Floyd, JCC and Duran

First topic message reminder :

Why are two of those guys often ranked above Floyd? Their records aren't better than Floyd's by any stretch of the imagination. OK Duran has Leonard on his ledger, but lets not forget he was pancaked by Hearns, thoroughly outboxed by Laing and lost to Benitez. Floyd has beaten everyone in front of him without looking like losing. OK he got a dubious decision against that mexican and put the record straight the very next fight.

Why people rank Chavez ahead of Floyd is beyong.

Floyd beats them both so should be ranked higher.

Thoughts

I'm a Duran fan. Alway have been and always will be.

Floyd became a part time fighter. Went into semi retirement ad fought once a year at best. Hadn't PW moved up or lost?

Paul Williams is paralyzed from the legs down after a motor cycling accident.


Floyd has carefully managed his opponents. It's all about the '0'.

And Duran lost to very average opposition.

I thought Floyd was all about the money.

The 0 brings him in the money.

I think how much leeway you give Duran for some of his darker moments depends on what definition you have for the ingredients which make a truly great fighter.

If you state that Duran only lost to the likes of Laing and Sims, or only blew his top and quit against Leonard in New Orleans, because his mind was elsewhere and he didn't prepare properly, then it's likely that fifty percent will say that's a rubbish cop out, whereas the other fifty will say it's true (as well as arguing that Duran was past his physical peak) and, as such, they don't hold those losses against him too much.

Personally, I think that preparation and mental focus, while perhaps slightly lesser tangibles, are still part of evaluating just how great a fighter was or is, and I tend to feel that, unless there are really extenuating circumstances (ie, the fighter in question is completely shot and the like), then you pretty much leave your excuses behind once you step through the ropes.

Do I think that Duran took the challenge of Laing and Sims lightly? Yes, I do. But while I strongly suspect he'd have breezed past them with a bit more professionalism, what I think has to be secondary to what actually happened, and so to that end he does deserve a bit of a kicking for those setbacks, I reckon.

It's also difficult to ignore the fact that none of those who I tend to rank in or around the same area as Duran (so either ever so slightly higher or ever so slightly lower) such as both of the Leonards, Whitaker, Tunney, Mayweather etc have those kind of terrible lows that Duran has.

I guess that's why I don't get too fussed if people want to stick Floyd ahead of Roberto, and also why I feel much less of a need to defend Duran compared to what I did two or three years back.

You also have to factor in some intangibles. As I recall, the multi world champion's of the terry lawless gym in the late 70's early 80's used to sing Kirkland laing's praises. His record is iffy to say the least, but before getting tagged he was boxing Colin jones' head off in a manner milt mcrory couldn't. It's not impossible that Duran, was the only guy ever to face a fully motivated ganja free Laing. If such a thing ever existed! Clearly Duran shouldn't be losing to any version of Laing... But it wasnt like losing to any random journey man. Benitez, also, was still very live when Duran got him.

I hear Oscar being mentioned as a defining win for floyd. For me, it's the one question mark I have over him. He won pretty much because Oscar gassed... Sure that wasnt hard to predict but it left me really questioning whether floyd would have beaten a younger version.. Especially at light-light welter.

Ronnie is generally recognized as the greatest talent to ever pick up a cue. Henry has more trophies but I think we know who is the greater snooker genius.

So much is in the head in sport. At the top level, were the difference in talent is very small, every thing is played out in the 6 inches between the ears. Like Ronnie Duran just had a bit of that crazy gene albeit not on Ronnie's level. Too much partying in the dust filled nightclubs of 1980's Miami didn't help Duran's cause. Ironically Duran was always Ricky Hatton's hero.

These things are better weighed up when a fighter retires (remember what an impact Roy Jones Jr's late career collapse against Tarver and Johnson had on his legacy?).

Duran certainly ranks higher than Floyd. Mayweather has nothing on his record to compare with the Leonard win at welterweight, nor did Floyd dominate a division in the manner Roberto did at lightweight.

Chavez is also being underrated here. He'd certainly give Floyd a harder time than Castillo managed to. I also acknowledge that Floyd is tough to deal with for JC Superstar, however, Taylor was quicker and he dealt with him.

hazharrison wrote:These things are better weighed up when a fighter retires (remember what an impact Roy Jones Jr's late career collapse against Tarver and Johnson had on his legacy?).

