Poll.. Who do you rate higher p4p. Roberto Duran or Muhammad Ali?

Quite open for me. And these comparisons are always tough. Was Duran more well-rounded and skilled? Yes. But lightweights are generally more well-rounded and skilled than heavyweights. No HW comes close to Duran in these aspects IMO.

Ali on the other hand was more athletic and probably more tactically astute. And he would NEVER quit a fight like Duran did against Leonard.

But I prefer to compare resumes. Here Duran not only stands among the very, very best at LW, but also has great accomplishements in WW and MW. He also had quite outstanding longevity.

On the other hand, Ali has fewer losses when reasonably close to his prime and quite fewer over all. He also has a better record against his best opponents.

All in all, I feel they are pretty close, and that the big difference in weight class (even though they seem to be in the same one today :yep) makes it hard to say who should rank higher.

 

Duran...only because he'd scowl at me and make me cry if I didn't

 

Duran.

 

Duran is my #3; Ali my #11.

 

I am fairy young & missed some Duran's 70's fights(I am now trying watch whatever they have online/youtube) ,but I don't get the love affair with this fighter. I guess I grew up seeing him relatively youg being schooled & made a fool of by Ray Leonard, absolutely destroyed by Hearns & beaten fairly covincingly by Hagler. Head to Head means a lot to me especially a reasonably aged (under 34?) fighter.

But that is why I joined to get insight from knowledgable boxing fans. So why do fans & the Ring magazine rank this guy(Duran) so highly? No excuses ,but reasonable explanations. Absolutely a GREAT fighter ,but ?

 

I voted Ali. They both had big achievements in their careers, but Duran's alternated with some very embarrassing losses (mainly, the quit job vs. Leonard and the quick blowout by Hearns).

 

:good

I'd only give a few men in history a 50% chance at best against Ali, of his own weight or above. I can't say the same about Duran, for even his own weight.

 

Duran started his career out as a bantamweight a decade before Hearns or Leonard started their careers and about 6 or 7 years before Hagler. His career spanned over 70 fights and about 13 years when he first fought Leonard. His fights against Leonard, Hearns, Benitez, and Hagler were more or less all past his absolute peak (aside from Duran-Leonard I, which was the best performance from a fighter I've ever seen).

He was still in his early-mid 30's by the time he fought them all, but that's not the whole story. Arguello was all but done by that age as well, Hagler himself was also.

This is a natural lightweight, who beat just about all of the top guys at the weight during his years there, including Ken Buchanan and Esteban DeJesus (both probably inside the top 15 all-time at 135), and was a dominant champion while there. He then steps up to 147, dominates former champion Carlos Palomino, and then defeats one of the top 3 fighters in the history of the Welterweight division, a top 15 P4P of all-time, when this fighter was in his prime. Arguably the greatest win in boxing history.

The rematch has to take something from Duran. It's not like he's the only great fighter who quit, but this was a big fight and he did quit, that's a big negative mark. However, he could have retired right there. 72-2, wins over the only two men who beat him, a dominant Lightweight champion who took the Welterweight crown. But he chose to fight on. Loses to Benitez and Laing at 154, but comes back and stops Pipino Cuevas and Davey Moore for the WBA belt. We know this isn't prime Duran at this point, 20lbs above his best, you just have to watch him fight to see he was clearly not at his peak anymore at 154. Moves up to 160 and in his first fight at the weight, takes on Hagler, giving him a good fight, one that was probably more competitive than any other in Hagler's reign.

Gets destroyed by Hearns in his next fight, but given the foot long reach disadvantage, the height disadvantage, the fact that he was past his prime and up against a guy like Hearns who was never better, that isn't much of a mark against him. Not many past prime lightweights are going to do well against Hearns at 154.

He loses to Robbie Simms shortly afterwards, but puts together a string of wins before he gets a shot at Iran Barkely for the Middleweight title. 22 years after his career began, 17 years after winning the Lightweight title, he wins the Middleweight title from Barkley, who was fresh off of blasting Hearns out. Again, a massive win.

After that everything gets a bit hazy. The 3rd fight with Leonard when both were far from the prime, the fights with Camacho and Pazienza and those decisions, splits a pair of fights with Jorge Castro, and all the rest that happened in the 90's.

In short, compare him to Leonard, Hearns, and Hagler. This was the fighter of the 70's, and look what he accomplished in the 80's: Beat Leonard, Barkley, Moore, and Cuevas.

What did Leonard, Hearns, and Hagler, the fighters of the 80's, do in the 90's? Leonard got dominated by Norris and Camacho, Hearns pulled off the win over Hill and then did really nothing else of much note, and Hagler retired in '87.

Throw in the fact that many, including myself, consider peak Duran to be the best all-around fighter they've ever seen, and Duran is a dead-set top 10 all-time P4P, a greater fighter than Muhammad Ali IMO, although not by much.

 

You do make a good case.

 

Firstly, superb, well rounded post. Great overview. The bold is it, really. Duran's '1st career' makes him a great. Everything he did after was the icing on the cake. Ali's a great but, is that fraction of a percent behind Roberto on the pantheon.

 

Ive not got a problem with either being ranked ahead of each other...I just feel there is more of an arguement for Duran.

Im pretty sure in my list they are about 4 places apart, which is nothing really.

 

Duran was dominated by Leonard (rematch) and Hearns, and quite decisively beat by Benitez as well, I've heard (haven't seen that one).

In his two first fights with Leonard, I give Leonard the clear edge. The first fight was very competitive and hard fought, and even though it clearly was Duran's fight I think it reflects positively on Leonard in many ways as well. In the rematch Duran looked clueless and totally unable to handle Leonard, and of course made it much worse by quitting as he did.

But he has some truly great accomplishements, no doubt. It's just hard to compare Ali and Duran, since Ali only was active in one weight class as a pro. Ali weighed between 190-230+ lbs during his career and he fought opponents weighing from 177 to 256 lbs, though. I think it's fair to say that he only was truly dominated once; when 38 and completely shot, fighting an ATG in his prime.

But Duran's victories are somewhat better. So he has worse, and more, losses, but better, and more, wins. And a greater longevity. But he didn't lose his best years to a 3,5 year exile. A lot of factors...

 

I don't think Duran was anywhere near as badly beaten in the rematch with Leonard as that Bokaj.

Most of the rounds were nothing rounds imo.Duran was having trouble tracking him down, while Leonard's own offense was very poor by his standards.He barely laid any real leather on Duran at all.

In fact i'd say that makes it worse as though he was frustrated, he had only really had the one bad round where it seemed like Leonard may start to pull away...and he promptly quit.Despicable stuff.