How would Duran retiring after Montreal affect his standing?

[Bokaj]

With his win in Montreal Duran had amassed a simply astonishing career. Some 80 victories and only one defeat (avenged twice), a great LW reign and superb victories at WW over Palomino and Leonard. He could very well have an argument with the likes of Leonard, Greb, Armstrong etc for the absolute top places.

After Montreal he had one magnificient moment in beating Barkley and performed one of the best losing efforts ever against Hagler. But he also lost in a pretty embarassingly manner against Leonard, Benitez and Hearns, and lost to lesser fighters such as Laing.

So, what do you think? Did Duran's perfomances against Barkley and Hagler outweigh his low points, or would he have been rated even higher if he went out on a high note and retired after Montreal?

[Longhhorn71]

Rated higher.

[smitty_son408]

Because he survived it was one of the best losing efforts ever?? IMO Hagler dominated that fight and it wasn't remotely close to what the judges had scored. *thank God he clearly won the last two rounds*.

But to answer your question, I believe he still would be a Top 10 ATG, the Leonard win was that huge.

[Bokaj]

Because he survived it was one of the best losing efforts ever?? IMO Hagler dominated that fight and it wasn't remotely close to what the judges had scored. *think God he clearly won the last two rounds*.

I agree that Hagler won by a wide margin points wise, but Duran still made most rounds competitive. And considering that he was a 33-year old natural LW facing one of the best MWs ever, I think that says a lot. Don't think a 33-year old Hagler would fare that well against one of the best HWs ever, probably not even against one of the best LHWs ever. Just to put it into perspective.

[PowerPuncher]

It would probably be assumed he'd always beat Leonard and Leonards great later accomplishments boost him further. His weak lightweight competition would probably be made a bigger deal over as would the fact he only fought 2 top WWs

Allot of Durans achievement is reliant on Leonards though. What if Leonard retired after Duran 2? Duran would be rated far lower

[smitty_son408]

I agree that Hagler won by a wide margin points wise, but Duran still made most rounds competitive. And considering that he was a 33-year old natural LW facing one of the best MWs ever, I think that says a lot. Don't think a 33-year old Hagler would fare that well against one of the best HWs ever, probably not even against one of the best LHWs ever. Just to put it into perspective.


I agree, but I honestly believed Hagler held back in that fight. He showed way too much respect for Duran.

[natonic]

It would probably be assumed he'd always beat Leonard and Leonards great later accomplishments boost him further. His weak lightweight competition would probably be made a bigger deal over as would the fact he only fought 2 top WWs

Allot of Durans achievement is reliant on Leonards though. What if Leonard retired after Duran 2? Duran would be rated far lower

Buchanan, Dejesus x 3, Ernesto Marcel (granted below 135), Ray Lampkin, Hector Thompson, Viruet brothers, Mamby, etc. Weak???

As for the question, I think his legacy would be about the same. Quitting against Leonard, and his no show performances cancel out the Barkley, Hagler, Moore, imo.

[PowerPuncher]

Buchanan, Dejesus x 3, Ernesto Marcel (granted below 135), Ray Lampkin, Hector Thompson, Viruet brothers, Mamby, etc. Weak???

As for the question, I think his legacy would be about the same. Quitting against Leonard, and his no show performances cancel out the Barkley, Hagler, Moore, imo.

Im not going to go into it but most consider it weak Dejesus/Buchanan aside

[Bummy Davis]

Well Duran did acomplish much after that fight Barkley,Moore, and showed his skill vs Hagler but the problem with Duran at that point in time was the party mode caught up with him and he could not retain the condition of Montreal. Duran was a giant in Panama and it got to him, like Tyson he was surrounded by sycophants and suffered from every vice from soda pop to Coke and had his choice of spanish woman....I think if he had retired at that pinacle at 71-1 it would have been a snapshot of perfection.

[Meast]

A good question.

If he retired after Montreal a lot of people would have criticised him for not giving Leonard a rematch, leaving lots of unanswered questions.

