Any arguments against this?

No, no argument from me.

No argument, he's the greatest lightweight ever and in top five p4p ever.

He is defenitly the greatest lightweight he was a freak.

Yes he is the best and there will never be another Roberto Duran EVER!

No doubt, i even loved his kiss my ass attitude it was great. :D

Any arguments against this?

No argument whatsoever! He was the best in his class and he remains one of my all-time favorites. :cool:

yeah i just think that his ability to walk through punches was unbelievable

No, no argument from me.


if this guy says so, it's true, he is the greatest lightweight ever.

No, I totally agree :)

No arguements at all. Roberto Duran was the greatest lightweight of all time.

he can't be the best of all time leonard made him give up no maas

he can't be the best of all time leonard made him give up no maas

Duran's "no mas" fight against Leonard should have no bearing on his status as a lightweight, since it took place at 147.

i guess one more yes for Duran.

Duran's "no mas" fight against Leonard should have no bearing on his status as a lightweight, since it took place at 147.
lets not forget he was past his prime and still beat leonard, and started as a bantmanweight

Hands down the best ever at 135. Overall I rank him #3 p4p all time. The guy ruled 135 for a decade.

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Duran

Duran was invincible at lightweight.

I may be inclined to rate Duran as the best lightweight of all-time, but I think the competition for the top spot is a lot closer than others would have you think.

Duran, Benny Leonard, Joe Gans, Ike Williams, Tony Canzoneri, and Carlos Ortiz are a few of the very strong contenders for that all-time top spot in the lightweight division. Plus, if you took into account what he did while weighing at or just under 135 lbs., a strong case can be made for Henry Armstrong in that top spot.

Personally, out of all the original eight weight divisions and the numerous great fighters that fought in them, I think this division has the greatest depth at the very top of the all-time rankings. There's a good six or seven guys that may have a claim to being the greatest ever at this weight, and in my opinion, no other division has that.

Any arguments against this?Well there was the one guy, hmmm, what was his name?

Henry Armstrong.

Held bantamweight, lightweight, welterweight titles all at the same time.

He was pretty damn good. I'm goin to get some of my boxing buds who REALLY know their shit. Hold on. I think you'll have some dissension on this. Duran was a beast but there're are a few more out there who were terrors themselves.

Hell Duran might be the best lightweight right now, and I don't even know how old he is.

Hell Duran might be the best lightweight right now, and I don't even know how old he is.Yeah but unless the lightweight limit is over 200 lbs you're dead wrong.

Duran was an amazingly talented boxer, but his discipline and dedication were poor. He used to go up 50lbs between fights from eating and not working out properly.

You can argue that Benny Leonard, Armstrong, and Joe Gans were just as good, if not better. Impossible to say for sure.

roberto duran the best light weight of all time ?
EASY.. chavez was a great fighter but duran as a light weight was to strong, think of this a light weight fighting the best middle weight of all time in hagler will never be seen again. EVER

Only Armstrong and Benny Leonard could make a case for themselves, but I still think Duran is the best lightweight to ever step on a ring.

p4p I'd rank Armstrong higher, though.

Only Armstrong and Benny Leonard could make a case for themselves

Are you sure about that?

If so, what makes Duran so much better than the likes of Gans, Williams, Canzoneri, and Ortiz (to name a few), where they shouldn't even be given consideration for that top spot?

Any arguments against this?


No Mas!!!!

This is a rediculous thing to try to prove. And now someone claims that Hagler is the best middleweight ever? Says who? There were a lot of great middleweights, the division was probably the strongest one of them all. If Hagler (or any of them) was the best it was only by the smallest of margins.

Same with Duran. There were too many guys at lightweight who were AWESOME complete fighters. Duran also quit in the middle of a fight where he was being outboxed. I do not recall any of the other great lightweights doing this. And don't bring up that Duran was passed his prime or fighting at a higher than natural weightclass for him because heart does not fade with age. The Duran that quit versus Leonard was mentally the same as the lightweight who won the title from Ken Buchanan.

You were not in the ring so its impossible to say what he was feeling in that fight. Duran is the best lightweight ever and his record and domiance of the fighters he faced proves it.

Absolutely, Duran was the greatest lightweight of all time. His 'No Mas' fight against Leonard had nothing to do with his lightweight career because that fight with Leonard was at welterweight.

i aint got no arguements with that....the guy was a genius.

the guy was unbeliveable
did u see his rematch 9th rnd ko of esta ba de jesus

roberto duran, was the best ever lightweight:) and duran has done one thing which no other boxer will ever do and i mean ever :) and that is box in 5 differnet decades lmao that 5:)..the man is the greatest fighter who has ever walked the world, if he spoke english or was from the usa, no one would doubt that,

OH YYYESSSSSSSSSS. Two words. HENRY ARMSTRONG

Henry Armstrong hands down. Possibly THE greatest fighter of all time along with u know who. "Manos de Pietra" was good no doubt. Definately top 5 lightweight with Robinson,Ike,and Leonard(B).

my favourite of all time is Sugar Ray Robinson he was just a class act. ;)

my favourite of all time is Sugar Ray Robinson he was just a class act. ;)

yep bets p4p ever

Oscar DeLaHoya was probably the greatest lightweight of all time,he took on all challenges in a short period of time and proved himself as the premier fighter in that division.
Shane Mosley is also one of the greatest lightweights of all time he was unbeaten at the weight.

Oscar DeLaHoya was probably the greatest lightweight of all time,he took on all challenges in a short period of time and proved himself as the premier fighter in that division.
Shane Mosley is also one of the greatest lightweights of all time he was unbeaten at the weight.

UBWrong.....by a mile.

ANyone who quits during a fight for a reason that wasnt physical doesnt deserve to be an all time great

i would put money on mel taylor whitaker mayweather and defeintaly mosley and chavez..no direspect to duran but he fought in the 60s and 70s..guys today are better fighters

i would put money on mel taylor whitaker mayweather and defeintaly mosley and chavez..no direspect to duran but he fought in the 60s and 70s..guys today are better fighters

Meldrick Taylor ?


He didn't do much at 135. He started his career there....had some notable fights/wins (Davis Jr. & Blake)....but made his hay at 140.

You're acting like Duran fought back in the 40's.
The 70's, in terms of boxing, are the modern era.

i would put money on mel taylor whitaker mayweather and defeintaly mosley and chavez..no direspect to duran but he fought in the 60s and 70s..guys today are better fighters

dino dont mean to be rude dude but that post does make you look like a friggin idiot.

mosely over duran are you quite mad?
He aint fit to lick duran's boots mate.
5 round at best in one sided beat down.

no fighther at lightweight could beat duran he was amazing!!

BEST LIGHTWEIGHT ever

no fighther at lightweight could beat duran he was amazing!!

It's funny, but after reading that comment of yours, I seem to recall the fact that Esteban DeJesus DID beat the lightweight version of Roberto Duran in one of their fights.

