BoxRec

... Share my belief that Roberto Duran was the single best boxer of all time? In a head-to-head sense, that is. Better than Pep, Robinson, Charles and co.?

It is not a rediculous claim IMHO. In most of our lives he stands out as one of the best if not the best to be personaly viewed by someone 60 or under (Ray Robinson would be another) . However if your 90 and saw Benny L or Henry A and maybe a few others you might say your old eyes witnessed better.

Even then I can't see why Duran would be laughed at as choice of "best of best". Though there will be strong advocates for other names those advocates would likely say Duran is in the elite group of 20 or so names vying for the all time top spot. ( I really think I have seen as many as 20 names bantered around for this honor even amoungst the well informed).

I could see Duran beating Armstrong at lightweight, that to me means he has a good claim in a head to head sense. Although it would obviously be impossible to pick a greatest fighter ever on a head-to-head basis because of the weight differences or have I misunderstood the question?

I have a framed picture in my house of me shaking hands with Roberto Duran.

The picture was taken a few years ago, on the evening I met him Duran claimed with a wry smile that he believed he was the greatest fighter of all time.

As I was only a few feet away from those legendary Hands Of Stone when he made this claim I felt it best not to debate this point.

Wether he was the greatest fighter of them all, I'm not so sure, but he is certainly up there with the ring immortals.

DoubleM wrote:... Share my belief that Roberto Duran was the single best boxer of all time?

..."single best boxer of all time?"...

...I'd take Sugar Ray Robinson...Duran probably in top 50 (and had to have lost a few points in the Leonard No Mas fight, the way it ended...)

I wouldnt argue with him being in the top 5 all time for sure but I think Armstrong, Robinson and Greb should rate slightly above him... very hard to really say one fighter was the best of them all but Duran was definately one of the best and pound for pound probably the best of the big 5(Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Benitez) of the 80s...

No...it's certainly not a ridiculous claim...the all-time top five, or ten, well anyone could pretty much make an strong arguement for any of those fighters being number one and Duran is among that group that a strong claim can be made for...though personally I pick both Ray Robinson and Henry Armstrong tied at number one, but the same case can be made for Duran, Sam Langford, Joe Gans, Benny Leonard, Harry Greb, Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, Bob Fitzsimmons, Jimmy Wilde, or Eder Jofre.

barry wrote:No...it's certainly not a ridiculous claim...the all-time top five, or ten, well anyone could pretty much make an strong arguement for any of those fighters being number one and Duran is among that group that a strong claim can be made for...though personally I pick both Ray Robinson and Henry Armstrong tied at number one, but the same case can be made for Duran, Sam Langford, Joe Gans, Benny Leonard, Harry Greb, Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, Bob Fitzsimmons, Jimmy Wilde, or Eder Jofre.

When it come to the "best of the best" I have a hard time including HW's these days...it seems the physics of the human body produce it's most pound per pound ferocity at lighter weights. I'm thinkin WW being about the prime but a case can be made anywhere from Light to Middle....

With of course Archie Moore being the single exception to the rule.

(Archie being the exception to all rules of this nature) And of course that is purely a scientific rendering...no bias whatsoever.

BoxBuzz wrote:With of course Archie Moore being the single exception to the rule.

(Archie being the exception to all rules of this nature) And of course that is purely a scientific rendering...no bias whatsoever.

I believe at the time of his death Archie was close to the completion of a fully functioning perpetual motion machine, can anyone else confirm this?

J-C wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:With of course Archie Moore being the single exception to the rule.

(Archie being the exception to all rules of this nature) And of course that is purely a scientific rendering...no bias whatsoever.

I believe at the time of his death Archie was close to the completion of a fully functioning perpetual motion machine, can anyone else confirm this?

Confirmed......the truth is out there.

DoubleM wrote:... Share my belief that Roberto Duran was the single best boxer of all time? In a head-to-head sense, that is. Better than Pep, Robinson, Charles and co.?

There are 5-10 fighters who one could legitly bring forward. Duran is one of them.

In all honesty, I haven't seen a fighter so well rounded as Duran. I mean, he could rate in top ten lists for both offense and defence. He could also rate in a top ten list for both ferocity and intelligence. You had Ray Robinson, who is the consensus #1 when we talk about the most able fighter of all time, but I don't see where Duran couldn't match him. There's one glaring factor which is 'heart', although I think too big a deal is made out of that one. I will agree with anyone who says 'Ray Robinson most likely wouldn't have quit in that situation', but I do genuinely believe Duran possessed a lot of heart when he was at his best, which is what we like to talk about. He had his bad moments, he had his terrible moments, but Duran also had some great moments, times where he fought like an Archie Moore or Carmen Basilio. Without trying to sound like a desperate, Tyson-esque fanatic - I don't believe a peak, focused Roberto Duran would have quit in the midst of battle.
Was there anything Robinson did significantly better than Duran? I'm not so sure. I would say without hesitation that Duran's defence was superior. I rate them about equal as punchers; both were excellent counter punchers, hit the body often and hard and could throw a variety of shots in quick succession. Both were intelligent and conserving while at the same time explosive and ferocious, sometimes also innovative. Top stamina, chin, fundamental skills, speed and all that.

