How good was Duran - P4P GOAT?

I didn't miss that --but it was clear to all and sundry that Louis lost the first one. Louis himself knew it -having gone down in the 1st and the 4th..

 

Don't forget he also beat Baer,Sharkey and Schmeling who were all very good to great fighters.

 

I think that Joe clearly lost against Walcott. We'll just have to disagree. I don't believe that any version of Braddock was great.

Duran was anything but loveable as a person. He disgraced his name and did untold damage to the sport in New Orleans. He got far too inconsistent as he aged against inferior competition, however larger they were than he.

I don't get "sore" when people criticize Duran--- I get sorely annoyed not by positions, but by positions that are either not defended or defended so stupidly that they should not have been made in the first place. Ignorance may be bliss, but on a site like this, it really should be attacked, if only for quality control.

That being said, Duran's accomplishments are really virtually unprecedented. To dominate a division and then step up from the LWs -where the height and frames are undeniably smaller than WW and the upper divisions -is not to be dismissed like it has on this thread. To later challenge a top 2-3 WW king and beat him, and then to challenge a top 1-3 MW king -and go 15, and then take a piece of the title against a larger MW champion 6 years later... this is serious stuff.

I go back and forth about whether Armstrong was greater than Duran. Armstrong had a stuttering start and didn't hit his stride until later and then faded relatively fast. Duran was a born fighter and was capable of maintaining greatness, though inconsistent, for decades.

I believe that you propel Ali too high. I have him inside the big 10 p4p but he is not near Duran. The HWs are glorified for obvious reasons but their talent pool has always been among the lowest of the divisions. It's the glory division, and Ali was glorious, yes.

Where do you rate Robinson?

 

Why is Walcott an all-time great and not Buchanan then? I'd say the probably rank somewhere simlar on all-time lists in their respecvtive divisions. In fact, it could be Kenny that's higher if anything.

 

Again, Buchanan's rated higher than the likes of Sharkey and probably the other two also.

 

My mistake, I thought you had Louis winning.

Duran gets no points for allegedly knocking out a horse from this corner either. His accomplishments, longevity, performance against larger men, and especially his level of skill is what do it for me.

You are one of the posters who has long since earned my respect out here but I just cannot see any argument justifying Duran being outside of the top 10, p4p, ATG. It suggests either bias, ignorance, or measures that are highly unusual.

Perhaps I was unclear on the question... I thought you were comparing Duran to Ali and Armstrong. I presented points that I thought defend Duran's belonging in that echelon. The first sentence in that paragraph is unclear... Duran was 1% below his later challengers?

If you mean that he simply wasn't "as good" as Benitez, Hagler, or Hearns then I would assert that you are way off. Way off! Read any of several of my earlier posts about his physical/natural disadvantages... I know I don't need to argue about the difficulty a naturally small man (not smaller as in Toney or Jones or Conn...these are average sized men---Duran favored his indian mother -short and box-shaped. He was naturally a small man and he was past his prime) has in facing bigger men with bigger guns, more strength or more speed and usually both. Chavez would have been destroyed by Hearns regardless of how thick his cranium was. Gans would have not have beaten Hagler. And I truly doubt that any natural LW great would have ever beaten Leonard.

Which natural LW would have defeated a 6'1 naturally 200 pounds, 28 year old Iran Barkley at 37?

What's more, few of them would have been crazy enough to try.

A second argument would compel you to argue that guys like Chavez could not be considered as skilled or as great as De La Hoya or Randall because he lost to them at a higher weight division. Or Benny Leonard wasn't as skilled as McClarnin because he lost at age 36 to the bigger man. It just doesn't hold up.

 

Langford was moving about in weights while still very much prime.

Duran was clearly past his best a few years after moving up, after dominating lightweight for the better part of a decade.

 

I do not agree that Duran is one of the most physically gifted in boxing history. I feel that from the moment he moved up from Lightweight, he was outgunned in every fight, boxing men that were taller, bigger, stronger and sometimes even faster.

Against Moore, Hagler, Leonard, Hearns, Barkley, he was physically outgunned, and was competitive mostly because of focus and craft.

When you speak of physically gifted, I see a Meldrick Taylor, a Thomas Hearns, a Julian Jackson, even a Jermain Taylor, who can compete at the world level without much craft.

Duran was masterful. I like him because he shows us that boxing well can overcome disadvantages, added to that is that he boxes usually to do damage rather than go for a decision solely.

Especially against Barkley, he gave up reach, power, weight, stamina and age.

He remained competitive because he rested intelligently and was so relaxed in there despite facing the biggest puncher in his life. He countered all night with the right hand at one precise point, the eye, and capitalized on the weakness when it shut closed. He defended himself with subtle movements while closing in and being close to a Hercules of a man, simultaniously looking for openings to attack.

Finally, he showed his grit by taking punches and remaining focussed and composed, surviving a long, long round. Hurt, dazed, thirty-eight, and persevering.

He used everything he had learned in twenty-two years of boxing. It was a masterclass. I have never seen a display of boxing craft since, nor before. People call the Mayweathers and Roy Joneses of this world technical phenoms -- they are nor, they are athletes, with so many advantages over their opponents matches seem like a showcase of their superiority.

Not Duran. He defied the odds time and time again, and sometimes, overcame them.

 

This is the crux of your argument --and I think it fails at many levels.

You are reaching back 90 years to give me Langford. Langford fought in a different era under different rules against different men -men that I would argue were more durable but less skilled. Some of them were hobos. What fights of Langford's have you analyzed? Comparisons with Langford bolster Duran's standing, if you think about it.

Duran fought and beat the top 1% WW all time. Had he died in a plane crash after Montreal he'd be one of the very best.... the rest is icing. Your criticisms are a stretch. In his 30s, and third decade as a pro, he went 15 rounds with arguably the best MW of all time. He fought the 2 best Junior MW ever. No one else in history has those kinds of challenges to present. And you ignore the fact that he is a small, not an average sized man. You also ignore most of the post.