I've always been prone to believe that the greatest fighter of all time was a toss up between ali robinson or leonard.
robinson for his ability, his record;
ali for his ability and the monsters he's beaten;
and leonard who quite possibly beat the greatest lightweight, an all time top 3 welterweight, and arguably the greatest middleweight of all time.
there's been another name that has hovered in my imagination when it comes to this title, and that name is roberto duran.
besides being a fighters "fighter"who was an offensive whirlwind with a great defense as well; he went up weights few fighters could ever go to, and was successful against bigger men.I'd like to ask you,my fellow boxingscene posters, what in your opinion negates duran's claim as the greatest?

I've always been prone to believe that the greatest fighter of all time was a toss up between ali robinson or leonard.
robinson for his ability, his record;
ali for his ability and the monsters he's beaten;
and leonard who quite possibly beat the greatest lightweight, an all time top 3 welterweight, and arguably the greatest middleweight of all time.
there's been another name that has hovered in my imagination when it comes to this title, and that name is roberto duran.
besides being a fighters "fighter"who was an offensive whirlwind with a great defense as well; he went up weights few fighters could ever go to, and was successful against bigger men.I'd like to ask you,my fellow boxingscene posters, what in your opinion negates duran's claim as the greatest?

His lack of discipline.

The fact that Robinson beat everyone he faced at relevant weights in the first 20 years of his career kind of kills the deal.

Leonard's career is way too short and marred by the lack of relevant rematches to be with these names.

His lack of discipline.

The fact that Robinson beat everyone he faced at relevant weights in the first 20 years of his career kind of kills the deal.

Leonard's career is way too short and marred by the lack of relevant rematches to be with these names.

even though i love ray, i consider him the best, i don't think he faced the kinda talent that duran faced.he faced alot of tough stone beared men, but not any hearn's or benitez's or leonards.

as wmute said his discipline was k=his achilles heel. Had he kept up his body better between fights he would've been even more impressive, because even without being in peak condition his boxing skills and raw natural talent carried him throught the latter half of his career and in some parts of his post-peak(79-84). Also his arrogance, it's good to be arrogant, Ali was arrogant but didn't underestimate his opponents, before and after duran fought opponents, he thought the match was won. He came into the ring most of the time thinking he could just show up and fight this 'bum' and win easy.

Easy! Sugar Ray Robinson.

Poet

I love Duran..always did.
To the point of your thread, as wmute posted..unfortunately this great fighter lacked the discipline to be considered perhaps the greatest.

Many reasons why duran is not the greatest.
1. Resume at Lightweight the weight class he dominated through out the 70's. Name one fighter in that weight class that is considered a all time top 50 that Duran beat.
2. When considereing his record which is phenominal 70-1 at light weight, how many of these fighters that he faced while a lightweiht and champion where simply record padding. Some say all fighters do it. I Challenge anyoneo on here to review Mayweather or Leonard resume and come up with a figher after either of them had 20 fights, that had records similar to Duran opponents (over 25 of them) had like 10-13, or 0-3-1, etc. This is simpy ridicculous
3. Duran deserves kudos for moving up and beating Leonard in the 1st fight, but He quit in the rematch when he was getting schooled, and his record vs the best at welter, jr middle and middle was 3 - 5. I am not counting the other irrelevant loses.

Now duran fans will try as hard as they can to say we cant hold him accountable for his losses above Lightweight. That is weak, and completley biased when you infact hold everyone else accountable for their records in higher weights..

Robinson
Roy
Leonard'
Mayweather
DLH
Mosley.
Whitacker....
Holyfield...

Need i go on....

Duran was only 28 when he first fought ray. then turned 29 by the 2nd fight. He was not over the hill, he had many many fights that were like sparring match quality opponents, so he was not worn out. In fact many say his performance in Montreal was his greatest, it clearly was his best win, thus you cant turn around and say 5 months later he was over the hill. Duran simply was the or one of the most dominant lightweights ever. However when comparing him to Henry Armstrong, or Sugar Ray Robinson fighters who moved up much more successfully, there is no comparison. I read someone on here talking about Duran quality of wins vs Robinson..Duran has one win that ranks up there with Kid gAvilan, basilio, lamatta....1 win, and in that fight we all know ( duran fans refuse to admit or accept it) Leoanrd willlingly chose the wrong style and still lost by only 4 points between 3 judges. Had the judges scored round 1 for leonard, Duran would have lost that fight or it would have been a draw.

4. Discipline may be a reason, however that is not only duran. Ray Robinson, Leonard dd cocain, Ali partyied and had women with him at his biggest fights, Benitez didnt even train alot of times, Roy Jones had to lose muscle mass. Again Duran fans simply try to make this man bigger than what he was. He was not the only person who had to overcome issues. That is part of boxing. Duran lost fights because he ran into a better fighter that night, Dejesus beat him fair and square that night, thn duran beat him the next two. I guess it is ok to say that Duran lost the 1st one to Dejusus but his beating him the next two shows the 1st one was a fluke...Hmmmm then what about Leonard losing the 1st duran fight, and then beating Duran the next 2 times.

Duran IMO is a all time great. He has not beaten the great fighters that Robinson has, or Ali, or leonard has. Duran has more wins than leonard but many should have been sparring matches ( look at their records for yourself, and this was after Duran was a champion). I have duran slightly behind leonard ahead of Mayweather.

Losses against Leonard, Hearns and Hagler. Only one win against Leonard where Leonard fought a pridebased tactical disatrous fight. If Duran should have been thé greatest fighter who ever lived, he would have had to beat Hagler and Hearns as well IMO.

Many reasons why duran is not the greatest.
1. Resume at Lightweight the weight class he dominated through out the 70's. Name one fighter in that weight class that is considered a all time top 50 that Duran beat.
2. When considereing his record which is phenominal 70-1 at light weight, how many of these fighters that he faced while a lightweiht and champion where simply record padding. Some say all fighters do it. I Challenge anyoneo on here to review Mayweather or Leonard resume and come up with a figher after either of them had 20 fights, that had records similar to Duran opponents (over 25 of them) had like 10-13, or 0-3-1, etc. This is simpy ridicculous
3. Duran deserves kudos for moving up and beating Leonard in the 1st fight, but He quit in the rematch when he was getting schooled, and his record vs the best at welter, jr middle and middle was 3 - 5. I am not counting the other irrelevant loses.

Now duran fans will try as hard as they can to say we cant hold him accountable for his losses above Lightweight. That is weak, and completley biased when you infact hold everyone else accountable for their records in higher weights..

Robinson
Roy
Leonard'
Mayweather
DLH
Mosley.
Whitacker....
Holyfield...

Need i go on....

Duran was only 28 when he first fought ray. then turned 29 by the 2nd fight. He was not over the hill, he had many many fights that were like sparring match quality opponents, so he was not worn out. In fact many say his performance in Montreal was his greatest, it clearly was his best win, thus you cant turn around and say 5 months later he was over the hill. Duran simply was the or one of the most dominant lightweights ever. However when comparing him to Henry Armstrong, or Sugar Ray Robinson fighters who moved up much more successfully, there is no comparison. I read someone on here talking about Duran quality of wins vs Robinson..Duran has one win that ranks up there with Kid gAvilan, basilio, lamatta....1 win, and in that fight we all know ( duran fans refuse to admit or accept it) Leoanrd willlingly chose the wrong style and still lost by only 4 points between 3 judges. Had the judges scored round 1 for leonard, Duran would have lost that fight or it would have been a draw.

4. Discipline may be a reason, however that is not only duran. Ray Robinson, Leonard dd cocain, Ali partyied and had women with him at his biggest fights, Benitez didnt even train alot of times, Roy Jones had to lose muscle mass. Again Duran fans simply try to make this man bigger than what he was. He was not the only person who had to overcome issues. That is part of boxing. Duran lost fights because he ran into a better fighter that night, Dejesus beat him fair and square that night, thn duran beat him the next two. I guess it is ok to say that Duran lost the 1st one to Dejusus but his beating him the next two shows the 1st one was a fluke...Hmmmm then what about Leonard losing the 1st duran fight, and then beating Duran the next 2 times.

Duran IMO is a all time great. He has not beaten the great fighters that Robinson has, or Ali, or leonard has. Duran has more wins than leonard but many should have been sparring matches ( look at their records for yourself, and this was after Duran was a champion). I have duran slightly behind leonard ahead of Mayweather.

As per Point 1, Esteban DeJesus is considered by many boxing historians to be an ATG at Lightweight. As for Point 3, I don't count past prime losses against any fighter I'm evaluating. For example I don't hold the Barcley fights against Tommy Hearns but I do hold the first Leonard and the Hagler fight against him. In the case of Duran he was having trouble making the Lightweight limit because his training habits were catching up him. By the second Leonard fight it was becoming pretty obvious that Duran was no longer at his best. Past prime he could still beat the Davey Moores but he wasn't going to beat the Hearns and the Haglers. Age is relatively unimportant when determining a fighter's prime because every fighter is different. I've seen fighters that were washed up at 26 (see Mark Breland); I've also seen fighters who's primes extended well into their 30s (see Bernard Hopkins). Fighters bodies simply deteriorate at different rates from one another: There's no little box "prime" can be made to fit in.

As for his strength of opposition I think there's a profound double standard here. Take a fighter like Tyson: Name the ATG Heavyweights HE fought in his prime. Roy Jones and Pernell Whitaker didn't exactly face a lineup of ATGs either. Can you name the ATGs THEY fought in their primes? Jones fought Hopkins but who else? Don't hold Duran or any other fighter to standards you don't hold your own personal favorites to.

Poet

Honestly I don't see how he can be claimed to be underrated, if anything he's somewhat overrated. As a lightweight he's obviously the best, but his run after stepping up in weight, while it did add to his legacy for being able to do things that no other LW could, winning titles up to middleweight (beating Leonard once, going the distance with Hagler, beating Barkley while being close to shot) it was fairly disastrous (perhaps due somewhat to the lack of discipline mentioned, he was largely just going after money and relying on his talent). He makes top 10 lists when neither Leonard, Hagler, or Hearns do.

Nothing whatsoever.

As per Point 1, Esteban DeJesus is considered by many boxing historians to be an ATG at Lightweight. As for Point 3, I don't count past prime losses against any fighter I'm evaluating. For example I don't hold the Barcley fights against Tommy Hearns but I do hold the first Leonard and the Hagler fight against him. In the case of Duran he was having trouble making the Lightweight limit because his training habits were catching up him. By the second Leonard fight it was becoming pretty obvious that Duran was no longer at his best. Past prime he could still beat the Davey Moores but he wasn't going to beat the Hearns and the Haglers. Age is relatively unimportant when determining a fighter's prime because every fighter is different. I've seen fighters that were washed up at 26 (see Mark Breland); I've also seen fighters who's primes extended well into their 30s (see Bernard Hopkins). Fighters bodies simply deteriorate at different rates from one another: There's no little box "prime" can be made to fit in.

As for his strength of opposition I think there's a profound double standard here. Take a fighter like Tyson: Name the ATG Heavyweights HE fought in his prime. Roy Jones and Pernell Whitaker didn't exactly face a lineup of ATGs either. Can you name the ATGs THEY fought in their primes? Jones fought Hopkins but who else? Don't hold Duran or any other fighter to standards you don't hold your own personal favorites to.

Poet

Dejesus is considered a all time great LIGHTWEIGHT.My statment said all time great top 50...I guess I should have made my point clearer. Hell I could say leonard beat Kalule, who would have to be a top 154 all time,,,not top 10 but in the top since it is a relatively new division. My point was Duran did not beat a resume of top fighters like Leoanrd did.

I dont think Duran was past his prime at all. I have seen many of his fights. Duran fans lead people to think that, I believe he simply got bigger, which slows one a bit, and he fought bigger and better fighters. In his prime Leonard beats him 9 times out of 10 if Leonard boxes him, hearns beats him, and hagler beats him. Maybe not pound per pound, maybe so, but at those weights, Duran simply was not that great or that special. Yes you can factor in age also. Now obviously some fall off much quicker than others, but the duran that faced Leonard in Montreal was the same Duran that faced Leonard in New Orleans. Duran himself in his book said so. He had plenty of time to train, he balloned up to 185 and had to get back down to 147. This is something he was doin already and having to get down to the lightweight limit earlier. I tend to believe the fighter themselve vs posters and other things, espcially when it is not favoring them at all, just honesty.