For those who rate Robinson above Duran (and remember, we're talking pure fighting ability here, no need to mention accomplishments), what do you see seperating them?

>>>For those who rate Robinson above Duran (and remember, we're talking pure fighting ability here, no need to mention accomplishments), what do you see seperating them?<<<

Some of the main attributes that I give Robinson over Duran.

Robinson was about as fast as it gets. Tremendous speed hurt Duran. While Duran had very good speed, fighters with tremendous speed usually out-did him...DeJesus beat Duran with better speed in they're first bout...Leonard frustrated Duran into quitting because of speed and Thomas Hearns knocked Duran silly due to speed. Duran had very good speed...Robinson had extraordinary speed.

Robinson's power went with him when he moved up in weight...Duran's vicious power at lightweight pretty much stayed at lightweight. Duran’s skill is the reason he was so successful at multiple divisions because he simply did not have the huge punch past the lightweight division…he had to use skill after moving up, but overall Robinson was pretty much flawless when it came to skill and he could knock an opponent cold while going backwards just about as easily as he did when he sat down on his punches.

Chin they both had top notch chins, but Robinson’s chin never once failed him…not one time in 200 total bouts! Though he had an outstanding chin, Duran cannot say the same as his chin did fail him on a couple of occasions!

Ferocity…Duran gets this one by a wide margin. Duran is in the same league with other such ferocious fighters like Terry McGovern, Stanley Ketchel and Jack Dempsey. He went in to win as fast and as brutal as possible. There was no pity when those guess stepped in the ring.

Heart…they both had tremendous heart and I would probably call this attribute even.

As great as Duran was, I just think that Robinson was a bit better as he rates a bit higher in more categories than Duran does in my opinion.

barry wrote:>>>For those who rate Robinson above Duran (and remember, we're talking pure fighting ability here, no need to mention accomplishments), what do you see seperating them?<<<

Some of the main attributes that I give Robinson over Duran.

Robinson was about as fast as it gets. Tremendous speed hurt Duran. While Duran had very good speed, fighters with tremendous speed usually out-did him...DeJesus beat Duran with better speed in they're first bout...Leonard frustrated Duran into quitting because of speed and Thomas Hearns knocked Duran silly due to speed. Duran had very good speed...Robinson had extraordinary speed.

Robinson's power went with him when he moved up in weight...Duran's vicious power at lightweight pretty much stayed at lightweight. Duran’s skill is the reason he was so successful at multiple divisions because he simply did not have the huge punch past the lightweight division…he had to use skill after moving up, but overall Robinson was pretty much flawless when it came to skill and he could knock an opponent cold while going backwards just about as easily as he did when he sat down on his punches.

Chin they both had top notch chins, but Robinson’s chin never once failed him…not one time in 200 total bouts! Though he had an outstanding chin, Duran cannot say the same as his chin did fail him on a couple of occasions!

Ferocity…Duran gets this one by a wide margin. Duran is in the same league with other such ferocious fighters like Terry McGovern, Stanley Ketchel and Jack Dempsey. He went in to win as fast and as brutal as possible. There was no pity when those guess stepped in the ring.

Heart…they both had tremendous heart and I would probably call this attribute even.

As great as Duran was, I just think that Robinson was a bit better as he rates a bit higher in more categories than Duran does in my opinion.

Robinson was about as fast as it gets. Tremendous speed hurt Duran. While Duran had very good speed, fighters with tremendous speed usually out-did him...DeJesus beat Duran with better speed in they're first bout...Leonard frustrated Duran into quitting because of speed and Thomas Hearns knocked Duran silly due to speed. Duran had very good speed...Robinson had extraordinary speed.

What about the first Duran-Leonard fight? Duran was ducking hooks left right and centre! Leonard was extremely fast as you say, yet his opponent - in peak physical and mental condition - had little trouble defending himself. As Duran got heavier and slower (and lazier), that's when he started having trouble with speed.

Robinson's power went with him when he moved up in weight...Duran's vicious power at lightweight pretty much stayed at lightweight. Duran’s skill is the reason he was so successful at multiple divisions because he simply did not have the huge punch past the lightweight division…he had to use skill after moving up, but overall Robinson was pretty much flawless when it came to skill and he could knock an opponent cold while going backwards just about as easily as he did when he sat down on his punches.

