
Good enough to whip a prime 147 pounder Kid Gavilan, dropping the Keed in the process...Ike Williams was not as effective over the LW class as Duran was after Roberto became a welterweight, but strictly as a LW [under 135] Ike Williams had to swim with such LW sharks as Beau Jack, Bob Montgomery, Sammy Angott, Willie Joyce, Johnny
Bratton, Freddie Dawson, Wesley Mouzon etc, fighting these guys time and again in
a talent laden group of lightweights Duran as a LW, never had to face...And I would take
the welterweight prime Kid Gavilan [whom Ike] beat once, over the 138 pound Duran
for dang sure...Duran was great but H2H both at 135 pounds or less ,my money is on
Ike Williams the finest lightweight I ever saw H2H...

 

Another point, how would Duran fare fighting every few weeks, because that was a necessity in that age. We have no idea and for that alone we can say that he can't dominate the 40s lightweights.

Just remember, someone believes Sam Peter could dominate every era from Marciano backwards. At least all that fighting would take some weight off that tremendous gut he had. Peter was starting to lose his beard after the fighting the Klits. Imagine after 5 fights against Sam Langford in 2 years plus the rest.

 

Hi Burt, I saw recently you spoke of Sam Taub on the radio when you were kid! I only knew him later through the Ring magazine and sure would have liked to have heard him back in the day too. Thank you for sharing that.

Seeing him on tape only I thought of how Ike reminded me of Sugar Ray also, especially how they both threw those elbow in close left hooks. As a golden glover would I have loved to have been able to fight just a tiny bit like him.