View Full Version : Is Roberto Duran the best lightweight of all time?


Verbl_Kint
02-01-2005, 03:12 PM
Any arguments against this?

jabsRstiff
02-01-2005, 04:25 PM
No, no argument from me.

Ivansmamma
02-01-2005, 05:26 PM
No argument, he's the greatest lightweight ever and in top five p4p ever.

Floydmayweather
02-01-2005, 06:42 PM
He is defenitly the greatest lightweight he was a freak.

SweetScience
02-01-2005, 07:11 PM
Yes he is the best and there will never be another Roberto Duran EVER!

Floydmayweather
02-01-2005, 08:25 PM
No doubt, i even loved his kiss my ass attitude it was great. :D

fist-of-fury
02-01-2005, 11:36 PM
Any arguments against this?

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

SonnyJ
02-02-2005, 12:32 AM
yeah i just think that his ability to walk through punches was unbelievable

Tha Greatest
02-02-2005, 12:37 AM
No, no argument from me.


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

Eken
02-02-2005, 08:40 AM
No, I totally agree :)

Keleneki
02-02-2005, 10:07 AM
No arguements at all. Roberto Duran was the greatest lightweight of all time.

ghostdancer
02-03-2005, 02:38 PM
he can't be the best of all time leonard made him give up no maas

cple
02-03-2005, 09:04 PM
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.

jreng1
02-03-2005, 09:40 PM
i guess one more yes for Duran.

julDilla
02-03-2005, 10:22 PM
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

Sir_Jose
02-03-2005, 10:54 PM
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

mr. bojangles
02-07-2005, 10:28 PM
Duran was invincible at lightweight.

Yogi
02-12-2005, 02:14 AM
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.

Shaolin Bushido
02-12-2005, 02:22 AM
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 ****. 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.

joeboxer
02-12-2005, 02:33 AM
Hell Duran might be the best lightweight right now, and I don't even know how old he is.

Shaolin Bushido
02-12-2005, 03:14 AM
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.

ophqui
02-12-2005, 01:08 PM
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.

Kid Achilles
02-13-2005, 04:02 PM
You can argue that Benny Leonard, Armstrong, and Joe Gans were just as good, if not better. Impossible to say for sure.

chase
02-26-2005, 03:58 PM
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

morancito
02-28-2005, 08:15 PM
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.

Yogi
03-01-2005, 07:47 PM
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?

+= El Jefe=+
03-01-2005, 07:49 PM
Any arguments against this?


No Mas!!!!

Kid Achilles
03-01-2005, 10:24 PM
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.

Floydmayweather
03-01-2005, 10:53 PM
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.

The Phantom Menace
03-02-2005, 01:14 AM
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.

hellfire508
03-02-2005, 01:36 AM
i aint got no arguements with that....the guy was a genius.

hitman7hearns7
03-02-2005, 07:54 PM
the guy was unbeliveable
did u see his rematch 9th rnd ko of esta ba de jesus

chase
03-03-2005, 08:30 AM
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,

tommo
03-13-2005, 03:05 AM
OH YYYESSSSSSSSSS. Two words. HENRY ARMSTRONG

RipTheJacker
03-13-2005, 01:15 PM
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).

Craig#1
03-13-2005, 02:49 PM
my favourite of all time is Sugar Ray Robinson he was just a class act. ;)

arhoihoi
03-14-2005, 04:14 AM
my favourite of all time is Sugar Ray Robinson he was just a class act. ;)

yep bets p4p ever

BReal72
04-30-2005, 08:18 AM
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.

jabsRstiff
05-05-2005, 10:04 AM
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.

as214
05-05-2005, 09:40 PM
ANyone who quits during a fight for a reason that wasnt physical doesnt deserve to be an all time great

dino
05-05-2005, 10:29 PM
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

jabsRstiff
05-06-2005, 08:22 AM
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.

J !
05-06-2005, 08:26 AM
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.

jmctheone
05-06-2005, 01:54 PM
no fighther at lightweight could beat duran he was amazing!!

