Who is greater? Manny Pac. or Roberto Duran?

Ray was not in his prime. Duran fans want to think he was. He had just won the title half a year before. Prime is usually a few years after winning the title after gaining experience. Ray actually never fought in his true prime. He retired in 1982 before he reached it, but Hearns was probably his closest big fight to his prime.

 

If Duran made that choice he would have made that choice for him in November of 1980 as well as December of 1989, and he couldn't. And then Duran would have made Benitez brawl since most people think Leonard is better than Benitez, but Wilfred outboxed him. Although his fans will be selective and say he was out of shape for the rematch and for the rubber match? Duran gets considerations most boxers do not. Fact is he was 1-5 (0) against the best guys he ever fought. 2 of those losses were to Leonard, who you say he gave him no choice but to brawl.

 

Read exactly what I said the way I typed it. I am giving you guys facts and you aren't giving me much. You guys are not bringing up facts to support Duran. I just want to see why you think he deserves top 10 ATG. Top 30? I will accept, but not top 10.

 

Whatarock, It is not an agenda against him really as much as I never understood how he was rated so high with fans. I saw Roberto as a great self marketer. He played the machisco angle well, and when he won he really knew how to win. Remember when he beat Ray in 1980, he pushed Ray and really people love that stuff. He was a great personality, and that affects how he is rated. A little like Ali.
I can see top 30 PFP for Duran or maybe 20 possibly if you rate his Leonard win, yet the top 5 stuff makes no sense to me. For Top 5 ATG rating ever Duran would have had to beat Leonard in the rematch and then beat Hearns,Hagler and Benitez, and he didn't. Regardless of age or weight or whatever, that is what I think he would have to do.
What I meant by a prime Leonard never fought, I think Ray would have been prime about 1983 or 1984. In the Benitez fight Leonard was great. He was always Leonard, fast with heart etc. But he brawled with Benitez too much-granted Wilfred was a fast great fighter, but Leonard said many times how he couldn't move after the fight he was so sore. I do not think he knew from experience how to land without being in the range of another fighter, as he was with Wilfred or Roberto. Not to say the Leonard of 1981 would have had an easy fight with Wilfred, but he would have probably had an easier fight. I think the Benitez and first Duran fights were lessons for Ray. He learned he didn't have to brawl guys just to land his great combinations. After Duran he learned how to play the mental as well as physical game (since the mental game worked in Duran's favor)and he beat Duran easily. Then with Hearns in 1981 he stayed calm and waited for Tommy to make a mistake. I do not think the Leonard of 1979 or June of 1980 would have beaten Tommy of 1981. He might have been caught brawling too much or taking chances. It is possible that Ray was prime against Hearns in 1981, but I always thought that his prime would have been more like 1983 or 1984 had he stayed active. And he would have only been 27 and 28 years old then. Hearns reached his prime in 1984 against Duran probably, and Tommy was 25 almost 26 then. And Ray and Tommy were always similar in patterns of aging, although Hearns had more physical wear and tear on him than Ray.

 

It is not hate. I have Duran in my avatar. I respect him as he was the 4th man in the 4 greats of the 1980's. What I mention is this talk about him being top 5 ATG. That is a lofty position, and when I see guys like Hearns possibly underrated because he lost to Ray and Marvin, yet had great wins like Cueves, Benitez,Duran and Hill., I wonder why Duran would be rated over him by that much as Duran -top 5 and Hearns about 25 or wherever they rate Tommy, since Tommy's wins were really against better guys than Duran's for titles. If you look at it. That is just my thought. Tommy beat 4 hall of famers in those 4 guys, and 3 of them he won titles at 3 different weight classes.
Simply? I think Duran is overrated because of his win over Leonard in 1980(which he lost 2 fights to Ray later), and Hearns is underated because he lost his two biggest fights. I think this sort of picking and choosing by boxing fans is unfair. I am not sure people know how to rate fighters or records when it comes to Duran.
I think sometimes that Duran knew how to win or market a mediocre win as a great win,and the media did it for him also. Duran marketed well, and people seemed to buy what the media sold them. But I am looking at the record.
Meaning. When he beat Moore or Barkley (mediocre guys in both divisions), somehow people thought he beat Hearns or Hagler. I remember when he beat Barkley, during the fight Gil Clancy said "this proves Duran is one of the greatest fighters who ever lived". How? He was only 38. Old enough, but beating Barkley? There was just this favoritism to Duran. Then Hearns in 1991 beats Virgil Hill who had 10 defenses and was undefeated and 6 years younger than Tommy, and Tommy did not get much acclaim, and we all know Virgil is greater than Barkley. I guess I just think Duran gets credit for certain wins way more than most guys would. Kalambay beat Barkley in 1987, and no one thought it was a great win. Nunn beat Barkley the same year Duran beat him,and no one thought it was a big deal. I just think people should be able to rate a win honestly. Not just because Duran is the one who won.

 

I see your point about the different primes of different fighters. Donald Curry did probably reach his prime when he fought McCrory, although most fighters best performance is usually the time they are judged as having thier prime. Tommy Hearns is rated prime when he beat Duran, and Ray prime when he beat Hearns. Hagler is rated well when he beat Hearns, although most people do not think Hagler had been prime since probably 1982 or 3. Tyson is rated prime when he beat Spinks. So I agree with you that prime is subjective. I just think Ray's prime would have come more about 1983, although he had such tough competition, that could have sped up his decline.

 

I want to respond to this post a little more. You mention how I said I rank Benitez over Duran. I said it could be said he is greater-all subjective but he beat Duran easily and went 15 with Hearns-not an easy feat in 1982. Fact is that what some people on this board rate Duran high for is fighting until he is 50. But Leonard -one of the greatest fighters ever, had a very short career compared to most. His first title fight to his last fight were 10 fights I think or something close to that. Yet in just 10 fights he is top 10 great, and I think Ray deserves it. He beat Benitez,Duran,Hearns,Hagler. That is criteria for great. Beating other greats. Leonard was 5-1-1 and Duran was 1-5. Big difference against the greatest guys they ever fought.