How highly do you rank Roberto Duran as a welterweight?

I agree with Senya; Arnold Cream could have turned the trick with one punch. Crazy hero worshipers...

 

:rofl

So ****ing appropriate.

 

Well, if we're throwing ludicrous notions around

 

everytime a fighter moves up from his original weight obviously he is not at the same level. Hearns and Benitez fought almost best at 154. Duran was probably 90 percent of what he was at lightweight and probably 80 percent at 154 and so on, which is usually why people think a fighter who is older and heavier to still win can win at a lower percentage of his skill, so he is still great. So I can see the logic there. I think Duran would have been 90 percent. He fought Luigi Minchillo at 154 as early as 1981. I am not sure why he didn't stay at 147. I know he probably had weight issues, and Ray and Hearns were at 147 and he would have had to fight them had he won some fights.

 

Duran via ferociousness.

Oh no, I'm rather enjoying living in the opposite extreme of the spectrum, especially with frequent visits to the general.

He was as unhittable as it gets for a fighter who employed the type of style and manner in which he fought. Nobody ever meshed the two - offensive/defensive skill and ability - at a higher level. And if they did, give me their best win.

 

If the 'Brawl in Montreal' was anywhere near the evenly matched slugfest it's made out to be, Duran would've been counted out that night.

 

Yeah, Ray couldn't drop him. Neither could Barkley.

Barkley was better than Choynski by the way.

 

@Senya always defending Jones but knocking Duran.

Sorry, you know a lot and I love your blog but that´s hilarious.

 

Delete as I don't want to get into an argument with the most condescending man in the World.

 

Barkley was a slow, unskilled brawler. Leonard didn't hit as hard as either Walcott or Ryan.

All this 1st Duran-Leonard bout hysteria would be like me saying Freddie Welsh was an all-time Top 10 fighter because he had got the better of Benny Leonard in their 2nd fight. And I'd ignore that he was outclassed the other two times they met, not to mention that many other fighters got the better of him.

 

I thought I was the most condescending man in the world.

Barkeley was all that. And if Roy would have beat him he would have been one of Roys 5 greatest wins. And of course Walcott could knockout Duran if he caught him right: but he didn't catch Gans and they're comparable. And the Welsh comparison is flawed. Now if Johnny Kilbane moved up and beat Leonard in a title fight for his belt it would be closer (and ole Johnny might be a top 10.)

 

Barkley would be one of Roy's 20 best wins, perhaps. Closer to the 20th.

Gans and Duran had different styles, Gans was less likely to be caught clean and flush than Duran. Benny was seen every bit as great or even better and more invincible than Ray at the time. Nobody gave Welsh a chance after their 1st bout.

 

Duran had been fighting at light welterweight limit for close to 8 years at that moment, let's not pretend it's a jump of Terry McGovern or Henry Armstrong caliber.

 

It's a hard task. He did something at welterweight what very few fighters could have accomplished in beating an undefeated Sugar Ray Leonard. That is one of the biggest wins in the history of the sport. He also looked like a million dollars against Palomino.

His loss against Hearns was as a light-middleweight. So was his win vs Cuevas. You can use these to guage his ability at higher weights, just like we can use his lightweight dominance as a gauge for his ability, but they should come with an asterisk.

I don't know enough of his competition for a historical place, though.

 

Gans was stopped about as many times as Duran although of course he was a better defensive fighter relative to.his era.

The second part is ridiculous and you know it. Roy beating Ruiz is about the same as Duran beating Barkley all things considered. And of course had Jones beat Barkeley that would be a top 10 win for him in just about everybody elses eyes.