The overrated Roberto Duran

[Amazinger]

The best exchange of idea and opinion I've seen here so far.Keep it up guys!!

[Amazinger]

Duran is overrated by everybody over 20. Even more so by historians and people in the know. Ever wonder why?

You answered your own question already........

[rskumm21]

TS. Please give it up. This GREAT A dude obviously knows his boxing.

[HaglerSteelChin]

Well, with respect to Monzon who I also rate very highly, he never moved up at all. He lost three or four times in his one division. Duran lost once, avenging it twice by brutal KO. If Monzon had moved up to LHW or even HW, then that would have been the equivalent of what Duran did but he didn't. He stayed in the one division his whole career.

While Duran got outboxed by Benitez, it was one of his greatest performances during one of his greatest title runs and while it was his third division, it was Duran's eighth! Benitez was twenty four years old. He was over 5'10" with a 70" reach. Duran was well over thirty years old, 5'7" with only a 66" reach.

Not only that but Benitez himself is right up there as one of the greatest latin fighters of all time as well as an ATG. Why can one of the slickest ever boxers not outbox an older, smaller guy in his eighth division? If it's such a travesty why weren't more people able to beat Benitez? The only guy that had beaten him was Leonard at Leonard's natural weight and Duran had beaten him.

Monzon never left MW so you have no idea how he would have done against a much bigger, younger, skillful boxer that was also an ATG himself. The only ATG's that Monzon ever fought were half his size and old. The comparison doesn't add up. You would expect Monzon to beat those guys just as Benitez was expected to beat Duran.

I think he's very nearly the best MW but Duran's LW reign compares with Monzon's easily and he moved up to WW and beat two HOF, and a top ten/twenty ATG at his best weight and peak age and then moved up again and fought a bigger, younger, ATG at 154 who beat him.

I don't see how you can say that a true ATG shouldn't lose to another ATG that is bigger, younger and at an advantage in most areas by that stage of Duran's career.

If you're going to compare Monzon and Duran, you can compare their natural divisions.

Monzon had a record of 87-3 with nine draws. How many of those were losses but in his hometown? All were at MW. I know he had some interesting draws with guys like Briscoe in Argentina and many other draws with guys that were literal journeymen that he was meant to beat easily. Most of his losses came early, but he also lost to a guy with two fights and he was an experienced prospect by that stage. If Duran lost in his LW reign to a guy with only two fights and that guy went on to lose many more fights than he won, he wouldn't be considered the best LW by most.

Duran had about 63-1 LW fights, though he started out at bantamweight and had many fights by the time he got to LW. We'll include those anyway.

Monzon had fourteen defenses. Duran had twelve. Duran still holds the record for most title defenses at LW from memory. I think Hopkins holds the MW record now. They both unified their division.

Monzon's best win or wins were Rodrigo Valdez and Nino Benvenuti. Duran's were Buchanan, De Jesus and Marcel (if you want to include that as it was at 126 or 130 I think). Buchanan is in the HOF, Marcel was nominated for the HOF this year. Benvenuti is in the HOF. I'm sure both Valdez and De Jesus will make it one day too.

I look at their records like that as being very even. Monzon then retired as champion without losing as a champion at his weight. He had fights he could have taken and fights that people wanted him to take at a higher weight. Duran also retired as an unbeaten champion at his weight. After though, he moved up to WW beating the HOF'er Palomino and the top ten/twenty ATG younger, bigger Leonard. He then lost to Leonard at WW and later Benitez at 154. He would win another title at 154 himself beating the guy who then knocked out Benitez.

He then moved up and challenged Monzon's major successor in Hagler, and a guy who is usually considered the greater MW between the two, and lost a very narrow decision. He then later won the middleweight title as well.

HOw can you not understand why people think he is the great latin fighter and a top ten P4P? If you yourself have Monzon higher than Duran and their records look like that....

I am at lunch and wrote a reply to this and of course before i hit submit reply the pc froze and i lost the message.

The whole division thing is overrated. Iran Barkley won in three divisions does that mean he is better than guys like Aaron Pryor or Koysta Tszyu who fought at JR WW? Is Ricardo Mayorga better than a champ who defends his title 10 times simply because Mayorga became champ in two divisions. We live in Alphabet soup paper champion era. For example, some people count pacman's Ring belts at 126 and 140 as titles. Nowadays, it can be argued that Hector Camacho had 7 titles due to some of the paper belts he won at 154,160, and 168.

Duran lost to the two best JR MW's at the time Hearns and Benitez. The reach thing is a joke. Benitez even invited Duran at the end of the fight to hit him as he stayed in the ropes stationary. Benitez was simply a better boxer. Why you think Hearns went the full 15 rounds with Benitez and only needed 2 to KO Duran? Benitez made Hearns missed 11 consecutive blows at the end of RD 2 of their fight; he had a radar. In addition, the age thing is preposterous. Benitez was not a usual 24 year old fighter. He started to fight professionally at 15 and was world champ at 17 a record that possibly will never be broken. Guys who start very young to to peak at an earlier age. As a result, Benitez by the age of 26 was already past his prime. Mike Tyson in his 30's was not a shell of a fighter as he was at 22. Duran beat the guy that KO Benitez is incorrect. Benitez BROKE his ankle in the moore fight a fact you conveniently left out.

