How good was Duran - P4P GOAT?

I see it very similar to benitez vs duran, people can make excuses but then why did duran come back and destroy moore, cuevas and barkley. Its very clear that duran is strong against a certain style of fighters, and hes weak against another style, which is the movers. Leonard decided to outbox him in the next two fights and duran got beaten easily.

Just look at durans lightweight title run and compare it to whitakers title run. Duran has a couple good wins at that weight, other than that he fought a bunch of c level fighters, especially from 1975-1977. During whitaker's entire title reign, he fought solid b level fighters and a p4p great like azumah nelson.

 

The main problem I have with the people who pick Duran to win, Whitaker's lack of movement is a myth to them. And when people put forward a case for Duran winning, its always "Whitaker liked to stand and trade in the pocket, and wasn't a runner". They know that its only possible way to give their man a chance. Well not the only way, but its usually the main ingredient of the recipe.

 

Just look at it this way man. Duran beats barkley, cuevas and moore. All 3 of them are basically brawlers. Laing was a mover, benitez was a mover, leonard was a mover and how did duran do against them, yeah not so great. Its all about styles. How many slicksters did duran even fight during his 'mythical' lightweight title run. Aside from buchanon and de jesus, he fought c level fighters.

 

no not really, i know hes a top 10 but the way he gets praised is ridiculous.

 

Whitaker wasn't a runner, at times. But against Ramirez and Nelson he was a runner. Just depends on how each of us define a runner. To me thats when a fighter keeps his distance for the vast majority of a fight, moves around the perimeter of the ring. Never looks to get into exhanges, thus avoiding playing into an aggressive fighters hands. A runner in my opinion aint a bad thing, as long as a fighter lets his hands go while doing so.

Whitaker wouldn't employ sitting in the pocket for too long with Duran. I could see your point of view if Whitaker constantly stayed within range and traded punches throughout all his prime. But he never, he was extremely versatile in terms of defense. Getting on the balls of his feet, skipping quickly out of range, and punching while on the move he could do with authority. You mentioned the Ramirez rematch above when he never ran, as we would both agree. I actually stated this in my last statement. But it was put forward simply to show Whitaker's versatility, not to support my arguement on how he would approach a Duran fight regarding strategy. If you think Whitaker fought in that type of manner for every fight at lightweight, so you have another thing coming. Your wrong.

Whitaker kept his distance against Nelson. Moving backwards, standing briefly to throw flurries, lead left hands, and showing angles. When Nelson did close the distance and have any type of success, he was made to miss as Whitaker's upperbody movement and ability to block was evident. Duran never liked movers, it was the best way to beat him. Leonard showed that against Duran in New Orleans. Although Duran wasn't quite at the peak of his powers. Lampkin and Bizzaro presented Duran with problems at lightweight with movement.

Duran had the style not allow Whitaker to stay away all night. Yes, as I said Whitaker would be forced to stand and trade briefly. And I'm pretty sure he'd decide to go in there briefly and vary his work. But Whitaker would know what was in front of him, and had the ability to adjust and make things easier for himself. Movement would be the key. I know how good Duran was at slipping punches, and moving his head at the moment of impact. Punches were parcialy landed by his opponents. But this type of defense was more effective when Duran faced aggressive fighters.

Duran never faced anything nearly as skilled as Whitaker throughout his lightweight reign. Reflexes, adaptablity, ring generalship, upperbody and head movement, good stamina, superb chin, and boxing ability. Whitaker had an excellent jab, which gets him mentions on this forum under "greatest jabs" category. Another weapon difficult weapon for Duran to face. Im pretty sure if Duran stood off Whitaker, which wouldn't be wise, he'd get a lesson. Im not underestimating Duran's boxing ability behind the jab, but getting into a jabbing contest with Whitaker spells disaster. Duran could never win a boxing match with Leonard, and put your bottom dollar on it he'd come off second best against Whitaker as well.