BEST LIGHTWEIGHT ever

Yogi
05-06-2005, 04:26 PM
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.

onetwopunch
05-08-2005, 01:14 AM
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.

czars_salad
05-08-2005, 05:47 AM
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:

Yogi
05-08-2005, 06:07 AM
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. ****, 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.

J !
05-09-2005, 09:04 AM
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.

RockyMarciano
05-09-2005, 09:35 AM
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

J !
05-09-2005, 10:06 AM
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 ****. 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.

Yogi
05-09-2005, 10:14 AM
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!

RockyMarciano
05-09-2005, 10:19 AM
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 ****" 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 **** out of him LMAO

J !
05-09-2005, 10:28 AM
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

Anghell
05-09-2005, 11:45 AM
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 **** 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.

fight fan
05-09-2005, 04:58 PM
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!

wmute
05-09-2005, 05:39 PM
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

cple
05-09-2005, 07:52 PM
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.

cple
05-09-2005, 07:55 PM
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.

thatruth830
05-28-2005, 03:57 AM
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?

The Italian Stallion
05-28-2005, 04:21 AM
I think Mosley could take Duran.

czars_salad
05-28-2005, 05:18 AM
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

thatruth830
05-28-2005, 02:40 PM
if thats an i dont beileve u statement ask me to proove it to u and i will

Tiredoldngrey
05-29-2005, 07:12 PM
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.

onetwopunch
05-30-2005, 11:58 PM
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.

Shaolin Bushido
05-31-2005, 12:52 AM
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.

IwatchBoxing
05-31-2005, 01:44 AM
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.

dmar
06-27-2005, 07:57 PM
Any arguments against this?
i think so..great talented division..if hes not the best most certainly in the top 3..

rge
08-10-2005, 02:19 PM
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

Sir Fancylot
08-10-2005, 02:41 PM
I rank benny leonard above duran.

TheEvilSaint
08-10-2005, 02:54 PM
benny leonard
julio cesar chavez
pernell whitaker
alexis arguello are all better lightweights than duran.

jabsRstiff
08-10-2005, 03:34 PM
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.

Briman15
08-11-2005, 03:42 PM
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 Troll
08-19-2005, 08:32 AM
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 ****.

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

IwatchBoxing
08-19-2005, 12:49 PM
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

+= El Jefe=+
08-19-2005, 12:51 PM
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

IwatchBoxing
08-19-2005, 12:56 PM
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

+= El Jefe=+
08-19-2005, 01:04 PM
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 ****, is hokins the greatest middle weight just because he held the undisputed title 20 times????

IwatchBoxing
08-19-2005, 06:50 PM
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 ****, 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.

oldgringo
08-19-2005, 10:17 PM
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

rocco1252
08-20-2005, 12:52 AM
200 fights says something!

leoz12
08-25-2005, 12:49 AM
no doubt duran rules

DMikeS4321
08-28-2005, 04:30 AM
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.

DMikeS4321
08-29-2005, 06:10 AM
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?

PerfectPunch
08-29-2005, 08:48 AM
it does, theres no doubt about it duran is the best and greatest lightweight in the history of boxing

Yogi
08-30-2005, 02:58 AM
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.

DMikeS4321
08-30-2005, 05:57 AM
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...??

DMikeS4321
08-30-2005, 05:59 AM
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.

Yogi
08-30-2005, 02:52 PM
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.

brownpimp88
02-24-2007, 11:13 PM
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.

American_Ninja
02-24-2007, 11:36 PM
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:

brownpimp88
02-25-2007, 12:04 AM
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!

Steak
02-25-2007, 01:23 AM
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
________
CHRYSLER PACIFICA HISTORY (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Chrysler_Pacifica)

brownpimp88
02-25-2007, 01:32 AM
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?

hemichromis
02-25-2007, 04:10 AM
i'm gonna add my name to the long list of people who agree!

hemichromis
02-25-2007, 04:13 AM
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

K-DOGG
02-25-2007, 10:54 AM
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.

kayjay
02-25-2007, 10:58 AM
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.

