# Duran or Leonard... who`s the best in the last 40 years ?



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Just as the title says, there have been many great fighters over the past 40 years but none greater than Roberto Duran & Sugar Ray Leonard. 2 of the most complete fighters in history. Duran for me has the edge in`greatness`over Leonard throughout their whole career, I`d class Duran no1 & Leonard no2 (Muhammad Ali from 1973 onwards cannot rank over these 2 IMO, he would need his prime in the 60`s thrown in as well)... I also think Duran & Leonard are the 2`best`fighters of the last 40 years, I just cannot pick between both men. Either way its razor close, both were master boxers in their own right, who do you guys think was the better pound for pound fighter ?


----------



## Jdempsey85 (Jan 6, 2013)

Duuuuran Duuuuuran


----------



## Bladerunner (Oct 22, 2012)

Jdempsey85 said:


> Duuuuran Duuuuuran












Its close but for me its Roberto Duran.

And i agree with Bill about them being the best fighters of the last 40 years.

True Boxing legends and Legit ATG's.

:cheers to both of them and may they live a long healthy and happy life.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

I edge it to Duran, very close and Leonard has the bigger wins in Hagler, Hearns, Duran and Benitez but Durans overall resume is wider, has more longevity and his lightweight years wer dominant as hell plus he has the best win from the trilogy with Leonard. Overall, I think he was a more rounded boxer as well but that one is very close and could be well debated.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

I voted Duran on basis of his longevity and that he has the best win of their three meetings. 

There's a case for Leonard, though, with his wins against Benitez, Hearns, Hagler and also Duran. It's just not the greatness of the opponents which makes these wins so hugely impressive, but also the range in styles he had to overcome.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

I think I am leaning towards Duran myself, the more I watch of Duran in his prime (the majority of his lightweight fights, Palomino, Leonard 1) the more I am convinced he could have been in the top 2 pound for pound fighters in any era throughout boxing history.

Don't get me wrong, Ray Leonard is right there with Duran in the top of all tiers, the same level, but its the fight between both men the first time that sways me towards Duran, as good as Roberto looked at WW he was a natural 135-140 lber & he had absolutely no right to win that fight vs Leonard, who was at his own peak. Possibly the single best win in boxing history. 

From 1978-1980 Duran might have been the best fighter that ever lived pound for pound outside of Ray Robinson. Leonard of course is right there with them.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Manos


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Duran at LW better than SRL at WW


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

I give Duran the edge but doubt I could justify it.

Pea is better than both for me though.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

not too sure. you could make an argument for either one imo. I give the edge to Duran for longevity though


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

I have it between Duran.. Pea and SRL for the best fighter of the last 40 years... If made to choose... it goes Duran.. Pea.. SRL but really it can be switched around depending on the time of the month.


----------



## frankenfrank (Jun 4, 2013)

It is between Duran , McCall , Sanchez , McCallum and Carbajal . 
Maybe Toney or Tua 2
Leonard and Whitaker shud not even b menshend ez options


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Luf said:


> I give Duran the edge but doubt I could justify it.
> 
> Pea is better than both for me though.


Its very possible that Duran, Leonard & Whitaker are the top 3 boxers of the last 40 years, they are all quite closely matched in skills IMO. Duran & Leonard were greater fighters though, they achieved more, but if you`re talking best as in ability & in ring skills then you could argue either of the 3. Personally I would still have Duran & Leonard a little ahead of Whitaker because they had the knockout power & were tremendous finishers, which is not the be all but with legends as closely matched in ability as these guys you`re going to have to split hairs to separate them.

Also note, Duran & Pea were natural 135-140 lbers so size advantage cannot be used as an excuse & Duran was able to go all the way up to middleweight & be competitive with other all time great fighters (Hagler), Pernell did win a title at 154 vs Vasquez which was amazing in itself, it proved his extraordinary ability but Duran took it even further & this all cannot be put down to Duran simply being the harder puncher.

Ps. if Whitaker had a punch of a SRL or Duran while retaining his other attributes he could very well have been the best boxer of all time, but he hasn't & it does factor in this discussion.

Duran for me was the best.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill Butcher said:


> Its very possible that Duran, Leonard & Whitaker are the top 3 boxers of the last 40 years, they are all quite closely matched in skills IMO. Duran & Leonard were greater fighters though, they achieved more, but if you`re talking best as in ability & in ring skills then you could argue either of the 3. Personally I would still have Duran & Leonard a little ahead of Whitaker because they had the knockout power & were tremendous finishers, which is not the be all but with legends as closely matched in ability as these guys you`re going to have to split hairs to separate them.
> 
> Also note, Duran & Pea were natural 135-140 lbers so size advantage cannot be used as an excuse & Duran was able to go all the way up to middleweight & be competitive with other all time great fighters (Hagler), Pernell did win a title at 154 vs Vasquez which was amazing in itself, it proved his extraordinary ability but Duran took it even further & this all cannot be put down to Duran simply being the harder puncher.
> 
> ...


I rank on skill level and win ability and I think Whittaker is as tough a boxer to defeat as you can find. He's actually my number 2 all time behind Robinson.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Luf said:


> I rank on skill level and win ability and I think Whittaker is as tough a boxer to defeat as you can find. He's actually my number 2 all time behind Robinson.


I might actually have Duran 2nd to Robinson, personally. Whitaker though is way up high on my list, likely top 5-ish.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill Butcher said:


> I might actually have Duran 2nd to Robinson, personally. Whitaker though is way up high on my list, likely top 5-ish.


Duran is in my top ten. Can't remember exactly where.

Something like:

Robinson
Whittaker 
Jones 
Armstrong
Duran


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

How can Duran be p4p over Leonard when Ray beat other ATG fighters like Hearns,Benitez,Hagler and Duran lost to them all, and Duran only beat Ray. Sure the excuse is Duran was over his weight of lightweight even though other greats Hearns, Leonard and Benitez fought over thier weight also. Duran did beat Ray, but then Ray beats him easily the next two times. And just over a year after Ray beat Duran, Benitez beat him rather easily This is exactly why I think Duran is overrated. The guys he beat are no to the level which makes him p4p over Ray. Where do people get the rating? I think he is great, but it is the overrating I do not understand. What warrants him being p4p best over Ray?


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

Stop posting in Duran threads MAG.. we've heard all these arguments before, and actually, torn them apart every which way but Sunday already


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Honestly mag should be the only person allowed to post in Duran threads.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

Damn you LR


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

KuRuPT said:


> Stop posting in Duran threads MAG.. we've heard all these arguments before, and actually, torn them apart every which way but Sunday already


I think there is a good argument to be made that Duran was an atg top 25 becaues of his dominance at lightweight against decent fighters, but not great caliber, yet his lack of wins over the legends means he cannot be considered better than Ray or best in the last 40 years.. Not being able to exhibit the skills to beat the Hagler,Hearns,Benitez level eliminate him from consideration for top 10 ATG. And this says he is best of the last 40 years. Without knocking out a great ever. I don't see it and cannot see how he can be there logically. Mike Tyson was dominant against mediocre guys and no one rates him best of the last 40 years. And Mike beat Holmes and Spinks. Knocked them out.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

MAG what you fail to realize and never seem to remember was Duran was PAST his best.. PAST his best weight.. yet fighting ALL TIME GREATS.. IN THEIR PRIME.. AT THEIR BEST WEIGHT. That just disqualifies everything you just said in your case against Duran. He was fighting all time great fighters at their best weight.. past his best weight... in their primes... while past his... That explains why he didn't beat some of those guys.. just like it would explain why anybody not named duran might not beat guys under the same circumstances.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

KuRuPT said:


> MAG what you fail to realize and never seem to remember was Duran was PAST his best.. PAST his best weight.. yet fighting ALL TIME GREATS.. IN THEIR PRIME.. AT THEIR BEST WEIGHT. That just disqualifies everything you just said in your case against Duran. He was fighting all time great fighters at their best weight.. past his best weight... in their primes... while past his... That explains why he didn't beat some of those guys.. just like it would explain why anybody not named duran might not beat guys under the same circumstances.


Like I have typed many times on ESB. If you eliminate everything he did when he moved up in weight (even thought he fought at 154 before Hearns,Leonard and Benitez did), does Duran's lightweight reign really equal best of the last 40 years? That is why I say Duran fans want it both ways. They want Duran to get credit for beating Ray at a higher weight and Barkley and Moore and winning titles, yet when it is mentioned he did not beat greats Hearns,Benitez and Hagler all of a sudden he was old and out of shape. They want the fights he won included, but not the ones he lost. His fans say he was of shape at 32 when he fought Hearns? Floyd is 36 years old now. 4 years older than Duran was when he fought Hearns and 6 years older than Duran when Duran fought Benitez. Duran's legacy has a lot to do with the fab 4. He was given chances to beat Leonard 2, Benitez and Hearns. He and Hearn were the two champs at 154 in 1984. I suppose the question is Does Duran's lightweight career equal best of the last 40 years? Over all the other guys who fought? Hearns,Leonard,Delahoya,Mayweather,Jones,Whitaker?


----------



## SouthPaw (May 24, 2013)

Roy Jones


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

I can kind of see an argument for Leonard, honestly. Leonard beat guys that Duran couldn't dream of beating. But when it came to them fighting against eachother prime for prime, Leonard got whupped. Then Leonard came back and humiliated him. I dunno.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Like I have typed many times on ESB. If you eliminate everything he did when he moved up in weight (even thought he fought at 154 before Hearns,Leonard and Benitez did), does Duran's lightweight reign really equal best of the last 40 years? That is why I say Duran fans want it both ways. They want Duran to get credit for beating Ray at a higher weight and Barkley and Moore and winning titles, yet when it is mentioned he did not beat greats Hearns,Benitez and Hagler all of a sudden he was old and out of shape. They want the fights he won included, but not the ones he lost. His fans say he was of shape at 32 when he fought Hearns? Floyd is 36 years old now. 4 years older than Duran was when he fought Hearns and 6 years older than Duran when Duran fought Benitez. Duran's legacy has a lot to do with the fab 4. He was given chances to beat Leonard 2, Benitez and Hearns. He and Hearn were the two champs at 154 in 1984. I suppose the question is Does Duran's lightweight career equal best of the last 40 years? Over all the other guys who fought? Hearns,Leonard,Delahoya,Mayweather,Jones,Whitaker?


What you don't get and where your argument logical fails.. is that nobody that i see claims duran was in his prime when he won the fights you mention.. yet out of his prime when he lost those fight you mention. Then you have a point, but nobody says that. The fact that Duran was still ABLE to compete with all time greats is what adds to his legacy and h2h ability. Just like the fact that he was able to beat very good fighters past his prime further adds to it. That is the main fact you seem to be missing her and what destroys the logical line of thinking you present. His main body of work when he was at his best was his lightweight reign.. After that point.. when he moved up.. that was duran past his best but obviously still a very good fighter. That just added to his already great body of work and outstanding physical tools that were clearly seen in his prime and even after.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

KuRuPT said:


> What you don't get and where your argument logical fails.. is that nobody that i see claims duran was in his prime when he won the fights you mention.. yet out of his prime when he lost those fight you mention. Then you have a point, but nobody says that. The fact that Duran was still ABLE to compete with all time greats is what adds to his legacy and h2h ability. Just like the fact that he was able to beat very good fighters past his prime further adds to it. That is the main fact you seem to be missing her and what destroys the logical line of thinking you present. His main body of work when he was at his best was his lightweight reign.. After that point.. when he moved up.. that was duran past his best but obviously still a very good fighter. That just added to his already great body of work and outstanding physical tools that were clearly seen in his prime and even after.