People say Duran beat guys with bigger reach. So did guys like Rocky Marciano and Jack Dempsey; guys you need to rate Duran higher than if you put him in top 10. Jimmy Wilde beat guys who weighed 100 pounds more; yet many put Duran higher. I don't think Duran is better Robinson, Armstrong, Louis, Pepp, Ali, Gans, Langford, Greb, Tunney, and both Leonards. Monzon beat a guy who was like 6 feet 5 and murdered him in 5 RDS. He also beat two great fighters at his same height. He went overseas and KO guys in their home countries. If you want to knock him for early losses than please knock Pacquiao for his early two knockouts. The fact is that Monzon never was Knocked out in 100 professional fights, and he had only KD his entire career. Duran was KD twice by Dejesus and even quit during a fight. Also lets not mention the Hearns massacre and NO MAS. Monzon was most interested in preserving his title defense record. The HW and MW divisions are the most fancy divisions in the sport. So why blame a fighter for trying to defend his title with record defenses? The guys immediately after Monzon didnt move up as well. Wilfred Gomez got murdered by Sanchez does that mean since he took alphabet soup belts at 126 and 130 he is better than Salvador Sanchez? Does it mean that great fighters like Sanchez or Monzon wouldn't be able to pick up belts with the current alphabelt system. Let's remember Duran won the WW title and had 0 defenses of it. He picked up the JR MW against a fighter who had 12 fights but lost to the best JR MW's Benitez and Hearns. He won his MW by a SD that many had the other way. SRL won at 154,160,168, 175 all in his FIRST try. Yet to rate Duran top 10 you likely would need to rate him higher than Leonard. I simply disagree with that.

Monzon's early draws were draws. Unless you have those fights in film than dont assume hometown cooking. It would be like saying the early Duran fights in Panama were hometown cooking. Also do you have the height and reach of all 90 plus Monzon opponents? I already name three that had the same dimensions or were bigger than him. I mentioned 2 opponents who had same height and reach and one guy who was MUCH bigger than Monzon. In addition, Mundine who Monzon KOD did become national champ at LHW, Cruiser, and HW divisions he wasen't blown up MW. Monzon was weight drained for years to make MW. Its speculation to say could he have beaten a Conteh, Tiger, or Foster. But i will say its likely that he would have won against one or two of those opponents. He definitely would have won at SMW if it existed at the time. It's also possible that Monzon would have done well at LHW since he was getting older and his body would have been more naturally at LHW.

Duran is one of my fav fighters and i have him #21 P4P which i dont think its an insult. I don't make an issue of his 16 losses but i do point out he lost to guys like Robbie Simms, Kirklang Laing, and did quit in a major title bout. Sugar Ray Leonard is my fav fighter and yet i wont say he is better than Henry Armstrong or Muhammad Ali.

Be back later; i know this discussion is just in the beginning.

[Method Checker]

He still won them didn't he?

So, you say that Pac beat more champions and elite fighters and did it in more divisions and yet he only ever beat the man down at 118, 122 and 126 or something.

That means, according to you that he only should be a champion in a few weight classes.

It also means Mayweather is a three division champion or something.

With your way of thinking there are very few titlists today at all in fact. I'm sure you use the argument that Mayweather is a six division champion don't you? I'm sure you say that other fighters are also many division champions with the same argument. Jones for example being the only guy to win a MW and HW title in 100 years or whatever. According to you then, he didn't at all. He never fought Lewis.

Give it up man, your views are skewed.

You make these claims out of nothing. When did I ever say these things?

Obviously you don't know what a titlist is. There's like 4 or more titlists in every division. Even more when you count regular champions, super champions, interim champions, champions in reccess, etc., for each division.

I only think of Pacquiao as a welterweight titlist. Not a welterweight champion. I think of Jones as a middleweight and heavyweight titlist. Not a champion.

That was a big false claim.

[Method Checker]

Well, I happen to disagree with that. Not to mention that Buchanan beat an older Ortiz. Brown was the reigning champ, although he had lost in non-title bouts and had won controversially against Dave Charnley, but the clear signs of decline were there, much like they were for Ortiz before he fought Buchanan. Brown never went onto be any good afterwards. I don't think it's the same as beating a 29 year old Joe Brown at the peak of his powers.

He was still the reigning champion and that's how I view it. You can say he was on the decline but that shouldn't take away the fact that Ortiz beat him.

