Roberto Duran vs Floyd Mayweather at 135, 147 and 154...BUT with one important caveat....

We're considering real Duran here and not Mythical Duran. We're talking about the dominant lightweight that did lose to Dejesus, the decent Welterweight that did quit against Leonard and did lose to Kirkland Laing and the decent Jnr Middle that was WIPED THE FUCK OUT by Hearns. That's the guy I'm talking about, not the guy that was dipped in the river Styx as a child by his mother Thetis and was rendered invulnerable to harm as a result. Ya feel me?

Mayweather wins at all three weights. 49-0 you see. He doesn't know how to lose. The other guy knows how to lose, quit and get knocked the fuck out.

Aside from that though....let's get down to fight mechanics...

Floyd is taller than Duran, with a superior reach, similar chin (if not better), equal stamina, better defensive skills, better accuracy, fights tall, uses the entire ring, second to none in counter punching. How the hell could Duran win this? Logically?

I implore y'all to grow up. Stop picking fights based on who you like better or who you think is more exciting and start picking based on a reasoned analytical approach.

 

I've always thought this would have been one hell of a fight, beautiful clash of styles and I disagree with those who say Floyd gets destroyed, he doesn't. I think it would have been interesting to see how Floyd dealt with Duran's feints since Duran was the master of feinting IMO. Could well be the key to unlocking that defence, and Duran's offensive skills are without question. Either way I think it's close, I go with Duran but it isn't the locked down certainty people make it out to be.

 

The real Roberto Duran beats the mythical guy who the mainstream media who know zero about boxing have created. Duran had every single tool necessary to beat Floyd... and quite bluntly... was the better fighter of the two... unless you ask ESPN.

 

Sly tells us to consider montreal duran and Kirkland Laing duran as being the same proposition then implores us to use logic

 

Sly doesn't know logic when discussing Floyd. We all know that when a man gets a hard-on, all the blood leaves his brain.

 

Here's the thing.....

A Foreman apologist would say that The Foreman who destroyed Frazier and the Foreman who lost to Ali were two different guys.
A Hearns apologist would say that the Hearns who destroyed Duran and the Hearns that lost to Hagler were two different guys


List goes on.

We can't evaluate a fighter based on just his most impressive performances....we have to look at an entire body of work because CONSISTENCY proves the overall worth of that fighter. We cannot discount losses. How a fighter deals with a variety of styles and hurdles...is his true measure. Not how he rises to the odd occasion when he is particularly inspired (or his opponent took him too lightly).

 

I think a guy like Hearns would be a bigger threat to pbf than Duran. Not to say pbf necessarily beats Duran, but as we all know, pbf tended to pick opponents who were shorter than him. That said, duran was obviously not your average short fighter.

 

Clever.

 

word. Stylewise Hearns would be the far bigger threat. I'd pick Hearns to beat Floyd. Height advantage is key to solving Floyd's style.

 

71-1 going into the Leonard fight.

Roberto Duran - that inconsistent sonuvabitch always blew hot and cold.

 

What muddle. If you want to evulate an entire career for atg p4p lists then yes, that argument is fine. If you're setting up a mythical match up there's one guy from one moment in time in one particular physical and mental condition stepping into the ring.

Whether the buster douglas who fought tyson or the one who fought holyfield is stepping into the ring self evidently effects his chances

 

Consistent at lightweight....I've never said otherwise. Above lightweight...as consistent as Hillary Clinton's political viewpoints.

 

A pro-Floyd argument would have to be made at 147 & 154.

I dunno what LOGICAL, non-Floyd nut licking human being would favor Floyd at 135.

Before Floyd became a mainstream superstar, if you were to be pick him over Duran at 135, you'd be laughed off a message board.

 

No. You can't pick a guy's best performance and disregard his other's at that weight. He could have just been extra psyched for one fight and his opponent could have been off and there could have been other factors at play.

In pitting Frazier against Tyson, mythically, ....for example...you can't just say "well the one who beat Ali would give Tyson all he could handle" and discount the fact that Foreman blew him away.

 

That's only because of Duran's mythical status....and fight fans natural hatred of Floyd for his "slavery contract" comments.

Duran has a cult following that Floyd doesn't.

Logically, however, a Floyd without injury, has to be assumed to be as good as the guy that beat Gatti and Corrales...at the two weights on either side of 135lbs.

 

On the contrary you weight events based on all available info. You know, instead of discounting it as you insist on when it comes to duran to the point of some sort of self-willed autism

 

Duran was around 30 in the Montreal fight. Right around the time when pressure fighters hit their peak, then begin to decline.

Between 72-79, in his physical peak, his sustained level of dominance was unmatched by virtually every damn fighter in history aside from a precious few. And that's what he should be measured by.

What's Floyd measured by again? Oh yeah... his precious undefeated record. So I guess Marciano should rank above Duran too, eh?

 

This isn't a referendum on Duran's all time great status. As a lightweight he deserves his ranking. Above lightweight...he's overrated.

At lightweight he's a "greater" fighter than Floyd...but that doesn't necessarily translate to him being able to win the fight head to head.

 

Floyd's overrated at every weight above 130.

 

Nonsense. A guy that wins 90% of his fights with consummate ease cannot be called overrated.

 

Depends who's rating him

 

I think Floyd looked great at 135 and 140 to be honest, there wasn't a significant drop off or anything (even taking into account the Castillo I fight), he just didn't stick around long enough or fight enough elite fighters to accurately gauge him against the all-timers in those weight classes. Let's be honest, the guy may be (and in my opinion IS) the best ever at 130. It's not really that much of a stretch to say he could at least be competitive with the very best 5 pounds up.

At 147 I'll agree he is overrated though.

 

Duran wins at 135 and 147. Floyd's best chance is at 154 but that isn't a given either.

 

Floyd looked great in his LAST fight at 135... against Ndou. The Ndou fight is IMO his very best performance.

But he still looked less than impressive in both Castillo fights, and looked like shit against Victor Sosa.

 

So he was inconsistent. Because he was training inconsistently.

So what exactly is your argument?

 

I think, even against a motivated Duran, Floyd would probably get at least one win in a trilogy at any weight. He is/was a great fighter. On a given night with both men at their best i think duran wins at any weight tho. Assuming an 18 or 20 foot ring of course

 

If it's a listless duran who's hardly been training - the one sly is demanding we use so his man can win- then yes his man wins. Easily. He runs around and potshots and duran follows him around like a huffy zombie, sneering.

 

Yes, if they fought multiple times, of course Floyd would win one or two.

But MM's are supposed to be based on both guys at their VERY BESTS.... in which case, Duran wins... at 135 and 147.

154? I can see Floyd winning at 154.

 

how convenient ::

Anyway Duran win this one imo.. Seeing how litle miguel was having so much success by pressuring and bringing PBF to the ropes, make think Duran could do it even better.

 

So In an MM we only consider the guy's best performance? Think about what you're saying. In some fights a guy looks unstoppable and then when he goes up against an opponent with a different style he looks terrible.


You can't conveniently say Duran of Montreal was him at his best....just because he looked so good in that fight. Perhaps....just perhaps...he was particularly inspired that night...perhaps Leonard took him lightly...perhaps Ray fought the wrong fight...perhaps perhaps perhaps. We have to evaluate a fighter based on a body of work at the weight in question.


At Lightweight....Duran was a beast...you'll get no argument from me...but above lightweight he could be beaten on any given night.