How good was Duran - P4P GOAT?

But did you see him waddle?

I did.

 

If Jones stuck around for longer in the SMW division and dominated better competition for 6 years, stepped up and beat Archie, and then gave Holyfield all he could handle and lost over 15, he would indeed be arguably in the top 10.

Jones was an average sized man. Duran was a small man. I believe that it is scientifically provable that a man standing at 5'7 with a LW frame has more difficulties against a man standing 6'1 with a MW/LHW frame than a LHW would against a full-blown HW. This is physics.

He'd be a lock. One of things that I dispute with you is that Duran's comp that you criticize were more than great -they were elites in their primes and operating in the divisions where they were at their best. Duran was neither priming, and fighting relative monsters. Look at the stats.

No way.

Hypothetical. No film.

No, I'd dispute that.

Lincoln didn't complete Reconstruction, murdered or no.
Hannibal lost at Zama, inferior numbers or no.

No. You too casually write off the extent of those disadvantages. Duran had damn near every disadvantage you could have against elites. That is unique. What LW fought the .1% best of the WWs, Jr. MWs, and MWs past his prime while they were at or near prime?

That fact that he won even one of them is outstanding. Would Benny Leonard beat Robinson? Or Leonard? I doubt it. Would Gans have beaten Hearns? I doubt that even more. Would Whitaker have beaten Hagler? Don't be silly.

Would Hagler have gone 15 against LHW Ezzard Charles in 1987? Would Hagler have beaten CW Carlos DeLeon in 1992?

Context, my man, context.

I am not vastly underrating these men and the rest of your response proves it. Tunney was anything but unbeatable. Maybe top 5 among the LHW. Wills top 20? Big deal. Langford is great but not enough is known about his quality of competition, his style, and the shady politics surrounding the fights back then... I don't like going back that far because things get really murky.

If Hearns decided to go straight at any of them, I am not sure about that at all. De La Hoya would have the best chance because of the guns and the relative height...

I see a points victory for an inspired Duran... although he did tend to fade late against strong MW (except Barkley where everyone was waiting for him to fade. Hagler, Simms... he faded). Close call.

Duran simply should not have beaten Leonard. He should not have beaten Moore, 12 fights or no, because Duran had 15 years worth of fights, had been more or less a dud for 3 years, and was in against a younger, stronger, faster champion 17 pounds above his best weight. Duran should not have lasted 15 against Hagler at 25 pounds above his best weight. Duran never should have beaten Barkely in his 22nd year as a pro.

--all that after what is almost unanimously remembered as a reign of terror in the LW division in the 70s. And you got him at #11! I just can't see more than 3 or 4 guys who can top that resume. Add in other measures of greatness and Duran looks even better ---to wit, head-to -head.

 

He used to steal mangos. Now he wants to be one --a GIANT one.

Was he kissing and slobbering all over everyone? Hell, I'm glad he's happy, though I miss the menace.

 

Nah, but he was a bit pissed. Hilarious though. I thought the 'interview' might be a bit awkward but it wasn't at all. He should do stand-up.

 

According to Bert Sugar's "Boxing's Greatest Fighters", he ranks Duran #8.

 

He is funny -the way he described Hearns knocking the women and the booze out of him was good stuff.

Any interesting comments?

 

In my opinion there is so much rubbish and lazy analysis of the Duran-Leonard fights.

Watch Leonard's fights. He didn't 'move' around as much as people claim. He moved around against Duran in the 2nd fight and against Hagler. Other than that he stalked most opponents and boxed his way in.

Besides which Leonard nearly gets dropped in the 2nd round, and said himself that he didn't really wake up for a few rounds after that. So, whatever game plan he did or didn't have went right out of the window in that second round. Duran was better on the outside in that fight which is why, once he's recovered, Ray went chest-to-chest.

The whole change of tactics in the 2nd fight was a point only made retrospectively.

 

I personally have duran top 5 atg.

He`s defo a top 10 at least aswell as being the best ever at 135 lbs.


Duran wasnt the best ever p4p no1, that honour must go to ray robinson, the man of many talents.