People don't take away Jack Johnson's victory of Jim Jeffries, just because Jeffries was out of action for six years. They tend to rate that as the greatest victory of his career. I don't know about you, but I think Ortiz' victory over Brown is fair compared to Johnson's victory of Jeffries.

I'd call that an aggressive or ferocious fighter. The term "bully" can come off as negative. Kind of like saying Mayweather, Leonard, Whitaker are "clowns" or something like that.

Whitaker and Leonard were known to clown around in the ring. If you wanted to use that, I would have no problem with it.

That's fair. I don't necessarily have a huge amount of respect the likes of Carlos Monzon, Jake LaMotta or even Sugar Ray Robinson for some of the things he did as human beings, but that doesn't take away from their legacy as I'm sure you'll agree.

Agreed.

He wasn't really planning a brawl like it turned out to be. From the very beginning Leonard tried to stay in the middle of the ring and counter Duran's rushes but he wasn't successful in doing so.

He thought he could beat Duran toe to toe and he was wrong. I keep saying that it worked out very differently in the next fight. He used his speed, quickness and beautiful footwork to make a mockery of Duran.

When he didn't give Duran the opportunity to make it a brawl, he was the man.

It was probably Mayweather's best ever performance, however I'd say he would have still had a lot of trouble with Castillo even in that form.

We'll have to disagree on that.

I just struggle to come up with too many examples of fighters who were able to completely avoid fighting Duran's fight. Maybe Leonard in the rematch but Leonard was able to use his advantages in height and reach. He was also much more of a mover than either Mayweather or Whitaker. I imagine if Leonard had been Duran's height and fought him at 135, he would have had even more trouble holding off Duran than he did.

Leonard, although quick, wasn't a true defensive fighter. Whitaker is as good as it gets regarding athleticism in defense. Mayweather is pure technical defense and he works it masterfully. The both of them are fantastic at counter-punching. I just see them walking away with a decision victory.

No but a lot of times fights end up in close decisions that could go either way. See Cotto vs Clottey, people give Cotto credit for beating Clottey but the fight could have very well been scored for Clottey as well.

I don't think it would be that close. Duran would win some rounds but it wouldn't be a debatable decision fight.

I'd say that Benitez was more comfortable at fighting off the ropes than either though. In fact he spent almost the whole fight against Maurice Hope against the ropes and picked him apart, KO'ing him in highlight reel fashion.

As great as Benitez was, I would say that Mayweather's defense off the ropes was that much better. Plus, Hope wasn't near as fast as Duran.

What if it was not just a small headbutt but one that may have impacted the outcome, such as Hopkins's against Wright which caused a huge cut on Wright's eye, Trinidad low blowing Vargas after being knocked down and hurt, Benn rabbit punching McClellan repeatedly and possibly causing further injury...

Duran seemed to have Moore's number from the beginning so for me it was a legit victory.

They're all terrible fouls but that shouldn't excuse another foul.

Then again Arguello could have been damaged goods after the beating he suffered in the first fight which could be tainted depending on if you believe Pryor was cheating or not. I brought it as just one example but it doesn't have any further relevance to this topic.

We can save this topic for another debate.

I wonder just how competitive Pacquiao would be against Ray Leonard though. Could he have survived 15 rounds or if he did, would he lose one-sidedly on the scorecards? I think Mayweather vs Pacquiao will answer a lot of questions about both of their greatness, if such a match-up ever happens.

Pacquiao's defense has actually improved a lot, since the time he was a slugger. He knows when to use his speed and he's fantastic at counter-punching now. I'd say his defense his improved greatly, as well.

I also didn't see Hagler vs Duran as a close fight, whatsoever. I thought Hagler was the clear winner but Duran did manage to keep it competitive, at times.

I'd say he is better off at 147 than Duran was at 160. Pacquiao didn't seem to look any smaller than Cotto while Duran looked like a midget next to Iran Barkley. The size difference was absurd.

Barkley wasn't as great of a fighter as Cotto, though.

A lot of times there's no real proof about either view being right or wrong though. Especially in a discussion about all-time great lists. It's safe to say that everyone has a different one.

Where do you rank Duran on your all-time great list and do you put before him and after him?

[TheGreatA]

He was still the reigning champion and that's how I view it. You can say he was on the decline but that shouldn't take away the fact that Ortiz beat him.

People don't take away Jack Johnson's victory of Jim Jeffries, just because Jeffries was out of action for six years. They tend to rate that as the greatest victory of his career. I don't know about you, but I think Ortiz' victory over Brown is fair compared to Johnson's victory of Jeffries.

Personally I don't think much of Johnson's win over Jeffries. It's a great accomplishment in history because he proved wrong the racist notions at the time but in reality Jeffries was an old man who had drained himself to come down to 220 lbs. Even Jeffries's closest friends bet against him.