Duran certainly ranks higher than Floyd. Mayweather has nothing on his record to compare with the Leonard win at welterweight, nor did Floyd dominate a division in the manner Roberto did at lightweight.

Chavez is also being underrated here. He'd certainly give Floyd a harder time than Castillo managed to. I also acknowledge that Floyd is tough to deal with for JC Superstar, however, Taylor was quicker and he dealt with him.

Well Robbo had nothing like the 4 greats SRL beat yet he's still ranked first by most (not by me though).

hazharrison wrote:These things are better weighed up when a fighter retires (remember what an impact Roy Jones Jr's late career collapse against Tarver and Johnson had on his legacy?).

True, but the backlash against Jones was pretty unreasonable, really. I think Floyd's done enough in his career to date to ensure that, even if he does ship a couple of defeats between now and retirement, it shouldn't effect his all-time ranking too much. As Floyd's less reliant on his sheer athleticism than Roy was, I suspect that his eventual defeats, if or when they come, will be decision losses in which he performs admirably rather than crushing knockouts, which will help as well.

It's an interesting point you make, though. I stumbled across an old link to an article published in 'Ring' back in 1982 which concerned Wilfred Benitez, and in it they ranked Benitez inside their top ten fighters of all time pound for pound already, along with the likes of Benny Leonard and Henry Armstrong. This wasn't a projection of what they thought might be, either; this was genuinely where they thought he deserved to rank already at this stage, despite him still being only twenty-three at the time. This was after he'd outclassed Duran but just before he lost to Hearns.

Obviously, the key difference is that Mayweather, right now, is at an age where you could fully understand and to a degree excuse him if he were to fall apart suddenly, whereas Benitez in 1982 wasn't. But still, it does show how easily common perception can change.

Robinson beat: LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan, Zivic, Olsen, Pender, Turpin, Bell, Angott and more. Some numerous times. He's the greatest of all time.

Duran faced and beat the best fighter of his generation (in Leonard). Mayweather didn't.

Mayweather is great -- the best of this era -- and matches up well in terms of talent against anyone from history (as subjective as that is) but he isn't an all-time great.

The other two are.

88Chris05 wrote:True, but the backlash against Jones was pretty unreasonable, really.

I'm not sure about that. When the going got tough for Roy, he fell apart. Others, like Tyson, have been accused of being good front runners whereas Roy tends to get a pass.

hazharrison wrote:Robinson beat: LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan, Zivic, Olsen, Pender, Turpin, Bell, Angott and more. Some numerous times. He's the greatest of all time.

Duran faced and beat the best fighter of his generation (in Leonard). Mayweather didn't.

Mayweather is great -- the best of this era -- and matches up well in terms of talent against anyone from history (as subjective as that is) but he isn't an all-time great.

The other two are.

Do you think SRL would have gone life and death with those guys? I mean seriously, LaMotta? The guy used his face to block punches. Ditto Carmen. All supremely tough guys but limited skills.

You guys are holding up the SRL win but choose to ignore the Laing loss and some other bums he lost to. His best days were at LW and he lost to some slick boxer (avenged). Floyd would have had his number.

hazharrison wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:True, but the backlash against Jones was pretty unreasonable, really.

I'm not sure about that. When the going got tough for Roy, he fell apart. Others, like Tyson, have been accused of being good front runners whereas Roy tends to get a pass.

I don't think they're really the same, Haz. With Tyson, most seem to question his heart when he was up against it. With Roy, it was never an issue of heart or will, he was simply taken out with single, but huge, shots. It's not as if he ever blew his top and found a premature way out of a fight he was on his way to losing (Tyson-Holyfield II), reverted to desperate and cynical fouling (Tyson-Botha) or sat down for a count when he could have got up (Tyson-Williams).

In fact, Jones did show some mettle when he turned round what looked sure to be a lost cause against Tarver first time out, despite clearly having a 'mare on the night by his own standards. Griffin was giving him all sorts of problems in their first bout for the first six rounds of it, and maybe even bested Jones over those six stanzas, but Roy didn't panic and by the ninth had turned the tide very much in his favour - just a shame for him that he got a little bit over anxious when he had Griffin badly hurt and the chance to close the show presented itself!

