BoxRec

First of all, Charley Burley was not a welterweight almost his entire career. He was a middleweight for most of his career. I only count what he did at welterweight when ranking him as a welterweight. His biggest wins at welterweight aren't as impressive as De La Hoya.

If it comes downs to quality wins vs quantity of wins, I choose quality.

De La Hoya was 10-2 at welterweight, whith his only real loss to Mosley in a great fight. He had several victories against tough competition and didn't fight any tomato cans. 20 or 30 wins against tomato cans doesn't mean much to me.

Duran had 8 fights against welterweights and one fight when he was a welterweight and his opponent was over the welterweight limit. His 2nd fight with Leonard hurts him, but balanced with his win over the #2 welterweight of All-Time, and a win over Palomino he has to belong here somewhere. Again, 2 fights with Leonard and 1 with Palomino tells means more than beating 20 or 30 tomato cans.

What hurts Rodriquez the most is that he lost to Cokes two out of three. On the other hand, Rodriquez, did have 4 very close fights with Griffith. He was not quite as good as Duran and a little better than De La Hoya.

dont just mention zivic in an honorable list, stick him in the top 10 welters of all time.

harrygreb wrote:dont just mention zivic in an honorable list, stick him in the top 10 welters of all time.

He'd make my top 10.

Elmer, CHILL OUT about ODLH. We know you despise him. Doesn't suddenly mean he wasn't a quality fighter.

Mosley beat NO-ONE of any note at 135.

dempseyfire wrote:

harrygreb wrote:dont just mention zivic in an honorable list, stick him in the top 10 welters of all time.

He'd make my top 10.

Elmer, CHILL OUT about ODLH. We know you despise him. Doesn't suddenly mean he wasn't a quality fighter.

Mosley beat NO-ONE of any note at 135.

What DLH has done at 147 pounds?

Ambling Alp, how could that be that Duran was a better welterweight than Luis Manuel Rodriguez?

How many fights did Charley Burley had at 147 pounds and how many he had at 160?

The Ring Magazine has Burley as a welterweight great, not a middleweight great.

How can a man that beat the very best welterweights of the 60s is BELOW Roberto Duran?

You don't have Young Corbett III, Jackie Fields nor Lou Broulliard?

I got to debate with you with the welterweight greats you have chosen.

Ambling Alp wrote:I weigh at all of the fights that a fighter had at welterweight. I didn't just cherrypick one or two great or bad performances and rate the fighter soley on that.
I block out my personal feelings as to whether I like or dislike a fighter. If you do that, you have Duran and De La Hoya in the Top 20.

If you are going to rank DeLaHoya at welter shouldnt Mosley be in there too ?, He did beat Oscar twice at that weight.

Their 2nd fight was at 154. Moseley's losses to Vernon Forrest have to count against him heavily. Had he beaten Forrest twice instead of losing to him twice, I would have him higher than De La Hoya.

elmersalsa wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

harrygreb wrote:dont just mention zivic in an honorable list, stick him in the top 10 welters of all time.

He'd make my top 10.

Elmer, CHILL OUT about ODLH. We know you despise him. Doesn't suddenly mean he wasn't a quality fighter.

Mosley beat NO-ONE of any note at 135.

What DLH has done at 147 pounds?

Ambling Alp, how could that be that Duran was a better welterweight than Luis Manuel Rodriguez?

How many fights did Charley Burley had at 147 pounds and how many he had at 160?

The Ring Magazine has Burley as a welterweight great, not a middleweight great.

How can a man that beat the very best welterweights of the 60s is BELOW Roberto Duran?

You don't have Young Corbett III, Jackie Fields nor Lou Broulliard?

I got to debate with you with the welterweight greats you have chosen.

What had De La Hoya done at 147?
He beat Julio Cesar Chavez,Pernell Whitaker,Hector Camacho, and Ike Quartey at that weight.
They weren't all in their absolute prime but they were still very good.
(He was only the 2nd fighter to beat Chavez,the 2nd to beat Whitaker, 4th to beat Camacho, and the 1st to beat Quartey.)
He also had nice wins over guys like Wilfred Riveria and Oba Carr.
De La hoya had speed, power, good boxing skills. You might not like him (because he's a "pretty boy") but he was a great fighter.

Charley Burley's career began in 1936 and ended 1950. He never weighed within the welterweight limit after 1940. Some of his fights from 1936-1940 weren't welterweight fights either. More importantly, most of his best wins came at middleweight.
I already explained why I had Rodrquez below Duran.
Corbett and Fields almost made the Top 20 and you could make an arguement for them. Broulliard (who lost to Fields) would be below them.