However Johnson beat the best of his time and young versions of Langford, Jeannette, McVea were tough opposition. If you asked me why I rate Jack Johnson over another heavyweight, I wouldn't answer because he beat Jeffries but because he was a dominant heavyweight champion for nearly 10 years and cleaned out the division before his heavyweight title run.

Whitaker and Leonard were known to clown around in the ring. If you wanted to use that, I would have no problem with it.

I think I would seem a bit biased if I said Duran only lost to a clown like Leonard and would have beaten clowns like Whitaker & Mayweather.

He thought he could beat Duran toe to toe and he was wrong. I keep saying that it worked out very differently in the next fight. He used his speed, quickness and beautiful footwork to make a mockery of Duran.

He would have beaten Duran had he been able to keep Duran in the middle of the ring as he planned to in the first fight. However Duran was able to pressure Leonard and put him against the ropes. Leonard's basic style at the time was to stand in the middle of the ring and set his feet to punch with more power.



Leonard did not fight a "******" fight in my opinion, he fought a brilliant fight and he fought the kind of a fight he had fought in almost all his previous professional bouts. But it wasn't enough to beat Duran the first time.

When he didn't give Duran the opportunity to make it a brawl, he was the man.

Of course he was faster, young with advantages in height and reach. There are few boxers in history who could have outboxed Leonard in the middle of the ring, especially coming up from 135 lbs.

Leonard, although quick, wasn't a true defensive fighter. Whitaker is as good as it gets regarding athleticism in defense. Mayweather is pure technical defense and he works it masterfully. The both of them are fantastic at counter-punching. I just see them walking away with a decision victory.

Leonard wasn't strictly a defensive fighter yes but it was his offensive abilities along with solid defense and awesome determination and toughness that made him a great fighter, greater than Whitaker and Mayweather for me. Leonard was the king at 147 and possibly the number 2 in that division all-time behind Ray Robinson, yet Duran was able to prove wrong the notion that a great big man always beats a great smaller man in their first fight.

As great as Benitez was, I would say that Mayweather's defense off the ropes was that much better. Plus, Hope wasn't near as fast as Duran.

I disagree. Benitez was able to make Hearns miss while trapped in a corner and he was not only very good on defense but he was great at counter punching and trading shots in close while fighting off the ropes. Mayweather on the other hand goes into his shell and tries his best to avoid punishment.

Benitez could win fights by fighting off the ropes only while I doubt Mayweather would be able to do that.

They're all terrible fouls but that shouldn't excuse another foul.

And I won't excuse any fouling but I'm putting it into a perspective. If you were to take away Duran's win over Moore for supposed lacing then you'd have to take away credit from other fighters as well who bent the rules to their advantage.

Pacquiao's defense has actually improved a lot, since the time he was a slugger. He knows when to use his speed and he's fantastic at counter-punching now. I'd say his defense his improved greatly, as well.

I also didn't see Hagler vs Duran as a close fight, whatsoever. I thought Hagler was the clear winner but Duran did manage to keep it competitive, at times.

His defense has improved some but I'm more impressed by his ability to take a punch. Early on his durability was actually suspect but that was probably due to weight-making. The judges actually had Duran ahead after 12 rounds against Hagler but I agree that Hagler won clearly, but it was also competitive. Much more competitive than anyone thought it would be.

Barkley wasn't as great of a fighter as Cotto, though.

No he wasn't but he was far bigger than Duran unlike Cotto against Pacquiao. I don't think anyone at 147 would tower over Pacquiao like Barkley did against Duran unless Paul Williams fights him. Duran was simply not at his natural fighting weight as a middleweight while Pacquiao has grown into a solid 147 lber.

Where do you rank Duran on your all-time great list and do you put before him and after him?

To be honest I don't have much of an all-time great list. I don't believe such lists are ever objective because there are many different factors you have to take into account, such as longevity, record, opposition fought, head-to-head ability. For example some people rate Bernard Hopkins over Roy Jones, despite Jones probably being the better fighter prime for prime, even if his prime didn't last as long as Hopkins's.

I'm mainly making the case that Duran has a solid case of being ranked among the top 20 greatest fighters of all time due to his accomplishments. You don't necessarily have to rate him as highly but it's not outrageous or overrating him to rate him that highly, in my opinion.

[Method Checker]

Personally I don't think much of Johnson's win over Jeffries. It's a great accomplishment in history because he proved wrong the racist notions at the time but in reality Jeffries was an old man who had drained himself to come down to 220 lbs. Even Jeffries's closest friends bet against him.

However Johnson beat the best of his time and young versions of Langford, Jeannette, McVea were tough opposition. If you asked me why I rate Jack Johnson over another heavyweight, I wouldn't answer because he beat Jeffries but because he was a dominant heavyweight champion for nearly 10 years and cleaned out the division before his heavyweight title run.

Ask any major historian and I bet they'll tell you that Johnson gets full credit over Jeffries. I do.

It's arguably the greatest win of his career and the greatest performance of his career.