As for your completley most about holding Duran to a different level of expectations..I think you better read my post again, and check your facts. I have never ever mentioned Tyson as beating a whose who of great fighters. In fact I think his list of oppostion is weak. Not sure where you got that. Also, Whitacker fought Mcgirt, Chavez, Paez, Azumah Nelson, Roger Mayweather, Jose Louis Ramirez, Haugen, Julio Vasquez, DLH, That is a great resume... and He beat almost everyone of these fighters or should have been givien the decision. The DLH fight was very close to me. Roy Jones beat James Toney also, and he moved up to heavyweight and won a title which is huge for natural Middleweight.

I think you may need to utilize Factcheck.org......

Duran is simply overrated. He is simply one of the greatest lightweight ever, who when he started fighting better fighters that were at welter, jr middle and middle he simply got his ass repeatedly handed to him. Duran fans refuse to acknowledge this, but they will quikly hold Mayweather accountable for anything he does or does not do at 147, when he was in fact a natural lightweight too, and unlike Duran he never was beaten at Lightweight. I think if you compare Mayweather resume at lightweight to Durans, Mayweather quality of opposition is much better. He did not fight 10-13 fighters after becoming a champ, thus to padd his record. Duran fans never ever mention this, they ignore how dominate Mayweather was for a short while at 135. They point out his close call to Castillo, but leave out he had to fight with one hand after the 4th round since he reinjured his shoulder, and unlike the mysterios cramp that no one ever knew about until after Duran quit, Mayweather was clearly damaged when he was in his corner discussing his shoulder with Roger.

So I think you may need to ask yourself why does Duran get credit for things when others do not, and why do Duran fans always make excuses for his shortcomings..always discrediting other fighters abilities, but saying he was not motivated or he would have won, or he had to lose weight...BS..they are professionls, they know what is expected. Nuff said

Dejesus is considered a all time great LIGHTWEIGHT.My statment said all time great top 50...I guess I should have made my point clearer. Hell I could say leonard beat Kalule, who would have to be a top 154 all time,,,not top 10 but in the top since it is a relatively new division. My point was Duran did not beat a resume of top fighters like Leoanrd did.

I dont think Duran was past his prime at all. I have seen many of his fights. Duran fans lead people to think that, I believe he simply got bigger, which slows one a bit, and he fought bigger and better fighters. In his prime Leonard beats him 9 times out of 10 if Leonard boxes him, hearns beats him, and hagler beats him. Maybe not pound per pound, maybe so, but at those weights, Duran simply was not that great or that special. Yes you can factor in age also. Now obviously some fall off much quicker than others, but the duran that faced Leonard in Montreal was the same Duran that faced Leonard in New Orleans. Duran himself in his book said so. He had plenty of time to train, he balloned up to 185 and had to get back down to 147. This is something he was doin already and having to get down to the lightweight limit earlier. I tend to believe the fighter themselve vs posters and other things, espcially when it is not favoring them at all, just honesty.

As for your completley most about holding Duran to a different level of expectations..I think you better read my post again, and check your facts. I have never ever mentioned Tyson as beating a whose who of great fighters. In fact I think his list of oppostion is weak. Not sure where you got that. Also, Whitacker fought Mcgirt, Chavez, Paez, Azumah Nelson, Roger Mayweather, Jose Louis Ramirez, Haugen, Julio Vasquez, DLH, That is a great resume... and He beat almost everyone of these fighters or should have been givien the decision. The DLH fight was very close to me. Roy Jones beat James Toney also, and he moved up to heavyweight and won a title which is huge for natural Middleweight.

I think you may need to utilize Factcheck.org......

Duran is simply overrated. He is simply one of the greatest lightweight ever, who when he started fighting better fighters that were at welter, jr middle and middle he simply got his ass repeatedly handed to him. Duran fans refuse to acknowledge this, but they will quikly hold Mayweather accountable for anything he does or does not do at 147, when he was in fact a natural lightweight too, and unlike Duran he never was beaten at Lightweight. I think if you compare Mayweather resume at lightweight to Durans, Mayweather quality of opposition is much better. He did not fight 10-13 fighters after becoming a champ, thus to padd his record. Duran fans never ever mention this, they ignore how dominate Mayweather was for a short while at 135. They point out his close call to Castillo, but leave out he had to fight with one hand after the 4th round since he reinjured his shoulder, and unlike the mysterios cramp that no one ever knew about until after Duran quit, Mayweather was clearly damaged when he was in his corner discussing his shoulder with Roger.

So I think you may need to ask yourself why does Duran get credit for things when others do not, and why do Duran fans always make excuses for his shortcomings..always discrediting other fighters abilities, but saying he was not motivated or he would have won, or he had to lose weight...BS..they are professionls, they know what is expected. Nuff said

Okay, if you want to use top 50 pound for pound lets use your example of Leonard. How many top 50 p4p fighters did Leonard beat? All of TWO and one of those (Hagler) was fought when both fighters were pretty much done.

How about Whitaker? Are Mcgirt, Paez, Roger Mayweather, Jose Louis Ramirez, Haugen, Julio Vasquez top 50 p4p? If you think that you're smoking crack! Paez and Haugen weren't even legitimate world-class fighters. You cite Nelson but when he fought Whitaker it was pretty clear his best days were behind him. Why bring up the De La Hoya fight? In that case WHITAKER was past it AND he lost the fight. That leaves only Chavez and to me that's a dubious distinction at best: If anyone is overrated it isn't Duran it's Chavez. Chavez may be in the top 50 p4p in my view he doesn't belong there. Yes, Jones DID fight Toney: A Toney who was out of shape an turning into a head case.

As for Duran supposedly being 'in prime" at Welterweight, you can gratuatously assert it but that simply means it can be gratuatously denied. In other words your opinion is flat out wrong. Welterweight was not his natural weight class in anycase and no matter how much weight he puts on he's still not going to be at his best, especially going up against fighters who ARE natural at that weight. The test of a fighters greatness is NOT determined by how well he does jumping divisions. The standard has ALWAYS been how well he did in his prime in his natural weight class. Archie Moore isn't judged by how well he did at Heavyweight: His standing is based on his career at Light-Heavyweight.

I think by bringing up "stomach cramps" you reveal the real issue here: A certain number of boxing fans will NEVER stop throwing "no mas" in Duran's face. For those fans Duran's career will always be defined by the second Leonard fight and nothing he did before or after matters squat to them. So yeah, I think there's an agenda here as well as double standards at play. Why not just say you don't think Duran belongs at the top of the p4p list because of "no mas" and be done with it? At least it's honest and just a matter of a poster stating his opinion.

Poet

Okay, if you want to use top 50 pound for pound lets use your example of Leonard. How many top 50 p4p fighters did Leonard beat? All of TWO and one of those (Hagler) was fought when both fighters were pretty much done.

How about Whitaker? Mcgirt, Paez, Roger Mayweather, Jose Louis Ramirez, Haugen, Julio Vasquez top 50 p4p? If you think that you're smoking crack! Paez and Haugen weren't even legitimate world-class fighters. You cite Nelson but when he fought Whitaker it was pretty clear his best days were behind him. Why bring up the De La Hoya fight? In that case WHITAKER was past it AND he lost the fight. That leaves only Chavez and to me that's a dubious distinction at best: If anyone is overrated it isn't Duran it's Chavez. Chavez may be in the top 50 p4p in my view he doesn't belong there. Yes, Jones DID fight Toney: A Toney who was out of shape an turning into a head case.



As for Duran supposedly being 'in prime" at Welterweight, you can gratuatously assert it but that simply means it can be gratuatously denied. In other words your opinion is flat out wrong. Welterweight was not his natural weight class in anycase and no matter how much weight he puts on he's still not going to be at his best, especially going up against fighters who ARE natural at that weight. The test of a fighters greatness is NOT determined by how well he does jumping divisions. The standard has ALWAYS been how well he did in his prime in his natural weight class. Archie Moore isn't judged by how well he did at Heavyweight: His standing is based on his career at Light-Heavyweight.

I think by bringing up "stomach cramps" you reveal the real issue here: A certain number of boxing fans will NEVER stop throwing "no mas" in Duran's face. For those fans Duran's career will always be defined by the second Leonard fight and nothing he did before or after matters squat to them. So yeah, I think there's an agenda here as well as double standards at play. Why not just say you don't think Duran belongs at the top of the p4p list because of "no mas" and be done with it? At least it's honest and just a matter of a poster stating his opinion.

Poet


Poet, you have your facts completely backwards. Leonard beat anywhere from 3-4 top 50 fighters..Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Benitez. Benitez has been on many list on then others I don't see him on there. On the Ring greatest fighters of the last 80 years Leonard had 4 fighters on there he beat, and Duran one, and again he won that fight when Leonard willingly and stupidly chose to abandon the very skills that got him to the top, and go toe to toe. You cant take that win from Duran cause Duran moved up, won the mental fight, and won inside the ring. However for sakes of being fair ( I never really count the last fight they had) I consider the relevants fights they had a split. Then Duran is 0-3 vs the rest of that list. Not a single other fighter on this list Duran beat. Then couple that with what has to be a all time weak list of challengers at the lightwieight division when compared to other great fighters, it is inconcievable that a great fighter the level of Duran would beat Buchanon a very good fighter for the lightweigh title in 1972 then fight Greg Potter 11-3-1 the next fight. However this is mild compared to some of the other fights he had Lupe Ramirez 6-10, Juan Medina 1-1, Doc Meclendon 10-12-2, Tony Garcia 13-2-4 .The list goes on and on and this is AFTER he became champ.
If you compare the quality og fighters Duran faced at lightweight to Whitacker or Mayweather, or Leonard at welter or even Hagler at middle it is simply a Joke! From Leonard 14th fight on, every time he stepped in the ring except once Bernardo Prada it was againt a fighter with a good record, they might not have been world beaters but not 10-12 either. Also, from the time he became champ almost always he fought very good to great to all time great fighters. Duran DID NOT. I understand Duran fought many times for money to feed himself and you can not knock that. However in a fair comparison, Duran dominance at lightweight (which he did for a entire decade) you have to point out that there was a lack of top opponents.

Thus he moved up at ag 28 and started taking repeated ass whippings by the best of the heavier weight classes. His entire great resume lies in two fights...beating Leonard in a fight Leonard practically took his boxing skills and threw them out the window, and then Barkly. Not that Barkly is a great fighter, but beating him at that stage in his career at 168 was phenomenal. Beating Moore was completley overbown as I dont rate Leonards win over Lalonde a great accomplishment either. These are two fighters they should have beaten. Moore had 11 fights at that time.

You say the standard of greatness is not determined at how they do when they jump weights but how well they do at their natural weight.....Hmmm lets examine that false statment.

What was Sugar Ray Robinson's Natural weight...He started at hmmm 130 and beat the lightweight champions (both of them) in nontitle fights. However we review him on wars he had at welter and Middle. Hmmmm

Mayweather, Never lost at his natural weight. No he did not have 70 fights at lightweight, but as I already indicated 30 or so of Durans fights were against such weak opponents they should not have been santioned. Could you imagine Mayweather coming back tody and announcing he is fighting someone with a record of 10-12. He would be laughed off the face of the earth, and the fight totally discredited. Hell this happens when he fought Judah. Why give Duran credit for his totally weak group of fights..Hmmm I would compare Mayweathers group of wins at lightweight vs Durans anyday. Carlos Gerena, Corrales, Hernadex, Jesus Chavez, Castillo N'dou, Genero Hernandez, Manfredy.... Ahh and Mayweather was undefeated at Lightweight. From his 10th fight on he didnt fight a fighter with a losing record, and outside of Emmanuel Augustus the fighter he fought were good fighters or great fighters. Another thing he does not own a victory over a fighter the level of Sugar Ray leonard, but he does own victories as he travled north over Hatton, DLH, and Judah. No losses. Duran can't say that.