You can question Jones in some areas, but I don't think that grit, or whether or not he had a bully mentality, are amongst them, personally.

Duran quit because he was being outclassed against Leonard in the rematch....

Well let's go by Haz's formula................

Norton beat the best guy around and Foreman didn't..

So let's have Norton higher............

I'm really shocked by how low Duran's rated on here. Everyone picks De La Hoya to beat him? Really? I'll have to rewatch some Oscar because I don't doubt the Duran that mauled Moore sends him into retirement, whether Oscar walks forwards square on like usual or uses the jab.

I'm not gonna bother ranking their careers alongside each other, because that's all hyperbole anyway. Head to head I see JCC losing to both. All he could do was outman his opponents, he couldn't do that against Duran. Duran either outfights him in a war or makes it easy for himself with the jab. Chavez wouldn't lose ten times out of ten to Mayweather. Strong pressure fighters make him sweat and Chavez was among the strongest, toughest and most relentless. Mayweather decision more often than not though.

Can we use Hearns against Duran when judging them head to head? Mayweather wouldve been slayed by Tommy too. Mayweather never faced a 154 pounder as good as Benitez and Duran was very inconsistent by then. The workrate of Castillo and Cotto made Floyd uncomfy, but Pacquiao, Margarito, Williams, and prime Cotto were never faced.

Also, I'm picturing this at lightweight where I think they were both at their best. Duran's ability to make a ring small was better than Floyd's to make it big. Floyd often ends up rolling with his back to the ropes. Duran was excellent at mixing body and head attacks, and dealt with the likes of Buchanan and DeJesus viciously. Yes, he lost the first encounter with Esteban, but improved fight by fight in the next two. Duran's had difficulties against counter punchers therefor loses? Well Floyd's been in most trouble against pressure fighters, and he's never faced one half as good as Duran.

Also, power. Floyd can't hurt Duran. Floyd has fragile hands and Duran's head is solid. Floyd's great at smiling when hurt, but he can be shakenby head shots and hard body shots slow anyone down. Over 12 rounds I'd back Duran by decision. I don't think Floyd sees the 15th.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I'm really shocked by how low Duran's rated on here. Everyone picks De La Hoya to beat him? Really? I'll have to rewatch some Oscar because I don't doubt the Duran that mauled Moore sends him into retirement, whether Oscar walks forwards square on like usual or uses the jab.

I'm not gonna bother ranking their careers alongside each other, because that's all hyperbole anyway. Head to head I see JCC losing to both. All he could do was outman his opponents, he couldn't do that against Duran. Duran either outfights him in a war or makes it easy for himself with the jab. Chavez wouldn't lose ten times out of ten to Mayweather. Strong pressure fighters make him sweat and Chavez was among the strongest, toughest and most relentless. Mayweather decision more often than not though.

Can we use Hearns against Duran when judging them head to head? Mayweather wouldve been slayed by Tommy too. Mayweather never faced a 154 pounder as good as Benitez and Duran was very inconsistent by then. The workrate of Castillo and Cotto made Floyd uncomfy, but Pacquiao, Margarito, Williams, and prime Cotto were never faced.

Also, I'm picturing this at lightweight where I think they were both at their best. Duran's ability to make a ring small was better than Floyd's to make it big. Floyd often ends up rolling with his back to the ropes. Duran was excellent at mixing body and head attacks, and dealt with the likes of Buchanan and DeJesus viciously. Yes, he lost the first encounter with Esteban, but improved fight by fight in the next two. Duran's had difficulties against counter punchers therefor loses? Well Floyd's been in most trouble against pressure fighters, and he's never faced one half as good as Duran.

Also, power. Floyd can't hurt Duran. Floyd has fragile hands and Duran's head is solid. Floyd's great at smiling when hurt, but he can be shakenby head shots and hard body shots slow anyone down. Over 12 rounds I'd back Duran by decision. I don't think Floyd sees the 15th.

Its not a question of rating Duran low. Its mor elike Floyd should be rated higher than him.