I think I would seem a bit biased if I said Duran only lost to a clown like Leonard and would have beaten clowns like Whitaker & Mayweather.

If you worry about what other people think of you..

I'm just saying that you could describe that as clowns, if you want. I don't get upset over things like that.

He would have beaten Duran had he been able to keep Duran in the middle of the ring as he planned to in the first fight. However Duran was able to pressure Leonard and put him against the ropes. Leonard's basic style at the time was to stand in the middle of the ring and set his feet to punch with more power.

Leonard did not fight a "******" fight in my opinion, he fought a brilliant fight and he fought the kind of a fight he had fought in almost all his previous professional bouts. But it wasn't enough to beat Duran the first time.

If he didn't want to show that he could take Duran's punches and fight toe to toe, he would've adapted to his style and eventually done what he did against Duran in the second fight. Dance, dance and punch when the opportunity was right. He actually did have the option of doing that but he chose to go toe to toe. He wanted to prove he was brave enough.

Of course he was faster, young with advantages in height and reach. There are few boxers in history who could have outboxed Leonard in the middle of the ring, especially coming up from 135 lbs.

Thank you for admitting that Leonard would've been able to outbox Duran if he wanted to.

Leonard wasn't strictly a defensive fighter yes but it was his offensive abilities along with solid defense and awesome determination and toughness that made him a great fighter, greater than Whitaker and Mayweather for me. Leonard was the king at 147 and possibly the number 2 in that division all-time behind Ray Robinson, yet Duran was able to prove wrong the notion that a great big man always beats a great smaller man in their first fight.

Yes.. if he was given the opportunity to fight his fight. I've made that pretty clear, throughout my posts.

I disagree. Benitez was able to make Hearns miss while trapped in a corner and he was not only very good on defense but he was great at counter punching and trading shots in close while fighting off the ropes. Mayweather on the other hand goes into his shell and tries his best to avoid punishment.

Benitez could win fights by fighting off the ropes only while I doubt Mayweather would be able to do that.

Only when Mayweather was on the ropes would he not try to land that many punches. When he was on the ropes, he tried to avoid punches and that's basically it. Other than that, he would move around the ring and potshot. I think he has one of the greatest connect percentages of all-time.

Plus, take into account that the Castillo against Mayweather was bigger than Duran. Castillo had a one inch advantage in height and a four inch in advantage in reach, over Duran.

As for Mayweather, he had about a six inch advantage in reach and a one inch advantage in height. He would also be the bigger man, against Duran.

The Mayweather vs Castillo fights happened at 135. Mayweather weighed in at 138, but knowing Mayweather, I'm sure he could've stuck to 135 if he wanted, since he wasn't the type of fighter to gain that much weight after weigh-ins. Castillo weighed about 10 pounds higher than Mayweather. Meaning he was basically a welterweight fighting a lightweight, in that fight.

Given that it wasn't Mayweather's best solo performance and the fact that he wouldn't be outweighed by 10 pounds against Duran (considering the fight happened in Duran's time), I'm sure that he would've been that much better in able to get a decision victory.

And I won't excuse any fouling but I'm putting it into a perspective. If you were to take away Duran's win over Moore for supposed lacing then you'd have to take away credit from other fighters as well who bent the rules to their advantage.

I don't give Benn the full credit over McClellan. I don't give Margarito the full credit over Cotto.

No he wasn't but he was far bigger than Duran unlike Cotto against Pacquiao. I don't think anyone at 147 would tower over Pacquiao like Barkley did against Duran unless Paul Williams fights him. Duran was simply not at his natural fighting weight as a middleweight while Pacquiao has grown into a solid 147 lber.

You also have to take into account that Cotto was basically a middleweight, during the fight. He most likely went up to at least 154. Pacquiao hasn't been known to gain much weight, since he was a lightweight.

To be honest I don't have much of an all-time great list. I don't believe such lists are ever objective because there are many different factors you have to take into account, such as longevity, record, opposition fought, head-to-head ability. For example some people rate Bernard Hopkins over Roy Jones, despite Jones probably being the better fighter prime for prime, even if his prime didn't last as long as Hopkins's.

I'm mainly making the case that Duran has a solid case of being ranked among the top 20 greatest fighters of all time due to his accomplishments. You don't necessarily have to rate him as highly but it's not outrageous or overrating him to rate him that highly, in my opinion.

I was just curious, since you seem to be so protective of how I rate him. At least, tell me where you would range him. 1-5? 15-20?

As for me, I only have a top 10 list and Duran's not in it. I would put him within the top 20, though. I just think that the fact that he's rated in the top 10 is crazy.

[TheGreatA]

Ask any major historian and I bet they'll tell you that Johnson gets full credit over Jeffries. I do.

It's arguably the greatest win of his career and the greatest performance of his career.