Ambling Alp wrote:

What had De La Hoya done at 147?
He beat Julio Cesar Chavez,Pernell Whitaker,Hector Camacho, and Ike Quartey at that weight.
They weren't all in their absolute prime but they were still very good.
(He was only the 2nd fighter to beat Chavez,the 2nd to beat Whitaker, 4th to beat Camacho, and the 1st to beat Quartey.)
He also had nice wins over guys like Wilfred Riveria and Oba Carr.
De La hoya had speed, power, good boxing skills. You might not like him (because he's a "pretty boy") but he was a great fighter.

Charley Burley's career began in 1936 and ended 1950. He never weighed within the welterweight limit after 1940. Some of his fights from 1936-1940 weren't welterweight fights either. More importantly, most of his best wins came at middleweight.
I already explained why I had Rodrquez below Duran.
Corbett and Fields almost made the Top 20 and you could make an arguement for them. Broulliard (who lost to Fields) would be below them.

You know that I am studying Charley Burley's record, right? You know that I am coming with some feedback. I am not letting you off the hook, for now. I also got to question why is Sugar Ray Leonard at #2 welterweight all-time?

I think he is a top 4 or 5 great welter...Being Leonard in the top 3 is too much, I think. I think at welterweight, there were 3 or 4 better fighters than Leonard at that weight. I guess he is your favorite fighter, that is why.

I actually rate fighters on how good they were, not whether I like them or not. Leonard had only one loss at welterweight, and that was to Duran, and he avenged it.
If you take a look at the other great welterweights, they all lost more often and/or to worse opponents.

-Armstrong lost to Zivic twice.
-Ross lost to Armstrong and McClarnin.
-Gavilan lost to Graham. Got a decision over Graham in another fight that many thought he didn't deserve. Lost to Lester Felton,Doug Ratford, had draws with Gene Burton and Buster Tyler.
-Napoles lost to Backus. (I don't hold the Stracey loss against him since he was well past it by then.)

Leonard's biggest wins at the weight are as impressive as anyones:
He beat Benitez, Duran, and Hearns.

Leonard is a very solid #2.

Ambling Alp wrote:I actually rate fighters on how good they were, not whether I like them or not. Leonard had only one loss at welterweight, and that was to Duran, and he avenged it.
If you take a look at the other great welterweights, they all lost more often and/or to worse opponents.

-Armstrong lost to Zivic twice.
-Ross lost to Armstrong and McClarnin.
-Gavilan lost to Graham. Got a decision over Graham in another fight that many thought he didn't deserve. Lost to Lester Felton,Doug Ratford, had draws with Gene Burton and Buster Tyler.
-Napoles lost to Backus. (I don't hold the Stracey loss against him since he was well past it by then.)

Leonard's biggest wins at the weight are as impressive as anyones:
He beat Benitez, Duran, and Hearns.

Leonard is a very solid #2.

Benitez and Duran were not real welterweights...One was a jr welterweight and the other a lightweight.

The ONLY TRUE welterweight that Leonard beat was the great Thomas Hearns.

Kid Gavilan beat more CREDIBLE BOXERS at welterweight than Leonard did.
So did Emile Griffith.
Henry Armstrong was more DOMINANT champion than Leonard.

Not solely I would rate Gavilan over Leonard because of his wins against top notch welters, but he had MORE DURABILITY, MORE LONGEVITY and had more QUALITY FIGHTS AND WINS THAN LEONARD. He even was champion for a longer period of time.

When you beat guys like Billy Graham, Gil Turner, Carmen Basilio, Johnny Bratton, Eugene Hairston, (beat Sugar Ray Robinson, too, but they robbed him), Joe Micelli, Tony Janiro, Bobby Dykes is a great collection of great wins of who is who of the best welterweights of the 1940s and 50s. And that's is not including the greats Ike Williams and Beau Jack, who were natural lightweights.

Gil Turner and Billy Graham would have given fits to any welterweight that Leonard fought before or after the title. I cannot see it in guys like Randy Shields, Andy Price and Floyd Mayweather Sr in that quality of fighters.

When you fight as often as Griffith and Gavilan did, there is a POSSIBILITY that you got to lose some time. But still, beyond all that, Gavilan and GRiffith were pretty consistent and excelled most of the time.

