Who is more skilled. Floyd Mayweather or Roberto Duran

[A-Wolf]

Seems like everything you said there confirms Mayweather as the more skilled fighter. Which doesn't mean he is better. Stop being dense.

Already trying to put me to sleep, eh? I am feeling sleepy.

[MJ223]

What does versatility have to do with pure skill? From a technical standpoint it's obvious Mayweather was more skilled. OBVIOUS. That doesn't necessarily mean he was the better overall fighter however. As a very scant few along with myself have pointed out, it was Duran's brawling instinct and inside fighting sense that really set him apart, in combination with very good fundamental ability and natural physical gifts. He had extremely fast hands and great power at 135. Skill alone doesn't necessarily make for a great fighter, it's a combination of many factors, otherwise we'd see nothing but pure boxers.

Everything Mayweather can do Duran can do..... Cant say the same vice versa

[TBear]

Ya, but several posters already pointed out the fact that a lot of new boxing fans do watch videos of older fighters.
I know a few people who are new to boxing, but their favorite fighters are not current fighters. My cousin is a huge Tyson fan and he has watched every single Tyson fight from his debut to Lewis. My cousin is 19 years old, so he's far removed from the Tyson era. Yet I can pit his Tyson knowledge against almost anyone and he will break down the individual fights along with Tyson's flaws, strengths etc.

We don't have to live in a particular era to have boxing knowledge of fighters from that era.

I know more about Ali and his fighting styles/tactics/techniques more so than I know about Pacquaio.

There is truth to this I mean I know alot about fighters from the thirties even though my parents weren't even born yet.
But I admit there is alot I don't know about that era and details about the fights even though I have them all on dvd.
However it is hard to explain why there is also a value of being there and/or talking to people who were. For example, twenty five years from now, do you think if somebody reads box rec and some articles and watches a youtube of Mayweather-Cotto that their understanding of the details, circumstances leading up to the fight and the fight itself will be equal to yours even though you were here watching it all unfold. Not likely.
As I said it is hard to explain but in twenty years when somebody tells you they know about it because they read about and watched it on youtube, you may find yourself being better at making it understandable to them than I am to you.

[Capaedia]

I consider the two wars that Ruddock had with Tyson better than anything Diego Corrales did, including that miraculous win against JLC who he than got Ko'd by in the next fight.

Corrales pulled out a win against the best lightweight of his generation, in a competitive fight that had just started to stack against him. He also beat Casa and Freitas (better than any actual win Ruddock managed)

Ruddock losing twice to Tyson is more impressive to you?

That definitely seems a little biased to me. Maybe not intentionally but you probably know more about Ruddock than you do about Corrales.

The fact that Holmes was able to give Holyfield as much trouble as he did completely abolishes the theory that he was done, yes he may not have been in his prime (in which he would have beaten both Tyson and Holyfield) but he was still a very good opponent.

How much trouble did he give Holyfield? Was Holyfield ever in danger of losing?

It wasn't a walk-over, but it was only competitive in spurts. The scores were rightfully not even close. He was just a good fighter by that point, nothing more.

The way Rey Mercer choose to fight is completely his problem, I could talk about the silly way in which Corrales approached his fight with Mayweather in which he already revealed his tactics before hand of letting floyd win the first three rounds and him being focussed on hurting floyd instead - which he didn't even do.

You're right, it is Mercer's problem, but Holmes benefited from it, certainly. Mercer was just a good fighter, nothing special.

Good win for Holmes, but it's been blown up as time goes by.

Is this is all you've got to support Holmes still being a very good fighter, a clear loss to Holyfield, and a win over Ray 'Headcase' Mercer (who again, lost to Jesse Ferguson two fights later)

What else did he do?

[Mr. Philadel]

Floyd is too hated for dudes to be fair....Duran was NOT more skilled than Floyd...no matter how you slice it...sorry!!!

[WolfGirl]

There is truth to this I mean I know alot about fighters from the thirties even though my parents weren't even born yet.
But I admit there is alot I don't know about that era and details about the fights even though I have them all on dvd.
However it is hard to explain why there is also a value of being there and/or talking to people who were. For example, twenty five years from now, do you think if somebody reads box rec and some articles and watches a youtube of Mayweather-Cotto that their understanding of the details, circumstances leading up to the fight and the fight itself will be equal to yours even though you were here watching it all unfold. Not likely.
As I said it is hard to explain but in twenty years when somebody tells you they know about it because they read about and watched it on youtube, you may find yourself being better at making it understandable to them than I am to you.

This is a very good post. I agree with you about the build up, but I also must point out actual memory of incidents like boxing matches tend to fade because it is still not the considered the most important thing for the majority of people.

What I mean is : You might remember your first kiss with a girl/boy, but you probably forgot what Lennox Lewis did against the ropes to Ray Mercer during Round 5, even if you were there live.


This is important and why I feel watching videos teaches you just as much if not more than living through the events.. At least in terms of understanding each boxer's flaws/strengthes.

I must go back to Mercer/Lewis again, John Scully the trainer who posts on both sites was commentating and he was one of the few unbias commentators that called it like it was. 7-3 Lewis.

Now a lot of fans who 'lived through the event' is now living under the misconception that it was a very close fight MAYBE even a draw.

One of my uncle's friends actually attended that fight ahd he told me 'man that was a robbery, I vividly remember me and my friends talking about it afterwards' .. What he didn't remember was the actaul details of the match.

I showed him the fight again last week on youtube and he was shocked at how he thought it was a draw. He now realize that fight when attending in person made it seem like a much closer fight than it really was. Simply because it was MSG and the crowd was roaring MERCER MERCER USA USA USA. Rewatching fights on video often shows you that you missed a large amount of punches landed,punches thrown, combinations etc.

