who beat better fighters in their career? Manny Pacman or Roberto Duran?

:shock::shock::shock:

 

I am a fan of Pacs, but DURAN by tenfold!

WOW, I cannot believe what I am hearing from so called boxing fans!! I also cannot believe that the poll is only 2-1 in favour of Duran right now

 

The Barkley win, in my opinion, is better than any single win on Manny Pacquiao's record. Not neccesarily because Barkley was that good, but because Duran was 37 years old, now operating as a Middleweight, taking on a massive 160lbs fighter who would go on to win a title at 175lbs. Barkley was known as a good puncher, and he was throwing his best stuff at a 37 year old Duran. The body shots were horrific. He landed a flush left hook which actually swung Duran's body full circle. And yet, Barkley was the only fighter who actually went down on the end of a punch that night. Incredible win.

 

Mustache Pete wins all polls.

 

That's the point, they'd both go on to improve. It wasn't peak Duran taking out a pre-prime Marcel. Marcel already looked outstanding in the Duran fight despite the loss and would prove himself at the very top level shortly after their fight. Peak Marcel > Peak Marquez is what I'm saying, and it's hard to say exactly how far from his prime he was. Watching him in the loss, I wouldn't bet on Marquez to beat him (though I wouldn't bet the other way, either). I put the little Greater-than sign there because Duran was well from his own peak and looked to be the better fighter in there, where as Pacquiao and Marquez looked dead even in their fight. That's all.

 

This is my view of it as well. In fact if anyone was new to boxing and wanted to know what boxing is, this fight will show you.

To stand in the pocket the way he did and make Barkley miss and counter with his own punches repeatedly, was just amazing. And of course when he did get hit, he never went down.

This is a 37 year old Duran fighting the guy who beat the guy who knocked him senseless.

To me it's an amazing fight to watch.

 

But that's the thing, whether or not peak Marcel is a better fighter than peak JMM is completely and utterly irrelevant in this discussion. You're talking completely hypothetically. Duran didn't fight or beat a peak Marcel, whereas Pacquiao did fight and did beat a peak JMM. This is getting all very confusing so I'll try and put it as simply as possible. We judge the wins based on how good the opponents were at the time they were defeated. We don't judge them on how great they later became, and so on that basis, Pacquiao has the better win. You honestly don't see this?

 

I'm saying Marcel looks just as good in losing to Duran as he did in just about every fight we have of him. Basically, he doesn't look 'pre-prime' against Duran. Maybe he was, but he doesn't look to be, and if Marcel was a better fighter than Marquez, as I personally believe, than he was the better opponent between the two even then. The only reason I'd have any doubts about calling him the better fighter is that relative lack of experience. It's an important factor, so I'm not completely confident about it, but you can plainly see his full talent and skill on display against Duran and you can also see that he was at least experienced enough to get the better of the top featherweight in the world not long after losing to Duran.

Basically, Marcel looks better, or at least just as good, but I know he was inexperienced. That's enough for me to believe JMM has a decent shot of beating him, when I simply wouldn't expect him to beat the Marcel of, say, the Arguello fight. That's the issue: He looks just as good against Duran as he did against Arguello I think, but he might not have been ready to take on a highly experienced fighter just yet. It's just an assumption though. Even at the stages they were when they lost to Duran and Pacquiao, Marcel looked to be the overall more talented fighter, but Marquez was simply much more experienced.

So, this is how I see it: Similar level opponents, neither guy dominated, but one won more convincingly. That's the one I consider to be the better win.

If you truly believe Marcel made noticeable improvements post-Duran and that he simply wasn't at the same level as Marquez for that fight, that's fine. Imagine there's an equal sign there instead of a greater-than sign or just make your own list of comparisons, whatever. I don't believe Marcel would really become much better, if at all, than he already was. There's nothing in the footage to suggest that.

 

So you're saying Marcel of '70 was a better fighter than JMM of '08. Okay. We still disagree, but at least we don't have to prolong the debate any further. Fair enough. :good

 

Duran beating prime Leonard tops anything pacquiao ever did.

 

Even a `Who`s greater, Duran or Robinson ?` poll ? :think

 

Oooh.

Marcel.

 

Pacman has a great resume, however it is against fighters who are not in their primes.

Roberto Duran has been fighting the best throughout and has been in a disadvantaged position a lot of times in his career.

Juan Manuel Marquez is on the same level as Ernesto Marcel, we can't say he's worse than Marcel...No way!

 

The people who say Pacman's opponents are greater know nothing lol

 

I don't see how anyone can compare their resumes, when they fought in different weight classes and with no common opponents to help determine it. Too many unknown variables and assumptions.

With that being said....

They both got an outstanding resume.