Who was the greatest fighter out of the fabulous 4?

Duran did not start out as a LW. He began his pro career 1lb above BW.

Was Duran worse at WW than he was at LW in absolute terms? No.

Was Duran worse at WW relative to other WWs, than he was at LW relative to other LWs? Yes, because unlike at WW, he wasn't typically smaller than other LWs.

With respect, the distinction you seem to be struggling to make, is that it's possible for a fighter to compete at a weight division during their prime, or even on their very best night, where they are smaller than the other elite fighters that compete in that division and not as effective as they were at lower weights. This was true of Mickey Walker's exploits at at HW just as it is of Duran's at WW.

 

Crazy that Duran already had 72 fights under his belt before facing Ray - already heading up toward Ray’s career total. That’s a wealth of experience but also a lot of potential wear/tear.

He was at his P4P best at LW - his career in that division, despite its length and domination, probably not so well advertised compared to his later, upper division matches against the marquee names.

Not here but elsewhere, it’s almost as if some fans believe Duran’s career started at WW.

In rationalising that Duran’s best performance was likely at WW vs Leonard in Montreal, perhaps it can be viewed as the challenge of moving up and the quality of Leonard bringing out the best ever seen in Duran.

Not that Duran wasn’t necessarily a better fighter at LW - he was in P4P terms imo, rather, his full potential at LW simply wasn’t tapped as much as it was against Ray Leonard - which was just the one fight vs a long career at LW at any rate.

Not easy to word the concept but I hope that makes some sense.

Just on Ray, even with the hiatus, I don’t know that he would’ve carried the same durability and longevity as Duran if he had that many more fights under his belt.

Suffice to say, it was come backing Ray who, addressing the potential disadvantages of his inactivity, sagaciously highlighted that while he was out of the game, Hagler continued to endure that much more wear and tear in his fights during the interim.

Imo, in complement to Leonard’s amazing recapture of himself, that wisdom certainly figured in Rays eventual victory over Marvin.

 

It makes perfect sense, Pug.

A simple concept is at the heart of this discussion. It's possible for a boxer to contest a fight(s) staged above their best weight division, against a bigger opponent, whilst being at their career best. This describes the Duran from SRL 1.

 

So Golovkin beat the "best version" of Kell Brook and Canelo the best version of Khan and Charlo? They ate Burgers in camp and had all kinds of energy, probably never felt better getting in the ring.

I dont see it. You have to compare to the opposition. Which is now much bigger naturally and can handle the power amd strength

 

As you are already aware, Contro:

Yes, GGG beat the best ever version of Brook in absolute terms.

But Brook, who was naturally smaller than GGG to a broadly similar degree that Duran was naturally smaller than SRL, was a better WW relative to other WWs, than he was MW relative to other MWs, due to size.

 

I won't be commenting further on this Greg because I think all avenues have been exhausted, but I respect your opinion that Duran was the greatest of the Fab Four. He was indeed greater at LW by virtue of his sustained dominance there, but it's still my belief that Ray Leonard encountered and defeated one of the very best versions of Duran that ever existed, regardless of weight division.

I think the examples you have provided here are grossly incomparable to Duran vs Leonard I.

 

Personally, I felt Duran's best ever performance is Dejesus 3. His sharpness and the upset in the super fight in montreal will always get the nod from people, but it isn't that definitive.

 

The Duran that showed up in New Orleans was far from the best version of him.

 

I think Duran, but wouldn’t disagree with anyone stating SRL. Duran’s most impressive body of work was complete after Montreal. From there everything else was just cream and cherries on top.

 

He was 6 months removed from what many consider to have been the single greatest fighter that has ever lived.

I put very little stock in the excuses afforded to Duran here, which are unfortunately designed to both absolve Duran of responsibility for having lost, but more cynically deny Leonard the credit for having defeated the man that took his 0.

 

No problem if you don't wish to comment further, you haven't addressed anything I've said though.

All you keep saying is Duran was prime for SRL 1. I've paid you the courtesy of addressing this view multiple times by telling you that I agree.

What you haven't addressed, either to state you agree or disagree, are my claims that Duran was:

1) Smaller than SRL; and
2) Better at LW relative to other LWs, than he was at WW relative to other WWs, due to his natural size;

 

I agree on both points, Greg.

 

I would agree had Leonard also said so. But Leonard also admitted that he wasn't ready. Turning a blind eye to this is as much an excuse for SRL as it may be considered for Duran.

 

Leonard also suggested he lost in Montrael because he fought the wrong fight.

Do you agree with this also? If not, why not?

 

He didn't fight the way he did in New orleans, so you can definitely make an argument. Although Leonard fought the way he did in Montreal much more often than the way he did in New Orleans.

Besides, that isn't equivalent to Leonard admitting their rematch tactics. One explains his loss, the other takes away credit from him. One was made right after he lost, the other 30 years later.