Well, I discuss and read the texts of historians on a daily basis and not too many of them give Johnson much credit for the win. However most acknowledge that Jeffries did not want to give Jack Johnson a shot when he was in his prime and Jeffries himself stated that Johnson would have beaten him in his prime, which speaks of Jack Johnson's greatness. But Jeffries didn't have much left by the time he fought Johnson, he wasn't even more of a challenge than former middleweight Stanley Ketchel.

Most would also acknowledge that Joe Brown wasn't the same man he had been 10 years previously. I think people would do the same had Duran beaten a 36 year old Ken Buchanan, not a 26 year old Buchanan as he did.

If he didn't want to show that he could take Duran's punches and fight toe to toe, he would've adapted to his style and eventually done what he did against Duran in the second fight. Dance, dance and punch when the opportunity was right. He actually did have the option of doing that but he chose to go toe to toe. He wanted to prove he was brave enough.

Did he have enough left to change his tactics after taking a beating to the body in the early rounds though?

I'd compare it to Ali vs Frazier I, except Leonard was closer to his prime than Ali. Ali's strategy was to stand his ground against Frazier and batter him in the middle of the ring but he was dragged into a brawl and by the late rounds he didn't have enough left in him to start dancing. He had to suffer that loss in order to be able to adapt his tactics and beat Frazier in the rematch.

The Leonard who fought Duran would have beaten Benitez and Hearns that night. But he was unable to deal with Duran's style.

Thank you for admitting that Leonard would've been able to outbox Duran if he wanted to.

I'm saying that he had all the tools to outbox Duran. But he could never outbrawl him. So it came down to who was able to force the other to fight their fight and both were successful in doing that, Duran in the first fight, Leonard in the rematch.

Yes.. if he was given the opportunity to fight his fight. I've made that pretty clear, throughout my posts.

However I think Duran would have a much easier time competing with the likes of Whitaker and Mayweather in the boxing department because they weren't as big as Leonard. Duran was only unable to outbox men who were almost six feet tall compared to his 5'6-5'7 and 67 inch reach. Duran was a classy boxer at his best, just watch his third fight against Esteban DeJesus. And in a brawl no one could get the better of him.

Only when Mayweather was on the ropes would he not try to land that many punches. When he was on the ropes, he tried to avoid punches and that's basically it. Other than that, he would move around the ring and potshot. I think he has one of the greatest connect percentages of all-time.

Yes and if Duran were able to pressure Mayweather against the ropes and keep him there as he was able to do to Leonard, DeJesus, Viruet, Marcel, Buchanan, Floyd would have a more difficult time being able to deal with it.

People bring up Duran's loss to Benitez but don't mention that Benitez went up to middleweight and lost badly to a much cruder opponent Mustafa Hamsho than Duran who used the same tactics as Duran, except he was much bigger. Size does make a difference. Duran at 154 simply wasn't quite the force he had been at 135.

Plus, take into account that the Castillo against Mayweather was bigger than Duran. Castillo had a one inch advantage in height and a four inch in advantage in reach, over Duran.

Castillo was slightly bigger but Duran at 135 was one of the strongest to ever fight in the division. He relied a lot on his strength but as he moved up in weight fighters were able to match him in this category. Duran was a better boxer than Castillo and few could have ever beaten him in a slugfest at 135.

As for Mayweather, he had about a six inch advantage in reach and a one inch advantage in height. He would also be the bigger man, against Duran.

I don't think he would necessarily be bigger, just slightly taller with a longer reach. As far as strength, I doubt Mayweather would be able to match Duran. Even Leonard couldn't. Leonard had 3-4 inches in height and 8 inches in reach on Duran and he was a natural welterweight. I think Duran will have a much easier time dealing with the relatively small differences in height and reach against Mayweather.

The Mayweather vs Castillo fights happened at 135. Mayweather weighed in at 138, but knowing Mayweather, I'm sure he could've stuck to 135 if he wanted, since he wasn't the type of fighter to gain that much weight after weigh-ins. Castillo weighed about 10 pounds higher than Mayweather. Meaning he was basically a welterweight fighting a lightweight, in that fight.

Given that it wasn't Mayweather's best solo performance and the fact that he wouldn't be outweighed by 10 pounds against Duran (considering the fight happened in Duran's time), I'm sure that he would've been that much better in able to get a decision victory.

Castillo did put on a lot of weight after the weigh-ins, which is something that's different to Duran's era when fighters weighed in the day of the fight and mostly fought at the weight they weighed in at.

However while Castillo was bigger, he was not a better fighter than Duran by any means, although there are stylistic comparisons. Duran was able to outmatch Ray Leonard, a welterweight, in physical strength and thus I doubt Mayweather either would be able to hold off Duran if Duran was able to make him fight his type of a fight as Castillo was able to.

I don't give Benn the full credit over McClellan. I don't give Margarito the full credit over Cotto.

I wouldn't necessarily compare Duran vs Moore to those fights though. Margarito may have used loaded gloves while McClellan was clearly in a bad way against Benn and ended up being permanently injured.