So tell me how do we rate Mayweather on him being undefeated at lighweight or the total body of work. What about Roy Jones do we look at his work at Middleweight or do we include his work at Super middle, Light heavy and Heavy. What about Armstrong. I think you got your facts completley wrong. The facts are You and other Duran fans want everyone to give Duran a pass on his exploits north except of course for his win vs Leonard and Barkly but anything he was not successful at, you want Duran to historically be given a pass on this since it was not at lightweight, but you elevate Duran to legendary greatness overlooking the fact that his resume AT lightweight is HORRIBLE, and that other before and after him has dominated the divsions facing either stiffer opponents, and beat them all and moved up better. Help me understand how Duran is better then these fighters...Ohh i left out other fighters like DLH, who is reviewed based on his exploits at welter, jr welter, etc. Then you have Chavez, who had some weak fights too but beat much better opposition at his natural weight Rosario, Roger Mayweather, Jose Louis Ramirez, Taylor ( he should have lost this one), Hector Camacho. Again compare that to Buchanon, Marcil, kobayashi (61-9-4 at the time..wow great fighter) Dejesus.....Completely a Joke.

Finally for your last stament about Cramps....I think I spelled out my review of Duran before and after No mas. Yes I think No mas has to be considered in a overall review of duran, as Tyson Biting Holyfired is in a overall review of Tyson. Duran entire career accomplishments can not be offset by NO Mas, anyone that says that is igorant. Howevr, double standards..who is offering double standards..I think everything I pointed out is fact.


I am not ignoring his level of competiton,,, You and others are.
I am not ignoring othersr beat better competion at their natural weight, you and others are..
I am not ignoring the fact that fighters lilke Whitacker, Jones, Armstrong, Leonard, dlh etc..are judged by their entire body of careeer, you and others are.
I am not ignoring the fact that he 1-4 vs fighters highly regarded and ranked on the rings top 80 fighters of the last 80 years, you and others are.
Who is being biased, misleading and applying double Standards.

Funny how things are. What would everyone say about Leonard had he lost that fight to Hagler. Now consider the fact how duran fans and many convieniently leave out the fact Ray was coming out of retirment for the most part of 5 years, and hmmm Poet..he moved up 2 weight classes to do so. No what you hear is that Hagler was supposedly past his prime (name another fighter 32 years old that is undefeated over the past 10 years, coming off a ko streak over his best 3 challengers, and they are called over the hill,,hmmmm) , and leoanrd got concessions like 12 rounds vs 15, (when if these idiots did their research they would clealry know 95% of title fights in 87, and most of 86 where indeed 12 rounds fights) No double standards are being applied against fighters like Leonard. What he did in beating Duran, hearns, Benitez and Hagler is simpy amazing and not another fighter has beaten 4 fighters in the Rings top 80 all time fighters. Not one other fighter has! Dont we review leonard positivly or negativly on his fight vs hagler, even though he moved up 2 weight classes and was retired.! Check your facts my friend!

Is it fair to say that Duran should've given Buchanan a rematch?

Is it fair to say that Duran should've given Buchanan a rematch?

Instead of the 30 fighters with losing or close to losing records he faced after he became champion...I would say yes.

Is it fair to say that Duran should've given Buchanan a rematch?

that shoulda happened.

i guess discipline is the best answer.he beat leonard, loss to benitez, lost to leonard after giving up for no particularly no good reason, i think he was scared ****less when fighting hearns, he looked more tense in that fight then i'd ever seen a bad ass like duran be, he was competitive with hagler but lost.still i think he's a bit underrated considering he went from light to middle in an era of really good and great fighters.

i like duran he was a fighters fighter took on all kinds of fights. i think the fact he was quite dirty, rupturing a fighter's testicle with a low blow, and lots of eye thumbing etc didnt help also the fact that he let himself go between fights gave the notion that he lacked dedication

[QUOTE=wpink1;4037498]. Then couple that with what has to be a all time weak list of challengers at the lightwieight division when compared to other great fighters, it is inconcievable that a great fighter the level of Duran would beat Buchanon a very good fighter for the lightweigh title in 1972 then fight Greg Potter 11-3-1 the next fight. However this is mild compared to some of the other fights he had Lupe Ramirez 6-10, Juan Medina 1-1, Doc Meclendon 10-12-2, Tony Garcia 13-2-4 .The list goes on and on and this is AFTER he became champ.
If you compare the quality og fighters Duran faced at lightweight to Whitacker or Mayweather, or Leonard at welter or even Hagler at middle it is simply a Joke!

I think you are missing some very important points, my friend. First is, Duran averaged about 6 fights a year during his reign at 135. Second, he completely cleaned out the division. And third, the names on his resume are solid. Buchanon,Virurt 2x, DeJesus 2x, Lampkin and despit his record, Saoul Mamby. Add to that the contenders he beat who's names are not so well remebered today. If he took easy fight between these, it was to make money and stay sharp. This was a stratagy employed by many fighters fron days gone by, before their was big money or their names were popular enough to make a decent pay on par with their skills. I would say Durans resume at 135 is every bit comparable to the names you have above.l Maybe not as good as some, but certainly in the same league. From Leonard 14th fight on, every time he stepped in the ring except once Bernardo Prada it was againt a fighter with a good record, they might not have been world beaters but not 10-12 either. Also, from the time he became champ almost always he fought very good to great to all time great fighters. Duran DID NOT.

By winning the gold medal in 1976, Leonards road was paved with gold. Simply put...he could fight whoever he wanted and still get paid compared to a fighter like Duran. But, if you take a close look at the records of his early opponents you will see they were really no better than a lot og guys Duran had to face to make a buck because he didn't have the same good fortune as Ray. and without any proof to back this up, I'll go out on a limb and say many of these so called bums Duran fought were just as good as the low level guys with winning records that Leonard fought. Many of those guys you see listed at boxrec have incomplete records, and were thrown to the wolves because they never had competant management. Im not saying some of them were'nt tomato cans, but I would bet some were just as tough as some of the guys on Leonards record with shiny records until they met Ray.

I understand Duran fought many times for money to feed himself and you can not knock that. However in a fair comparison, Duran dominance at lightweight (which he did for a entire decade) you have to point out that there was a lack of top opponents.

You can't blame Duran for that. He cleaned out what had to be cleaned, and did it against some very respectable names.

Thus he moved up at ag 28 and started taking repeated ass whippings by the best of the heavier weight classes. His entire great resume lies in two fights...beating Leonard in a fight Leonard practically took his boxing skills and threw them out the window, and then Barkly. Not that Barkly is a great fighter, but beating him at that stage in his career at 168 was phenomenal. Beating Moore was completley overbown as I dont rate Leonards win over Lalonde a great accomplishment either. These are two fighters they should have beaten. Moore had 11 fights at that time.

Moore had not only won the title. Not only beat Ayub Kalule in his next fight, but was actually favored, if I am recalling correctly, to beat Duran. Roberto also beat such top fighters ascarlos Palomino, Quevas, Barkley and held his own twice with Vinny Pazienza more than 20 years after winning his first title.

duran is top 5 p4p and nothing anyone says will change that

he fought anyone, anywhere, anytime, he dominated LW and moved up past his prime and above his natural weight to take on and even beat some ATGs

he fought a lot of bums yes, but he was a guy who liked to stay busy in his prime so he took those fights when out of shape to stay sharp, in between title defences

he was a tremendous fighter

He was the greatest lightweight but as mentioned, his resume there isn't as great as it's cracked up to be but it's very, very good nonetheless with wins over Buchanan, De Jesus etc.

His weight fluctuations didn't help him either and he had mixed success when he moved up, although he had more ups than downs.

duran is top 5 p4p and nothing anyone says will change that

he fought anyone, anywhere, anytime, he dominated LW and moved up past his prime and above his natural weight to take on and even beat some ATGs

he fought a lot of bums yes, but he was a guy who liked to stay busy in his prime so he took those fights when out of shape to stay sharp, in between title defences

he was a tremendous fighter

In your opinion Duran is a top 5, not in mine. DLH fought everyone anywhere anytime, Chavez did too, Hopkins dominated the middleweights for a decade....etc. All things Duran did. What makes Duran better? One fight makes him better, SRL number 1. Arguable you could point to his win vs Barkley too, but we all know Barkly was not a great fighter, but Duran winning at 168 is a tremendous feet, and deserves credit for that. However, his narrow win over SRL, was based on SRL simply chosing the wrong styles, when SRL decided to use his tools vs Duran, it was no contest.
I ask you to tell us what All time greats at Lightweight did Duran beat? Dejesus was a very good fighter yes. However we are talking about a man with 70 wins at lightweight, can you point out why his beating one truly very very good fighter and some other good ones, but know widely regarded at top all time except for leoanrd, is better than a fighter beating 4 of them, or anohter beating 3 of them.

In my opinion Duran and Tyson enjoyed a flawed legacy one that appointed them a higher status than what they truly deserved in the ring based on their style. When you have a fighter that had a incredibly weak resume at Lightweight, vs lets say Whitacker who beat
Chavez (truly won this fight it was not a draw) , Paez, Azumah Nelson, Roger Mayweather, Jose Louis Ramirez, Haugen, Julio Vasquez, DLH (very very close), vs Buchanon, Dejesus, Marcil, Kobyashi,......or even Mayweathers record Carlos Gerena, Corrales, Hernadex, Jesus Chavez, Castillo N'dou, Genero Hernandez, Manfredy, Hatton, Gotti, DLH, Judah, vs Durans including Leonard and barkly but also his losses to leonard, hearns, hagler, Benitez at the same age they both moved up, and no he was not past his peak 28 is NEVER considered past prime. NEVER, he may not have been at his natural weight, but neither was Whitacker in a lot of fights, Mayweather either. Nor was leonard in some fights too. Hell leonard came out of retirment and beat a all time top fighter and moved up to do so.

So again point to a factual reason why Duran is top 5. Meaning what has he done.

I can justify
Armstrong.
Ali,
Jones,
Leonard,
Robinson
etc...... But Duran would be something like this and it is flawed


He dominated the lgihtweight division with a record of 70-1 ( what about the level of competition)


He moved up and beat SRL ( what about the return match when he was outboxed easily and quit, then knocked out by hearns, and beaten by Benitez and hagler..all these fights before the age of 33, then he came back and beat Moore and Barkly...So there go duran fans picking and choosing)
He won a title at 168.... (great great accomplishment. Roy jones won at heavy when starting at middle. Mayweather won at 154 vs a much better fighter, Leonard won at 175, etc..Pacquio winning titles up to 135......)

Durans overall record vs top fighters Buchanon, Leonard, Marcil, Dejesus, Kobayashi, hagler, Hearns, Benitez, Moore, Barkley is 8-6. This includes the best at his normal weight, and those vs a 11-0 fighter, Kobayashi who had 9 losses and several draws at the time they fought. What is so great about this. Lets compare. Leonard record even including his fight vs Norris when he was clearly shot, hmmmm 7-2-1 This includes fights at jr middle, middle and super middle. Mayweather undefeated which includes fights as he moved up in weight at roughly the same age as duran. Jones until age 35 he was undefeated except for a dq, he beat fighters at middleweight just as good as duran beat at ligtweight, and he beat toney when he stepped up, then moved on up and won the heavyweight title, I think that compares to Duran accomplishments.

Help me understand factually. Oh and your statment that he beat some ATG's is false he beat one, and then lost the next two fights vs him. The other all time greats he fought beat him.

As per Point 1, Esteban DeJesus is considered by many boxing historians to be an ATG at Lightweight.

Poet

I don't know why so many overlook this, but Buchanan was the best fighter Duran faced as a lightweight and a very, very, very underrated lightweight great. Although he is in the HOF he is not often mentioned as being an amazing fighter which he most certainly was and was easily one of Duran's greatest wins.

Buchanan beat a who's who of all time great fighters such as Ismael Laguna x 2, Carlos Ortiz, Carlos Hernandez, Ruben Navarro, Donato Paduano, Jim Watt etc etc.

He was a really good fighter that gets overlooked, generally because Duran handled him so brutally and because he was Scottish. That aside, he was a great fighter. Duran was the only fighter to really beat him as well. His first loss was a terrible hometown robbery decision and between then he basically didn't lose until well past it and was in his absolute peak at the time of the Duran fight having just had a string of his greatest wins and going on another string after.

