Who Would You Rate As The Greater Fighter?

In the context of both achievements, & ability. This is a long-standing debate between myself & a few old friends, which, of course, never finds an agreed-upon answer.

Ezzard Charles, or Roberto Duran?

 

Fuck Duran

 

It's pretty good you have friends who actually know who Ezzard Charles is.

I don't know how I'd rank them two to be honest.

 

Duran, easy.

 

Very intriguing match up as they were very far apart in terms of style and weight.

Two of the top 20 ever, no doubt about that.

Both were two of the best ever at fighting off of 45 degree angles off of when they made their pivots, which is hard to learn, and even harder to execute, just watch the tapes.

 

We have all been fans for many years.

 

There is nothing easy in distinguishing who was greater between these two, friend. Not a thing.

 

I wouldn't disagree with any of that. IMO, Charles has the beating of Duran for quality of competition, while Duran gets my vote for dominance in their best respective divisions. Likewise, they criss-cross in a number of in-ring departments, swapping advantages & short-comings.

All-in-all, I lean with Charles, but it can't be by much. Anyone who says it's a no-brainer is probably right --- it requires the absence of a brain to call this one-sided.

 

please do not insult mexican shirt in the general discussion

 

they both moved up in weight aft3er significant achievements at their initial weights. Personally I think starting at middleweight and then going to LH and becoming one of the greatest ever then moving to HW and spanking Joe Louis is greater than what Duran accomplished. Ezzard Charles was one of the greatest of all time and I vote for him as the greater fighter. He has the better wins thats for sure.

 

You're an idiot, easy.

 

He fought Hall Of Famers like they were going out of style --- not that Duran lacks for a grand resume, mind, but I think Charles deserves the nod in this particular category.

 

Yeah Duran has a great resume and has great wins and also fought in a golden era of boxing, but Moor, Walcott, Bivins, Maxim, Louis...c'mon he aint got those kind of wins...

 

If only Duran trained like PACQUAIO.

He ballooned to 230!! after beating Leonard.

 

Charles, since he actually won great fighters instead of getting whupped time and time again and having shitloads of excuses

 

slight exaggeration don't you think?

 

If only Yory Boy Campas had Zab Judah's reflexes, Pernell Whitaker's defense and Terry Norris' combinations.

Ability to train hard is also a skill and a talent, and a fighter who lacks in this department suffers. If onlys don't make him any better

 

It's hella close. No definitive answer.

 

Only slight.

 

You're wrong retard, easy.

 

Who did Ezzard Charles beat as good as a peak Leonard? Nobody.

Charles is a great fighter to be sure, but Duran was more dominant, at least as accomplished, and an all round better fighter.

By the way - being beaten by fellow great fighters, especially fighters that are bigger than you sure beats getting KTFO twice by scrubs ::

 

Idiot.

Louis was a great win, no doubt about it, and it's Charles' best win - but a retired late 30's Louis is not better than peak Leonard, no way, no how. Duran's best win is better than Charles' best win.

 

Archie Moore wasn't far off, and Charles beat him 3 out of 3, while Duran went 1-2 against Leonard with a gift win. Duran looked solid against medicore and solid competition but against fellow greats he went 1-5 and lost several times in between (only the excuse changed). Beating Buchanan, Moore and Cuevas is not really the stuff of legends. Duran, like Tyson, was more about image than actual achievement

 

Archie Moore and Charlie Burley are not far off. And when you consider he beat them both numerous times, that adds to their impressiveness. And the likes of Louis, Wallcott, Bivens, Maxim, Layne & Ray are a far better and more numerous collection of second tier wins than Duran's.

You know what? This is a good thread because it's caused me to rethink this - Charles probably is greater.

 

No offense mate but if you think Louis was Charles best win you probably need to do some more reading and thinking about his career before making definitive proclamations.

 

Awesome! I'll add you to my 'Duran was a mini-sized John Ruiz' -bandwagon:hammert:::

 

They are not far off, but they are not as good. Jumping up 2 straight divisions then beating a peak Leonard is an epic win.

Considering the size difference, I rate the Moore and Barkley wins highly, especially Moore, where Duran was a 3 to 1 underdog, and the manner of the victory.

An old Jersey Joe also beat Charles twice didn't he?

Duran had more wins, less losses, also fought excellent competition, fought in four weight classes, and was VERY dominant in his prime, only losing once to DeJesus, which he avenged twice.

And of course his best win is better than any of Charles' wins.

You can say what you want about Duran's 2nd and 3rd fight with Leonard, but Duran didn't even take them seriously. Partied his arse off after beating Leonard, looked comparatively shit in the second fight and still fought almost on even terms with Leonard, and was just going through the motions in the 3rd fight when he was what, pushing 40?

When they were both at their best, Duran won.

So thinking about, yes Duran is clearly better than Ezzard Charles, both in terms of ability and record.

 

I think Louis is Charles' best win. That partly shows my respect for Louis. Despite being aging and retired, he was still a great fighter, AND significantly bigger than Charles. Walcott and Charles were a similar size I think, but Louis was a fair bit bigger.

That's a very good win, I think it's better than any of his other wins.

 

No need to talk Duran up to me, I voted him the 2nd greatest fighter of the last 70 years.:bears: I just reckon now that I think about it, Charles was even greater, and probably should have been No2 on my list. He was 69-5-1 going into the 4th Wallcott fight I believe, having avenged 3 of his losses by KO (compared to 74-4 in Duran's case going into the Batten fight, it's not a drastic difference in loss ratio and Charles competition level was monumentally better). He went 47 fights in the 7 years up to that point with only one contentious loss which he avenged by KO, fighting Moore, Charles, Bivens, Ray, Wallcott, Louis, Maxim, Marshall. Effectively 47-0, fighting guys like that over and over. This guy is a legend of almost unparalleled awesomeness. :: And yes he lost twice to Wallcott but he won the first two, and the frequency of his losses from that point on really reflects the downward arc of his abilities more than anything, just like they do in Duran's case.

Im amending my list and moving Charles up.:mj:

 

........


Duran is greater than Hearns.

Charles? :: We wont start that again...