Well... Let's say that Duran at lightweight is the equivalent to Robinson at welterweight, and Duran at welterweight was the equivalent to Robinson at middleweight. A lightweight Duran was more destructive than a welterweight Robinson, although you can put that down to a different mindset (meaning, Robinson chose to box a bit more). At their next weight class, Robinson was more destructive than Duran, however Duran's career at 147 was very short and his opponents were very durable. I think he was still a very solid puncher at welterweight, much like Robinson was still a very solid puncher at middleweight. Summarizing, I don't think there is any significant difference in their power (infact for raw power I would favour Duran, Robinson was more of a speedy puncher).

Chin they both had top notch chins, but Robinson’s chin never once failed him…not one time in 200 total bouts! Though he had an outstanding chin, Duran cannot say the same as his chin did fail him on a couple of occasions!

Well, I think we can agree that Robinson never faced a puncher in the same stratosphere as Thomas Hearns, or the equivalent. Imagine Robinson in about '52 facing Archie Moore at light heavyweight.

Ferocity…Duran gets this one by a wide margin. Duran is in the same league with other such ferocious fighters like Terry McGovern, Stanley Ketchel and Jack Dempsey. He went in to win as fast and as brutal as possible. There was no pity when those guess stepped in the ring.

Agreed, although Robinson was very explosive and didn't hold back at all.

Barry - how about their defence?

I'm reading many wonderful things about Duran here...but I'm not reading anyone who share's the 'single greatest boxer' opinion...

It would be hard to call Duran the 'single greatest boxer'....it takes in too much territory, and 'single greatest boxer' goes down fighting as opposed to giving up in the biggest (or second biggest) fight of his career...

I don't deny his greatness, his style, his lifetime achievement, etc....I just couldn't call him the 'single greatest boxer'...

Sweet Scientist wrote:I'm reading many wonderful things about Duran here...but I'm not reading anyone who share's the 'single greatest boxer' opinion...

It would be hard to call Duran the 'single greatest boxer'....it takes in too much territory, and 'single greatest boxer' goes down fighting as opposed to giving up in the biggest (or second biggest) fight of his career...

I don't deny his greatness, his style, his lifetime achievement, etc....I just couldn't call him the 'single greatest boxer'...

No, no... Careful what you say. I don't think he's the greatest, I think he's the best.

>>>Well, I think we can agree that Robinson never faced a puncher in the same stratosphere as Thomas Hearns, or the equivalent.<<<

Now don't go overboard with the praise...keep it grouded!!! Guys like Artie Levine, Terry Downes, Aaron Wade, Garth Panter, Bobby Dykes, Jackie Wilson, Henry Armstrong, Tommy Bell, Earl Turner, George Costner, Jose Basora and Steve Belloise were certainly in the same stratosphere with Hearns as punchers and Rocky Graziano and Randy Turpin hit just as hard as Hearns did if not harder!!!

barry did you just demote hearns big time with that statement? I thought Tommy had a rep for being a true great in that dept and you seem to have included him with some also rans in the big punch dept.

Or was that era really full of HearnsLike punchers?

No sarcame meant....you know about that era and the specs better than I but it on the surface that statement seemed a broadside slam on Tommy's power.

Definately the best lightweight of all time and definately in my top 10 of all time.

DoubleM wrote:... Share my belief that Roberto Duran was the single best boxer of all time? In a head-to-head sense, that is. Better than Pep, Robinson, Charles and co.?

I don't share that belief, but I respect it. A well prepared case can be made to say Duran is the best of all-time.. it's truly difficult to rate the all-time best fighters in a head to head sense. Many boxing fans underrate Whitaker in that matter, but it's just so difficult to say who is better than who in a head to head sense. Based on accomplishments however, I rate Duran in my p4p top 5. This is a bit of a stretch to some but I think Sanchez is one of the best fighters all-time in a head to head sense. I see no trouble with your belief in Duran. He truly was an amazing fighter to watch. One of those few who made boxing look like an artform at times.

>>>barry did you just demote hearns big time with that statement?<<<

No...not at all...I just stated that those I mentioned are fighters that were very hard punchers, which they certainly were. Most not necessarily hit as hard as Hearns, but Hearns, while almost certain is a much harder hitter than many I mentioned, he is not in a whole other realm/world compared to those guys I mentioned and going up against Turpin and Graziano, well if Hearns does hit harder than both of those guys it is only by a small bit!

