Poll.. Who do you rate higher p4p. Roberto Duran or Muhammad Ali?

If Duran really did have to take a **** during Leonard II, would that change anyone's opinion on the fight?

What if he had **** his pants in the ring from those "cramps"? Would that be more or less laughable then quitting?

 

Leonard was in complete control and barely lost a round. Not to mention how it ended. It's not getting dominated a la Holmes-Ali, but he not only lost decisively during his prime, but also in embarrassing fashion.

Now i don't think that one career low should define his entire career, but i do think the fact that Ali never had any of these moments makes him stand apart here.

 

the rounds were no more one-sided than the ones in the first fight that people are willing to say was very competitive for Leonard.They just had a different and vastly more tedious dynamic.

 

Duran gets my vote, especially when I consider that the sole existance of a p4p category is to give recognition to non heavyweights. And one of the main factors to consider is that Ali was often taller and had a reach advantage over his opponents. He was certainly bigger than Frazier for example. Hell he was even taller than Liston.

 

There are some very convincing arguments that Duran may well be deserving of a higher spot on a p4p list than Ali. My problem with many of them however, is that they seem to be centered around the fact that Duran won titles in multiple wieght classes. How can this be held against a natural heavyweight who never had the opportunity to rise in weight, due to the fact that he had hit the ceiling in boxing by starting in its highest weight class?

Furthermore, while some seem to be hitting greatly upon the fact that Duran is a concencus all time great lightweight, it should be equally noted that Ali is commonly listed as the greatest heavyweight champion of all time, and established this reputation by participating in what many consider as the division's greatest era. Muhammad Ali was great at all stages of his career. He brought home a gold medal in his amateur days, was undefeated through his first 30 fights or so, and continued to perservere well past his best.

Duran has very exciting and notable meetings with Ray Leonard, Estaban Dejesus, Ken Buchanan, Thomas Hearns, Wilfred Benitez, Marvin Hagler, Carlos Palamino and Iran Barkley. If these are indeed his best opponents ( and a great list it certainly is ), then his record against them is 6-6-0-3. Not a bad run for anyone I suppose. I will say however, that there are some who might even call it a stretch that Iran Barkley and Carlos Palamino are true all time greats, but considering that Duran was an underdog against a formidable Barkley who had recently sparked Hearns, I think it needs to be listed as an exceptional past prime win. Palomino was a solid welterweight champion. It should further be noted that against Thomas Hearns, Wilfred benitez, and Marvin Hagler, Duran is 0-3. he is 2-1 against Dejesus, 1-2 against Leonard, 1-0 against Barkley, 1-0 against Palamino, and 1-0 against Buchanan.

Muhammad Ali, resoundingly defeated Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, and faced a peak Holmes when he was beyond the point where boxing would be ill advised by any medical professional. His record against these men is a remarkable 7-2-0-6. Where these fighters rank on a p4p basis is all over the board depending on who you talk to, but one thing that seems to be fairly consistant is that Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier, Goerge Foreman, Floyd Patterson and Larry Holmes all seem to be on everyone's top heavyweight list ranging anywhere from #3 to #15. Additionally, Ali was never truly Ko'd, never quit in a fight, and was never beaten by an unranked opponent. The break down looks like this, Ali is 2-0 against Patterson, 2-0 against Liston, 1-0 against Foreman, 2-1 against Frazier and 0-1 against Holmes.

Outside of having fewer fights than a lot of his smaller counterparts, I always find it difficult rating folks above him on any sort of a list. He not only defeated the best of the best, but did it under impossible circumstances and did it during a time when heavyweight boxing at its absolute peak. While Roberto Duran may indeed have the better single win between the two of them against Ray Leonard, ( who's legacy was still a work in progress BTW ), we'd have to go through a few of Ali's greatest opponets before we get to some of Duran's second tier. What is probably more important, is that Ali clearly has the better record against all time great competition. Frankly, it isn't even close. What's more, I fully acknowledge the incredible feat of Duran to climb higher mountains by taking champions of other division's, but Ali had plenty of challenges of his own by taking on men who were predicted to retire him and proving everyone wrong, along with returning from boxing after a 4 year period, to become the division's first 3 time champ.

