The most versatile boxer in history, who is it?

Like I said, it was a very close fight. He wasn't ineffective in that fight.

 

Not saying he was the best, but at 147 he definetely was the total package. He was just the first guy that came to my mind. Ray Leonard, PBF at 130, Hopkins. Theres been some good ones.

 

Why not? He was the bigger, harder hitting fighter and natural WW who'd used this style with success against the majority of his opponents, contrary to popular belief. Ray was always more of a flat-footed boxer-puncher than a pure boxer/mover. He was just very adaptable and capable of fighting in different ways under different circumstances.

Also, it's not as if Ray simply chose to make it an inside brawl, Duran's skills and performance had more to do with the outcome than any negative gameplanning on Leonard's part IMHO. I've come to this conclusion after originally agreeing with your point of view but re-watching the fight from a different perspective.

 

Joe Louis
SRR
SRL
Bhops

 

SRR, Duran, Hagler.

 

I disagree. Duran's mind games before the fight made Ray fight his fight. The second and third meeting, he adapted, and Duran had no answers other than "no mas" and a loss.

I see your point, but in hindsight, I think we all agree that Leonard had more chance against Duran by boxing from range.

He was still effective in brawling with Duran, and that was the point I was making.

 

What couldn't Roberto Duran do in a boxing ring?

 

roberto duran
ray leonard
joe louis
lennox lewis
terry norris
bernard hopkins
anaclet wamba

 

First of all, I'm not saying Leonard was not making it a close fight in Montreal. By "not very effectively", I simply meant that he lost.

(If his aim was to win and he didn't, he wasn't effective. Definition of effective.)


Regarding 'no mas'.

Duran had ballooned a bit betwen fights and was taking diurrhetics and laxatives mid-week of the fight.

He complained of stomach cramps and bowel cramps before the fight.

Eventually, he was in serious need of a ****. And it couldn't be postponed.

Hard to fight in that state. Hard to do much of anything.


Nevertheless, Leonard won the second fight.


But for me, the defining fight was their first one.

The smaller man came up and brawled his way to victory over the bigger and slightly faster man.


Against Hagler, the fight was competitive despite Duran being three years older and again, a natural lightweight against a middleweight.

For me these fights are part of the reason I rank Duran as the best of the great four of that era.

 

I'd like to say Arguello, but whilst he was a fantastic boxer-puncher with decent inside skills/good chin etc etc he lost a couple of fights he may shouldn't have. No disgrace in losing twice to Pryor though.

I would have to say Duran. Sure, he also lost some fights he should've lost (although contary to some people's opinions Kirkland Laing was an extremely talented fighter and was not so disgraceful for Duran to lose to) but he achieved a lot more, and getting K.O'd by Hearns was going up in weight (AGAIN!) and lasting 15 rnds with Marvin Hagler is some feat.

Beating Ken Buchanan at just 21 years of age. Unbelievable.Beating Sugar Ray Leonard. Fantastic. Lasting distance with Hagler at MW. Beating Iran Barkley waaayyy past his best (though Barkley was never a true great he was a very good fighter and dangerous too, it is only with hindsight that this victory doesn't mean as much)

Although a case could be made for Ali I think.

 

I don't believe the stomach cramps and **** stories. Duran did party too much, but Duran was just mentally beat and frustrated. According to the biography on Duran, the stomach cramps story was just an excuse by one of his cornermen. That cornerman said "if they knew the real story why he quit, they'd kill him" or something to that extent.

 

I have to disagree about hopkins, he has shown that volume punchers are his weakness (calzaghe, taylor)

 

Taylor is not a volume puncher.

Hopkins is a very versatile and adaptable fighter. His performing at a high level at such an advanced age is a testament to it, because he's had to change his style.

 

:-(

It's like you list Duran's loss to Hagler as some kind of achievement even though he lost the fight. He was still effective in the fight, othwewise it wouldn't have been competitive.

Leonard lost the fight to Duran, but it was close, and therefore he must have been brawling effectively to have made it competitive.

I saw this excuse coming, there is always an excuse regarding Duran's losses. He didn't train for Leonard or Hearns, right? Not good enough.

Leonard won that fight legitimately by using lateral movement, and fighting from range.

Duran gets a lot of props for beating Leonard, and with good reason. Leonard showed the ability to adapt in the second fight, but Duran never adapted after that. He quit in the second fight, and he lost a landslide in the third. That tells the story as far as I'm concerned.

Leonard beat Hagler despite being a natural Welterweight, who hadn't fought for 3 years.

I think Leonard was the best of the great four of that era, because he beat all of them and was the only man to do so.

He adapted against Duran and beat him 2 times. You can come up with as many excuses as you like, but the only facts we have is that Leonard won the return bouts and chanegd his tactics to do so. Credit where its due.

Leonard was inactive for 3 years, and was giving up a lot of weight to fight one of the best Middleweights to ever live. The fight was very close, could have gone either way, but I had Leonard up by one point. He won the fight, whereas Duran lost it.

Not to mention Leonard stopped Hearns, and we all know what happened to Duran when he fought Hearns. There is an excuse for this aswell of course.

Leonard was the best fighter of all time, that I've witnessed with my own eyes.

 

Moreso than Sugar Ray Robinson???