When Armstrong lost to Zivic it was time to go. At the rate that he was fighting all the time, going up and down in weight, you got to lose something, never the less to a great fighter like Zivic.
But the DOMINANCE that Armstrong had at 147 pounds was UNBELIVABLE. No matter how you rate his opponents. He had 11 title defenses in one year. Made 3 in one month. Made 19 title defenses all together. We cannot say that all of them were not good. Some were RESPECTABLE CHALLENGERS AND CONTENDERS:
Pedro Montanez (was a natural lightweight...Armstrong was a natural featherweight),
Lew Jenkins (another natural lightweight),
Ernie Roderick (his record indicates that he was very good...Was Bruce Finch or Dave Green as good as he? ), Ceferino Garcia,
Baby Arizmendi (natural featherweight),
Davey Day,
And Paul Junior who had over 150 victories.
Plus Henry had much more fights at welterweight than Leonard, which bring some weight. He had 55 fights at 147 pounds!!!...Leonard had only 29?
Armstrong Had MORE LONGEVITY at welterweight than Leonard.

Emile Griffith and Leonard is a toss up for me. If we rate Leonard over Griffith is not bad at all. But still is DEBATABLE. Griffith after the great Gavilan AT WELTERWEIGHT, AT WELTERWEIGHT, had more great quality opponents than any welterweight in history. But probably he was not as dominant as Leonard. But I think that Griffith quality of opposition is HEAVIER, plus, he fought those guys more than once.


Now, I got to DISAGREE putting the great Roberto Duran over Luis Manuel Rodriguez at 147 pounds. For as much I like Duran, and you know that, I CANNOT CONSIDER HIM A TOP 20 WELTERWEIGHT. Duran had only 8 fights there. His longevity at welterweight was BRIEF. And his title reign there was as brief as you can read this. He only had 2 great quality wins.

Luis Manuel Rodriguez was a welterweight almost his whole career, beating guys like Griffith, Curtis Cokes, Benny Kid Paret, Federico Thompson, Yama Bahama. The only thing that Duran and Rodriguez had in common that their title reigns were brief at 147. But Rodriguez had more quality wins, more longevity, more fights (58 for Luis and only 8 for Duran at 147?) and MORE CONSISTENCY at 147 than Duran

Oscar De La Hoya with the great welterweights? How could that be? I don't like De La Hoya. To me, HE IS A FAKE. BUT NOT BECAUSE OF THAT I WON'T RATE HIM AT 147lbs. He only had 8 fights at welterweight. Against guys that will be forgotten with the blink of an eye. He did not beat the great Pernell Whitaker. He beat up an overweight and has been in Hector "Macho" Camacho. Patrick Carpentier, Oba Carr, Wilfredo Rivera and Demetrius Corley were nothing to be so high about and ran like an idiot chicken against Felix "Tito" Trinidad in the BIGGEST NIGHT OF HIS LIFE. De La Hoya was not a great lightweight, was not a great welterweight neither a great fighter like we paint him to be. He was a product of TV and PPV. And you put his second quality win over a WASHED UP and overweight great like Julio Cesar Chavez in one of his defenses as great feat? REMARKABLE, PRICELESS

Charley Burley. I studied his record and is very IMPRESSIVE. He beat 3 hall of famers or future hall of famers in their primes at 147lbs. He beat Zivic, Cocoa Kid and Holman Williams and had 40 fights at welterweight. I do not know why The Ring ranked him at #3, but it is too high. You may say that he was a middleweight, I say he was both welterweight and a middleweight great.

I don't think that Burley was better than Leonard at 147 lbs. But maybe because he beat 3 legit welterweights and Leonard only beat one, who was Hearns. But still, I could see Sugar Ray Leonard over him...I could see SRL with the top 4 or 5 greatest welterweights. He do not pass more than 6. So between position #3 to #6, I see Leonard there at welterweight. No less nor higher than that. Burley should be at least top 10 welter. At welterweight, he was better than Duran and DLH by far.

What a bunch of nonsense.
Lets start with Leonard beating Duran, Benitez, and Hearns and you saying thaey weren't natural welterweights. Baloney. They were at the time Leonard fought them. Duran had already had several fights at weltwerweight, and had easily beaten Carlos Palomino.
Benitez was the welterweight champion, and he too had beaten Palomino.
It's one thing if a guy is fighting his first fight at the higher weight. However, Duran and Benitez had already fought several times at the weight and had shown they could handle it.

Just because a fighter begins his career at one weight, doesn't mean he isn't "natural" at another weight.

Look at your own examples.
Charley Burley's wins over Cocoa Kid,Zivic, and Holman Williams. Well guess what, none of them began as welterweights either. Cocoa Kid and Zivic both started out under 130, and williams under 135. They, like most fighters at lower weights gradually added weight, and eventually fought as welterweights as well.

By your reasoning many of Armstrong's big wins weren't against "natural" welterweights either.

Yet somehow they count but Leonard's wins over Benitez and Duran weren't against "natural" welterweights. Thats total BS.

