what in your estimation prevents duran from being the greatest fighter whoever lived?

[AntonTheMeh]

I've always been prone to believe that the greatest fighter of all time was a toss up between ali robinson or leonard.
robinson for his ability, his record;
ali for his ability and the monsters he's beaten;
and leonard who quite possibly beat the greatest lightweight, an all time top 3 welterweight, and arguably the greatest middleweight of all time.
there's been another name that has hovered in my imagination when it comes to this title, and that name is roberto duran.
besides being a fighters "fighter"who was an offensive whirlwind with a great defense as well; he went up weights few fighters could ever go to, and was successful against bigger men.I'd like to ask you,my fellow boxingscene posters, what in your opinion negates duran's claim as the greatest?

[wmute]

I've always been prone to believe that the greatest fighter of all time was a toss up between ali robinson or leonard.
robinson for his ability, his record;
ali for his ability and the monsters he's beaten;
and leonard who quite possibly beat the greatest lightweight, an all time top 3 welterweight, and arguably the greatest middleweight of all time.
there's been another name that has hovered in my imagination when it comes to this title, and that name is roberto duran.
besides being a fighters "fighter"who was an offensive whirlwind with a great defense as well; he went up weights few fighters could ever go to, and was successful against bigger men.I'd like to ask you,my fellow boxingscene posters, what in your opinion negates duran's claim as the greatest?

His lack of discipline.

The fact that Robinson beat everyone he faced at relevant weights in the first 20 years of his career kind of kills the deal.

Leonard's career is way too short and marred by the lack of relevant rematches to be with these names.

[AntonTheMeh]

His lack of discipline.

The fact that Robinson beat everyone he faced at relevant weights in the first 20 years of his career kind of kills the deal.

Leonard's career is way too short and marred by the lack of relevant rematches to be with these names.

even though i love ray, i consider him the best, i don't think he faced the kinda talent that duran faced.he faced alot of tough stone beared men, but not any hearn's or benitez's or leonards.

[baddest]

as wmute said his discipline was k=his achilles heel. Had he kept up his body better between fights he would've been even more impressive, because even without being in peak condition his boxing skills and raw natural talent carried him throught the latter half of his career and in some parts of his post-peak(79-84). Also his arrogance, it's good to be arrogant, Ali was arrogant but didn't underestimate his opponents, before and after duran fought opponents, he thought the match was won. He came into the ring most of the time thinking he could just show up and fight this 'bum' and win easy.

[StarshipTrooper]

Easy! Sugar Ray Robinson.

Poet

[cptroyce]

I love Duran..always did.
To the point of your thread, as wmute posted..unfortunately this great fighter lacked the discipline to be considered perhaps the greatest.

[wpink1]

Many reasons why duran is not the greatest.
1. Resume at Lightweight the weight class he dominated through out the 70's. Name one fighter in that weight class that is considered a all time top 50 that Duran beat.
2. When considereing his record which is phenominal 70-1 at light weight, how many of these fighters that he faced while a lightweiht and champion where simply record padding. Some say all fighters do it. I Challenge anyoneo on here to review Mayweather or Leonard resume and come up with a figher after either of them had 20 fights, that had records similar to Duran opponents (over 25 of them) had like 10-13, or 0-3-1, etc. This is simpy ridicculous
3. Duran deserves kudos for moving up and beating Leonard in the 1st fight, but He quit in the rematch when he was getting schooled, and his record vs the best at welter, jr middle and middle was 3 - 5. I am not counting the other irrelevant loses.

Now duran fans will try as hard as they can to say we cant hold him accountable for his losses above Lightweight. That is weak, and completley biased when you infact hold everyone else accountable for their records in higher weights..

Robinson
Roy
Leonard'
Mayweather
DLH
Mosley.
Whitacker....
Holyfield...

Need i go on....

Duran was only 28 when he first fought ray. then turned 29 by the 2nd fight. He was not over the hill, he had many many fights that were like sparring match quality opponents, so he was not worn out. In fact many say his performance in Montreal was his greatest, it clearly was his best win, thus you cant turn around and say 5 months later he was over the hill. Duran simply was the or one of the most dominant lightweights ever. However when comparing him to Henry Armstrong, or Sugar Ray Robinson fighters who moved up much more successfully, there is no comparison. I read someone on here talking about Duran quality of wins vs Robinson..Duran has one win that ranks up there with Kid gAvilan, basilio, lamatta....1 win, and in that fight we all know ( duran fans refuse to admit or accept it) Leoanrd willlingly chose the wrong style and still lost by only 4 points between 3 judges. Had the judges scored round 1 for leonard, Duran would have lost that fight or it would have been a draw.

4. Discipline may be a reason, however that is not only duran. Ray Robinson, Leonard dd cocain, Ali partyied and had women with him at his biggest fights, Benitez didnt even train alot of times, Roy Jones had to lose muscle mass. Again Duran fans simply try to make this man bigger than what he was. He was not the only person who had to overcome issues. That is part of boxing. Duran lost fights because he ran into a better fighter that night, Dejesus beat him fair and square that night, thn duran beat him the next two. I guess it is ok to say that Duran lost the 1st one to Dejusus but his beating him the next two shows the 1st one was a fluke...Hmmmm then what about Leonard losing the 1st duran fight, and then beating Duran the next 2 times.