Ironically, the rematch with Leonard is unfortunately what he's most remembered for with casual boxing fans and the public.

I also think his LW competition would have been questioned, as mentioned above (although i don't myself considerate it to be that weak you could easily make an argument that it wasn't as strong as Benny's.

Overall I think his ranking would have been about the same, although personally I'm glad he continued as his fights with Hagler, Barkley and Moore are some of the most enjoyable fight I've ever seen.

[itrymariti]

I agree, but I honestly believed Hagler held back in that fight. He showed way too much respect for Duran.

I agree, but I think it was very, very close. Hagler was way too gun-shy.

[itrymariti]

People seem to be quite happy making excuses for his losses. That said, he doesn't gain much extra currency for his weight-jumping antics in comparison to his longevity at 135 and the Leonard/Palomino wins, so taking that away might not make a massive difference. I think, overall, his H2H rating would have been about the same - people might not have taken so seriosuly the idea that he could be out-brawling a Barkley had it not happened, but they certainly wouldn't have picked him to lose to Benitez. (In a thread a while back, people seemed to think that a prime Duran would have beaten pretty much anybody at 147.) In terms of achievements, I think the Barkley, Moore and Hagler performances probably come close to balancing his embarassing moments. Making excuses really works.

[itrymariti]

The real test would be how this comes out under a calculated comparison system (didn't Sweet Scientist have one of these?). Aesthetic considerations obviously determine the extent to which we prize weight-jumping over consistency etc.

[Mantequilla]

I know a lot of fans DO make excuses for Duran especially for the impossible to be sure what was going on behidn the scenes leonard rematch, but he seems to polarise opinions in the opposite manner as well.

You aren't even allowed to say he was above his best weight and past his best for his losses post Leonard rematch anymore without being called to task on it.

The cultured, educated observer who is a fan of the sport in general and not just certain fighters realises there is more truth than Carl Williams in those statements.

[asero]

he is top 2 or 3 but the lost to leonard set the record straight that he should be outside top 5

[essexboy]

I actually think he'd be rated a bit higher, probably top five for most people. Its difficult to say though.

[Vanboxingfan]

It's a close call either way. Probably high, since the "No mas" fight really damaged his legacy for some. But personally there's hardly a fight around I enjoy watching more than Duran- Barkley. I still marvel at what Duran was able to do in that fight.

[MAG1965]

Rated higher.He probably would be. That is like had Leonard retired after Hagler or Curry after McCrory. If Curry had retired after McCrory he might be in the top 100 ATG list.

[MAG1965]

I agree that Hagler won by a wide margin points wise, but Duran still made most rounds competitive. And considering that he was a 33-year old natural LW facing one of the best MWs ever, I think that says a lot. Don't think a 33-year old Hagler would fare that well against one of the best HWs ever, probably not even against one of the best LHWs ever. Just to put it into perspective.What I do not understand about Duran being given credit for Hagler is that when Hearns beat him 7 months later at a lower weight and a weight Duran was champion at, then all of a sudden Duran was washed up. Fact is Duran was not washed up in 1984 and fought another 17 years and 35 fights or so.

[Mantequilla]

Don't compare Curry's body of work up to McCrory with Duran.

Duran retiring after beating Dejesus for the first time would have achieved more than Curry had up until that time.

[brando18b4h]

I believe it would balance out if he retired after Montreal or not, However by continuing to fight it put Duran in a very unique category, He fought in the 60s,70s,80s,90s,2000, also achieved a knockout in every round 1-15 and the Barkley fight in my opinion was icing on the cake. Duran was one of the greatest natural fighters either way you look at it.

[duranimal]

Thats a tricky one:huh

If he'd retired after ripping Leonards crown away i recken he'd be reveared along with the rest of the gods up on boxings mount olympus as beating Leonard who was the number 1 WW & heir to ALI & being only the 2nd LW since "Hammerin Hank" to succesfully navigate to the WW title.

