The "Greatest of All-Time" Discussion

[The Old LefHook]

Nothing easier than counting the competition one by one for each man, is there?

[The Old LefHook]

Duran had an absolutely great ledger. But like Billy said, so did Armstrong and they fought more in those days. On an absolute count Henry faced more first tier fighters. Per capita did he fight more great fighters. That seems to be the question.

[billeau2]

- -You being a lineal, concrete thinker who can only see concrete in 2 dimensional directions.

I can see the concrete in your head... The pin especially. You make about as much sense in this post as an Eskimo looking to buy a fridge.

[billeau2]

Duran had an absolutely great ledger. But like Billy said, so did Armstrong and they fought more in those days. On an absolute count Henry faced more first tier fighters. Per capita did he fight more great fighters. That seems to be the question.

Part of the problem is because we don't have the tools to look at Armstrong's comp with the same level of scrutiny as Duran's we have to come up with some measures. I am going somewhat on what boxing historians declared at the time well into the reign of Duran... where both men were ranked highly.

Also, There are some incredibe fighters on Hank's list that are just not well known today. I mentioned them last post.

Duran has a great resume as well...

Heres part of Queenies problem...aside from the mental defects. He sees better records for many of Duran's foes. But that is a relative characteristic. Actually during Armstrong's reign boxing was strong and there were many excellent fighters with losses because they were fighting other excellent fighters. The whole sport had good quality and resources. With Duran like most modern fighters there are guys with great records who were not necessarily great fighters.

[billeau2]

Oh and one more thing

Lets not forget another statistic:

Armstrong fought 17 World champions and beat 15 of them! This was when there were only 8 divisions! So a championship meant something.

Now I ask Queeny to think this statistic through for a moment when considering competition. I did not mention his 3 titles that he held at one time... Titles are kind of a different issues. But what fighter has beat competition considered championship level at that rate?

That is a statistic that should seal the deal for anyone with any sense.

[QueensburyRules]

- -I never dismissed Henry's record. He could only fight who they put in front of him just like Duran, but for top level comp, Duran fought better, that's irrefutable.

[billeau2]

- -I never dismissed Henry's record. He could only fight who they put in front of him just like Duran, but for top level comp, Duran fought better, that's irrefutable.

There was a man named Queenie
T'was rumered he had no Penie

Duran was the better he wrote
and Armstrong the best he did smote

When tis obvious to any joker with a brain
Both men fought great men...Armstrong more of the same

therefore if logic is what we are to employ
obviously Armstrong is going to be our boy!

Ahh but lets not ferget that fellow Queenie
You know? the one minus a _____?

For in the gigantic world in his head
Logic has apparently been pronounced dead...

And this gigantic world one may ask:
How could it fit in the shape of a flask?

For a pinhead is Queenie true and tried!
One of a few, a real bona fide.

[GhostofDempsey]

In comparing Armstrong's record to Duran's, I'd call it about even in terms of world-class competition.

Armstrong's best wins were Zivic, Jenkins, Angott, Wright, Ambers, and a well past their prime Ross and Garcia. He also lost to Zivic, Jack, Ambers, Arizmendi, Robinson and some lesser fighters.

Duran's best wins were Buchanan, Dejesus, Viruet, Kobayashi, Mamby, Palomino, Leonard, Cuevas, Moore, Barkley. Lost to Dejesus, Leonard, Hearns, Benitez, Hagler (though he fought one-handed for ten rounds), Pazienza and Camacho as well as some lesser fighters.

In a head to head match up, prime for prime, I would favor Duran to beat Armstrong at 135 and 147 in very close fights. I could even see a trilogy where Duran takes two out of three. if someone says they favor Armstrong to beat Duran I wouldn't argue, I think they are very close in terms of greatness.

[The Old LefHook]

In comparing Armstrong's record to Duran's, I'd call it about even in terms of world-class competition.

Armstrong's best wins were Zivic, Jenkins, Angott, Wright, Ambers, and a well past their prime Ross and Garcia. He also lost to Zivic, Jack, Ambers, Arizmendi, Robinson and some lesser fighters.

Duran's best wins were Buchanan, Dejesus, Viruet, Kobayashi, Mamby, Palomino, Leonard, Cuevas, Moore, Barkley. Lost to Dejesus, Leonard, Hearns, Benitez, Hagler (though he fought one-handed for ten rounds), Pazienza and Camacho as well as some lesser fighters.

In a head to head match up, prime for prime, I would favor Duran to beat Armstrong at 135 and 147 in very close fights. I could even see a trilogy where Duran takes two out of three. if someone says they favor Armstrong to beat Duran I wouldn't argue, I think they are very close in terms of greatness.

What's this? Now Duran is supposed to have had a sore mitt against Hagler? I never noticed him fighting one handed against Marv. And I have never even heard the rumor before this.

[GhostofDempsey]

What's this? Now Duran is supposed to have had a sore mitt against Hagler? I never noticed him fighting one handed against Marv. And I have never even heard the rumor before this.

In Duran’s autobiography he claims he injured his right hand in the 5th round. Said he basically fought the rest of the fight one handed because he couldn’t throw the right with any power.