K-DOGG
02-25-2007, 11:03 AM
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.

hemichromis
02-25-2007, 11:41 AM
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?

kayjay
02-25-2007, 11:49 AM
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.

titoi
02-25-2007, 01:56 PM
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.

brownpimp88
02-25-2007, 03:55 PM
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.

kayjay
02-25-2007, 04:19 PM
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.

titoi
02-25-2007, 04:20 PM
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.

kayjay
02-25-2007, 04:32 PM
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

brownpimp88
02-25-2007, 08:09 PM
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.

Steak
02-25-2007, 10:39 PM
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.
________
RC211V (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_RC211V)

brownpimp88
02-25-2007, 11:16 PM
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 ***** and say why didnt he fight at 147 or 154. Well why didnt ortiz, canzonori, benny leonard or the others move up, like men.

titoi
02-26-2007, 12:18 AM
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.

brownpimp88
02-26-2007, 12:35 AM
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.

Yogi
02-26-2007, 02:36 AM
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.

brownpimp88
02-26-2007, 03:05 AM
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 ****y.

Yogi
02-26-2007, 03:26 AM
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?

brownpimp88
02-26-2007, 04:06 AM
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!

Yogi
02-26-2007, 05:59 AM
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.

Kid Achilles
02-26-2007, 12:10 PM
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.

Dempsey 1919
02-26-2007, 03:00 PM
I would say Armstrong or Joe Gans.

brownpimp88
02-26-2007, 03:03 PM
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, *****!:owned:

wdl1
03-16-2007, 08:41 AM
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...

KoolWillie
03-16-2007, 11:41 AM
My grandfather fought Duran in panama for the WBA lightweight tittle but he was ko'd in 8th of 15

gloriamichaelc
01-05-2008, 07:09 AM
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!

gloriamichaelc
01-05-2008, 07:13 AM
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!

Sweet Pete
01-09-2008, 06:01 PM
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.

Sweet Pete
01-09-2008, 06:02 PM
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.

BennyST
01-09-2008, 10:27 PM
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!!

Panamaniac
01-10-2008, 11:46 AM
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).

Panamaniac
01-10-2008, 11:55 AM
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).

boxing fanatic
01-16-2008, 03:33 PM
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.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sweet Pete
01-17-2008, 04:25 AM
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.

Onslow.
01-17-2008, 08:26 AM
Duh!!!?

Its Amir Khan.

Khan>Duran

Panamaniac
01-24-2008, 03:28 AM
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?

BennyST
01-25-2008, 10:16 PM
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.

BennyST
01-25-2008, 10:21 PM
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!

Panamaniac
01-26-2008, 01:11 AM
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...

boxing fanatic
01-26-2008, 09:31 PM
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 .!!

Nostromo
01-29-2008, 03:31 PM
Duh.................................

Cuauhtémoc1520
02-05-2008, 12:22 PM
YES, Duran at LW was unstopable

Ziggy Stardust
02-05-2008, 04:05 PM
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

Panamaniac
02-05-2008, 04:46 PM
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).

TheGreatA
02-05-2008, 05:59 PM
<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.

gibo
02-16-2008, 05:32 AM
duran the best 135 pounder ever

JL FightFan
02-18-2008, 07:00 PM
I believe so.

Silencers
02-19-2008, 09:03 AM
It's between Duran and Whitaker but I give the edge to Duran.

Tuggers1986
02-19-2008, 09:05 AM
Yes he is.

The top 3 IMO are...

1, Duran
2, Mosley
3, Whitaker

Tuggers1986
02-19-2008, 09:11 AM
"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."

SweetScience93
02-19-2008, 01:11 PM
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

Panamaniac
02-19-2008, 03:36 PM
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.

Sweet Pete
03-17-2008, 11:25 PM
"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.

Sweet Pete
03-17-2008, 11:27 PM
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.

Panamaniac
03-18-2008, 02:39 AM
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.

Sweet Pete
03-18-2008, 05:05 PM
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?

Panamaniac
03-18-2008, 07:59 PM
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.

Sweet Pete
03-18-2008, 08:26 PM
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?

TheGreatA
03-18-2008, 08:31 PM
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

Panamaniac
03-18-2008, 10:24 PM
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.

Sweet Pete
03-18-2008, 10:32 PM
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.

Panamaniac
03-18-2008, 11:21 PM
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. ;)

MickyHatton
03-19-2008, 08:29 AM
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!