I don't knock Duran and I think he is worthy of the fab four title. It is when he is ranked top fighter ever or close to it. I don't see the logic or the wins over the caliber needed to meet that. He could have very easily landed on Tommy in that fight as he did with two right hands, but Tommy won as did Wilfred and Ray in the rematch. It isn't about him losing to Hearns,Benitez and Hagler and yeah he fought legends. It is about who did he beat to warrant best fighter of 40 years. Leoanrd? Ray beat him easy in the rematch and beat other greats. My question is how would you rank him on his lightweight reign alone? And is that enough to get him over. Hearns,Leoanrd,Delahoya,Mayweather, Manny Pacman,Whitaker, Spinks etc. Then we look at Leonard who has a totally different career than Duran. Shorter career and only 40 fights but his wins over Duran,Hearns,Benitez,Hagler propel him to what I think is a top ranking.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

Your moving the goalposts now Mag... look at your orginal post and second post and compare it to this one. The goalposts have moved, and logically so, as I've broken down your argument and shown how that isn't true. Now onto your new argument... I believe Duran DOES have greats on his resume... imo DeJesus.. Ken B. and SRL qualify as greats in my book. A good/solid fighters.. I would put Palomino.. Cuevas.. Marcel...Moore.. Barkley etc etc. IMO that resume alone speaks for itself. However, what you didn't address AGAIN.. is that fact that Duran gets credit for the wins AND losses past his best because he was just that past his best weight and prime. You have to factor in the variable.. had he been in his prime and his prime weight.. how would he have done... he had solid close fights with Hagler and Wilfred where he lost.. but wasn't blown out.. yet this was well past his best.. thus there needs to be credit given for even making it that close. That is what your'e missing here.. Nobody is saying he was prime when he won and not prime when he lost. What people are saying is... His prime was LW.. and very briefly at WW.. after that it was a past his best duran who could still, thanks to his skill, pull of some solid wins and close fights against all time greats or good fighters. That just adds to his legacy. Nothign more


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Leonard is out right better for me. He has the better elite wins, much more dominant against better opposition, he has less losses going into his mid 30s and he won the series against Duran.

Plus I have a picture with me and Leonard, I don't have 1 with me and Duran :yep


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

What elite fighters did he dominate.. THe benitez fight was no domination.. Neither were either of his hearns wins.. nor was his hagler win... You could say his duran victory was one I guess... but even then the judges didn't see it as one and neither did I. I saw a lot of fluff and no substance.. I don't call that a domination. So which fights PP?


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

KuRuPT said:


> Your moving the goalposts now Mag... look at your orginal post and second post and compare it to this one. The goalposts have moved, and logically so, as I've broken down your argument and shown how that isn't true. Now onto your new argument... I believe Duran DOES have greats on his resume... imo DeJesus.. Ken B. and SRL qualify as greats in my book. A good/solid fighters.. I would put Palomino.. Cuevas.. Marcel...Moore.. Barkley etc etc. IMO that resume alone speaks for itself. However, what you didn't address AGAIN.. is that fact that Duran gets credit for the wins AND losses past his best because he was just that past his best weight and prime. You have to factor in the variable.. had he been in his prime and his prime weight.. *how would he have done... he had solid close fights with Hagler and Wilfred where he lost*.. *but wasn't blown out*.. yet this was well past his best.. thus there needs to be credit given for even making it that close. That is what your'e missing here.. Nobody is saying he was prime when he won and not prime when he lost. What people are saying is... His prime was LW.. and very briefly at WW.. after that it was a past his best duran who could still, thanks to his skill, pull of some solid wins and close fights against all time greats or good fighters. That just adds to his legacy. Nothign more


Duran was schooled against Benitez, nothing close about it and how old was he? 31? I forget, but he wasn't old. Duran has loads of losses around this time that aren't at most greats past prime age, but they are for Duran because 'insert excuse' and he's 1-5 against the Fab 5.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

KuRuPT said:


> What elite fighters did he dominate.. THe benitez fight was no domination.. Neither were either of his hearns wins.. nor was his hagler win... You could say his duran victory was one I guess... but even then the judges didn't see it as one and neither did I. I saw a lot of fluff and no substance.. I don't call that a domination. So which fights PP?


He dominated his era by beating the best in Hearns, Hagler, Duran and Benitez. I had the Benitez and Duran 2 fights fairly wide, although some didn't. But the point is he beat the best of his era, all styles outright, hence dominated. He beat Kalule and Lalonde are the type of opponents Duran fans would wank over if Duran beat them. The Mayweather and Green wins are underrated too


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

KuRuPT said:


> Your moving the goalposts now Mag... look at your orginal post and second post and compare it to this one. The goalposts have moved, and logically so, as I've broken down your argument and shown how that isn't true. Now onto your new argument... I believe Duran DOES have greats on his resume... imo DeJesus.. Ken B. and SRL qualify as greats in my book. A good/solid fighters.. I would put Palomino.. Cuevas.. Marcel...Moore.. Barkley etc etc. IMO that resume alone speaks for itself. However, what you didn't address AGAIN.. is that fact that Duran gets credit for the wins AND losses past his best because he was just that past his best weight and prime. You have to factor in the variable.. had he been in his prime and his prime weight.. how would he have done... he had solid close fights with Hagler and Wilfred where he lost.. but wasn't blown out.. yet this was well past his best.. thus there needs to be credit given for even making it that close. That is what your'e missing here.. Nobody is saying he was prime when he won and not prime when he lost. What people are saying is... His prime was LW.. and very briefly at WW.. after that it was a past his best duran who could still, thanks to his skill, pull of some solid wins and close fights against all time greats or good fighters. That just adds to his legacy. Nothign more


Palomino was not a great fighter. Fought out of Westminster boxing club in California which had ok fighters but no one great. I don't think Jackie McCoy would ever had anyone really great ouf ot his gym. Cuevas was a good hall of fame name at welterweight but it was at 154 and 3 years after Hearns knocked him out and after Stafford. Duran's wins after lightweight are not great but solid, but nothing still to lift him to best of the past 40 years. Not with his lightweight resume. Marcel and Dejesus and Buchanan make him best of the last 40 years?, his resume is great because of who he fought, but not who he beat. Duran gets credit past his best more than any other fighter would. Hearns past his best won 4 world titles and beat Virgil Hill, Juan Roldan and should have had hte decision over Leonard. Fighters who fight past their best is not a rare thing and most of them had wins just as substantial as Duran's. When was Mayweather's best?
Duran fought at 154 before Hearns/Leonard/Benitez. He was not this little guy moving up to fight huge guys. That is why he could compete with guys like Moore and Barkley. Why he lost to Hearns and Benitez and Leonard was not size . It was speed.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Leonard is out right better for me. He has the better elite wins, much more dominant against better opposition, he has less losses going into his mid 30s and he won the series against Duran.
> 
> Plus I have a picture with me and Leonard, I don't have 1 with me and Duran :yep


Good post. I think you are correct. I just use simple logic. Leonard beat greats and Duran lost to them and yet gets excuses because people say he was past his prime when he fought them. Now does Duran's lightweight reign match Leonard beating Hearns,Hagler and Benitez? I say no way, so I don't see how Duran can be best fighting of the last 40 years.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

KuRuPT said:


> What elite fighters did he dominate.. THe benitez fight was no domination.. Neither were either of his hearns wins.. nor was his hagler win... You could say his duran victory was one I guess... but even then the judges didn't see it as one and neither did I. I saw a lot of fluff and no substance.. I don't call that a domination. So which fights PP?


he stopped Benitez and Hearns and dominated Duran and made him quit. Being Hagler is great no matter how it looks.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Duran was schooled against Benitez, nothing close about it and how old was he? 31? I forget, but he wasn't old. Duran has loads of losses around this time that aren't at most greats past prime age, but they are for Duran because 'insert excuse' and he's 1-5 against the Fab 5.


actually when Benitez beat Duran, Roberto was still 30 and still had 20 years and something like 40 fights left to fight. Even when Duran fought Hearns. Duran would fight 17 years and 35 more fights. That would make the Hearns fight at the mid point in Duran's boxing career in years. This is why the excuses are hard to accept. And the fact that Duran fought at 154 before Hearns/Leonard or Benitez ever did in 1978.


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> *Leonard is out right better *for me. He has the better elite wins, much more dominant against better opposition, he has less losses going into his mid 30s and he won the series against Duran.
> 
> Plus I have a picture with me and Leonard, *I don't have 1 with me and Duran*


And you still wonder why?


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

It is a well known fact that Duran is searching boxing forums day and night looking for haters, armchair critics and Leonard fans.

Someday, one day Duran will find you all.

First, he will thumb MAG to death Davey Moore-style.

And then he will rip Mayweather's shoulders and legs off and knock Powerpuncher out with them eleven times in a row to prove once and for all that shoulder roll is overrated and Duran indeed has legs to deal with it.

And then he will strangle Janitor with Corbett's black and white thongs.

And then he will annihilate Klompton using Dempsey's loaded gloves.

And then he will insert one Klitschko into another and insert them both into Mendoza.

And then he will make Burt watch Harry Wills career set in Full HD non-stop for 7 seven years.

And last of all he will bite Luf, turn him into a zombie horse and knock him out too.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

That made my day.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Lester1583 said:


> It is a well known fact that Duran is searching boxing forums day and night looking for haters, armchair critics and Leonard fans.
> 
> Someday, one day Duran will find you all.
> 
> ...


Unless there was an all you can eat buffet open....


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Palomino was not a great fighter. Fought out of Westminster boxing club in California which had ok fighters but no one great. I don't think Jackie McCoy would ever had anyone really great ouf ot his gym. Cuevas was a good hall of fame name at welterweight but it was at 154 and 3 years after Hearns knocked him out and after Stafford. Duran's wins after lightweight are not great but solid, but nothing still to lift him to best of the past 40 years. Not with his lightweight resume. Marcel and Dejesus and Buchanan make him best of the last 40 years?, his resume is great because of who he fought, but not who he beat. Duran gets credit past his best more than any other fighter would. Hearns past his best won 4 world titles and beat Virgil Hill, Juan Roldan and should have had hte decision over Leonard. Fighters who fight past their best is not a rare thing and most of them had wins just as substantial as Duran's. When was Mayweather's best?
> Duran fought at 154 before Hearns/Leonard/Benitez. He was not this little guy moving up to fight huge guys. That is why he could compete with guys like Moore and Barkley. Why he lost to Hearns and Benitez and Leonard was not size . It was speed.


See that's is the thing though.. Hearns does get credit for his past his prime victories just like Duran... Difference is.. Duran's LW reign was dominate and long lasting... Hearns at his prime weight.. was well... left a lot to be desired. That is the major difference between them and something you seem to have forgot. That is why Duran is one of the best if not the best of the last 40 years. He had a much more dominate run at LW than Hearns and even SRL really. So when you add that onto his past his prime wins and close fights... it paints a better picture than SRL or Hearns.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Like I have typed many times on ESB. If you eliminate everything he did when he moved up in weight (even thought he fought at 154 before Hearns,Leonard and Benitez did), does Duran's lightweight reign really equal best of the last 40 years? That is why I say Duran fans want it both ways. They want Duran to get credit for beating Ray at a higher weight and Barkley and Moore and winning titles, yet when it is mentioned he did not beat greats Hearns,Benitez and Hagler all of a sudden he was old and out of shape. They want the fights he won included, but not the ones he lost. His fans say he was of shape at 32 when he fought Hearns? Floyd is 36 years old now. 4 years older than Duran was when he fought Hearns and 6 years older than Duran when Duran fought Benitez. Duran's legacy has a lot to do with the fab 4. He was given chances to beat Leonard 2, Benitez and Hearns. He and Hearn were the two champs at 154 in 1984. I suppose the question is Does Duran's lightweight career equal best of the last 40 years? Over all the other guys who fought? Hearns,Leonard,Delahoya,Mayweather,Jones,Whitaker?


Duran had about 70 fights under his belt, was already considered by many to be the best lightweight in history & was the current pound for pound fighter in the world before he went anywhere near SRL, Hearns, Hagler or Benitez. Those guys *made *their legend by fighting each other, Duran was *already *a legend before he faced any of them... facing those guys & claiming the scalp of a prime Leonard in the process was just icing on the cake really.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

SouthPaw said:


> Roy Jones


Roy wasn't as skilled nor as great as Duran.

Faster... yes. 
Flashier... yes. 
Better... fuck no.


----------



## SouthPaw (May 24, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> Roy wasn't as skilled nor as great as Duran.
> 
> Faster... yes.
> Flashier... yes.
> Better... fuck no.


Jones could fight from any range, threw every punch textbook, and had exquisite footwork. Eat a dick. Duran couldn't carry his jockstrap.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

SouthPaw said:


> Jones could fight from any range, threw every punch textbook, and had exquisite footwork. Eat a dick. Duran couldn't carry his jockstrap.