Duran owned by...........Laing...Leonard..Dejesus....Sims......HEARNS.....Hagler...

All over a 13 year period..........

Mayweather never owned over a longer one....................

Leonard 1 is responsible for most of Duran's legend and that was contentious..............and he was exposed straight after and humiliated..

Hearns alone means Floyd is higher and I didn't see Duran calling Hearns out again........although he regularly called Hagler and Leonard out.

Az, I agree Floyd will be appreciated more retrospectively, however I don't think Duran's getting just dues right now either.

Truss, we have different definitions of the term owned. All hyperbole, as I said. Duran's legacy was mainly made as reigning lightweight champ during the seventies. All those years and names are better than anyone one win to me. Hence why Floyd even has a shout at being ranked higher.

He didn't fight anyone at lightweight.............Lost to Dejesus too...........

Leonard 1 is his defining legacy maker and the next fight showed that was a fluke.............

Buchanan, Ishimatsu and De Jesus are hardly nobodies while the only person who can claim to have owned him is Hearns and lets be honest here Mayweather stands very little chance of overcoming him.

Leonard, Hearns and Hagler all beat Mayweather, quite how middleweight fights get used against Duran is beyond me too, the guy started out as a featherweight for christ sake, lets chuck Mayweather in with Ward and use that against him when he loses.

I rate Mayweather has a supreme talent but his record is very thin on the ground, he doesn't have a loss to Hearns, Leonard, Benitez or Hagler because to put it simply he's never fought anyone that good or that big.

We can also call any win a fluke if we so choose especially if they don't have an immediate rematch, lets call Leonards win over Hearns a fluke because he was behind on the scorecards or his win over Hagler a fluke because he fought the wrong fight in a contentious decision. One rule for Duran and another for everyone else.

If Duran was owned by Laing, Leonard, Dejesus, Sims, Hearns and Hagler then wasn't Leonard owned by Terry Norris and the powder puff puncher Hector Camacho?

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Robinson beat: LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan, Zivic, Olsen, Pender, Turpin, Bell, Angott and more. Some numerous times. He's the greatest of all time.

Duran faced and beat the best fighter of his generation (in Leonard). Mayweather didn't.

Mayweather is great -- the best of this era -- and matches up well in terms of talent against anyone from history (as subjective as that is) but he isn't an all-time great.

The other two are.

Do you think SRL would have gone life and death with those guys? I mean seriously, LaMotta? The guy used his face to block punches. Ditto Carmen. All supremely tough guys but limited skills.

You guys are holding up the SRL win but choose to ignore the Laing loss and some other bums he lost to. His best days were at LW and he lost to some slick boxer (avenged). Floyd would have had his number.

He'd have had trouble with them, yes. Robinson was a better fighter than him and so it would seem resonable that Leonard would face similar problems to the original (and best) Sugar man.

Duran's losses need to be taken in context (which you can't appreciate from scanning through BoxRec).

Yeah.....I must have watched 15 of Duran's fights, I used my eyes to judge him.

As an ATG Duran was superior to any fighter that beat him. He was just having one of those bad nights when he lost. Trussy told me it can happen to anyone.

Anyone ever see a fighter outside of a heavyweight in as bad a shape as the Duran was against Hearns. I suppose you have to expect that when a lightweight fights a light heavy. Funny how Barkley beat Hearns and then Duran beats Barkley.

In 13 years he was only beaten by DeJesus in their first fight. He knocked DeJesus out in their next two. He was undefeated as world lightweight champion for 6 years. A 4 division champion, lightweight (1972-79), welterweight (1980), junior middleweight (1983) and middleweight (1989-90).

At lightweight Duran was not trying to just beat people he was trying to murder them. In that period, 72-1, he makes a prime Mike Tyson look tame by comparison.

As a boxing fan what's not to like about Duran?

88Chris05 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:True, but the backlash against Jones was pretty unreasonable, really.

I'm not sure about that. When the going got tough for Roy, he fell apart. Others, like Tyson, have been accused of being good front runners whereas Roy tends to get a pass.

