who beat better fighters in their career? Manny Pacman or Roberto Duran?

To those guys who answered Duran because of SRL only, that makes your argument very weak. SRL took back 2 rematches and displayed what should've happened the first time around.

It's still Duran at this point. Based on wins over at lightweight, DeJesus and Buchanan. at 147, Palomino and Cuevas, then at higher weights Moore and Barkley. That's it. Well, the numerous defenses at 135 didn't hurt either.

A fight with Hagler, despite his strong showing is still a loss, and Hearns nearly killed him.

The only way Pac can overtake Duran is a fight with Floyd then Sergio Martinez and winning back-to-back by dominant stoppage.

Otherwise, it's still Duran.

 

I wish there was a site with full breakdown on who achieved what and everything you need to know about the fights.

 

this trumps everything Manny has done

I would LOVE to see Pac vs Hearns. It would shut your dumbass up after you commit suicide

 

probably the best demolition of an all time great by another all time great in boxing history!!!! Duran was the wbc jr welterweight title holder as well as hearns in the wba! Hearns just destroyed him!!!

 

Buchanan better than Hatton is questionable. Dejesus is not better than Morales. Barkley is better than Clottey and Moore better than Margarito? You mean potential because Margarito accomplished more.

 

/thread

 

Log off *****.


Hearns is probably the worst matchup for Manny off all time.


If Joshua gotdamn Clottey can land right hands against Pac, atsch Hearns would decapitate him. Hearns was actually a BOXER, who had range, speed, and power. Similar results... maybe not as quick.

 

I thought only Asero made such terrible threads.

 

I personally think Cotto was a better fighter than the version of Palomino that faced Duran. Likewise, Marcel hadn't really become the full article, whereas Marquez was at his peak.

 

I don't think the version of Cotto that fought Pacquiao was any better than the version of Palomino that fought Duran. Neither guy was really at their absolute peak, but they were both still operating near optimum level.

As for the Marcel thing, yeah, thats a fair point. However, while the stoppage was quick, he was a lot more convincing in his victory over Ernesto than Pacquiao was in his win over Marquez. Throw in that Duran hadn't reached his peak either.

No it's not, and you should know that MAG.

Thus the equal sign.

Barkley is much better than Clottey, obviously, and Duran pulling off the win at that stage of his career is remarkable. Moore was a much better Jr. Middleweight than Margarito, as evidence by his wins over Kalule & Benitez, as opposed to Margarito's Jr. Middleweight success which consists entirely of a win over Roberto Garcia and a loss to Daniel Santos.

Come on MAG.

 

Yeah, Buchanan was probably twice the fighter Hatton was.

Manner of victory is irrelevant in this case. Juan Manuel Marquez is an established great, and he was operating at his best level when Manny Pacquiao defeated him. Marcel was a great fighter, but he won't be remembered as fondly as JMM.

 

so what. I dont know about mag65 but some might say Clottey was just as good as Barklay

 

He won't be remembered as fondly as Arturo Gatti either, it doesn't really mean anything. Marquez of the 2nd Pacquiao fight was better than Marcel of the Duran fight, probably, but it was Duran's 17th pro fight. Sort of like Jones-Hopkins, though obviously not exactly the same thing. Just talking about who was better, I'll take Marcel over JMM.

 

The question is relatively simple. 'Who beat better fighters in their career?' I think JMM was a better fighter in '08 than Marcel was in 1970. You've practically admitted this yourself, so explain to me again why you're taking Marcel over JMM? I find the fact it was Duran's 17th professional fight to be something of a moot point considering Marcel was also relatively inexperianced, and would go on to improve much like Duran did.