There's an argument to be made for about 10 fighters as the best of all time although Robinson still come first in my mind. Although Duran was simply awe inspiring at his best

I would have loved for Laszlo Papp to have turned pro 10 years earlier. It wouldn't have been a surprise to see his name bandied about today, in these lists

bollox wrote:There's an argument to be made for about 10 fighters as the best of all time although Robinson still come first in my mind. Although Duran was simply awe inspiring at his best

I would have loved for Laszlo Papp to have turned pro 10 years earlier. It wouldn't have been a surprise to see his name bandied about today, in these lists

I agree with the main point about Robinson being the best of all-time, but that's based mainly on accomplishments and on a bit of head to head match ups, yet if it was based mainly on head to head match ups, I see no problem with Duran being up there somewhere. Robinson would have defeated Duran more times than not, along with most fighters near his weightclass, but then again you have to think for a second about it, Duran was a lightweight for awhile and some would say he was almost a natural lightweight. He probably could have made the lightweight limit for most of his career, yet he fought at higher weights, sometimes almost looking a bit out of shape, not only that. He fought from 68 to 2001 and although he was a shell of his former self near the end of his career, he still managed to decision a former middleweight alphabet title holder who would later win some fairly insignificant supermiddleweight titles, light heavyweight titles, and even contend for the fairly respected WBC cruiserweight title. Not only that, but this fighter, Jorge Fernando Castro, even went 12 rounds with Jirov (although he was outclassed) and yet a 46 year old Duran (just 2 days short of his 47th birthday) managed to beat this guy. Duran is truly one of the best fighters of all-time, and in a head to head match up scenario, a strong case can be made for him being number 1. The same with several other fighters including Robinson, so in a head to head sense it's just much too difficult to say which fighter is the best. I don't think any list would ever be accurate, simply because these fighters were so great that they made strong impacts on several weight divisions.

vagabundo55 wrote:

bollox wrote:There's an argument to be made for about 10 fighters as the best of all time although Robinson still come first in my mind. Although Duran was simply awe inspiring at his best

I would have loved for Laszlo Papp to have turned pro 10 years earlier. It wouldn't have been a surprise to see his name bandied about today, in these lists

I agree with the main point about Robinson being the best of all-time, but that's based mainly on accomplishments and on a bit of head to head match ups, yet if it was based mainly on head to head match ups, I see no problem with Duran being up there somewhere. Robinson would have defeated Duran more times than not, along with most fighters near his weightclass, but then again you have to think for a second about it, Duran was a lightweight for awhile and some would say he was almost a natural lightweight. He probably could have made the lightweight limit for most of his career, yet he fought at higher weights, sometimes almost looking a bit out of shape, not only that. He fought from 68 to 2001 and although he was a shell of his former self near the end of his career, he still managed to decision a former middleweight alphabet title holder who would later win some fairly insignificant supermiddleweight titles, light heavyweight titles, and even contend for the fairly respected WBC cruiserweight title. Not only that, but this fighter, Jorge Fernando Castro, even went 12 rounds with Jirov (although he was outclassed) and yet a 46 year old Duran (just 2 days short of his 47th birthday) managed to beat this guy. Duran is truly one of the best fighters of all-time, and in a head to head match up scenario, a strong case can be made for him being number 1. The same with several other fighters including Robinson, so in a head to head sense it's just much too difficult to say which fighter is the best. I don't think any list would ever be accurate, simply because these fighters were so great that they made strong impacts on several weight divisions.

Can't argue with any of what you said. Duran beat naturally heavier fighters that should have beaten him (Barkley) and ran one of top top 3 middles of all time in Hagler to a close decision. He also beat the man considered to be one the best 5 welters of all time in Leonard. And he was a lightweight

Had his attitude to training been Hagleresque then we'd be having him at the top of the list most times. But his often undisciplined attitude to training was what made his accomplishments all the more special. What a bizarre and special fighter, when you take everything into consideration

barry wrote:>>>Well, I think we can agree that Robinson never faced a puncher in the same stratosphere as Thomas Hearns, or the equivalent.<<<

Now don't go overboard with the praise...keep it grouded!!! Guys like Artie Levine, Terry Downes, Aaron Wade, Garth Panter, Bobby Dykes, Jackie Wilson, Henry Armstrong, Tommy Bell, Earl Turner, George Costner, Jose Basora and Steve Belloise were certainly in the same stratosphere with Hearns as punchers and Rocky Graziano and Randy Turpin hit just as hard as Hearns did if not harder!!!

Why is it all about power? I never said anything about Hearns' power. I do infact seriously doubt that any one of those lot hit as hard as Hearns, but besides that, he was just a better puncher.

It's totally irrelevant saying Graziano and Turpin might have hit harder than Hearns - we're talking about 'pound-for-pound' - remember, Duran was smaller than Robinson, Hearns was smaller than Graziano (it's like me saying Chris Byrd hit harder than Edwin Rosario). I'm pretty sure you wouldn't rate Turpin above Hearns on a pound-for-pound power punching list.