I don't think they're really the same, Haz. With Tyson, most seem to question his heart when he was up against it. With Roy, it was never an issue of heart or will, he was simply taken out with single, but huge, shots. It's not as if he ever blew his top and found a premature way out of a fight he was on his way to losing (Tyson-Holyfield II), reverted to desperate and cynical fouling (Tyson-Botha) or sat down for a count when he could have got up (Tyson-Williams).

In fact, Jones did show some mettle when he turned round what looked sure to be a lost cause against Tarver first time out, despite clearly having a 'mare on the night by his own standards. Griffin was giving him all sorts of problems in their first bout for the first six rounds of it, and maybe even bested Jones over those six stanzas, but Roy didn't panic and by the ninth had turned the tide very much in his favour - just a shame for him that he got a little bit over anxious when he had Griffin badly hurt and the chance to close the show presented itself!

You can question Jones in some areas, but I don't think that grit, or whether or not he had a bully mentality, are amongst them, personally.

Most tend to neglect the fact that the Tyson who left prison wasn't a patch on the man who went in. Say what you will about Mike but he didn't fold from single shots -- he took his licks when he had to. The Tyson of the Botha, Lewis, Williams fights was a mere shell.

And I disagree about Roy blowing his top. That's exactly what he did against Griffin, who frustrated the life out of him and was ahead at the point Roy was disqualified.

Jones never managed to overcome crisis (the same can be said of Tyson, however, he very nearly managed to against Douglas) and while I wouldn't question his grit -- he took his lumps against Tarver and Calzaghe -- his chin was far from stellar. That worked out fine for him against poor opposition, but against the great fighters at light heavyweight, it would likely have cost him.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Duran quit because he was being outclassed against Leonard in the rematch....

Well let's go by Haz's formula................

Norton beat the best guy around and Foreman didn't..

So let's have Norton higher............

He did quit because he was being outclassed.

I don't get the second point.

Floyd isn't an all-time great because of the level of his opposition. He also didn't take on his greatest rival in Pacquiao.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Duran owned by...........Laing...Leonard..Dejesus....Sims......HEARNS.....Hagler...

All over a 13 year period..........

Mayweather never owned over a longer one....................

Leonard 1 is responsible for most of Duran's legend and that was contentious..............and he was exposed straight after and humiliated..

Hearns alone means Floyd is higher and I didn't see Duran calling Hearns out again........although he regularly called Hagler and Leonard out.

Some of the most simplistic arguing I've ever come across.

An unbeaten record isn't everything. Do you rate Spadafora, Calzaghe and Terry Marsh above Duran?

Duran may have lost a few when unmotivated, beyond his best weight and past his prime but at least he had the balls to take on the best at their best.

hazharrison wrote:Most tend to neglect the fact that the Tyson who left prison wasn't a patch on the man who went in. Say what you will about Mike but he didn't fold from single shots -- he took his licks when he had to. The Tyson of the Botha, Lewis, Williams fights was a mere shell.

And I disagree about Roy blowing his top. That's exactly what he did against Griffin, who frustrated the life out of him and was ahead at the point Roy was disqualified.

Jones never managed to overcome crisis (the same can be said of Tyson, however, he very nearly managed to against Douglas) and while I wouldn't question his grit -- he took his lumps against Tarver and Calzaghe -- his chin was far from stellar. That worked out fine for him against poor opposition, but against the great fighters at light heavyweight, it would likely have cost him.

I don't think Roy blew his top against Griffin and, as a slight quibble, he was ahead on two of the judges cards by the ninth as rounds seven and eight (and what we saw of nine) were one-way traffic in his favour. He looked as if he'd worked Griffin out - and he pretty much had - but just got too wild and excited when he saw the chance to put him away. Jones was actually in the process of showing that he could figure out an opponent or a troublesome situation there for my money, just as he did in the first Tarver fight.

If we're going to exonerate Tyson on the basis of him being a shell for the fights against Lewis, Williams etc (and I agree he was) then surely you can't be using the defeats to Johnson, Green etc as ammunition against Roy?

As for Roy's chin, I don't think that's really the issue here and it has precious little to do with his temperament or heart. If his whiskers were as atrocious as many say they were - which I don't really think is the case - then it only serves to show even more what an unbelievable talent he was and how fantastic a fighter he was, as not a single soul could exploit it until his sixteenth year as a professional.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He didn't fight anyone at lightweight.............Lost to Dejesus too...........

