Better All-time great Duran, SRL, Hagler, Whittaker or Pacquiao?

Rank from 1-5 where you have these 5 fighters on the all-time list.

Roberto Duran
Ray Lenoard
Marvin Hagler
Pernell Whittaker
Manny Pacquiao

I'll go Duran, Leonard, Whittaker, Pacquiao, and Hagler. The last 3 are very close in my book but I think Duran and Leonard are simply a little better.

1. Roberto Duran
2. Manny Pacquiao
3. Ray Lenoard
4. Marvin Hagler
5. Pernell Whittaker

Based on what they have done in there career's I have no reason to not put Pac at number 2 barely behind Duran.

I don't know too much about Duran. Was he really that good?

good topic..hmmm.intersting .1.duran the rest truly is a very very close call between hagler pac and leanord. after some thoughts marvin stands out as the choice..sweet pea is great also but ill place him fifth..ill go with hagler number two.hagler i strongly feel was the 4th greatest middle in boxings maybe greatest division.ray as a middle is not in my top ten.sorry.overall when you exaime ray and pac as a fighter you have to give ray the edge and a good edge on a total complete package.as far as whos in it for the longer career or who physicaly has the duribilty for the long haul pac is the choice by far.its ray third pac forth.

dmar5143 wrote:good topic..hmmm.intersting .1.duran the rest truly is a very very close call between hagler pac and leanord. after some thoughts marvin stands out as the choice..sweet pea is great also but ill place him fifth..ill go with hagler number two.hagler i strongly feel was the 4th greatest middle in boxings maybe greatest division.ray as a middle is not in my top ten.sorry.overall when you exaime ray and pac as a fighter you have to give ray the edge and a good edge on a total complete package.as far as whos in it for the longer career or who physicaly has the duribilty for the long haul pac is the choice by far.its ray third pac forth.

But was Ray really that much more talented physically? Manny really does have crazy fast hands and he hits extremely hard. Also who had the better career. These two are so close its not funny huh?

Soonermark890 wrote:

dmar5143 wrote:good topic..hmmm.intersting .1.duran the rest truly is a very very close call between hagler pac and leanord. after some thoughts marvin stands out as the choice..sweet pea is great also but ill place him fifth..ill go with hagler number two.hagler i strongly feel was the 4th greatest middle in boxings maybe greatest division.ray as a middle is not in my top ten.sorry.overall when you exaime ray and pac as a fighter you have to give ray the edge and a good edge on a total complete package.as far as whos in it for the longer career or who physicaly has the duribilty for the long haul pac is the choice by far.its ray third pac forth.

But was Ray really that much more talented physically? Manny really does have crazy fast hands and he hits extremely hard. Also who had the better career. These two are so close its not funny huh?

Ray has beat Hagler (questionable) and Duran. Manny has beaten Barrera and Morales. Ray has the edge. If they fought each other at 147 who would win?

sooner they are extremly close for sure..ray had fast hands also .both give good angles but manny because hes southpaw hits from at times a suprize angle..ray overall is the more fluid fighter.career wise ray has had great ring intelligence.manny for years had little untill his last 3 or 4 fights which he deminstrated a big improvement but for 50 fights it wasnt there..ray controls distance better but both when in there real estate zone are exceptional.ray and manny are both good finishers.ray uses the ring better then manny.both have extra sharp relexes.career wise i dont think i can say with certainty that pac has did more.forget the 8 division junk please.both are big stars and as big as ray was manny i feel is bigger.
both can execute a fight plan as outlined by there training camp to perfection..ray is more adaptable then manny talent wise and instint wise.both fighters have great confidence.under fire rays the cooler one...as you say these are both extremly talented guys.mannys my favorite fighter today.ray was never a favorite of mine ..soo giving ray my vote isnt based on favoritism.and if someone says its pac i dont have a issue with that at all..there both fantastic fighters.

again it should not be if they both fought each other who would win...there isnt a division pac has fought in that i could rank him in the top ten.none.yet theres no doubt in my mind hes a top 30 fighter of all time.

dmar5143 wrote:sooner they are extremly close for sure..ray had fast hands also .both give good angles but manny because hes southpaw hits from at times a suprize angle..ray overall is the more fluid fighter.career wise ray has had great ring intelligence.manny for years had little untill his last 3 or 4 fights which he deminstrated a big improvement but for 50 fights it wasnt there..ray controls distance better but both when in there real estate zone are exceptional.ray and manny are both good finishers.ray uses the ring better then manny.both have extra sharp relexes.career wise i dont think i can say with certainty that pac has did more.forget the 8 division junk please.both are big stars and as big as ray was manny i feel is bigger.
both can execute a fight plan as outlined by there training camp to perfection..ray is more adaptable then manny talent wise and instint wise.both fighters have great confidence.under fire rays the cooler one...as you say these are both extremly talented guys.mannys my favorite fighter today.ray was never a favorite of mine ..soo giving ray my vote isnt based on favoritism.and if someone says its pac i dont have a issue with that at all..there both fantastic fighters.

