The skills and abilities of Roberto Duran

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 21 Jan 2006, 18:20

What was it that made this guy so good?

We know for sure that it wasn't just his durability and strength alone.

I would say Duran peaked around '77-'78, although the Duran of '72 was ultra aggressive, and I think he'd do better against certain fighters as the early Duran than the later version.

Was it his elusiveness? Duran could slip punches real good and blocked and parried a lot of shots. He was pretty hard to hit. One rare thing he mastered was how to turn his head away from a punch at the last minute, reducing its effect.

But I'd say it was Duran's punch quality and technique that made him so good, or at least in his early career anyway. He was always in position to throw any kind of punch he wanted, and his combinations were so fluid because his positioning was correct.

To see Duran at his peak, skillwise, I would suggest watching the Palomino fight. He was no longer the relentless powerhouse he was at lightweight, but Duran's handspeed, defense, counterpunching, jabbing and infighting were excellent. His technique and composure were flawless.

I would certainly put a peak Roberto Duran in the same class as Willie Pep and Ray Robinson when we talk about skill.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 21 Jan 2006, 19:14

I'm sitting here watching Duran versus Palomino again... Man, he was slick. Palomino was a good welterweight, a Hall of Famer infact - Duran was up a weight class, and practically shut him out over ten rounds. I had Duran winning all but one, and so did almost everyone else. Some of the moves were the stuff of a peak Willie Pep - and the speed Duran countered with... Well, he looked faster than he did back down at lightweight.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 21 Jan 2006, 20:00

I think it was Duran's ability to seamlessly move side to side inside while throwing combinations that made him so great. Like what has been said, his offensive skills were some of the best ever. He was never a one punch guy, but landed punch after punch and wore guys down. His stamina was superb. He has the style to beat any type of fighter, be it mover or slugger. Duran was the greatest lightweight in history IMO.

He was never the same fighter once he left lightweight, but he still had the abilities to win belts and beat a prime Sugar Ray Leonard at welterweight. He's a prime example of the old trainers motto, the games 80% mental, 20% physical. One of the bravest, determined fighters to step in the ring. It was sad the last few years to see a legend get beat by lesser fighters. A fighter I don't think anybody could dislike, as obviously I am a fan

.

Defintely agree he belongs in the ranks of Pep and Robinson, and deservedly top 10 p-4-p all time, and probably top 5 as well.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 21 Jan 2006, 20:17

Sherlock - incase you're interested, here are my top fifteen greatest fighters of all time (mainly based on accomplishments, although the majority of the guys on this list were killers in a head-to-head sense too):

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Ray Robinson
3. Harry Greb
4. Willie Pep
5. Roberto Duran
6. Benny Leonard
7. Jimmy Wilde
8. Joe Gans
9. Ezzard Charles
10. Eder Jofre
11. Carlos Monzon
12. Joe Louis
13. Muhammad Ali
14. Archie Moore
15. Sam Langford

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 21 Jan 2006, 20:27

DoubleM wrote:Sherlock - incase you're interested, here are my top fifteen greatest fighters of all time (mainly based on accomplishments, although the majority of the guys on this list were killers in a head-to-head sense too):

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Ray Robinson
3. Harry Greb
4. Willie Pep
5. Roberto Duran
6. Benny Leonard
7. Jimmy Wilde
8. Joe Gans
9. Ezzard Charles
10. Eder Jofre
11. Carlos Monzon
12. Joe Louis
13. Muhammad Ali
14. Archie Moore
15. Sam Langford

Very similar to mine. Here's my top 10, for comparison:

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Roberto Duran
4. Harry Greb
5. Benny Leonard
6. Willie Pep
7. Jimmy Wilde
8. Joe Louis
9. Sam Langford
10. Ezzard Charles

1-6 are sealed in stone, as I don't think it will change. 7-10 are very shaky, as I'm uncertain of the ranking.

MaxPow · Post by **MaxPow** » 21 Jan 2006, 20:29

DoubleM, how would you sum up the career of Ezzard Charles as a heavyweight? Where would you rank him among the all-time heavyweight greats (both head-to-head and by accomplishments)?

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 21 Jan 2006, 20:58

MaxPow wrote:DoubleM, how would you sum up the career of Ezzard Charles as a heavyweight? Where would you rank him among the all-time heavyweight greats (both head-to-head and by accomplishments)?