Ziggy Stardust
03-21-2008, 12:44 PM
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

Panamaniac
03-22-2008, 05:17 AM
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

Darkstar
03-24-2008, 10:05 AM
No Benny Leonard was. Duran is top 5 all time tho.

Nostromo
03-24-2008, 11:10 AM
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.

Ziggy Stardust
03-24-2008, 07:27 PM
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

punishment25
03-24-2008, 09:48 PM
^ id have 2 second that.....Duran was ahead of his time no doubt

zelley
09-23-2011, 05:12 PM
Based one one poll in 1975 and other data these are the ones that Duran would have to beat to claim top lightweight spot: Benny Leonard, Joe Gans, Henry Armstrong, Ike Williams,
Freddy Welsh, Willie Ritchie, Carlos Ortiz, Ad Wolgast, Joe Brown, Tony Canzoneri and Battling Nelson. I think we could toss in Barney Ross for some variety.

In the p4p category, I would include Leonard, Armstrong and Canzoneri in the top ten along with Duran.

McGoorty
09-23-2011, 05:33 PM
No Benny Leonard was. Duran is top 5 all time tho.
I agree with Leonard and I don't mind Duran around 5..... After seeing 7 mins of Wolgast V Nelson...... I'm having a big re-think on this division.... what I saw in that fight were two hard punching, very quick and the pace they both fight at is unknown today unless you said Pacquiao............. these guys are fighting at a Pac-man pace, only they are in round 23 plus......... has to be seen to be believed,..... like Hagler V Hearns over 40 Rounds,.. yes folks, that's right, 40 ROUNDS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Barn
09-23-2011, 05:35 PM
1. Leonard
2. Gans
3. Ortiz (Shout out to IronDan.)
4. Duran
5. Whitaker

McGoorty
09-23-2011, 05:46 PM
1. Leonard
2. Gans
3. Ortiz (Shout out to IronDan.)
4. Duran
5. Whitaker
Oh I would have Duran ahead of Ortiz,... but to be fair,,... Duran never came close to fighting a LW in Ortiz's class.

SBleeder
09-23-2011, 05:49 PM
Putting my neck out on this one, but I rank Whitaker as the #1 LW of all time.

McGoorty
09-23-2011, 05:50 PM
1. Leonard
2. Gans
3. Ortiz (Shout out to IronDan.)
4. Duran
5. Whitaker
Whittaker ?.... I acknowledge his great talent,.. but this is the LW division.... in terms of greatness, I have Canzoneri, Wolgast, Nelson, Armstrong, McLarnin, Welsh, and a couple of others ahead of him........ but of course I have him ahead of JCC.

McGoorty
09-23-2011, 05:56 PM
Putting my neck out on this one, but I rank Whitaker as the #1 LW of all time.
Oh, you got that in just before mine....... I can't believe anyone can have sweet pea at #1, He couldn't live 20 rounds with Nelson or Wolgast and Benny Leonard would outpoint him and maybe knock Pernell out in anything from a 6 rounder to a 20 rounder... you have to take in a lot of things into consideration........ Like strength of opposition, and guys who had 150 fights or more and could go 40 rounds if they had to. These are things to think about....... Going 20 rounds is a far sterner test of how good a fighter really is.

Barn
09-23-2011, 07:17 PM
Whittaker ?.... I acknowledge his great talent,.. but this is the LW division.... in terms of greatness, I have Canzoneri, Wolgast, Nelson, Armstrong, McLarnin, Welsh, and a couple of others ahead of him........ but of course I have him ahead of JCC.
I could see Welsh ahead but, that's all out of that list.

Barn
09-23-2011, 07:17 PM
Oh, you got that in just before mine....... I can't believe anyone can have sweet pea at #1, He couldn't live 20 rounds with Nelson or Wolgast and Benny Leonard would outpoint him and maybe knock Pernell out in anything from a 6 rounder to a 20 rounder... you have to take in a lot of things into consideration........ Like strength of opposition, and guys who had 150 fights or more and could go 40 rounds if they had to. These are things to think about....... Going 20 rounds is a far sterner test of how good a fighter really is.
Lets not pretend they fought at the same pace as a 12 round fight for 20 rounds.