I sure have seen Duran v Palamino. Duran's was pretty sublime against Palamino, who was 2-3 years past his best. Taking nothing away from "hands of stone" he beat a top rated welterweight convincingly. His feinting, fluid technique, and varied attacks upstairs and downstairs, class.

Duran's shots sure did hurt, but not sure he hit as hard as Trinidad. Durability often gets overlooked when it comes to Whitaker. He wasn't a fighter who stood "mano a mano" but his chin was very sound when he needed it. Whitaker was 35 years old when he fought Trinidad. Lets not talk about Whitaker's ability in this fight, as it was poor to say the least. Cocaine was on the menu at this stage of Whitaker's career more than pasta. His durability against a lethal power puncher was remarkable considering how often punches bounced off his jaw. I will better watch what I say here. Trinidad wasn't a harder puncher than Hearns, but he could punch like a mule. This showed when Trinidad moved up to middleweight and KO'd Joppy and Cherifi. The hardest hitter Duran fought who had more power than Trinidad was Hearns. KO'd inside 2 rounds. Doesn't matter anyway, as its more to do with Whitaker absoring Duran's blows more than the otherway around, as Whitaker never had dynamite fists.

The thing about this match-up. Both were brilliant fighters, arguably the best lightweights ever. Ike Williams, Benny Leonard, Joe Gans, also have credentials and skills to be placed as high.

When I look at this fight, and envisioning both styles gelling, I think Whitaker just has too much for Duran. Only a fool would come to the conclusion its an easy fight for one or the other. Not a foregone conclusion in my opinion. If Whitaker had stamina issues and was knocked out in his prime, Duran would get the nod comfortably. But Whitaker was busy with his fists, had tremendous skills, especially variation when it came to defense, and he was a very smart fighter when it came to sticking to the gameplan. Duran would be the aggressor in this fight, and would find Whitaker too hard hit often enough, and that means losing more rounds than he'd win. I like Whitaker's all round ability, especially his ability to fight effectively on the backfoot which he'd need against Duran. He wasn't open inside, often twisting and blocking punches with his gloves. But Duran's office was in there, and Whitaker going in there for long periods what would be a fools game to play.


Its been a good debate stonehands, but I aint the quickest of typers, and these kind of posts by myself come along a couple of times a month. A post like this which you can do in 10 mins, maybe quicker, takes me longer.

 

Burley took 3 rounds against Bivins, and Charles hurt him in the first bout. Competitive, but clear losses those.

I have Ezzard Charles ranked very high -often top 5 and at times top 7. He is overlooked because causual fans mistakenly consider him a HW. No shame in that loss. As for Bivins, it seemed more of a stylistic problem for Burley.

By "deploy" you mean throw effective punches. You know as well as I do that big punchers in any division often have a great fault -lazy fundamentals and so-so conditioning. Now look at the HWs. This is often the case --no, it is very often the case.

Lewis-Grant was not a carnival of skills. Louis was an exception. Guys like Ali and even Byrd are anomalies. Damn, I was astounded by the skills that Golota showed in the Bowe fights -in fighting, defense, countering, angles, etc....

The HW are usually more fun to watch, not less fun, which is why they have pretty consistently been the glory division. However, punching skills and clinching are lower level skills than countering, angles, leading and the like. Will you equate the skills apparant in Lewis-Klitschko with Marquez-Barrera?

Simply stated, HWs don't need the serious skill you see among the lighter guys. An athletic and coordinated big man with a punch and a chin will do well in the HW. Grant had a good run for man who really couldn't develop the requisite skills for this particular sport.

These are best qualified. If Duran fought Tyson in 1987 and got bombed out, you'd penalize him. That would have a chilling effect on accepting great challenges - Don't you agree? If Robinson fought Moore and got smashed would you penalize him?

The big difference was tht Burley was not a small man. He sized up well with the best he fought. Burley was a WW -had he been a LW I would have been more impressed -you equate the two and I don't see why. He was a few inches shorter than Charles and 7 pounds less. Not alot. Moore had multiple losses. He got wrecked by Floyd and KOd by Marciano and there was no real size difference between him and they.... "he lost".

