Who's greater - Roy Jones Jr. or Roberto Duran ?

Your point being?

Good, now compare their losses and the decisiveness of their wins.

 

Not seen these?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN6042XXKME[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0zW3fitWNs[/ame]

 

Well, apparently, allegedly, Mayweather is going back into another retirement period and doesn't want to fight for the rest of the year, despite Pacquiao agreeing to the 14-day limit (and apparently, allegedly, a smaller purse split). But now there are rumours that Mayweather is negotiating to fight Cotto instead. All very disheartening.

 

Duran > Leonard, do you think any different?

Leonard KO'd by a featerfisted Camacho, who was smaller, weaker etc...

Leonard was way past prime, but Camacho was not prime either.

Can you see Duran being KO'd by a smaller, weaker, featherfisted former BW fighter? I for one cannot, but your hero Leonard was, was he not?

 

Irrelevant for this topic.

What? Tarver wasn't even on the list of wins.

As for the Glen Johnson KO, that was against a way declined Jones. Duran suffered defeats while closer to his prime.



Plus, Jones had more success at higher weight classes. Sure, Duran was great at lightweight. At welterweight, he beat Leonard, but then gave him back the title in the rematch because his tummy hurt. Didn't recapture the title. Climbs up to an other weightclass and lost to Laing and Benetiz. Got knocked out by Hearns. Lost to Hagler. Outside of Leonard and Palomino, there are few significant fighters he beat at 147 or higher. Moore was decent, but nothing special. Compare him to Lou del Valle as one of Jones' victims. Same goes for Barkley, whom he just managed to get by.

Jones, on the other hand, was untouchable in a higher weight class for 8 years and then stepped up to the highest weight class and easily beat a title holder there. By this time he was 34 and declining as a boxer, but altogether that is way more impressive than what Duran did above 135.

 

Bump

 

Are you dense?

1. You're off topic.

2. The topic you want to go to has been done to death.

3. Get the **** out of here.

 

This thread's still going on? The correct answer is still DURAN!!!

 

These are some of their losses suffered, which was a point of comparison you brought up.

Such as? The only comparably embarassing defeat I can think of is the loss to Laing, which was far less decisive and possibly a showing worthy of the Duran of the late nineties.

Firstly, what Jones gains as a weight jumper he loses in quality at each weight. He never won a lineal title but instead filled his trophy-case with paper straps; even at 175 he arguably never beat the man who got there first in DM. Duran was undisputably the man at 135 for seven years and fought pretty much everybody there was to fight. Apart from ducking Ortiz and a rematch with Buchanan, he cleaned the place out. Jones never came close to doing that at any of his weights, apart from 175.

Secondly, I wouldn't even agree that Jones had more success at higher weights. See below.

:rofl Gold. Moore was a genuinely world-title-level offensive fighter, if defensively lacking, at least a level above Del Valle, who basically spent the whole night running against Jones IIRC. If you want to criticise the win you can criticise the thumbing incident in the first round that may have affected Moore's performance.

Barkley > Ruiz, for instance. And Duran achieved that at roughly the same point in his career as Jones was getting layed out cold by B and C-levellers in his.

So you think Jones run at 175 and beating Ruiz was better than beating Leonard, Palomino, Moore, Barkley, arguably beating Hagler etc. etc.?

 

Classic is just filled with knee-slappers today.

 

This content is protected

 

Duran fought a much greater level of competition ...

 

Embarrassing yourself again I see.

 

Both are ATGs, but the answer is Duran, and it's not a very close call.