Ray Robinson and Roberto Duran were the two greatest boxers of all-time, Duran's losses came when he was in his 30's and against bigger fighters in higher weight classes aside from his loss to DeJesus which he avenged at 135lbs, Jones was amazingly fast but he had poor fundamentals and his resume was thin, B-hop had't peaked when Jones beat him in a tepid fight in 93 and Toney had amazing skills but had a huge flaw in terms of closing space against a mover, Montell Grifin was out-boxing Jones in their first fight till he got hurt and then managing to get Roy DQ'd after getting hit while on the floor, then Jones blew him away in the rematch by throwing all caution to the wind and over powering the shorter fight, Robingson and Duran had far better resumes than Roy, Duran going toe to toe with bigger Ray Leonard who was one of the dangerous fighters of that era and beating him out-does any of Jones wins despite Ray winning the 'no mas' rematch by getting on his bike and out-reaching and fustrating Duran, Roberto and Ray Leonard were only two fighters to go the distance in as title title challengers vs Hagler, Ray won a 12 round decision vs Hagler by running away and grandstanding at the end of each round vs Hagler while Duran went 15 rounds standing right in front of Hagler who had a 75 inch reach, he also out-pointed the far bigger Barkley at the age of 38, there's no comparison between Roy Jones and Duran due to their quality of competition despite Roy's amazing speed. I am writing this in response to the Joe Stunner youtube channel stating that Roy Jones was the greatest fighter of all-time while comparing Roy's unorthodoxed style to Nazeem Hamed's style on a vid about Hamed's career. This content is protected
It’s very subjective. We will never universally agree. I would be looking at the following guys too: Sam Langford Harry Greb Archie Moore Ezzard Charles Henry Armstrong
Leonard an Hearns are as great as duran if not better. Robinson was different era so can’t be compared in same way
Neither one had a reign like Duran did in the 70s, plus Duran came up in weight and beat a prime Ray Leonard, who Hearns lost to. Hearns beat Duran in 84 but he got kod by Hagler in 3 who Duran went the full 15 with (the only one to do so when Hagler was champion) then got kod and ultimately beat twice by Barkley who Duran beat. Leonard admitted he didnt think he could beat Hagler until he saw Duran fight him and saw that he could. So no, neither Leonard or Hearns were as good as Duran since he came up and weight and was ALWAYS the smaller and older man.
Hearns wasn't that great when he rose in weight, I feel Virgil Hill was overrated and Tommy went on to lose the light heavy title to Barkley who also sparked him at 160, Leonard beating Lalonde doen't compare with Duran's win vs Ray at 147 and Duran went 15 rounds vs Hagler while Ray was gassed after 12 rounds vs Marvin despite having a similar reach, Duran's win over Barkley puts him above Tommy who was too fragile at 160, Tommy only beat Duran because of his height and reach.
As great as Archie was, I think Charles' 3 wins elevated him half to a full tier of greatness above, no?
Agreed, but Charles' résumé at LHW and then being lineal HW champ, plus wins over Archie scream really loud to me. Archie has a phenomenal résumé but simply doesn't have victories over someone of Charles' ilk. I rank fighters by tier so in first tier, I have: Robbi, Greb, Langford, Pep, Charles, Armstrong Tier two has: Moore, Gans, Ali, Louis, Duran and a few others.