Ring Magazine Rates Roberto Duran the 5th Best Boxer of the Last 80 Years

harada was robbed in that fight.. **** willie pep for scoring it wrong

 

How old was MAB and EM when Pac beat them??? They're not in their 40s right??? AS far as I know, they're just 29 when Pac makes them look 40.

Isn't it The reason why there's an argument for Calzaghe being the #1 P4P was because he beat the 43 year old Bhop???

 

And the 44 fighters before him.

 

Ricardo Lopez is too low as is RJJ but he isn't top 10, i agree with a lot of the placings for example i think Sweet Pea at number 11 is about right.

 

i agree with you, medel and kingpetch got some **** records , why is mike tyson at number 72 in this list :think

 

that's where I have him. King Henry and Sugar Ray are numbers two and one.

 

Where's sweet pea??? I'm waiting for his reply!!!

 

44 What??? :huh

 

Duran deserves this very high rating. His record up through the first Leonard fight was 71-1. Almost all of Duran's losses came after the first Leonard fight, when deteriorating motivation, age and weight gain made him less effective a fighter. Still, even when he was over the hill, Duran was good enough to win titles at junior middleweight and middleweight.

As a lightweight, Duran was pound-for-pound, inch-for-inch one of the greatest fighters the world has ever known.

 

Trinidad also carried his power above 147.

Look at his fights @ 154:

Troy Waters: stops Waters in 1 round
David Reid: Tito changed the course of the fight with one left hook.
Mamadou Thiam: Tito beats him up for 3 rounds and shuts his eye.
Fernando Vargas: Tito's power changed the fight. The first left hook he landed had Vargas wobbling over the ring. A right hand in round 6 turned the tide back in Tito's favor.

Tito didn't show as much power @ 160, but even then, he dropped William Joppy 3 times with some devastating shots, and B-Hop said later his ribs were sore and his jaw was bruised from one short left hook in round 10.

 

Let's just not say that, let's say you disagree but can't put forward your argument without sounding like an arrogant moron.

- Leonard should be above Duran. He was a better pound-for-pound fighter. He beat Duran and Hearns at welterweight, Duran never beat anyone that good at lightweight, and Leonard was more successful as their careers progressed in the 80s
- It is LUDICROUS that Whitaker is rated 57 places above Hearns. Hearns was better, simple as that. I could accept a difference in opinion if it was a few places difference, but 57 is insane.
- Jones should have been top 10 P4P. I bet in 20 years time he will be generally accepted to be, but of course we can't say he is now because he's still fighting. No, the old greats have to be considered better. It's so stupid. Do Whitaker's achievements in the ring match Jones's? Was Whitaker as dominant in his division as Jones was at light-heavy? Did Whitaker give a virtuoso display against a Toney or a Hopkins? Whitaker was great, but Jones Jr was undoubtedly greater.
- Holyfield should not have been above Foreman, Tunney, Tiger, Griffith, Jones Jr or Hearns to name but a few, so, great fighter that he was, I think he was ranked a little high.

 

Psychological warfare is just part of sports/competition.

Leonard did demand stipulations and waited til Hagler showed signs of decline, mainly how slower and hittable he was against Mugabi, but Leonard had disadvantages too. Smaller guy who was a welter for most of his career, 1 fight in 5 years, NO fights in 3 years.

 

Crazy List, All I Can Say

 

Whitaker was just about as dominant at lightweight as Jones was at light-heavy.

In fact, he'll probably rate higher on most all-time lists at 135 than Jones at 175.