How good was Duran - P4P GOAT?

Stop ranting. It is a biased, deceptive, and stupid statement to make ..."he lost to every great he faced." The man stepped up from the lightweights and defeated a top 2 or 3 WW of all time. There goes your criticism of the quality of his competition in the LWs. He proved his greatness once and for all. Duran beat Leonard and honestly, he should not have had the capability. Great little guys don't beat great bigger guys. Then he goes 15 with Hagler. He fought everyone and anyone and the man was small and far past his prime while doing this. If you know anything about boxing, you know that this does not happen often. Maybe once in generations.

Whitaker, though great, wasn't going to beat Ray Leonard. He's simply not strong enough and you don't outbox Ray -not unless you have guns like Hearns. Whitaker had relative (sweet) pea shooters.

I don't care where you rank him. I'm out here calling you and a few others out because some of these posts defy reason and sense. Call it quality control.

De La Hoya was 5'10. He had the frame to compete. And Sturm was no where near as dangerous as Iran that night. And De La Hoya's win was three times more controversial than Duran's over Barkley. And Whitaker never took a MW title or fought anyone near the size and capability of Leonard, Hearns, or Hagler.

So, no dice.

By the way, Duran was a small man. He was box-shaped -he had short arms and had a frame that would have been problematic even as a WW. He was also past prime and had about twice the fights Whitaker had. Duran also did not have the mobility or the speed to finesse his way through the heavier divisions. He had to take it and give it.

I have already quoted those posts of yours that would have been better off deleted and I told you why.

I have a problem with anyone who doesn't have him in the top 5. When examining a fighter's greatness, especially head to head, you have to take him at his best. Duran was inconsistent, which is why he can't be #1, and he quit. You are upholding a double standard here. Langford and Armstrong were not exactly consistent either.

I don't fail to realize anything. My argument is designed to attack yours and thus I won't waste time on the obvious and on points I have made consistently for 2 years out here. His resume is not overrated because it is full of unprecedented achievements that you are minimizing.

I see you added in "prime fighting skills" here. Do you factor in longevity? Experience? Dominance in natural division? Performance against larger men outside of his division? Your position just keeps on shrinking.

 

Duran happens to be my favourite fighter of all time. You could easily make a case for Duran being considered a top 20 "pound for pound" fighter with his 7 year lightweight reign. Especially as he's considered among the greatest lightweights of all time, actually the greatest in the eyes of the majority.

Something which gets overlooked beyond belief, he had 22 non-title bouts during his reign between 1972 and 1978. He was much busier during the 70's than he's given credit for, no question.

I don't think he's unbeatable at lightweight, I'd take Whitaker to beat Duran.

 

You're coming around. Experience is a subset of longevity. If you fight Tomato Ken and Glass Joe in Massachusetts armories for 10 years, it ain't worth spit. Duran fought every style imaginable. Your examples of Leonard and Benitez are not persuasive. Duran was in his 30s and slowing down against larger and faster men.

Fought "good" against Leonard, Hagler, and Barkley? Allow me to rehabilitate that. Try "great". That's like saying that Einstein was a smart guy. He was brilliant.

You said nothing about Langford and Armstrong.

 

Many experts have Duran as the best LW of all time, and I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the ones who don't have him in the top 3. The rest shouldn't be called experts.

Many of the WW's and MW's that Duran lost to were ATG's who were natural to that weight. Not to mention, this occurred after Duran had been fighting for almost 15 years.

I don't get this criticism of his LW 'resume'. He beat all the best LW's he could face and did so as convincingly as possible. I'm sorry the guy can't time travel for you.

 

Oh and by the way, as good as Whitaker was, I can't see him beating Duran at LW. Duran was too strong and physical at that weight. He wasn't some crude puncher that Whitaker would be able to make a fool of.

 

Leonard had to literally run from Duran to beat him that way. Duran would have been quicker at LW. Not to mention, Duran did face some very slick boxers at LW and destroyed them.

