How good was Duran - P4P GOAT?

Hey McGrain,

Have been an avid spectator of your to-and-fro with Stonehands.

A few additions to the debate:

1) The fact that you have elected (resorted?!) to choosing SRR to find a superior set of stats when considering Duran's move up divisions could be telling, given that SRR is consensus P4P1! Noone is arguing Duran is above SRR so this may be a strawman approach, I think.

In an earlier post you seem to be arguing that Duran is outside top10, so some (9, in fact) other examples need careful support and detailing...

2) The multiple losses to 'greats' is clearly a sticking point between your position and that of Stonehands (and me).

When comparing Duran to the other P4P 'division movers' in history 3 things have to be considered:

a) The fact that Duran was between 14 and 23 years into his pro career and well over 70 fights when he made those moves.

My viewings of his performances, an analysis of his age, an awareness of the number of fights he had been through, and his increased passion for over indulging between fights, leads me to the conclusion that his prime was most likely between 1974-1978, not 1980 as you have suggested.

This means he beat prime SRL, when he was actually a little over-the-hill (and moving up an entire weight division). To my mind, even SRR struggles to match this feat when you factor in quality of opposition (see below).

b) The quality of his opposition. Duran did not only fight SRL, he fought the unbeaten 1980 version of SRL. Duran did not only fight Hagler, he fought the middle of reign '83 version of Hagler. Duran did not only fight Barkley, he fought the '89 version coming off the Hearns wins. Which other P4P weight movers in history can match this?

c) The fact that his opposition were in their natural weight class at the time.

In my analysis, I fail to find many others (aside from SRR) who can stack up the a, b and c of these criteria so well. If you can detail some more (from someone other than SRR) I would be very open to hearing them.

PS The lightweight run was from '67-'78. Even though he didn't hold the title all this time, he terrorised and dominated the division over the course of 12 years and 70 fights, with 1 points loss which was avenged twice. His opponents included the tremendous ('72 Buchanan, mid '70s DeJesus) as well as the merely excellent (Koboyashi).

Given the 3 contests with DeJesus, I dont think his choice of opponents can be considered particularly weak, although there should definitely have been a Buchanan rematch.

 

Did robinson dominate the welters like duran did the lightweights?
Robbie had some close fights at welter...
Robbie also lost his challenge at his third weight to maxim regardless of the circumstances (quit just like roberto no less!) Is this not similiar to duran losing to hearns or hagler at his third weight? Remember also,duran tried again at his third weight and won versus barkley at 37...
Robbie won and lost against many of the fighters he fought at middle (his second weight.) ,duran only lost once at his second weight to the incomparable ray leonard...
Think how most of durans losses came 19 pounds (154.) to 33 pounds (160-168.) above his lightweight prime and into his thirties and how relatively speaking he was less equipped for multiple divisions than robbie yet won titles in more weights than robbie did...
Bear in mind also that the welter division which duran inhabited contained leonard,hearns,palamino and cuevas,i dont think even robbie would get out of that lot unbeaten in his second natural division and coming into the age of 30 or more....Not to mention such tough challenges as a prime hearns and hagler in his third division....
Finally,i just want you guys to take in the magnitude of a former lightweight moving up to welter at age 29 after 70 fights and 13/14 years as a pro (12 pounds up.) and to face the 1st or second all time best reigning champ in his prime,and defeat him clearly over 15 rounds....I would be interested to know if this has any parallell in boxing history????? Just try imagine jc chavez,whitaker or benny leonard defeating ray robinson in his pomp and you may get some idea of the magnitude of durans win over leonard.....

 

Why does Walcott qualify then...and Braddock? Because they fought more often? Despite losing the big fights far more often than they won them (in Joe's case especially). Buchanan was billed as the best thing in boxing by most contemporary writers, with the arguable exception of Napoles, when he was champion. Walcott and Braddock were mostly regarded as fillers until the next big thing came along. Then again, a movie was made about Braddock so he must have been greater. :hey

 

Excellent... and not simply because I happen to agree. You and McGrain (whom I disagree with here), are two reasons why this forum shines.

 

In 20 years this will cease to be an argument. Duran will be by consensus a top 5 all time great just like SSR is today.

 

Interestingly enough, Robinson, Armstrong, and Charles are three fighters who, along with Greb, are at the top for me. Them and Duran. Robinson at #1 is unchallenged by most and your statement that "Duran does not compare favourably with Robinson" does not inhibit my assertion that Duran belongs in the top 5. Duran does not belong at #1. That I have never asserted.

Let me give you this to think about though. Duran, taken for his dominance, skill, longevity, and performance against larger men -does indeed compare favorably.

Let me illuminate that: Duran didn't face just good/average/or great fighters at his inflated weight -he faced elites. Had he been around in Armstrong's era is their any doubt that he would have beaten Ross (WW champ) and Ceferino Garcia (~MW champ)? Armstrong would not have beaten Leonard and would have lost worse to Hagler and just as badly to Hearns for my money. Duran had bad timing --and you penalize him for it.

Hell, there has been a thundering debate out here about whether Robinson could beat Leonard. Achilles among other luminaries made good arguments for Leonard. It is hard to choose against Leonard -even with Robinson himself in the opposite corner...

Robinson is a mirror of Leonard physically.
Duran was shorter by 3 inches, shorter reach, older, and slower than Leonard...
Leonard was undefeated.
And yet Duran beat him.

--There is some perspective.

