My #6&7 P4P, and the hardest part of my all-time top 10 to split. Both of these two have storied careers which will be talked about for decades to come. However this should be quite a self-explanatory question TBH, but here's my take on their respective achievements: Roberto Duran An absolute animal, and the primed, hundred and thirty-five pound version, This content is protected . He is, IMO, the greatest LW ever, bar-none. Wins over Kobayashi, Buchanan, DeJesús, Thompson, Ishimatsu, Bizzarro Ortiz and Fernandez cement this, along with the H2H stature I hold him in. Although that's just his LW résumé, on top of those he has wins over Mamby, Brooks, Palomino, Cuevas, Moore and Iran Barkley. All this, and I haven't even mentioned his crowing achievement. Sugar Ray Leonard is, IMO, a top 15 P4P fighter, and a lock for top 3 at WW. When Duran jumped up two weights and beat him, he scored what is indisputably the best win ever, IMO. He also holds a win over Ernesto Marcel. I wouldn't look too far into this, since both were really green, but Marcel would go on to be a top 10 FW and an absolute monster H2H. Due to the circumstances of the fight, I'd say it's probably akin to Choynski's win over Jack Johnson, or Torrecampo's win over Manny Pacquiao. In other words, it's a good win, but not something you'd get the champagne out over. Despite being the 'worst', H2H, of the Fab 4, the reason he's cited as the greatest is because he's the smallest. Beating Leonard and doing the best against Hagler whilst the smallest is very important to his legacy, and no less than the fact he's a four weight champion. In fact, IIRC; he was the first non-American to be one (a four weight champ). Now, it'd be highly disingenuous to ignore Durán's losses. The infamous 'No Mas' affair is probably the third most famous fight in boxing history (ironically after The Rumble in the Jungle and the Thrilla in Manilla) and Duran came out on the wrong side of history here. After apexing in the first Leonard fight, Duran ballooned up and had to cut an unholy amount of weight. The return bout with SRL led to a bloated, unhealthy Duran getting clowned and schooled before Duran's bully-mindset kicked in and he decided he wanted no more. Hence, 'No Mas'. After this his interest in the sport waned and he came in in shape infrequently. Is it fair to write-off the losses to Sims, Laing, Benitez, Leonard II and Hearns as a combination of a lack of motivation/discipline, and him being past his prime? Personally, I think it is, but given what he'd do after these losses; I think it's a very interesting debate. Muhammad Ali Ahhhh the self-proclaimed Greatest. Not that he is, but he's close! The GOAT HW with virtually no arguments, for mine. In his prime he was an athletic freak, with an uncanny sense of distance and Einstein-level ring IQ. Mix in his granite chin, decent power and sharp straight punching and you have the best HW H2H ever IMO. That's not why he's the GOAT HW IMO, though. It's his endless list of names from the best era in the division's history. Jones, Patterson, Chuvalo, Williams, Terrell, Folley, Quarry, Bonavena, Ellis, both Foster's, Norton, Wepner, Bugner, Lyle, Young, Shavers and Neon Leon, and again, this is WITHOUT his best wins. His crowing achievements are clearly the wins vs Liston, Foreman and Frazier. That, right there, is a five-piece collection over a third of my remaining HWs. If Ali is #1, that means he's beaten a third of the other nine.... madness! As a HW, he obviously couldn't jump weights, but he could beat guys both bigger and smaller than him. Which he did. He also made a combination of 19 title defences during both of his careers. Unlike Duran, Ali has a fair amount of controversy around these wins. Especially as his legend grew, and ability shrank. Liston II, Young, Norton III, Shavers and Frazier II & III are less impressive due to a multitude of differing reasons. He also has a couple of losses which aren't a good look. Losing to Spinks and Norton is bad IMO, albeit not as bad as losing to Sims and Laing. So? What say you? I think Duran was a better fighter, and didn't reach his ceiling. Imagine if fights with Arguello, Cervantes, Benitez and Pryor were made during Duran's prime! That's another 4 ATGs I firmly believe he would've beaten, and all four were (to my knowledge) talked about in the late 70s/early 80s. However, despite this, I think Ali was slightly greater. He doesn't have the plethora of losses to be excused and his résumé is a bit deeper. There's also no fighters Ali really missed during his era.
I have to go with my boy Duran. The Brawl in Montreal is just an all-time great "F-U" to the boxing media and promoters who wanted to use Duran as SRL's stepping stone. yesiknowwhathappenedaftershutup.
Duran>>SRL>>Hearns>>Nate Miller>>Orlin Norris>>Tony Tucker>>McCall>>Lewis>>Holyfield>>Foreman>>Frazier>>Ali Duran>>SRL>>Hearns>>Nate Miller>>Orlin Norris>>Tony Tucker>>McCall>> Lewis>>Holyfield>>Holmes>>Ali
'When he fought Sugar Ray Leonard for the first time, on 20 June 1980 in Montreal, Durán transfixed some of his intimidating predecessors. Joe Frazier, the former world heavyweight champion who had fought three savage battles against Muhammad Ali, stared at Durán. “Does he remind you of anyone,” Frazier was asked at ringside. “Yeah,” the old heavyweight said, thinking of a mass-murderer. “Charles Manson.” Durán’s venerable trainer, Ray Arcel, fed the mystique. Three days before the fight Durán’s ECG revealed an irregular heartbeat. “That can’t be true,” Arcel deadpanned. “Durán doesn’t have a heart.” 'In his entertaining autobiography, I Am Duran This content is protected , published last year and out in paperback this July, he suggests: “I Was Mike Tyson before Mike Tyson came along. Fighters would take one look at me and crap in their pants. Leonard would be no different. It was starting to dawn on the Americans that they’d never come across anything like me before – this eerie, deadly being with his jet-black hair, dark eyes and bad intentions. El Diablo, they called me: The Devil.”
This is a great question & a real 50/50. I'm well aware they are both greats. However, l missed all the hype surrounding Ali as l only remember the sad end to his career. Duran on the other hand was one of the 4 greats of the 80s, along with Hagler, Hearns & Leonard. This was a great time for boxing, nobody ducked anyone, so many mega-fights. It was also when l really got into the sport. I say Duran, purely on the reasons given, not solely on ability.
I can see it either way, but will very, very narrowly take Ali since Duran was capable of stinking the joint up when he really wanted to. I remember reading the stories of him drinking quarts of beer before a big fight and coming in with a bloated belly. And of course, yeah, there is "no mas."
I don't know how much you've seen of Ali's late career, but some of it is so bad it makes Hopkins look like Arturo Gatti!
Duran was at his very best in the 70s and Ali was at his very best in the 60s the fact they had big wins in the following decades buttresses their greatness. I give the slight edge to Ali.
Duran is the better fighter clearly, he's a lock for No1, I don't believe Ali is, still have him maybe top 10
Well yeah, sure, when he had Parkinson's disease and a thyroid problem. No argument. But that is not the same as the occasional stinker that Duran put up in his prime due to not caring on a given night.
