How good was Duran - P4P GOAT?

Well, for an offensive fighter at least, his defence was as good as it gets. I reckon Duran had the reflexes and skills to be as elusive as Whitaker or Pep had he chosen to fight the same way.

 

Stonehands. When I said "movement" I meant leg movement, and the ability to circle the perimeter of the ring. Now our definition is the same. Movement and mobility is the same in my eyes. Maybe I should have not said just "movement", but "leg movement.

"And no, Leonard planted often in Montreal and went tit for tat. I disagree with you on that one". I never mentioned Montreal, I said New Orleans and was stricly talking about Leonard's work during the rematch. So you never disagreed with me at all.

 

Whitaker used his offense differently to Duran, as his style was the opposite. Just because Duran had more power and came forward with more authority, doesn't automatically mean his offense was better. Depends which way you look at it. Whitaker was more accurate than Duran, no question about it. Although not as powerful. But Duran's offense had more effect on an opponent than Whitaker's did. Just depends which style you like.

"Whitaker was a defensive genius... but his offense was nowhere close". Something you don't quite grasp either.

"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".

I'm not saying it was leagues above, but it was better. However, Duran's defense was better when fighters pressed the action against him.

Whitaker was virtually untouchable against Ramirez when he stood his ground throughout most of the rematch. Lets say Duran goes 12 rounds with Ramirez and doesn't pull out the stoppage and wins on the cards. Would Duran's defense prove as effective as Whitaker's?. I'll awnser that for you, nope.

 

You aint going to convince Manassa about Whitaker. If Whitaker was 90 years old and in a wheelchair and fought over 200 fights, then he might well have been the best wizard Manassa ever seen.

But its a long wait, another 50 years to go.

 

Nice little fight this one.

ALways LMFAO@ Alex Wallau criticizing Whitaker off of that performance. He basically did a paint job on a real tough veteran in only his tenth pro fight and Wallau was looking for more.

 

Don't talk bollocks.

And to Sweet Pea - I'm pretty certain Duran could look just as good against an opponent so sluggish and methodical if he chose to fight like that. As it turns out, he preferred to just batter 'em.

I don't want to get dragged down into a long-winded debate, but I'll say this to everybody - looking flawless like Whitaker is not everything. Duran might take a few more punches but more than made up for it with the concussion he often induced.

 

Sure, I agree. But you also have to factor in slower guys and more porous defenses.

I think it is a fine example of what we are both talking about. And you are correct about it being an almost different sport. An interesting observation!

I don't think so... Ali strides far above the vast majority of HWs... Robinson had more struggles because the skill level is simply higher among smaller men. I don't think that the demographic argument is surmountable. There are less big men in the world. Therefore, there are less good learners and thus good big men in the ring. That logic is very strong.

I don't think that the demographic argument is surmountable. There are less big men in the world. Therefore, there are less good learners and thus good big men in the ring. That logic is very strong!

I simply don't see the same level of skill among the HWs. Name three HW fighters who achieved the same level of skill as Mike McCallum. I think that Mike was technically better than Louis himself or Tunney.

If you see the same level of skill in that fight (just different) as in say, Toney-McCallum I, then we must part ways my friend.

Robinson 146. Moore 175. Both peaking. Robinson loses. I'd be more apt to congratulate him for trying.

Come now.

You haven't offered me a LW in the past 50 years as a point of contrast with Duran. If you cannot, then you should concede the uniqueness of Duran's accomplishments.

Duran belongs in the top 5, but never #1 in my opinion. Anyone ranking him at the lower end of the top 10 has a burden to explain it. If they meet that burden, I shut up. That being said, Duran in the top 10 if a cogent explanation is rendered, is okay. After that, I begin to question person's aptitude for understanding pugilism.

You have provided fair reasoning for ranking Duran at the lower end of the top 10 -although we must disagree on several points.

 

First of all, Armstrong and Duran are different fighters. They share similarities -physical strength, swarming tendencies, great inside work, conditioning, good power, but Armstrong was slightly smaller and was more relentless and pressing. Duran paced himself more, and was more versatile, with a more sophisticated defense although Armstrong's defense was surprisingly good considering his style.

I think that Benny would be a tough fight for Duran. I go with Duran -not because of the strength factor, but because the skill was comparable even with the Great Leonard. Armstrong fought smaller -he was a bit shorter, more swarming, and is more likely to be matadored than Duran. Leonard also hit harder than Whitaker -alot harder. Duran respected power. Armstrong would have to be wary of the big shots that could catch him coming in.

Roberto did not beat Ray simply because of the workrate. Swarming alone isn't going to beat Ray. Duran combines it with chess. Armstrong is naturally smaller than Duran and is more one-dimensional. Ray would, in my opinion, be able to solve that kind of puzzle.

Your analysis of Hagler-Armstrong is more agreeable. Although the quick dismissing of Duran's performance against Hagler out here is annoying. Very annoying. Duran didn't fight a "survival" fight by the way -he was close and he was tactical and was seeking to counter Hagler.

 

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Harry Greb
3. Ray Robinson
4. Willie Pep
5. Benny Leonard
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Roberto Duran
8. Archie Moore
9. Joe Gans
10. Barney Ross

 

I don't fancy Wayne.

 

Any gap you and Robbi see between Whitaker's and Duran's defense is not nearly as large as the gap I see between Whitaker's offense and Duran's offense.

Duran was a master defensive fighter -perhaps you don't see it because he combined it with more aggression than Whitaker (as Manassa has reminded the thread). I would put Whitaker above him in that category regardless... but Duran is among the most effective offensive machines ever -and Whitaker is not.

 

I have a minor beef with Fitzsimmons and Langford. They're more legendary than I am comfortable with. I don't think Benny was greater than Duran -especially when you consider their accompishments in toto. I would absolutely dispute Ali and Leonard being above Duran.

We agree that these rankings and the hypotheticals are subjective opinions. I approach them not with the belief that I have exclusive access to the god of wisdom and pugilism, but with an eye on presenting good argument and avoiding logical fallacies and such.