Duran fight from any angle too, and his footwork (cutting the ring off ) and punch variety was GREAT too. I don't get your point here. Duran couldn't carry his jockstrap, yet somehow Duran has a better resume than Jones. Fuck off.


----------



## SouthPaw (May 24, 2013)

It's not about resume. It's about who is the better fighter and Jones is levels above him in class and talent.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

Ummm in case you forgot.. resume and proving it against the best is exactly what it's about. Are you claiming Jones is better than duran at everything?


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

KuRuPT said:


> See that's is the thing though.. Hearns does get credit for his past his prime victories just like Duran... Difference is.. Duran's LW reign was dominate and long lasting... Hearns at his prime weight.. was well... left a lot to be desired. That is the major difference between them and something you seem to have forgot. That is why Duran is one of the best if not the best of the last 40 years. He had a much more dominate run at LW than Hearns and even SRL really. So when you add that onto his past his prime wins and close fights... it paints a better picture than SRL or Hearns.


Duran fought many over the weight fights when he was champ, and did not have that many title fights. He was dominant, but he level was not great. Are you telling me his lightweight reign was full of great fighters? If you want to mention Hearns. Hearns in his prime had 7 title defenses at 147 and 154 and 10 title fights, very close to Duran's title fight amount at lightweight, and Duran lost to Dejesus and Tommy lost to Leonard and Hagler, who were better than Dejesus. The difference is that Hearns had someone like Leonard at welt. and Duran did not. Duran did not fight the level at lightweight which he fought later, and if when he fought past 135 he was past his prime, then where does his light weight reign rank him. Hearns had more greats to fight in his prime than Duran did in his. Yet the fact remains that Duran did not beat many great fighters to rank him best fighter of the pats 40 years. Hearns beat more greats than Duran did. Benitez,Duran,Hill. .And all were champions when he beat them. Leonard beat 4 greats. Hearns,Duran,Benitez,Hagler.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> Duran had about 70 fights under his belt, was already considered by many to be the best lightweight in history & was the current pound for pound fighter in the world before he went anywhere near SRL, Hearns, Hagler or Benitez. Those guys *made *their legend by fighting each other, Duran was *already *a legend before he faced any of them... facing those guys & claiming the scalp of a prime Leonard in the process was just icing on the cake really.


Duran would not be considered half the legend he was or even less without his post lightweight reign. His lightweight reign was good but he did not beat great fighters. Sort of like Tyson when he came up, but the thing which hurts Mike is the lack of wins over greats, although he beat more greats than Duran did. Holmes and Spinks.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

people are going to say I am backtracking but I do think Duran is great. Dominant and had a great career and 4 titles. Beating Barkley was impressive. I still think the thing which ranks you at top 10 ever is beating Hearns and Benitez. The thing I discuss is how Duran can be rated best in the last 40 years or top 5 or 10 ever. I rate him top 25 and one of the best of the past 50 years, but why if someone does not agree he is the best of the last 40 or a top 10 is that considered wrong. I think he lacks the wins over other greats to be considered best of the last 40. Especially when you see what other greats who are considered top 25 or 35 have beaten.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

SouthPaw said:


> Jones could fight from any range, threw every punch textbook, and had exquisite footwork. Eat a dick. Duran couldn't carry his jockstrap.


Once you`ve been watching boxing a few more years and learn more things about the sport, you`ll probably begin to appreciate how silly your jockstrap comment is.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

SouthPaw said:


> It's not about resume. It's about who is the better fighter and Jones is levels above him in class and talent.


Wow :lol:


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

SouthPaw said:


> It's not about resume. It's about who is the better fighter and Jones is levels above him in class and talent.


Blah blah blah. Do you know how easy it is to say shit that? How about you off of the facts? Duran beat Leonard which proves his skills and abilities on a higher level than Jones. Jones is most certainly NOT on a higher level than Duran. His resume proves you way wrong.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> Blah blah blah. Do you know how easy it is to say shit that? How about you off of the facts? Duran beat Leonard which proves his skills and abilities on a higher level than Jones. Jones is most certainly NOT on a higher level than Duran. His resume proves you way wrong.


I don't know if Jones can beat Duran or not in a p4p setting. I would say probably not if he fought on the ropes like he did vs. a lot of his light heavyweight competition. But s for Leonard, the only reason Ray lost to Duran was because he had heart and wanted to fight Duran at his own game. Roy would never fight Duran at his own game. Only one guy ever fought Duran at his own game and beat him. Tommy Hearns. Because Tommy had the power and speed to get his punch off and hurt Duran. How many guys could do that? Not many.


----------



## SouthPaw (May 24, 2013)

He beat a 24 year old Leonard then quit like a bitch in the very next fight. ATG lol


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

SouthPaw said:


> He beat a 24 year old Leonard then quit like a bitch in the very next fight. ATG lol


now you're saying Duran isn't an ATG? ok how about when Jones got knocked out by Tarver, ******?


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

SouthPaw said:


> He beat a 24 year old Leonard then quit like a bitch in the very next fight. ATG lol


Loling Roberto Duran as an ATG is ridiculous. He's one of the best fighters iv'e ever seen on film. Technically he's better than Jones as well as having a far superior record. Jones edges Duran on athleticism and showboating and that's it. Duran fought at a high level past his best. When Jones started to fade he lost a % of his athletic abilities and that resulted in him getting ko'd by average fighters. Jones relied on having amazing speed and reflexes when that faded he didn't have any defensive technique to fall back on.

I still love watching Jones highlights, he was the shit in his prime.


----------



## Boxed Ears (Jun 13, 2012)

Lester1583 said:


> It is a well known fact that Duran is searching boxing forums day and night looking for haters, armchair critics and Leonard fans.
> 
> Someday, one day Duran will find you all.
> 
> ...


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> Duran fight from any angle too, and his footwork (cutting the ring off ) and punch variety was GREAT too. I don't get your point here. Duran couldn't carry his jockstrap, yet somehow Duran has a better resume than Jones. Fuck off.


I don't think Duran does have a better resume, Jones has more Ring Top 10 rated opponents, more belt holders and lineal champs on his ledger. Duran has Leonard, Marcel, Buchanan, Palomino, Dejesus x2, Moore, Cuevas, Barkley. Jones has Toney, Hopkins, Hill, Tarver, Harding, Griffin, McCallum, Reggie Johnson, Mallinga, Ruiz.

In terms of dominance Jones rarely lost a round from '89-03 up to the age of 35 an age when Duran had 6-7 losses.

I'm not sure why we're talking about Jones on this thread though


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

rossco said:


> Loling Roberto Duran as an ATG is ridiculous. He's one of the best fighters iv'e ever seen on film. Technically he's better than Jones as well as having a far superior record. Jones edges Duran on athleticism and showboating and that's it. Duran fought at a high level past his best. When Jones started to fade he lost a % of his athletic abilities and that resulted in him getting ko'd by average fighters. Jones relied on having amazing speed and reflexes when that faded he didn't have any defensive technique to fall back on.
> 
> I still love watching Jones highlights, he was the shit in his prime.


Yeah, I quite like Jones, he was the most dominant fighter of the 90s & a really great fighter.... but to put him above Duran just shows that we`re dealing with teenage fanboys on here, especially when they `lol` at Duran being an ATG.

I mean Duran is without question a top 10 p4p ATG, Jones isn't even top 20. Duran was the more skilled fighter.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> Yeah, I quite like Jones, he was the most dominant fighter of the 90s & a really great fighter.... but to put him above Duran just shows that we`re dealing with teenage fanboys on here, especially when they `lol` at Duran being an ATG.
> 
> I mean Duran is without question a top 10 p4p ATG, Jones isn't even top 20. Duran was the more skilled fighter.


Duran had everything. The faints he sets up to work his way inside are a thing of beauty. He was a bad bad man but also technically superb all round.

Jones didn't age well because he was more about athletic gifts than actual technical skill. He was supremely gifted athletically, this allowed him to show boat and be flashy. Im not saying he didn't have skill, he had spade loads, he just isnt technically great. For me Bernard Hopkins aged better than Jones because he was/is technically far superior than Jones, especially in defence.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> I don't think Duran does have a better resume, Jones has more Ring Top 10 rated opponents, more belt holders and lineal champs on his ledger. Duran has Leonard, Marcel, Buchanan, Palomino, Dejesus x2, Moore, Cuevas, Barkley. Jones has Toney, Hopkins, Hill, Tarver, Harding, Griffin, McCallum, Reggie Johnson, Mallinga, Ruiz.
> 
> In terms of dominance Jones rarely lost a round from '89-03 up to the age of 35 an age when Duran had 6-7 losses.
> 
> I'm not sure why we're talking about Jones on this thread though


Jones might not have lost until he was 35 but how many fights did he have at that point ?

Duran had a record of 71-1 (or thereabouts) going into the first Leonard fight.

Ring years are a more accurate way to judge a fighter than actual years, as I`m sure you know only too well.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

rossco said:


> Duran had everything. The faints he sets up to work his way inside are a thing of beauty. He was a bad bad man but also technically superb all round.
> 
> Jones didn't age well because he was more about athletic gifts than actual technical skill. He was supremely gifted athletically, this allowed him to show boat and be flashy. Im not saying he didn't have skill, he had spade loads, he just isnt technically great. For me Bernard Hopkins aged better than Jones because he was/is technically far superior than Jones, especially in defence.


I agree 100%, Duran for me is on the very top tier as far as overall skillset & technique goes, Jones is not, he`s not a million miles away but he`s not on that very top tier.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Pernell Whitaker


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> Yeah, I quite like Jones, he was the most dominant fighter of the 90s & a really great fighter.... but to put him above Duran just shows that we`re dealing with teenage fanboys on here, especially when they `lol` at Duran being an ATG.
> 
> *I mean Duran is without question a top 10 p4p ATG*, Jones isn't even top 20. Duran was the more skilled fighter.


I probably have him there, but there are way too many great champs to say he belongs there "without question".

As for comparing Jones and Duran... Yes, Duran certainly had a more complete technical skillset and probably also has the better record, but on that point I can see if someone prefer Roy's. Roy doesn't have a win like the one over Leonard, but he has several really good ones and probably was more dominant in his prime. And while Duran coped better than Roy with diminishing physical assets, he dropped a fair bit too and didn't cope as well as for example McCallum. Several of his past prime losses were quite embarrasing (insert excuses).


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> I probably have him there, but there are way too many great champs to say he belongs there "without question".
> 
> As for comparing Jones and Duran... Yes, Duran certainly had a more complete technical skillset and probably also has the better record, but on that point I can see if someone prefer Roy's. Roy doesn't have a win like the one over Leonard, but he has several really good ones and probably was more dominant in his prime. And while Duran coped better than Roy with diminishing physical assets, he dropped a fair bit too and didn't cope as well as for example McCallum. Several of his past prime losses were quite embarrasing (insert excuses).


Not sure about the more dominant part, both were extremely dominant in their prime, Duran does have the 1 legit loss to Dejesus albeit in a non-title fight at light-welterweight, which is a bit worse than Roy`s DQ loss to Griffin (which IMO isn't a real loss)... both men avenging that 1 prime loss by dominating knockout (twice in the case of Duran-Dejesus)... Roberto though had like 73 fights before the Leonard 2 loss, Roy had a little less fights than that by the time Tarver 2 came.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> Not sure about the more dominant part, both were extremely dominant in their prime, Duran does have the 1 legit loss to Dejesus albeit in a non-title fight at light-welterweight, which is a bit worse than Roy`s DQ loss to Griffin (which IMO isn't a real loss)... both men avenging that 1 prime loss by dominating knockout (twice in the case of Duran-Dejesus)... Roberto though had like 73 fights before the Leonard 2 loss, Roy had a little less fights than that by the time Tarver 2 came.


Wouldn't call DeJesus II a "dominant KO". I think DeJesus had the better of the early rounds and showed the more composed technique, but then Duran wore him down with sheer strength and power. But DeJesus III was just a polished, masterful performance by Duran in every sense.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

How exactly does Duran NOT have the better resume between Jones and him @Powerpuncher ?