Also in the fact everyone on this forum would all be wondering what would have happened if duran had fought Iran Barkley & the poll would be 100% in favour of a Barkley KO inside 3 rounds would'nt it & to say otherwise would have got you laughed of ESB:lol:

Who else at 30 yrs of age started their L/M career & ended up winning that title at 32 & then went on to win the M/W title at 37:D

He's had 2 careers, it all depends which one yer pick as being the most succesfull in legacy terms + fighting into 5 decades starting out at bantam & ending it all at 50 years old at Super/middle.

One thing that is certain is that he is without doubt a one-off PHENOM & the nearest too him in recent times i think is Pacman:smoke

[MAG1965]

Don't compare Curry's body of work up to McCrory with Duran.

Duran retiring after beating Dejesus for the first time would have achieved more than Curry had up until that time.I don't really think that . Curry won the title, beat Jones,Starling,McCrory and was dominant. Why not compare? Curry was a good fighter. He was not the dominant guy Duran was or had his machismo which got Duran attention, but Curry was a very good fighter and top 10 p4p in those years.

[Mantequilla]

Of course he was very good, but what he had done up until that point doesn't compare to Duran's decade long run up the Leonard victory.Not even close.

[MAG1965]

Of course he was very good, but what he had done up until that point doesn't compare to Duran's decade long run up the Leonard victory.Not even close.Very true, but you said Curry's career was not as good as Duran's up to when he fought Dejesus the first time and I thought yeah it does compare. But up to Duran fighting Leonard in 1980? No way.Duran's career is HOF and Curry's was not, yet if you look at potential and if Curry retired at that time in Dec. of 1985, people would have thought wow this guys was dominant and great. He would have gone on to beat Hearns and Hagler and retire undefeated. Salvador Sanchez beat some great guys Nelson,Gomez,Lopez, and better than Curry did, but Salvador is seen as great by most people even though he had a 2 and a half year career in the early 1980's. I am not insulting Sanchez, but much of his rating is done because of what he did and what he probably would have done.

[Mantequilla]

I meant Curry yretiring after McCrory is about on par with Duran retiring after Dejesus 2, and even that is being generous to Donald.

[MAG1965]

I meant Curry yretiring after McCrory is about on par with Duran retiring after Dejesus 2, and even that is being generous to Donald.Maybe but Duran and Curry would have both been regarded as top 100 ATG if they retired then. As it turned out Curry fell apart for Honeyghan 9 months after McCrory and then in my mind fought McCallum too soon before finding his punch at 154. His losses were too close together. Duran also was not knocked out until 1984, and then he took 2 years off of boxing and regrouped and game back fresh enough. Curry handled his losses worse than guys like Duran and Hearns. Who knows why some fighters can handle losses and others cannot. I rambled on with this I know.

[MAG1965]

I meant Curry yretiring after McCrory is about on par with Duran retiring after Dejesus 2, and even that is being generous to Donald.
But I agree Donald cannot be compared to Duran. I just meant had he retired after McCrory he would have looked almost invincible. There was a time in 1986 when Duran and Hearns were not being talked about for rematches with Hagler, but Curry was talked about as Marvin's next fight. He was that well known and that fight with McCrory was held in high regard.

[Boxed Ears]

I don't buy into all this ''if they had retired when'' deal. I mean, I judge people off of accomplishment and what they were like at their guessed best. If anything Duran is rated higher for me. I don't judge him off of his worst losses, I judge him off of things like being a lightweight that fought Marvin Hagler at middleweight and gave a good account of himself. No amount of losses would erase his accomplishments. Same for any fighter. Roy Jones could get knocked out thirty times in a row by Danny Green level opponents. It doesn't change what he did before that. Ray Leonard could come back now and get destroyed by James Kirkland, it changes his standing not at all to me.

[Gesta]

For me I have him ranked higher by fighting on.

With Duran there are no answered questions, great performances (past peak) against Davey Boy, Hagler and Barkley, with some poor performances against Benitez, Hearns and Leonard (two).

I did not see his fight with Hagler as close as the judges, but to go in with a prime hagler and do so well says a lot, all the top contenders were getting knocked out. Like some one else said, how would Hagler go against some of the best ever light heavys? I cannot see Hagler doing as well a Duran did, but you never know?