McGoorty
09-23-2011, 07:33 PM
Lets not pretend they fought at the same pace as a 12 round fight for 20 rounds.
What they were doing was fighting at a pace that I couldn't believe at the 23rd than I've seen Lw's doing in the 12th today,..... they simply never stop going at each other, and they are way quicker than anyone today gives them credit....... in action they punch very fast,.... they both had great handspeed...... their footwork was'nt dancing, and they were feinting a lot,...... there was a lot of deception displayed by Wolgast he'd make Nelson react as if to avoid a left and he's running into real short, quick right crosses...... I have to rate what they did over their careers and their ferocity over Whittakers and I think they faced much hotter competition than Pernell http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=460446

Forza
09-23-2011, 09:30 PM
1. whitaker
2. duran
3. leonard
4. canzanori
5. gans


*I put duran over leonard because I believe at LW he has a superior resume and would beat leonard 9/10 as LW was duran's natural weight class

IronDanHamza
09-23-2011, 10:28 PM
1. Leonard
2. Gans
3. Ortiz (Shout out to IronDan.)
4. Duran
5. Whitaker

Love that Barn!!

That is identical to my personal Top 5 Lightweight list.

New England
09-23-2011, 10:36 PM
in my opinion he is the best LW to ever live.


just a perfect storm of a fighter at LW

skills. physical talents.
chin.
titanic punching power
palpable will to destroy


LW duran is up there with prime louis, WW robinson, 60's ali, and very few others for the perfect fighter contest.



in my estimation duran is the best LW i have ever seen.

NChristo
09-23-2011, 10:53 PM
1. whitaker
2. duran
3. leonard
4. canzanori
5. gans


*I put duran over leonard because I believe at LW he has a superior resume and would beat leonard 9/10 as LW was duran's natural weight class

Duran's LW resume superior to Leonard's ?, interesting.
I thought there was no question about who had the superior resume with the big 3 LWs (usually Gans, Leonard and Duran) and it was Duran's and Gan's title reign and dominance that could argue putting them over Leonard's superior names.
I mean Leonard has Freddie Welsh, Jack Britton and Lew Tendler on his LW resume, who has Duran got that can match them 3 names alone ?, 3 HOF right off the bat then you can add Rocky Kansas, Johnny Kilbane, Johnny Dundee (Another HOF) etc, the LW division was stacked back then and Leonard ruled the bunch.

IronDanHamza
09-23-2011, 11:04 PM
Duran's LW resume superior to Leonard's ?, interesting.
I thought there was no question about who had the superior resume with the big 3 LWs (usually Gans, Leonard and Duran) and it was Duran's and Gan's title reign and dominance that could argue putting them over Leonard's superior names.
I mean Leonard has Freddie Welsh, Jack Britton and Lew Tendler on his LW resume, who has Duran got that can match them 3 names alone ?, 3 HOF right off the bat then you can add Rocky Kansas, Johnny Kilbane, Johnny Dundee (Another HOF) etc, the LW division was stacked back then and Leonard ruled the bunch.

Rocky Kansas and Johnny Kilbane are HOF'ers aswell don't forget.

Along wth Willie Ritchie aswell to add to the names you mentioned.

For me, the greatest Lightweight of all time has to be Benny Leonard.

His resume is in a league of it's own.

NChristo
09-23-2011, 11:12 PM
Rocky Kansas and Johnny Kilbane are HOF'ers aswell don't forget.

Along wth Willie Ritchie aswell to add to the names you mentioned.

For me, the greatest Lightweight of all time has to be Benny Leonard.

His resume is in a league of it's own.

Didn't realize Kansas was in the HOF, thought I put HOF next to Kilbane too, although he and Dundee they were HOF at Feather / Jr Lightweight and not Lightweight.