I was being facetious!

Duran was a lightweight. I see no natural lightweight in your examples. I see Welters and middles and have already made an argument there.

 

Stonehands89 I haven't been paying much attention to this thread so this has probably been covered but how do you compare the achievments of Henry Armstrong,as probably a natural Featherweight, picking up belts all the way to Welterweight (whipping an ATG to do so) and making 20+ defenses (not to mention coming within a hairs breadth of winning the Middleweight title) with those of Duran?

In my opinion Duran's achievments pale next to those of Armstrong who has to be one of the most remarkable athletes this sport has ever produced.

 

By "people who pick Duran to win" --you mean me.

Allow me to clarify: Whitaker's "lack of movement" isn't what I said -I said his lack of "mobility". Whitaker is right up their with Pep when it comes to defensive stylists. Pep wasn't a runner. Whitaker wasn't a runner -even if he did run a bit in a few fights. His style was far more sophisticated than that.

[By the way, this post is for your other post above as well.]

Duran could deal with "runners" --Viruets- Edwin and Adolfo (a southpaw who almost a year to a day -1979- took Leonard ten before dropping a decision) and he could deal with boxers -Bizarro, DeJesus, Mamby among them.

My argument against Whitaker revolves neither on his being a runner or a supreme stylist. It revolves on the plain fact that Duran was never defeated by man smaller or weaker than him or unable to hurt him. DeJesus could hurt him with that left hook of his. Leonard was bigger and packed a shot. Laing was bigger. Benitez was bigger. Hagler was far bigger, stronger, and could punch like cannonballs. Hearns was ridiculously bigger and had nukes on his fists... and on and on.

Duran had disdain in him... and he was very strong for his size. I just can't see anyone beating him who stands shorter than even he and who had 17 KOs out of 40 wins. Pernell was durable, absolutely, but he won't be moving Duran inside or out.

How do you beat Duran --mobility or evasiveness? No. Even a supreme stylist would have his hands more than full with prime Duran. Prime Duran mind you, not the inflated version. Whitaker lacks the guns to keep Duran off of him.

You have a fantasy that Pernell would somehow be able to play matador to Duran's bull for 15 rounds. The problem is that Whitaker's matador has no sword and Duran's bull has a level of skill -a boxing mind if you will-- that is on par or close to the matador's.

Brains beats Brawn -but Brains ain't beating Brainy Brawn.

 

I usually have Armstrong around #2. Always top 5.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Duran's accomplishments "pale" in comparison though. Do you think Armstrong would have beaten Leonard? I don't. Do you think that he would have stood against Hagler for long? I don't. The Middleweight "champion" he faced was none other than Ceferino Garcia who he already turned back as a WW challenge. Garcia wasn't even a MW until he was 32 -and he was a small one at that -no taller than Duran.

Armstrong took a while to hit his stride, but when he did, boy, what a stride it was. 1937 until about 1940. Armstrong dropped one decision to Ambers, no slouch there, and the decision was reportedly way off. That is the period where Armstrong is so glorified today... but that prime was relatively brief although it was more of a superprime. Later Armstrong went on to avenge himself against Zivic and even took the difficult Angott on for a win, but he faded fast.

He faded fast for the same reason Tyson faded fast. Swarmers fade fast. It's almost an ironclad rule.

Duran's prime in the lightweights lasted for roughly 8 years -and a decade later he's knocking down full blown Middles and taking a title at 37. Armstrong was done at 33.

And here's the thing. Duran was a swarmer. Who became a boxer-puncher. Who became a counterpuncher... as age and larger opponents demanded it. Against DeJesus II he became virtually a boxer. Against Leonard he went right back to the old days and became a relentless swarmer. Against Hagler he became a counterpuncher.

Armstrong hit a superprime, but it was brief. The fact that he would defend 3 titles simulaneously is the stuff of legend. Other than that, he had some losses -starting off with a record of 1-4 and at the end losing to guys like Reuben Shank who had <25 fights.

