Duran doesn't belong at #1 and probably not at #2 either. No Mas hurts his legacy. His inconsistency hurts him. If not for these two negatives, he'd be higher. If he eaked Hagler and beat Hearns, I'd put him over Robinson. When he stepped into the ring at Montreal, his record was 67-1, 56 KOs. That is a serious record and you mentioned several good to excellent fighters he defeated. Buchanan, DeJesus, Lampkin, and probably Ishimatsu would have been far more notable if not for Duran's dominance in the LW division. The detractors out here should ask themselves where they would put Duran had he died in plane crash after beating Leonard. He would have been almost myth. But that was 1980. Duran fought on... and in so doing he was inconsistent, which I think keeps him from the very top. But there is gold in the 80s and even the 90s... when inspired, he beat monsters. I put him at #3. It depends on what the measures are though. Part of the reason for that is the measures I use. They include these: * dominance in his natural division * ring generalship/skill level * quality of competition * longevity * performance against "larger men." Duran scores very, very highly in these categories. Both "longevity" and "performace against larger men" goes far in revealing the level of skill in a great fighter because everything else is stripped away and you see the essentials. Well, Duran showed more than anyone this side of Langford. Let me put it this way.... Duran had NO BUSINESS defeating an elite welterweight in Ray Leonard. He had NO BUSINESS fighting Hagler at 25 pounds out of his prime weight, inside (not outside a la Ray) the perimeter (where it was always dangerous) and taking him 15 rounds while Hagler was in his prime and had knocked out his previous 7(?) opponents. Duran had NO BUSINESS defeating Barkley who was larger and arguably stronger than even Hagler when Duran was a full TEN YEARS after his prime and 21 years into his career. Iran Barkley by the way just handed Hearns the most devestating KO of his career. Damn it, I thought he defeated Camacho (who was a slick boxer and mover) when he was 45 years old and got ripped off. We forget that this was a damn lightweight years past his prime, competing way out of his division. He had neither the height nor the frame to allow for it like most others. He wasn't even a large lightweight like De La Hoya. Duran was completely physically outgunned by everyone he fought from 1980 on. Commentator/trainer Gil Clancy observed during the Monroe Brooks Jr. WW fight (Dec. 1978) that "Duran's frame is too short and squared to compete against middleweights". Listen to Clancy during the Barkley fight 10 years later and keep in mind that Barkley had the frame of a light heavyweight although he fought as a middleweight. (By the way, Barkley was at his absolute best for this fight and if you watch him before and after Feb 1989, it is very clear.) Clancy was in complete shock. During the ref's instructions, Duran is looking up into the sky at Barkley's chin. He was a small man and we forget that. Can anyone see even the great Chavez posing a real challenge to Hagler? I sure as hell don't. I don't see Chavez faring too well against Barkley either. Chavez is an all-time, top 20 great at the very least in my opinion. Duran was the same height as Chavez and had an inch shorter reach. And yet Duran's accomplishments dwarf Chavez's. These nay-sayers out here need to do their homework. PS/ Asterion, I think that Duran's "ranking" at WW is only head-to-head. At least, that is what I've noticed. Leonard would be tough for any WW in history this side of Robinson to defeat, and the idea of a LW doing it is very surprising. This content is protected This content is protected
I'm 49 years old, been a serious boxing fan since I was 15 and Roberto Duran is the best fighter I ever saw. Period!