Burley didn't have 40 fights at welterweight. Even giving him credit for fights when he came in as high as 149 1/2, he only had 32.
Of course as I have said, quality is more important than quality. I will glad take Leonard's wins over Benitez,Duran, and Hearns vs Burley's wins over Zivic, Cocoa Kid and Holman Williams.
Not only that, Burley lost to Eddie Dolan and Jimmy Leto. No way was he as good of a welterweight as Leonard. Not even close.

As for De La Hoya-Here a couple of facts that you got wrong.
1. De La Hoya did beat Whitaker. Look it up.
2. De La Hoya had 12 fights at welterweight, not 8. Look it up.

I'm not saying that De La Hoya beat a prime Camacho, but Camacho certainly had something left. De La Hoya completely dominated him.
How do you come to the conclusion that Camacho was overweight? He had been fighting at that weight and higher for 5 years.
As I also mentioned earlier Chavez wasn't in his prime when he fought De La Hoya. Still only 1 other fighter had ever beaten him at that point. He still something left. De La hoya beat him pretty badly. That was pretty impressive. Of course this isn't as impressive as if De La hoya would have beaten Camacho and Chavez when they were in their primes. However, these are still nice wins considering they were good (though not great) fighters and De La Hoya beat them so easily.
De La hoya also beat Quartey in a great fight. Quartey was a pretty good welterweight. Rivera and Carr weren't legends either but they were good fighters. De La Hoya never fought a tomato can at weltwerweight.

Elmer, start using logic. Start looking things up. Learn how to count. Start judging fighters by how good they were, not whether or not you like them.

Ambling Alp wrote:What a bunch of nonsense.
Lets start with Leonard beating Duran, Benitez, and Hearns and you saying thaey weren't natural welterweights. Baloney. They were at the time Leonard fought them. Duran had already had several fights at weltwerweight, and had easily beaten Carlos Palomino.
Benitez was the welterweight champion, and he too had beaten Palomino.
It's one thing if a guy is fighting his first fight at the higher weight. However, Duran and Benitez had already fought several times at the weight and had shown they could handle it.

Just because a fighter begins his career at one weight, doesn't mean he isn't "natural" at another weight.

Look at your own examples.
Charley Burley's wins over Cocoa Kid,Zivic, and Holman Williams. Well guess what, none of them began as welterweights either. Cocoa Kid and Zivic both started out under 130, and williams under 135. They, like most fighters at lower weights gradually added weight, and eventually fought as welterweights as well.

By your reasoning many of Armstrong's big wins weren't against "natural" welterweights either.

Yet somehow they count but Leonard's wins over Benitez and Duran weren't against "natural" welterweights. Thats total BS.

Burley didn't have 40 fights at welterweight. Even giving him credit for fights when he came in as high as 149 1/2, he only had 32.
Of course as I have said, quality is more important than quality. I will glad take Leonard's wins over Benitez,Duran, and Hearns vs Burley's wins over Zivic, Cocoa Kid and Holman Williams.
Not only that, Burley lost to Eddie Dolan and Jimmy Leto. No way was he as good of a welterweight as Leonard. Not even close.

As for De La Hoya-Here a couple of facts that you got wrong.
1. De La Hoya did beat Whitaker. Look it up.
2. De La Hoya had 12 fights at welterweight, not 8. Look it up.

I'm not saying that De La Hoya beat a prime Camacho, but Camacho certainly had something left. De La Hoya completely dominated him.
How do you come to the conclusion that Camacho was overweight? He had been fighting at that weight and higher for 5 years.
As I also mentioned earlier Chavez wasn't in his prime when he fought De La Hoya. Still only 1 other fighter had ever beaten him at that point. He still something left. De La hoya beat him pretty badly. That was pretty impressive. Of course this isn't as impressive as if De La hoya would have beaten Camacho and Chavez when they were in their primes. However, these are still nice wins considering they were good (though not great) fighters and De La Hoya beat them so easily.
De La hoya also beat Quartey in a great fight. Quartey was a pretty good welterweight. Rivera and Carr weren't legends either but they were good fighters. De La Hoya never fought a tomato can at weltwerweight.

Elmer, start using logic. Start looking things up. Learn how to count. Start judging fighters by how good they were, not whether or not you like them.

\

So you call it nonsense and bullshit eh? Ok...You are trying to justify Leonard's position and De La Hoya's too? Ok.

Let's begin in some points of what have you said:

Benitez and Duran are associated with their own classes. Benitez was a jr welter great. Duran was a lightweight great. NO matter how you view them. The only TRUE welter that Leonard beat was Hearns...NOBODY ELSE.

