Is Duran the greatest fighter still alive today?

[Marchegiano]

Im havng a hard time conceptualizing the category, but I agree with the sentiments regarding Duran. leonard definitely is close... Mayweather canelo and imo Andre Ward, are like great wines that need more time to mellow before they are judged... Interesting enough I don't rate pac as highly. Manny is exceptional but uses a SouthEast Asian kickboxing style that is crude and linear. It made him somewhat a "one gear" fighter, who lost a lot and could be overcome by fighters with more skills like marquez.

That's because it's Spinks brah

[Willie Pep 229]

That's because it's Spinks brah

He's a strong argument - so tarnished by one outing; unfair.

[billeau2]

The MQ rules were safety measures and weren't created to score fights or establish decision winners.

Decision fights is a "gift" from the gamblers.

Counting "points' is a perversion that crept into the game as Amerrica became apologetic for the fight game. We now play this silly game where one fighter sticks a stiff left jab in to another man's face and some idiot yells out 'he's scoring points.' Points?

All so we can pretend it's a sporting event and hide from the reality that it is a fist fight; it's a damn fist fight, not an amateur athletic competition.

I watched the the Marciano-Walcott fight with Dan Dumphrey announcing. Once, and only once, around the eighth round did he comment that the judges probably have Walcott ahead. Only one mention of the judges, can you imagine that?

He NEVER once used that silly word 'points' -- he called the fight in front of him and didn't try to pretend it was a sporting event, he called it a fight.

"Points" -- damn what a perversion of the game that has become.

Maybe we need need two different businesses: 'professional boxing' where you can count things and 'prize fighting' where I can watch a fight.

Your perspective is invigorating and fresh Pep. I would take a position here that tones down some of your rhetoric but makes a similar point: The Ammy style versus professional prize fighting. I have often said even back mid 1800's trainers were cursing the ammy style that relied upon using the weak hand for sustenance and did not commit to using the cross, the power hand, movement, etc. The Ammy style remains about points and it has become the style most professionals use today...hence no inside fighting, little foot and angular movement, no shoulder/head movement, etc.

I think your point is not merely a Polemic in this regard but is in fact adjudged by fighters that do so little in the ring these days. Even boxers back in the day had to last 15 rounds in a championship fight with punchers...

[billeau2]

Good call bringing up spinks tho, second greatest light heavy for me next to Charles. He's very underrated and one of the greatest alive today. I agree tho Durand star still shines a bit brighter. Him beating Leonard was like Ali's win over foreman only the level might have been even a shade higher, both of them were damn near prime.

A lot of great light heavies... its an underated division frankly. Slapsy Maxie rosenbloom, Foster, Spinks, Conn, Tunney, Archie moore, and Michael Moore (underated talent imo), Charles and i would bet if you and I were sitting down with a beer we could come up with at least 5 more.

[billeau2]

He's a strong argument - so tarnished by one outing; unfair.

The Tyson fight? Shouldn't even count lol. Many of the finest fighters were light heavies but their performance as heavy weights has to be looked at with circumspection. Is Tunney a better light heavy because he beat Dempsey? Is Foster a worse light heavy because he lost to Frazier? Is Floyd worse of a fighter because he was never as good as when he fought @135ish? And before people assume the argument is absurd... Is Roy Jones great beause at around 160 he was a phenom? or because he could knock off a bad heavyweight like Ruiz?

My point is that some fighters are great because of all their work... Archie Moore, James Toney, Bernard Hopkins... Joe Rein loved Toney and I believe... can't speak for Joe here lol, that Toney could have challenged any heavyweight when he was fighting in that division. Didn't matter that his best weight was middle... Ditto for Hopkins who could fight up,or down...

Some fighters are great because at a weight they reign supreme. Tunney and Spinks were guys who could get bigger, smaller... but were never really heavyweights. They were just good enough to fight at heavyweight and win. And what I mean by that is if I had a timemachne and could do a fight to determine who was the best fighters I would want to see Tunney against Spinks, or Foster...Not Holyfield lol... Even if Tunney could beat holy!

[billeau2]

That's because it's Spinks brah

The Spinks brothers... the terror of St Louis... Every Dentist in the town were shaking in their boots hoping Leon would not stop by for a check up!

[HOUDINI563]

Tunney at a time before ROIDS was a highly cut to the bone 190 pound heavyweight. Very very low body fat percentage. Had he walked into the ring in the condition of most heavyweights today he would be a good 205 pound fighter.