Charles as a heavyweight? He faced some good fighters. I think he did extremely well, seeing as he was at his best at light heavyweight, and his prime was starting to end during his title reign. 2-2 with Walcott, twenty three rounds with Marciano, that's pretty good. I wouldn't rate him up there with the best though, around #15 on both a head-to-head basis and accomplishments. I feel at his heavyweight best, Charles' tactical, textbook and technical style could cause problems for the less skilled heavyweights out there.

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 21 Jan 2006, 21:49

For sure he was a great fighter. I am very impressed that he beat Charley Burley earlier in his career twice within five weeks I believe ,and what alot of people dont realize is, Ezzard was according to his trainer Ray arcel, possibly in the early stages of Multiple Sclerosis in the later part of his career. It is hard to imagine fighting with this. The disease eventually took his life.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 22 Jan 2006, 01:54

Decagon wrote:
expug wrote:For sure he was a great fighter. I am very impressed that he beat Charley Burley earlier in his career twice within five weeks I believe ,and what alot of people dont realize is, Ezzard was according to his trainer Ray arcel, possibly in the early stages of Multiple Sclerosis in the later part of his career. It is hard to imagine fighting with this. The disease eventually took his life.
He had a 10-pound weight advantage over Burley in those two fights, though. I believe Ring magazine briefly ranked him #1 at middleweight after those two wins.

in the first fight he had only a 6lb advantage. get ur facts straight. fact is, in most of burleys career, he was weighing in at aroudn 155lb in his prime so its not like he was too light when he fought charles.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 22 Jan 2006, 02:10

More on Duran please. My fault, I sidetracked with the list.

Another great point about Roberto Duran in his prime years was his variety... He threw every punch in the book, and knew an extensive range of offensive and defensive manouvres. Particularly from '77-'80.

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 22 Jan 2006, 02:27

Durans defensive ability was in my opinion old school .He was so difficult to hit wiyh a clean shot because of his head movement ,but more specificaly he would roll with the punch thrown at him.You dont see to many modern day fighters doing it. Lamotta would do it also. He didnt get hit quite as often as people think.Combine this with his offensive ability ,his ferocity and tremendous desire,solid chin and conditioning,and you have the machine that was Manos de Piedra.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 22 Jan 2006, 02:32

expug wrote:Durans defensive ability was in my opinion old school .He was so difficult to hit wiyh a clean shot because of his head movement ,but more specificaly he would roll with the punch thrown at him.You dont see to many modern day fighters doing it. Lamotta would do it also. He didnt get hit quite as often as people think.

I agree. It was that turning and moving in the same direction as the punch, taking the force away from it.

I'll add that Duran's physical attributes helped him a lot too. He had an iron chin, quick hands and feet, strong legs and plenty of stamina. His strong legs allowed him to launch off quickly and mount his attack.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 22 Jan 2006, 09:34

DoubleMM, what fight at lightweight do you feel showcases Duran's abilities best?

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 22 Jan 2006, 23:17

Sherlock wrote:DoubleMM, what fight at lightweight do you feel showcases Duran's abilities best?

Well, you could pick a few really. He looked ultra aggressive and unstoppable in the Buchanan fight. But I guess I would go with the third DeJesus scrap, he looked tremendous. Duran had the skill, determination, power, everything. I would pick only Henry Armstrong to beat him that night.

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 22 Jan 2006, 23:52

Duran looked like a very dangerous man in sending Ray Lampkin to the hospital. Not real remorseful afterwards either . That beating was chilling.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 23 Jan 2006, 10:58

As has been stated on another thread he was an offensive fighter with a fantastic defence. He could punch wiht either hand and had unbelievable stamina. I also think that Duran was a brilliant tactician. His loss to Hagler really showed this up because he was old, way too small and up against one of the greats but he managed to go the distance and keep the bout competitive. He worked out that Hagler didn't liek to lead and he did not play into his hands. This tactical understanding is very much underplayed but it is this which allowed him to still be successful even as an old man against the likes of Barkley.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 23 Jan 2006, 14:12

Sherlock wrote:
DoubleM wrote:Sherlock - incase you're interested, here are my top fifteen greatest fighters of all time (mainly based on accomplishments, although the majority of the guys on this list were killers in a head-to-head sense too):

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Ray Robinson
3. Harry Greb
4. Willie Pep
5. Roberto Duran
6. Benny Leonard
7. Jimmy Wilde
8. Joe Gans
9. Ezzard Charles
10. Eder Jofre
11. Carlos Monzon
12. Joe Louis
13. Muhammad Ali
14. Archie Moore
15. Sam Langford
Very similar to mine. Here's my top 10, for comparison:

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Roberto Duran
4. Harry Greb
5. Benny Leonard
6. Willie Pep
7. Jimmy Wilde
8. Joe Louis
9. Sam Langford
10. Ezzard Charles

1-6 are sealed in stone, as I don't think it will change. 7-10 are very shaky, as I'm uncertain of the ranking.