You throw out Duran's losing to Hagler as if it is a black mark on his record. Must I regurgitate why his stand against Hagler is unheard of? There is no consensus that either Robinson or Monzon could beat Hagler. Hagler according to many, is the best head to head and otherwise among any and all MWs. Duran did what no challenger could do until Leonard -he went 15. Not only that, but there is a solid argument that can be made that Duran's performance was more impressive than Leonard's against Hagler. I can give you 4 strong arguments supporting exactly that.

Duran's losses against Hearns and Benitez were bad performances. No doubt there. He was inconsistent and at times, very stupid (he didn't see Hearns as a true threat, he saw him as a "chicken" because of the KO against Leonard in 81).

However let's say Duran beat Hagler, Hearns, and Benitez. Where would you rank him then?

Put him in there at his best against Armstrong's WW or MW belted challengers or Robinson's WW or MW belted challengers and perhaps you will let go of what seems to be a double standard.

You think it is a bit of stretch? That is only because you are trying to compare Zivic to Leonard and LaMotta to Hagler. Additionally, Robinson was rarely an underdog when he challenged bigger men. When wasn't Duran the underdog?

You got that.

 

Its always been a debatable topic regarding when Duran was past his best. Some fighters over the years have had their greatest wins when past their best, although the win was not neccesarily their greatest performance.

Ali's victory Foreman goes down as his greatest win, but up for arguement. Not sure it was his greatest performance as his prime skills were not on show.

Some people could well say Foreman's greatest win was against Moorer. Considering the odds were stacked against him, and the reward for the win was becoming the oldest heavyweight champion in history. And we all know Foreman was light years away from his prime when that right hand sparked out Moorer's lights.

Those examples above are over exaggerted when looking at Duran's performance over Leonard, and when he was/wasn't past his best. You could only make a case for Duran being past his prime by no more than 2 years if you think he was when sharing a ring with Leonard in Montreal.

Duran only really started to go downhill after "no mas". His consistency throughout the 70's up until his rematch with Leonard was nothing short of superb, even with his jump from lightweight to welterweight. Nobody was making noises that his game was evaporating after the move to welterweight. Power understandably wasn't quite as potenent as he was taken the distance more than at lightweight.

Duran's skills and effectiveness at welterweight would not have been the same had he not moved up due to problems with the scales. It doesn't seem sensible that if he jumped up around 1974-1975 that he would have been anywhere near as successful at welterweight. He gained strength with the move up, even though squaring off against bigger physically imposing fighters was a new challenge.

Duran beat a prime Leonard, who was probably the best fighter he ever fought, including Hagler and Hearns who beat him. His performance and the way he went about his business that night typifies more than any other fight. His defense was slick, handspeed quick, and attacks as varied as ever.

 

Totally agreed! Good post!

 

"Robinson at #1 is unchallenged by most and your statement that "Duran does not compare favourably with Robinson" does not inhibit my assertion that Duran belongs in the top 5. Duran does not belong at #1. That I have never asserted."

To remove any further confusion, I am perfectly comfortable with Duran at #5 or #4. I have him at #3 at times myself as well. #2 is a bit of a stretch. #1 is reserved for Robinson.

 

okay...

If Roy Jones faced 1988 Tyson and got KOd, would it diminish his standing? How about if Willie Pep got KOd against Mike McCallum? Pep gets starched by Tyson in 12 seconds?

The point here is not to be trite, it is for you to see that context needs to be considered. I suspect that Duran would have greater standing had he died in July of 1980... his later failures, inconsistencies, and gluttonies should not erase or diminish his preceding accomplishments. You do not allow for real factors such as age and size and length of career. Duran was completely outgunned not just be Hearns, but by Leonard and Moore as well.

Again, Robinson was an average sized man. Leonard was an average sized man. Even Langford was a good sized man. Duran was a small man.

Duran had the following:
-size disadvantage
-a pronounced reached disadvantage
-usually a strength disadvantage
-speed disadvantage
-age disadvantage
-elite competition -among the top 1% of their division.
-a style that put him squarely in the danger zone. Toe-to-toe. Forcing him to rely on serious skill inside and forcing him to take shots from large men. Who were faster than him, stronger than him, and younger than him.

Achilles? Are you out here? Is my memory getting goofy with age??

He didn't !#$?&* have to!!! That is why I suspected a double standard.

Michelangelo paints the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. He goes blind and almost dies doing it. McGrain stands underneath with the half-dead artist beside him:
McGrain: an amazing achievement. But.....well.... let's see you do it again. Donatello was better.
Michelangelo: huh?!

Duran's defeat of Leonard exceed both Langford and Greb. Neither Wills or Tunney are in the top 1% all time in their respective divisions.

Thank you. You are a formidable adversary and I enjoy this.

Hearns was peaking. I'm not sure which LWs he would not have destroyed that night.

Duran was indeed stupid that night. He didn't train hard at all and his physique had the consistency of a roll of paper towels. And he fought exactly the wrong fight.

Okay. Now, let's say that Duran fought champion Armstrong at Jr. MW and beat him (I think he would have) and then rose up and whipped Ceferino Garcia for the MW title in '38. What say you then? Hypothetically of course.

Zivic is leagues below Leonard and Lamotta is at least a level or two below Hagler. I think it is highly likely that the Duran who stepped in against Hagler would have beaten Lamotta. Lamotta was strong, determined, and skilled, but he came forward and Duran dealt with that style very well. Duran's skill exceeded Jake's by more than a bit.

--and that is my point. You could start a thread about Duran vs. LaMotta and plenty of analysts would choose Duran. And that is an argument for Duran as an elite (not ">#7")