 

That answer works for me!

 

I thnk Duran was the slightly better fighter so rate him slighty higher.

I couldn't care less who beat the better competition when each fighters competition was excellentin itself.

 

If I had one real criticism of Leonard throughout the New Orleans fight it would be lack of authoritive offense. IMO, thats exactly why he made some of the rounds too close for comfort. His jab was seldom used and his power punches were only thrown briefly during rounds. While he was clearly in control and ahead in the fight, he never dominated Duran convincingly. I do fully understand that while a defensive gameplan was also on the menu for Leonard in the rematch, he could have done what he done with some extras. And thats means letting his hands go and moving simaltenously, often.

Good point.

 

The argument exists for Ali, certainly, and the basis for that argument is, as you said, that he ultimately came out with a better record against the elites he faced.

You can't hold it against Ali for not having success through several divisions like Duran did because there was no way he could, but you can't overlook that Duran did have such success and bring it up in the comparison. Would Ali have beaten bigger, top level opponents? Maybe, or maybe not. We know Duran could. As we can't hold Ali's lack of multi-weight success against him, how much weight can we put on Duran's losses to Hagler, Hearns, even Benitez and Leonard? How does Ali do against a fighter of the level of Hagler who is that much bigger than him? If he had faced fighters of the quality of Hagler, Leonard, Hearns, and Benitez, all of whom being bigger than him, and all while he was already past his true prime, how would his record look? The fact that Duran came out with a less impressive record against the elites he faced isn't a fair basis for comparing them given the circumstances he was in. IMO, only two of his losses were in his prime, DeJesus I and Leonard II. He had beaten both of these men, one of whom was a bigger man and flat-out greater fighter than anyone Ali ever faced.

I think their resumes are comparable, and of pretty similar quality, so what else is there to look at? Ali has the notion that he was the clear-cut best in the greatest era of the history of his division, although he does have some questionable wins on his ledger. Duran was the clear-cut best at 135 in a pretty good era, beat a top 3 all-time fighter in a division above his own best, and has other multi-weight success, which isn't being held against Ali, but must add to Duran's legacy. Looking at that, Duran should be ahead IMO, so it depends on how much you take from Duran for quitting. For me, it comes down to the idea that while he did quit, he proved in other bouts that he wasn't of the mindset of a quitter. He didn't quit in tough fights such as Leonard I, Hagler, or Barkley, and he didn't quit when he was'nt ahead and in control for the whole time in fights such as DeJesus I and II and Hagler. I don't hold Duran's one quit-job in 119 fights, as shameful as it was, against him enough to place Ali higher, although it makes it very close.

 

I go back and forth on this issue often. I have these two sandwiched between Ezzard Charles in 5th and Mickey Walker in 8th, and I keep changing between Duran and Ai for 6th and 7th.

Right now, I think McGrain has hit the nail on the head with his post.

 

Only one IMO, Leonard. He wasn't anywhere near his prime in 1972. Some people claim Duran's prime suddenly ended after the last bell sounded in Montreal. Thats arguable as the rematch was only 5 months later. With all that said, he was closer to his prime for the Leonard rematch than the first De Jesus fight, when was nowhere near his prime. Damn excellent, but not the finished article.

 

Regarding the Duran-Leonard rematch..it just wasnt the destruction everyone seem to make it out and anyone who has seen the fight could not come to that conclusion IMO.

