Ali or Duran: who was the best of the two p4p?

You write compelling posts SH89. I particularly like the final paragraph quoted below. It holds the reasons I admire Duran so much.

I would add though, the Ali's superior size over many (but not all) of his opponents does not faze me. I have written on here many times about scaling laws.

Because of scaling (muscle strength scales to the square of its cross sectional area, whereas mass scales to the cube of cross sectional area) large size starts to have pay-offs in terms of reduced mobility. These pay-offs don't apply in the niche divisions (bigger IS better), so Duran's weight jumping accomplishments are truly remarkable - they can be taken at face value.

However, my own perception is that these pay-offs hit home around the HW division, such that being bigger is not necessarily better. When I consider Ali in P4P arguments I find it more revealing to scale him down to LW, where his speed, reflexes and fleetness of foot should be INCREASED (in ones imagination) accordingly. Imagine that!!

To finish - Duran was a genius, no doubt in my mind. But like many geniuses he veered towards insanity every now and then...

 

Excellent. I had to read it twice to fully appreciate it!

 

Ali just edges Duran, barely.

 

Hardly a spot between them.

 

Very close one to call. I go for Ali because his resume is better. After his exile he came back to beat Frazier,Foreman and Norton. Apart from Ray Leonard,Duran's post prime opponents,whom he beat,don't match up to those three.

 

How can anyone say Duran is close to Ali. Ali fought and beat greats and Duran did not. What would get him that high ranking? Beating Leonard in the first fight, but losing the following two fights by lopsided scores?
Ali beat Liston,Foreman,Norton, Frazier. Duran beat Leonard and lost to Hearns,Benitez,Hagler,Leonard. How is it close. What I say here isn't even brilliant stuff since what I am saying is basic. Ali beat better guys. Duran did fight the greats that is for sure and deserves a good ranking, but not 1-10. No way.. Of the greats, he didn't beat them. And the thing is people on ESB say MAG is going to say his same old BS, but logically with what we have as far as resume-what ranks Duran so high? One fight? and if Duran is ranked top 10, where does that rank Leonard? He would have to be number one ATG ever. And when Duran beat him in 1980 before Ray was a superfighter, that was the same great Leonard who beat Duran in the rematch and beat Hearns? I mean Ray is over Duran if you look at the h2h fight they had. That is like saying Norton beat Ali in the first fight, so regardless of Ali beating Norton the final two times, Norton came out ahead. yet that was when Ali was experienced.

 

Liston, Foreman and Frazier fought Ali's fight.

 

Ah....................but Muhammad made them do that !!

 

I think Duran was. Honestly, I don't think a peak Duran loses to any man the same size as him. That in itself is an incredible statement, but I believe it. He had chin, power, defense, stamina, grit, pressure, counters, everything but fancy footwork.

 

This is why I respond to the Duran posts because if people said he was great and dominant, I would not even comment. But to say he never loses to anyman, yet never fought or beat a great until Leonard, who was still not prime. I do not see how his competition at lightweight proves he would not lose to anyman, yet when he moved up in weight he did lose to men, but Hearns/Hagler/Benitez/Leonard were great fighters, so he gets the exception, but who did he beat at lightweight to show he was unbeatable and even close to Ali who beat Frazier,Norton,Foreman,Liston?

 

is it even a joke? ali hands down.. he did beat every great fighter that he faced when he was not shot, and duran never was proved against a legend in his best weight lw, ken was very good but he was not great. the victory of duran against leonard is overrated. he lost the rematch, he lost against hagler, he got ****ed by hearns...

 

He beat every top contender for nearly a decade. Not much more you can do. It proves a lot because those twelve pounds between lightweight and welterweight matter. It is the reason why Duran's victory over Leonard is so significant -- historically, lightweight champions do not move up and win against "the man" at welterweight. And in Leonard, this was up against one of the very best to ever do it too.

Questions like these reverse the burden of proof, though. It's just as easy to say: "Ali could never beat men way bigger than he is, like Duran did as an old man with Barkley. Who did he fight to prove he could win like that? What was he even worth at 37, he was done and over with."

That clouds the argument and the truth, though.

You're pretty gung-ho on status, Mag, and you're consistent with it, so I don't think you're choosing what to compare to suit your agenda. You just have this belief that for a lightweight a win against a legendary featherweight is more telling than against a beltholder at welterweight or somesuch. This is not my belief. Natural weight makes a lot of difference.

As for why I think Duran is so good at lightweight (besides the eye test) -- he reigned for a lot of years. Long-reigning champions usually have something in common -- they live for their sport, are disciplined, prepare well. Take Holmes. Take Joe Louis. Take near anyone.

