How good was Duran - P4P GOAT?

And we agree on that one.

Interesting musings.... Barkley's style and assets can be overcome by a wider range of boxers -defensive masters, counterpunchers, mobile sharp shooters, etc. Hearns' style by contrast is extremely difficult to beat --Leonard, frankly, had luck on his side -complemented by his indomitable will. Leonard was savvy enough to delay fighting him both times as much as politics and his legacy allowed.

The way to beat Hearns is with superior physical strength and endurance, superb conditioning, heavy punching, and a good chin... the Hagler model... and even that is high risk. Barkley just made it the first time. Roldan, tough as he was, couldn't quite do it, even though he had the tools due to that fiercesome firepower.

 

Of course, also Felix and Oscar felt comfortable at the weight, Nelson obviously didn't feel as good, mentally if anything, hence the reluctance to challenger at 135 again.

 

My post was soley on fighters going up against others physically, with fighters moving up, and others moving past divisions with more ease.

Just how great was Trinidad?. Whats that got to do with our debate regarding weight. And the rest of your post you mention how great Whitaker was at 135lbs compared to Trinidad at 147lbs.

You said Whitaker had a size advantage over Nelson, and even went as far to say about that fight "a good big man always beats a good little man".

We went onto disagree about Hagler having a physical size advantage over Hearns. I then gave you a comparison with De La Hoya moving up four divisions and fighting Trinidad at welterweight, who then went onto carry the weight better past the division they squared off at.

You quoted me, yet dodged my question. Nothing to do with me saying De La Hoya would lose to Leonard and Hearns and how great a fighter Joppy is. The worst reply ever JT lol.

 

Holyfield at heavyweight against the 1993 version of Toney. Holyfield wins. If thats what you mean.

But even though Toney was previously a middleweight, don't matter. The truth of the matter is that on the night Holyfield never looked bigger. I will say after he fought Holyfield, he couldn't sustain the same physical shape and ended up putting on over a stone.

 

I don't many think Duran is the greatest of all time most would probably have him in the top ten p4p which is were he belongs. I not sure why so many people are talking about he lost to the best fighters he fought the fact is most of the all time greats he fought were in higher weight classes.

Not really sure why Whittaker has been mentioned so many times in this thread since it's about Duran. And people need to remember the number of fights Duran had and was still beating good opponents like Barkley when he was way past his prime. The way I see it Duran is a great if you have him at number 1 or 15 he deserves a lot of respect for what he has achieved.

 

Fair assumption that one.

 

Evander Holyfield 2003 = Iran Barkley 1993. And Toney eats the slowed-down sluggers up with his pristine counterpunching and angles... beautiful to watch... about as beautiful (and challenging) as watching Robinson on the speed bag.

 

...unless it's Larry.

 

Holyfield was looking really big, big as ever so we should take this to be an example of why Nelson was oh so dangerous to Whitaker? Whitaker was one og the greatest lightweights in history at the peak of his game. How did Holyfield stand in comparison?

 

Anyway, I rank top 10 pfp usually on how good they were at their best weight, hence the reason Duran's a lock for top 10 and challenging for Top 5. Weight jumpers only impress me greatly when they beat 'The Man' at the division above.

 

But you aren't comparing apples with apples, we are talking greats here.

Greatness has everything to do with it Robbi. Everything. Hearns moved to 160 after Leonard and beat Singletary, does this prove anything at all?

ALMOST always beats them with most things being equal thanks. Which stood the test of Whitaker - Nelson of course. Why do you think Duran's win over Leonard is so revered? It was a very very rare achievement. Like Ray over Hagler.

DLH moved up 3 divisions, not 4, unless my math is way out. Again, your words back me. Trinidad, probably not as great as DLH, never the less held him out in their actual fight (deserved or not) and was stronger at the higher weights. This backs my argument.

atsch

 

I'll give you my view JT.

Nelson was never by my definition a natural lightweight. My definition of 'natural' is 'the weight at which you spend the majority of your prime at'. That for Nelson was at 126. That for Hearns was (imo) at 147, possibly 154 (as we've debated before), at 130 for Arguello, at 175 for Spinks etc.

Nelson was in terms of size on the night he fought Whitaker, quite similar to Whitaker, and though he was strong as an ox there, he was stronger still in a p4p sense at 126 and 130, where he was much stronger in comparison to his opponents.

My best guess for why he didn't re-enter the lightweight division after Whitaker left was that he was already starting to have problems dealing with the guys he was facing at 130 at that stage, and probably felt a move to 135 was beyond him at that time.

A decent question to ask, as you have, is why he even bothered moving up to lightweight in the first place, past his peak as he was. Well, imo at that stage he had the confidence that he could beat the lightweights around (he was even bragging after wins at 130 that he wanted to move up and take on welterweights), and probably fancied himself against Whitaker in particular, who he matched up quite evenly with in terms of size (Whitaker of course, was also relatively light hitting, so there was no threat of a knockout awaiting in taking that bout).

That confidence was probably dinted after he had started to struggle at 130
(Fenech, Ruelas, Leija), and he probably thought it best to hold the fort rather than try and conquer new territory.

This wasn't just a psychological barrier though, it was a physical one too. He continued to decline after the Whitaker fight and by the time Whitaker had vacated he was no longer the fighter he was even 2 years earlier. Though he had a good 1992 (in which he beat a somewhat faded Fenech - a bout he had to take after the larceny in the first fight, and then beating Grove) he struggled mightily in 1993 and that was probably the end of any wish to go up in weight.

 

And that's a decent call. Hearns beat Benitez at 154. Arguello had the sense and great grace to go after the man (Pryor)for top honours at 140. Spinks beat Holmes. Gomez tried Sanchez. Pintor - Gomez. Camacho didn't beat em.

 

Well i am glad i prompted you SS, because i agree with absolutely everything you said. A superbly balanced post.

I'll add that besides your points on a Whitaker fight (light hitter, fancied his chances etc) i think Azumah was chasing a bit of legacy. Whitaker had some excellent wins by then and was very definitely the man. Full credit to Nelson for going after Numero Uno. A great fighter and courageous champion was Nelson. He came out to take on Fenech in his own backyard cauldron after the first fight drama's and kudo's to him for that. I'm sure you can read between the lines and realise i am taking nothing away from Whitakers win.

 

Fair post. Just let me add that Hearns vulnerabilities became a little more accentuated at 160.