How would Tyson (prime) go against one of the top heavyweights?, he might do very well and he might not do so well, you never can say 100% what would of happened.

With Duran there are no unanswered questions, on his best days he can beat any one, even if he had some bad performances thrown in.

Look at RJJ, looked unbeatable in his prime, but once his natrual avantages left him he does not look as good.

By Duran fighting on and in higher wieght classes showed every one that he was a great fighter and had good defence, I think that if he did not fight on that a lot of poeple would say that he did not have the best defence. Like in his fight with Barkley they are both trading shots but Barkley is the one that was the most hurt, Duran was taking less punishment as he was rolling with the shots, but that would not be so aprant if they never meet in the ring.

Some people would have just said that he was a brawler with no defence.

[Bokaj]

What I do not understand about Duran being given credit for Hagler is that when Hearns beat him 7 months later at a lower weight and a weight Duran was champion at, then all of a sudden Duran was washed up. Fact is Duran was not washed up in 1984 and fought another 17 years and 35 fights or so.

I fully agree that many ridicolous excuses are made for Duran, and him being "washed up" against Hearns is one of them. But his perfomance against Hagler is really deserving of the praise it gets.

[Meast]

I fully agree that many ridicolous excuses are made for Duran, and him being "washed up" against Hearns is one of them. But his perfomance against Hagler is really deserving of the praise it gets.

Washed up he wasn't, beating Barkley almost 5 years later pretty much proves that.

He was just untrained and unmotivated for Hearns.

[Bokaj]

He was just untrained and unmotivated for Hearns.

Says who? The guy who got his ass handed to him in one of the most one-sided fights between two greats ever? What a chocker.

Every time he lost he was supposedly untrained and unmotivated, even when it was title fights against very dangerous opponents. I call bullshit.

[Meast]

Says who? The guy who got his ass handed to him in one of the most one-sided fights between two greats ever? What a chocker.

Every time he lost he was supposedly untrained and unmotivated, even when it was title fights against very dangerous opponents. I call bullshit.

Luis Spada quoted ''he was not in best shape. The time before the fight he was involved in his music orchestra. When we signed the contract in the Dominican Republic to fight Hearns, he went to play in the orchestra, when we needed to train there was no time left for training''

Reports had him weighting around 190-200 pounds.

When they went to train in the Bahamas Duran was ill for the most of the time, he was still 6 pounds overweight when they arrived in Las Vegas and only managed 3 weeks of training.

Before the fight he told the New York Times that he wanted a rematch with Leonard more than anything else.

Duran wasn't the same that night, anyone can see that just by watching the fight. His hearts just wasn't in it.

[Bokaj]

Luis Spada quoted ''he was not in best shape. The time before the fight he was involved in his music orchestra. When we signed the contract in the Dominican Republic to fight Hearns, he went to play in the orchestra, when we needed to train there was no time left for training''

Reports had him weighting around 190-200 pounds.

When they went to train in the Bahamas Duran was ill for the most of the time, he was still 6 pounds overweight when they arrived in Las Vegas and only managed 3 weeks of training.

Before the fight he told the New York Times that he wanted a rematch with Leonard more than anything else.

Duran wasn't the same that night, anyone can see that just by watching the fight. His hearts just wasn't in it.

You're acting like excuses like these are anything but commonplace when popular fighters lose in embarassing and one-sided fashion. They're anything but. Taking them on face-value is, to put it nicely, very naive.

There are excuses for Listons's losses to Ali, for Ali's to Frazier and Norton, for Frazier's to Foreman, for Leonard's to Duran, for Hagler's to Leonard and for just every loss Tyson ever had. Etc, etc.

If you take all these excuses on face value then none of these fighters never lost just because they met a better man on the night. Should we believe that?