And still, if you put Duran, Benitez and Hearns in Leonard's resume DON'T MATCH the quality of wins and quantity of wins that Gavilan had at welterweight. Gavilan beat some excepcional gifted fighters...

you want to add Duran and Benitez in his resume?
How about Ike Williams and Beau Jack? Were not them EXCEPTIONAL? They were natural lightweights..Let's INCLUDE THEM THEN.
How about Billy Graham?
how about Carmen Basilio?
How about Gil Turner?
how about Eugene Hairston?
how about the robbery with Sugar Ray Robinson?

Did not Gavilan fought them most of them more than once? Which also brings some more weight?
Who had more longevity at welterweight? Gavilan or Leonard? Answer me!!!
Who held the crown much longer? Gavilan or Leonard? Gavilan did not lose it to a lightweight.
Who had more fights at 147 pounds alp?.....Leonard or Gavilan?, I guess you know the answer.
Who had BETTER QUALITY OF OPPOSITION AT WELTERWEIGHT? ...Gavilan or Leonard?
WHo had a better winning streak at welterweight...Gavilan or Leonard?

You are matching only 3 great fighters for Leonard to 7 greats for Gavilan? Where is the balance?

With Burley's case, I have never said that Burley was better than Leonard at 147 lbs. But the Ring Magazine does. Maybe they got a case. I have not read the criteria why. But at least Burley should be on top of Duran and DLH. Nevermore, Duran and DLH does not deserve to be in the top 20 welterweights....NO WAY!!!
Burley beat Cocoa Kid, Holman Williams and Fritzie Zivic in THEIR PRIMES. When those fighters started at 130 or whatever you say, they WERE NOT IN THEIR PRIMES, neither were they for title contention. Neither were championship material yet.

I am not saying that Armstrong's wins count and Leonard's not. I was saying that Armstrong was more DOMINANT. And even though I include that they were not natural welterweights, I was pointing the fact that Armstrong was not a natural welterweight EITHER. But for the things that Armstrong did at welterweight, IS INCREDIBLE. No matter the opposition. And I said that his opposition was not as bad as some people may think.

who was more dominant as welterweight champion? Armstrong or Leonard? you know the answer.
Who had more title defenses at welterweight, alp? Armstrong or Leonard?
Who had more fights at 147lbs?...Armstrong or Leonard?
Who had more LONGEVITY at 147lbs?...Armstrong or Leonard?
Take Benitez, Duran and Hearns from Leonard's resume and what he has?

I weighted not only in quality wins, Armstrong at 147 lbs had quality wins also. The problem now is, WHO WAS MORE DOMINANT AT 147?

I counted Burley's fights at 147 and he had 40, not 32. I do not know where that 32 came from. But still, is more fights than Duran and DLH had at 147 COMBINED!!!


Now the JOKE IN DLH: How a FAKE FIGHTER like this guy, DLH, should be in the class of the great welterweights? Are you a DLH fan or something? I think you are. Hopefully I am wrong.

You mentioned that he had 12 fights at 147 lbs. I don't think he had 12. And even 12 is too little to put a mark in a historical division like the welterweights. Of the 100 greatest fighters of all-time, pound per pound of any list, the bigggest percentage of all the weight classes, were welterweights. A division that had so many legendary fighters. DLH is not even LEGENDARY...Not at welterweight.

You mentioned that DLH "beat" the great Pernell Whitaker??? You REALLY BELIEVE THAT BULLSHIT??? Did DLH paid you to even mention that?

You include wins of WASHED UP Hector "Macho" Camacho as a quality win? Camacho was BUSTED UP by the great Julio Cesar Chavez for cripe's sake. And by that time, Camacho was not even in his prime.

I can't believe this . This win should not even be mentioned. You wasted your time in your keyboard. Camacho did not belong at 147lbs. He was overweight. A weight class out of his weight range.
The Chavez' win should not even be mentioned either. Chavez could not make the 147 pound limit with Withaker, IN HIS PRIME, now he is still good being washed up going up in weight, at 36 years old against a PRIME DLH?...GIMMIE A BREAK. YOU SHOULD DISMISS THAT WIN.

Wilfredo Rivera, Oba Carr??? GIMMIE A BREAK

Ike Quartey??? that is the best that DLH DID.
Felix "Tito" Trinidad? Even though I think DLH won, HE WAS NOT IMPRESSIVE.

So this victories of DLH at 147 pounds should be on top of victories of Luis Manuel Rodriguez like Emile Griffith, Benny "Kid" Paret, Federico Thompson, Yama Bahama and Curtis Cokes? Which he beat them in their primes and decisevely?

