BoxRec

Who do you rate as the greater fighter, pound-for-pound? Ezzard Charles or Roberto Duran? I had this argument recently with three mates. Myself & another sided with Charles, while the other two reckoned Duran.

Charles without a doubt.

dempseyfire wrote:Charles without a doubt.

Agreed.

WOW ! This is amazing. I absolutely can't stand Roberto Duran, but I have to pick him here as the better fighter.

dempseyfire wrote:Charles without a doubt.

LOL @ "without a doubt"

gambler49 wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Charles without a doubt.

LOL @ "without a doubt"

Yeah there's not much in it. Charles did more out of his natural weight class you could argue but Duran did more when he was on the slide, difficult one to call, both great fighters.

Ezzard Charles for sure beat better competition than Duran.

Just look at this resume and who he has wins against:
Burley, Maxim, Marshall, Moore, Jersey Joe, Louis, Bivins, and many other good fighters.

Duran resume:
Sugar Ray Leonard, Buchanan, De Jesus, Palomino, Cuevas, Moore and Barkley.

Louis > Leonard
Burley > Buchanan
Jersey Joe > De Jesus
Maxim > Palomino
Archie Moore >>>> Davey Moore
And so on… I think you all get the point. Ezzard Charles was the better fighter if you ask me.

I rate Ezzard slightly higher, really nothing to argue about. They are both incredible all time top 10 fighters imo. Way to tight for any debate to be settled, it's a question that doesn't have a wrong answer.

Idisagree wrote:Ezzard Charles for sure beat better competition than Duran.

Just look at this resume and who he has wins against:
Burley, Maxim, Marshall, Moore, Jersey Joe, Louis, Bivins, and many other good fighters.

Duran resume:
Sugar Ray Leonard, Buchanan, De Jesus, Palomino, Cuevas, Moore and Barkley.

Louis > Leonard
Burley > Buchanan
Jersey Joe > De Jesus
Maxim > Palomino
Archie Moore >>>> Davey Moore
And so on… I think you all get the point. Ezzard Charles was the better fighter if you ask me.

The Louis that Ezz fought was better than the Leonard Duran fought?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Idisagree wrote:Ezzard Charles for sure beat better competition than Duran.

Just look at this resume and who he has wins against:
Burley, Maxim, Marshall, Moore, Jersey Joe, Louis, Bivins, and many other good fighters.

Duran resume:
Sugar Ray Leonard, Buchanan, De Jesus, Palomino, Cuevas, Moore and Barkley.

Louis > Leonard
Burley > Buchanan
Jersey Joe > De Jesus
Maxim > Palomino
Archie Moore >>>> Davey Moore
And so on… I think you all get the point. Ezzard Charles was the better fighter if you ask me.

The Louis that Ezz fought was better than the Leonard Duran fought?

x2

No, but the past-prime Louis was better than Barkely.

As for a Leonard comparison, I would put a peak Achie Moore and Burley in the same class as Leonard, and Charles beat those two several times, whereas Duran squeeked by Ray in their first fight and flat-out QUIT in the rematch.

Then you have peak Bivins, Marshall, Walcott and of Roberto's remaining conquests I'd put only Buchanan in that class.

Charles has clearly the superior resume, beat higher quality fighters, and was the more skilled fighter.

ezzard just about for me and being on the beatles album cover is good for the legacy

dempseyfire wrote:No, but the past-prime Louis was better than Barkely.

As for a Leonard comparison, I would put a peak Achie Moore and Burley in the same class as Leonard, and Charles beat those two several times, whereas Duran squeeked by Ray in their first fight and flat-out QUIT in the rematch.

Then you have peak Bivins, Marshall, Walcott and of Roberto's remaining conquests I'd put only Buchanan in that class.

Charles has clearly the superior resume, beat higher quality fighters, and was the more skilled fighter.