Leonard was only just ahead on the scorecards..Ray was moving a lot and trying to engage Duran less then he did in their first fight but he just wasnt that effective. He clearly frustrated Roberto but his taunting and moving wasnt scoring him points and he certainly was throwing or landing enough to be considered as dominant as people seem to make out.
Roberto was quiet and patient..there were times he put Ray on the ropes and went to work, he certainly did not look as comfortable as he did in the first fight but aside from the abrupt capitulation I really didnt see a one-sided beatdown overall..Might have been heading that way but for those 7 1/2 rounds I did not see that.

 

too close duran accomplished more but ali is timeless

 

Personally, I think people are somewhat too "forgiving" to Duran for some of the losses he had. I think Duran gets something of a free pass for kinds of losses that other fighters would be ripped a new @$$hole for. His quit job to Leonard was one of the most inexcusably disgraceful losses I've ever seen. He wasn't really getting beat up or punished, or even that far behind, but that alone was enough to make him quit. In losing to Benitez, he lost to another fighter like himself that had come up several weight classes from his best weight. Granted that Benitez still had a bit of an advantage in that fight, being younger and having come up one less weight class, but it was not quite the advantage that some people make it out to be. Then of course there was the shocking blow-out by Hearns, whose power had actually seemed to have lessened since moving up to 154 (something people forget when they claim Hearns hit harder at 154 than anywhere else).

Duran has two particularly shocking "comeback" wins late in his career, vs. Moore and Barkley, that rightly rank among the most surprising comeback performances ever, and a large part of his legacy is derived from that. However, there's two ways of looking at those fights: on one hand, it was impressive that a guy could lose like he did to Leonard, Benitez, and Laing and then come back and beat Moore, but at the same time it's the fact that he had those three embarrassing losses that put him in the underdog's role in the first place.

No question Duran had arguably the biggest achievements of any lightweight champ above the weight (Henry Armstrong being the only one who can rival him) - but does that automatically mean he was the best lightweight ever? I've always had questions about that as well. To me, he did not fully develop his skills until just before he left the weight; and while his competition there was respectable, he did not really face a great variety of styles among his opponents. Most of his opponents down there were just slick boxers but not really punchers - Buchanan, Marcel, Fernandez, Viruet, Suzuki, Thompson, etc. In most cases, Duran only needed to walk right in and maul and bully his way to a win. The one standout boxer-puncher he fought, DeJesus, he had his hands full with. We never saw how the lightweight Duran would handle someone who could match his strength on the inside, or could test his body, the way someone like Ike Williams, Armstrong, Chavez, or perhaps even Pernell Whitaker might. Personally, I feel a few questions were left open about him down at 135. Now, it's tempting to look at his wins over Palomino and Leonard and say, "If he can do that up here, he must surely have been the best ever down at 135!" But IMO Duran for most of his reign at 135 did not have the range of skills that he used to beat those guys up at 147. I feel even though he was probably above his best weight class at 147, technically speaking he was at the top of his form. Likewise, you see Duran slugging it out with Barkley up at 160 and assume his chin must've been undentable back down at 135. And yet he was twice dropped by DeJesus, one of the better punchers he fought at that weight but not really that big of a puncher in and of himself; and in their 3rd fight Duran showed ultra respect for his power and actually changed his whole style and boxed him from long range. Is it possible that Duran, being more slender of build down at 135, did not take a punch quite as well as he did above the weight? I'm not trying to claim his chin was questionable at 135 by any means, but at the same time do we know for certain what would happen if it was, say, Ike Williams or Benny Leonard who landed that blow on his chin in place of DeJesus? Would Duran be able to adjust all the same, or would those guys be even better suited to shut him down than DeJesus was?

 

I saw just the other day the last time, and while it wasn't a beat down it was more or less a schooling IMO. Leonard countered Duran and landed some good stuff inside when Duran came rushing in. He kept him off balance most of the time and dictated where and when exchanges were to be made, and got the better out of just about every exchange.

It reminds me of Clay-Liston in a way, because Leonard, just as Clay, mainly used the first 5 rounds to take control and impose his own rythm, and then started working in earnest.