 

I was thinking more about Dempsey and Marciano. They could take guys out 50 pounds heavier. Their physicality allowed them to generate objectively great power... by contrast Duran would never knock out Dempsey or Marciano.

Burley is interesting... but I don't think he would necessarily get propelled up as much as you argue. I'd have to think about it... feel free to convince me. I'm working hard over here -you owe me!

I've had that argument upteen times. Greb is great. I give you that. I don't like to consider guys I can't see... it offends my analytical pride. But Greb is an exception.

"I wish I was big. Then I'd kick Ali's ass." ~Duran, 1970s.

I don't have that high an opinion of HW skill... and skill is a key component for greatness.Even Ali's skill was suspect. His talent sure wasn't but he wasn't exactly well-rounded. Adaptable, yes.

Duran whipped every LW they put in front of him, avoided no one, avenged his one loss with 2 KOs against a man who would otherwise be an ATG LW, IMO... then beat Leonard, then beat Moore, then beat Barkley when he should have been a mango in a rocking chair. His elite (read: top 5) status should be less malleable than you allow.

Aha. Hannibal is normally ranked top 5....

I am impressed with your confidence in discussing other topics. Nor am I surprised.

Lincoln's was the commander in chief and was getting his ass kicked for 3 years before Gettysburg. Take a look at Washington's record on the field my friend. How many times did that general say "NO MAS"?!?! Haha.

I went round and round on this with John Thomas about a month back or so. If you can't find it, I'll try to quote from it over the weekend.

--Not compared to Leonard.

The argument here is as follows: A good, no, a GREAT measure of greatness is how a given fighter performs with age, the deterioration of physical powers, against larger, younger, faster, stronger, and more energetic men. All Duran had was skill, savvy, experience, or however you want to label it. He had one advantage -his mind. And it was enough long after it should have been. That is why we see how great he could be --not consistently was, but the level of greatness he reached when inspired. It was objectively unprecedented in my opinion -at least in the past 80 years.

Put him at 5 and let me rest my mutha fu**in' fingers.

Yes. but Shane Mosley would pose the biggest problems.

I am insulted. Here I am making nice and you have to go and throw an argument I have made against the legions of deluded Tyson and Jones fans at me. Those fans get drunk on speed and power. I do not.

Duran was not merely a force of nature, my friend. His skill rivalled Pep and exceeded Robinson's.

Duran is not overrated. He is coming into view as time marches on. Duran, still, to any sport's analyst is "Mr. No Mas."

I will grant you that while Hagler, LEonard, and Hearns had "fans"... Duran had full-blown "fanatics". The Panamanians had something great to hold on to --besides a canal.

 

after a complete and stellar career at lightweight he wips Sugar Rays ass after skipping a Divison, sometimes things just dont happen but lets look at it this way a trained motivated Duran would have beat an Arguello,Pryor,Cervantes,and if he beat leanord he would beat a Sweetpea.....
the only reason Duran could deal with guys 20 and 30 pound over his weight later in his carreer is his ATG boxing ability, yet I saw sweer pea at the same stage get crushed by Trinidad and why? Pea's physical skills were gone and he had to rely on boxing skill of which in my opinion were not top 10 ATG status skills, with his reflexes and defense gone and no ATG boxing skill to rely on he was easy to crush. No way in Hell do I have P over Duran on any damn list!!!!! l

 

Agreed. Duran would have beat Whitaker at welterweight. However, at lightweight he would have came off second best over the distance.

If you don't think Whitaker had no ATG skills, maybe best leave the forum asap.

 

Whitaker was past his best at 35 years of age. The only significant win Duran had past 35 years was against Barkley.

Whitaker gave Vasquez a lesson at jr-middleweight. And Vasquez was a damn fine fighter at that particular weight, even though he wasn't a marquee name.

Whitaker handled his opponents with more ease throughout his prime than Duran. Both had totally different styles, with Duran relying more on power of course. If both had comparable power, Id take Whitaker's skills over Duran's. But Its close.

 

Duran beats sweetpea at any weight, and I said Top 10 ATG boxing skill.