That's highly debatable. Joe was a shell at that point. The question was raised because there is no need to even mention Louis on Ezzard's ledger. Barkley is undoubtedly a better win than Louis is for charles. Not even in the same ballpark.

Duran beat the hell out of Ray in their first fight and if you want to mention losses Charles lost twice to an old Walcott that is rated over dejesus that Duran got the best of.

Marcel is worth a mention for duran as well.

Charles being more skilled is also highly debatable. Duran was as complete a fighter as there has ever been.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:No, but the past-prime Louis was better than Barkely.

As for a Leonard comparison, I would put a peak Achie Moore and Burley in the same class as Leonard, and Charles beat those two several times, whereas Duran squeeked by Ray in their first fight and flat-out QUIT in the rematch.

Then you have peak Bivins, Marshall, Walcott and of Roberto's remaining conquests I'd put only Buchanan in that class.

Charles has clearly the superior resume, beat higher quality fighters, and was the more skilled fighter.

That's highly debatable. Joe was a shell at that point. The question was raised because there is no need to even mention Louis on Ezzard's ledger. Barkley is undoubtedly a better win than Louis is for charles. Not even in the same ballpark.

Duran beat the hell out of Ray in their first fight and if you want to mention losses Charles lost twice to an old Walcott that is rated over dejesus that Duran got the best of.

Marcel is worth a mention for duran as well.

Charles being more skilled is also highly debatable. Duran was as complete a fighter as there has ever been.

Duran did not 'beat the hell out of Ray' . I believe the fight could've been a draw. Watch it without the biased commentary . . .people watch that fight with blinders on b/c they love Duran and hated the 'golden boy' Leonard.

Louis after losing to Charles went on a good winning streak to make him a top 5 contender, but fine, put in Rex Layne for Barkely . . they basically were carbon copies of each other come to think of it.

Most had Charles winning their 4th fight so Ezzard is 3-1 vs 'old Walcott' who in his late 30s was still on top of his game.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:No, but the past-prime Louis was better than Barkely.

As for a Leonard comparison, I would put a peak Achie Moore and Burley in the same class as Leonard, and Charles beat those two several times, whereas Duran squeeked by Ray in their first fight and flat-out QUIT in the rematch.

Then you have peak Bivins, Marshall, Walcott and of Roberto's remaining conquests I'd put only Buchanan in that class.

Charles has clearly the superior resume, beat higher quality fighters, and was the more skilled fighter.

That's highly debatable. Joe was a shell at that point. The question was raised because there is no need to even mention Louis on Ezzard's ledger. Barkley is undoubtedly a better win than Louis is for charles. Not even in the same ballpark.

Duran beat the hell out of Ray in their first fight and if you want to mention losses Charles lost twice to an old Walcott that is rated over dejesus that Duran got the best of.

Marcel is worth a mention for duran as well.

Charles being more skilled is also highly debatable. Duran was as complete a fighter as there has ever been.

I don't think Marcel should be mention because he was good but no way he was an elite fighter at that point in his career. At that time he was very green. As for Duran being a complete fighter as there has ever been I do agree 100%. However, against the elite he lost more than he won. For instance, he lost to Sugar Ray Leonard 2x, Hearns, Hagler, De Jesus and Benitez. He won against Leonard in a razor thin decision, 2x against De Jesus, and once against Buchanan. Moore and Barkley were good wins but there were not elite fighters. They were just simply bigger than him. Ezzard has more wins against the elite and a lot of his loses were after his prime was gone. Duran could have had more skills, but Ezzard was the better fighter and his resume just proves that.

dempseyfire wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:No, but the past-prime Louis was better than Barkely.

As for a Leonard comparison, I would put a peak Achie Moore and Burley in the same class as Leonard, and Charles beat those two several times, whereas Duran squeeked by Ray in their first fight and flat-out QUIT in the rematch.

Then you have peak Bivins, Marshall, Walcott and of Roberto's remaining conquests I'd put only Buchanan in that class.