Duran's wins over Leonard, Barkley, DeJesus, and Buchanan top anything Jones has ever did. I will give Jones the edge in dominance but that is ONLY because Jones did not fight the caliber of competition Duran did.

I also give credit to Jones for beating Toney and Hopkins in impressive fashion, but those 2 wins simply do not measure up to Duran's best scalps. Be honest, their resumes aren't even close. Duran's depth>Jones' dominance.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> Jones might not have lost until he was 35 but how many fights did he have at that point ?
> 
> Duran had a record of 71-1 (or thereabouts) going into the first Leonard fight.
> 
> Ring years are a more accurate way to judge a fighter than actual years, as I`m sure you know only too well.


Jones had way more fights than Duran before he lost, he just had a much longer amateur career. And no Duran didn't diminish because of a hard time in the ring, most of his first 72 opponents didn't test even him. Duran diminished because of a lack of dedication. He's basically the James Toney of lightweights.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> How exactly does Duran NOT have the better resume between Jones and him @Powerpuncher ?
> 
> Duran's wins over Leonard, Barkley, DeJesus, and Buchanan top anything Jones has ever did. I will give Jones the edge in dominance but that is ONLY because Jones did not fight the caliber of competition Duran did.
> 
> I also give credit to Jones for beating Toney and Hopkins in impressive fashion, but those 2 wins simply do not measure up to Duran's best scalps. Be honest, their resumes aren't even close. Duran's depth>Jones' dominance.


Simple, Leonard is better than Hopkins and Toney but Buchanan and Dejesus are a class below. Let's be objective here Toney and Hopkins are way above Buchanan and Dejesus in terms of resume and ability on film.

And WTF did you just try to say a journeyman like Barkley is better than Hopkins/Toney? I suggest watching Toney-Barkley


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Simple, Leonard is better than Hopkins and Toney but Buchanan and Dejesus are a class below. Let's be objective here Toney and Hopkins are way above Buchanan and Dejesus in terms of resume and ability on film.
> 
> And WTF did you just try to say a journeyman like Barkley is better than Hopkins/Toney? I suggest watching Toney-Barkley


Leonard is ALOT better than Hopkins and Toney. That is an all time great at the prime of his career. Some say Hopkins would go onto improve and wasn't at his prime yet.

Buchanan and DeJesus are not a class below Toney and Hopkins, espesically when you consider that Hopkins would go on to improve as a fighter. Tbh they are very close, I consider them both ATGs. It's not like those are Duran's only wins, either.

Barkley is suddenly cited as a journeymen? are you fucking kidding me? A journeymen does not knockout hearns once and then decision him, a journeymen does not beat the shit out of Olajide and Scypion. Shit, when Barkley went the distance with a prime Nunn you could make a case for Barkley beating him too. Barkley was no ATG, and I didn't say he was better than Toney or Hopkins, but he was still a helluva fighter with an ATG punch and a great chin as well.

I've seen Toney-Barkley. Toney took him apart. Great performance. Makes no difference though on Barkleys rankings in the long run because Barkley was very clearly not at his best against Toney.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

I knew MAG would be the only one to vote for Leonard before even checking.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Sweet Pea said:


> I knew MAG would be the only one to vote for Leonard before even checking.


I had to back up my man.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Sweet Pea said:


> I knew MAG would be the only one to vote for Leonard before even checking.


I don't see how Leonard could not be voted for. Has any fighter in the last 40 years beaten the level of fighters Leonard did Benitez,Duran,Hearns, Hagler?


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

LittleRed said:


> I had to back up my man.


Thank you. I knew I was not the only one who thought this. Ray beat them all.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

I think people misinterpret me and Duran. I think he is great and his lightweight reign was dominant and impressive-and beating Ray was a good win, I don;t think as great as some think since Ray was still rather green in many ways. And Barkley and Moore were very impressive. But so was Tyson's at heavyweight when he beat Holmes and Spinks and the list he beat like Berbick,Smith,Tucker,Bruno etc. The thing which we are rating here is Duran as a top fighter of the last 40 years compared to Leonard,Hearns,Holmes,Tyson, Jones,Mayweather,Whitaker etc etc. Somehow if I say Duran was not the top fighter of the past 40 years, that is an insult on Duran,. I simply think that being at that lofty level means a guy has to beat more greats to earn it. And Leonard did. It is rather simple.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

I'm kinda surprised it's this one sided, honestly.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

LittleRed said:


> I'm kinda surprised it's this one sided, honestly.


so am I.. I think people confuse popularity and dominance with best of all time. Tyson was dominant and boy he wiped out guys who never were wiped out, yet he still did not fare well with great fighters like Evander and Lennox. Duran was dominant, but Leonard beat greats at their weight. No excuses about moving up and being out of shape,and that was why he lost -etc. And I still say Ray was green when he fought Duran since he fell for Duran's taunts about Juanita, so he fought Roberto's fight. Roberto is great, but no way does he have the wins Leonard does. in 115 fights Duran does not have the wins a 40 fight career in Leonard has. I suppose it has to do with perspective.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

Pretty sure Leonard is the more popular of the two.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Sweet Pea said:


> Pretty sure Leonard is the more popular of the two.


not with boxing fans. I remember when Hearns and Ray were introduced in the early 1990s and Ray was booed and Hearns was cheered.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> Leonard is ALOT better than Hopkins and Toney. That is an all time great at the prime of his career. Some say Hopkins would go onto improve and wasn't at his prime yet.
> 
> Buchanan and DeJesus are not a class below Toney and Hopkins, espesically when you consider that Hopkins would go on to improve as a fighter. Tbh they are very close, I consider them both ATGs. It's not like those are Duran's only wins, either.


1 great win doesn't make a resume, lest we forget the rematch of that great win anyway. Hopkins and Toney's careers and resumes put Buchanan's and Dejesus in the shadow as do their skills. I think you're only debating otherwise because you're a Duran fan. Buchanan's and Dejesus never reached the heights of P4P no1 status, they never won belts in multiple divisions and they have much thinner resumes. And no they don't look nearly as good.

Many Jones detractors say Hopkins improved based on him not having any top wins at that point, but it's not evident in his skillset.



tommygun711 said:


> Barkley is suddenly cited as a journeymen? are you fucking kidding me? A journeymen does not knockout hearns once and then decision him, a journeymen does not beat the shit out of Olajide and Scypion. Shit, when Barkley went the distance with a prime Nunn you could make a case for Barkley beating him too. Barkley was no ATG, and I didn't say he was better than Toney or Hopkins, but he was still a helluva fighter with an ATG punch and a great chin as well.


Barkley maybe better described as a gatekeeper but yes journeymen sometimes do KO Hearns level fighters, see Lennox Lewis losses. And no he didn't come close to actually beating Nunn even if Nunn was lazy in beating him.

Barkley wasn't really a top 5 opponent in a MW division with McCallum, Kalambay, Benn, Eubank, Leonard and yes even Hearns. Duran got the best top10 opponent he could face, who wasn't a particularly skilled boxer.

And yes you said Jones didn't have a win as good as Barkley.



tommygun711 said:


> I've seen Toney-Barkley. Toney took him apart. Great performance. Makes no difference though on Barkleys rankings in the long run because Barkley was very clearly not at his best against Toney.


Barkley doesn't have much of a long term ranking, he was dominated by Benn, Kalambay and Toney and lost to a sloppy Nunn. He has a couple of wins over Hearns and that's it legacy wise.

Duran-Barkley was an exciting fight but it was a meeting of gatekeepers to the top 6 at the time, not a real world class contest.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Voted for Leonard, he gets underrated for numerous reasons now, partly what people aspire too with a boxing personality.


----------



## fists of fury (May 24, 2013)

Lester1583 said:


> It is a well known fact that Duran is searching boxing forums day and night looking for haters, armchair critics and Leonard fans.
> 
> Someday, one day Duran will find you all.
> 
> ...


Someone sticky this post.


----------



## Bill Jincock (Jun 19, 2012)

I'd say BUchanan and Dejesus at the time they fought Duran looked a fair bit better in terms of skillset than the Hopkins that Roy fought.

Hopkins was basic at that point.


----------



## Pimp C (Jun 3, 2013)

The thing with Duran is he has this aura similar to EM in which people tend to just overrate the hell outta his wins and excuse all of his loses. You can't do that and be objective about the man as a boxer. Sure he beat SRL but he lost the immediate rematch when he quit no excuses period. When you look at who SRl beat and who Duran beat it's clearly SRL but people hold Duran in such high regard all common sense goes out of the window when discussing him and the very fact this poll is 17-4 only helps to solidify my point.


----------



## RobertoDuran (Oct 2, 2013)

Sugar Ray Leonard is a God.


----------



## Gesta (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> I don't think Duran does have a better resume, Jones has more Ring Top 10 rated opponents, more belt holders and lineal champs on his ledger. Duran has Leonard, Marcel, Buchanan, Palomino, Dejesus x2, Moore, Cuevas, Barkley. Jones has Toney, Hopkins, Hill, Tarver, Harding, Griffin, McCallum, Reggie Johnson, Mallinga, Ruiz.
> 
> In terms of dominance Jones rarely lost a round from '89-03 up to the age of 35 an age when Duran had 6-7 losses.
> 
> I'm not sure why we're talking about Jones on this thread though


How can you beat more belt holders when you hold the belts , how can you beat other champs when you beat them and stop them from being champs?

Jones always looked for the easy fight, Duran took on Hagler when he was KO'ing all chalengers , Jones took on the weaking belt holder then ran off with the belt.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Gesta said:


> How can you beat more belt holders when you hold the belts , how can you beat other champs when you beat them and stop them from being champs?
> 
> Jones always looked for the easy fight, Duran took on Hagler when he was KO'ing all chalengers , Jones took on the weaking belt holder then ran off with the belt.


Toney was looking for an easy fight when he was P4P no1 in the division above? If beating most of the top10 at 175 since he moved there are easy fights, then I suppose that shows how good he was.

If anyone cherry picked a weakling belt holders it was certainly Duran against Moore and Barkley.


----------



## Gesta (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Toney was looking for an easy fight when he was P4P no1 in the division above? If beating most of the top10 at 175 since he moved there are easy fights, then I suppose that shows how good he was.
> 
> If anyone cherry picked a weakling belt holders it was certainly Duran against Moore and Barkley.


Jones was great , but was known as reluctant Roy for a reason , was a belt holder in every divsion he was in.

Jones did not fight DM , the man at LHW

Duran fought two of the best ever at those two weights in Hearns & Hagler , he could not beat them so he beat Moore & Barkley.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Jones had way more fights than Duran before he lost, he just had a much longer amateur career. And no Duran didn't diminish because of a hard time in the ring, most of his first 72 opponents didn't test even him. Duran diminished because of a lack of dedication. He's basically the James Toney of lightweights.


The James Toney of lightweights ?... you`re seriously trying to pull my plunger now aren't you.

Duran is the most common choice for best ever lightweight, one of the deepest divisions in history, who had a record of 71-1 before his `lack of dedication` took its toll on him. Comparing him to Toney in any form outside of slipping & countering is an insult to Duran.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> The James Toney of lightweights ?... you`re seriously trying to pull my plunger now aren't you.
> 
> Duran is the most common choice for best ever lightweight, one of the deepest divisions in history, who had a record of 71-1 before his `lack of dedication` took its toll on him. Comparing him to Toney in any form outside of slipping & countering is an insult to Duran.


No it isn't and Duran fans can't have it both ways, either he was overweight and small at 154 and 160 when he was only 29-32 or he was in shape. If you can't be in shape at that age you lack dedication, it's that simple. Most of his fans excuses for his losses come down to Duran lacking control of his eating or not training to get in shape.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Gesta said:


> Jones was great , but was known as reluctant Roy for a reason , was a belt holder in every divsion he was in.
> 
> Jones did not fight DM , the man at LHW
> 
> Duran fought two of the best ever at those two weights in Hearns & Hagler , he could not beat them so he beat Moore & Barkley.