On Duran though, there were many things holding him back from being the greatest ever. Obviously his habits and lack of discipline were the greatest factors. He is certainly up there in the top ten all time but just misses out on being right up there due to his losses after he went down so much following the 2nd Leonard fight debacle.

Apart from the usual, boring, anti-Duran diatribe of pWink, it's pretty obvious why Duran was one of the greatest ever but not the greatest ever. Though it is fun watching people spew the usual double standards while holding their own favourite fighter on a pedestal. :lol1:

Though it makes you wonder when someone can only do it about one fighter and one fighter only....:thinking:

:dunce:

Anyway, Robinson clearly holds the 'all time' title, with other incredible fighters like Pep, Armstrong, B. Leonard, Greb etc etc all up there vying for the 2nd - 10th spot.

Benny - good post. In fact you drive home my point even more. Buchanon was a very good fighter and duran beat him. However he was probably the best opponent he faced as a lightweight, between him & Dejesus. This simply points out how weak his competition was at lightweight when that is the best he faced, Anne the next group was marcil & kyobashi. Compare his best wins at lightweight to leonards or whitackers or mayweathers, then compare the quality of consistent opponents he went up against. It is no comparison.

Even with all that, I have never said Duran was not an all-time great, he was. Just not what some people make him out to be. He lags behind thosecthay beat a group of truly great fighters not one. Ali, Leonard, robinson all beat better fighters than he did pound per pound.

Poet, you have your facts completely backwards. Leonard beat anywhere from 3-4 top 50 fighters..Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Benitez. Benitez has been on many list on then others I don't see him on there. On the Ring greatest fighters of the last 80 years Leonard had 4 fighters on there he beat, and Duran one, and again he won that fight when Leonard willingly and stupidly chose to abandon the very skills that got him to the top, and go toe to toe. You cant take that win from Duran cause Duran moved up, won the mental fight, and won inside the ring. However for sakes of being fair ( I never really count the last fight they had) I consider the relevants fights they had a split. Then Duran is 0-3 vs the rest of that list. Not a single other fighter on this list Duran beat. Then couple that with what has to be a all time weak list of challengers at the lightwieight division when compared to other great fighters, it is inconcievable that a great fighter the level of Duran would beat Buchanon a very good fighter for the lightweigh title in 1972 then fight Greg Potter 11-3-1 the next fight. However this is mild compared to some of the other fights he had Lupe Ramirez 6-10, Juan Medina 1-1, Doc Meclendon 10-12-2, Tony Garcia 13-2-4 .The list goes on and on and this is AFTER he became champ. If you compare the quality og fighters Duran faced at lightweight to Whitacker or Mayweather, or Leonard at welter or even Hagler at middle it is simply Joke! From Leonard 14th fight on, every time he stepped in the ring except once Bernardo Prada it was againt a fighter with a good record, they might not have been world beaters but not 10-12 either. Also, from the time he became champ almost always he fought very good to great to all time great fighters. Duran DID NOT. I understand Duran fought many times for money to feed himself and you can not knock that. However in a fair comparison, Duran dominance at lightweight (which he did for a entire decade) you have to point out that there was a lack of top opponents. You say the standard of greatness is not determined at how they do when they jump weights but how well they do at their natural weight.....Hmmm lets examine that false statment. What was Sugar Ray Robinson's Natural weight...He started at hmmm 130 and beat the lightweight champions (both of them) in nontitle fights. However we review him on wars he had at welter and Middle. Hmmmm Mayweather, Never lost at his natural weight. No he did not have 70 fights at lightweight, but as I already indicated 30 or so of Durans fights were against such weak opponents they should not have been santioned. Could you imagine Mayweather coming back tody and announcing he is fighting someone with a record of 10-12. He would be laughed off the face of the earth, and the fight totally discredited. Hell this happens when he fought Judah. Why give Duran credit for his totally weak group of fights..Hmmm I would compare Mayweathers group of wins at lightweight vs Durans anyday. Carlos Gerena, Corrales, Hernadex, Jesus Chavez, Castillo N'dou, Genero Hernandez, Manfredy.... Ahh and Mayweather was undefeated at Lightweight. From his 10th fight on he didnt fight a fighter with a losing record, and outside of Emmanuel Augustus the fighter he fought were good fighters or great fighters. Another thing he does not own a victory over a fighter the level of Sugar Ray leonard, but he does own victories as he travled north over Hatton, DLH, and Judah. No losses. Duran can't say that. So tell me how do we rate Mayweather on him being undefeated at lighweight or the total body of work. What about Roy Jones do we look at his work at Middleweight or do we include his work at Super middle, Light heavy and Heavy. What about Armstrong. I think you got your facts completley wrong The facts are You and other Duran fans want everyone to give Duran a pass on his exploits north except of course for his win vs Leonard and Barkly but anything he was not successful at, you want Duran to historically be given a pass on this since it was not at lightweight, but you elevate Duran to legendary greatness overlooking the fact that his resume AT lightweight is HORRIBLE, and that other before and after him has dominated the divsions facing either stiffer opponents, and beat them all and moved up better. Help me understand how Duran is better then these fighters...Ohh i left out other fighters like DLH, who is reviewed based on his exploits at welter, jr welter, etc. Then you have Chavez, who had some weak fights too but beat much better opposition at his natural weight Rosario, Roger Mayweather, Jose Louis Ramirez, Taylor ( he should have lost this one), Hector Camacho. Again compare that to Buchanon, Marcil, kobayashi (61-9-4 at the time..wow great fighter) Dejesus.....Completely a Joke. Finally for your last stament about Cramps....I think I spelled out my review of Duran before and after No mas. Yes I think No mas has to be considered in a overall review of duran, as Tyson Biting Holyfired is in a overall review of Tyson. Duran entire career accomplishments can not be offset by NO Mas, anyone that says that is igorant. Howevr, double standards..who is offering double standards..I think everything I pointed out is fact. I am not ignoring his level of competiton,,, You and others are. I am not ignoring othersr beat better competion at their natural weight, you and others are.. I am not ignoring the fact that fighters lilke Whitacker, Jones, Armstrong, Leonard, dlh etc..are judged by their entire body of careeer, you and others are. I am not ignoring the fact that he 1-4 vs fighters highly regarded and ranked on the rings top 80 fighters of the last 80 years, you and others are. Who is being biased, misleading and applying double Standards. Funny how things are. What would everyone say about Leonard had he lost that fight to Hagler. Now consider the fact how duran fans and many convieniently leave out the fact Ray was coming out of retirment for the most part of 5 years, and hmmm Poet..he moved up 2 weight classes to do so. No what you hear is that Hagler was supposedly past his prime (name another fighter 32 years old that is undefeated over the past 10 years, coming off a ko streak over his best 3 challengers, and they are called over the hill,,hmmmm) , and leoanrd got concessions like 12 rounds vs 15, (when if these idiots did their research they would clealry know 95% of title fights in 87, and most of 86 where indeed 12 rounds fights) No double standards are being applied against fighters like Leonard. What he did in beating Duran, hearns, Benitez and Hagler is simpy amazing and not another fighter has beaten 4 fighters in the Rings top 80 all time fighters. Not one other fighter has! Dont we review leonard positivly or negativly on his fight vs hagler, even though he moved up 2 weight classes and was retired.! Check your facts my friend!

First off, it sounds like the standard is changing yet again. Is this top 50 p4p or is this based on a Ring magazine article? If it's the latter then the critera is all over board because it's a consenses of a dozen or more people polled each having their own ideas as to what factors count. Further more such things as "historical significance" and "cultural impact" are factored in: Hardly things that I would use to rate a fighter.

Second, Hearns and Benitez, as great as they were, were not top 50 p4p fighters. Hagler was, but, again, Leonard won a slim decision over Hagler after BOTH fighters were past prime. That brings me to my third point: YOU may factor the Hagler fight to Leonard's credit but I certainly don't. My opinion Leonard is based solely on his body of work as Welterweight where he beat Benitez, beat Hearns, and split with Duran. I do NOT factor anything negatively OR posisitively anything he did after he came out of retirement and fought past prime. This is hardly unfair. Mike Tyson is normally rated on what he did BEFORE he went to prison not after. Fair enough! When he got out of prison he was not the same fighter and clearly no longer in his prime.

Fourth, as to Chavez, he padded those 100+ wins by knocking over a LOT of local toughmen in Mexican bars; IE. precisely the kind of thing you're accusing Duran of.

Fifth. How the hell did Gayweather get brought into this? The only reason he gets rated on the entire body of his career is he retired WHILE HE WAS STILL IN IT! That's hardly a relevant example for this topic. So what of the others? Do YOU downgrade Armstrong because he lost to Robinson while past his prime? I don't. How about Robinson? You make a big deal about Robinson fighting in three divisions but boxing historians are practically unanimous in agreeing that Robinson was at his best at Welterweight. Additionally, I know of no boxing historian that detracts from Robinson because he lost to Joey Maxim in a bid for the Light-Heavy crown. Robinson lost MANY fights at the tail end of his career and nobody (that I know of) holds it against him.

Sixth. The only time a fighters past prime really impact is when someone some one does something extraordinary such as beat a fellow ATG when past prime. Ali beating Frazier and Foreman past prime is and example of this. This doesn't happen very often. In contrast, LOSING to a fellow ATG after your past your prime doesn't lower your standing: This is why losing to Holmes isn't held against Ali, losing to Tyson isn't held against Holmes, losing to Lewis isn't held against Tyson, and losing to RAY LEONARD isn't held against Hagler.

Poet

I don't know why so many overlook this, but Buchanan was the best fighter Duran faced as a lightweight and a very, very, very underrated lightweight great. Although he is in the HOF he is not often mentioned as being an amazing fighter which he most certainly was and was easily one of Duran's greatest wins.

Buchanan beat a who's who of all time great fighters such as Ismael Laguna x 2, Carlos Ortiz, Carlos Hernandez, Ruben Navarro, Donato Paduano, Jim Watt etc etc.

He was a really good fighter that gets overlooked, generally because Duran handled him so brutally and because he was Scottish. That aside, he was a great fighter. Duran was the only fighter to really beat him as well. His first loss was a terrible hometown robbery decision and between then he basically didn't lose until well past it and was in his absolute peak at the time of the Duran fight having just had a string of his greatest wins and going on another string after.

On Duran though, there were many things holding him back from being the greatest ever. Obviously his habits and lack of discipline were the greatest factors. He is certainly up there in the top ten all time but just misses out on being right up there due to his losses after he went down so much following the 2nd Leonard fight debacle.

Apart from the usual, boring, anti-Duran diatribe of pWink, it's pretty obvious why Duran was one of the greatest ever but not the greatest ever. Though it is fun watching people spew the usual double standards while holding their own favourite fighter on a pedestal. :lol1:

Though it makes you wonder when someone can only do it about one fighter and one fighter only....:thinking:

:dunce:

Anyway, Robinson clearly holds the 'all time' title, with other incredible fighters like Pep, Armstrong, B. Leonard, Greb etc etc all up there vying for the 2nd - 10th spot.

I'm not sure Buchannon was the best fighter Duran faced at Lightweight as I'm inclined to lean toward DeJesus. Boxing historians tend to regard Buchannon as a near-great rather than an ATG. You're point is well taken though: Buchannon was a fine fighter who is often overlooked or underrated.

As to wpink, I DO have a suspicion he's a Leonard nut-hugger but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. He does seem to be going out of his way to discredit Duran much the same way London Ring Rules tries to discredit Ali. So yeah, I'm inclined to think there's an agenda here.

I think my larger point is anybody can ****pick the record of ANY fighter. And usually do! I've seen people do it with Leonard too. ANY fighter's resume can be picked apart. Name any fighter you care to and I can certainly find issues with their record. Anybody else can too.

Poet

Poet ---- I have never tried to disrespect you, can we keep this civil. The ring, that is just one, I can point to many, Espn top 50 greatest, The ring etc... they are all subjective but it does point to how well respected so called experts rank fighters, and not on one poll has Duran beaten another top fighter than Leonard.

Again DURAN IS A ALL TIME GREAT. PERIOD! The debate is top all time, or even top 5-10. That is subjective and IMO he is not. In yours he is. I will respect that. I am only offering my opinion as why he is not.