If DeJesus could beat Duran in a fight, then it's entirely possible and also very likely other great lightweights could've beat him, as well.

Duran was a beast at lightweight, yes Esteban De Jesus beat him once handed him his 1st defeat but Duran came back and beat DeJesus, Esteban Dejesus was a great lightweight as well. But Duran hands down was the best light weight, he had it all and he mastered the art of rolling with the punches when he was inside..he was one mean s.o.b.

Absolutely, Duran was the greatest lightweight of all time. His 'No Mas' fight against Leonard had nothing to do with his lightweight career because that fight with Leonard was at welterweight.
i agree!!! he may not be the best at welterweight but he is certainly the most complete lightweight of all time :cool:

Duran was a beast at lightweight, yes Esteban De Jesus beat him once handed him his 1st defeat but Duran came back and beat DeJesus, Esteban Dejesus was a great lightweight as well. But Duran hands down was the best light weight, he had it all and he mastered the art of rolling with the punches when he was inside..he was one mean s.o.b.

Sure, DeJesus was a hell of a talent and a great lightweight in his own right. But he wasn't one of the absolute elite all-time great lightweights throughout history (The Ring ranked him at 15th, I believe), and if he could beat Duran, then it only makes sense to think others could beat him, as well.

But it's these "hands down" and "no question about it" comments that gets to me. I don't care how great you are, there was always somebody to challenge you throughout history (Duran had a tough time with the jab, movement and quickness of Ray Lampkin, for God sakes). EVERY fighter throughout history can lose to another great in their weight class, no matter who you are. Shit, even Sugar Ray Robinson was said to have been lucky to get the nod in a couple of fights during his welterweight day (Servo and Gavilan both fought him very tough and many observers thought they beat Robinson), and that's probably the single greatest fighter of all-time.

You know what, if Duran was so head and shoulders above everyone else in the history of the lightweight division, why didn't his own trainer, Ray Arcel, acknowledge him as the greatest lightweight ever? You would think Arcel would've, don't you think? Nope, he selected Benny Leonard as not only the greatest lightweight of all-time (Ring ranked him as the 2nd greatest lightweight of all-time), but as the single greatest fighter of all-time, regardless of weight. And seeing as how Arcel worked the corners of both Duran and Leonard, you'd think he'd know a little something about the subject, wouldn't you?

Duran was obviously an elite all-time great lightweight, and maybe he was the best of all-time at that weight (key word being "maybe"). But he was far from being the automatic or easy choice that some think he is for this category. No way guys, there's been way too many great ones throughout history and more than a few could definately give Duran everything he could handle ina fight or even offer him a stiff challenge for that top spot (Leonard, Gans, Armstrong, Williams, Canzoneri, Ortiz, etc.). It's very close up top and it's completely ignorant to think otherwise, if you ask me.

yogi most folk who post on here can just aobut remember Duran to ask them to KNow the lieks of Benny Leonard, Kid Gavalian, Henry Armstrong et al is stretching it mate.

They have only just realised that Duran would beat Mosely :D

duran is in the mix and withouth doubt the modern era's best lightweight.

Its always very difficult to compare guys form the pre 2nd world war era with now, the rules were so disperate for starters (watch footage of someone like Demspey V Willard who more or less stood over his oppoenent and waits for the poor willard to get to his feet without even backing off.

Undoubtedly not having to return to a neutral conrer would have adided Duran but how good was boxer mover Lenoard then? Cos it sure didnt favour him.........it is rumoured he could box ten rounds and still have a perfect parting in his hair!!!


like I say difficult to compare such era as the basic and integral rules of conduct in the ring changed immensely.

Oh yeah Roberto duran was the man!!! but saying he was the best is kinda hard to do...no mas?....the best dont give up!!


just my opinion

Oh yeah Roberto duran was the man!!! but saying he was the best is kinda hard to do...no mas?....the best dont give up!!


just my opinion


yeah there wewre reasons for that though according to Duran I posted this the opther day but cant remember where.

Allegedly according to Roberto he had dodgy guts running up to the fight and if you watch the fight Lenoard bangs in with some pretty heavy duty body shots beofre the stoppage.

Duran reckons one more and he may well have covered the front two rows in shit. Forced with the option of quitting or crapping himself on Worldwide Tv and live in front of 20 odd thousand people, he chose to quit.

no brainer really.

not sure how much is true but ive heard this from more than one source and coivered in more than one or two biogs..


fight wasnt at lightweight anyway so its immaterial when judging how he was as a lightwieght.

JPW, I hear you on that, buddy. I've been following this sport for about 30 years now, read a ton, and watched plenty of great fighters from the past...so I guess I should give some of these guys the benefit of the doubt. Here though, if some of them want to read up on a couple of other strong candidates for that "greatest lightweight" title, I present these two articles on Benny Leonard and Joe Gans. A great boxing history lesson courtesy of an excellant boxing historian by the name of Monte Cox (member of the IBRO);

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/gans.html

and;

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/bleonard.html

I hope some of these guys read those articles!

that is fine...he still quit...he quit!!!!! you know how duran had that attitude how he was the best....as well as tyson....any fighter with that attitude looses..what do we hear??? excuses......wether it be " i had to take a shit" by duran...or "i broke my back" "my leg got hurt " from tyson.....the "badasses" lose we hear excuses...that is all that is...but if you think his bowels had something to do with it thats fine to....i guess you could say sugar really beat the shit out of him LMAO

JPW, I hear you on that, buddy. I've been following this sport for about 30 years now, read a ton, and watched plenty of great fighters from the past...so I guess I should give some of these guys the benefit of the doubt. Here though, if some of them want to read up on a couple of other strong candidates for that "greatest lightweight" title, I present these two articles on Benny Leonard and Joe Gans. A great boxing history lesson courtesy of an excellant boxing historian by the name of Monte Cox (member of the IBRO);

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/gans.html

and;

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/bleonard.html


I hope some of these guys read those articles!


nice articles, likewise mate theres so much stuff to read and get on with. I must admit that I never travel withouth some boxing book in my bag of some despcritoion that and boxing news.


gets me through the rush hour train system in London, in fact I was reading about ted kid lewis the other and missed my stop by 3 stops (bout 15 mins) took me f-king ages to get home :D

Even though Duran quit against Leonard, that fight was at Welterweight, so it shouldn't factor as him being an all-time great Lightweight. I don't believe that story about him needing to take a shit or whatever. I think he just got frustrated and didn't want to chase Leonard around the ring. He's still the greatest Lightweight ever.

Roberto Duran is ONE OF the greatest lightweights ever!!! But he is NOT THE best of all time. It is completely illogical to make a statement like that when you haven't seen enough of (or at all) the other greats to make an intelligent comparison!

