How good was Duran - P4P GOAT?

JT. Im measuring up fighters physically, and thats what I have been debating the last few pages with you. I'm not in anyway trying to make a case for a fighter being greater than another, with one failing to beat a bigger fighter, and another getting a win over an even greater bigger fighter from a different era. I haven't drifted away and compared how great Whitaker was to Trinidad.

Our debate was going along nicely, with the Whitaker and Nelson the centre of it all. You then said, Hagler clearly had a size advantage over Hearns. I disagree.

So I then gave you an example between De La Hoya and Trinidad who fought at welterweight. And I will stand corrected, De La Hoya moved up three divisions. He started off at 130lbs.

Trinidad carried the weight better past welterweight than De La Hoya did as well. Your reply never awnsered my question, as you went onto comparing Trinidad with Whitaker which has nothing to do with what I asked you. And what did me saying De La Hoya would lose to Leonard and Hearns have to do with a size disagreement?. You went totally off the subject, totally.

Its about weight, not about greatness.

I could make a comparsion with Leonard fighting an unknown at middleweight in a tune up fight before Hagler, and De La Hoya fighting Hopkins at middleweight. Its about weight/size, nothing to do with the outcome of the fights and who was greater.

 

Agreed as well about SS's post. We both agree Nelson was not a natural lightweight no matter how much we disagree on the size difference as he never fought at lightweight long enough to be considered natural at that weight. If you go back and look at SS's qoute on my take on how Whitaker measured up against Nelson on the night, he said "on par physically". He agreed with my post.

SS, question for you. Would you come to the conclusion that Whitaker beating Nelson on the night was "a good big man beating a good small man"?

 

For sure JT, and after Whitaker went 24-0 in rounds against Haugen and Ramirez in 1989, Nelson had every right to stay where he was at 130 and forget a move up all together, but he went for the legacy fight and truth be told made a decent go of it all things considered (performed better than any other lightweight of the time did against Whitaker). Nelson had balls there's no doubting that and he always gave rematches when they were warranted and usually left no doubts when they were over.

Nelson was an excellent win for Whitaker, and let me just clear it up if it isn't clear, I think the Dejesus and Buchanan wins are better wins (for Duran) than the Nelson win (for Whitaker), and so I'm not one who thinks that Whitaker's resume was in any way superior to Duran's at 135.

Whitaker was somewhat more dominant as a lightweight than Duran was imo, but there's no question that Duran faced a higher level of comp imo.

 

Well in terms of size they were just about the same Rob, and as I said, I think Whitaker was maybe just a tad bigger but it was negligible.

But the best way I would characterise the fight is a a guy who is at his most potent at 135 beating a guy who is at his most potent at 126.

Nelson filled out nicely and looked extremely strong at 135, but he was, especially in comparison to the opposition, at a much bigger advantage at 126 and 130, where the opponents struggled to deal with what Nelson had to offer.

If we define 'natural' as I have, as 'the weight where one spends the majority of one's prime at', then we can say that Whitaker was going up against a naturally smaller man and it makes sense, even though Nelson, for all intents and purposes, was similar in size to Pea.

As you know, fighters who move up in weight often weigh the same as the fighter who has always been in the division on the day of the weigh-in and sometimes even on the night of the fight, but they are still naturally smaller because they leave their prime weight where they were most advantageously placed to fight, and so in a way leave their natural habitat, even though they appear the same as their opponent on the night of the fight.

 

I am sorry but put Whitaker,Gans, Benny or any other atg lightweight in the ring vs Leonard, Hearns, Hagler and Benitez at higher weights and see what they are really able to do. "Lost to every great fighter", nonsense. He was not only fighting great fighters who were in their primes but also physically bigger. And except Benitez, who was still excellent, Hagler, Hearns and Leonard were all in/near their primes when he met them

 

I seen a picture of Shane Mosley with his arm around John Brown inside the ring after they fought, which was Mosley's last fight at lightweight. Mosley weighed-in the day before bang on the limit, and Brown weighed 134 1/2. To see both these guys standing next to each other was pretty astonishing after they both contested a fight in the same division. They looked at least three divisions apart. Probably because Mosley was so big at the weight, rather than Brown being the opposite.

