Who's greater - Roy Jones Jr. or Roberto Duran ?

Giving him credit for being better than Lou Del Valle isn't exactly "giving him so much credit"

 

Or perhaps people just considered him a very talented up and comer?

 

Therein lies the difference. When Duran was written off he proved the doubters wrong time and again, though of course at that stage of his career he was going to be inconsistent. When Jones was written off? Well, you know the story.

 

Duran by a long way.

 

A 32-year old former LW being competitive with an arguably prime version of one of the greatest MWs ever is pretty damn impressive in my book.

 

Okay, I thought you made reference to this first Tarver fight in response to Jones winning so decisively.

Such as Laing, yes. Or the decisive loss to Benetiz, who would never beat a good fighter post-Duran.

It's true that Jones didn't have a long-time reign at 160 or 168, but what is more impressive: dominating your own weight class for a long period of time, or reigning a division higher than your own for a long period of time?

Why is that?

Duran has one fantastic win over Leonard, but negates much of that success by the embarrassing quit job in the rematch. Besides that, he beat a few good names, but nothing special, nor did he establish himself as the man for any period longer than months. He also suffered several losses to men he shouldn't have lost to - if you go by the way he is rated here. Those losses show that reality and perception are two different things.

Jones, by contrast, reigned a higher weight class for 7 years, did not (really) lose and then made a huge jump up to heavyweight and beat a title holder there.

To be honest, I don't even think it's close if we're only talking about the higher-weight accomplishments. It's Duran's lightweight reign that's most impressive about his career.

It's interesting that Holmes gets crucified for fighting 18-0 guys, who are referred to as being green, embryos, etc, but when Duran beats a 12-0 (that's twelve and o) fighter, suddenly he's a "genuine world-title-level offensive fighter". Yeah, right. Nevermind that apart from Duran, he never booked a win over a significant boxer afterward, and retired a few fights later. Sorry, but Moore was nothing special and would've been forgotten had he not lose to Duran.

Oh please. Ruiz is one of the top5 heavies of the 2000, Barkley was ranked for hardly more than a year.

Without counting any of Duran's losses? Yeah, that would be close.

But if we make a fair assessment and include the losses as well as the wins, then we have Jones' run at 175 and beating Ruiz vs Duran beating Leonard, then quiting in the rematch, beating Moore, losing to Laing, losing to Benitez, losing to Hagler, getting knocked out in 2 rounds by Hearns, but barely beating Barkley...

Indeed, just considering the higher weights, it's Jones, easily.


As for Duran arguably beating Hagler..... atsch

 

How about a 33 year old former MW easily beating, not losing to one of the 5 best heavyweights of that decade?

 

You do have a point. There's clearly not much in it quality-wise between Hagler and Ruiz.

 

I think the win over Ruiz is close to outstanding, vastly underrated by most here. As is many of Jones' wins. But that doesn't contradict that Duran put on a great perfomance against Hagler. But arguably beating Hagler... Itrymarati, you confound me at times. You make many sensible points, but now and then you say things that are really off the charts. Comparing Duran's "No Mas" with Louis "quitting" against Schmeling, for example, is about as off the charts as things come.

 

You forgot that bit of information that Duran lost to Hagler, whereas Jones easily beat Ruiz.

 

ChrisPontius just sonned Itrymariti.

 

Duran smokes Jones in greatness...... The difference in overall comp is insane....... 'Nuff said.....
:yep:bbb:deal

MR.BILL:hat