[TBear]

This is a very good post. I agree with you about the build up, but I also must point out actual memory of incidents like boxing matches tend to fade because it is still not the considered the most important thing for the majority of people.

What I mean is : You might remember your first kiss with a girl/boy, but you probably forgot what Lennox Lewis did against the ropes to Ray Mercer during Round 5, even if you were there live.


This is important and why I feel watching videos teaches you just as much if not more than living through the events.. At least in terms of understanding each boxer's flaws/strengthes.

I must go back to Mercer/Lewis again, John Scully the trainer who posts on both sites was commentating and he was one of the few unbias commentators that called it like it was. 7-3 Lewis.

Now a lot of fans who 'lived through the event' is now living under the misconception that it was a very close fight MAYBE even a draw.

One of my uncle's friends actually attended that fight ahd he told me 'man that was a robbery, I vividly remember me and my friends talking about it afterwards' .. What he didn't remember was the actaul details of the match.

I showed him the fight again last week on youtube and he was shocked at how he thought it was a draw. He now realize that fight when attending in person made it seem like a much closer fight than it really was. Simply because it was MSG and the crowd was roaring MERCER MERCER USA USA USA. Rewatching fights on video often shows you that you missed a large amount of punches landed,punches thrown, combinations etc.

True, which is why I have recorded every bout for many years, and saved every article and ****zine over the years, to keep the memories strong. It is also why I watch so many fights a day when work and family time permit. But also because I am a boxing packrat.

As I said, I don't deny or even disrespect the points and opinions of people that have never seen Duran fight or those that hear from others what kind of a fighter he was. But from time to time I enjoy questioning things because I like to hear what people have to say.
I remember when I first got into boxing I read every ****zine and watched every fight and after a few years I considered myself an expert. At the time I compared the present champions to past champions and championed the cause. And now some years later, I realize I am still not an expert and I am learning.

[WolfGirl]

True, which is why I have recorded every bout for many years, and saved every article and ****zine over the years, to keep the memories strong. It is also why I watch so many fights a day when work and family time permit. But also because I am a boxing packrat.

As I said, I don't deny or even disrespect the points and opinions of people that have never seen Duran fight or those that hear from others what kind of a fighter he was. But from time to time I enjoy questioning things because I like to hear what people have to say.
I remember when I first got into boxing years ago, I was young and after a couple years I considered myself an expert. At the time I compared the present champions to past champions all the time and championed the cause. And now some years later, I realize I am still not an expert and I am learning.

I think
The guy who not only lived through certain eras but ALSO keep going back to watch the fights on video is definitely more knowledgable than the guy who JUST watch the fights on video.

But the guy who lived through a certain era and saw all the fights live, but never watched it again is probably inferior to the new boxing fans who keep watching it on video.

It's tough being a fan of ALL the ATG boxers, because you just don't have the time for it.

I mean just Mike Tyson alone is a case study. My inital opinions have changed dramatically. I thought that he was done after Douglas and was on the rapid decline.

But after watching the Ruddock Fights a few times, I actually don't know if Holyfield could have taken him had they fought in the early 90s pre prison.

[NChristo]

Heard of a guy called Muhammad Ali? And the reason them two didn't have many other names to their resumes was because a lot of fighters were ducking them. eg Holyfield was being talked as an opponent to a Prime Razor Ruddock but instead he choose not to fight him but instead George Foreman. Also Holmes was surpose to fight Foreman, however Foreman didn't take up that offer. I can talk all day about the people that Floyd should have fought but instead has a list of reasons for not fighting them.

Tyson's wins were far more impressive that Mayweathers when they fought several opposition. Mayweather pot shots a lot of fighters to a UD where Tyson was smacking people across the ring, beating them mentally before the fight so they choose to run.

Homes gave Holyfield a ton of trouble, and calling him old and slow when he's he's able to go the full 12 against the greatest cruiserweight of all time says something.

Did you seriously just try and give Holmes credit for beating a shot too **** Ali ?, not just give him credit but you tried to say he is as good as the Mayweather that Castillo fought ?. You are ridiculous.

Tyson's wins are not as impressive as Mayweather's which is clearly evident when you're stretching as far as trying too bring up Holmes' win over Ali as something substantial just too try and make Tyson look better.

Holmes' going 12 against Holyfield just says that he was still an alright boxer and like I said made a few rounds competitive, it went from Holmes' almost beating Holyfield too him going 12 rounds with Holyfield must mean he's good, changed what you were saying pretty quickly shows you haven't even watched the fight. He was old and slow, no getting around it, Foreman gave Holyfield a pretty competitive fight in some rounds as well, are you going too try and tell me that Foreman wasn't old and slow at that point ?.

Also when was the last time Floyd just pot shot to a UD ?, last I can think of was the Carlos Hernandez fight and that was because he broke his hand half way through the fight.

[Brother Jay]

i've noticed

my point is the majority will consider the skillful fighters as the conservative, picky, counter-punchers <--and that is supposed to mean????

not rocket science to decipher <--no .. rocket science actually has value

you know you aint ever boxed when you think the only style that is "super skilled" is the conservative counter-puncher who backpeddles

and also speed = skills<--- sarcasm, derp

<-- riiight .. I was supposed to know when you're lost as opposed to when you're being sarcastic. Gotcha.

As much as you'd like to believe that you've offered clarification, you're still your own biggest fan because you write as if others understand that which only makes sense in YOUR head.

People shouldn't HAVE TO figure out or decipher what you're conveying.

And trying to put what you're typing about in any context is too much work to be worth it.

But I like what you have to say and found your post very interesting.

I can use sarcasm too.