Whitaker was a very good LW, though. I'll admit that. I think it would be a great fight, but I see Duran scoring a few KD's and winning a decision or late stoppage.

 

Duran could outbox a lot of boxers by the way. He did it many times at LW.

He just wasn't as fast after moving up in weight.

 

Duran had plenty of power. Most of his KO's were only accumulation KO's to the extent that at lower weights, it's common that one has to wear his opponent down before he can catch him with flush punches.

I mean, he's floored MW's. I think it's safe to say he had plenty of power at LW.

Duran was also a lot faster at LW than you seem to want to give him credit for. He walked through styles at that weight. Style didn't become a factor for him until he moved up in weight he was THAT GOOD at LW.

 

Duran was a fast lightweight, but his handspeed wasn't as quick as Whitaker's. And Duran had more problems with boxers at lightweight than Whitaker did with come forward aggressive fighters.

Lou Bizzaro caused Duran a few problems with being slick, and Ray Lampkin as well. However, I won't look soley at those two fights and say because Whitaker was better than both those opponents he automatically wins. Standing right in front of Duran would be suicide, and Whitaker's style is the polar opposite. He doesn't just have the reflexes and ring generalship to cause Duran a major headache, but also had so much ability up his sleeve in many areas to adjust to heated situations. If he went against the ropes and Duran clearly had success against him there, he would seldom be back on the ropes. Especially with George Benton getting his ear.

Duran did have very good power at 135lbs, but not quite lethal enough to KO Whitaker with a single shot. He would need to hit Whitaker on a regular basis and wear him down to get the stoppage, like he did with most of his opponents at lightweight. Whitaker had superb instincts when judging range, and he could pop the jab out while moving back in a straight line, not just laterally. Very versataile in terms of being effective while boxing no matter where he was moving inside the ropes.

Looking at Duran's stoppage wins over his 7 year reign, most came after 10 rounds. Now, I'm not for one moment saying Duran was a powder puff puncher at lightweight, but for someone who fought so aggressively he wasn't despatching his opponents early. Buchanan, De Jesus, Lampkin, Viruet, Fernandez, all took Duran deep into the late rounds. Thats just some. His power came into play down the stretch when an opponents fatgue set in with the ferocious pace and workrate Duran put together throughout the fight.

I can't see Duran hitting Whitaker enough to get a stoppage, and he would be getting outboxed in the proccess. Whitaker has the style to not just go into a defensive shell and make things awkward for someone with Duran's aggression, but would also make him pay while doing so. Probably the key area for Whitaker would his ability to land effective jabs while Duran was advancing.

Whitaker could move effectively all night long, no stamina issues when he looked out on his feet during the late rounds. He played the percentage game extremely well when it came thinking defense and offense.

 

It would be a hard long road trying to make a case for him not being top 20 i think.

 

This is how I see it too. Good summary.

 

How much higher than Buchanan do you rate DeJesus?

I'll actually beg to differ on this one. Benitez was widely considered to have found his niche at 154 pounds. He was young and carried 154 very very well. His punch, never huge, was likely as good at 154 as anywhere. After the Duran victory many thought he could extract revenge on SRL at 154, and a surprising amount also gave him a good shake at Hagler if and when he grew or moved to 160. When he beat Duran he was considered at that time to be at the top of his game and one of the best 3 or 4 fighters P4P going.

 

How much higher than Buchanan do you rate DeJesus?

I'll actually beg to differ on this one. Benitez was widely considered to have found his niche at 154 pounds. He was young and carried 154 very very well. His punch, never huge, was likely as good at 154 as anywhere. After the Duran victory many thought he could extract revenge on SRL at 154, and a surprising amount also gave him a good shake at Hagler if and when he grew or moved to 160. When he beat Duran he was considered at that time to be at the top of his game and one of the best 3 or 4 fighters P4P going. After Hearns beat him he never really regained focus or interest, which was always going to be a potential problem for him.