Myth: Roberto Duran has a better resume than Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao.

The numbers in the OP stack against Duran and that's a fact, but those numbers aren't particularly important, in my opinion. Just based a numerical ranking system, you'd wind up putting Sugar Ray Leonard on the same level as Carlos Baldomir or Genaro Hernandez, which is obviously ridiculous. I can't be arsed going through and checking which numbers are which, but I'm not having Duran didn't beat any fighters ranked between 6-10 across his whole career. Not a chance. Off the top of my head I know for a fact Mamby was ranked in the lower half of the top ten, and so was Brooks.

Regardless, what's more important when talking résumé isn't just the numbers. A good record against ranked fighters isn't something a fighter's entire ranking should be based off. Otherwise Joe Louis would be the GOAT. It's just a fact that not all contenders are the same quality, and therefore résumés should be taken on their own terms. Records against ranked fighters is more of a cool way of making a point than a meaningful argument in a debate about a historical list.

 

I don't see any real case for Mayweather or Pacquiao over Duran in terms of résumé. Especially if we're taking résumé to be defined as simple as "who they beat". It's basically a case of a fighter who's a lock for top fifteen up against two who are a lock for top thirty. You'd have to take away Duran's win over Leonard for it to really be a close comparison. I've long said that even without the Leonard win, Duran would still be a top thirty fighter and this puts him right next to both Mayweather and Pacquiao IMO, so from there it's a really close discussion but that's not really talking strictly resume, as Mayweather's undefeated streak and Pacquiao's tearing across the lower weights is also considered in their ranking, whereas Duran's resume sort of needs to do more of the talking for him as he doesn't have any of those truly unique, distinguishing achievements that stand out.

But, we are talking about résumé and as it stands, what matters most IMO, is who you beat on the night. Painting with broad strokes, the gist is that what matters isn't what they have achieved or what they would go on to achieve. It matters who they were they were in there with, IMO. Other things like age and weight can also impact that, but those factors don't matter a third of what the quality of the opponent does. If Mayweather beat a heavyweight journeyman who was 40 years younger than him, it wouldn't be a great win. To stop myself from rambling, I think I've spelled out pretty clearly my thought process and the way I view wins, opponents, résumés and the like.

I don't see anyone on Mayweather or Pacquiao's record who was a better fighter at the time they fought then than Buchanan. I mean, the closest guys are Canelo, Pac, Marquez, Barrera, Morales, De La Hoya and Cotto, but no fighter who either fought was better than the Buchanan who Duran fought. As seen in his previous two title fights and his next fights against Ortiz, Lee and Watt. I'd only the likes of Marquez and (Mayweather's) De La Hoya are better wins than DeJesus, as well.

There's absolutely no chance either beat anyone better than Marcel, either. Marcel just a year after losing to Duran perplexed, battered and, out-classed one of the most talented, technically gifted featherweights ever and didn't get the decision. Pacquiao, Marquez, Barrera, Morales, Cotto, Canelo, etc, weren't even better than Marcel at their best let alone the times they wound up fighting Mayweather and Pacquiao.

Where Mayweather and Pacquiao shine is that they faced a very good level of opposition for the best part of two decades - or at least one and a half. Therefore they racked up a lot of high level wins. Even if Duran has them beaten when you compare the quality of the best opponents they beat, their sheer bulk is more impressive than Duran's. Especially Pacquiao's. Take for instance: Sasakul, Ledwaba, Barrera, Morales, Marquez, Hatton, Cotto, Margarito, Bradley and Thurman is probably a little deeper as a group than Duran's over: Marcel, Kobayashi, Buchanan, Thompson, Ishimatsu, DeJesus, Mamby, Fernandez, Brooks, Palomino, Cuevas, Moore and Barkley.

Ultimately though, the versions of Duran's second, third and forth best wins were better fighters than the versions of Mayweather and Pacquiao's best. It's hard to argue that the latter pair have the better resume, especially when you then add back in Duran's true trump card - the Leonard win.

All three of these fighters wound up as underachievers, though. They all could've done more, and should've done more.

 

I think Pac maxed out.

The other two I agree with.

 

Well let’s see what he comes back with.

 

Great posts George.

A pleasure as always.

To me, a resume isn’t just defined as - who you beat.

It’s defined as - who you fought.

 

Me too.

Floyd could have achieved more with a different mindset.

Duran was similar to Toney. He just didn’t have the discipline.

 

I think beating large number of contenders/ranked fighters is very important, and it's why I have Louis so high. Probably higher than Leonard p4p.

I don't think Baldomir or Hernandez beat as many ranked fighters as Leonard, not even close, but I agree that the big difference is the quality in that case. But Leonard has a decent amount of ranked fighters on his resume, to go with the ridiculous quality of top wins. Off the top of my head: Mayweather, Price, Benitez, Green, Duran x 2, Kalule, Hearns and Hagler. That's nine wins, and I'm sure I missed a couple.

EDIT: Add Shields, Ranzany and Finch. Then there's also Viruet and Howard, who were ranked but not when he beat them it seems.

How many active fighters today have that? Canelo probably, but not many others. Crawford, Loma? Probably not.

And SRR had more wins over ranked opp than Louis, as well as names like LaMotta and Gavilan. Continually pulling out the goods over many years against high class opponents of differing styles counts highly with me.

 

I don't think you understand what fallacy means....

 

You have a problem with the Buchanan low blow, but not with Floyd taking PEDS to beat an injured Manny who required shoulder surgery the following week?

 

Yeah, that's the problem I have with that win, rather than Pac being so far gone it was meaningless. He clearly wasn't and it wasn't. But Pac not being allowed to take a legal painkiller while Floyd got away with an illegal IV... The fight should have been an NC.