I rank duran very high and I think of those that came after only whitaker might have beaten him

but i think that a fight with mosley would be very competitive

now we see mosley losing at 147-154 but mosley at 135 was quite different:

he had speed, skill, power, size, chin I doubt that anyone would stop him at 135, much less in 5 rounds

Every Ali has his Frazier and every Robinson his LaMotta. There is no doubt that there were fighters that would give Duran a run for his money and possibly beat him. With studs like Leonard, Gans, Williams, and Armstrong, who could argue otherwise. But i'll say this, for me, i wouldn't put my money anyone against Duran in a 5 fight series at lightweight.

I personally wasn't too impressed with Mosley at 135. Of course, his Robinson-esque blend of speed, power, and boxing skill was mind boggling, but his resume wasn't. He didn't beat anyone to prove to me that he should be named along side Duran, Leonard, Gans, etc.

Armstrong held the feather light and welter weight belts all at the same time in a spand of 10 months fugging amazing. oh yea the best dont give up right?

I think Mosley could take Duran.

Armstrong held the feather light and welter weight belts all at the same time in a spand of 10 months fugging amazing. oh yea the best dont give up right?
hahaha!!!!! LOL!!! no mas no mas

if thats an i dont beileve u statement ask me to proove it to u and i will

I don't think Duran was the greatest lightweight of all time. There is a strong case that could be made that he isn't top three but I'll limit myself to saying that Benny Leonard is the all-time #1 at 135 pounds. There is a very simple reason I say this; I am agreeing with Ray Arcel. He trained Duran for several years and was around Leonard forat least as long. He said that either Leonard or Robinson was the best, p4p, of all time. Mental energy was his reason.

I think Mosley could take Duran.

You cant be serious..Duran would beat Mosely down, Duran fought all the best lightweights he was just plain nasty at 135lbs.

You can argue that Benny Leonard, Armstrong, and Joe Gans were just as good, if not better. Impossible to say for sure.

Thank you bro. The entire first page just caved in ... I mean, these guys were great too!

Helloooo, Benny Leonard held light, welter and middle titles.


At the same time! Look who he fought. A bad mother****er if there ever was one. I believvvvve he just missed adding the damn light heavy crown, if I'm not mistaken.

1 Lou Ambers 1,997 1932 - 1941 94-8-7

2 Roberto Duran 1,991 1968 - 2001 103-16-0

3 Carlos Ortiz 1,969 1955 - 1972 60-7-1

4 Ike Williams 1,950 1940 - 1955 126-24-5

5 Ismael Laguna 1,946 1961 - 1971 65-9-1

6 Bob Montgomery 1,932 1938 - 1950 75-19-3

7 Joe Brown 1,931 1943 - 1970 104-45-13

8 Beau Jack 1,925 1939 - 1955 88-24-5

9 Jimmy Carter 1,923 1946 - 1960 81-30-9

10 John John Molina 1,920 1986 - 2001 52-7-0
http://www.boxrec.com/ratings.php I know Boxrec isnt that great, but these are their top ten so the fighters should be good enough to be top ten or something. Tho I cant find Chavez anymore, he use to be #8 on Welterweight. Their "current" rankings seem to be fine.

Any arguments against this?
i think so..great talented division..if hes not the best most certainly in the top 3..

roberto duran, was the best ever lightweight:) and duran has done one thing which no other boxer will ever do and i mean ever :) and that is box in 5 differnet decades lmao that 5:)..the man is the greatest fighter who has ever walked the world, if he spoke english or was from the usa, no one would doubt that,

Jack Johnson fighted in 4 decades, and 5 if you consider his non-sanctioned fights in 1931.
http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00014275.html

I rank benny leonard above duran.

benny leonard
julio cesar chavez
pernell whitaker
alexis arguello are all better lightweights than duran.

benny leonard
julio cesar chavez
pernell whitaker
alexis arguello are all better lightweights than duran.

Those are great fighters....but only Leonard & Whitaker COULD be rated as better lightweights.
Arguello & Chavez, though tough as f*ck at 135, didn't accomplish a whole helluva lot at that weight class.

Who else has been for a decade clearly the best in that division. Both went on too long, but in there primes, they were unmatched each avenging all legitimate losses in grand style

The fight that really made me respect Duran was against Hagler. Going all the up from 135 to 160. He fought well against Hagler, and I think his power and skills and pretty much everything else carried up to 160 in a pretty amazingly. Hagler looked sharp on the night he fought Duran and Duran gave an extremely good account of himself. Hagler looked x2 sharper vs Duran than he did vs Leonard. Vs Leonard he looked like shit.

I think he has to among the best lightweights ever. Based not only on his accomplishments in that class but also what he did after moving on.

Sorry to my Mexican friends here. But Duran > Chavez

Chavez (not on Durans level for sure)wasnt even at Lightweight that long.
http://boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=008119

Its between Carlos Ortiz
http://boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=008387

and

Duran
http://boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=000080

Chavez (not on Durans level for sure)wasnt even at Lightweight that long.
http://boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=008119

Its between Carlos Ortiz
http://boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=008387

and

Duran
http://boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=000080
let me guess Carlos Ortiz is Puerto Rican

let me guess Carlos Ortiz is Puerto Rican
Let me guess Chavez is Mexican...

Ortiz record speaks for itself, where Chavez wasnt even a real lightweight great, get tha flock outta here, he didnt do anything at Lightweight...Chavezs best work was at his first weight, where he beat a bunch of bums...
http://boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=008387

Let me guess Chavez is Mexican...

Ortiz record speaks for itself, where Chavez wasnt even a real lightweight great, get tha flock outta here, he didnt do anything at Lightweight...Chavezs best work was at his first weight, where he beat a bunch of bums...
http://boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=008387
hey for once i agree with you Chavez's bestndidnt come at ligthweight,
but Ortiz if he is the greatest lightweight of all time them Loi is the ****ing greatest welterweight of all time. :rolleyes:
and just because he defended the wbo and wba titles 10 times dont mean shit, is hokins the greatest middle weight just because he held the undisputed title 20 times????

hey for once i agree with you Chavez's bestndidnt come at ligthweight,
but Ortiz if he is the greatest lightweight of all time them Loi is the ****ing greatest welterweight of all time. :rolleyes:
and just because he defended the wbo and wba titles 10 times dont mean shit, is hokins the greatest middle weight just because he held the undisputed title 20 times????
I never said he was the best, I had always said he is top 3.

Chavez (not on Durans level for sure)wasnt even at Lightweight that long.
http://boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=008119

Its between Carlos Ortiz
http://boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=008387

and

Duran
http://boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=000080


Don't forget Benny Leonard, Henry Armstrong, Barney Ross, Tony Cnazoneri, Kid Chocolate...all of those guys are arguably in there too.