Leonard 1 is his defining legacy maker and the next fight showed that was a fluke.............

What absolute twaddle.

Duran is rated by most historians as the greatest lightweight who ever lived. To insinuate that the likes of DeJesus, Buchanan, DeJesus, Fernandez, Lampkin and Viruet are nobodies is ridiculous.

The win over Leonard, a lightweight jumping two divisions to outman one of the greatest fighters of all time -- who was also bigger, younger and more powerful -- is quite simply one of the finest victories in boxing history. A masterful display of infighting and craft.

The displays against Barkley, Hagler and Moore were mere flashbacks to a once imperious fighter.

88Chris05 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Most tend to neglect the fact that the Tyson who left prison wasn't a patch on the man who went in. Say what you will about Mike but he didn't fold from single shots -- he took his licks when he had to. The Tyson of the Botha, Lewis, Williams fights was a mere shell.

And I disagree about Roy blowing his top. That's exactly what he did against Griffin, who frustrated the life out of him and was ahead at the point Roy was disqualified.

Jones never managed to overcome crisis (the same can be said of Tyson, however, he very nearly managed to against Douglas) and while I wouldn't question his grit -- he took his lumps against Tarver and Calzaghe -- his chin was far from stellar. That worked out fine for him against poor opposition, but against the great fighters at light heavyweight, it would likely have cost him.

I don't think Roy blew his top against Griffin and, as a slight quibble, he was ahead on two of the judges cards by the ninth as rounds seven and eight (and what we saw of nine) were one-way traffic in his favour. He looked as if he'd worked Griffin out - and he pretty much had - but just got too wild and excited when he saw the chance to put him away. Jones was actually in the process of showing that he could figure out an opponent or a troublesome situation there for my money, just as he did in the first Tarver fight.

If we're going to exonerate Tyson on the basis of him being a shell for the fights against Lewis, Williams etc (and I agree he was) then surely you can't be using the defeats to Johnson, Green etc as ammunition against Roy?

As for Roy's chin, I don't think that's really the issue here and it has precious little to do with his temperament or heart. If his whiskers were as atrocious as many say they were - which I don't really think is the case - then it only serves to show even more what an unbelievable talent he was and how fantastic a fighter he was, as not a single soul could exploit it until his sixteenth year as a professional.

Roy wasn't a shot fighter against Tarver and Johnson. He took on Tarver off the back of one of his best displays (against the mediocre Ruiz). I don't think his chin was poor, just not great.

And I disagree about him blowing his top. He lost his cool and slugged Griffin twice when he didn't need to (surprised the judges had him ahead narrowly now you point it out).

Quite how a 46 year old Duran avenged his loss to Castro is quite something too, he was in fact a very cerebral boxer who liked a good party. Could and possibly should have been greater but he lived his life having earned his money the hard way.

Just because I said he didn't beat anybody at lightweight doesn't necessarily discount him from being the best lightweight...

As for your pathetic analysis that Duran beat a Leonard and Mayweather didn't..as a reason for him being higher

Well discounts Monzon, Louis and the like from greatness too....

Monzon isn't considered to be a top ten man of all time though is he Truss, were he to have Foster on his record for instance then he'd be considered even greater.

There aren't many boxers who move up two divisions to beat someone as good as Leonard so quite rightly it's regarded as one hell of an achievement.

He's considered by many to be the best middleweight of alltime........along with Greb..

Michael Spinks should be top 10 then......................

Let me ask you something.....................If Mugabi had beaten p4p number 1 Hagler and lost his next fight...

Would be ranked higher than Michael Nunn??

Monzon is rated as a middleweight by and large Truss, his overall placing will be somewhere in the 30's.

Now you're just being silly, how many of the 10/15 boxers of all time have been beaten by a guy moving up two divisions while they were at their absolute best?

Of the top of my head I can think of only two, Tunney and Leonard. Spinks beating Holmes was a great win but it wasn't quite a special win because it's undeniable that Larry had seen better days.

