The case for floyd higher on ATG list than Duran

[DuckAdonis]

Berto Lmao

[chrisJS]

Some good debates in this thread; some good points made on both sides of the argument. I was always a fan of Duran. I remember when he beat Carlos Palomino, and most of his fights thereafter. I recognize there’s a nostalgia element, but there’s also a “current day” element. It’s difficult to compare different eras in any sport, but one thing I’m sure of: the ATGs would’ve thrived in any era. They are/were special people.

For whatever it’s worth, here’s my two cents on this topic, in condensed form: Floyd benefited from marketing and matchmaking in a way that Duran simply did not. The “zero” was elevated to a degree never before seen under Mayweather. It’s a product of his propaganda machine. That’s not to say Floyd isn’t great, just that he’s managed to create an illusion of a greatness further than the reality. Perhaps the same can be said of Roberto, except Duran didn’t actively cultivate this image himself. In the end, I believe both belong on the top 25 ATG list, with Duran in the top ten, and Floyd somewhere underneath.

I think we will see a lot more fighters retire undefeated now which will dilute the accomplishment somewhat. Whilst I think Floyd is great he simply wouldn't have been able to navigate and manipulate his career in other era's. It's possible if Floyd had the same kind of mentality he would struggle to get a title shot due to being very selective and not beating enough ranked guys. Not saying that would happen but it's entirely possible given what we know about Floyd. Now, he may have acted differently in past generations. We don't know. Then if he got the title shot it would be vs. prime great guys which is something we never saw him face. Maybe he doesn't handle the adversity? Entirely possible. We don't have these question marks against most all-time greats.

I'll use a Cuban fighter from the 1960's for example. Luis Rodriguez. Look at how often he fought, who he fought and when he fought them. He was a great, great fighter yet held a title for three months only (got robbed vs. Griffith twice). He fought around 50-60 fights where the opponent was high quality and every single style and more often than not it was in their backyard and very often outweighed in middleweight fights. A whole lot of prime guys and guys that would have been champions for certain in this 5/5 belt per division era where titles are stripped and dropped with ease.

If Rodriguez had turned pro in 1996 and only had to fight 50 fights and not in the opponents backyard so often I think for certain he'd have been 50-0 but also would have beaten some greats/near greats in their prime like Trinidad, De La Hoya, Mosley, Mayweather, Pacquaio and to be honest even Hopkins and probably Golovkin.

Different era's and you've got to measure guys relative to their era when assessing all-time greatness. Too many noobs just look at the W-L column but then if you think Floyd is ahead of Duran you have to have Calzaghe over Jones or Marciano over Ali for example.

[CubanGuyNYC]

I think we will see a lot more fighters retire undefeated now which will dilute the accomplishment somewhat. Whilst I think Floyd is great he simply wouldn't have been able to navigate and manipulate his career in other era's. It's possible if Floyd had the same kind of mentality he would struggle to get a title shot due to being very selective and not beating enough ranked guys. Not saying that would happen but it's entirely possible given what we know about Floyd. Now, he may have acted differently in past generations. We don't know. Then if he got the title shot it would be vs. prime great guys which is something we never saw him face. Maybe he doesn't handle the adversity? Entirely possible. We don't have these question marks against most all-time greats.

I'll use a Cuban fighter from the 1960's for example. Luis Rodriguez. Look at how often he fought, who he fought and when he fought them. He was a great, great fighter yet held a title for three months only (got robbed vs. Griffith twice). He fought around 50-60 fights where the opponent was high quality and every single style and more often than not it was in their backyard and very often outweighed in middleweight fights. A whole lot of prime guys and guys that would have been champions for certain in this 5/5 belt per division era where titles are stripped and dropped with ease.

If Rodriguez had turned pro in 1996 and only had to fight 50 fights and not in the opponents backyard so often I think for certain he'd have been 50-0 but also would have beaten some greats/near greats in their prime like Trinidad, De La Hoya, Mosley, Mayweather, Pacquaio and to be honest even Hopkins and probably Golovkin.

Different era's and you've got to measure guys relative to their era when assessing all-time greatness. Too many noobs just look at the W-L column but then if you think Floyd is ahead of Duran you have to have Calzaghe over Jones or Marciano over Ali for example.