Charles has clearly the superior resume, beat higher quality fighters, and was the more skilled fighter.

That's highly debatable. Joe was a shell at that point. The question was raised because there is no need to even mention Louis on Ezzard's ledger. Barkley is undoubtedly a better win than Louis is for charles. Not even in the same ballpark.

Duran beat the hell out of Ray in their first fight and if you want to mention losses Charles lost twice to an old Walcott that is rated over dejesus that Duran got the best of.

Marcel is worth a mention for duran as well.

Charles being more skilled is also highly debatable. Duran was as complete a fighter as there has ever been.

Duran did not 'beat the hell out of Ray' . I believe the fight could've been a draw. Watch it without the biased commentary . . .people watch that fight with blinders on b/c they love Duran and hated the 'golden boy' Leonard.

Louis after losing to Charles went on a good winning streak to make him a top 5 contender, but fine, put in Rex Layne for Barkely . . they basically were carbon copies of each other come to think of it.

Most had Charles winning their 4th fight so Ezzard is 3-1 vs 'old Walcott' who in his late 30s was still on top of his game.

10-5 Duran, 9-6 at best. I saw it live and watched Cosell do commentary on ABC the following week. Howard was biased against Leonard? That's rich.

If that wasn't a beating, I've never seen one. Ray had lumps on top of lumps and was pissing blood.

Idisagree wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:No, but the past-prime Louis was better than Barkely.

As for a Leonard comparison, I would put a peak Achie Moore and Burley in the same class as Leonard, and Charles beat those two several times, whereas Duran squeeked by Ray in their first fight and flat-out QUIT in the rematch.

Then you have peak Bivins, Marshall, Walcott and of Roberto's remaining conquests I'd put only Buchanan in that class.

Charles has clearly the superior resume, beat higher quality fighters, and was the more skilled fighter.

That's highly debatable. Joe was a shell at that point. The question was raised because there is no need to even mention Louis on Ezzard's ledger. Barkley is undoubtedly a better win than Louis is for charles. Not even in the same ballpark.

Duran beat the hell out of Ray in their first fight and if you want to mention losses Charles lost twice to an old Walcott that is rated over dejesus that Duran got the best of.

Marcel is worth a mention for duran as well.

Charles being more skilled is also highly debatable. Duran was as complete a fighter as there has ever been.

I don't think Marcel should be mention because he was good but no way he was an elite fighter at that point in his career. At that time he was very green. As for Duran being a complete fighter as there has ever been I do agree 100%. However, against the elite he lost more than he won. For instance, he lost to Sugar Ray Leonard 2x, Hearns, Hagler, De Jesus and Benitez. He won against Leonard in a razor thin decision, 2x against De Jesus, and once against Buchanan. Moore and Barkley were good wins but there were not elite fighters. They were just simply bigger than him. Ezzard has more wins against the elite and a lot of his loses were after his prime was gone. Duran could have had more skills, but Ezzard was the better fighter and his resume just proves that.

Marcel was more experienced than Duran at the time. It was another win that was far superior to the needlessly mentioned victory over a virtually useless Louis.

Nobody has mentioned palomino, he was no Burley. But he damn well was an elite Welterweight at the time.

I think the Hagler loss is a plus on Duran's resume. I didn't have it quite as close as the judges but it was a very good performance against one of the greatest Middleweights in history.

You mention Leonard/Duran 3 and then say ezzard's losses were past his prime? C'mon, you're better than that.

I've already stated that I give a slight edge to Charles and I love both of them.

Better resume doesn't always mean better fighter and these guys are very close. Nothing at all wrong with somebody voting for Duran here.

To add to the discussion how about analyzing the caliber of the people they lost to instead of who they beat.

