Who's Greater: Roberto Duran or Muhammad Ali?

Barkley was coming off knocking out Hearns. Then he lost to Duran, then after that he lost to Nunn in a close (or could be seen as close) fight.

I wish I had seen Duran's career live (well, I caught the tail end because he went on forever, I'm talking about following him from the early years through his prime), that would have been incredible. He was the last champion that you could really compare to Sugar Ray Robinson.

 

But if you look at their careers after those fights, Ali would go on to win the trilogy against Frazier, reign as hw champ for several years, and regain the lineal title (Duran never avenged his Leon Spinks moment to Laing). He would also beat guys like the Earnie Shavers, Ron Lyle and Jimmy Young/Norton (controversially).

Duran's late career is impressive for it's longevity, but he was never really a top guy in any division after the Barkley fight and his best moment was probably his turn back the clock fight against Lawlor. Ali was THE hw champ for THREE YEARS after Zaire, and then regained it after the Spinks upset. If only he had stopped then.

I can definitely see the argument that Duran was the better boxer. Hard to call Ali the better boxer when the guy did so much unorthodox and never threw a body shot. But in terms of just doing great things, it's Ali for me.

Ali also was never poleaxed on his face. I love Duran and hate that fight, but it should be considered since Ali was never KO like that.

 

Who cares if he was poleaxed? Pac was sparked doesnt make him any less of a fighter... Ali wasn't a LW (Durans prime & best weight) fighting men who had distinct size advantages over him like Hagler, Hearns, Leonard, Barkley etc ... so the threat level for such things was higher & more likely than fighting in just one division throughout your career.. Duran had greater competition depth to contend with and multiple divisions.. the size difference between Hearns and Duran when they had both matured was ridiculous.. Ali never encountered that type of size difference combined with the athleticism and skill of Hearns anyway. I mean Hearns won major titles right up to light heavyweight ffs.. you can't hold that against Roberto if anything it's a mark of greatness that he challenged himself against such formidable opposition

 

'Fundamentals are the crutch of the talentless'. That's a deep one!

 

Yeah that's correct you beat me to it, Barkley was coming off Koing Hearns not the Nunn loss. Barkley was in good form and arguably hit his peak with wins over Olajide, Hearns, coming into the Duran fight. And even in the loss to Duran it was arguably one of Barkley's greatest performances which is often overlooked, it's just Duran fought an amazing fight his slickness and counter punching was 2nd none in this fight. Truly one of the greatest performances from a much smaller man over a much bigger man, and one of the greatest Middleweight fights of all time.

 

It's a joke from eastbound and down. Funny show

 

I'm not holding it against him but when discussing 2 very great fighters with very few distinctions in their career, it is worth noting when one of them was never knocked out and one of them was. It's just a germane as talking about their wins.

 

If Duran has gotten the best of most/any of those men you listed, I would consider him greater than Ali. But he went 1-5 against them.

Again, I personally prefer Duran. But Ali was a transcendent star who defied reality. Duran was an all time great like greb or Henry Armstrong or Archie moore but Ali is Ali.

 

probably because he has the best win of all time. At least in the color TV era.

 

That doesn't mean anything and the best win is debatable. You can't have the good and leave out the bad when accessing greatness

 

How is Duran beating Leonard the best win of all time?

 

They were both great fighters and you would really have to nit pick to separate them in that area. However in his era, Ali was the best at what he did and Duran was one of the best at what he did.