I will argue that I point out factual points as to what he has and has not done, most Duran fans leave out a lot of important facts when discussing his career.

As for past prime. Hagler was not past his prime. If so, how can you account for him being his most impressive with ko's vs his best opposition, vs earlier in his career struggling with lessor opponents. Hmmmm No mention of his struggle vs Antefermo which I had him winning but it was still a good tussle, or Duran in 83. However he ko's tommy hearns, Mugabi, and Hamsho...has not lost in 10 years.. was well rested and I beg anyone on here to point to another fighter who was called past his prime when he was 32 and was in the middle of this type of streak. It is simply a attempt by leonard haters to discredit his fight with Hagler, They simply cant imagine leonard could come out of retirment and move up and beat hagler. Leonard by the way never said he saw hagler slipping, he said he saw hagler getting outboxed by Duran ( I guess Hagler was past his peak then too huh) and then by Mugabi, and he said he knows He could outbox Mugabi..so that is what he said....Just to correct people. he also told Mike trainer I think i can beat this guy......

Now for Hearns and benitez not being top 50, Benitez has been on some and not on others..I have not seen a poll where Hearns is not..So in any measure that is 3 top 50 fighters Leonard beat to one Duran beat, and his record vs that fighter is 1-2. Then his record vs the others is 0-2 or 0-3, however you want to look at it. Yes by the way, all of these fights happened by the age of 33.

Where Mayweather fits in, is a comparison of how ridicoulously weak Duran resume is at lightweight, where Duran beat hmmm Buchanon, Dejesus, Marcil, kYobahsi. Good fighters but not as good as Mayweather beat, or leoanrd beat, or Chavez beat, or others. That is a fair comparsion, espeically when Mayweather ( I would not call him gayweather unless your man enough to call it to his face, it is cowardly to get on a websit and talk tough, now isnt it?) moved up at the same age as Duran and beat better fighters (plural not just one fight ) than Duran did...I ask who basis are you going on that Duran is better. Hmm that he dominated the lightweight division and beat leonard. Very good, but is it more impressive than what Leonard did by beating hearns, hagler, benitez, Duran 2 out of 3. It is more impressive than Mayweather body of work. and when factoring in the 70 wins..I simply ask that you review the quality of those fights at lightweight, and compare it ....

Because Dempsey is the greatest fighter ever.

Hagler was not past his prime.

Oh my god! Not again...

Poet ---- I have never tried to disrespect you, can we keep this civil. The ring, that is just one, I can point to many, Espn top 50 greatest, The ring etc... they are all subjective but it does point to how well respected so called experts rank fighters, and not on one poll has Duran beaten another top fighter than Leonard.

Again DURAN IS A ALL TIME GREAT. PERIOD! The debate is top all time, or even top 5-10. That is subjective and IMO he is not. In yours he is. I will respect that. I am only offering my opinion as why he is not.

I will argue that I point out factual points as to what he has and has not done, most Duran fans leave out a lot of important facts when discussing his career.

As for past prime. Hagler was not past his prime. If so, how can you account for him being his most impressive with ko's vs his best opposition, vs earlier in his career struggling with lessor opponents. Hmmmm No mention of his struggle vs Antefermo which I had him winning but it was still a good tussle, or Duran in 83. However he ko's tommy hearns, Mugabi, and Hamsho...has not lost in 10 years.. was well rested and I beg anyone on here to point to another fighter who was called past his prime when he was 32 and was in the middle of this type of streak. It is simply a attempt by leonard haters to discredit his fight with Hagler, They simply cant imagine leonard could come out of retirment and move up and beat hagler. Leonard by the way never said he saw hagler slipping, he said he saw hagler getting outboxed by Duran ( I guess Hagler was past his peak then too huh) and then by Mugabi, and he said he knows He could outbox Mugabi..so that is what he said....Just to correct people. he also told Mike trainer I think i can beat this guy......

Now for Hearns and benitez not being top 50, Benitez has been on some and not on others..I have not seen a poll where Hearns is not..So in any measure that is 3 top 50 fighters Leonard beat to one Duran beat, and his record vs that fighter is 1-2. Then his record vs the others is 0-2 or 0-3, however you want to look at it. Yes by the way, all of these fights happened by the age of 33.

Where Mayweather fits in, is a comparison of how ridicoulously weak Duran resume is at lightweight, where Duran beat hmmm Buchanon, Dejesus, Marcil, kYobahsi. Good fighters but not as good as Mayweather beat, or leoanrd beat, or Chavez beat, or others. That is a fair comparsion, espeically when Mayweather ( I would not call him gayweather unless your man enough to call it to his face, it is cowardly to get on a websit and talk tough, now isnt it?) moved up at the same age as Duran and beat better fighters (plural not just one fight ) than Duran did...I ask who basis are you going on that Duran is better. Hmm that he dominated the lightweight division and beat leonard. Very good, but is it more impressive than what Leonard did by beating hearns, hagler, benitez, Duran 2 out of 3. It is more impressive than Mayweather body of work. and when factoring in the 70 wins..I simply ask that you review the quality of those fights at lightweight, and compare it ....

I was actually watching ESPN Sportscentury's episode of Marvin Hagler, and this is off-base.

Leonard very clearly said he saw "Mugabi is a pure slugger, and he was outboxing Hagler". He said he ate dinner with Hagler and Hagler was saying he was losing motivation in the sport and everything was negative, and Leonard said "in the back of my mind, I'm thinking it's the perfect time to fight him".

I personally did not see Mugabi outboxing Hagler. Maybe Ray was seeing what he wanted to see. I saw Mugabi land some good shots, but also have his head get used as target practice for Hagler's right jab.

Hagler had slowed down some, but Leonard wasn't prime either. Hagler looked way sharper in earlier years. He always had good parrying skills and nice head movement, but was getting tagged more often as he was getting older, especially the Roldan and Mugabi fights.

I thought Leonard was at probably a bigger disadvantage however, as he was the smaller man, hadn't fought in 3 years, and just once in 5 years when he fought (and it was 6-6 on my card ) Hagler.

Is it fair to say that Duran should've given Buchanan a rematch?

Yes.

Buchanan is quoted in the Duran biography as saying he didn't think Duran personally ducked him, as he said he thought Duran would fight just about anyone, but Duran's management (Carlos Eleta) avoided a Buchanan rematch.

Eleta also vetoed some other possible Duran fights around the time (Ortiz, Cervantes).

Poet ---- I have never tried to disrespect you, can we keep this civil. The ring, that is just one, I can point to many, Espn top 50 greatest, The ring etc... they are all subjective but it does point to how well respected so called experts rank fighters, and not on one poll has Duran beaten another top fighter than Leonard.

Again DURAN IS A ALL TIME GREAT. PERIOD! The debate is top all time, or even top 5-10. That is subjective and IMO he is not. In yours he is. I will respect that. I am only offering my opinion as why he is not.

I will argue that I point out factual points as to what he has and has not done, most Duran fans leave out a lot of important facts when discussing his career.

As for past prime. Hagler was not past his prime. If so, how can you account for him being his most impressive with ko's vs his best opposition, vs earlier in his career struggling with lessor opponents. Hmmmm No mention of his struggle vs Antefermo which I had him winning but it was still a good tussle, or Duran in 83. However he ko's tommy hearns, Mugabi, and Hamsho...has not lost in 10 years.. was well rested and I beg anyone on here to point to another fighter who was called past his prime when he was 32 and was in the middle of this type of streak. It is simply a attempt by leonard haters to discredit his fight with Hagler, They simply cant imagine leonard could come out of retirment and move up and beat hagler. Leonard by the way never said he saw hagler slipping, he said he saw hagler getting outboxed by Duran ( I guess Hagler was past his peak then too huh) and then by Mugabi, and he said he knows He could outbox Mugabi..so that is what he said....Just to correct people. he also told Mike trainer I think i can beat this guy......

Now for Hearns and benitez not being top 50, Benitez has been on some and not on others..I have not seen a poll where Hearns is not..So in any measure that is 3 top 50 fighters Leonard beat to one Duran beat, and his record vs that fighter is 1-2. Then his record vs the others is 0-2 or 0-3, however you want to look at it. Yes by the way, all of these fights happened by the age of 33.

Where Mayweather fits in, is a comparison of how ridicoulously weak Duran resume is at lightweight, where Duran beat hmmm Buchanon, Dejesus, Marcil, kYobahsi. Good fighters but not as good as Mayweather beat, or leoanrd beat, or Chavez beat, or others. That is a fair comparsion, espeically when Mayweather ( I would not call him gayweather unless your man enough to call it to his face, it is cowardly to get on a websit and talk tough, now isnt it?) moved up at the same age as Duran and beat better fighters (plural not just one fight ) than Duran did...I ask who basis are you going on that Duran is better. Hmm that he dominated the lightweight division and beat leonard. Very good, but is it more impressive than what Leonard did by beating hearns, hagler, benitez, Duran 2 out of 3. It is more impressive than Mayweather body of work. and when factoring in the 70 wins..I simply ask that you review the quality of those fights at lightweight, and compare it ....

When haven't I been civil? Other than showing my contempt for Gayweather of course: Who, incidently, I WOULD say it to him personally because I'd fully expet him to run like a thief like he did against De La Hoya.

As for Hearns being on any top 50 p4p list his chin alone should preclude it. Great fighter yes. Top 10 ATG Welterweight yes. Top 50 p4p? No way unless you first ingest copious quantities of controlled substances. Some people think he was better than Leonard which is rediculous. Again, I don't put much stock in Ring magazine polls because they are consensus picks with too many different criteria being used by the individuals being canvassed. Any poll where there is no set standards for voting is worthless.

The Leonard fight was Hagler's last fight and he'd been slowing down for a number of years prior so I have no idea how he could NOT be considered past-prime. Leonard himself was coming off a long layoff and at no point in his comeback did he ever resemble the Leonard of the early 80s so I think it's clear HE was no longer in his prime either. How does Hagler's fight with Antoufermo have any bearing on whether he was past-prime in 1987? It was what, 6 years prior? Come on. So now we're back down to ONE top 50 opponent for Leonard. BTW, how many top 50 p4p opponents IN PRIME that Gayweather has fought? NO. De La Hoya was NOT in his prime so don't even try.

Poet

When haven't I been civil? Other than showing my contempt for Gayweather of course: Who, incidently, I WOULD say it to him personally because I'd fully expet him to run like a thief like he did against De La Hoya.

As for Hearns being on any top 50 p4p list his chin alone should preclude it. Great fighter yes. Top 10 ATG Welterweight yes. Top 50 p4p? No way unless you first ingest copious quantities of controlled substances. Some people think he was better than Leonard which is rediculous. Again, I don't put much stock in Ring magazine polls because they are consensus picks with too many different criteria being used by the individuals being canvassed. Any poll where there is no set standards for voting is worthless.

The Leonard fight was Hagler's last fight and he'd been slowing down for a number of years prior so I have no idea how he could NOT be considered past-prime. Leonard himself was coming off a long layoff and at no point in his comeback did he ever resemble the Leonard of the early 80s so I think it's clear HE was no longer in his prime either. How does Hagler's fight with Antoufermo have any bearing on whether he was past-prime in 1987? It was what, 6 years prior? Come on. So now we're back down to ONE top 50 opponent for Leonard. BTW, how many top 50 p4p opponents IN PRIME that Gayweather has fought? NO. De La Hoya was NOT in his prime so don't even try.

Poet

sorry I missed that, but why again would you call the best fighter of this decade gay?

sorry I missed that, but why again would you call the best fighter of this decade gay?

Hmmmm. Because I have contempt for him maybe? Best fighter of the decade? Over, say, Marco Antonio Barrera or maybe Manny Pacquiao? When the best fighter "Pretty Girl" Floyd beat was a past it De La Hoya? Please.

Poet

Hmmmm. Because I have contempt for him maybe? Best fighter of the decade? Over, say, Marco Antonio Barrera or maybe Manny Pacquiao? When the best fighter "Pretty Girl" Floyd beat was a past it De La Hoya? Please.

