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

Praise God for that.

 

You’ve said this numerous times. And you can keep saying it.

You know that Floyd didn’t fight guys who were as good, and you’ve admitted yourself that Floyd couldn’t have retired undefeated had he have fought Duran’s opponents.

So Floyd’s stats can only count for so much.

But around and around we go, because you can’t admit that you’re wrong, and you can’t allow for any context or circumstances.

You’ve been slapped all around the forum for almost 50 pages now.

Regarding Canelo-Barkley, I don’t think that Canelo would have had a field day with him. Certainly not the version who Floyd fought in 2013.

However, it wouldn’t matter if he could have done. Because you thinking that doesn’t mean that Floyd’s win over Canelo was better than Duran’s win over Barkley.

That’s not how you objectively rate a win.

 

Is he better H2H?

Floyd has never seen anyone as great as a prime Duran.

Duran beat Leonard at 147.

Again, Floyd has never seen anyone that great.

So nobody knows exactly how Floyd would have fared against Duran and Leonard, but they would both have been favoured over him.

Duran beat Barkley. And Barkley would have been a terrible stylistic match up for Floyd.

Duran got blasted out by Hearns, but Floyd wouldn’t have beaten Hearns. The best he could have hoped far was to have survived.

Duran gave a prime Hagler a great fight for 12 rounds. Again, another guy who Floyd had never seen.

So there’s nothing obvious at all about what you’ve written.

It’s not likely that Floyd would have beaten Duran, Leonard, Hearns, Hagler and Barkley.

The only thing that we know for certain, is that Floyd was always in great shape, as he was much more professional and disciplined than what Duran was.

 

This just highlights your complete lack of knowledge.

Once again, you can’t apply context.

Once again, you can’t allow for circumstances.

All you do is compare stats.

You simply have NO IDEA how to rate a win.

It’s just simply completely above your level.

There’s many factors that you’ve not even considered.

Canelo WAS NOT an ATG back then. He wasn’t the fighter that he is today. It was a version of Canelo who’d barely beaten Lara and Trout back then. So, no. Floyd didn’t beat a HOF/ATG fighter. He fought a FUTURE HOF/ATG fighter. And that makes a difference when you rate a win. Because everything makes a difference.

Now due to his age, Floyd deserves tremendous credit for his performance. Great credit. But although it was a great performance, we have to note that it was made at a completely unnecessary C-W. So that takes some of the shine off of the win. And although Floyd was at a significant weight disadvantage, he was the same height, but with a bigger reach. We then have to look at the stylistic match up. Stylistically, it was an easy match up for Floyd.

We then do the same for Duran. And we know that Duran had no business being at MW, and certainly not at his age. We then look at the huge size disparity. Duran was a tiny guy of 5’7, who had a very small 67” reach, whereas Barkley was a huge powerhouse at MW, who had huge advantages in height, reach and strength. You can go and compare them. We then look at the stylistic match up that Barkley presented him with.

We then look at the degree of difficulty for both fights.

We look at the risk factor.

The overall value of the wins.

Again, Floyd gets huge credit. But he only gets credit for easily beating a 2013 Canelo with ease. Not the versions who we see today at SMW and LHW.

Although Barkley wasn’t an ATG/HOF fighter that Canelo has become, to me and most other members, Duran beating Barkley was a bigger feat, as it was simply a much more dangerous challenge.

Yes, Canelo won easily, whereas Duran’s win was close. But again, that’s because it was just a much tougher proposition. It was just a harder fight for Duran. It was a much tougher stylistic match up, against a guy who dwarfed him in size.

So all things considered, it’s Duran who holds the better win.

 

This is all opinions, and its clear how much you hate those.

Instead of trying to change the subject, why don't you actually address some of the points I've made.

 

Mayweather was favored to beat Canelo, while Duran was the underdog vs. Barkley.

 

Let’s hope that Georgie doesn’t use any big words for you.

 

You're correct Thompson wasn't ranked at LWW in 72, though Mastrangelo didn't claim he was. He said Thompson was ranked there in 73 and I think its safe to assume he specifically meant when Hector fought Duran.

Thompson entered the Ring's LWW rankings when he beat #7 ranked Joe Tettah on 26th March 1973, which was the fight before Thompson fought Duran.

 

From the first post you completely avoided, I'd like to know how on Earth you came to the conclusion that Janitor believes Kirkland Laing was better than Canelo. I'd also like to see what rebuttal you have to the point of Duran fighting the best at their best (namely Benitez, Leonard, Hearns and Hagler), while Floyd fought opponents when they were either before or after their primes (namely Canelo, Mosley, De La Hoya and Pacquiao).

From the second post, I'd like to know what justification for using the categories in the OP you have, because other than specifically searching for an argument for Pacquiao and Mayweather over Duran, I can't see one. I'd also like to know why you keep on referring to losses, when the subject of this thread is about resume, not total accomplishments. Therefore, I see no reason to even bring a single loss from Duran or Pacquiao's career into conversation. Surely the debate is one of who each guy beat?

And finally, you asked me to present my own categories. I actually did earlier in the thread. Twice in fact. Who did each person beat, and how good were they at the time? I see no reason to use anything other than these two categories and work from there on a case by case basis.