The 'Reluctant Roy' is a media portrayal, in reality fights get made on 1 basis and that's money and everyone wanted a king's randsome to fight Roy, Darius included. Promoters like Don King wanted him to agree to them taking control of his career which would mean taking a slice of his earnings, something Roy was Reluctant to agree to. For instance King wouldn't agree to making Jones-Benn, without signing Jones up to a multi-fight deal, Jones wanted a 1 fight deal.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Bill Jincock said:


> I'd say BUchanan and Dejesus at the time they fought Duran looked a fair bit better in terms of skillset than the Hopkins that Roy fought.
> 
> *Hopkins was basic at that point*.


That one line is one of the quality distingusiher to see who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Hopkins looked really good, he just couldn't live with Jones' speed. As no one could back then.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Gesta said:


> Jones always looked for the easy fight, Duran took on Hagler when he was KO'ing all chalengers , Jones took on the weaking belt holder then ran off with the belt.


Duran also ducked McCallum, and would be accused of cherry-picking when facing Barkley if he was named Leonard or Jones.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

PP.. was duran past his prime weight.. and past his prime after figthing for almost a decade already when he ahd fights at 147.. 154 and 160.. or are you claiming he was in his prime and at his best weight?


----------



## Bill Jincock (Jun 19, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> That one line is one of the quality distingusiher to see who doesn't know what he's talking about.
> 
> Hopkins looked really good, he just couldn't live with Jones' speed. As no one could back then.


Why the need to insult someone with a different opinion?.

And i rate early Hopkins just fine, he was already a very good fighter, but he was also a pretty basic boxer-puncher at that point, relying more on aggression and punching in bunches rather than the more well-rounded technician he became by the late 90s.Look at his footwork and stance in the Jones fight(or in previous fights), look at his punchpicking and compare it to a few years later, it's night and day.


----------



## Gesta (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> The 'Reluctant Roy' is a media portrayal, in reality fights get made on 1 basis and that's money and everyone wanted a king's randsome to fight Roy, Darius included. Promoters like Don King wanted him to agree to them taking control of his career which would mean taking a slice of his earnings, something Roy was Reluctant to agree to. For instance King wouldn't agree to making Jones-Benn, without signing Jones up to a multi-fight deal, Jones wanted a 1 fight deal.


Jones fought for one of the belts at MW , did not look to unifiy , fought Toney (Great win) , did not unifiy , won belts at LHW but did not look to beat the man in that division. fought a belt holder at HW.

Great great fighter , but never sought out the best compition


----------



## Gesta (Jun 6, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> Duran also ducked McCallum, and would be accused of cherry-picking when facing Barkley if he was named Leonard or Jones.


Duran ruled his weight class for years before moving up, something that Ray & Roy did not do.

Duran was never KO'd by a feather fisted former Super featherweight or any of the guys that have KO'd Roy , I understand that Ray & Roy were past prime / shot , but when Duran was past prime / shot he was still compeditive.

Duran's mentaility to totally different from Roy , Ray & Floyd , they only want to fight when they have the upper hand & the advantage , Duran thought he was the toughest and wanted to prove it but taking on all comers

I am not sure about Mike and where he was in relation to a posible fight , but Barkey was a huge middle weight but KO'd Hearns then disisioned him and Duran beat him,


----------



## Bill Jincock (Jun 19, 2012)

IF Roy and Ray had fought a barkley at the stage of their career that Duran was at when he fought him, most people either wouldn't care(because they were shot to fuck) or would more likely be worried they would get hurt.

Duran not being considered a top-tier elite P4P type anymore(or even really that good) goes a long way to showing why he wasn't criticised for cherrypicking.If i was more of a cunt than i am, i might be tempted to suggest anyone saying otherwise like bokaj doesn't have a clue what they are talking about and probably weren't following the sport at all at the time.I am a noble soul though.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Gesta said:


> Duran ruled his weight class for years before moving up, something that Ray & Roy did not do.
> 
> Duran was never KO'd by a feather fisted former Super featherweight or any of the guys that have KO'd Roy , I understand that Ray & Roy were past prime / shot , but when Duran was past prime / shot he was still compeditive.
> 
> ...


The highlighted part is a perfect example how these dicsussions leave reality. The guy who faced Benitez, Duranx3, Hearnsx2, Hagler and Norris (when way past his prime) "only wants to fight when he has the upper hand"? While Duran who refused to give Buchanan a rematch on acceptable terms and blatatly ducked his mandatory in McCallum took on all comers?

Personally, I'm hugely impressed by Duran's career and achievements, and I don't think what happened with Buchanan and McCallum is a big deal. You're bound to have at least one or two of those in a long career at the top.

But I'm pretty sich of these double standards. I mean, Leonard gets much, much, much more stick for actually facing LaLonde than Duran gets for not facing his mandatory in McCallum and not giving Buchanan a rematch. And when Duran beats Barkley it's one of the greatest achivements in boxing history (which I don't really disagree with), but when Jones beats Ruiz it's cherry-picking.

Duran's and Hagler's fans are almost enough to make any sane boxing fan hate those two fantastic fighters.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Bill Jincock said:


> Why the need to insult someone with a different opinion?.
> 
> And i rate early Hopkins just fine, he was already a very good fighter, but he was also a pretty basic boxer-puncher at that point, relying more on aggression and punching in bunches rather than the more well-rounded technician he became by the late 90s.Look at his footwork and stance in the Jones fight(or in previous fights), look at his punchpicking and compare it to a few years later, it's night and day.


This makes me wonder if you've actually seen the fight.


----------



## Bladerunner (Oct 22, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> That one line is one of the quality distingusiher to see who doesn't know what he's talking about.
> 
> Hopkins looked really good, he just couldn't live with Jones' speed. As no one could back then.


Neither one looked good.They stunk up the joint in a pretty uneventful and boring fight, nobody who saw that fight at the time thought either one would go on to achieve what they did in their careers and surely nobody thought they would become ATG's.


----------



## Bill Jincock (Jun 19, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> This makes me wonder if you've actually seen the fight.


See there you go again.Your tone is all wrong, barging in here as if it was 19th century Tbilisi.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Bill Jincock said:


> See there you go again.Your tone is all wrong, barging in here as if it was 19th century Tbilisi.


 Yeah, perhaps you're right. Nothing to be rude about really, is it?

I suppose I've been on these forums too long.  So sorry - let's just agree to disagree.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Bladerunner said:


> Neither one looked good.They stunk up the joint in a pretty uneventful and boring fight, nobody who saw that fight at the time thought either one would go on to achieve what they did in their careers and surely nobody thought they would become ATG's.


I quite like that fight, and think that Hopkins manage to make most rounds pretty close. It's one of those cases when two styles look to impose oneself on the other, and in the end Jones' speed wins the day.

Both were a tad green compared to their peak versions, but close enough for me to appreciate it. Don't forget that Hopkins was far more competitive than Toney against Jones. Tactically, only McCallum and Griffin (first fight) managed to puzzle Roy more in his prime.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Jones-Hopkins and Duran-marcel are fairly similar.


----------



## Bladerunner (Oct 22, 2012)

Bokaj said:


> Both were a tad green compared to their peak versions, but close enough for me to appreciate it. Don't forget that Hopkins was far more competitive than Toney against Jones. Tactically, only McCallum and Griffin (first fight) managed to puzzle Roy more in his prime.


Harding also gave Roy a tough time but what you say about Hopkins is true, a shame we didnt get to see a rematch between both of them earlier. After Hopkins put on a clinic against Trinidad would have been the perfect time for a rematch but both were very stubborn and couldnt make a deal cause of the money split, as it was Jones ended up giving Hopkins a rematch when he(Jones) was basically done and he ended up making no money for that fight. Big Fan of Roy but looking back he could have managed his career better than he did IMO.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> No it isn't and Duran fans can't have it both ways, either he was overweight and small at 154 and 160 when he was only 29-32 or he was in shape


So you cant be in shape for some fights and not in shape for others ? :huh


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Gesta said:


> Duran ruled his weight class for years before moving up, something that Ray & Roy did not do.


Yet Ray's 147 resume is superior to Duran's 135 resume. Jones 175 resume is on par with Duran's 135 resume. Most of his fans don't rate him no1 lightweight based on his lightweight resume



Gesta said:


> *Duran was never KO'd by a feather fisted former Super featherweight or any of the guys that have KO'd Roy* .


Hearns was an ex super feather amateur and not a puncher at that weight.



Gesta said:


> but when Duran was past prime / shot he was still compeditive.


He didn't look competitive being humiliated by Hearns, being schooled by Benitez, Leonard x2 and even against Kirkland Laing who ran rings around him.

Ray and Roy weren't close to being schooled by someone the level of Laing at the age of 31



Gesta said:


> Duran's mentaility to totally different from Roy , Ray & Floyd , they only want to fight when they have the upper hand & the advantage , Duran thought he was the toughest and wanted to prove it but taking on all comers


BS he looked for the biggest paydays and was steered clear of the likes of McCallum



Gesta said:


> *I am not sure about Mike and where he was in relation to a posible fight *,


Simple he was Duran's mandatory and Duran didn't fight him



Gesta said:


> but Barkey was a huge middle weight but KO'd Hearns then disisioned him and Duran beat him,


He also was and average gatekeeper coming off a lucky punch win.

Did you actually just try to compare Barkley to McCallum :lol:


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> So you cant be in shape for some fights and not in shape for others ? :huh


If you aren't in shape you aren't dedicated, pretty simple really. As a boxer that's your job


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

KuRuPT said:


> PP.. was duran past his prime weight.. and past his prime after figthing for almost a decade already when he ahd fights at 147.. 154 and 160.. or are you claiming he was in his prime and at his best weight?


He wasn't past his prime at 147 no, he was amazing against Leonard and Palomino, the best I've seen him and in great shape. He may not have been in shape in the Leonard rematch, but he did say he was going for a KO in that one, so I'm unsure if it's just another of his excuses.

He was past prime/best weight at 154 and 160 somewhat yes, so had a disadvantage at those weights


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Gesta said:


> Great great fighter , but never sought out the best compition


He fought the best 2 of his era, about 20 champions and more ranked opposition than anyone P4P during the period. He tried for other champions too, he's not responsible for them not pushing for fights with him or their promoters blocking bouts.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Bill Jincock said:


> IF Roy and Ray had fought a barkley at the stage of their career that Duran was at when he fought him, most people either wouldn't care(because they were shot to fuck) or would more likely be worried they would get hurt.


At 37, I doubt too many cared about Duran-Barkley or gave Duran a shot but Barkley was an oaf and there for the taking. People may have worried about Roy/Ray but both probably could have outsmarted such an oaf in reality. Jones at 40 beat fringe contenders like Barkley, in Lacy and a blown up Trinidad. Leonard retired after Norris at 35, but Norris was about 10 levels above Barkley in his boxing ability and Ray was drained.


----------



## Bill Jincock (Jun 19, 2012)

Barkley was no special fighter man, but he was a lot better than a shot to bits Jeff Lacy and Trinidad.

He was a legit dangerous top ten guy(not a fringe contender which would be someone like Roy Gumbs, Jorge Amparo or John Jarvis at that time) who in the couple of years before losing to Duran had defeated Kinchen(who was almost on par with Watson in a similar style imo), Williams(before he became a total out of shape journeyman) Olajide(totally overhyped at the time as a new leonard but also a good stylish fighter with good skills) and Hearns...that is seriously earning your place, hell it's more than someone like Golovkin has done.Then he went on to give Nunn a good fight.Sure Nunn was starting his coke years, but Barkley looked a beast at times in that fight and Nunn didn't fight THAT badly.He looked a lot more out of sorts against curry and starling.

Only a titan like Kalambay had a relatively easy time with barkley at middleweight before Iran started to become too weight-drained.

Duran probably did cherrypick barkley over someone like Kalambay or even a Frank Tate, but it's not really a big deal considering where Roberto was at the time.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> He fought the best 2 of his era, about 20 champions and more ranked opposition than anyone P4P during the period. He tried for other champions too, he's not responsible for them not pushing for fights with him or their promoters blocking bouts.


Out of curiosity what is Roys record for top 10 contenders.


----------



## Gesta (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> The 'Reluctant Roy' is a media portrayal, in reality fights get made on 1 basis and that's money and everyone wanted a king's randsome to fight Roy, Darius included. Promoters like Don King wanted him to agree to them taking control of his career which would mean taking a slice of his earnings, something Roy was Reluctant to agree to. For instance King wouldn't agree to making Jones-Benn, without signing Jones up to a multi-fight deal, Jones wanted a 1 fight deal.