Poet

Poet, your sounding like the McCain Palin ticket, just lying and disregarding the facts. You leave out all the very very good fighters he beat when he was at 130 and 135. Mayweather since his 10th professional fight has gotten in the ring with good to very good to great fighters, EACH TIME. Do I like him NO,,in fact HELL NO! But in a age where we routinely hype up Duran whose resume if freakin a joke when compared to Leonard and then Mayweather, correction resume of wins, as Duran has a resume but it lacks when asked the question if he won these fights. The answer is Duran sucked when you look at his resume vs top fighters..... How is this a all time top 5 fighter. Can anyone tell me factually FACTUALLY, what he did vs his best opponents to justify this. quit, got ko'd, etc.. Compare this to Mayweather who has not faced this leve of opposition but he has not lost either, and he did fight a past his prime dlh but he faced him at 154, which no one mentions this...the only fight Mayweather has ever fought up there. He also has beaten some very good welters. He has been a little wimp when it comes to fighting the best welters, and this I concur with the haterism of Mayweather, but Duran faced the best, and yes give him credit for that, but he was 1-4 vs them.

Hmmmm. Because I have contempt for him maybe? Best fighter of the decade? Over, say, Marco Antonio Barrera or maybe Manny Pacquiao? When the best fighter "Pretty Girl" Floyd beat was a past it De La Hoya? Please.

Poet

To the bold: easily.

dont be blinded by the fact that PBF is or at least acts like a jerk.

And the past his prime De La Hoya had more than 10lbs advantage, the ring, the gloves, everything he wanted. And that would not be PBF's best opponent (given DLH's age, the accolade should go to Corrales or Hatton.

Why do you have contempt for him?

To the bold: easily.

dont be blinded by the fact that PBF is or at least acts like a jerk.

And the past his prime De La Hoya had more than 10lbs advantage, the ring, the gloves, everything he wanted. And that would not be PBF's best opponent (given DLH's age, the accolade should go to Corrales or Hatton.

Why do you have contempt for him?

I have contempt for him because he's an ******* that talks smack and doesn't back it up in the ring. When someone makes promises prior to fights I expect him to deliver on them. If he doesn't then he's nothing more than a loud-mouthed punk. That's what I consider Mayweather. It's simple: Either delivery on what you say or say nothing at all.

Poet

I have contempt for him because he's an ******* that talks smack and doesn't back it up in the ring. When someone makes promises prior to fights I expect him to deliver on them. If he doesn't then he's nothing more than a loud-mouthed punk. That's what I consider Mayweather. It's simple: Either delivery on what you say or say nothing at all.

Poet

Poet then you would have contempt for Duran who many times said what he was going to do, especially to leonard in the rematch, and he ended up quitting. Same thing with Tyson, etc..in fact every fighter.

The fact is Mayweather has said he was going to win, and he won, vs fighters who have said they were going to win, and lose.

First off, it sounds like the standard is changing yet again. Is this top 50 p4p or is this based on a Ring magazine article? If it's the latter then the critera is all over board because it's a consenses of a dozen or more people polled each having their own ideas as to what factors count. Further more such things as "historical significance" and "cultural impact" are factored in: Hardly things that I would use to rate a fighter.

Second, Hearns and Benitez, as great as they were, were not top 50 p4p fighters. Hagler was, but, again, Leonard won a slim decision over Hagler after BOTH fighters were past prime. That brings me to my third point: YOU may factor the Hagler fight to Leonard's credit but I certainly don't. My opinion Leonard is based solely on his body of work as Welterweight where he beat Benitez, beat Hearns, and split with Duran. I do NOT factor anything negatively OR posisitively anything he did after he came out of retirement and fought past prime. This is hardly unfair. Mike Tyson is normally rated on what he did BEFORE he went to prison not after. Fair enough! When he got out of prison he was not the same fighter and clearly no longer in his prime.

Fourth, as to Chavez, he padded those 100+ wins by knocking over a LOT of local toughmen in Mexican bars; IE. precisely the kind of thing you're accusing Duran of.

Fifth. How the hell did Gayweather get brought into this? The only reason he gets rated on the entire body of his career is he retired WHILE HE WAS STILL IN IT! That's hardly a relevant example for this topic. So what of the others? Do YOU downgrade Armstrong because he lost to Robinson while past his prime? I don't. How about Robinson? You make a big deal about Robinson fighting in three divisions but boxing historians are practically unanimous in agreeing that Robinson was at his best at Welterweight. Additionally, I know of no boxing historian that detracts from Robinson because he lost to Joey Maxim in a bid for the Light-Heavy crown. Robinson lost MANY fights at the tail end of his career and nobody (that I know of) holds it against him.

Sixth. The only time a fighters past prime really impact is when someone some one does something extraordinary such as beat a fellow ATG when past prime. Ali beating Frazier and Foreman past prime is and example of this. This doesn't happen very often. In contrast, LOSING to a fellow ATG after your past your prime doesn't lower your standing: This is why losing to Holmes isn't held against Ali, losing to Tyson isn't held against Holmes, losing to Lewis isn't held against Tyson, and losing to RAY LEONARD isn't held against Hagler.

Poet

you have some good points, but why do you disrespect a fighter by calling him gay?
pink brought up mayweather to prove his points about duran's resume being overrated which i also believe is. i still have duran as an ATG of course and you can make the same argument for mayweather

I have contempt for him because he's an ******* that talks smack and doesn't back it up in the ring. When someone makes promises prior to fights I expect him to deliver on them. If he doesn't then he's nothing more than a loud-mouthed punk. That's what I consider Mayweather. It's simple: Either delivery on what you say or say nothing at all.

Poet

sorry bruh but you sound like a big time hater.. mayweather says he's going to win and he does. he's undefeated.. you might as well not like duran, ali, and many other fighters for that matter, because damn near every boxer talks trash and alot of them do not back it up and lose fights.. you dont have to like the fighter, but atleast respect the fighter for what he has accomplished in the sport. you seem like a knowledgeable boxing fan, im surprised you would feel that way.

I have contempt for him because he's an ******* that talks smack and doesn't back it up in the ring. When someone makes promises prior to fights I expect him to deliver on them. If he doesn't then he's nothing more than a loud-mouthed punk. That's what I consider Mayweather. It's simple: Either delivery on what you say or say nothing at all.

Poet

You must have hated Ali, since he promised ass-whoppings and often delivered duds. Did you expect Ali to say I am going to jab him till you guys fall asleep hold behind the ****er behind the head. You guys won't like it, but neither he is, as his rhythm will be gone. Even many of his stoppage in the 70s were due to him conserving energy.

Either that or you have double standards.

Poet then you would have contempt for Duran who many times said what he was going to do, especially to leonard in the rematch, and he ended up quitting. Same thing with Tyson, etc..in fact every fighter.

The fact is Mayweather has said he was going to win, and he won, vs fighters who have said they were going to win, and lose.

There's a big difference between talking smack and not following through and not being ABLE to follow through because your opponent didn't let you. Case in point, Mayweather says he's going to punch it out with an opponent then running like Carl Lewis when the bell rings. That contrasts with Ali talking about what he was going to do with Frazier only to find Frazier wasn't going to cooperate. The point being the first case involves an act of will while the second involves someone else's will preventing your intent. In other words what Mayweather would fail to do involved a concious decision NOT to back up his mouth. THAT'S what I can't stand. From any athlete. It's not simply a matter of failing to win when you say you will or perform to a standard a you claim you'll perform to; it's about a willful decision NOT to do something.

Poet

you have some good points, but why do you disrespect a fighter by calling him gay?
pink brought up mayweather to prove his points about duran's resume being overrated which i also believe is. i still have duran as an ATG of course and you can make the same argument for mayweather

Trust me the name "Gayweather" didn't originate with me. Run a forum search on the name and see how many times it pops up without my name being attached.

Poet

sorry bruh but you sound like a big time hater.. mayweather says he's going to win and he does. he's undefeated.. you might as well not like duran, ali, and many other fighters for that matter, because damn near every boxer talks trash and alot of them do not back it up and lose fights.. you dont have to like the fighter, but atleast respect the fighter for what he has accomplished in the sport. you seem like a knowledgeable boxing fan, im surprised you would feel that way.

Make no mistake I despise Mayweather. I'm honest about that. This is very different then with someone say like Tyson for whom I detest his hard core fans but don't have anything against Mike personally.

In my response to wmute I laid out my case for where and why the difference exists: Specifically, saying you'll kick a fighters ass but instead having your own ass kicked isn't the same as what I'm talking about. What I'm refering to is saying you'll do something then conciously deciding NOT to do it.

Poet

You must have hated Ali, since he promised ass-whoppings and often delivered duds. Did you expect Ali to say I am going to jab him till you guys fall asleep hold behind the ****er behind the head. You guys won't like it, but neither he is, as his rhythm will be gone. Even many of his stoppage in the 70s were due to him conserving energy.

Either that or you have double standards.

Like I said, the difference is that Ali promised ass-whoppings with every intent to deliver them; the opponents didn't always cooperate. Ali has credibility as well since, in his prime, if he said he'd stop an opponent in the X round he almost always did! Remember, my issue is with willful decisions not to deliver as opposed to being prevented from delivering by an opponent who came to win too.

Poet

Poet, your sounding like the McCain Palin ticket, just lying and disregarding the facts. You leave out all the very very good fighters he beat when he was at 130 and 135. Mayweather since his 10th professional fight has gotten in the ring with good to very good to great fighters, EACH TIME. Do I like him NO,,in fact HELL NO! But in a age where we routinely hype up Duran whose resume if freakin a joke when compared to Leonard and then Mayweather, correction resume of wins, as Duran has a resume but it lacks when asked the question if he won these fights. The answer is Duran sucked when you look at his resume vs top fighters..... How is this a all time top 5 fighter. Can anyone tell me factually FACTUALLY, what he did vs his best opponents to justify this. quit, got ko'd, etc.. Compare this to Mayweather who has not faced this leve of opposition but he has not lost either, and he did fight a past his prime dlh but he faced him at 154, which no one mentions this...the only fight Mayweather has ever fought up there. He also has beaten some very good welters. He has been a little wimp when it comes to fighting the best welters, and this I concur with the haterism of Mayweather, but Duran faced the best, and yes give him credit for that, but he was 1-4 vs them.

First off, lets keep politics out of this shall we? Unless you aren't adverse to someone describing you as a neo-socialist far-left whack job. Afterall, why alienate those posters who may hold different political views your's when this is, afterall, a boxing forum.

Secondly. Here is a list of all Mayweather opponents after he won his first belt along with their respective records at the time of the fight:

Ricky Hatton 43- 0-0
Oscar De La Hoya 38- 4-0
Carlos Baldomir 43- 9-6
Zab Judah 34- 3-0
Sharmba Mitchell 56- 4-0
Arturo Gatti 39- 6-0
Henry Bruseles 21- 2-1
DeMarcus Corley 28- 2-1
Phillip N'Dou 31- 1-0
Victoriano Sosa 35- 2-2
Jose Luis Castillo 46- 5-1
Jose Luis Castillo 45- 4-1
Jesus Chavez 35- 1-0
Carlos Hernandez 33- 2-1
Diego Corrales 33- 0-0
Emanuel Augustus 22-16-4
Gregorio Vargas 40- 6-1
Carlos Gerena 34- 2-0
Justin Juuko 33- 2-1
Carlos Rios 44- 2-1
Angel Manfredy 25- 2-1
Genaro Hernandez 38- 1-1

Now. Please enlighten me as to which of these fighters are ATGs in their primes?

Poet

First off, lets keep politics out of this shall we? Unless you aren't adverse to someone describing you as a neo-socialist far-left whack job. Afterall, why alienate those posters who may hold different political views your's when this is, afterall, a boxing forum.