Great post. Great points.

From a skill standpoint, I don’t think it’s even a question that Floyd is great. His accomplishments and the men he faced are also laudable. But we agree, it’s all been manipulated to a degree that simply wasn’t possible in years gone by. Mayweather would’ve certainly taken a few losses had he fought in the fifties, for example. No question there either.

Rodriguez was a great fighter. A real pleasure to watch. Excellent example. The fact that “El Feo” held a title for so brief a time is testament to the era he fought in. As you pointed out, he probably would’ve done much better today. It’s just a different game. Men don’t take to the sport the way they used to. That’s another thing. The pool has shrunk tremendously, at least in the United States.

[THEFRESHBRAWLER]

I think Duran's name is fine being mentioned with them and I'd say it's a stretch to say he wasn't as good as Hagler and Hearns. Hagler's my guy but the fact Duran ran Hagler (in his prime) close when Duran was multiple weight classes up and years past his best is a great performance. This is the era of same day weigh-in's too so harder to do the weigh-hopping stuff. Was Joey Maxim better than Sugar Ray Robinson? I think the newbie fan mentality of today would have to say yes.

I think it would be fair to assume Floyd would never fight Hearns and Hagler and he certainly wouldn't beat them at 154 and 160 respectively. I don't think he'd ever get a win over Leonard either. You can say Duran is a coward and mentally weak but we still don't know what Floyd's mentality is like and that's astonishing. He was the shot caller in the sport in an era were the A side stuff meant most yet he never fought a great fighter near their prime. Maybe Floyd was just smarter when to fight guys? Floyd was never an undisputed champion for example.

Would Duran go life and death with Castillo, Maidana and washed-up De La Hoya in title fights? I really don't think so. Did Floyd ever win a title fight against an opponent as good as the versions of Buchanan, DeJesus, Leonard that Duran fought for example?

A lot of Duran's losses were non-title fights and fights well beyond his prime and his division (in an era where division hopping was way harder). Non-title fight losses in prior years didn't hurt as bad as the noobie fan seems to think. A lot of the time it was almost treated like pre-season games. I remember reading the way the great Carlos Ortiz talked about a robbery draw he had in Argentina against the great Niccolino Locche that he didn't even care he got robbed because it was almost like a practice match to him. If you look at Duran's title fight losses they aren't terrible - Benitez, Hearns, Hagler, Leonard and Joppy aged 47. Like I said I don't think Floyd was the type of fighter to even take those fights let alone win them. Especially in a day of same-day weigh in's and clearly being much further from his prime and optimum weight than all those guys.

Hagler was at the end of his career when he fought Duran. He fought 4or5 times after he fought Duran and was 5months away from being 30 and had been in several wars. I don’t think you can call that his prime.They said FM was ducking Canelo, Pacquiao, Mosley, Corrales and even Guerrero. And theirs loads of evidence to support that. Floyd never fought at 160 lmao why tf would he fight them at middleweight that’s like saying it’s safe to say Hagler and Hearns wouldn’t fight Floyd at 135, it’s just stupid to say that. He had 2 fights at 154lbs and none at 160 that’s like saying GGG would never beat Usyk at cruiserweight well duh that’s not his weight class and he’s never fought at that weight lol. You must of forgot that FM started at Superfeather Weight it’s ok because a lot of you do forget that. Would Hearns and Hagler beat him at 135 or 140? No!



FM was the lineal champion in two weight classes something that has only been done a couple of times nice try doe. Duran became a undisputed champion by only having the wbc and wba belt Floyd has held 3 belts at once and just like you said they were in a time where they had same day weigh in just like we’re in a time where sanctioning fees are 100% more than it was in the 60s-90s.


The prime excuse is just played out and not well thought. Did SRL and Hagler fight in their primes? Tyson-Lewis? Canelo-GGG? Rigondeaux- Lomachenco Joe Louis- Marciano Joshua-Klitschko? Pacquiao- De la Hoya? Where are all these prime vs prime fights happening??? Pacquiao was irrelevant when Floyd was moving up through weight classes talks of him facing Pacquio didn’t even begin until the late 2000’s and that’s facts. Non titles fights don’t count and didn’t matter? I’d argue they matter even more. How could you get a title fight if you keep losing non title fights? That makes no sense. NO fighter in the world has ever had that weak/lazy mentality.
Now you’re just making this up as you go. You are confusing YOUR opinion with reality and facts. Mayweather was 36 when beat Canelo.

