if Roberto duran was a lightweight in the 40s

Roberto Duran was a great lightweight , but he would NOT DOMINATE, the great
lightweights of the early 1940s, which spawned a "golden" age of lightweights.
Such as Ike Williams, Bob Montgomery, Beau Jack, Willie Joyce, Sammy [the clutch] Angott, Henry Armstrong, and Freddie Dawson so tough he had to get fights in Australia.
I saw all of these toughies ringside except Freddie Dawson and without a doubt everyone of these worthy lightweights would beat every LW that Duran fought...
All these guys had over 100 bouts, fighting monthly against the cream of the crop...
But the best of them was Ike Williams as a LW UNCUFFED.. A rangy dynamic puncher who would have defeated Roberto Duran as a LIGHTWEIGHT IMO...

 

No single lightweight dominated the division in the 40s, nor would Duran have done so nor Benny Leonard.

Duran, however, would be a great in any era and fighting those guys -- winning many, losing a few -- would only have enhanced his greatness.

 

S, I beg to differ on one of your points...Believe me when I tell you that in the 1940s No boxing writer, trainer etc , EVER put any of the 1940s lightweights in the same class as Benny Leonard... I used to listen to Sam Taub on radio as a youngster, he saw and announced fights before Don Dunphy did and his guests would all say that the prime Benny Leonard could call the round against his opponents, but held back to gain money rematches. Truly the greatest LW ever who held the title against the greatest array of Lightweights, many HOFers for over SEVEN years and retired in his prime because his momma wanted him too leave with his health intact...Which he did...

 

Ray Arcel, Roberto Duran's trainer himself called Benny Leonard the greatest lightweight since Joe Gans. Nuff said !

 

Of couse Duran would've been competitive back in the 40's but dominate? No way. As a LW Duran never met the likes of Ike Williams, Henry Armstrong, Sammy Angott et al.. That era was rich with world class talent and Duran would've been in it up to his neck. Burt hit the nail on the proverbial head on this question and as he said...."Nuff said"!

 

He might have cracked the top ten in the 40's, the top 30 in the 20's, the top 400 in the 1890's.

Ray Arcel said the horseless carriage would never be a match for a well-broken and saddled steed. And dagummit, he was right!

 

Arcel also said that Duran could have been the champ in any era.

 

Benny Leonard MAY have been the best lightweight of all time. Even if that is so, he was not undefeated in his prime. He would not, IMO, have DOMINATED the 1940s lightweight scene, which was far deeper and better than the competition he faced in his day.

 

Once again, we're comparing fighters from different eras.
The nutrition, physique, etc. has to play into things. Roberto is right at the top IMO of the greatest LW's of all time.
In regards to Leonard, who I regard as an all time great as well, didn't Don Dunphy mention that he had over 30 or something "no-decision'' bouts?

 

Duran would hold his own in any era and I think the 40's who be no exception and in fact give the style of many of these fighters Duran would have loved fighting in that era. Not saying he wins all the time, but I can't think of a particular weakness in his style if he's fighting fighters who want to engage. Certainly if he could take Barkley's best shot he could take those of any lightweight.

 

I must disagree :smoke. Sugar Ray Robinson couldn't even KO Angott. Duran wouldn't either.