Secondly. Here is a list of all Mayweather opponents after he won his first belt along with their respective records at the time of the fight:

Ricky Hatton 43- 0-0
Oscar De La Hoya 38- 4-0
Carlos Baldomir 43- 9-6
Zab Judah 34- 3-0
Sharmba Mitchell 56- 4-0
Arturo Gatti 39- 6-0
Henry Bruseles 21- 2-1
DeMarcus Corley 28- 2-1
Phillip N'Dou 31- 1-0
Victoriano Sosa 35- 2-2
Jose Luis Castillo 46- 5-1
Jose Luis Castillo 45- 4-1
Jesus Chavez 35- 1-0
Carlos Hernandez 33- 2-1
Diego Corrales 33- 0-0
Emanuel Augustus 22-16-4
Gregorio Vargas 40- 6-1
Carlos Gerena 34- 2-0
Justin Juuko 33- 2-1
Carlos Rios 44- 2-1
Angel Manfredy 25- 2-1
Genaro Hernandez 38- 1-1

Now. Please enlighten me as to which of these fighters are ATGs in their primes?

Poet

Poet, you seem to be a intelligent boxing fan. I dont think you read my post or if you didnt completley you understand I never ever....NEVER EVER said, that Mayweater beat all Time greats. Please quote and post where I said that.

What I said is that Mayweather list of fighter he beat..Thanks for listing them is better than Durans list that he beat...

Shoudl I list the entire list of Bums he beat with records of 10-13, 0-3, etc.. These fights where after he beat Buchanon also. I understand early on people fight bums, but if you ar anyone else wants to point out that Duran is a all time top fighter because of his dominance at lightweight..Then tell me how Beating Buchanon, Dejesue, Marcil, Kyobashi then the 60 other bums is better than what leonard did at Welterweight or Mayweather did, or Chavez did (yes he fought bums too, but he beat more top fighters than Duran did), Jones did...Etc.

I get accused of double standard, hmmm Duran loses at his natural weight, fights bums, his best four fights are not the level of Whitacker, Leoanrd, Maywather beat,, Then he moves up and yes beats leonard but overall record vs the best is 1-4. You got to be kidding me.

Some of you ignore the facts..Like McCain. Try to distort the issues. I ask what has Duran done Factually and compare it to others. You cant favorably.

Also, Mayweather simply won each time he stepped in the ring. Regardless of what you say, all boxers say they are going to do this or that, and end up losing. Tyson, Duran, both got ko'd before, both pretty much quit, Come on Poet.

NO MAAS!!!

Leonard boxed duran's fight and lost. When roles were reversed, he quit like a little *****!!!


even though i love ray, i consider him the best, i don't think he faced the kinda talent that duran faced.he faced alot of tough stone beared men, but not any hearn's or benitez's or leonards.Simply not true. Randy Turpin, Jake LaMotta, Joey Maxim, Kid Gavilan and a few others were handy, see their other fights. Some could box well on inside, but SRR made em look like what you say, men with just beards. SRR made was just too good in the rematches.

Plus boxing was different then, they were almost as active as tennis players, or even footballers! You have the opposite of rose tinted glasses!!

turpin and gavilan where akward by no means the athlete that hearns was.

There's a big difference between talking smack and not following through and not being ABLE to follow through because your opponent didn't let you. Case in point, Mayweather says he's going to punch it out with an opponent then running like Carl Lewis when the bell rings. That contrasts with Ali talking about what he was going to do with Frazier only to find Frazier wasn't going to cooperate. The point being the first case involves an act of will while the second involves someone else's will preventing your intent. In other words what Mayweather would fail to do involved a concious decision NOT to back up his mouth. THAT'S what I can't stand. From any athlete. It's not simply a matter of failing to win when you say you will or perform to a standard a you claim you'll perform to; it's about a willful decision NOT to do something.

Poet

Trust me the name "Gayweather" didn't originate with me. Run a forum search on the name and see how many times it pops up without my name being attached.

Poet

so you think all mayweather does in a fight is run? Come on Poet you're better than that.. if you have really watched his fights you know better than that.. so i take it you don't have ANY respect for mayweather what so ever as a boxer?

Like I said, the difference is that Ali promised ass-whoppings with every intent to deliver them; the opponents didn't always cooperate. Ali has credibility as well since, in his prime, if he said he'd stop an opponent in the X round he almost always did! Remember, my issue is with willful decisions not to deliver as opposed to being prevented from delivering by an opponent who came to win too.

Poet

Mayweather at prime weights (30-35-40) was an exciting fighter to watch, who delivered aggression in sufficient doses for anyone who doesnt need to watch Boom Boom Mancini to be happy.

Just like Ali, when faced by physical adversity (Loss of speed in Ali's case, fighting man outweighing him by 10+ lbs for Mayweather) he fought less exciting. They both kept on announcing ass-whoopings. Ali;s handspeed was still such that he could land on whoever he wanted in the 70s (minus young off the top of my head). He chose not to throw that much, because of fire coming back and to stay fresh. How is that different?

The only two fights you could refer to as boring are Baldomir and Oscar. Both bigger men. Both famous for their chins.

Oscar knocks people out at 154. What the hell did you expect Mayweather to do? Announce that he was going to box him and make sure none of those left hooks landed? How is that different from Ali using all his guile to give us boring fights, after announcing big whoopings? If Oscar looked slower you would have seen Floyd taking more chances.

He even stood close for the 1st half of the Baldomir fight, then saw he couldnt hurt him. See Forrest unloading the kitchen on Baldo... Again, what was he supposed to do? Break those glass hands on Baldomir's skull?

Trust me the name "Gayweather" didn't originate with me. Run a forum search on the name and see how many times it pops up without my name being attached.

Poet

Sweet Jesus poet, this is bull****.

If everyone does something ridiculous, dont mean it's cool to do it right? Margarita, Gayweather are fine for the morons on NSB. Not for you.

Poet...your tough on Mayweather...Wow. Whether you hate him or love him, he deserves our credit for stepping inside the ring and risking his life. Also, he beat everyfighter he ever faced.

Nuff Said!

Poet...your tough on Mayweather...Wow. Whether you hate him or love him, he deserves our credit for stepping inside the ring and risking his life. Also, he beat everyfighter he ever faced.

Nuff Said!

So did Marciano and I see posters ripping him to shreds on this forum all the time.

Poet

Sweet Jesus poet, this is bull****.

If everyone does something ridiculous, dont mean it's cool to do it right? Margarita, Gayweather are fine for the morons on NSB. Not for you.

Fair enough point! I can be quite derisive when I wish to be but I can see where you're coming from.

Poet

Mayweather at prime weights (30-35-40) was an exciting fighter to watch, who delivered aggression in sufficient doses for anyone who doesnt need to watch Boom Boom Mancini to be happy.

Just like Ali, when faced by physical adversity (Loss of speed in Ali's case, fighting man outweighing him by 10+ lbs for Mayweather) he fought less exciting. They both kept on announcing ass-whoopings. Ali;s handspeed was still such that he could land on whoever he wanted in the 70s (minus young off the top of my head). He chose not to throw that much, because of fire coming back and to stay fresh. How is that different?

The only two fights you could refer to as boring are Baldomir and Oscar. Both bigger men. Both famous for their chins.

Oscar knocks people out at 154. What the hell did you expect Mayweather to do? Announce that he was going to box him and make sure none of those left hooks landed? How is that different from Ali using all his guile to give us boring fights, after announcing big whoopings? If Oscar looked slower you would have seen Floyd taking more chances.

He even stood close for the 1st half of the Baldomir fight, then saw he couldnt hurt him. See Forrest unloading the kitchen on Baldo... Again, what was he supposed to do? Break those glass hands on Baldomir's skull?

Ali wasn't adverse to saying he was going to dance and his opponent couldn't hit what he couldn't see. Ali, though, is usually given a pass on the later stuff because of his track record of making good when he was in his prime.

As for Mayweather, if he had Announce that he was going to box him and make sure none of those left hooks landed? I would have given him points for honesty. But since he wasn't going to do that then he should have said nothing at all or directed his braggadocio to some other question. Where I come from that kind of smack talk without any attempt to deliver would have gotten him ostrocized by his peers.

Poet

so you think all mayweather does in a fight is run? Come on Poet you're better than that.. if you have really watched his fights you know better than that.. so i take it you don't have ANY respect for mayweather what so ever as a boxer? In every fight I've seen him in he looked like a Hector Camacho clone. Maybe he didn't against that 22-19 guy but then I haven't seen that one so I don't know.

PS. I detest Hector Camacho too.

Poet

Lets see.

Judah aftr the 1st 4rounds he pretty much stayed on top of him and walked him down
Baldomir- hit him with everything but the kitchen sink...a bigger man that has a great chin.
Hatton - target practice after the 1st 4 rounds, and eventually ko'd him
Gotti- brutally beat the **** out of him, made a all time warrior (not topfighter but a warrior ) damm near quit or wish they stopped it..and mayweather moved up to him
Corrales - dropped this ko great, undefeated with great hight advantage over him, hmmmm droppped him something like 6 times then stopped him.
Ndou - took all this guy had to offer in one round a classic round, then came on and beat the crap out of him....

Poet, you are completley clueless. Just stop please. Your trying to falsly attack a fghter that has more courage than you do (typing very tough in a chatroom), a fighter who has risked his life everytime he steps in the ring, a fighter who has fought great fighers from 130 -154, and is still undefeated. Do I like Mayweather no, but who am i to question his toughness or call him names etc, when I am sitting at home on internet blog.... Lets keep it intelligent, and about the issues poested, if you want to continue this weak debate, you will do so with out me involved, but laughing hysterically at the nerdism of a chat room toughie.

Lets see.

Judah aftr the 1st 4rounds he pretty much stayed on top of him and walked him down
Baldomir- hit him with everything but the kitchen sink...a bigger man that has a great chin.
Hatton - target practice after the 1st 4 rounds, and eventually ko'd him
Gotti- brutally beat the **** out of him, made a all time warrior (not topfighter but a warrior ) damm near quit or wish they stopped it..and mayweather moved up to him
Corrales - dropped this ko great, undefeated with great hight advantage over him, hmmmm droppped him something like 6 times then stopped him.
Ndou - took all this guy had to offer in one round a classic round, then came on and beat the crap out of him....

Poet, you are completley clueless. Just stop please. Your trying to falsly attack a fghter that has more courage than you do (typing very tough in a chatroom), a fighter who has risked his life everytime he steps in the ring, a fighter who has fought great fighers from 130 -154, and is still undefeated. Do I like Mayweather no, but who am i to question his toughness or call him names etc, when I am sitting at home on internet blog.... Lets keep it intelligent, and about the issues poested, if you want to continue this weak debate, you will do so with out me involved, but laughing hysterically at the nerdism of a chat room toughie.

Awwwwww, now you're getting personal. By your standard NO fighter can be criticized because they all risk their lives everytime they step in the ring. And yet YOU did a pretty good job ripping Duran earlier in the thread which was the entire point of the argument in the first place. Who actually brought Mayweather up? You did! You held him up as a paragon of excellence to compare Duran's purported deficienies against. Yet now he's suddenly off-limits to criticism. This is like a game of three-card-monty where you change the standards, even change the issue, each time you're answered.

As to my personal toughness, that isn't really the issue now is it? At least it wasn't untill you once again CHANGED the issue. Even that isn't really pertinent because you speak about which you know nothing. You don't know a thing about me! You don't know what I do for a living or my life history so you have no clue about how tough I am. You are relying on assumptions that are practically always wrong. Now I have yet to make a single personal attack on you but YOU have been getting progressively more personal over the last few posts culminating in this last post where you don't even try to veil the ad-hominum slams. Even so I'm not going to sink to your level they way I might have done with a more assinine poster such as randy johnson. I could easily question your intelligence in the same many you question my courage but I'll refrain from doing so.

It is one thing to disagree with someone, it's quite another move away from the source of the disagreement and make the person you're disagreeing the issue. I have NOT done so. YOU have. I believe you need to rethink how you approach the issues discussed and, as wmute would say, leave the personal insinuations for the morons over at the NSB thread.

Poet

Awwwwww, now you're getting personal. By your standard NO fighter can be criticized because they all risk their lives everytime they step in the ring. And yet YOU did a pretty good job ripping Duran earlier in the thread which was the entire point of the argument in the first place. Who actually brought Mayweather up? You did! You held him up as a paragon of excellence to compare Duran's purported deficienies against. Yet now he's suddenly off-limits to criticism. This is like a game of three-card-monty where you change the standards, even change the issue, each time you're answered.