Another interesting one about Mosley. Emanuel Steward attended the weigh-in for the De La Hoya-Mosley fight at the Staples Center, June 2000. Trainer, Robert Alcazar, who was confident De La Hoya would prevail turned around to Steward after Mosley weighed-in and said "Manny, this guy is a lightweight". To which Steward replied with "How can he be a lightweight, he's just stepped onto the scales at 147".

Mosley was no lightweight then, he had been a lightweight. Fighters mature and fill out more than others as the clock ticks. Mosley never even felt comfortable enough to drop by and make a challenge at 140lbs. Its up for debate if Mosley could have made 140lbs, with his move up to welterweight strictly being a big money fight against De La Hoya on the horizon. But looking back at the fight, Mosley measured up very well against De La Hoya, although he's an inch or two shorter in height.

De La Hoya thought he was going to walk through Mosley and get the KO, and that came back to haunt him. De La Hoya certainly fought like a man who thought he was in with someone smaller.

 

Yeah, Tommy's at light heavy is definitely valid too, middleweight debatable because it was vacant. But defeating Vasquez is hardly beating Terry Norris; 'Beating' (ofiicially anyway) Sturm isn't like winning against Hopkins. So this achievement thing requires closer examination if we're talking Top 10/20 of all-time.

 

Since your in the UK. Hatton coming on Parkinson at 10pm talking about his fight with Mayweather.

 

Yep. About to watch it. Just downing a chilled cider, whilst revelling in our rugby win. :good

 

Yeah I get your drift, there are definitely bigger and smaller guys for every weightclass, and fighters can mature into a new weightclasses, like Mosley did.

And probably by my definition he could be termed a natural welterweight, though I'd still probably call him a natural lightweight because that's where the peak of his prime was imo, short as that period might have been.

One thing that always has to be kept in mind, and which I keep in mind is the fighter's opposition. Though a fighter might mature into a weight class, it doesn't mean that they will be as strong or as potent there in comparison to their opponents. E.g, Mosley was stronger as a welter than as a lightweight, but can you see a lightweight version of Vernon Forrest stunning Mosley so badly and nearly knocking him out at 135? I don't think it would have happened. Becuase at 135, Mosley was stronger for his size than he was for 147, even though Mosley had filled out into a decent sized welter.

 

We're on the exact same page SS, with the complete topic and pretty much every single comment you have given. I'm a big fan of both i must say. I think Nelson gets a little short changed to be honest. A fantastic fighter.

 

how is armstrong top 10 at 126 and 135 when his resume at those weight classes is so thin. Beating pettey srron at 126 and going 1-1 against lou ambers at 135 doesnt make you top 10 in those weight classes.

Whitaker, gans, leonard, beau jack, montgomery, joe brown, duran, ortiz, canzoneri and ike williams all have better lightweight resumes than henry armstrong.

 

I think if you are going to assess a fighter's p4p status , the first and foremost factor to be looked at should be how the fighter fared in his prime. Therefore , mentioning the Hearns, Hagler , Benitez Laing fights is just unfair . His prime was at lightweight , we all know that. His record there was impeccible. Dethroning Ken Buchannan, losing just once at 135 to a top-drawer fighter of the day , and then totally proving his dominance over his rival with 2 stoppage defeats, his lightweight record is underreated, Marcel , Viruet , Fernandez etc. the best around. These are some feats. And if you must look at what happened when he stepped out of his own weight class - he skipped a weight class and beat Leonard - 1 of the very best to ever walk.

I have Duran at number 3 , after Robinson and Ali , although I couldn't argue with someone for putting him behind Armstrong , Greb , Jofre , maybe Benny Leonard , lets not be silly and say he's not in the top 15