Duran was off-kilter in that respect. His weight fluctuated. He sometimes went out the night before a fight. He partied and enjoyed his life. Even so, he held the lightweight title for that long. I believe that was so because he had an excess of ability and physicality for the division.

His exploits at higher weights -- beating Palomino, Ray Leonard, Cuevas, Davey Moore, Iran Barkley and going the distance with a leading contender for best ever middleweight (25 pounds above his natural weight!) strengthen that belief in me.

So that's why.

 

The payoffs at size don't stop before 215 lbs which you can see in almost all fighters from the 50s-80s where men around those weights were still the biggest majority is that in general (exceptions ALWAYS exist) that fighters have a higher KO ratio on men between 200-215 lbs than they have on fighters above 215 lbs.

Also in the 60s only Liston was above the 215 lbs, (Ali's opponents) when Ali was at Liston his age he was in the 220s. So Ali in the end was the bigger man than Liston. (If you take them both at equal age) (at 22 Ali was already 6-10 lbs heavier than Liston at 22)

I think the scaling really starts stopping around 220-225 lbs except for maybe a few physical freaks here and there.

So yes, Ali had the physical size advantage over the majority of his opponents. Especially early on.
Early on he had a big, later on somewhat less at the difference between 210 and 215 lbs isn't much.

And for the men giving Ali credit for the Patterson win, shame on you Patterson had a broken back and was carried by Ali hoping the ref would see it.

Duran p4p > Ali for me.

 

I believe the Duran of DeJesus III may well have been the P4P best since SRR's WW peak. However, something to consider in pre exile Ali's favor is that he may well have been the fastest world class man in boxing, STRAIGHT UP, not just as a HW. [Jimmy Jacobs did conclude through careful film analysis that Ali was actually faster than Robinson. Most of us do not enjoy access to the kind of frame by frame scrutiny Jacobs could readily avail himself of.]

Speed kills. But Ali did tend to give away body shots, while neglecting the body as a target himself. [Cleveland Williams and Blue Lewis are rare exceptions to the latter.] Ali had speed, toughness, mobility and heart.

Duran's versatility is clearly superior though, and his longevity was off the charts, cut off only by injuries sustained in a car accident. Ali was essentially finished when Duran pulled off Barkley, and Roberto was 45 when he's generally considered to have won Camacho I. To me, Barkley and Camacho I are surrogate redemption for Hearns-Duran and SRL-Duran III.

The question was raised in a recent thread about how Ali would have handled the size of Lennox Lewis. Such doubts are not expressed about Duran because of events like the knockdown and defeat of future heavyweight and triple crown champion Barkley while in his late 30s. [Keep in mind that many believe The Blade's greatest career performance was in this defeat.]

Head to head, Duran versus Ali at a hypothetical 135 might somewhat resemble Watt-Davis, Jr. Howard was the fastest man in boxing during the late 1970s and early 1980s, but even with a solid chin, he would have been hampered by limitations in power and versatility. Clearly though, he was far and away the closest thing to a lightweight Ali we ever saw, speed wise and stylistically [right down to his liberal use of the Ali lean for slipping punches]. Take away the second and 12th round knockdowns he conceded to Rosario, he does become a champion, but it's certainly no blowout on the scorecards. One did not need to floor him to win a decision [although it didn't hurt to be a southpaw, as Watt and Camacho demonstrated]. For whatever it's worth, Howard was actually calling out Duran as his nascent professional career got underway, but Roberto was in the process of moving up from 135.

Ali's attributes were unique for a heavyweight, less so for a lighter weight combatant. I made an analogy between he and Howard Davis, Jr. If you want one between Duran and a heavyweight, I might suggest the peak Dempsey, who was only filmed in competition against the rusty, aging and ambushed Willard. I think that's about as close as we can get. Duran versus Davis, Jr., and Ali versus Dempsey.

 

Although Duran may have achieved more across a greater span of weight, I'd probably rank Ali higher based on his superior record against fellow ATGs.

Ali beat Liston x2, Foreman, and Frazier 2 out of 3.

Duran's win over Leonard was a big feather in his cap, but his performance in the rematch leaves an equally big stain on his legacy IMO. Beyond that, he lost most, if not all of his other fights against ATGs - i.e: to Benitez when both were fighting above their best weights, was completely annihilated by Hearns (I'd compare that to Ali being annihilated by Foreman), and the rubber match to Leonard when both were well past their primes (comparable to Ali losing the Thrilla IMO). Wins over the likes of Buchanan and DeJesus are comparable to Ali's over Patterson and Norton IMO.