What's your call,..the best version of middleweight Roberto Duran vs the version of Emile Griffith who beat **** Tiger for the title in 1966? !5 rounds, it goes without saying.
Griffith is one of the most inconsistent ATGs ever but assuming he's on his game Best case for Duran is it looks like the Benitez fight
Griffith beat better fighters at middleweight i.e, Nino Benvenuti, **** Tiger, Joey Archer, etc. Duran really didn't do that much at that weight. Beating Iran Barkley and giving Hagler a good fight are probably his best claims around 160. I also think Griffith was a bit closer to his prime than Duran who was noticeably past it.
The '66 Tiger beating Griffith hands Duran a points defeat. The master mechanic would make it look easy at times. Griffith was much stronger than Duran and would keep him honest with his underrated right hand. Duran would be similarly frustrated as he was vs Benitez...he would of course, have his moments, but Griffith was too strong and smart,...like a master mechanic.
I consider Roberto Duran to be past his peak once he outgrew the lightweight division. As a result, I do not hesitate to pick Emile Griffith over Duran if they fought at 147 or 160 pounds. - Chuck Johnston
Pointless thread. The only thing in common between Tiger and a Middleweight Duran, is both would be 10 years older than Griffith was when he won in 66. 27 to 37.