I'd say:

Duran
Armstrong
Leonard
Canzoneri
Ortiz

200 fights says something!

no doubt duran rules

The only real alternative to Duran as greatest lightweight ever would be Sugar Ray Robinson, but I don't think he could stay with Duran. Roberto Duran in his prime was simply a force of nature. As a lightweight, I don't think anyone could beat him.

Brain fart; don't know what I was thinking (or NOT thinking)... Sugar Ray didn't fight professionally as a lightweight, making my point stupid and moot. But, I guess that cements Duran's position, doesn't it?

it does, theres no doubt about it duran is the best and greatest lightweight in the history of boxing

Brain fart; don't know what I was thinking (or NOT thinking)... Sugar Ray didn't fight professionally as a lightweight, making my point stupid and moot. But, I guess that cements Duran's position, doesn't it?

Suck that brain fart of yours back in, don't be too hard on yourself, and take a look at The Ring's lightweight rankings for Nov. of 1941;

Champion: Lew Jenkins

1: RAY ROBINSON
2: Sammy Angott
3: Jackie Wilson
4: Davey Day
5: Dave Castilloux
6: George Latka
7: Ray Lunny
8: Harry Hurst
9: Nick Castiglione
10: Maxie Shapiro

Robinson defeated some of those fighters very early in his career (which was spent as a lightweight), including Sammy Angott, who just a few short months later defeated Lew Jenkins for the world championship.

Wow, good knowledge, and thank you very much. I thought I remembered something way back in the dim, dark reaches of my reptilian brain. So, what if...??

Hey Yogi, you know your sh*t. Tell me, do you remember a fighter named Chuck Davies? He was a friend of my Dad's; went to college together. He was a hot prospect until he got seriously thumped by Kid Gavilan.

Hey Yogi, you know your sh*t. Tell me, do you remember a fighter named Chuck Davies? He was a friend of my Dad's; went to college together. He was a hot prospect until he got seriously thumped by Kid Gavilan.

I can't write a bio on him or anything, but sure I remember Chuck Davey and even have his fight with Gavilan on tape...Chuck Davey was a good welterweight contender back in the 50's (a quick handed and talented southpaw, who beat guys like Graziano and Basilio to earn a high ranking as a welterweight contender) and was certainly a very popular TV attraction since quite a few of his fights were shown live on the old Gillette series. Some of that popularity alluded to something you mentioned, and that was the fact that he was a pro boxer at the same time he was also a college student. That's pretty rare no matter the era you're fighting in, but especially in the 50's when it was even more so...Davey had an interesting story, for sure, and it made for good TV back in the day (also helped out by Chuck reportedly being one helluva nice guy!).

He wasn't an all-time great or anything like that, but Chuck Davey had a boxing career that he could certainly be very proud of...and I'd bet that 99% of all fighters throughout history wished they had a boxing career like him.

I am surprised no one has mentioned pernell whitaker. He is by far the most skilled fighter at lightweight. Head movement, footwork, combos, jab, defence. This guy would have given carlos ortiz major problems, and i know that in a head to head matchup he would beat benny leonard. Sorry, but pernell whitaker is the best lightweight that ever lived cuz he has the most skills. The guys he defended his welterweight belt against are better than the ones armstrong fought, hell didnt armstrong defend his belt against a guy with losing record, lol.

I am surprised no one has mentioned pernell whitaker. He is by far the most skilled fighter at lightweight. Head movement, footwork, combos, jab, defence. This guy would have given carlos ortiz major problems, and i know that in a head to head matchup he would beat benny leonard. Sorry, but pernell whitaker is the best lightweight that ever lived cuz he has the most skills. The guys he defended his welterweight belt against are better than the ones armstrong fought, hell didnt armstrong defend his belt against a guy with losing record, lol.

Pffttt....As if... Whitaker couldn't carry Durans jock strap. :no:

Pffttt....As if... Whitaker couldn't carry Durans jock strap. :no:

why not? a 30 year old duran got completely outclassed by a defensive slickster like benitez, make any excuse you want, duran lost to him.

Pernell's only loss during his lightweight career was a robbery, while duran was soundly defeated.

He cant carry duran's jaockstrap becuase? Please tell me the reason why, when it comes to pure skill, whitaker owns him. By the way, whitaker frustrates his opponents all the time, we saw what happened when duran got frustrated. He quit!

I agree, Im not sure why Pernell aint up there with the lightweights...his record is solid just from his fights at lightweight, notwithstanding the fact he didnt lose until the end of his career at welterweight against an up and coming De La Hoya...and even that fight was quite controversial.

If you take a look at Whitaker's record...its just incredible really. Just watching him the ring was somethin...

Whitaker vs. Duran wouldve been a hell of a fight

Ring magazine recognize him as top 3 at lightweight, its just these guys on boxingscene that overhype ortiz, ike williams, canzoneori and joe gans. Pernell had more skill than all 4 men and he became linear welterweight champ for 4 years. Besides pernell, what other top 10 lightweight is a top 15-20 welterweight of all times?

i'm gonna add my name to the long list of people who agree!

I am surprised no one has mentioned pernell whitaker. He is by far the most skilled fighter at lightweight. Head movement, footwork, combos, jab, defence. This guy would have given carlos ortiz major problems, and i know that in a head to head matchup he would beat benny leonard. Sorry, but pernell whitaker is the best lightweight that ever lived cuz he has the most skills. The guys he defended his welterweight belt against are better than the ones armstrong fought, hell didnt armstrong defend his belt against a guy with losing record, lol.

definately top 5 but not the best

Don't remember if I responded to this thread already or not and I'm too lazy to check through all the posts, so I'll say this.


If it's not Duran, then it's Leonard or Gans.

why not? a 30 year old duran got completely outclassed by a defensive slickster like benitez, make any excuse you want, duran lost to him.

Pernell's only loss during his lightweight career was a robbery, while duran was soundly defeated.

He cant carry duran's jaockstrap becuase? Please tell me the reason why, when it comes to pure skill, whitaker owns him. By the way, whitaker frustrates his opponents all the time, we saw what happened when duran got frustrated. He quit!

Bpimp I know you've studied your boxing history so I know you know all about the 'no mas' match. You can't use that in an assessment of Duran.

You refer to Pernell being 'more skilled', which counts on a certain estimation of 'skill'. but Duran is the more completer fighter. Pernell could not have so much as poppped a zit on Duran if the man had one at the time, and Duran likely would have KO'd Pernell.

Bpimp I know you've studied your boxing history so I know you know all about the 'no mas' match. You can't use that in an assessment of Duran.

You refer to Pernell being 'more skilled', which counts on a certain estimation of 'skill'. but Duran is the more completer fighter. Pernell could not have so much as poppped a zit on Duran if the man had one at the time, [Band Duran likely would have KO'd Pernell.[/B]

I don't know about that, bud. Whitaker was as tough as nails beneath his slickster exterior. He had a mean streak as wide as Duran's, IMO. Remember, even a shot Pernell went the full twelve with Trinidad, who hit a hell of a lot harder than Duran.