Duran and DLH over Luis Manuel Rodriguez and Charley Burley at welterweight....Somehow somebody is laughing.

Keep justifiyng your position...I am getting a crack of it....But I don't get it.

I know that you don't get it; you seldom do. You don't use the same logic when evaluating everyone, you are unable to realistically evaluate fighters that you don't like, you make too many excuses for fighters that you do like, and you apparently can't count. I'm sorry, but I'm not wasting more time on you anymore.

benitez was a teenager when he fought at L-WW he was still growing

Ambling Alp wrote:I know that you don't get it; you seldom do. You don't use the same logic when evaluating everyone, you are unable to realistically evaluate fighters that you don't like, you make too many excuses for fighters that you do like, and you apparently can't count. I'm sorry, but I'm not wasting more time on you anymore.

Now, what's up...You ain't got more to say? Are you quitting on me like Liston and Duran?

Does anybody in here in their right mind would rate DLH over Luis Manuel Rodriguez and Charley Burley at 147lbs?
Does anybody in here in their right mind would rate DLH over Luis Manuel Rodriguez and Charley Burley POUD PER POUND?

Does anybody in here in their right mind would rate the great Sugar Ray Leonard, a fighter that I like, over the great Kid Gavilan at welterweight?

C'mon Ambling Alp, don't give up on me...I like talking to you about boxing.

Monte Cox's Welterweigth rankings to go alongside Mike Casey's

Welterweight Ratings:


Ray Robinson
Ray Leonard
Mickey Walker
Thomas Hearns
Joe Walcott
Jose Napoles
Kid Gavilan
Emile Griffith
Ted “Kid” Lewis
Luis Rodriguez

Note: Floyd Mayweather’s career does not give him a top 10 spot. Rodriguez, for example, had a better career than Floyd beating Emile Griffith, Benny Paret, Hurricane Carter, Curtis Cokes, Georgie Benton and Bennie Briscoe. I cannot in all honesty put Mayweather in the top 10 welterweights based on a career of hand picked opponents and having never unified a major title. I am not convinced that Floyd would beat any of the top 10 all time welterweights.

Seems odd that Britton isn't in there...

Two other omissions that spring to mind are Tommy Ryan and Mysterious Billy Smith.

Ryan should be in there...

I loced watching Tommy Hearns growing up but ranked at number 4??? When you consider some of the other guys' roster of wins...

i dont see why duran should'nt be within the top 20.even #12 isnt absurd.

duran decisioned leonard in the first fight.it was a brutal 15 round battle of wills.
duran was full of fire that night and i can see him giving any WW great,considerable fits that night.
in the 2nd fight duran had lost over 80lbs!!!...going from 230 down to a starved out,emaciated,horribly weight drained super rushed crash diet goal weight of 147 within less than 3 months!!!.he had to sacrifice his health badly during the process.losing weight that fast is proven to cause great weakness and sluggishness and duran looked just that in the 2nd fight with SRL.

you can see right away as soon as they're in the ring waiting for the bell that duran clearly looks like a guy that is getting ready to just go through the motions and make his big payday.no fire whatsoever.a very different version of duran as oppossed to the maniac beast that was in the ring aginst Sugar Ray in the 1st bout.

Yes,this was a very different version of duran yet people continue to act like he was just as good in every way as the duran who showed up for the first Leonard-Duran clash.I am sorry but i have to point these obvious factors out because most people dont seem willing to do this or the sheer obvious physical based math of it all.

Duran was clearly not 100% of himself that night.He was not even 75% of himself.All that weight lost and such a short time duration is going to sap the hell out of anyone and in his training camp they did make it clear shortly before the 2nd fight that duran was not looking good at all.he was a mere shadow of his former self because of the super rapid weight drain.
I know why duran went along with the promoter's "rapid time duration rematch preparation demands" who catered to leonard's request based on strategy.it's called 10 million dollars.They demanded that duran be ready by november of that year instead of giving him the humanisticly orientated option of waiting till say,march or april for a more gradual form of making weight.

duran was pushed way too quickly by promoters demanding the rematch way too soon.obviously they were catering to leonard's demands because SRL knew what duran was doing right after they're 1st bout.he was stuffing his face with huge amounts of calories including much partying(beer consumption).