For this, I think it would be unfair to include their losses when they were past their primes (Charles lost 12 of his last 23, and Roberto dropped decisions to fighters like Omar Gonzalez or Pat Lawlor, not to mention being stopped by Joppy)

So, Charles hit his prime after the war and his best years ended with the second loss to Marciano. (1946-1954)

Duran came in the scene against Buchanan and ends his best years collapsing against Hearns (1972-1984) [You may want to include his epic against Barkley in 89, but thats stretching it a bit too much)

So during these years, Charles lost to:

Elmer Ray -albeit a controversial decision
Jersey Joe (twice)
Rex Layne
Nino Valdes
Harold Johnson
Marciano (twice)

Duran lost to:

De Jesus
Leonard
Wilfred Benitez
Kirkland Laing
Hagler
Hearns

Ezzard later avenged hi loses to Ray and Layne, and of course he'd beaten Walcott previously.
Duran avenged the DeJesus loss (twice) and he'd given a Leonard a good beating (as Saad recalls) --there was one clueless French judge who scored something like 12 rounds even on that fight.

In these losses, Charles was knocked out twice (Walcott, Marciano). Duran was knocked out once (Hearns), quit on another (Leonard).

All in all it looks pretty even to me

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: I've already stated that I give a slight edge to Charles and I love both of them.

Better resume doesn't always mean better fighter and these guys are very close. Nothing at all wrong with somebody voting for Duran here.

My friend I think we are on the same page here. I also give Charles a slight edge here. I don't think he was far superior, just slightly better. You are correct nothing wrong for those who believe Duran was better, they are that close imo.

This is similar to Hagler/Monzon, who was better? I always liked Hagler slightly better,but there is always room for debate.

dempseyfire wrote:Charles without a doubt.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but I do agree it's by a somewhat wider margin than most people here (whoever they're picking) would suppose...

This is a great debate. I am a Duran fan, but if somebody tells me that the great Ezzard Charles was better, I would not argue with him. In my view, Charles beat better fighters in his prime, but Duran as a lightweight champion was way more DOMINANT.

Longevity: I give it to Duran

Quality of opposition: I give it to Charles

Boxing ability: Both, at their very best, were complete boxers and extraordinary boxing machines.

Division dominance: I edge Duran that at lightweight, he was better than Charles at light-heavyweight...Both were the greatest in their respective weight classes.

Both went up to weight classes that were not theirs. Charles was a middleweight at first and went all the way to heavyweight. Duran started at bantamweight, and fought all the way up to super middleweight.

The only thing that why I put Duran over Charles is that in their heydays, Duran was clearly the greatest fighter of the 70s decade, and Charles, to me, was never the best of the decade of the 40s in my view.

To call Duran the greatest of the 70's is not unreasonable, but to say he was, "clearly" that is, IMO. That, & the 40's was deeper than the 70's.

I think relative 'dominance' in an era is vastly over-rated. For example Hopkins at 160 was far more 'dominant' than Emile Griffith, but was he the superior fighter? I say no.

Duran beat some excellent fighters during his reign at 135 but also a lot of filler. Charles on the other hand in the 1940s was fighting HOFers like they were going out of style.

I prefer Charles. He is one of my favourites.
But I could see people picking Roberto.

it's Charles by a running mile!

it's good to see most posting on here are clearly schooled on, the better overall era - which first and foremost IS ALL THE DIFFERENCE!

secondly the comp & longevity in that era

last p4p and supperficial titles (not that that applies to Duran, a true & worthy great) and all that shite means as little as modern acheivement.

Not only is it Charles, but HOFames should truely distinguish between Era's and acheivements and ALL the True Top Men from great Era's should be in...

and all the acheivers from lesser era's are in but made quite clear they are there because thet were top "in their time, though Not Great era's", in other words "Placed Right!"

the greatest fighters are losing out because of Acheivements and then this kind of thing happens -Duran is better than Charles, NO HE's NOT!!!

but there are far more sinful examples, like Jones, BHop, DeLaHoya, Calzaghe, Eubank, Floyed and the like - "get a Grip"

Place them Right, as most have done here.