Don't remember if I responded to this thread already or not and I'm too lazy to check through all the posts, so I'll say this.


If it's not Duran, then it's Leonard or Gans.

i thought leonard was only a lightweight in his amatuer days?

I don't know about that, bud. Whitaker was as tough as nails beneath his slickster exterior. He had a mean streak as wide as Duran's, IMO. Remember, even a shot Pernell went the full twelve with Trinidad, who hit a hell of a lot harder than Duran.

You' may be right, but I wasn't assuming that Duran had more power than Trinidad, only that he would be more able to dictate the pace and style of the fight. Again, though, there's no good reason for me to think Whitaker could have been stopped.

To me the difference in a Duran/Whitaker matchup would be: at lightweight Duran could hurt Whitaker but nothing Whitaker had could hurt Duran. Sweetpea was awesome and could have caused Duran a lot of grief ala Benitez in terms of evading blows but he couldn't have capitalized like the bigger Benitez did. If it goes the distance then maybe Whitaker wins but a knockout could only go one way.

Bpimp I know you've studied your boxing history so I know you know all about the 'no mas' match. You can't use that in an assessment of Duran.

You refer to Pernell being 'more skilled', which counts on a certain estimation of 'skill'. but Duran is the more completer fighter. Pernell could not have so much as poppped a zit on Duran if the man had one at the time, and Duran likely would have KO'd Pernell.

Trinidad has ko'd and viciously beat up guys like mayorga, vargas and joppy. Name 1 fighter from the higher weights that duran ko'd, who is as good as these guys when it comes to toughness.Trinidad is the harder hitter. However, he couldnt ko a SHOT pernell, a man that is only half his size.

Trinidad has ko'd and viciously beat up guys like mayorga, vargas and joppy. Name 1 fighter from the higher weights that duran ko'd, who is as good as these guys when it comes to toughness.Trinidad is the harder hitter. However, he couldnt ko a SHOT pernell, a man that is only half his size.

All fair but I wasn't comparing Duran's power to Trinidad's. This is a fantasy fight at 135lb, right? And I partially took back my claim that Duran would win by KO. To knock him out he'd have to dominate him, not catch him with a single shot.

Trinidad has ko'd and viciously beat up guys like mayorga, vargas and joppy. Name 1 fighter from the higher weights that duran ko'd, who is as good as these guys when it comes to toughness.Trinidad is the harder hitter. However, he couldnt ko a SHOT pernell, a man that is only half his size.

A shot, bloated and geriatric Duran kicked the crap out of the insanely tough Iran Barkley for the middleweight title some 17 years after winning his first title.

Barkley would have eaten Trinidad as an appetizer - let's remember what he did to Hearns - nevermind relative chumps like those mentioned.

A shot, bloated and geriatric Duran kicked the crap out of the insanely tough Iran Barkley for the middleweight title some 17 years after winning his first title.

Barkley would have eaten Trinidad as an appetizer - let's remember what he did to Hearns - nevermind relative chumps like those mentioned.


Good points. An equally interesting matchup (to Whitaker - - Duran) would be Duran -- Trinidad

A shot, bloated and geriatric Duran kicked the crap out of the insanely tough Iran Barkley for the middleweight title some 17 years after winning his first title.

Barkley would have eaten Trinidad as an appetizer - let's remember what he did to Hearns - nevermind relative chumps like those mentioned.

dude barkely isnt that great ok, dont start overrating him. Last time i checked, he didnt get knocked out by duran, infact duran barelt won the fight.

dont compare Barkley and Whitaker....they were nowhere near the same type of fighter...how Duran did against Barkley at Middleweight is almost irrelevant to how he would do against Whitaker at Welter/Lightweight. styles make fights.

remember Whitaker had dealt with the likes of Julio Cesar Chavez in inside fighting and a style of wearing opponents down, and beat him at it...his defence was incredible. I dont think this fight would even come down to 'toughness'.

it would be a hell of a fight to watch. Duran might be able to roughhouse and outwork Whitaker, but I dont see a prime Whitaker getting finished, not by any means. it would be quite a fight to watch.

dont compare Barkley and Whitaker....they were nowhere near the same type of fighter...how Duran did against Barkley at Middleweight is almost irrelevant to how he would do against Whitaker at Welter/Lightweight. styles make fights.

remember Whitaker had dealt with the likes of Julio Cesar Chavez in inside fighting and a style of wearing opponents down, and beat him at it...his defence was incredible. I dont think this fight would even come down to 'toughness'.

it would be a hell of a fight to watch. Duran might be able to roughhouse and outwork Whitaker, but I dont see a prime Whitaker getting finished, not by any means. it would be quite a fight to watch.

Whtaker beat julio cesar vasquez at 154, duran beat davey moore. Last time i checked, vasquez is the better fighter. Either way, you are right, the higher weights have nothing to do with this.

Whitaker should be top 3 at lightweight, who didn't he beat at this weight?

ray mancini- washed up fighter
edwin rosario- he lost to ramirez and nazario.
camacho- pernell beat him up in real life fights, thats good enough.
vinny pazienzia- he lost to haugen and roger mayweather.
the wbo champ?- no one cared about that belt.

He was forced by the media to go up in wieght and fight mcgirt(the linear welterweight champ) and chavez, the #1 pound for pound star.

Whitaker could have followed the route of canzonori and carlos ortiz, which is to stay at 140 and 135, but no whitaker decided to take risks like fighting the #1 pound for pound guy, the linear welterweight champ, a 154er that terry norris avoided and a prime oscar de la hoya.

If whitaker fought at 140 and stayed thier from 1992-1997, you would hear people bitch and say why didnt he fight at 147 or 154. Well why didnt ortiz, canzonori, benny leonard or the others move up, like men.

dude barkely isnt that great ok, dont start overrating him. Last time i checked, he didnt get knocked out by duran, infact duran barelt won the fight.

I knew he didn't knock out Barkley, but I watched the fight at the time and remember Duran kicking some butt. Just looked it up and saw that it was a split decision (and was foty), so maybe my recollection isn't too good - I need to check it out again. Still, you asked what quality big guy he beat and Barkley was pretty rockin at the time. I think pretty much everyone in the world expected the spent Duran to get beaten to death by the guy after the murderous knockout he put on Hearns.

In any case, I agree with blackirish that how Whitaker and Duran did against other big foes doesn't mean too much about how they'd match up at lightweight.

Duran and Pernell are the two lightweight kings that had the most success at higher weights, therefore P4P they deserve to be ranked higher. Benny Leonard moved up to 147 and lost to ted kid lewis, it might be ruled a draw but the ghetto wizard was indeed given a complete gift.

There is no doubt in my mind, that head to head, duran and whitaker are the best.