And this BS of "one can easily see he was not himself in these fights"... It is very rare that someone looks good in defeat. The Louis that lost to Schmeling looked nothing like the one who had crushed Baer, the Schmeling that got destroyed by Louis looked nothing like the one who had conquered Louis a couple of years before, the Liston who was beaten by Clay looked nothing like the Liston who had destroyed Patterson, the Ali who lost to Norton looked nothing like the one who had schooled Quarry not long before, the Tyson that lost to Douglas looked nothing like the one who had brushed off Carl Williams and the Tyson who lost to Holyfield looked nothing like the one who had crushed Bruno. You see a pattern here?

Leonard, Benitez and Hearns were all opponents to be taken very seriously and very much were at stake in Duran's fights with them. Yet, he was undertrained and unmotivated in not just one of the fights he lost to them, but in all of them? This is a huge pile of fanboy crap, and if you cant' see that I won't waste more time on you.

[Meast]

You're acting like excuses like these are anything but commonplace when popular fighters lose in embarassing and one-sided fashion. They're anything but. Taking them on face-value is, to put it nicely, very naive.

There are excuses for Listons's losses to Ali, for Ali's to Frazier and Norton, for Frazier's to Foreman, for Leonard's to Duran, for Hagler's to Leonard and for just every loss Tyson ever had. Etc, etc.

If you take all these excuses on face value then none of these fighters never lost just because they met a better man on the night. Should we believe that?

And this BS of "one can easily see he was not himself in these fights"... It is very rare that someone looks good in defeat. The Louis that lost to Schmeling looked nothing like the one who had crushed Baer, the Schmeling that got destroyed by Louis looked nothing like the one who had conquered Louis a couple of years before, the Liston who was beaten by Clay looked nothing like the Liston who had destroyed Patterson, the Ali who lost to Norton looked nothing like the one who had schooled Quarry not long before, the Tyson that lost to Douglas looked nothing like the one who had brushed off Carl Williams and the Tyson who lost to Holyfield looked nothing like the one who had crushed Bruno. You see a pattern here?

Leonard, Benitez and Hearns were all opponents to be taken very seriously and very much were at stake in Duran's fights with them. Yet, he was undertrained and unmotivated in not just one of the fights he lost to them, but in all of them? This is a huge pile of fanboy crap, and if you cant' see that I won't waste more time on you.


There's no need to start with all the fanboy shit, you simply asked me to list why I thought Duran wasn't motivated for the Hearns fight.

I just find it hard to understand how he can look good against Hagler then 7 months later he gets blown out by Hearns in 2 rounds.

Do you really think Duran was 100% prepared for the Hearns fight?

[john garfield]

If Duran hung'em up after Montreal, he'd be in the mix for the greatest ATG, just as RJJ would be if he quit after outclassing John Ruiz.

It's not a new story, except for a handful, they all stay too long at the dance.

Broke my heart seeing what happened to SRR, after watching him live from ringside in his heyday.

[Bokaj]

Broke my heart seeing what happened to SRR, after watching him live from ringside in his heyday.

Man, I envy you for that. What a sight he must have been. Did you see his fights against Gavilan?

[Bokaj]

I just find it hard to understand how he can look good against Hagler then 7 months later he gets blown out by Hearns in 2 rounds.

Because of stylistical reasons mostly. Hagler didn't have nearly the same advantages in reach and power. His advantages in strength and stamina were easier to cope with.

Do you really think Duran was 100% prepared for the Hearns fight?

It's always hard to say something like that with full certainity. But the main assumption should always be that such a seasoned pro gets in good shape for the biggest fights.

And even if Duran was poorly prepared for one big fight, it's really far fetched that he was it for Leonard and Benitez as well. And for Laing.

That's four defeats, three of them in big fights. If I'd buy that he was poorly prepared for all of them, I could explain away any defeat I cared too.

For example: Ferdie Pacheco, Alis physician. said that Ali's training before FOTC was hampered by effects he was still feeling after Bonavena. If the fight wasn't rushed because of financial reasons Ali would have had time to get into proper shape and would have won, according to Pacheco. Since Ali won the subsequent two fights, this must mean that Pacheco was right, no?

Personally, it takes more than that for me to accept it.