[GhostofDempsey]

The Tyson fight? Shouldn't even count lol. Many of the finest fighters were light heavies but their performance as heavy weights has to be looked at with circumspection. Is Tunney a better light heavy because he beat Dempsey? Is Foster a worse light heavy because he lost to Frazier? Is Floyd worse of a fighter because he was never as good as when he fought @135ish? And before people assume the argument is absurd... Is Roy Jones great beause at around 160 he was a phenom? or because he could knock off a bad heavyweight like Ruiz?

My point is that some fighters are great because of all their work... Archie Moore, James Toney, Bernard Hopkins... Joe Rein loved Toney and I believe... can't speak for Joe here lol, that Toney could have challenged any heavyweight when he was fighting in that division. Didn't matter that his best weight was middle... Ditto for Hopkins who could fight up,or down...

Some fighters are great because at a weight they reign supreme. Tunney and Spinks were guys who could get bigger, smaller... but were never really heavyweights. They were just good enough to fight at heavyweight and win. And what I mean by that is if I had a timemachne and could do a fight to determine who was the best fighters I would want to see Tunney against Spinks, or Foster...Not Holyfield lol... Even if Tunney could beat holy!

We have to consider Spinks a full blown HW when he fought Tyson. He had already twice beaten Holmes and made easy work of Cooney. He had a much easier time with Cooney than Holmes did. All told he had four fights at HW by the time he met Tyson. Spinks is actually 6’3”, and was only 7 pounds lighter than Mike when they fought. Spinks lost that fight in the locker room prior to the fight. During hand wrappings, Butch Lewis made Tyson rewrap his hands three times. Third time was a charm, Tyson snapped and punched a hole in the wall in the adjacent room to Spinks. Spinks didn’t want to leave the dressing room. By the time he made the dreaded ring walk you could see the fear and hopelessness in his eyes as he climbed into the ring. He was a beaten man before the first punch was ever thrown.

[DeeMoney]

We have to consider Spinks a full blown HW when he fought Tyson. He had already twice beaten Holmes and made easy work of Cooney. He had a much easier time with Cooney than Holmes did. All told he had four fights at HW by the time he met Tyson. Spinks is actually 6’3”, and was only 7 pounds lighter than Mike when they fought. Spinks lost that fight in the locker room prior to the fight. During hand wrappings, Butch Lewis made Tyson rewrap his hands three times. Third time was a charm, Tyson snapped and punched a hole in the wall in the adjacent room to Spinks. Spinks didn’t want to leave the dressing room. By the time he made the dreaded ring walk you could see the fear and hopelessness in his eyes as he climbed into the ring. He was a beaten man before the first punch was ever thrown.

I think its less about not counting Spinks as a full blown HW at the time of the fight, and more about not counting Spinks work that late in his career and not at his best weight against him. As was stated, some have their greatness based on longevity and accumulating accomplishments on there way, and others based on height of their greatness at one point.

[billeau2]

We have to consider Spinks a full blown HW when he fought Tyson. He had already twice beaten Holmes and made easy work of Cooney. He had a much easier time with Cooney than Holmes did. All told he had four fights at HW by the time he met Tyson. Spinks is actually 6’3”, and was only 7 pounds lighter than Mike when they fought. Spinks lost that fight in the locker room prior to the fight. During hand wrappings, Butch Lewis made Tyson rewrap his hands three times. Third time was a charm, Tyson snapped and punched a hole in the wall in the adjacent room to Spinks. Spinks didn’t want to leave the dressing room. By the time he made the dreaded ring walk you could see the fear and hopelessness in his eyes as he climbed into the ring. He was a beaten man before the first punch was ever thrown.

Do we? Tunney beat Dempsey twice...Dempsey was probably around where Holmes was career wise...the weight difference between Dempsey and Tunney was probably similar to Spinks and Mike... yet Tunney was greatest at lightheavy. Cooney was always beatable and weight is just not the only thing that makes a bona fide heavyweight. Heres my point: To determine how great Mike was would I rather see him fight... oh lets say Liston? or Tunney?

I can't argue the point that on paper, your point about Spinks is correct. But I think some fighters are greatest in a weight class because it allows them to thrive. Usyk is a great example of this. When you watch him at cruiser he does everything! fights at all ranges, has head movement, angles, varies the speed on punches... BUT you also notice that to do these things he has to be very physical... his strength helps him use his finesse, so to speak. He just cannot do that at heavyweight. To me he is a different fighter entirely... head straight up, moving back and fourth in lines lika an amatuer fighter... etc. What he lacks is the ability to impose himself on the opponent like he could as a cruiser imo, which catalyzes ALL the other wonderful things he could do in the ring. I look at Spinks in similar fashion, albeit... its not necessarily the same issue for Spinks.