Duran IMO is a all time great. He has not beaten the great fighters that Robinson has, or Ali, or leonard has. Duran has more wins than leonard but many should have been sparring matches ( look at their records for yourself, and this was after Duran was a champion). I have duran slightly behind leonard ahead of Mayweather.

[BattlingNelson]

Losses against Leonard, Hearns and Hagler. Only one win against Leonard where Leonard fought a pridebased tactical disatrous fight. If Duran should have been th?greatest fighter who ever lived, he would have had to beat Hagler and Hearns as well IMO.

[StarshipTrooper]

Many reasons why duran is not the greatest.
1. Resume at Lightweight the weight class he dominated through out the 70's. Name one fighter in that weight class that is considered a all time top 50 that Duran beat.
2. When considereing his record which is phenominal 70-1 at light weight, how many of these fighters that he faced while a lightweiht and champion where simply record padding. Some say all fighters do it. I Challenge anyoneo on here to review Mayweather or Leonard resume and come up with a figher after either of them had 20 fights, that had records similar to Duran opponents (over 25 of them) had like 10-13, or 0-3-1, etc. This is simpy ridicculous
3. Duran deserves kudos for moving up and beating Leonard in the 1st fight, but He quit in the rematch when he was getting schooled, and his record vs the best at welter, jr middle and middle was 3 - 5. I am not counting the other irrelevant loses.

Now duran fans will try as hard as they can to say we cant hold him accountable for his losses above Lightweight. That is weak, and completley biased when you infact hold everyone else accountable for their records in higher weights..

Robinson
Roy
Leonard'
Mayweather
DLH
Mosley.
Whitacker....
Holyfield...

Need i go on....

Duran was only 28 when he first fought ray. then turned 29 by the 2nd fight. He was not over the hill, he had many many fights that were like sparring match quality opponents, so he was not worn out. In fact many say his performance in Montreal was his greatest, it clearly was his best win, thus you cant turn around and say 5 months later he was over the hill. Duran simply was the or one of the most dominant lightweights ever. However when comparing him to Henry Armstrong, or Sugar Ray Robinson fighters who moved up much more successfully, there is no comparison. I read someone on here talking about Duran quality of wins vs Robinson..Duran has one win that ranks up there with Kid gAvilan, basilio, lamatta....1 win, and in that fight we all know ( duran fans refuse to admit or accept it) Leoanrd willlingly chose the wrong style and still lost by only 4 points between 3 judges. Had the judges scored round 1 for leonard, Duran would have lost that fight or it would have been a draw.

4. Discipline may be a reason, however that is not only duran. Ray Robinson, Leonard dd cocain, Ali partyied and had women with him at his biggest fights, Benitez didnt even train alot of times, Roy Jones had to lose muscle mass. Again Duran fans simply try to make this man bigger than what he was. He was not the only person who had to overcome issues. That is part of boxing. Duran lost fights because he ran into a better fighter that night, Dejesus beat him fair and square that night, thn duran beat him the next two. I guess it is ok to say that Duran lost the 1st one to Dejusus but his beating him the next two shows the 1st one was a fluke...Hmmmm then what about Leonard losing the 1st duran fight, and then beating Duran the next 2 times.

Duran IMO is a all time great. He has not beaten the great fighters that Robinson has, or Ali, or leonard has. Duran has more wins than leonard but many should have been sparring matches ( look at their records for yourself, and this was after Duran was a champion). I have duran slightly behind leonard ahead of Mayweather.

As per Point 1, Esteban DeJesus is considered by many boxing historians to be an ATG at Lightweight. As for Point 3, I don't count past prime losses against any fighter I'm evaluating. For example I don't hold the Barcley fights against Tommy Hearns but I do hold the first Leonard and the Hagler fight against him. In the case of Duran he was having trouble making the Lightweight limit because his training habits were catching up him. By the second Leonard fight it was becoming pretty obvious that Duran was no longer at his best. Past prime he could still beat the Davey Moores but he wasn't going to beat the Hearns and the Haglers. Age is relatively unimportant when determining a fighter's prime because every fighter is different. I've seen fighters that were washed up at 26 (see Mark Breland); I've also seen fighters who's primes extended well into their 30s (see Bernard Hopkins). Fighters bodies simply deteriorate at different rates from one another: There's no little box "prime" can be made to fit in.

As for his strength of opposition I think there's a profound double standard here. Take a fighter like Tyson: Name the ATG Heavyweights HE fought in his prime. Roy Jones and Pernell Whitaker didn't exactly face a lineup of ATGs either. Can you name the ATGs THEY fought in their primes? Jones fought Hopkins but who else? Don't hold Duran or any other fighter to standards you don't hold your own personal favorites to.

Poet

[Miburo]

Honestly I don't see how he can be claimed to be underrated, if anything he's somewhat overrated. As a lightweight he's obviously the best, but his run after stepping up in weight, while it did add to his legacy for being able to do things that no other LW could, winning titles up to middleweight (beating Leonard once, going the distance with Hagler, beating Barkley while being close to shot) it was fairly disastrous (perhaps due somewhat to the lack of discipline mentioned, he was largely just going after money and relying on his talent). He makes top 10 lists when neither Leonard, Hagler, or Hearns do.