Myth: Roberto Duran has a better resume than Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao.

It can be a great thread IF he’s willing to have an objective debate using the appropriate context that’s required.

 

This is all well and good, but you have to be objective and again look at a win like the Barkley one here.

Barkley isn’t a HOF fighter.

Prime for prime, he wasn’t as good as many, if not all of the guys above.

On a P4P basis, he may not rank higher.

However:

Duran’s win over Barkley is absolutely a better win than most of Floyd’s wins over the guys above, WHEN he actually fought them.

This is when the context and the stats have to be separated.

 

He won’t apply any context.

He’s trying to win the debate on statistics.

Unfortunately for him, it’s not going to wash with the knowledgeable posters who are educated on the era.

 

At the same time, it's interesting what @NoNeck is doing, because it's a pretty orthodox application of the Ring-contender-counting that we do a lot around here. In fact, we do it in defense of old time fighters frequently, rattling off the names of ranked opponents vanquished when somebody derides (say) Louis.

Perhaps I'm just being quirky, but I don't really see @NoNeck as doing much statistical. (Nothing complicated, anyway; it's basic tallying.) What he is doing -- and well, in my opinion -- is playing by the usual rules and basically saying, "Well, why can't Mayweather get away with this if everyone else does?"

 

I think the stats are a good starting point. But, as I said in another post, then you need to take into account that Leonard is another stratosphere than, say, Baldomir despite both being nr. 1 at the time. You also need to take into account that Floyd never shamed himself anything remotely in the ring like Duran did in New Orleans. And other things that you use to calibrate that kind of break down. But it's a good starting point.

 

Pac would continue to be a top WW for years, so he was still a very good opponent at that point. Not like SRL in 1980, but very good.

 

ya because the comp was **** .. Keith Thurman LMAO ... I guess some dont get what a shop worn fighter means ,,, Especially having probably the best resume in the last 40 years of the sport

 

It’s certainly interesting to look at. But it obviously comes with an agenda. You only have to look at his posts to see that.

Whilst the numbers have to be respected, they don’t give you the full picture.

There’s no context.


He doesn’t even know the difference between best wins and best resume.

Wins, legacy, historical rankings and resumes, are all different arguments altogether.

He’d have been better off just stating that both Floyd and Manny have better wins.

A resume incorporates losses.


He says that Floyd and Manny both categorically have better resumes.

No, they don’t.

It doesn’t matter if Duran lost.

Duran fought the better fighters.

Therefore he has the better resume.


Duran fought a prime Leonard twice.

A prime Benitez.

A prime Hagler.

A prime Hearns.


That’s FOUR prime ATG’s.


The guys who Floyd and Manny fought do not compare.

If he wants to say that they have more wins or better wins, then that’s cool.


Irrespective of his stats, Duran clearly has the better resume, as he fought some of the greatest fighters in the history of the sport, all whilst they were in their prime.

He’s too dense to even realise that he’s used the wrong vocabulary.


Floyd and Manny had the better careers in terms of statistical wins and achievements, but Duran clearly has the best resume.

There is no myth.

Only a lack of common sense from No Neck.

 

That's a win, like Tyson's over Holmes, that has aged well.

 

Duran will live with the ‘No Mas’ fight for the rest of his life.

He’s carried it for 40 odd years, and he’ll carry it to the grave.

It will always haunt him.

It was a terrible mistake.

However, as bad as it was, he’d already had a win over Leonard, and nobody at the time thought that it’d take another 8 years for them to match up again.

Floyd’s fans often gloat that he never shamed himself like Duran did in New Orleans. And whilst that’s true, the fact is: Although he never quit in the same way, he simply would never have taken on some of the guys who Duran did.

Floyd would never have signed contracts to fight guys like Hagler and Hearns.

We all know this.


Like I’ve just pointed out in my previous post, No Neck doesn’t know the difference between best wins and best resumes.

He doesn’t realise that losses are incorporated into a resume.

He’s trying to spin the stats so he can say that Floyd and Manny have better resumes. But he can’t. Simply because Duran fought better fighters. He fought ATG’s who were in their primes.

Neither Floyd or Manny fought the quality of opposition that Duran did.

Again, rating wins is another argument altogether.

Despite him losing most of his biggest fights, Duran clearly has the better resume of the 3 fighters.

Quality over quantity.

 

You don’t know the difference between a fighter’s best wins and a fighter’s overall resume.

Best wins and best resumes are different things altogether.

They’re completely different arguments.


Duran categorically has the best resume, as he fought the better fighters.

ATG legends who were in their primes.

Losses are incorporated into resumes.


Manny and Floyd statistically achieved more and have a better group of overall wins.


Duran has the best resume of the three.


You might want to edit the thread title.

 

What separates Duran in terms of wins is the one over Leonard. Apart from that their top wins are close, and both Pac and Floyd has more second and third tier wins. I think the OP showed this quite well, even though you have to make adjustments like Baldomir really being more of perhaps even a third tier win despite him being lineal at the time.

From that point I could see how one could still have Duran ahead of the other two just because his tremendous win over Leonard - if it wasn't for No Mas. I think they're close enough to make that the decider for me.

That's in terms of legacy and not necessarily in terms of who was best at their peak. I won't really argue with anyone who says that LW Duran on his best nights was the best of the three, even though that perhaps is harder to measure. But in terms of greatness he's behind imo.

EDIT: Despite the criticism I give Duran for No Mas, I do believe LW Duran was one of the best and most complete fighters ever. He was an absolute beast.

 

Great points.

They would all make for some great debates.


Who was the better all-round fighter when they were at their best?

Who has the better legacy?

Who has the better wins?

Who took more risks?

Who achieved the most?

Who should rank higher?

Who has the best resume?

Who would have won had they all have fought?


Again, regarding No Neck’s original point, which I’m sure now was a mistake on his part due to how he worded it, Roberto Duran has the best resume of the three fighters.

 

I wasn't too bothered with the conclusions he made, didn't really read them, but I really liked the break down and appreciate that he took the time and did thorough job, agenda or no. As previously said, I think it's good material as a starting off point.

 

Duran’s take on the matter

This content is protected