Duran had a longer prime and was able to offer high performances over a longer stretch and long after he should have been able to, but his lows were gutter-lows. He was also more skilled, more multidimensional, and fought monsters like Armstrong never did.

 

Bear in mind Armstrong was a natural featherweight, not a natural lightweight like Duran. It's more fitting to ask whether Armstrong could have beaten someone like Benny Leonard rather than Ray Leonard, and my answer to that is yes, I think he could. I also think he pushes Ray Leonard all the way as a welter, harder than Duran pushed Hagler, and on top of it all, I reckon Armstrong would give Hagler about as good a fight as Duran did himself.

 

I don't think Armstrong would beat Benny even at his best, never mind Ray Leonard.

You have some work to do if you think Armstrong would do as well against Hagler. Alot of work.

 

You said "lack of mobility". Are you trying to tell me Whitaker wasn't mobile, because in my opinion he was anything but. Please tell me how you define it

Benitez bigger, Hagler bigger, Laing bigger, Leonard was bigger and packed a shot. Those were not particularly physical fights Duran was involved in, I'm sure you agree. And nobody was better than Whitaker at negatating an opponent imposing his physical strength.

And Leonard did pack a punch, but apart from throwing a single lead right hand during the early rounds in New Orleans, his power punching was few and far between. Watch the fight and you'll notice it was mainly flurries Leonard threw when spinning off the ropes, apart from that it was a solid jab and constant lateral movement. This fight is fresh in my memory as I watched it around a month ago.

Whitaker was much better on the backfoot than Leonard when it came to scoring, especially backing up in a straight line behind the jab.

Again you mention Whitaker's lack of power, and the lack of artillery to keep Duran off him. Thats not what he needs, its skill and the ability inside the ropes. Whitaker proved so many times throughout his career he could offset come forward aggressors. You may well respond with "those opponents were not in the same class as Duran". Agreed.

But lets not forget the amount of C level fighters Duran fought, apart from Buchanan and De Jesus his level of opposition was moderate for around 90% of his defenses.

I think Whitaker had to deal with better fighters even though his reign was shorter. Haugen, Ramirez, Paez, and Nelson. Fighting a slightly higher quality of opponent would give Whitaker the edge to a certain degree. No substitute for it.

Afterall when both expressing our views and looking back over the history of their careers, especially at lightweight, the calibre of opponents each fought has to be taken into account strongly.

Whitaker had to deal with come forward aggressors mostly every fight. People who put pressure on him. Because they knew if they stood off such a fluid defensive boxing machine it was 12-0 in rounds. Whitaker's fight against Pineda, a classic example. He could lead off as well as counter.

Duran did have a very knowledgable and skilled mind to further enhance his raw aggression. This was finely tuned by Arcel and Brown as the 70's progressed. They taught Duran how to channel his aggression properly, and not go after opponents wrecklessly like a "bull in a china shop".

" a boxing mind - if you will - on par with the matadors". Your correct, but its all about the styles of each fighter more than anything. And as good as Duran was with his aggression, if this fight goes 15 rounds you honestly think Duran can win more rounds than Whitaker?.

A man who had every possible defensive move. Varying the height which he threw punches from, moving out of range with his left hand tucked beside his chin, thus not open to lead rights on the backfoot. The ability to cover up inside like a small crab and counter back at close quarters. Sublime judgement of distance behind a lightning right jab. An awesome arsenal of flurries inside and a very sharp lead left hand out his southpaw stance.

Duran was known for being a great inside fighter, and Whitaker's best work was from the outside. Reverse the roles. Id take Whitaker's inside work over Duran's outside work.

Chavez was among the greatest inside fighters ever, although not as fluid technically as Duran. Whitaker actually gave Chavez a working over inside and backed him up during the late rounds. Does Duran have an opponent on his record where he outboxed a boxer who was comparble to how good Chavez was at close quarters?

If Duran was an extremely tall lightweight, around 5' 11" with freaskish power to go with his style, he'd probably get the job done.