Benny Leonard moved up to 147 and lost to ted kid lewis, it might be ruled a draw but the ghetto wizard was indeed given a complete gift.

What's your sources on that opinion, Pimp?

I'm just wondering because I've read a few sources on the fight, and from what I'm seeing they're all split right down the middle as to what happened or who got the better of whom in that one, with even those calling it for Lewis having it as a very close fight as seen by comments such as his "margin on points at the end was very slight" (Washington Post, Sept 24th, 1918)...

Ditto for those who had Leonard ahead, as they also seen it as a very close fight as evidence by their "lightweight champion had the shade better of Ted Kid Lewis" (Bridgeport Telegram, Sept 24th, 1918) comments.

The New York Times obviously saw it as a very close fight, as well, and in fact they saw it as a dead even fight, as evidence by their comments in their paper on that same date which read, "Leonard and Lewis box spirited draw", "pummel each other without advantage", and "honors were about even".

i.e. I've yet to read anything to indicate that it wasn't a very close fight, and I certainly don't see any indication that the draw verdict was a "complete gift" for Leonard (no outcry over it), so I'd be kinda curious as to why you'd say that.

What's your sources on that opinion, Pimp?

I'm just wondering because I've read a few sources on the fight, and from what I'm seeing they're all split right down the middle as to what happened or who got the better of whom in that one, with even those calling it for Lewis having it as a very close fight as seen by comments such as his "margin on points at the end was very slight" (Washington Post, Sept 24th, 1918)...

Ditto for those who had Leonard ahead, as they also seen it as a very close fight as evidence by their "lightweight champion had the shade better of Ted Kid Lewis" (Bridgeport Telegram, Sept 24th, 1918) comments.

The New York Times obviously saw it as a very close fight, as well, and in fact they saw it as a dead even fight, as evidence by their comments in their paper on that same date which read, "Leonard and Lewis box spirited draw", "pummel each other without advantage", and "honors were about even".

i.e. I've yet to read anything to indicate that it wasn't a very close fight, and I certainly don't see any indication that the draw verdict was a "complete gift" for Leonard (no outcry over it), so I'd be kinda curious as to why you'd say that.

boxrec says ted kid lewis should have won, i emailed a person from east side boxing and he read more about it and says the majority belive ted kid lewis won.

Listen pal, buddy i study pernell whitaker. I like the guy just as much as max kellerman does. I know which style of fighting beats pernell and it sure as hell isn't benny's. Pernell would have boxed his ears off and outclassed him from the beginning to the end.

When pernell whitaker was fighting, he was getting the same hate that floyd gets right now. Dont hate on the guys that are technically superior, they have every right to be cocky.

boxrec says ted kid lewis should have won, i emailed a person from east side boxing and he read more about it and says the majority belive ted kid lewis won.

BoxRec does not say Lewis should have won as they've listed five sources in total underneath, with two favouring Lewis (Washington Post & Calgary Herald), two favouring Leonard (Bridgeport Telegram & Middleton Times Press), and one agreeing with the draw verdict (NY Times)...I've read four of those (listed three, but the Middleton paper) and each one indicates the closeness of the fight (with such wording as "very slight", "shade", "honors even", "decision close"...that's the Middleton quote in Leonard's favour) and no where does it state either had any real clear advantage over the other...

But if you say the "majority" thought Lewis won then how about names of some different sources other than the five named (which are split 2-2-1), and how about a quote from them with some indication that it wasn't a very close fight?

BoxRec does not say Lewis should have won as they've listed five sources in total underneath, with two favouring Lewis (Washington Post & Calgary Herald), two favouring Leonard (Bridgeport Telegram & Middleton Times Press), and one agreeing with the draw verdict (NY Times)...I've read four of those (listed three, but the Middleton paper) and each one indicates the closeness of the fight (with such wording as "very slight", "shade", "honors even", "decision close"...that's the Middleton quote in Leonard's favour) and no where does it state either had any real clear advantage over the other...

But if you say the "majority" thought Lewis won then how about names of some different sources other than the five named (which are split 2-2-1), and how about a quote from them with some indication that it wasn't a very close fight?

You ignored the other part of my post. thanx for hooking me up with benny leonard footage, now i know pernell would beat him. Thank you yogi!

You ignored the other part of my post.

Yeah, I did, and I'm sure that you can see that "the other part of (your) post" had nothing to do with the question(s) I asked you, of which you still haven't answered, by the way.

LOL at Brownpimp, who is notoriously selectively in the points he chooses to address in the posts of others, chastising someone for doing the same.

Comedic gold.

I would say Armstrong or Joe Gans.

LOL at Brownpimp, who is notoriously selectively in the points he chooses to address in the posts of others, chastising someone for doing the same.

Comedic gold.

Aaron Pryor is the type of guy that would give pernell whitaker big problems. Benny Leonard is not, you know it and i know it. Dont try and avoid the truth, bitch!:owned:

I say Duran. I mean ,once in his prime,he was unbeatable. He destroyed Dejesus in their rematch and rubber match. I just don`t know who could avoid his tenacity for 15 rounds... And don`t forget that Manos de Pedrias(spelling?) could go a hard 15 rds. Funny thing about Duran,he developed into a pretty slick boxer,too. Now I`m not talking abut the second coming of Willie Pep. But he could make you miss then make you pay. As a lightweight, he was nasty...

My grandfather fought Duran in panama for the WBA lightweight tittle but he was ko'd in 8th of 15

Any arguments against this?
YES!!! I will go further. Little bad ass Roberto duran The Man Was A MAJOR Threat To Beat Anyone From 130 to 160 n lbs.. Only Armstrong comes 2 mind. What a fight between those's 2's. He set the stage for ray to fight hagler. He fought toe 2 toe with marvin darn near won. Ray ran. DURAN U's R It!!! The G-Mike!

Yo, Boxing Scene No Doubt You's Have One Of The Great Boards Around. How's Bouts Stop Calling Me's Am Amateur U's Hurt My Little Fellings. Thanks A Bunch. Mikey!

Brownpimp is blowing smoke up you guys's ass with his so called love for Whitaker. He says he does just so he can later say "Look I love Whitaker, you know that, but so and so was better". He thinks this about Pryor, Mayweather, Camacho, Vernon ****ing Forrest, Cory Spinks, etc.

Anyways, the greatest LW of all time is Benny Leonard. Head to head is a different story though.

All fair but I wasn't comparing Duran's power to Trinidad's. This is a fantasy fight at 135lb, right? And I partially took back my claim that Duran would win by KO. To knock him out he'd have to dominate him, not catch him with a single shot.In other words, he ain't knocking him out.

My grandfather fought Duran in panama for the WBA lightweight tittle but he was ko'd in 8th of 15


Man, that was a hell of a fight. Thompson got him with some killer body shots. Too bad it didn't go all the way...

Lookin' forward to your next fight Willie!!