Some fighters seam to fight the best comp' and have great resumes and some do not , some 'want' to fight the best but there are always a tonne of exsuses , Pacman fought MAB, EM & JMM one after the other , Rocky fought all the best in his division one afetr the other and cleaned house , Hagler cleaned house before he fought for a title then ruled the roast for a number of years.

Roy did not fight the best guys in any of the divisions he was in. He can have all the excuses he want but now that his carrer is over , with his talent he could of been top 5 but he is not because he did not clean house / rule any division he was in , who cares if it was Roy's fault or DM, etc.... fault , it does not hurt DM long time legacy as much as it will hurt Roy , this other guys were never going to be the true cream of the crop were Roy could off.


----------



## Gesta (Jun 6, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> The highlighted part is a perfect example how these dicsussions leave reality. The guy who faced Benitez, Duranx3, Hearnsx2, Hagler and Norris (when way past his prime) "only wants to fight when he has the upper hand"? While Duran who refused to give Buchanan a rematch on acceptable terms and blatatly ducked his mandatory in McCallum took on all comers?
> 
> Personally, I'm hugely impressed by Duran's career and achievements, and I don't think what happened with Buchanan and McCallum is a big deal. You're bound to have at least one or two of those in a long career at the top.
> 
> ...


Duran cleaned house at LW for years before moving up.

Ray had to fight Benitez and Hearns , lost to Duran and waited until he was out of shape to fight him , waited until he thought Hearns was past it , waited until Halger was not the fighter he once was etc.... etc... I do not know why he fought Terry though? maybe he though he was not that good.

Duran was the LW king for years , fought 71 times before he beat Ray , Ray made how many defences of his WW title ? after he chalenged Duran knowing he was out of shape and won , he became a part time fighter , like a vulture he circled from above waiting for one of his prey to look bad , shell of their former self than he would stike , with the help of the media he would make his chalenge , if they fought he would 'win' (the great Ray Loenard coming out of retirement to fight {said fighter}) and if they did not want to fight he would 'win' that way too, he was a master manipiltor


----------



## Gesta (Jun 6, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> Yet Ray's 147 resume is superior to Duran's 135 resume. Jones 175 resume is on par with Duran's 135 resume. Most of his fans don't rate him no1 lightweight based on his lightweight resume
> 
> 
> Powerpuncher said:
> ...


----------



## JoKeR (Jun 5, 2013)

I think that Leonard gets under-rated in terms of greatness by a lot of people. 

That said it's just difficult to ignore the depth of Duran's resume and as others have mentioned his longevity. 

I might lean towards Leonard in terms of talent, even though Duran beat him in their first meeting, haha. Look at Leonards top 4 even 5 wins, absolutely insane. 

It's an interesting debate, I really don't think that there is a correct answer in this one.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

Gesta said:


> Duran cleaned house at LW for years before moving up.
> 
> Ray had to fight Benitez and Hearns , lost to Duran and waited until he was out of shape to fight him , waited until he thought Hearns was past it , waited until Halger was not the fighter he once was etc.... etc... I do not know why he fought Terry though? maybe he though he was not that good.


:lol:
Jesus. There should be diagnosis for this.


----------



## Gesta (Jun 6, 2013)

Bokaj said:


> :lol:
> Jesus. There should be diagnosis for this.


How many tile defences does Ray have at WW ?

How many years was Ray the WW king?

When did Ray think of chalenging Halger ? when he was KO'ing all chengeners in one sided beatings or when he looked shot?


----------



## NoNeck (Jun 7, 2013)

Roy Jones, Whitaker, and Mayweather all had higher peaks pound for pound.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> If you aren't in shape you aren't dedicated, pretty simple really. As a boxer that's your job


Well he was pretty dedicated for about the first 70 or so fights of his career in which time he established himself as a top 3 ATG lightweight, the best pound for pound fighter in the world and became only the second boxer in history (Ross being the first) to have been a lightweight champion and then win the welterweight title (Armstrong won the feather then welter then lightweight championship.)

You don't seem to understand that Duran`s place in history was written in stone (no pun intended) before decisively beating a prime Sugar Ray Leonard, everything else he did good was just icing on the cake, he didn't need to fight on post 1980 to be one of the greatest ever, the fact he did just made his already solid legacy even stronger.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

NoNeck said:


> Roy Jones, Whitaker, and Mayweather all had higher peaks pound for pound.


If by `higher peaks` you mean they looked like better fighters then I`d have to disagree. I think Whitaker comes really close (though I`d still give the edge to Duran) but Jones and Mayweather don't look as good as Duran to me.

Roberto Duran from about 1973-1980 was an incredible fighter, easily one of the best pound for pound fighting machines ever caught on film. Roy and Floyd aren't there.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

LittleRed said:


> Out of curiosity what is Roys record for top 10 contenders.


 @Powerpuncher


----------



## NoNeck (Jun 7, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> If by `higher peaks` you mean they looked like better fighters then I`d have to disagree. I think Whitaker comes really close (though I`d still give the edge to Duran) but Jones and Mayweather don't look as good as Duran to me.
> 
> Roberto Duran from about 1973-1980 was an incredible fighter, easily one of the best pound for pound fighting machines ever caught on film. Roy and Floyd aren't there.


Roy and Mayweather absolutely have had higher peaks. 130 Floyd and 168 Roy were ridiculously dominant over legitimate opposition.

Duran doesn't come to the same level. He always was vulnerable to good boxers. That's why he lost to DeJesus and Benitez, and quit against Leonard. He also lost to Kirkland Laing at a stage when he still pretty good.

There's no fucking chance that Roy or Floyd would lose to a fighter of DeJesus' caliber at their prime weights barring freak injuries/circumstances (and that's not a knock on DeJesus, who was very good). Nor would either pull a bullshit "no mas."

You said it well with the term "fighting machine." That's what Duran was. Mayweather and Roy were fighters picked apart fighters rather than grinding right through them.


----------



## Bill Jincock (Jun 19, 2012)

Dejesus would almost certainly beat Floyd if he offered the kind of effort he did in both Castillo fights.Quite worrying that Castillo was by far the best fighter he fought near 135 and 140 for those that think Mayweather is some uber unbeatable h2h beast as opposed to just an excellent\great fighter.

The duran that lost to Dejesus looked no worse than Floyd those nights either.


----------



## NoNeck (Jun 7, 2013)

Bill Jincock said:


> Dejesus would almost certainly beat Floyd if he offered the kind of effort he did in both Castillo fights.Quite worrying that Castillo was by far the best fighter he fought near 135 and 140 for those that think Mayweather is some uber unbeatable h2h beast as opposed to just an excellent\great fighter.
> 
> The duran that lost to Dejesus looked no worse than Floyd those nights either.


"almost certainly" is a completely ridiculous overstatement

1. Duran lost. Floyd won twice. It is unfair to assume that Floyd wouldn't kick things into higher gear if needed. 
2. Floyd hurt himself in the first fight, but still deserved the win because he damn near swept the first half of the fight. He won the second fight even more clearly, although it wasn't fan friendly
3. Floyd owns boxer punchers like DeJesus in general. Think Manfredy, Marquez, Genero, Guerrero, Gatti, Canelo. De La Hoya is the only one to really look decent.

Let's not pretend like Floyd hasn't beaten of list of fighters of DeJesus' caliber either.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

LittleRed said:


> Out of curiosity what is Roys record for top 10 contenders.


From LUFCs numbers it's

29-8


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> From LUFCs numbers it's
> 
> 29-8


That is gaudy.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

Wait... which fighters did floyd beat in their prime that compare to DeJesus.. which fighters are we talking about here?


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

NoNeck said:


> Roy and Mayweather absolutely have had higher peaks. 130 Floyd and 168 Roy were ridiculously dominant over legitimate opposition.
> 
> Duran doesn't come to the same level. He always was vulnerable to good boxers. That's why he lost to DeJesus and Benitez, and quit against Leonard. He also lost to Kirkland Laing at a stage when he still pretty good.
> 
> ...


Only Dejesus can lay claim to beating a prime Duran albeit in a non-title over the weight match, although Duran did become a far better fighter after this loss I`ll give you this one, but Roberto stopped him twice after in title fights.... Dejesus was better than Castillo (who many thought beat Floyd) & he was better than Griffin, who scored a win over prime Roy officially, though I personally don't see this as a loss for Roy, but you get my point, no matter how talented or good a fighter is they can always lose on any given night when not 100%, whatever the reason may be.

I think you need to watch a lot more of prime Duran if you are classing him as a grinder, he was a more skilled & complete fighter than Roy or Floyd.

Take a look at Duran vs Dejesus 3 at 135 lbs, Palomino at 147 lbs and the first Sugar Ray Leonard fight at 147 lbs and you will see 3 masterclasses vs great-excellent fighters were he shows just about every skill there is in decisively beating all of these men.

`Duran is for real`... that`s not my words, that`s the words of Ray Leonard.


----------



## NoNeck (Jun 7, 2013)

KuRuPT said:


> Wait... which fighters did floyd beat in their prime that compare to DeJesus.. which fighters are we talking about here?


Oh right, DeJesus has a win over Duran. That must he was better than everyone Floyd's beaten. Duran must've lost to him because he's better than everyone Floyd has beaten, not because Duran has vulnerabilities against very good boxers.


----------



## NoNeck (Jun 7, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> Only Dejesus can lay claim to beating a prime Duran albeit in a non-title over the weight match, although Duran did become a far better fighter after this loss I`ll give you this one, but Roberto stopped him twice after in title fights.... Dejesus was better than Castillo (who many thought beat Floyd) & he was better than Griffin, who scored a win over prime Roy officially, though I personally don't see this as a loss for Roy, but you get my point, no matter how talented or good a fighter is they can always lose on any given night when not 100%, whatever the reason may be.
> 
> I think you need to watch a lot more of prime Duran if you are classing him as a grinder, he was a more skilled & complete fighter than Roy or Floyd.
> 
> ...


Well, the difference here is that Duran lost a fair decision to DeJesus whereas Floyd beat Castillo twice and Roy was DQ'd for hitting his opponent after he was on the canvas.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

NoNeck said:


> Well, the difference here is that Duran lost a fair decision to DeJesus whereas Floyd beat Castillo twice and Roy was DQ'd for hitting his opponent after he was on the canvas.


And your point is ? :huh

Robinson lost a fair decision to Lamotta as well when he was in his 20s, does that also mean he is not the best fighter of all time or that he cannot be ranked higher than Floyd or Roy ?


----------



## NoNeck (Jun 7, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> And your point is ? :huh
> 
> Robinson lost a fair decision to Lamotta as well when he was in his 20s, does that also mean he is not the best fighter of all time or that he cannot be ranked higher than Floyd or Roy ?


Duran lost plenty of other fights which I already pointed out, nitwit.


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

the thread title is asking me who was the better fighter at their best, simple and short answer is Duran IMO


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

NoNeck said:


> Duran lost plenty of other fights which I already pointed out, nitwit.


Yes, he lost about 16, Robinson lost about 19.... but both only lost ONCE in their prime & both avenged those losses, Duran twice by knockout & Robinson 4 times with 3 decisions & 1 knockout.

Always glad to help


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

How did I know that when opening this thread somebody would be banging on about Floyd Mayweather Jnr


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

NoNeck said:


> Oh right, DeJesus has a win over Duran. That must he was better than everyone Floyd's beaten. Duran must've lost to him because he's better than everyone Floyd has beaten, not because Duran has vulnerabilities against very good boxers.


You're sure going out of your way to avoid a simple question... How about you try and answer this time instead of red herring from left field


----------



## jorodz (Sep 14, 2012)

duran deserves a mention


----------



## NoNeck (Jun 7, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> Yes, he lost about 16, Robinson lost about 19.... but both only lost ONCE in their prime & both avenged those losses, Duran twice by knockout & Robinson 4 times with 3 decisions & 1 knockout.
> 
> Always glad to help


So now "No Mas" was out of his prime? Fuck out of here.


