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

Yey ok:roll: Why dont you give me your address.

 

^lol
I've heard this **** before.

 

Dude get real i got kids,you must be a silly stalker,it still stands what i said about the quiter Duran,but maybe you might run into me 1 day,then i'll show you especially since you asked for my address,I'll never forget that or you.:vonnecunt:ko:gun

 

I put my house and car on a first round KO, not even fair, it's like Hatton going up against a couple of pies (Toney going up against a wopper, USA version).

 

^ So your riding his tip huhh.....i didnt really think they had cheerleaders in Boxing or fighting,i thought that was basketball and football,what color skirt do you want?lol

 

You better recognize fool:twisted:........... Gesta knows im with the buisness:yep

 

Duran.

 

I mean buisness meself,but i dont need any cheerleaders...:smoke:bbb

 

It's funny, people think that every one is a keyboard warrior like them, but on a boxing forum there are going to be boxers, of some sorts here.

So why would they try to be hard?

They come up with stupid thoughts in their heads 'you don't know me I could be a killer'. at the end of the day they are just lying to themselves.

 

You have to make excuses for the Italians don't you Pete?

Seriously though, no, it was a different Robinson who'd rolled back the clock 8 years.

 

Hmm, Benitez didn't particularly, Laing?

The "Duran had trouble with movers" thing is not untrue but tends to get blown out of proportion on here. He decimated Buchanan, beat solid B-levelers in Viruet and Fernandez and also decisioned Gonzalez pretty handily pre-Leonard at 147 IIRC.

 

There's no way Roberto Duran is ****ing top 5. Outrageous. Top 15 is reasonable. Robinson, Armstrong, Greb, , Ali, Langford, Charles, Pep, Louis, B. Leonard, Moore, Ray Leonard and Whitaker should all be ranked above him for a start. Arugments can be made for Hearns and Hagler being above him too in my opinion. So overrated.

 

Well, if you consider that Jones was shot at that point, while Duran had only just started his higher-weight career, then the former certainly is worse.

I don't dispute that Duran's lightweight work is more impressive than Jones' lightheavyweight adventure. However, one must not forget that 135 was Duran's natural weight division, while Jones' was not 175.

[quotitrymariti]
Don't be so ridiculous. One performance, no matter how terrible, can't magically "cancel out" a great win, as much as you'd like to believe that it would. Again, your bias shines through. I give both fighters credit for a great win. You only give one credit.
[/quote]

Don't put words into my mouth. I never said his quit job cancels out the win over Leonard. What I said was: "Duran has one fantastic win over Leonard, but negates much of that success by the embarrassing quit job in the rematch.". While he beat Leonard in a spectacular first fight, he failed to end up on top after having fought him twice (and thrice).

As I said, if you erase Duran's losses from history, then yes, his 140lbs+ accomplishments might outshine Jones' at 168lbs+ - but even that is debatable.

Yeah but the thing here is that Jones was completely shot at that point, while Duran had a good share left.

If you want to discount Duran's losses past, say, Hearns, or even past Leonard I, then fine. But you should be fair and also exclude his wins past that point then. Can't have it both ways.

Irrelevant and a strange attempt to undo this discussion from its context. We were specifically talking about their accomplishments above natural weight classes, and when I bring arguments, you make a clowning remark that fools the basis of the discussion which you started first place.

How about the fact that he was a 12 fight novice? Using his face for defence? A titlist in an era of split titles? Not a significant boxer if we look at the bigger picture of the division?

Ruiz was ranked for seven years and unlike Barkley, cracked the top2 of the ratings. I know, that's a sad point in history, but it happened nevertheless.

The implicit assumption that we're only considering them in their primes has been made long ago. Otherwise we'd have to include Duran's losses to the likes of Robbie Sims, Pat Lawlor, Pazienza, Joppy, etc.

As soon as you say: I'm going to include his wins over Moore & Barkley, but discount concurrent losses to Benetiz, Hearns, Laing, Leonard 2x and Hagler, you're not making a fair assessment.


It's like saying Corrie Sanders is a great fighter because he beat a prime Wladimir Klitschko, but his losses to Vitali and Rahman don't count because he was past and before his prime, respectively. That doesn't fly.

Duran fans are so sensitive. When I look at Duran vs Buchanan, I see a furious, fast, skilled fighter taking apart a very good opponent. Anyone watching that fight, being told "hey, you see that young dynamo thrashing the Scott? He's not in his prime, you know!" would be laughed at.

There's a difference between being in your prime and at the the peak of your powers.

 

Duran was not shot but very clearly past it, despite training very hard and being highly motivated.

Yes.

In what sense can a loss "negate" a win? Duran's performance in the first fight was not a fluke. It was one of the greatest achievements ever in the sport.

What certainly isn't debatable is who has the greater achievements overall.

How much you have left is determined by how you perform. The Duran that fought Laing was as much of a shell as Jones was in any of the shattered glass episodes. The fact that he went on to perform well after that doesn't change anything.

Nobody's "discounting" anything. When a fighter is past prime it's understandable that they are going to perform inconsistently. Do we just knock off all of Robinson's post-Maxim achievements because he happened to have several bad nights out at that stage of his career? Of course not.

Well why should we just be talking about higher-weight accomplishments? Bringing that up exclusively is a viciously circular move that just disregards Duran's best achievements, taking the debate to a more competitive area for the sake of giving Jones a life-line. Like I said, the main point is this: Duran's achievements are vastly superior as a whole.

What does this have to do with anything? "Toney was weight-drained." Who gives a ****? It was a great win.

Barkley was more gangster than Ruiz. Or are we actually going to talk about who was better now?

Oh really? So in considering Duran's prime you saw fit to bring up his losses to Laing and Hearns? So according to you Duran's prime lasted 17 years and stretched across five weight divisions?

Again, this "discounting" bollocks. Are we "discounting" Robinson's loss to Fullmer in giving him credit for beating Basilio?

If Jones beat Chad Dawson tomorrow, what would you say about it? Would you give him no credit (or actually detract from his legacy) because to do so would be to "discount his losses"? Or would you acknowledge that the man put in an astonishing past-prime performance, and give him credit for turning back the clock in whatever respect to achieve a great win? Anybody sensible would do the latter.

Yes, it was a great pre-prime performance.

Start a poll in Classic: "Was Duran in his prime vs. Buchanan?" You will be the one laughed at.

Of course, but "prime" still has a relatively exclusive meaning. As I have pointed out to you before, there was a clear maturation in both Duran's physical arsenal and skillset in the '70s which only someone ignorant of the footage or completely blinded by bias would ignore. I don't know which applies to you.

 

Benitez didn't move that much no, actually it was surprising how easily he outpunched himThe thing is Benitez was a speedster and was a lot sharper and faster than Duran even if he wasn't moving much.

I've never said he had trouble with movers or slicksters at 135. He did once he moved up tho.