Is Roberto Duran the greatest boxer since Sugar Ray Robinson?

Pacquiao has clearly lost the series to Marquez. If we're talking about how amazingly talented he is as a fighter, Fighting Harada brought way more to the table in terms of high-end swarming. Again, the more modern guy doesn't match up well even in terms of pure fighting ability. Right up there, no doubt, but not automatically superior.

EDIT: By the way Katie, Roy Jones, probably the most talented out of those you used as an example, used a very old school training setup. It was when he reverted to more modern conditioning techniques that he went downhill and lost his reflexes, when trying to physically rebuild after using, you guessed it, modern training techniques to bulk up against John Ruiz.

 

Also, Willie Pep just doesn't have the resume to justify top 4.

 

You ever get the feeling you're talking to yourself, Flea?

 

I have Pep at around #6-10.

One of my favourite old guys to watch & the closer I look at his career the more impressed I get.

Greatest ever defensive fighter imo.

 

Yes, but then not everyone has the time to be on here 24/7 ;-) I can wait, in fact, I would say this poster has been pretty fair so far so it should be an interesting debate.

I can see the two sides. But with Jones, the most phenomenal fighter I've ever seen on film most probably (Duran the most rounded; Jones the most insanely gifted) the evidence is all there. He was old school.

 

Same here I think....actually he may be just outside the top ten last time I did it, Barney Ross was greater IMO.

Beautiful fighter to watch, shame most of the footage we have is past his prime (that's what makes him either more astounding though!)

 

Roy Jones was unique, a natural talent who was forced to fight from a very early age.

Watching him these days is painful, that Lebedev fight in paticular.

 

Agree with all that but Ross, Charles & Langford are all guys I dont know a lot about so they don't rank as high in my top10 as most, Ross isnt in it

 

All 3 would be right up your street mate. All incredible P4Pers. Langford could possibly be argued as 'primitive' (doesn't look it against Lang, Flynn and Jeanette though) but the other two were beautiful operators.

Enjoy :good

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXz8CZDE7XI[/ame]

 

:good

Vano did a good post on Charles in the encyclopedia thread

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/...&postcount=761

 

Great debate :good

I am by no means an expert, but I am learning all the time. I have a real interest in the history of boxing and along with my dad have watched pretty much all of the greats. Having said that, they are so man fighters that I haven't seen enough of to really argue my case. Infact I haven't seen anything of Benny Leonard at all.

I just feel that with all the improvements in nutrition/science etc etc that it would be wrong to dismiss the possibility that current fighters are not as good as the old ones. It would, as you say, make boxing the exception in sport.

Two names that I don't think that were mentioned that deffo have a case for top 10-15 imo are Charlie Burley, Jimmy Wilde.


Flea - one thing I will argue with you all day long about is that Floyd is 'nowhere near top 50' you are way out on that one and nobody will convince me otherwise

 

Flea, didn't you used to think Audley Harrison would beat Joe Louis because of "modern training"?