----------



## NoNeck (Jun 7, 2013)

KuRuPT said:


> You're sure going out of your way to avoid a simple question... How about you try and answer this time instead of red herring from left field


I wasn't talking to you. But to answer your question, a long ass list of fighters who took L's to Floyd have been around the same tier, starting with Genero and ending with Canelo (as long as he continues to have a good career). I'm guessing you'll jump on me for naming Canelo, but, if that's the case, you're just being a bitch and also ignoring the fact that he could break DeJesus in half.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

Neither of the guys you mentioned were on the level of De Jesus... what on God's green earth would make you think so? Can you name me the wins of these guys that put them on the level of De Jesus? What I would actually like though... are two fighters on the level of Ken B and DeJesus.. two fighters duran beat hin their prime, and in my view, a full tier or two above most anybody on Floyd's resume. If you disagree.. please tell me the fighters on their level.


----------



## The Comedian (Jul 24, 2012)

Doo-ran!


----------



## NoNeck (Jun 7, 2013)

KuRuPT said:


> Neither of the guys you mentioned were on the level of De Jesus... what on God's green earth would make you think so? Can you name me the wins of these guys that put them on the level of De Jesus? What I would actually like though... are two fighters on the level of Ken B and DeJesus.. two fighters duran beat hin their prime, and in my view, a full tier or two above most anybody on Floyd's resume. If you disagree.. please tell me the fighters on their level.


Genaro Hernandez was a very good champion who would only lose to the truly elite. Same shit as DeJesus. And Hernandez is not Floyd's best win by any stretch. He has a long list of guys at or above that level. Also, you can't devalue wins from a guy who enters the ring at the same weight as jr welter would to beat very good full jr middles (all three of them). A win over DeJesus does not shit on Floyd's resume in any way, and losing to him is not excusable. Saying otherwise is just some old-timey bullshit.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

NoNeck said:


> So now "No Mas" was out of his prime? Fuck out of here.


Its pretty common knowledge that after Leonard 1 Duran was hot and cold and never was as good as the best versions of himself that beat Dejesus, Leonard, Palomino etc. 70 + fights will do that to you I`d think.


----------



## NoNeck (Jun 7, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> Its pretty common knowledge that after Leonard 1 Duran was hot and cold and never was as good as the best versions of himself that beat Dejesus, Leonard, Palomino etc. 70 + fights will do that to you I`d think.


So "No Mas" on the heels of his career defining victory was the exact moment when he fell out of prime, and all loses should be excused? Fuck outta here.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

Let me ask you something NN...

Do you think Duran was in the same kinda condition both mentally and physically for the second fight compared to the first?


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

NoNeck said:


> So "No Mas" on the heels of his career defining victory was the exact moment when he fell out of prime, and all loses should be excused? Fuck outta here.


Excused ? No..... but he most definitely wasn't at his best either, anybody that`s actually took the time look at the guys career can see this. Its pretty obvious.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> Excused ? No..... but he most definitely wasn't at his best either, anybody that`s actually took the time look at the guys career can see this. Its pretty obvious.


Duran never fought a man with Leonard's quality and skills before. Ray as able to fight a fight which was beneficial to his style in the second fight, and a style Duran could not deal with. And Duran had trouble with the quick style against Benitez also. Different fight, but same deficiency.


----------



## NoNeck (Jun 7, 2013)

KuRuPT said:


> Let me ask you something NN...
> 
> Do you think Duran was in the same kinda condition both mentally and physically for the second fight compared to the first?


Leonard's change in tactics was a larger variable than Duran's condition.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

NoNeck said:


> Leonard's change in tactics was a larger variable than Duran's condition.


exactly. Once Ray made the change to box Duran was not going to win.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

For their first fight Duran came prepared and in great shape.. I believe he weighed 144... that is in STARK contrast to their second fight where he was still 10 pounds overweight just days prior to the fight. It's well documented that he was taking a laxative to help him lose the weight right before the fight. Not sure how much more clear it could be that Duran wasn't the same fighter as the first time around.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

KuRuPT said:


> For their first fight Duran came prepared and in great shape.. I believe he weighed 144... that is in STARK contrast to their second fight where he was still 10 pounds overweight just days prior to the fight. It's well documented that he was taking a laxative to help him lose the weight right before the fight. Not sure how much more clear it could be that Duran wasn't the same fighter as the first time around.


a lot of guys have weight problems. To say that is an excuse for a professional fighter is not fair to the winner. Hearns weighed in at 145 for Ray in 1981. That is just as much of a legit excuse as Duran in the second fight and maybe moreso. Tommy overtrained. And if Duran's only problems were weight problems, he would have beaten Benitez just over a year after the Leonard rematch and he didn't. Speed was the problem for Duran and always was. I even asked Ray Leonard about this recently and he agreed.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Duran never fought a man with Leonard's quality and skills before. Ray as able to fight a fight which was beneficial to his style in the second fight, and a style Duran could not deal with. And Duran had trouble with the quick style against Benitez also. Different fight, but same deficiency.


That`s one way of looking at it, another way is that none of the fab 4 or Benitez ever fought Duran at his best other than Leonard the first time and Leonard lost clearly enough.

The Duran that fought Benitez was in no condition mentally to be in a big fight so soon after no mas, not to mention it was at 154 which is more beneficial to the bigger Benitez. The WW Duran that tooled Palomino & Leonard would bust Benitez arse all over the place regardless of whichever style advantage you think Benitez holds.

Duran was the greatest fighter of the lot. Leonard comes closest, Benitez is nowhere near.


----------



## SJS20 (Jun 8, 2012)

It's Duran, Bill.

I'd love to see him fight Chavez Sr at 135, one of my dream fights.

In regards to Leonard vs Duran, I hope you all caught ESPN's documentary on it, it was great.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> That`s one way of looking at it, another way is that none of the fab 4 or Benitez ever fought Duran at his best other than Leonard the first time and Leonard lost clearly enough.
> 
> The Duran that fought Benitez was in no condition mentally to be in a big fight so soon after no mas, not to mention it was at 154 which is more beneficial to the bigger Benitez. The WW Duran that tooled Palomino & Leonard would bust Benitez arse all over the place regardless of whichever style advantage you think Benitez holds.
> 
> Duran was the greatest fighter of the lot. Leonard comes closest, Benitez is nowhere near.


This is my point and always has been. When was Duran's best? His fans would say when he beat Leoanrd because that is the most advantageous to his career. Thing is he was only 29 when he fought Ray the first time and 30 when he fought Wilfred and 32 Hearns and Hagler. He fought until he was 50, winning a title at 37 at middleweight. His longevity is great, but being out of shape would not fix his foot positioning which could be plodding if a fighter moved, and prior to Ray he never fought anyone elite who could make Duran follow and have to deal with speed like Ray or Hearns.
If Duran was at his best vs. Ray in 1980, he was still great in the years following and never took a real beating until Hearns in 1984. He could not deal with speed. He is a great fighter, but to say his excuses are valid and Hearns and Haglers are not is unfair. Hearns was overtrained and still inexperienced for Ray in 1981. Hagler was inactive for Ray in 1987. Why not make those excuses valid. If Duran gets the free pass, anyone should. And the fact is regardless of the excuses of Duran being at his best or he did not train, the fact is the other fab 4 beat more greats than he did. Hearns beat Cuevas for a title, Benitez,Hill at 175, Hagler -Duran and Hearns, Ray -Duran,Hagler,Hearns,Benitez, Duran - beat Leonard. who then easily beat him in the two following fights.
Duran who fought Benitez had a world title fight in front of him and this was long enough after no mas.This was after Luigi Minchillo and one year and 2 months after Ray. Hearns won his title vs. Benitez in the same time fram after Leoanrd, one year 2 months.. You are saying Palomino was as great as Benitez or as fast? No way. Benitez would have beaten Duran at 147 also. At 140? Pickem fight, but I think the speed of Wilfred always frustrates Duran.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

Bill Butcher said:


> That`s one way of looking at it, another way is that none of the fab 4 or Benitez ever fought Duran at his best other than Leonard the first time and Leonard lost clearly enough.
> 
> The Duran that fought Benitez was in no condition mentally to be in a big fight so soon after no mas, not to mention it was at 154 which is more beneficial to the bigger Benitez. The WW Duran that tooled Palomino & Leonard would bust Benitez arse all over the place regardless of whichever style advantage you think Benitez holds.
> 
> Duran was the greatest fighter of the lot. Leonard comes closest, Benitez is nowhere near.


 Duran gets credit for charisma, but if you look at resume he cannot be the best of the lot with no knockouts vs. a great and only one win over a great fighter. His win over Cuevas was 3 years and one weight class above Cuevas greatness. What makes Duran best of them all? Doing what? He lost to them all. His lightweight reign was that great. What is the criteria for Duran being better than them all.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

I find it amusing that you list Cuevas as a win for Hearns... but fail to mention that Duran also beat Cuevas... 

Now I've heard your excuse for this.. ohhh cuevas was better when Hearns beat him... but following your logic from above.. Duran fought him not long after hearns did.. thus he still should've been just fine right? 

You can try and glance over these cold hard facts all you want Mag.. but it doesn't change that they existed. Nobody is saying it's anybody else's fault but Duran for not coming into fights in shape... but that is still a reality none the less. It happened. He came in at 144 for his first fight with SRL.. that was a duran in great great shape clearly right? For the second fight it's well documented that is was still 10 pounds overweight just days prior to the fight and taking laxatives to try and lose the remaining weight. That points to a clear difference in the condition of duran for both fights. No amount of twisting can change that fact. 

Just like you can't get around that Duran was not prime vs. the fab four... while they were ALL in their prime. You alos can't get around that Duran was past his best weight for all of those fights.. while fighting guys at their best weight. These are just the cold hard facts. Of couse they should've won. They were prime at thier best weight.. fighting a guy past his prime and best weight. The fact that he was still competitive with them while not at his best speaks volumes about how good he was.. not the oppostie.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Engaging in a debate involving Duran with MAG? The fuck you clowns thinking about? The dude must have spouted the same shit, over and over, for the last 3-4 years at ESB. Duran defeated a "green" Ray Leonard. The Barkley victory was nothing special. etc. You can argue with him to your blue in the face, it just doesn't filter.

To answer the question, I consider Duran to have been the greater fighter of the two given his incredible achievements at various different weights, and of course his ridiculous longevity counts for a lot, but Leonard was a better fighter at his best.



> That`s one way of looking at it, another way is that none of the fab 4 or Benitez ever fought Duran at his best other than Leonard the first time and Leonard lost clearly enough.


Benitez's performance against a more than capable Duran, who looked in very good shape, was astounding, and is unfairly dismissed.

Have you not watched it, Bill? It's very possible that no version of Duran could have done anything with Benitez. He made Duran look like he'd never seen a ring before.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> To answer the question, I consider Duran to have been the greater fighter of the two given his incredible achievements at various different weights, and of course his ridiculous longevity counts for a lot, but Leonard was a better fighter at his best.


 Which is why Duran beat him with both at their best? 12 lbs. above his best weight? 80 fights and 12 years into his career?



> Benitez's performance against a more than capable Duran, who looked in very good shape, was astounding, and is unfairly dismissed.
> 
> Have you not watched it, Bill? It's very possible that no version of Duran could have done anything with Benitez. He made Duran look like he'd never seen a ring before.


I had it 9-3-3 for Benitez. He was simply better at that stage and weight than Duran, although I do agree that Duran was in pretty much the best shape he could've come in at that point in his career. I also don't see it as the utter schooling that everyone makes it out to be. Benitez fought brilliantly, but Duran acquitted himself well.

You're tripping balls if you think laying on the ropes and drawing counters is going to beat a prime Duran. And he definitely wouldn't be playing Benitez' game by standing in center ring and having a box off. He just lacked the legs he used to have.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

> Which is why Duran beat him with both at their best? 12 lbs. above his best weight? 80 fights and 12 years into his career?


It's rarely that simple, Pea. I thought you'd know that being a Duran apologist.

And Duran may have spent the vast majority of his young days as a Lightweight, but I actually think some of his best performances came above 135lbs. We often say "above his best weight" to stress that the fighter in question wasn't fighting at optimal level, but that wasn't the case with Duran. He was as good at 147lbs in Montreal as he ever had been. Good fight, close fight. Neither fighter dominated the other.



