I believe that Roberto Duran is the greatest if not one of the greatest lightweight champs ever, possibly rivaled by only Carlos Ortiz. I've thought so ever sin the 70's, when Roberto reigned supreme in the 135 lb. class. However, that much said, I believe also that Duran is what I would consider overrated as a welter and certainly as a middle. His accomplishments in both those classes are impressive, perhaps none so much as the June '80 victory over Leonard, but it was also a feat for him to win titles against Moore and Barkley as well. His loss to Hagler in '83 by 15 round decision is one where he's given credit for, but I think Hagler was just having an off-night and if rematched, would probably have stopped Duran, or at the very least improved greatly on his previous performance as he usually did in rematches. Duran was embalmed outright against Hearns and totally outclassed by Benitez, as well as having been soundly outpointed by Kirkland Laing. At welterweight, Jose Napoles would have been the master of Duran, as was Benitez was at junior middle and Leonard was in subsequent rematches with Roberto. Napoles was physically and stylistically somewhat like Esteban DeJesus, except far superior in every way to the Puerto Rican who rivalled Duran in their trilogy from '72-thru-'78. The what-if fight here in question is Emile Griffith vs. Roberto Duran...what are your thoughts on this one? I think the more natural and accomplished middle in this case is Griffith. I know that he jumped from Welter to Middle, but I think he became a solid Middleweight and while champ in that division he refined his style as that of a technician, rather boring perhaps to the tastes of modern fans of more flashy-type fighters, and nonetheless misunderstood and underrated unjustly for that reason. I think that he would have edged Duran with his more solid skills over the fabled 15 round limit which he was so familiar with, and would have done his technician's job quite well of turning back the challenge of Roberto Duran, who would have found Griffith to be quite another story from the likes of Davey Moore and Iran Barkley.
I, too, think Duran is a little bit too high rated at welter and middleweight. Griffith was one hell of a welterweight, one of the best ever, and he was a fine middleweight as well. Pound for pound Duran ranks a bit higher, but in a fight i'd back the bigger Griffith here, by decision. Griffith may not have a single win as great as the one Duran has over Leonard, but he has a truckload of very good wins, plus he doesn't have the abortion of the Leonard rematch.
This is a tough one and I personally think it needs split out not only by weight but timeframe. I think the Welterweight Griffith prior to the Paret tradegy was an amazing fighter and would edge out "Montreal" Duran. The Welterweight Griffith post Paret never had the same fire and I believe "Montreal" Duran would beat that Griffith. Above 147, I think Duran seriously lost some mobillity and that Griffith beat better fighters. I'd take Griffith above 147 by decision. All respect to Duran that we even have these discussions 12 to 25 lbs above his best weight.
Duran is underrated as a welterweight. His work at middleweight is the result of a truly transcendent boxer. That being said, a fight between Duran and Griffith would be a close and interesting one. It's hard to pick a winner, since Griffith will likely rise to meet Duran's intensity. But there is a limit to Griffith's Zin, and Duran could be as intense as anyone. Watching Duran dismantle Palomino and dominate Leonard, I couldn't pick against him if he brought his game.
Griffith also beat Dick Tiger (the 1st fight was disputed, but I think he eked it out), and he had a 10 lb weight disadvantage as well. I don't think that Duran could handle Tiger. What Griff lacked in fire and passion, and punching power, he made up for it with a detached, "ring mechanic's type style, and he was very strong as well.
I don't believe at welter that Napoles is the "master" of Duran, but to each their own opinion. I'd take the version of Duran that beat Palomino and Leonard over Jose Napoles, in a close and vicious fight for the ages. Strangely enough, Napoles might have been a better lightweight than Duran! I'll continue to maintain that Duran was the more capable fighter at higher weights than Napoles. I do not see Napoles being able to compete with a Hagler or Barkley at middle. Styles make fights...and in Emile Griffith, with his style,skill and physical strength he gives Duran fits at the higher weights. Griffith was such an experienced and consistant operator, I think only the Duran who was mentally and physically at his zeinth, during the first Leonard fight would have been able to beat a Emile Griffith by decison. Other than that, Griffith would generally decision Duran at welter, and capture a wider decison at middle.
Some of you guys really need to put things into fair perspective. A lot of these points are just glib. I think Griffith is capable of pulling it off, much like he's capable of pulling off a win over Basilio, but due to his tendancy to spend too much time at mid to close range and box with an up-right, tidy style, I'd favor Duran to out-work him in close.
Griffin would beat Duran by a close UD, but if Roberto finds out Emile's orientation, it's a wrap.Then it would be Duran by ninth round TKO.
Duran would beat Griffith at 147 but probably lose out at 154 and 160, but even then it'd be close. Damn you thinblack you thin blacked me
Griffith would lower Duran's workrate in close IMO. He was tremendously strong and a stifling man to face. Neither man is hurting each other, Duran has the edge in feet IMO, but Emile imposes his game just that bit more.