Yes,Leonard knew this and he knew that he could talk the promoters into demanding a rematch as sson as possible so that there would be a much lesser version of duran in the ring with him for the rematch.this was a very strategical and businesss minded move by SRL but it was also rather cowardly in the very essence of it's nature if you really truly analyze it.

dont get me wrong though.i am no SRL hater.i think he was great by all means.he was a total package of excellence.
but still,i take this to serious consideration.duran was clearly much less of his true ability and potential going into the 2nd fight which was only to meet the promoters demands who obviously catered to SRL's demands.They should have scheduled the fight for march or april of 81 instead.

had this happened i believe that SRL would've prevailed and won the rematch simply because i think he would've wanted redemption and duran would'nt be quite exactly as fired up.but he would've came in very ready,just not exactly like he was in the 1st bout.I think that Leonard would've won a clear cut decision in the rematch.he definately would'nt have made duran quit though.duran quit because he was a mere 60% of himself because of the super rapid huge weight drain requirement he was forced to undertake due to the demands of the promoters.

i am sorry that i repeated myself in my post but it just seems like people always forget that duran was WAY below his true abilities in the 2nd Sugar Ray fight.He would've went the distance with SRL and lost by unanimous decision but it would've been a close and brutal fight for both.

The 2nd fight was a joke.Duran was very drained out and he lost all his energy by the 8th round and that's why he quit.
from rounds 1-7,duran was little more than half of himself and it clearly showed.he was sluggish,slower and didnt have snap on hispunches.he did not look determined or fired up at all.he was going through the motions and meeting the demands of the srl favoriting promoters so he could make his 10 million bucks.

i would rank SRL between 5 and 7 on the all time greats list.duran should most likely definately make #12 or at least #15 for pete's sake.
the duran of the 1st Ray Leonard fight would've beaten most of the alltime 20 list imo.
he was full of rage,fire,pride,determination,desire,and fight.he fought like a bull.he came in and fought and battled like the Real Version of The True Roberto Duran that we know.

A very contentious issue on this board...

I take the sentiment of your post BUT I think we have to be clinical in our assessment...

Duran not preparing properly was his own fault and we can't dismiss the rematch as a joke because of this. Leonard was ready. Duran signed for the fight. The result is the result. You can argue fight 1 meant more if you like, that's what boards like this are for, but we can't dismiss the result.

I think Duran quit because of a combination of Leonard's clowning and his own lack of preparation. He knew he was going to lose and his ego just imploded. He hadn't prepared properly because his entourage of blood suckers had helped to convince him he could walk on water.

Duran went into a physical and psychological free fall. Never showed the same speed or conditioning ever again. Found glimpses of himself occassionally and the skills were still there but the whole package would never be seen again.

Leonard still had his career ahead of him. Went on to post wins over the best fighters of his generation. And shwoed off a dazzling repertoire of skill and athleticism in doing so...

I think these 2 fights are possibly the most important fights of the last 30 years. I love this rivalry and read everything and anything I can on the subject.

Big George, widely considered the most pulverising puncher of all time

Ali was tipped to be quickly dispatched like Frazier and Norton

yet Ali came out throwing bombs....took his licks

and destroyed Foreman

perhaps the greatest victory of them all ?

or am i just believing the hype

Ezzard wrote:A very contentious issue on this board...

I take the sentiment of your post BUT I think we have to be clinical in our assessment...

Duran not preparing properly was his own fault and we can't dismiss the rematch as a joke because of this. Leonard was ready. Duran signed for the fight. The result is the result. You can argue fight 1 meant more if you like, that's what boards like this are for, but we can't dismiss the result.

I think Duran quit because of a combination of Leonard's clowning and his own lack of preparation. He knew he was going to lose and his ego just imploded. He hadn't prepared properly because his entourage of blood suckers had helped to convince him he could walk on water.

Duran went into a physical and psychological free fall. Never showed the same speed or conditioning ever again. Found glimpses of himself occassionally and the skills were still there but the whole package would never be seen again.

Leonard still had his career ahead of him. Went on to post wins over the best fighters of his generation. And shwoed off a dazzling repertoire of skill and athleticism in doing so...

I think these 2 fights are possibly the most important fights of the last 30 years. I love this rivalry and read everything and anything I can on the subject.

on the contrary,people are always very quick to dismiss tyson's loss to "buster dougless"( ) due to him not being properly prepared,and feel that this is totally a justifiable stance on tyson's behalf,so why not use the same excuse for Duran's behalf?( ).

after all,tyson not preparing for even a journeyman like douglass is by all means indeed,....his fault.

duran signed for the fight because it was either "do it right now so you can make ($10 mil)" or forget about it and make nil and nada....and,no....we wont give you till march to be properly prepared.Sugar Ray wants the rematch in November and we have to cater to his demands,or he'll be "veh-wee veh-wee uptet".

