Tweet
Who do you put above Duran, if anyone?
-
13Yes38.46%5No but top 1038.46%5No but top 1523.08%3No but top 200%0 -
Who do have ahead of him. Armstrong? -
A case could be made ,but I think he is just outside it.Originally posted by mr mitts View PostComment
-
I have him top 5, but I do my rankings different than most everyone else, so it would be an apples to oranges type thingComment
-
I am surprised, but only mildly; it am a razor thin decision, at least for me. But it begs the question who then is above him. That requires an individual answer in each case. Since I am asking you who is ahead of him, it is only right I try to name/guess people I think might reasonably be placed above him by some of the folk here.
Robinson
Greb
Langford
Mayweather
Pacquiao
Leonard
Pep
Gans
Ali
??????????????????????
In short, I would like to see your lists up until Duran, if you will. I think I left out one name I had thought of yesterday. Anyway, if you will, please.Last edited by Mr Mitts; 08-05-2025, 03:32 AM.Comment
-
-
Whereas I feel only Greb, Robby, Langford, Armstrong or Ali might be ahead of him. Many a basis to argue on for all the others.Originally posted by IronDanHamzaComment
-
When I rate based on greatness, I tend to rate how great I believe the fighter to be based on their in-ring ability mostly while in their prime (though I do give some additional credence to longevity). Also I rate relative to their given weight class or classes. Whereas most seem to rate based on accumulated accomplishments giving special consideration to those fighters who move up in weight.Originally posted by Mr Mitts View Post
This leads to a couple stark differences between my ratings and others.
One, I try to take into account that not all fighters are given the same opportunities to accumulate a great set of opponents on their resume- this doesn’t mean that a given fighter is worse, it just means that their opponents were worse. I’d like to think I’d rate Muhammad Ali the same whether he had Louis’s resume or his own. Now obviously, having a more difficult resume makes it easier to fully evaluate a given fighter, so it requires some eye test and some research into the specific fight itself. But I prefer this method than just comparing resumes, as the latter is more telling of the era and possibly a fighter’s management and promotion- I’d like to think my evaluation is more about their in ring ability and what they produced than their ability to secure fights or the availability of opposition talent.
As it relates to weight classes, I don’t usually give a lot of credit for climbing weight classes (this is a big difference for me and others). Successfully moving up in weight in itself is not a proof of greatness for me anymore than dominating a given weight class- though it may allow a fighter to defeat better opponents and allow a more complete picture of their abilities. Though it may be indicative of having a better skillset, boxing is a sport- and ergo athletic ability matters. If you are able to make a given weight and be athletically dominant over fighters of the same weight class, then credit to you for that (although that’s why I like hydration clauses, as it keeps weight roughly equal).
I also heavily favor peak and prime over longevity, but I recognize that longevity should play a part in the evaluation. I just look more at how you were at your best, as opposed to how long you stuck around.
Like I wrote, it’s a bit different than what others choose to look at, and I think it may explain why I rate Duran so high. Different strokes for different folks.
Mr Mitts
Willow The Wisp
like this.
Comment
-
Top 5 by my concept of Greatness it tough, tough, tough. But Duran? Dammed near:
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Wille Pep
4. Muhammad Ali
5. Harry Greb
6. Joe Louis
7. Sam Langford
8. Benny Leonard
9. Roberto Duran
Mr Mitts
likes this.
Comment
-
why like Jimmy so muchOriginally posted by IronDanHamza
why like Benny so muchOriginally posted by Willow The Wisp View Post
Comment
Comment