Leonard's resume at lightweight is just staggering.

zelley
09-24-2011, 02:45 AM
I think it is very easy to change ones mind in trying to pick the top ten and then ranking them on to ten. The various comments clearly indicates, it is near impossible to get
the same ten picked. The comments about rethinking after watching Wolgast and Nelson hit the nail on the head. When it gets to picking, in some cases it becomes a popularity contest and therefore the older champions are likely at a big disadvantage, but they shouldn't be if
we are to make a fair and objective selection. For many, DURAN is the one to beat for top spot, but he would have his hands of stone full if punching it out with the likes of Wolgast and Nelson. And, even a LEW JENKINS, if he brought his fighting heart and body into the ring would be deadly for any lightweight. Then, CANZONERI, I once watched a video of him fighting and he dancing side-to-side would of made it difficult for the best of them.

McGoorty
09-24-2011, 09:39 AM
I think it is very easy to change ones mind in trying to pick the top ten and then ranking them on to ten. The various comments clearly indicates, it is near impossible to get
the same ten picked. The comments about rethinking after watching Wolgast and Nelson hit the nail on the head. When it gets to picking, in some cases it becomes a popularity contest and therefore the older champions are likely at a big disadvantage, but they shouldn't be if
we are to make a fair and objective selection. For many, DURAN is the one to beat for top spot, but he would have his hands of stone full if punching it out with the likes of Wolgast and Nelson. And, even a LEW JENKINS, if he brought his fighting heart and body into the ring would be deadly for any lightweight. Then, CANZONERI, I once watched a video of him fighting and he dancing side-to-side would of made it difficult for the best of them.
Very good post, we are talking about THE division when it comes to depth of greatness. I like that you mention Jenkins, I don't know if he's the hardest punching LW ever, but I do know that he was THE MAN in his era when it comes to power. I have heard that his hand speed was right up there and he never took a backward step, although I suspect Wolgast would take his time taking a Jenkins apart. One thing to remember about fighters like Wolgast..... they are comets who arrive in a blaze and burn for 6 or 7 years, but that means that the wars take their toll on the body. As for Nelson, his wars were almost unspeakably violent and the Wolgast war must have been the end of Nelson, but he carried on like most old champions...... Nelson knew it wasn't fighting that would destroy him, it was retirement and NO fighting that he feared,... the ONLY thing he feared.

Panamaniac
10-08-2011, 05:25 PM
Any arguments against this?The last word... (?)
I would relocate the "is" in the thread title (above) and place it after "Duran"
Replace the "best" with "greatest"
Replace the "?' with an "!"
Result: Roberto Duran is the greatest lightweight of all time!

Barn
10-08-2011, 09:34 PM
The last word... (?)
I would relocate the "is" in the thread title (above) and place it after "Duran"
Replace the "best" with "greatest"
Replace the "?' with an "!"
Result: Roberto Duran is the greatest lightweight of all time!
Then he would be lying.

ghns1133
10-08-2011, 09:42 PM
no

but head 2 head yes IMO

Marchegiano
10-09-2011, 10:24 AM
hmmm. Well. I'll say it like this. Great can be chopped up plenty of ways. Of course the over-all greatness of Duran is not to be questioned. But the day Burke met Bowen. I feel they showed what greatness means on that day. I do not believe Duran, or any other fighter, would have made it from sun to sun. ....I don't believe either Andy or Jack would make it out of the first four rounds with Roberto but that doesn't change the point. To me endurance is the greatest quality, and the most endurant would be the greatest. It's a personal great. Excellent mention of **** your face Jenkins. Power's my second favourite quality.....I pseudonymed him **** your face......that kind of says it all. My point is Duran is probably the best for h2h challenges, but not always the best in specifics.

lightsout_finit
10-09-2011, 12:29 PM
Of all the lightweights I have seen footage of I'd have to say Duran was the best.
:)

New England
10-09-2011, 02:39 PM
Of all the lightweights I have seen footage of I'd have to say Duran was the best.
:)



cosign


it will save me a tangent

zelley
10-13-2011, 04:42 AM
it is thought that he was the best lightweight of all time, but he is recognized as an all time great P4P fighter due to the many titles that he won. I fought one of his lightweight tile
contenders twice in Golden Gloves action in 1968 so watched the fight between DURAN and LAMPKIN a couple of times. Back in the mid-Seventies, I thought Ray was winning except his hands were dropping what appeared to be heat exhaustion. Pacific Northwest dudes would not be used to fighting in the hot Panama sun in a 15-round or 12/round fight.