You also have to take into account that Cotto was basically a middleweight, during the fight. He most likely went up to at least 154. Pacquiao hasn't been known to gain much weight, since he was a lightweight.

I don't know how much weight Cotto put on but Pacquiao was clearly stronger than Cotto during the fight. Duran was nowhere near as strong as Barkley, who came into his fights as a light heavyweight, but beat him with superior skill. Hagler too was a lot stronger than Duran and incredibly had a near 10 inch advantage in reach while Cotto actually has the same reach as Pacquiao.

I was just curious, since you seem to be so protective of how I rate him. At least, tell me where you would range him. 1-5? 15-20?

I didn't even know how you rated him until now, I'm just making the case that he can be rated very highly depending on how one rates fighters. Duran scores highly in many categories, such as longevity (fought from 16 years of age to age 50), dominance (the best lightweight for 7 years), opposition fought (fought absolutely everyone), competed in many weight classes (from bantamweight to super middleweight).

As for me, I only have a top 10 list and Duran's not in it. I would put him within the top 20, though. I just think that the fact that he's rated in the top 10 is crazy.

I think a case can be made that he's top 10. See for example Marvin Hagler or Carlos Monzon. They were dominant in their own divisions, as was Duran, but never went up in weight and mostly fought smaller greats while Duran took on great fighters who were bigger in size. That's one case you could make for him. Another would be that he was atleast top 3 at lightweight, scored a win over a top 3 all-time great welterweight, and went the distance against a top 3 all-time great middleweight. This is the definition of pound for pound.

[Method Checker]

Well, I discuss and read the texts of historians on a daily basis and not too many of them give Johnson much credit for the win. However most acknowledge that Jeffries did not want to give Jack Johnson a shot when he was in his prime and Jeffries himself stated that Johnson would have beaten him in his prime, which speaks of Jack Johnson's greatness. But Jeffries didn't have much left by the time he fought Johnson, he wasn't even more of a challenge than former middleweight Stanley Ketchel.

Most would also acknowledge that Joe Brown wasn't the same man he had been 10 years previously. I think people would do the same had Duran beaten a 36 year old Ken Buchanan, not a 26 year old Buchanan as he did.

Jeffries' humble attitude doesn't count for everything. A case can be made that Jeffries would've beaten Johnson, in his prime. The same can be said the other way around. Of course we'll never know for sure if Johnson could've beaten Jeffries in his prime, but you'll just have to give Johnson the credit for the win.

The same case can be made regarding Ortiz' victory over Brown. You can certainly make a debate that Ortiz would've beaten Brown had he been "10 years younger".

The point is, part of my rankings are based off of the champions/titlists they beat, the HOFers they beat, and their performances against those kinds of top fighters. With all that said and done, I give the edge to Ortiz ranking ahead of Duran, regarding lightweights. I do rank Duran higher on a P4P level, though. But I think Ortiz deserves to be recognized as the greater lightweight.

Did he have enough left to change his tactics after taking a beating to the body in the early rounds though?

I'd compare it to Ali vs Frazier I, except Leonard was closer to his prime than Ali. Ali's strategy was to stand his ground against Frazier and batter him in the middle of the ring but he was dragged into a brawl and by the late rounds he didn't have enough left in him to start dancing. He had to suffer that loss in order to be able to adapt his tactics and beat Frazier in the rematch.

Ali vs Frazier I isn't actually a good example. Ali had a lot of ring rust. He didn't have the legs that he used have, in order to dance around the ring. Add the poor stamina to that and there you go. He was forced to brawl with Frazier.

Leonard had the opportunity to either move and dance or go toe to toe with Duran. He chose the latter. He do think that he had the stamina to change his approach if he wanted to but he didn't. He wanted to show his bravery.

I'm saying that he had all the tools to outbox Duran. But he could never outbrawl him. So it came down to who was able to force the other to fight their fight and both were successful in doing that, Duran in the first fight, Leonard in the rematch.

If Duran wanted to brawl, it was his fight. If Leonard wanted to box, it was his fight. The thing is, Leonard was the one who was able to control whether it was a brawl or a boxing match.

However I think Duran would have a much easier time competing with the likes of Whitaker and Mayweather in the boxing department because they weren't as big as Leonard. Duran was only unable to outbox men who were almost six feet tall compared to his 5'6-5'7 and 67 inch reach. Duran was a classy boxer at his best, just watch his third fight against Esteban DeJesus. And in a brawl no one could get the better of him.

Both Whitaker and Mayweather had a reach advantange over Duran and I'm sure they would've been able to use it wisely. Plus, I see them punching and moving and then holding if Duran got too close and attempted to make it a brawl.

[QUOTE]Yes and if Duran were able to pressure Mayweather against the ropes and keep him there as he was able to do to Leonard, DeJesus, Viruet, Marcel, Buchanan, Floyd would have a more difficult time being able to deal with it.