Just out of curiousity, where do you guys rate Ray Leonard?

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 23 Jan 2006, 14:19

For years I bought into the theory that the reason Leonard lost to Duran in their first meeting was because Leonard chose the wrong tactics.

I over the years have totally changed my mind on this and now believe without a shadow of a doubt that Leonard fought the fight he fought that night because Duran FORCED him to.

The fact that Duran a former Lightweight beat a peak Ray Leonard at Welterweight speaks volumes in itself.

On that night even a peak Welterweight Ray Robinson would have been pushed to beat Roberto Duran.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 23 Jan 2006, 15:33

[quote="Ambling Alp"Just out of curiousity, where do you guys rate Ray Leonard?[/quote]

Anywhere from 7-15, as I've never really went indepth besides one to five.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 23 Jan 2006, 15:39

DoubleM wrote:Well, you could pick a few really. He looked ultra aggressive and unstoppable in the Buchanan fight. But I guess I would go with the third DeJesus scrap, he looked tremendous. Duran had the skill, determination, power, everything. I would pick only Henry Armstrong to beat him that night.

The Buchanan fight is also the fight which sticks out for me also. Though he was so young, he dominated Buchanan. The controversial ending sometimes overshadows Duran's brillance. DeJesus 2&3 as well as Lampkin really show Duran at his highest level of ferocity, but the Buchanan fight shows a Duran that feints in and out and rarely getting hit clean. It is, in my opinion, nearly equal to his 1st bout with Leonard in showcasing Duran at his best.

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 23 Jan 2006, 15:46

Sherlock wrote:
DoubleM wrote:Well, you could pick a few really. He looked ultra aggressive and unstoppable in the Buchanan fight. But I guess I would go with the third DeJesus scrap, he looked tremendous. Duran had the skill, determination, power, everything. I would pick only Henry Armstrong to beat him that night.
The Buchanan fight is also the fight which sticks out for me also. Though he was so young, he dominated Buchanan. The controversial ending sometimes overshadows Duran's brillance. DeJesus 2&3 as well as Lampkin really show Duran at his highest level of ferocity, but the Buchanan fight shows a Duran that feints in and out and rarely getting hit clean. It is, in my opinion, nearly equal to his 1st bout with Leonard in showcasing Duran at his best.

And Durans stamina in the Buchanan fight was incredible. Ken was a helluva fighter also a future hall of famer, and Duran was all over him non stop. Buchanan was a great pure boxer but he could not slow Duran down at all.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 23 Jan 2006, 15:51

I over the years have totally changed my mind on this and now believe without a shadow of a doubt that Leonard fought the fight he fought that night because Duran FORCED him to.

disagree

i think leonard chose to slug it out rather than box because duran got to his head. i think that if leonard adopted the game plan he did in the 2nd fight, he would have beat the montreal duran.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 23 Jan 2006, 16:06

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
I over the years have totally changed my mind on this and now believe without a shadow of a doubt that Leonard fought the fight he fought that night because Duran FORCED him to.
disagree

i think leonard chose to slug it out rather than box because duran got to his head. i think that if leonard adopted the game plan he did in the 2nd fight, he would have beat the montreal duran.

I agree with KOJoe. Duran forced Leonard to fight his fight.

Leonard - "I showed I had a good chin. I didn't want to, but I had to."

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 23 Jan 2006, 16:24

Great fighters get there opponents to fight there fight, not the way they want to fight.Duran was a master at this.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 23 Jan 2006, 17:06

KOJOE90 wrote:For years I bought into the theory that the reason Leonard lost to Duran in their first meeting was because Leonard chose the wrong tactics.

I over the years have totally changed my mind on this and now believe without a shadow of a doubt that Leonard fought the fight he fought that night because Duran FORCED him to.

The fact that Duran a former Lightweight beat a peak Ray Leonard at Welterweight speaks volumes in itself.

On that night even a peak Welterweight Ray Robinson would have been pushed to beat Roberto Duran.

I totally agree with you on this. A lot is made about the tactics employed but Ray had no choice in the first fight. Duran was much quicker than Ray anticipated.

Ray won the second fight because he was in great condition, was a great fighter in his own right and because Duran was not in the right frame of mind and was not physically prepared. I honestly think Duran expected a rematch.