I really enjoyed reading this post. Thanks.

dmar5143 wrote:sooner they are extremly close for sure..ray had fast hands also .both give good angles but manny because hes southpaw hits from at times a suprize angle..ray overall is the more fluid fighter.career wise ray has had great ring intelligence.manny for years had little untill his last 3 or 4 fights which he deminstrated a big improvement but for 50 fights it wasnt there..ray controls distance better but both when in there real estate zone are exceptional.ray and manny are both good finishers.ray uses the ring better then manny.both have extra sharp relexes.career wise i dont think i can say with certainty that pac has did more.forget the 8 division junk please.both are big stars and as big as ray was manny i feel is bigger.
both can execute a fight plan as outlined by there training camp to perfection..ray is more adaptable then manny talent wise and instint wise.both fighters have great confidence.under fire rays the cooler one...as you say these are both extremly talented guys.mannys my favorite fighter today.ray was never a favorite of mine ..soo giving ray my vote isnt based on favoritism.and if someone says its pac i dont have a issue with that at all..there both fantastic fighters.

Great Great post. Its so close its hard to compare their careers. Manny has done things that no one else has done. Ray fought the better comp IMO even though that is close as well.

freakzilla wrote:Rank from 1-5 where you have these 5 fighters on the all-time list.

Roberto Duran
Ray Lenoard
Marvin Hagler
Pernell Whittaker
Manny Pacquiao

Keep in mind that at this point, Pacquiao isn't finished. The fact that you have him on this list at this point in his career can make a "possible" argument that he actually should put at the head of it.

Right now, I find it terribly difficult to compare these fighters for the following reasons.

(a) Marvin Hagler was a natural MW and never desired to leave the division. His career was as an established MW Champ. It's easier for me to compare him with other established champs like Joe Louis, Duran (Lightweight Division) etc. Pac is a division jumper which, at least for me, makes it hard to compare him to Marvin Hagler in any way.

(b) I don't know if anyone respects Pernell more than I do, however at this time, I'd have to see them fight to know who the better fighter was. The styles are vastly different. If I was forced to pick between the two, I'd pick Pacquiao.

(c) Duran's list of opponents (De Jesus, Leonard, Hagler) are just better than Pacs at this time. Pac has an "A +" victim list. It's just that Duran's is better. That said, Pac may just be a better fighter than Duran. In my opinion, Duran is the greatest Lightweight champ in history, however he was a division jumper. At this point, I'll go with Pac because I honestly feel he would've beaten Roberto in one of the greatest fights in history. If there is a tie on this list, it's these two guys.

(d) Leonard's career as a Welterweight is the reason he is so highly regarded. Yes, he beat Hagler, and I think he deserved the decision. However, the decision is so disputed by Hagler's fans, I doubt he could've made a career just based off of that. His wins over Hearns, Duran and Benitez were sensational. If there is another WW who can do that besides Sugar Ray Robinson, I'd have to see it to believe it. Pac and Leonard would've been a mega fight in my opinion and an all out war. Some will say that Leonard's power was too much for Pac. That's a good argument though I think Pac is one of those "once in a lifetime" fighters that can find a way to get by any one major advantage. At this point, I'd rank Leonard above Pac because of the quality of fighters he defeated at WW. I place emphasis on "At this point" because as stated before, Pac is close enough to his prime to pull of some major feats. It will be hard with Arum as his promoter, (This Marquez bullshit is a waste of time) so I guess I'll just have to wait and see what Manny has in store next.

That's a tough one. To do this, I'm gonna look at their careers, not so much my observations on who the better man was or who won/woulda won head-to-head, which is a sure way to contaminate an all-time list.

1. Duran
2. Leonard
3. Pacquiao
4. Whitaker
5. Hagler

And all 5 are in the top 25 in my opinion all-time. Duran is top 10, SRL top 12-15, Pac top 15 or so, Whitaker at around 20 and Hagler pretty close.

And prime Hagler beats 'em all, even though he's 5th. Plus, he's bigger, so...

frank as a welter outside robinson of beating hearns duran and bentiz i for sure can see mickey walker doing that as well as both adding ray leanord as a victom also...excellent point for sure.

dmar5143 wrote:frank as a welter outside robinson of beating hearns duran and bentiz i for sure can see mickey walker doing that as well as both adding ray leanord as a victom also...excellent point for sure.

I think the Hearns feather in SRL's cap is a big one in welterweight history.