People bring up Duran's loss to Benitez but don't mention that Benitez went up to middleweight and lost badly to a much cruder opponent Mustafa Hamsho than Duran who used the same tactics as Duran, except he was much bigger. Size does make a difference. Duran at 154 simply wasn't quite the force he had been at 135.[QUOTE]
None of the fighters you named were as good on the ropes as Mayweather. He slipped punches better than any of them and I'm sure he wouldn't even try that to a great extent against Duran. I can see him trying to tie Duran up a lot, to prevent any danger. Much like he did against Hatton. Hatton was the stronger fighter and pressured more than Duran.

Of course, Hatton's boxing or brawling skills are nowhere near Duran's, but the case can be made that Mayweather could deal with Duran's pressure.

Castillo was slightly bigger but Duran at 135 was one of the strongest to ever fight in the division. He relied a lot on his strength but as he moved up in weight fighters were able to match him in this category. Duran was a better boxer than Castillo and few could have ever beaten him in a slugfest at 135.

Except the last thing Mayweather would ever do is to try and engage into any sort of slugfest.

I don't think he would necessarily be bigger, just slightly taller with a longer reach. As far as strength, I doubt Mayweather would be able to match Duran. Even Leonard couldn't. Leonard had 3-4 inches in height and 8 inches in reach on Duran and he was a natural welterweight. I think Duran will have a much easier time dealing with the relatively small differences in height and reach against Mayweather.

Mayweather never really used that much strength against any opponent. He was always safety first and was all about defense. I don't know about you, but I don't think strength is required in order to avoid punches.

His reach advantage (5-6 inches) would help him greatly, against Duran. He has an amazing connect percentage and I'm sure his punches would find home.

Castillo did put on a lot of weight after the weigh-ins, which is something that's different to Duran's era when fighters weighed in the day of the fight and mostly fought at the weight they weighed in at.

However while Castillo was bigger, he was not a better fighter than Duran by any means, although there are stylistic comparisons. Duran was able to outmatch Ray Leonard, a welterweight, in physical strength and thus I doubt Mayweather either would be able to hold off Duran if Duran was able to make him fight his type of a fight as Castillo was able to.

I doubt that a 135 pound Duran was stronger than a 148 pound Castillo. Also, don't forget that Castillo had a bigger reach and height advantage, compared to Duran.

I wouldn't necessarily compare Duran vs Moore to those fights though. Margarito may have used loaded gloves while McClellan was clearly in a bad way against Benn and ended up being permanently injured.

I'm not comparing them. I'm just saying that I do take away some credit from those victories, as I would from Duran's victory over Moore.

I'm quite confident that Margarito used plaster against Cotto, given the fact that he tried to use it on a seemingly lesser and older opponent in Mosley.

Many people believe that the referee in the Benn vs McClellan fight was very biased. He allowed Benn to make the right fight. There's also a lot of debate about whether the fight should've been stopped in the first round and declared a first round knockout victory for McCellan, but I won't get into that.

I don't know how much weight Cotto put on but Pacquiao was clearly stronger than Cotto during the fight. Duran was nowhere near as strong as Barkley, who came into his fights as a light heavyweight, but beat him with superior skill. Hagler too was a lot stronger than Duran and incredibly had a near 10 inch advantage in reach while Cotto actually has the same reach as Pacquiao.

I wouldn't say Pacquiao was stronger than Cotto. I would say he had more power. In the first few rounds, they were feeling each other out. Pacquiao then knocked down Cotto and from then on, the fight was his. Pacquiao's power was simply too much. Not his strength.

I didn't even know how you rated him until now, I'm just making the case that he can be rated very highly depending on how one rates fighters. Duran scores highly in many categories, such as longevity (fought from 16 years of age to age 50), dominance (the best lightweight for 7 years), opposition fought (fought absolutely everyone), competed in many weight classes (from bantamweight to super middleweight).

It's all been said before but I don't buy into how it looks on paper.

I'm still awaiting the response of where you rank him. Either the exact number or the range.

I think a case can be made that he's top 10. See for example Marvin Hagler or Carlos Monzon.

I don't rank Hagler or Monzon as a top 10 all-time great.

They were dominant in their own divisions, as was Duran, but never went up in weight and mostly fought smaller greats while Duran took on great fighters who were bigger in size. That's one case you could make for him.

I respect the fact that he climbed up in weight and took on great fighters, but his record and performances against those fighters don't cut it for a top 10 all-time great. Perhaps you see it differently but I don't.

Another would be that he was atleast top 3 at lightweight

In your opinion.

, scored a win over a top 3 all-time great welterweight, and went the distance against a top 3 all-time great middleweight. This is the definition of pound for pound.

He lost in return to that fighter and lost against the ATG middleweight. I know it's a brave thing to do but bravery isn't a major factor in ranking a fighter.