> I had it 9-3-3 for Benitez. He was simply better at that stage and weight than Duran, although I do agree that Duran was in pretty much the best shape he could've come in at that point in his career. I also don't see it as the utter schooling that everyone makes it out to be. Benitez fought brilliantly, but Duran acquitted himself well.


Monstrous schooling. I almost felt sorry for Duran as he was bettered in every single area.

Keep in mind though, I also thought Ray schooled Benitez whereas a lot seem to think that was actually a really competitive fight.



> You're tripping balls if you think laying on the ropes and drawing counters is going to beat a prime Duran. And he definitely wouldn't be playing Benitez' game by standing in center ring and having a box off. He just lacked the legs he used to have.


If my memory serves me correctly, Benitez wasn't laying on the ropes and drawing counters for the whole duration of their fight. The rare times Duran actually tried to bully Benitez, like he had done to Ray, he was made to miss and repeatedly found himself on the end of counter shots.

Okay, I'm tripping balls. But if the Roberto Duran of the Viruet or Bizzarro fights turns up, then he's getting taken to school again. That's what I find interesting about Roberto Duran. Some people seem to think his Lightweight career was somehow different and that he performed at a higher level more consistently. There were plenty of stinkers from Duran down at 135lbs. He was an inconsistent performer. He always was.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

I have to disagree about the bizzarro fight (and the second viruet fight). Duran dominated those.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

LittleRed said:


> I have to disagree about the bizzarro fight (and the second viruet fight). Duran dominated those.


I was talking about the first Viruet fight.

And of course he dominated them, as he was expected to, but they weren't good performances.


----------



## Bill Jincock (Jun 19, 2012)

you can't compare something like the Bizarro fight to a bout against a legit opponent coming to win.

Bizarro just ran and fought to survive and Duran was quite happy to stay in his lowest gear for ages and coast along.Basically a sparring session.

Duran always had that mentality in his prime against low output runners.If you were avoiding exchanges and not bringing enough talented offense to concern him or win rounds, he would take it easy and do the bare minimum needed to win or get the KO and this made for dull fights.It's probably something Leonard noticed when he had his team formulated the specific gameplan he used in the rematch to perfection.


A lot of fighters take that attitude against that type of "survive first" spoiler.Benitez was one as well....watch his fights Ray Guerrero and Carlos Santos and those lacking a keen eye might be thinking he didn't have a clue how to handle mobility.In actual fact he was merely doing enough to win the fights with a bare minimum of effort because the opponent was turning in a shamefully negative performance.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Bill Jincock said:


> you can't compare something like the Bizarro fight to a bout against a legit opponent coming to win.
> 
> Bizarro just ran and fought to survive and Duran was quite happy to stay in his lowest gear for ages and coast along.Basically a sparring session.
> 
> ...


Duran didn't look all that happy against Bizzarro or Viruet to me. He looked frustrated.

It is fairly difficult sometimes when you have an opponent in front of you who doesn't want to engage and is quite happy to survive but Duran definitely should have done more than he did in that fight. Often times considered infallible at the weight, Duran was more than disappointing in some of his title defenses down at 135lbs.


----------



## ThinBlack (Jun 5, 2013)

One thing is for certain, Roberto would not let no Olympic Coach manhandle his thing.He would've murdered the guy if he even attempted that.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> This is my point and always has been. When was Duran's best?QUOTE]
> 
> Peak ?... I`d say his 3rd fight vs Dejesus in 1978 at lightweight when he unified the division, personally.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Duran gets credit for charisma, but if you look at resume he cannot be the best of the lot with no knockouts vs. a great and only one win over a great fighter. His win over Cuevas was 3 years and one weight class above Cuevas greatness. What makes Duran best of them all? Doing what? He lost to them all. His lightweight reign was that great. What is the criteria for Duran being better than them all.


Well, he was a dominant lightweight champion (perhaps the best ever) for almost a decade & regarded as the best pound for pound fighter in boxing at a time when Muhammad Ali was heavyweight champion, his in ring ability & skills as well as being one of the hardest punchers ever seen in the lower weights for starters. Duran was already one of the best fighters of all time before stepping up to tackle the naturally bigger great men, I don't know how much clearer I can be here.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Engaging in a debate involving Duran with MAG? The fuck you clowns thinking about? The dude must have spouted the same shit, over and over, for the last 3-4 years at ESB. Duran defeated a "green" Ray Leonard. The Barkley victory was nothing special. etc. You can argue with him to your blue in the face, it just doesn't filter.
> 
> To answer the question, I consider Duran to have been the greater fighter of the two given his incredible achievements at various different weights, and of course his ridiculous longevity counts for a lot, but Leonard was a better fighter at his best.
> 
> ...


Yes, I seen it. It was a masterful boxing performance and he looked a class above Duran for the most part, which is an incredible achievement in itself but one that told me that Duran wasn't at himself in that fight, if not physically then certainly mentally.

As for Leonard being the better fighter at their best, I`d point to Duran being the smaller man & winning the first fight fair & clearly vs a bigger, younger, faster & far fresher Ray Leonard. I`d also point to the Dejesus 3 & Palomino fights as well for how good Duran looked at his best vs very good-great fighters.


----------



## Bill Butcher (Aug 27, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Duran didn't look all that happy against Bizzarro or Viruet to me. He looked frustrated.
> 
> It is fairly difficult sometimes when you have an opponent in front of you who doesn't want to engage and is quite happy to survive but Duran definitely should have done more than he did in that fight. Often times considered infallible at the weight, Duran was more than disappointing in some of his title defenses down at 135lbs.


Every fighter has disappointing performances, even the best ever, he still won those fights decisively and defended his title, and lets be honest the vast majority of those defences Duran looked down right impressive.


----------



## Kid Generic Alias (Oct 29, 2013)

Gesta said:


> How many tile defences does Ray have at WW ?
> 
> How many years was Ray the WW king?
> 
> When did Ray think of chalenging Halger ? when he was KO'ing all chengeners in one sided beatings or when he looked shot?


Here's a better question: why did it take Duran half a decade to actually unify the division when he could have done so a good four years earlier? How is it that, in this supposedly long and dominant run as a lightweight, Duran only managed a grand total of six wins over guys who were actually rated in the top ten at the time Duran actually fought them? And how is it that Leonard fought almost double the amount of ranked contenders in an even shorter period than Duran's run as a lightweight?

That's actually a fair few questions, but it's certainly something for a dunce like you to ponder. Title defenses and a larger number of fights don't mean fuck all if it's against poor opposition. Duran's lightweight is severely lacking in comparison to the other lightweight greats. Certainly not as good as Leonard's welterweight run, either.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

MAG1965 said:


> Thank you. I knew I was not the only one who thought this. Ray beat them all.


Correct Mag.
You know I'm with you on this one buddy.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

KuRuPT said:


> Let me ask you something NN...
> 
> Do you think Duran was in the same kinda condition both mentally and physically for the second fight compared to the first?


If he wasn't it's his own fault.Lamest excuse when it comes to this argument.
People talk as if he had a gun to his head from the time the first fight ended.I certainly understand plenty of the arguments for Duran here,but when it comes to the second fight,his conditioning and mental state was his own responsibility.People act like his family were being held hostage while he was ordered to get fat.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

KuRuPT said:


> For their first fight Duran came prepared and in great shape.. I believe he weighed 144... that is in STARK contrast to their second fight where he was still 10 pounds overweight just days prior to the fight. It's well documented that he was taking a laxative to help him lose the weight right before the fight. Not sure how much more clear it could be that Duran wasn't the same fighter as the first time around.


He was 10 lbs over because he ate and drank like a fat pig when he knew fine well he shouldn't.Duran fans rightly don't accept that he wouldn't have won the first fight if SRL had fought the way he did in the 2nd,so the "he was out of shape and past prime" doesn't cut it for the second fight.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

> Yes, I seen it. It was a masterful boxing performance and he looked a class above Duran for the most part, which is an incredible achievement in itself but one that told me that Duran wasn't at himself in that fight, if not physically then certainly mentally.


So if Duran gets thoroughly outclassed or clearly beaten then be default he isn't at his best? You're not the only one who's thought process works in this way when it comes to the man from Panama, unfortunately.



> As for Leonard being the better fighter at their best, I`d point to Duran being the smaller man & winning the first fight fair & clearly vs a bigger, younger, faster & far fresher Ray Leonard. I`d also point to the Dejesus 3 & Palomino fights as well for how good Duran looked at his best vs very good-great fighters.


I'm not sure if he won the fight all that "clearly". There's probably a case for a draw.

I would look at those two fights, two fights I've already seen in there entirety, but there's no point because I'm not disputing that Duran was an exceptionally good fighter. He's one of the very best to have laced 'em up. But so was Leonard, and for me Leonard was harder to beat at his absolute peak - If only by a hair.


----------



## Bokaj (Jun 23, 2013)

It's funny how Duran fans dismiss the second fight but go crazy when excuses are made for the first on Leonard's behalf. I'm actually not completely satisfied with either fight, because I don't think Leonard showed himself at his best in the first and that Duran certainly didn't show himself at his best in the second. With that said, I think Duran's win was the better and more satisfying, and that's probably what gives Duran the nod here.


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

Duran's longevity past his peak weight is obscene, and he was only forced into retirement by a car crash. The first time SRL was stopped, he quit, against an opponent El Cholo had gotten the best of less than a year earlier. Duran, like Hearns, came back from devastating losses to carry on. He also did better against Barkley than Hearns had, and better twice against Camacho than SRL did. He was also better against a peak Hagler over the first 12 and 13 rounds than Ray later would be against a diminished Marv [a match for which SRL and Dundee used Hagler-Duran as reference and training material].

Hagler fought poorly against Ray, but not against Duran, who also overcame what was possibly The Blade's best career showing. Then there's Montreal, where he took nine of the first ten rounds against somebody who wasn't exactly a neophyte after 15 with Benitez.

Finally, it is what it is, for whatever reason. Ray was out of the game for five prime years between Finch and Hagler [with a dismal showing against Kevin Howard the only activity in that time]. Overall, he was outstanding in 1979, 1980, 1981, one match in February 1982, one in 1987, and one in 1988.

Roberto beat Ernesto Marcel in May 1970, and Jorge Castro in June 1997. Both Marcel and Castro have been touted as IBHOF candidates. If they both get in, El Cholo is the record holder for longest time span between official wins over HOFers, with a span of more than 27 years between those victories. (At the moment, that distinction may belong to Langford, with 19 years between his wins over Gans and Flowers. Archie Moore has no chance to come close to that 27 year interval)

To me, the current 41-11 poll margin in favor of Duran is apropos. Ray has some quality wins, but poor longevity and deficient quantity. To have any chance at all in this particular comparison, he'd have needed to keep going between Finch and Howard, then Howard and Hagler. Even then, what happened after Duran III suggests an extremely limited shelf life for him, and he sustained seven knockdowns in his last seven bouts. Although never in less than the best physical condition, he did not have the potential for longevity and volume Duran proved.

Esteban DeJesus is not considered great for the same reason Alfredo Escalera and Rodrigo Valdez are not considered great. They failed twice in title bouts against the best man in their division. Take Duran, Arguello and Monzon out of the equation, and all three bridesmaids are probably in Canastota now.


----------



## Kid Generic Alias (Oct 29, 2013)

Jorge Castro has been touted as an IBHOF candidate? By whom? The disciples of the cult of Duran? I don't place any credence to that particular organisation, but the reference to Castro as being a worthy candidate is more than questionable. And Duran never beat him, either. He got beaten comprehensively in Argentina and he got beaten comprehensively in Panama.


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

Kid Generic Alias said:


> Jorge Castro has been touted as an IBHOF candidate? By whom? The disciples of the cult of Duran? I don't place any credence to that particular organisation, but the reference to Castro as being a worthy candidate is more than questionable. And Duran never beat him, either. He got beaten comprehensively in Argentina and he got beaten comprehensively in Panama.


Personally, I don't buy Castro either as an IBHOF candidate. Impressive numbers, but not impressive footage, and he should at least have done what Joppy did to Duran at that stage. But yeah, essentially it's Duran cultists who want to further boost his prestige by raising the question in the minds of voters.


----------