As to my personal toughness, that isn't really the issue now is it? At least it wasn't untill you once again CHANGED the issue. Even that isn't really pertinent because you speak about which you know nothing. You don't know a thing about me! You don't know what I do for a living or my life history so you have no clue about how tough I am. You are relying on assumptions that are practically always wrong. Now I have yet to make a single personal attack on you but YOU have been getting progressively more personal over the last few posts culminating in this last post where you don't even try to veil the ad-hominum slams. Even so I'm not going to sink to your level they way I might have done with a more assinine poster such as randy johnson. I could easily question your intelligence in the same many you question my courage but I'll refrain from doing so.

It is one thing to disagree with someone, it's quite another move away from the source of the disagreement and make the person you're disagreeing the issue. I have NOT done so. YOU have. I believe you need to rethink how you approach the issues discussed and, as wmute would say, leave the personal insinuations for the morons over at the NSB thread.

Poet

I reread my post and I can see where your coming from as far as personal, I agree and I apologize. I do believe that no one on here can call a boxer the level of a Duran, Mayweather weak knicknames though. I stand by that.

As for Duran, I never calle3d him out of his name. He is a great figher and all time great, I have always said that, He would whip my ass and I acknowledge that. I merely am pointing out that IMO he is not top 5-10 of all time. I clealry point out my reasons why and compare his record and accomplishments with those of others.

I reread my post and I can see where your coming from as far as personal, I agree and I apologize. I do believe that no one on here can call a boxer the level of a Duran, Mayweather weak knicknames though. I stand by that.

As for Duran, I never calle3d him out of his name. He is a great figher and all time great, I have always said that, He would whip my ass and I acknowledge that. I merely am pointing out that IMO he is not top 5-10 of all time. I clealry point out my reasons why and compare his record and accomplishments with those of others.

Fair enough! God only knows enough of that goes on on this forum. The truth is, there aren't many fighters I can say I actually dislike personally. Mayweather just happens to be one of them and Hector Camacho is another. While I'm not a big fan of Chavez, I can't really say I have any major dislike for him either and I thoroughly enjoyed watching him beat Camacho up. While Castillo didn't do likewise to Mayweather a lot of people think he won one of those fights.

Poet

In every fight I've seen him in he looked like a Hector Camacho clone. Maybe he didn't against that 22-19 guy but then I haven't seen that one so I don't know.

PS. I detest Hector Camacho too.

Poet

not a big hector fan myself even though we share the same birthday.. but he was a good fighter.. as far as real exciting floyd may fights check out:

floyd vs gatti
floyd vs corley
floyd vs chavez
floyd vs hernandez
floyd vs augustus
floyd vs ndou
flyod vs hatton
floyd vs corrales

theres a few others.. i can find some links for u if u havent seen them.. if u have seen those fights, you honestly cant tell me is boring and runs all the time..


late

not a big hector fan myself even though we share the same birthday.. but he was a good fighter.. as far as real exciting floyd may fights check out:

floyd vs gatti
floyd vs corley
floyd vs chavez
floyd vs hernandez
floyd vs augustus
floyd vs ndou
flyod vs hatton
floyd vs corrales

theres a few others.. i can find some links for u if u havent seen them.. if u have seen those fights, you honestly cant tell me is boring and runs all the time..


late

Okay, I'll take you up on that. I'm certainly willing to look at evidence I may not have seen yet. You certainly don't have to twist my arm to get me to watch a fight!

Poet

not a big hector fan myself even though we share the same birthday.. but he was a good fighter.. as far as real exciting floyd may fights check out:

floyd vs gatti
floyd vs corley
floyd vs chavez
floyd vs hernandez
floyd vs augustus
floyd vs ndou
flyod vs hatton
floyd vs corrales

theres a few others.. i can find some links for u if u havent seen them.. if u have seen those fights, you honestly cant tell me is boring and runs all the time..


late

yeah, those were all pretty decent fights

i really enjoyed hatton-mayweather....

i need to see chico v mayweather

was that a competitive fight until the stoppage or did floyd just put on a clinic the whole time?

yeah, those were all pretty decent fights

i really enjoyed hatton-mayweather....

i need to see chico v mayweather

was that a competitive fight until the stoppage or did floyd just put on a clinic the whole time?

I'm pretty sure he won every round.

A very good performance, possibly the best of his career.

yeah, those were all pretty decent fights

i really enjoyed hatton-mayweather....

i need to see chico v mayweather

was that a competitive fight until the stoppage or did floyd just put on a clinic the whole time?

it was a one sided brilliant boxing exhibition from floyd.. heres a link

part 1
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=IM823ZVU

part2
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=GP6FVWZZ

Okay, I'll take you up on that. I'm certainly willing to look at evidence I may not have seen yet. You certainly don't have to twist my arm to get me to watch a fight!

Poet

There is no doubt in my mind Floyd was a brilliant fighter. With that said, he has never been exciting to me, especially given the proclimations he has made before fights. As a fan, the Baldomir fight sealed the deal for me not caring to watch him. He could have whooped him worse than Gatti. Was it smart? Sure. Was it fun to watch? Not in my world.

Mayweather is not consistently a dull fighter. Boring fights are the exception for him rather than the norm IMO. In this decade, the ones I thought were dull were the Vargas, second half of the Carlos Hernandez bout, second Castillo fight and Baldomir fight. DLH and Sosa fights were so-so.

The rest were okay to good.

Many people will say that if for no other reason it was because he said "no mas"

I'm sure other people have mentioned that here.
I haven't gone through all the comments.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it. I just know that's what a lot of professional boxers (and trainers) have said when I asked them how they feel about it.

Many people will say that if for no other reason it was because he said "no mas"

I'm sure other people have mentioned that here.
I haven't gone through all the comments.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it. I just know that's what a lot of professional boxers (and trainers) have said when I asked them how they feel about it.

Then again, "no mas" was at 147. Still, I can understand how some might tie that in to his whole career.

For me the greatest lightweight ever can be Duran, Benny Leonard or Joe Gans. Its subjective, so to my way of thinking they're interchangable depending on what you favor.

There is no doubt in my mind that Leonard fought the greatest lightweight comp ever and was the dominant fighter of his era.

Duran was the most overwhwelming and dominating fighter at lightweight that I have seen extensively.

Joe Gans is the wild card because I've seen very litle of him. But taking into consideration the praise that has been heaped upon him and his record as a turn of the century black man, he had to have been unbelievable. Depending on which source you believe he was 120-8-9 (85) (IBHOF) or 147-11-17 (96) (Boxrec) against the best of his era. Im sorry, but blacks were routinely robbed back then, so to amass this record he had to have been something special.

So..........whichever of these three anyone decides to put at the top of their list, I can live with it.

For me its a toss up between Leonard an Ali. Robinson IMO was a very good fighter and skilled but never fought a guy like Marvin Hagler or Thomas Hearns.

However another battle brewing contradicts this... Louis is a GREAT fighter, but not nearly as skilled as Muhammad Ali. He also, in my opinion, didn't fight the type of beasts Ali did. George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, Sonny Liston, the list goes on...

he lost 2 many big fights against hagler hearns an leonard

It's not about what he lacks, it's just that there are others who are EVEN greater (only a handful of them)

For me its a toss up between Leonard an Ali. Robinson IMO was a very good fighter and skilled but never fought a guy like Marvin Hagler or Thomas Hearns.

However another battle brewing contradicts this... Louis is a GREAT fighter, but not nearly as skilled as Muhammad Ali. He also, in my opinion, didn't fight the type of beasts Ali did. George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, Sonny Liston, the list goes on...

ummm.............okay

he lost 2 many big fights against hagler hearns an leonard

What exactly does that have to do with him at lightweight? And remember, he also beat Leonard.

Joe Gans is the wild card because I've seen very litle of him. But taking into consideration the praise that has been heaped upon him and his record as a turn of the century black man, he had to have been unbelievable. Depending on which source you believe he was 120-8-9 (85) (IBHOF) or 147-11-17 (96) (Boxrec) against the best of his era. Im sorry, but blacks were routinely robbed back then, so to amass this record he had to have been something special.

** Of course fighters like Duran and Gans going to have their supporters making them the best fighters ever just to start off on topic to the header.

Two things I want to address specifically:

1. That limited video is needed to assess any fighter. Many great fighters don't have footage or very little footage or footage of poor quality. We don't need footage to know that Peter Jackson, Harry Greb, and so on are great fighters that precious few ever beat. Even Jesus had his critics with many refusing to believe in him unless he performed a miracle that they wanted done which invaribly resulted in a tongue lashing, "Oh ye of little faith........"

The record and context of a fighters life and career is more compelling faith than video taken out of context. What I like about Gans is that he seems to be the most complete fighter in history at his point in time in possessing a combination of skills and natural attributes, a fighter who could do more in the ring than any before him.

2. I would take care in attributing losses by blacks to racism since this is something that could seldom be proven. What can be proven is that Gans and other black fighters had some incredible records and opportunities in the ring not often not afforded to the general black populace they came out of. His ring tag as The Old Master, or Peter Jackson as The Black Prince, JJohnson as Galveston Giant indicate a reverant level of respect.

Even the attribution "Boston Tarbaby" Sam Langford was often tagged with has a respect lost in modern revisionist history. The black tarbaby is of African folklore and a formidable, undefeated foe. The Uncle Remus publications became very popular in Langford's day. His smiling, genial countenance belied the danger lurking beneath as he soaked up all the punishment, the perfect tarbaby as it were with extra PUNCH for the ending!

It seems to me, most all of these judges and refs that Gans was administered by did a mighty fine job if we accept his record at face value. Better IMO than what passes as many modern refs, judges, and fans today who have proven to be some of the most blithering misanthropes on par with a long trail of fresh pieces of humanity in history.

Possibly One man...Muhammad Ali

Now I love Duran, and I don't make any secret of it. And I also love Ali. And if discipline is a disqualifier for greatest of all time, then niether one would make it. In fact most of the great fighters could be removed from this list.
Duran fought Esteban De Jesus 3 times and destroyed him twice. And he is an all time great himself. He also moved up and fought Palomino on his way back to the game and sent him back to retirement. And he was pretty good as well. Now with Leonard, yes he fought Durans fight, but after 2 rounds don't you think he would've figured out it was the wrong strategy. By then it was too late,,Duran had already hurt him in round 2 and he had no choice from that point on but to fight the way he did. Now Hearns just completly destroyed Duran, but when I saw Duran, he looked out of shape(again)and did'nt appear to have worked up a sweat. But a loss is a loss. Now he did put up a great fight with Hagler, losing the final round which cost him a draw with one of the greatest middle weights in his prime. Some of these fights could be used against him, but I look at them because he moved up and was more than competitive with the best at those weights(with the exception of Hearns). He could box,had power that he managed to take to other weight divisions. He was much better defensively than the average fan realized and he believed he was better than any man he was fighting. And he was just plain mean.
Like I said, Ali may just edge him out, but on my list he is such a close second that he just may slip in.

Is it fair to say that Duran should've given Buchanan a rematch?
I'm sure Duran would've given Buchanan a rematch,if he had wanted one. He took a beating, and looked bad getting it. He did fight Duran hard, but Roberto was just too strong and aggressive, and I don't think Buchanan wanted to go through that again.

I've always been prone to believe that the greatest fighter of all time was a toss up between ali robinson or leonard.
robinson for his ability, his record;
ali for his ability and the monsters he's beaten;
and leonard who quite possibly beat the greatest lightweight, an all time top 3 welterweight, and arguably the greatest middleweight of all time.
there's been another name that has hovered in my imagination when it comes to this title, and that name is roberto duran.
besides being a fighters "fighter"who was an offensive whirlwind with a great defense as well; he went up weights few fighters could ever go to, and was successful against bigger men.I'd like to ask you,my fellow boxingscene posters, what in your opinion negates duran's claim as the greatest?


He fought two long. and i consider him top 5 of all time.

He fought two long. and i consider him top 5 of all time.
So did Ali and Ray Robinson, but that should'nt disqualify a fighter. Leonard did too, but not even top ten in my poll. I can't remember who posted it here, but I agree with looking at fighters in their prime and maybe just after. Big fights and dominance at their natural weight, results in big fights( win or lose )are also factors. But you could have a point...fighters should get out and stay out once past their prime. It would make this much easier, would'nt it?