Any arguments against this?Yes. I know of a forumer - whose username includes the word "pink" - who could post a six-page argument against the legend of Roberto Duran. In fact, he may already have responded to this thread, I'm not about to search for his post(s). This guy's sole mission in life is to lurk these forums to vent his anti-Duran obssesion.

That said, Roberto Duran is not only the greatest LW of all time, he is the 5th. p4p greatest fighter of all time (behind, Robinson, Armstrong, Louis and Ali).

I say Duran. I mean ,once in his prime,he was unbeatable. He destroyed Dejesus in their rematch and rubber match. I just don`t know who could avoid his tenacity for 15 rounds... And don`t forget that Manos de Pedrias (spelling?) could go a hard 15 rds. Funny thing about Duran,he developed into a pretty slick boxer,too. Now I`m not talking abut the second coming of Willie Pep. But he could make you miss then make you pay. As a lightweight, he was nasty...Piedra (stone).

no argument he was and is the best light weight of all time and the best latin fighter of all time .4 titles in different divisions . chavez 3 arguello 3 morales 3 duran 4 the best. period.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

no argument he was and is the best light weight of all time and the best latin fighter of all time .4 titles in different divisions . chavez 3 arguello 3 morales 3 duran 4 the best. period.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Morales is not by any means one of the 4 best Latino fighters of all time. Replace him with Monzon.

Duh!!!?

Its Amir Khan.

Khan>Duran

My grandfather fought Duran in panama for the WBA lightweight tittle but he was ko'd in 8th of 15Mind devulging your grandfather's name?

Mind devulging your grandfather's name?

That would be the great Hector Thompson. One of the greatest Australian lightweights. Gave Duran a very rough fight, hurting him to the body a couple of times before being taken out in the 8th round! Thompson really only lost to the best guys out there at the time. He his biggest fight against Duran and his other big shot against Cervantes unfortunately.

Duh!!!?

Its Amir Khan.

Khan>Duran


Without a doubt! Amir Khan is the greatest lightweight of all time! No one can even compare. Duran is like a baby against Khan. His win over Earl was the stuff of legend and his greatest achievement!

That would be the great Hector Thompson. One of the greatest Australian lightweights. Gave Duran a very rough fight, hurting him to the body a couple of times before being taken out in the 8th round! Thompson really only lost to the best guys out there at the time. He his biggest fight against Duran and his other big shot against Cervantes unfortunately.Thanks for sharing that...

This is a rediculous thing to try to prove. And now someone claims that Hagler is the best middleweight ever? Says who? There were a lot of great middleweights, the division was probably the strongest one of them all. If Hagler (or any of them) was the best it was only by the smallest of margins.

Same with Duran. There were too many guys at lightweight who were AWESOME complete fighters. Duran also quit in the middle of a fight where he was being outboxed. I do not recall any of the other great lightweights doing this. And don't bring up that Duran was passed his prime or fighting at a higher than natural weightclass for him because heart does not fade with age. The Duran that quit versus Leonard was mentally the same as the lightweight who won the title from Ken Buchanan.
just remember that the same guy that quit against leonard is the first guy that also kicked his ass and that loss is the one that hurt the most .ha ha .!!

Duh.................................

YES, Duran at LW was unstopable

No question in my mind Duran was the best ever at lightweight. The only two I'd put in his class were Benny Leonard and Pernell Whitaker. Duran was a complete fighter. He could outslug you or outbox you. At Lightweight his power was dominating and his chin about as good as they come. It was rare I ever saw him hurt at that weight. Duran did all the little, subtle things that win fights for you but often go unnoticed because you have to really be looking for them to see them. He'd murder you inside or take you apart brick by brick from the outside. Wrap it all up with the greatest smouldering intensity I've seen in a fighter and you have clear "best-in-weight" fighter.

Poet

No question in my mind Duran was the best ever at lightweight. The only two I'd put in his class were Benny Leonard and Pernell Whitaker. Duran was a complete fighter. He could outslug you or outbox you. At Lightweight his power was dominating and his chin about as good as they come. It was rare I ever saw him hurt at that weight. Duran did all the little, subtle things that win fights for you but often go unnoticed because you have to really be looking for them to see them. He'd murder you inside or take you apart brick by brick from the outside. Wrap it all up with the greatest smouldering intensity I've seen in a fighter and you have clear "best-in-weight" fighter.

PoetIntelligent and concise analysis, as usual. However, I would beg to differ on your classification of Sweet Pea. I have a personal blind spot to defense-oriented-counter-punching boxers. My bias favors fighters who run with the wolves; fighters who take the offensive initiative.

I would never rate the Benitez, the Byrds and the Whitakers of the boxing world - no matter how skillful - in the top echelon of any category, except for when the overiding criterion is defense. As for the lightweights, I would place Joe Gans in the third slot behind Duran and Leonard (Benny, that is).

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TQqgwTWAxe4&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TQqgwTWAxe4&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4D_rDwzl05g&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4D_rDwzl05g&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4FPiQEgsYSM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4FPiQEgsYSM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Lightweight Pernell Whitaker.

duran the best 135 pounder ever

I believe so.

It's between Duran and Whitaker but I give the edge to Duran.

Yes he is.

The top 3 IMO are...

1, Duran
2, Mosley
3, Whitaker

"HBO commentator and world champion Roy Jones Jr. proclaimed, after Mosley knocked out John John Molina, "He's the best lightweight in history, maybe after Roberto Duran."

Its chocking to hear that no one even mentioned Benny Leonard most experts find either him or Roberto Duran to be the greatest lightweight ever

Its shocking to hear that no one even mentioned Benny Leonard most experts find either him or Roberto Duran to be the greatest lightweight everThat same argument could me made for Joe Gans. Leonard was (is) undoubtedly the best "pure boxer" of the division, while Durán retains the overall edge. Durán's boxing ability - limited though it might be compared to Leonard - is in evidence against Davey Moore below (play sig. video clip).

"HBO commentator and world champion Roy Jones Jr. proclaimed, after Mosley knocked out John John Molina, "He's the best lightweight in history, maybe after Roberto Duran."Whoopedy doo. His resume is pathetic at LW. He's not top 10.

Intelligent and concise analysis, as usual. However, I would beg to differ on your classification of Sweet Pea. I have a personal blind spot to defense-oriented-counter-punching boxers. My bias favors fighters who run with the wolves; fighters who take the offensive initiative.

I would never rate the Benitez, the Byrds and the Whitakers of the boxing world - no matter how skillful - in the top echelon of any category, except for when the overiding criterion is defense. As for the lightweights, I would place Joe Gans in the third slot behind Duran and Leonard (Benny, that is).I think we all know why you wouldn't rate Benitez.

I think we all know why you wouldn't rate Benitez.No need to be coy, Roy. We all (most of us anyway) know Benitez beat Durán. But that's irrelevant. The fact remains that I wouldn't rate an equally succesful defense-oriented (counterpuncher) fighter above a offense-oriented (aggressive) fighter, even if the former beats the latter.