 

What distinguishes Armstrong-Leonard from Duran-Whitaker? Given your line of reasoning which leads Duran to a victory over Whitaker, what stops Armstrong from getting the victory over Leonard?

Is there any doubt that Armstrong would be stronger and more relentless than Benny, and with enough versatility to almost match Benny's flair?

I have a feeling you will say that Leonard is naturally bigger. To that I say, true, but so what? Hank is more than comfortable at 135 and beyond and he has proved it, time and again against tough, tough competition.

I think Armstrong would give Ray Leonard a real hard fight and if he thought Duran was relentless and had a huge workrate, well he better be prepared for Hank who has an even superior workrate and is even more relentless.

I think Armstrong would last about 8 or 9 rounds with Hagler. In that time, he should win about 3 or 4 rounds, much like Duran did against Hagler. He probably won't fight the cautious fight Duran did though and so won't survive, but really, Duran did little more than surive for most of the fight anyway.

 

By mobility, I mean legs. Whitaker was usually in range and usually would be in range... like he was against Ramirez II -a winning effort, and Chavez -perhaps his best performance. Whitaker's normal tendency to stay in striking distance is not a slap, it is a nod to his style. You are zeroing in on a point that I have long since discounted, namely, that Whitaker wasn't elusive. He was... but his legs were not often akin to Leonard in Duran II.. it was better than that.

The fact that Duran fought bigger guys bolsters the argument that Duran adjusted styles -he didn't simply go at large men. Except for Leonard -he tore into him to negate speed and force him to make a stand. And no, Leonard planted often in Montreal and went tit for tat. I disagree with you on that one.

Duran made big and surprising adjustments against Hagler. He was stale during Benitez, and a dud against Laing.

A note/ I think that we need to limit the discussion to skill and styles -and avoid the name dropping unless they are used to make a point of skill or style.

This does little to dispute my analysis. Keep in mind that this fight goes 15. Whitaker may well have won it over 10 or 12... but not 15.

That is not the major factor -especially since you concede that one's opponents are "slightly" better. Too subjective. Unless one of them had no real experience, it is not weighty. Duran had serious experience by the time he was 23. Duran proved his caliber against larger men and you cannot reasonably assume that because Duran's conquests are not quite as formidable as Whitaker's that it means much. It doesn't.

Haugen, Ramirez, Paez, and Nelson are not necessarily superior to Lampkin, Buchanan, Mamby, and DeJesus anyway.

Precisely. I think Duran will do damage and force Whitaker to either run and blow rounds like De La Hoya did against Tito, or force him to make a stand -and Whitaker just isn't going to outpunch a prime Duran -no way, no how. And he is simply too small to keep Duran off of him!

Now look at what you wrote here. First you bring up how Whitaker did well against a "come forward aggressor" but then concede that Duran was more than that. Whitaker's sublime performance against Paez does not even hint at what Duran would do or not do anymore than Duran's eventual wrecking of Bizzaro hints at Whitaker.

You have been examining Whitaker's tapes and have been neglecting Duran's. Duran's defense was subtle and again, it was combined with offense.. it was simultaneous. You seem to believe that Whitaker's defense was leagues above Duran's --and that is myth.

You'd take Whitaker's inside work over Duran's outside work? Don't see much difference there. I do see a difference between Duran's defense and Whitaker's offense. Duran was a defensive master. And he was an offensive killer. Whitaker was a defensive genius... but his offense was nowhere close. And that is another something that you are not quite grasping.

The Chavez fight is a big reason why I don't see Whitaker beating Duran. Duran would be far more fluid, far more elusive, and punch harder and faster. His skill was at a higher level than Chavez. He was fire to Chavez's ice. That fight gives you a clue because Chavez was aggressive and relentless... but Duran would be about 3 times what Chavez was.

If Whitaker were about 3 inches taller and stronger and had more of a whallop to keep Duran thinking twice about coming in, I'd give you Whitaker.

...Let's chant this together --Everybody!

Brains beat Brawn, but Brains don't beat Brainy Brawn​