Is Roberto Duran the best lightweight of all time?

[Panamaniac]

No sour g****s here...

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]

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]

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]

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]

if you match two offensive fighters, you've got yourself a war! (Gatti/Ward, Barrera/Morales,Catillo/Corrales)

Not always...


Duran vs Hagler


Wilfred Benitez vs Maurice Hope


Whitaker vs Nazario

[Panamaniac]

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]

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]

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]

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!

[Poet682006]

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

Poet