what in your estimation prevents duran from being the greatest fighter whoever lived?

[JAB5239]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MikeBrew328]

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

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

[anto86]

he lost 2 many big fights against hagler hearns an leonard

[S.G.]

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

[KostyaTszyu44]

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

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

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

[JAB5239]

he lost 2 many big fights against hagler hearns an leonard

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

[LondonRingRules]

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

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

Two things I want to address specifically:

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

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

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

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

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

[Ernie M]

Possibly One man...Muhammad Ali

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

[Ernie M]

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

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

[mickyward5656]

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

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