Leonard made it clear in the documentary that he was carefully observing the fact that duran was stuffing his face and partying(not maintaining himself at all),and thus took advantage of this by seizing the opportunity to demand the promoters of his wishes to fight Duran as soon as possible and they went right ahead and catered to The Sugar Man's demands because they felt utterly obliged to do so because SRL had so much notoriety and authority at that time,including over the boxing commission and it's promoters.do you see a stategic pattern of logical businessman minded thought here yet?

So Duran,having to lose over 80 lbs in 2 and a half months had to undertake a brutally rigorous and strength sapping training and diet regimen that left him at two thirds of his true abilities and credentials.

Why do you think SRL was so happy and excited before the fight even began?....could it be because he knew he had a much less version of Duran to fight for that particular night...?.....Hmmmm.

No Funso Banjo Baby, you are not just believing the hype - that is exactly what happened :-)

Poor Roberto. Life has been so unfair to him.
The two fights were 5 months apart, not exactly a short time.
Supposedly two and a halfs after that the rematch (whcih everyone knew was going to happen) was official. It was another two and half months before the rematch actually took place.

80 pounds? Now it's up to 80 pounds in two and half months? Wow it keeps getting higher and higher over the years.
That means Duran weighed 147 on June 20, and was up to 227 by early September. Yeah, sure.

The governing bodies only gave him two and a half months to prepare for a title defense? That should have been plenty of time. (Like they would have stripped Roberto Duran of the title if he wanted another month)

When exactly did Duran plan on fighting again anyway?

Duran lost and that's it. Too bad, so sad. (Tyson lost to Douglas and he had no legitimate excuse either.)

Having said that, Duran had enough success in his other fights at welterweight and deserves to be in the Top 20.

Ambling Alp wrote:Poor Roberto. Life has been so unfair to him.
The two fights were 5 months apart, not exactly a short time.
Supposedly two and a halfs after that the rematch (whcih everyone knew was going to happen) was official. It was another two and half months before the rematch actually took place.

80 pounds? Now it's up to 80 pounds in two and half months? Wow it keeps getting higher and higher over the years.
That means Duran weighed 147 on June 20, and was up to 227 by early September. Yeah, sure.

The governing bodies only gave him two and a half months to prepare for a title defense? That should have been plenty of time. (Like they would have stripped Roberto Duran of the title if he wanted another month)

When exactly did Duran plan on fighting again anyway?

Duran lost and that's it. Too bad, so sad. (Tyson lost to Douglas and he had no legitimate excuse either.)

Having said that, Duran had enough success in his other fights at welterweight and deserves to be in the Top 20.

watch the documentary.duran ballooned up to 230 before having to start with the dramatically fast weight loss to take off the immense weight gain.they clearly state that he only had 2 and a half months to get down to 147 for the rushed rematch.
nowadays,they would'nt make the rematch until at least 9 months following the first clash.

i agree when you say "too bad" because from that prospective of thought you are heavily implying that a boxer needs to keep himself in a disciplined state of mind throughout the year by staying in at least pretty good shape instead of letting themselves go in between bouts with they're "celebration time fat phases".There is no excuse to be gluttonizing oneself in between bouts.i totally 100% agree with that point.

if i were duran's manager or trainer at that time i would've been kickin his ass to get back in the gym just weeks after the first bout with SRL.It's funny,strange and peculiar how Arcel,Brown and Panama Lewis just carelessly let Duran become a happy hamster without enforcing any discipline onto him in the weeks following the 1st SRL bout.When Duran was let off the leash of proper managerial discipline he was obviously prone to falling into a path of self destruction of sorts which by all means severe gluttony is.

You have to agree though that had Duran been given the proper disciplinary action by his trainers and manager,he would've been much more properly prepared for the rematch.If it was set for march he would've lost the weight much more smoothly and would've been able to have the time needed to adjust his eating habits in enough adequete time,but on the flip side,like i had allready acknowledged of you're post,he really should've kept himself properly disciplined and ready for the sake of the premise to an immediete rematch which he should've been aware that promoters would be catering to leonard's demandfull request.anyway,had he not let himself become a happy hamster and then torture and drain himself down with the crash diet,roberto would've lasted the distance even if leonard were to still clearly have his number on the given night.

even at that,duran still was only slightly trailing until he started obviously seriously running out of gas in the 8th,thus prompting him to take himself out of the fight in the middle of the round.

i think leonard was going to have duran's number anyway even with a 100% version of duran,dont get me wrong,but it would've gone the distance and would've been relatively close.ray would've won though because he knew duran's style alot better by then,but duran still would've proved to be a very tough obstacle to conquor for ray.

i definately think that rating duran between 12 and 15 in WW is definately not overrating "hands of stone".

i would rank Duran around number 5 in LW,just behind B. Leonard,Armstrong,Williams,and Gans.