Recently, had a chance to view a video of the last couple of rounds, and once again it looked close even in the later rounds, but there it was LAMPKIN dropping his arms and was open for heavy contact and sure enough it happened with one round to go. Duran connected and the rest is history.

Based on this fight, I would like to think that DURAN is the greatest lightweight champion but based on this one fight, Duran did not show the stuff of the greates. He got lucky withthe heat and Ray's dropping arms. Any excellent top lightweight could have taken advantage of that situation.

Also, his victory over KEN BUCHANAN to win the title is clouded with the low-blow controversy. So that does not make Duran the greatest lightweights based on his fouling ability because boxers like LEW JENKINS, if they were at their top form, could give Roberto a real lesson in low blows, thumbing, choking and a few head buts. Would Roberto have the right stuff to keep cool or would be blow-it or quit???

Manos-de-Piedra
10-13-2011, 03:31 PM
i am the best

am am the strongest lightweight, i am more of a man

Panamaniac
07-17-2012, 03:28 PM
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.Not while at the lightweight level (the weight-class in question here), it used to happen later, most notably between the first two Leonard fights...

them_apples
07-17-2012, 10:18 PM
yeah no doubt. I'd edge him over whitaker at 135. too much of everything, I don't pick anyone over him in this weight class. Dude had a LHW chin and hit like a middleweight + speed and skills to boot.

rightsideup
07-17-2012, 10:24 PM
he is with out a doubt, skills ,heart the only place he is lacking is training habits

Daddy T
07-17-2012, 10:31 PM
i wouldn't back any lightweight ever over duran

BennyST
07-17-2012, 11:25 PM
Hmmmm, lightweight is way too stacked to say with any certainty. B. Leonard, Joe Gans, Canzoneri, Ortiz, etc. There are so many great fighters there, but Duran did show some freakish once in a lifetime stuff. Brilliant boxing skill, speed, heart, power, defence...at lightweight, at his best, he absolutely had it all.

His true greatness and top ten P4P ranking comes from his move up from 118 to 147 beating all those guys on the way and culminating with what is unarguably one of the single greatest wins in boxing history over Leonard. From there on it was mixed but up to that point he would have been favourite over just about anyone up to 147.

Anyway, Duran, Leonard, Gans, Ortiz, Laguna, Whitaker, Canzoneri, Brown, Buchanan, are all top lightweights but I think the top three are pretty set with Ortiz sitting right on the edge. He still gets underrated. Ortiz arguably has the best resume of all along with Leonard.

Optimistic
07-18-2012, 12:11 AM
Yeah, without a doubt imo.

Boxing Bob
07-18-2012, 01:05 AM
as hands of stone pointed out, I don't know if Duran was the greatest LW of all time, but there's not one LW I would ever bet on against him!

Mintcar923
07-19-2012, 03:48 AM
I love Duran and think he's great and all but Julio Cesar Chavez was just so consistent. He also seemed less hot and cold than Duran IMO when you look at the big picture. Also, I don't recall seeing him ever lose a fight at lightweight. But, then again I haven't seen many of Duran's early bouts being they were before my time...

Ziggy Stardust
07-19-2012, 04:10 AM
I love Duran and think he's great and all but Julio Cesar Chavez was just so consistent. He also seemed less hot and cold than Duran IMO when you look at the big picture. Also, I don't recall seeing him ever lose a fight at lightweight. But, then again I haven't seen many of Duran's early bouts being they were before my time...

Duran racked up a 62-1 record at Lightweight before moving up. His only loss, which he twice avenged by KO, was a decision to Esteban DeJesus who is considered a consensus ATG among boxing historians. Chavez was 61-0 at Lightweight before moving up but fought no ATG caliber fighters during that run. The closest he came was against Edwin Rosario and Jose Luis Ramirez who were near-greats rather than ATGs. Who's to say if Chavez had fought a three fight series against an ATG like DeJesus he wouldn't have dropped one on the cards to him?

Poet

miamike
07-19-2012, 04:22 AM
Duran is atop my list.