Duran was 35 when he lost to Robbie Sims. Do you think a 35 year old Mayweather loses to someone like Robbie Sims? If we’re being honest and after looking at his record Duran lost to every elite fighter he faced.SRL wasn’t in his prime when Duran beat him but that’s his best win. His second best win is Esteban de Jesus not Iran Barkley imo. And yes Genaro Hernandez, Canelo, Pacquiao, and Corrales are just as good as the names you mentioned. Maybe just maybe you’re the noob boxing fan that you keep referring?

[chrisJS]

Great post. Great points.

From a skill standpoint, I don’t think it’s even a question that Floyd is great. His accomplishments and the men he faced are also laudable. But we agree, it’s all been manipulated to a degree that simply wasn’t possible in years gone by. Mayweather would’ve certainly taken a few losses had he fought in the fifties, for example. No question there either.

Rodriguez was a great fighter. A real pleasure to watch. Excellent example. The fact that “El Feo” held a title for so brief a time is testament to the era he fought in. As you pointed out, he probably would’ve done much better today. It’s just a different game. Men don’t take to the sport the way they used to. That’s another thing. The pool has shrunk tremendously, at least in the United States.

Yeah, he's one of my favorites to watch. Great style and head-to-head in mythical matches I think the only guy post 1960's I'd pick over him at welterweight would be Ray Leonard and that includes the great Jose Napoles and Tommy Hearns. Two guys I'd confidently pick against anyone at 147 - Trinidad, Mayweather, Mosley, Curry, Pacquaio, De La Hoya etc; Like I said I'd probably pick him against any middleweights post-Hagler with the exception of Roy Jones.

I think he won all four Griffith fights. It's sad that history doesn't really reflect that.

It is indeed a different game which makes this all-time talk so difficult and often dumb. Mayweather fans have a tendency to throw it in your face and that you must agree with them but it wreaks of them selling you something they either aren't educated enough to claim or simply don't believe it themselves. It's not enough to be "great" they have to hear that he's the greatest.

[chrisJS]

Hagler was at the end of his career when he fought Duran. He fought 4or5 times after he fought Duran and was 5months away from being 30 and had been in several wars. I don’t think you can call that his prime.They said FM was ducking Canelo, Pacquiao, Mosley, Corrales and even Guerrero. And theirs loads of evidence to support that. Floyd never fought at 160 lmao why tf would he fight them at middleweight that’s like saying it’s safe to say Hagler and Hearns wouldn’t fight Floyd at 135, it’s just stupid to say that. He had 2 fights at 154lbs and none at 160 that’s like saying GGG would never beat Usyk at cruiserweight well duh that’s not his weight class and he’s never fought at that weight lol. You must of forgot that FM started at Superfeather Weight it’s ok because a lot of you do forget that. Would Hearns and Hagler beat him at 135 or 140? No!



FM was the lineal champion in two weight classes something that has only been done a couple of times nice try doe. Duran became a undisputed champion by only having the wbc and wba belt Floyd has held 3 belts at once and just like you said they were in a time where they had same day weigh in just like we’re in a time where sanctioning fees are 100% more than it was in the 60s-90s.


The prime excuse is just played out and not well thought. Did SRL and Hagler fight in their primes? Tyson-Lewis? Canelo-GGG? Rigondeaux- Lomachenco Joe Louis- Marciano Joshua-Klitschko? Pacquiao- De la Hoya? Where are all these prime vs prime fights happening??? Pacquiao was irrelevant when Floyd was moving up through weight classes talks of him facing Pacquio didn’t even begin until the late 2000’s and that’s facts. Non titles fights don’t count and didn’t matter? I’d argue they matter even more. How could you get a title fight if you keep losing non title fights? That makes no sense. NO fighter in the world has ever had that weak/lazy mentality.
Now you’re just making this up as you go. You are confusing YOUR opinion with reality and facts. Mayweather was 36 when beat Canelo.