No need to be coy, Roy. We all (most of us anyway) know Benitez beat Durán. But that's irrelevant. The fact remains that I wouldn't rate an equally succesful defense-oriented (counterpuncher) fighter above a offense-oriented (aggressive) fighter, even if the former beats the latter.
You don't rate them as high personally, in terms of favorites? Or you actually rate them lower as boxers in general?

You don't rate them as high personally, in terms of favorites? Or you actually rate them lower as boxers in general?Both characterizations (of my position) is accurate. Given the nature of Boxing, the primary objective is to inflict bodily harm on the opponent (offense). Minimizing or preventing one's own bodily harm by the opponent is the secondary objective (defense).

Fighters whose philosophical approach to boxing is offense-oriented are far more exciting (Dempsey, Tyson, Duran, Pryor), as opposed to fighters who are defense-oriented (Benitez, Whitaker, Byrd, Wright)

If you match two defensive boxers, you've got a waltz on your hands; if you match an offensive with a defensive fighter, you've got a cat and mouse game; if you match two offensive fighters, you've got yourself a war! (Gatti/Ward, Barrera/Morales,Catillo/Corrales)

In summation, everything else being equal, I place a higher premium on fighters who take the fight to their opponent. In the final analysis the foregoing is only a reflection of my personal taste.

Both characterizations (of my position) is accurate. Given the nature of Boxing, the primary objective is to inflict bodily harm on the opponent (offense). Minimizing or preventing one's own bodily harm by the opponent is the secondary objective (defense).

Fighters whose philosophical approach to boxing is offense-oriented are far more exciting (Dempsey, Tyson, Duran, Pryor), as opposed to fighters who are defense-oriented (Benitez, Whitaker, Byrd, Wright)

If you match two defensive boxers, you've got a waltz on your hands; if you match an offensive with a defensive fighter, you've got a cat and mouse game; if you match two offensive fighters, you've got yourself a war! (Gatti/Ward, Barrera/Morales,Catillo/Corrales)

In summation, everything else being equal, I place a higher premium on fighters who take the fight to their opponent. In the final analysis the foregoing is only a reflection of my personal taste.
So do you then rate someone like Diego Corrales a greater fighter than someone like Pernell Whitaker, despite the fact that he was nowhere near as effective?

if you match two offensive fighters, you've got yourself a war! (Gatti/Ward, Barrera/Morales,Catillo/Corrales)

Not always...

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1WO2JnGKJh4&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1WO2JnGKJh4&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Duran vs Hagler

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oNvSfmtTeDA&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oNvSfmtTeDA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Wilfred Benitez vs Maurice Hope

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4D_rDwzl05g&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4D_rDwzl05g&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Whitaker vs Nazario

So do you then rate someone like Diego Corrales a greater fighter than someone like Pernell Whitaker, despite the fact that he was nowhere near as effective?Not necessarily, as I'm not familiar enough with the records of either fighter to make an immediate judgement. But that aside, it seems like language is getting in the way of communication here. Revisit, if you will, my self-quote below with emphasis on the red print. I use aggressiveness as a tie-breaker, if two fighters are equally talented or succesful in every other aspect, I'd rate the fellow who initiates the hostilities in the ring above the other. I can't make it any clearer than that.



In summation, everything else being equal, I place a higher premium on fighters who take the fight to their opponent. In the final analysis the foregoing is only a reflection of my personal taste.

Not necessarily, as I'm not familiar enough with the records of either fighter to make an immediate judgement. But that aside, it seems like language is getting in the way of communication here. Revisit, if you will, my self-quote below with emphasis on the red print. I use aggressiveness as a tie-breaker, if two fighters are equally talented or succesful in every other aspect, I'd rate the fellow who initiates the hostilities in the ring above the other. I can't make it any clearer than that.
Gotcha. I personally disagree, but I now get your point.

Gotcha. I personally disagree, but I now get your point.Cool. So we agree to disagree. That's what the forum's all about...

Peace. ;)

Duran is by far the greatest lightweight ever. His only loss to Esteban De Jesus was avenged twice. As a lightweight he was a perfect wrecking machine.

It shows the ability of the man that he was able to go up as high as Middleweight and still compete with the best in that division.

Awesome fighter, those who judge him purely against the likes of Benitez, Leonard, Hagler and Hearns should imagine the likes of Juan Diaz fighting the likes of Kelly Pavlik. Pavlik would be arrested for murder whilst Duran was able to compete with those fighters!

Cool. So we agree to disagree. That's what the forum's all about...

Peace. ;)

Honestly I think it's not something where either is right or wrong but rather a diasagreement over something that comes down to personal taste. Some people like aggressive fighters some like slick boxers. It doesn't make one better than the other it's just what a particular observer prefers. Personally I don't have a prediliction one way or the other: I've been watching boxing for so long I've come to apprecriate all styles. Well, that's an exaggeration: John Ruiz type clutchers and grabbers I've yet to appreciate :D

Poet

Honestly I think it's not something where either is right or wrong but rather a diasagreement over something that comes down to personal taste. Some people like aggressive fighters some like slick boxers. It doesn't make one better than the other it's just what a particular observer prefers. Personally I don't have a prediliction one way or the other: I've been watching boxing for so long I've come to apprecriate all styles. Well, that's an exaggeration: John Ruiz type clutchers and grabbers I've yet to appreciate :D

PoetSweet Pete specifically disagreed with my tie-breaker criterion for rating fighters of virtually equal success. I too, like you, appreciate all styles (even octopi like Ruiz), I just prefer fighters whose styles are condusive to exciting fights.

As I alluded to before, there are - in essence - three basic types of matches, which I rate thusly:

Predator vs. predator
Predator vs. prey
Prey vs. preyThe first is usually a barn-burner, the second can be rather interesting, but the third's a real snoozer.

Below is a typical example of a predator vs. prey fight

UYUC3NnaH8I

No Benny Leonard was. Duran is top 5 all time tho.

No Benny Leonard was. Duran is top 5 all time tho.The words in bold text is an incomplete sentence, which makes no sense. Please complete your thought. As for Duran being "top 5 all time" do you mean as a lightweight, or pound for pound? Please clarify. Thanks.

The words in bold text is an incomplete sentence, which makes no sense. Please complete your thought. As for Duran being "top 5 all time" do you mean as a lightweight, or pound for pound? Please clarify. Thanks.

Personally I'd say both. Number 1 Lightweight ever and in the top 5 PFP. Yes, I think he's that good. I see him as the number 1 PFP fighter of MY time, losing out on a complete list to fighters who predate me like Robinson (the best fighter who ever lived in my book).

The poster does need to work on his syntax though.

Poet

^ id have 2 second that.....Duran was ahead of his time no doubt