I know cross-generational matchups don't count for much, but I personally have a hard time envisioning too many of those old-time welters beating a Tommy Hearns. I think Hearns beats Walker, Napoles, Gavilan, and would be hell on Robinson too. That's the win theat justifies having Ray at the top of the 147 list, no lower than 3-4 in my opinion.

scott tommys chin against robinson is a disaster.the same against walker.hearns yes beats napoles gavilin and many other welters.thats because tommy in reality is a top 5 or so all time great welter..basilio with his chin body punching and condition and the pace he sets can give tommy nighmares.let us not forget it was tommy runing out of gas against ray his stanima was the main reason for that defeat in a 15 round fight.that haunts him against carmen.leanord at the top of welters nope.not in anyones widest dreams including leanords...top 4 or 5 or 6 yes indeed.walker in reality was a overblown welter who drank a ton but non the less could fight at a good pace for 15 rounds and beat top LHS and heavies as a real small guy.
i also believe hearns at welter could of possibly beat armstrong.that doesnt mean tommys the better welter or greater one cause hes not.nor does that mean hes the greater fighter cause hes far from it..case in point if leanards win over tommy can justify ray at the top of the heap then what does robinsons win at 144 pounds thats pacs catch weight do beating lamotta at 160 who had no stanima issues..and no chin issues.and was a dozen times stronger then tommy...

1) Roberto Duran
2) Ray Lenoard
3) Marvin Hagler
4) Manny Pacquiao
5) Pernell Whittaker

freakzilla wrote:I don't know too much about Duran. Was he really that good?

Duran was an animal, from Lightweight to Super Middleweight he caused chaos.

dmar5143 wrote:scott tommys chin against robinson is a disaster.the same against walker.hearns yes beats napoles gavilin and many other welters.thats because tommy in reality is a top 5 or so all time great welter..basilio with his chin body punching and condition and the pace he sets can give tommy nighmares.let us not forget it was tommy runing out of gas against ray his stanima was the main reason for that defeat in a 15 round fight.that haunts him against carmen.leanord at the top of welters nope.not in anyones widest dreams including leanords...top 4 or 5 or 6 yes indeed.walker in reality was a overblown welter who drank a ton but non the less could fight at a good pace for 15 rounds and beat top LHS and heavies as a real small guy.
i also believe hearns at welter could of possibly beat armstrong.that doesnt mean tommys the better welter or greater one cause hes not.nor does that mean hes the greater fighter cause hes far from it..case in point if leanards win over tommy can justify ray at the top of the heap then what does robinsons win at 144 pounds thats pacs catch weight do beating lamotta at 160 who had no stanima issues..and no chin issues.and was a dozen times stronger then tommy...

Fair points dmar. Chin and stamina could come into play in those fantasy matchups in a bad way for Tommy. But I don't think he'd fight those guys the same way he fought Leonard, which left him tuckered out at the end. But unless he was able to blast guys like Walker and Carmen out of there inside 8-9, he could be in trouble.

I guess I'm just saying I think Tommy could make for some style problems for all the guys ranked above him at welter all-time. That crazy height and reach, with that right hand was a handful and might have been the most offensively menacing welterweight ever.

Duran was an absolute beast at lightweight, and in the first meeting, he whipped Ray Leonard at his own game. Now Ray was a genius at times, but mano a mano, Duran belongs ahead of him. The rematch was tinged with way too much controversy as was Leonard's win over Hagler. Ray belongs next on this list by simple math. He accomplished more in more weight classes against better opponents (Donnie Lalond withstanding). He was able to stop Benitez whereby neither Pac nor Pernell could dream of doing that. Hearns proved he couldn't. After that it's a crap shoot. Hagler dominated his weight class like no other in this group besides Duran at 135. Whitaker was amazing but IMO, never did enough for a legacy like the others. Pac's story is being written as we speak, but I truly believe his demands on his opponents on his way up tarnish his legacy more than help it. He should have fought Cotto at 147 if he wanted his title. Sure there have been catchweights throughout history, but none as blatant as Manny's. Just my opinion of course.

I asked the exact same question at another board and the responses were completely different from here. Interesting-

http://www.the13thround.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=79982

freakzilla wrote:I asked the exact same question at another board and the responses were completely different from here. Interesting-

http://www.the13thround.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=79982

The guys over here know more. That one Pac hater over there is totally wrong and off base in assessment of the list you provided. The guys over here are historians in their own right. I read more boxing books than I care to admit and the fellas that post here could contribute to those books or write them themselves. This forum is where its at as far as grabbing a list of historically great fighters.

hardcorebee24 wrote:

freakzilla wrote:I asked the exact same question at another board and the responses were completely different from here. Interesting-

http://www.the13thround.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=79982

The guys over here know more. That one Pac hater over there is totally wrong and off base in assessment of the list you provided. The guys over here are historians in their own right. I read more boxing books than I care to admit and the fellas that post here could contribute to those books or write them themselves. This forum is where its at as far as grabbing a list of historically great fighters.

I agree.