Myth: Roberto Duran has a better resume than Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao.

i love the talk.

i just never put much stock in the results.

i think 49+1 and 0 beats what duran or manny did resume wise, if you disagree with me i have no argument that you are wrong.(unless you say really silly ****)

 

We’ve now established at last, that Duran fought better fighters than what Floyd did.

Leonard 1 and 2, as well as Hearns and Hagler, were better than anyone Floyd ever faced.

Also, had Floyd have fought those guys, he’d never have retired unbeaten.

 

It doesn’t matter if he was 1-3.

Floyd never ever faced those kinds of challenges. And if he had’ve done, we both know for sure that the stat of 50-0 simply wouldn’t exist.

 

So the conclusion you came to after said implication was that Janitor believes Laing was better than Canelo?

You don't have to rephrase what he wrote, I can read the post myself.

You know full well that when Janitor said Duran fought the most dangerous opponents at their most dangerous, he was referring to the first two Leonard fights, Benitez, Hagler and Hearns. Laing is an inclusion you added because the only slight on Duran's resume are his losses. His wins are far and away greater, and it's obvious to literally every single person who has posted in this entire, 45 page thread except you.

And you also know full well, that while Mayweather fought excellent opposition, he absolutely fought a very young Canelo, who was in no way the fighter he'd grow to be; and you know full well his wins over guys like Pacquiao, De La Hoya, and Mosely, are over them when they were past their prime.

Asking if Canelo is better than Laing is nothing but a poor and lazy attempt at a strawman. No sane person to ever exist has truly believed that Kirkland Laing is better than Canelo.

 

I consider the first and second Leonard fights cancel each other out. Legacy-wise. Therefore, this is actually very, very close.

 

Post 1 of this thread is an arbitrary selection of categories, chosen by YOU, based on arbitrary rankings and tallied together. Post 1 of this thread values Duran's win over Leonard as equal to Mayweather's over Baldomir. Post 1 of this thread is among the most ridiculous ideas I've ever seen. As seen by the fact that in 45 pages, you can count the people who've agreed with you on one hand.

No, Leonard is Duran's greatest win and is the entire reason this is a preposterous question. Take away Duran's win over Leonard, and he and Floyd have very similar level résumés and this is a very good debate. Also, if we're talking about resume, Duran quitting in the rematch is completely irrelevant. The fact is Duran has a clear win over a prime Sugar Ray Leonard on his resume. No mental gymnastics will change that.

Nice to see you avoid the entire post btw. Good job.

 

I will say, credit to NoNeck, he has found the only method of evaluating a resume where Mayweather would rank over Duran. It's a shame it's the most ridiculous logic I've ever seen.

 

This isn't a question of legacy, it's a question of resume. Ie: who each guy beat. Not who each guy lost to, not which guy went undefeated, not which guy reigned the longest. None of them.

It is solely a question of who beat better fighters, and the answer is Duran.

 

Listen, I get that you're a "tough guy" like a really rough one. Probably came into this thread with your chest puffed out. I get it. I lived that life. I grew up.