The Surgeon
07-19-2012, 05:18 PM
Quite simply put - YES.

What a fighter..... My Favourite non HW fighter ever and only trailing to Tyson and Louis at that

SBleeder
07-19-2012, 05:25 PM
Duran was an incredible specimen at lightweight, one of the most technically sound fighters of all time who could brawl with the best of them...


But I simply can't rate him higher than Joe Gans.

1. Gans
2. Leonard
3. Duran

Leonard and Duran are interchangeable for me... but there has never been a lightweight who was as complete as The Old Master.

Cloud
07-19-2012, 05:27 PM
Duran was an incredible specimen at lightweight, one of the most technically sound fighters of all time who could brawl with the best of them...


But I simply can't rate him higher than Joe Gans.

1. Gans
2. Leonard
3. Duran

Leonard and Duran are interchangeable for me... but there has never been a lightweight who was as complete as The Old Master.

I have Gans at the top too. There will never be another Duran though.

BennyST
07-19-2012, 11:38 PM
I love Duran and think he's great and all but Julio Cesar Chavez was just so consistent. He also seemed less hot and cold than Duran IMO when you look at the big picture. Also, I don't recall seeing him ever lose a fight at lightweight. But, then again I haven't seen many of Duran's early bouts being they were before my time...

He was hot and cold from the Leonard fight, ie 1980 onwards but up until then there has rarely been a fighter in history with such a consistent run of pure skilled destruction as Duran from 118 to 147. That's significantly more weight then Chavez moved up his entire career.

He also beat the greater fighters across those weights than Chavez, so it's pretty hard to say he was hot and cold. Definitely after 147 and 1980 but not before.

Panamaniac
07-20-2012, 05:34 AM
With very few exceptions - some of which are noted above - most reasonable people who actually saw Duran fight (live or video) at lightweight would agree that he was the undisputed best ever at that weight class.

Furthermore, he is ranked among the top 10 greatest of all time p4p by Boxing historians world wide for his full body of work. Were it not for the so-called "no mas" debacle, he would be among the elite top five (Robinson, Louis, Ali, Pep, Greb).

IronDanHamza
07-20-2012, 09:45 AM
With very few exceptions - some of which are noted above - most reasonable people who actually saw Duran fight (live or video) at lightweight would agree that he was the undisputed best ever at that weight class.

Furthermore, he is ranked among the top 10 greatest of all time p4p by Boxing historians world wide for his full body of work. Were it not for the so-called "no mas" debacle, he would be among the elite top five (Robinson, Louis, Ali, Pep, Greb).

I wouldn't say it's "Undisputed", considering Benny Leonard quite clearly has a better resume than him, at Lightweight. IMO.

And I saw Duran fight.

He is one of the greatest Lightweight's of all time, though. No question.

SBleeder
07-20-2012, 10:56 AM
I wouldn't say it's "Undisputed", considering Benny Leonard quite clearly has a better resume than him, at Lightweight. IMO.

And I saw Duran fight.

He is one of the greatest Lightweight's of all time, though. No question.

I would say that Gans has a better resume than both Duran and Leonard.

I've seen just about every Duran LW fight that exists out there, and he is indeed a phenom... but even the footage from the tail-end of Gans' career is more impressive to me.

IronDanHamza
07-20-2012, 05:54 PM
I would say that Gans has a better resume than both Duran and Leonard.

I've seen just about every Duran LW fight that exists out there, and he is indeed a phenom... but even the footage from the tail-end of Gans' career is more impressive to me.

I can't see how, to be honest.

I think Leonard clearly has the best resume of all time, at Lightweight.

I have Gans #2, though.

rightsideup
07-20-2012, 06:35 PM
I may be a little baised but I rank #2 behind robinson as the best fighter pound for pound and easily the best lightweight. I would really like to see footage of gans though.

JAB5239
07-20-2012, 07:43 PM
I may be a little baised but I rank #2 behind robinson as the best fighter pound for pound and easily the best lightweight. I would really like to see footage of gans though.

Easily the best lightweight? I don't see how you can just put him head and shoulders above Leonard and Gans. As far as p4p....he doesn't have the resume to be in the top 5.