Leonard aside there isnt a great deal of difference between the best of Mayweathers wins and the best of Durans. Leonard also avenged his loss and Duran went on to have mixed success in a way Mayweather hasnt. Granted Mayweather never had anyone as good as Leonard, Hearns, Hagler or even Benetiz in front of him but at the same time Duran is 1-5 against those guys with a loss to Laing added in as well as very disappointing quit to Leonard so all things considered maybe its not worthy of fire him on to all time great status if Mayweather is not going to be considered one.

Did Leonard get his tactics wrong or not??? and did he slap his butt in 2/3 fights????

Good contentious win but it didn't prove he was the better man did it..

Take out a contentious Leonard win and you are left with good wins and bad defeats against quality and a lot of crud.........

Mayweather hasn't lost , fought 3 top p4pers and has been at the top for 13+ years.

Why don't Duran's defeats count against him???????????

See you just can't construct a proper argument when discussing Duran, you wheel out the same old tired lines that only you believe.

Duran moves up two weights to beat one of the greatest boxers of all time in a close but not contentious fight something very very few have ever done so with that one win he has proved his greatness beyond doubt. At the point he won that fight nothing that came after was ever going to effect his standing, he could never reach those heights again while the win was always going to brush over all the lows.

So Leonard and his defeats are worth more than 14 years at the top unbeaten..beating three p4pers on the way................

Duran lost to the best fighters he fought!!

2, 3 and 4 divisions above his best weight, you conveniently overlook that each and every time you talk about Duran. Unfortunately Leonard does outdo every single win Mayweather has, in fact it outdoes every single win every boxer has ever had apart from a very select few.

He lost to the best because he fought the best.

Mayweather hasn't lost from 130-154 something you overlook...

What weight did he lose to Dejesus at???

Guess Dejesus beat the greatest 135 of alltime so he belongs above Benny Leonard right??

After all losing two out of three fights to somebody means diddly squat!!!!!!

Non title fight as you know and Burley can't have been that great because he never fought for the biggest prize of all. The third fight against Leonard has zero relevance to anything Truss, we may as well start saying Jones was 1-1 against Hopkins and that means something.

I rate Mayweather very highly, he's my number 9 but if he had Benitez, Hagler, Hearns and Leonard to face he'd have at least 3 losses in my opinion. Marciano never lost so he must be greater than Ali right?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mayweather hasn't lost from 130-154 something you overlook...

What weight did he lose to Dejesus at???

Guess Dejesus beat the greatest 135 of alltime so he belongs above Benny Leonard right??

After all losing two out of three fights to somebody means diddly squat!!!!!!

Apart from lightweight/SFW floyd hasn't fought the best at any weight

His lightwelterweight reign was Gatti and Corley and at Lightmiddle he has past it fighters in DLH and Cotto who both gave him fits, hardly stellar title reigns and his welterweight reign is weak too especially given he retired when it was at its strongest (2007, Cotto, Mosley, Marg,Willaim, Pacquiao soon etc)

Duran lost to Dejesus when he was 21, he avenged alot like Floyd did in Castillo II

I just can't see an argument for Floyd while he doesn't have any names that you can read off that are elite fighters. Duran's 15 round effort against one of the greatest middleweights of all in hagler is probably more impressive than any fight in Floyd's record (maybe Corrales) and that's a loss

Duran was green...................against Dejesus.

Do you have him above Leonard ????

Who beat all the guy's he couldn't............

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Just because I said he didn't beat anybody at lightweight doesn't necessarily discount him from being the best lightweight...

Mind boggling......

Yes I do have him above Leonard.

Simple logic that escapes you Truss, Leonard was a Welterweight, Duran was a former featherweight, they started 21lbs apart. Anyone who starts out beating the very under rated Marcel at featherweight should not be expected to be beating great fights 21, 28 and 34lbs above his starting weight.

He's above Leonard...........Who beat Hagler (p4pno1) Duran, Benitez, Hearns, Kalule and won 5 titles at different weights.........

We aren't getting anywhere are we.............so we'll disagree....

Last word... no one who gets humiliated against Hearns like that deserves to be anywhere near a top 10 list!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was pathetic..............

I thought this thread was about Floyd (not SRL) being higher than Duran