Duran was 35 when he lost to Robbie Sims. Do you think a 35 year old Mayweather loses to someone like Robbie Sims? If we’re being honest and after looking at his record Duran lost to every elite fighter he faced.SRL wasn’t in his prime when Duran beat him but that’s his best win. His second best win is Esteban de Jesus not Iran Barkley imo. And yes Genaro Hernandez, Canelo, Pacquiao, and Corrales are just as good as the names you mentioned. Maybe just maybe you’re the noob boxing fan that you keep referring?

Hagler was in his prime. Name the "wars" he had been in. Hagler at that point was a dominant boxer-puncher not the guy that went to war with Hearns and Mugabi. He was beating most guys by outboxing them and then finishing them off.

Genaro Hernandez and Diego Corrales weren't nearly as good as Ken Buchanan LOL. Buchanan is enshrined into the IBHOF and holds wins over the great Ismael Laguna. Hernandez (who I love and know people in his family personally) will not enter and isn't in Buchanan's class. Corrales isn't on the ballot even which you'd think he would be given that he died and is a recent name involved in savage fights but he rightly isn't.

Sugar Ray wasn't prime? Huh? He'd already defeated the great Wilfred Benitez and the very next year defeated the great Tommy Hearns. Even a non-prime Leonard I think is better than Mayweather's best 5 opponents combined. A green Canelo at a catchweight coming off a debatable win over Austin Trout isn't a special fighter either.

I know Floyd started at 130. I was a fan then since the Olympics. I followed his whole career but lost interest around 2003/2004. When did you start watching Floyd as a fan? Have you researched and watched these other era's in depth?

[New England]

Older generation fighters are always over rated. I think BoxRec has the most accurate ATG rankings and Duran is not even in the top25. For some reason fans thinks losses don’t matter when it comes to their favorite fighters lol.

boxrec used a point system last time i checked. it's a terrible list.


roberto duran is one of the 10 best boxers of all time. floyd definitely is not. he was a terrific fighter, but duran fought for decades, had more than twice as many fights, and has flat out better wins. main difference is that you don't recognize the name of contenders from the 70's or 80s, and you do recognize the names floyd fought.

a 7 year lightweight champion beating ray leonard in his prime is probably the best win in boxing history.

[THEFRESHBRAWLER]

Sugar Ray wasn't prime? Huh? He'd already defeated the great Wilfred Benitez and the very next year defeated the great Tommy Hearns. Even a non-prime Leonard I think is better than Mayweather's best 5 opponents combined. A green Canelo at a catchweight coming off a debatable win over

So how was SRL at age 24 with 27 wins in his prime? Canelo with 45fights and wins over undefeated Trout and HOF Mosley is not though lmaoooo that just shows your biased and nostalgia for older fighters. Canelo is just a catchweight fighter can’t blame Floyd for that. I believe he fought at catchweight 5 more times after he face Floyd

[chrisJS]

So how was SRL at age 24 with 27 wins in his prime? Canelo with 45fights and wins over undefeated Trout and HOF Mosley is not though lmaoooo that just shows your biased and nostalgia for older fighters. Canelo is just a catchweight fighter can’t blame Floyd for that. I believe he fought at catchweight 5 more times after he face Floyd

It isn't as simple as "oh he's this old and he's that old". Leonard was an incredible Olympian too and a stoppage win over prime Benitez (who peaked very young) was far more impressive than a debatable win over Trout (I felt Trout won) and Mosley being HOF is irrelvent. He was washed up. The same Mosley was stopped by Bumdine. You just have to watch the fights to know Leonard is better than Canelo can ever be.

Canelo never fought down to a catch-weight that affected his ability to make weight again certainly not against a top fighter. He also got a gift win over Lara afterwards and Lara isn't as good as Tommy Hearns.

Be honest have you studied those era's and watched the fights in depth or is it mostly boxrec? I'm not saying this to be a dick I'm genuinely asking.

[THEFRESHBRAWLER]

Hagler was in his prime. Name the "wars" he had been in. Hagler at that point was a dominant boxer-puncher not the guy that went to war with Hearns and Mugabi. He was beating most guys by outboxing them and then finishing them off.

Hagler has been in several tough fights before he face Duran. Do you not recall the first fight against Willie Monroe had another tough fight with Bobby Watts. Prime is just a matter of opinion anyway