[Mantequilla]

Duran was obviously out of shape in the Laing fight.you only need to watch it to see that.....he looked physically more like an out of shape 50 year old than a pro athlete.

The others i'm quite happy to say they were better than he was when they fought, at that weight.

[john garfield]

Man, I envy you for that. What a sight he must have been. Did you see his fights against Gavilan?

Saw the first one at Yankee Stadium, B -- that I thought Sugar won conclusively, even though there was lots of booing. The Keed was very flashy 'n a chin like oak.

Though I saw all Sugar's bouts in the tri-state area, sadly my dad couldn't break free to take me to the return in Philly.

[Bokaj]

Duran was obviously out of shape in the Laing fight.you only need to watch it to see that.....he looked physically more like an out of shape 50 year old than a pro athlete.

I'm not saying he was in top shape for all those fights, only that I don't believe that he was in poor shape for all of them. Especially for the big ones. That he took a guy like Laing too lightly, I can well believe.

The others i'm quite happy to say they were better than he was when they fought, at that weight.

We're on the same page then.

[Bokaj]

Saw the first one at Yankee Stadium, B -- that I thought Sugar won conclusively, even though there was lots of booing. The Keed was very flashy 'n a chin like oak.

Though I saw all Sugar's bouts in the tri-state area, sadly my dad couldn't break free to take me to the return in Philly.

Which one of his perfomances, that you saw live, impressed you the most?

[john garfield]

Which one of his perfomances, that you saw live, impressed you the most?

Sugar or The Keed? B

[Bokaj]

Sugar or The Keed? B

Just to see film of that fight...

His perfomances against Graziano and LaMotta always blows me away when I see them, to see him at his absolute peak at WW...

[Duodenum]

"Six of one, half a dozen of the other," is the bottom line in my view.

Ultimately, the lengthy continuation of his overall career offset the historical advantages of retiring after Montreal.

This question is almost perfectly comparable to asking where Robinson might have rated had he retired after the Valentine's Day Massacre. At that stage of their careers, their records are very similar.

For me personally, Montreal placed Duran at number two behind Robby on an all time P4P basis, and locked him in as my greatest fighter since 1950. (This is now etched in granite for me until or unless the championship distance is restored, an attitude which comes as a surprise to no one familiar with my posting history.) He could only have surpassed SRR by defeating Hagler. (Considering how Robby was dominating Maxim, a Duran win over Marv probably wouldn't have done it for me even without the Hearns debacle.) This would certainly have been revoked by the nature of his loss to Hearns, as nobody ever punched Robby out like that, at least not on any film that's come to light. (What happened with Ray and Artie Levine? Was Robby saved by a very slow count?)

Duran subsequently reinforced his greatness by repeatedly recovering from defeats which would have utterly and completely destroyed a lesser competitor. He was never forced into permanent retirement by an opponent. SRL was never in less than top physical condition, yet the span of his competitive viability was shockingly brief compared to Duran's. The mind boggles at what El Cholo might have achieved with the career long discipline and dedication of a Hagler.

Roberto was still a world class fighter at the brink of turning 50, and he was far better against Camacho than SRL had been (and certainly did better against Barkley than Hearns). He avenged his stoppage by Pat Lawlor over 30 years after beating Marcel. Archie Moore competed at the world class level for less than 25 years. As staggering as the length of Moore's career was, Duran eclipsed it by a considerable margin. He boxed over a span of more years than Harry Greb (a real potential challenger to SRR as the P4P GOAT) lived on this earth, and from 1968 to 2001 was only inactive in 1985 and 1990.

Of all the matches he had after Palomino, retiring after Hearns would have resulted in the greatest effect on his standing in my book, in an adverse way of course. Tommy should have destroyed him (as he did Cuevas), just as Tyson should have ruined Holmes. That they both came back reasserted their stature in my eyes.

[john garfield]

Just to see film of that fight...

His perfomances against Graziano and LaMotta always blows me away when I see them, to see him at his absolute peak at WW...

Gotta take care of some things, B, will get back to you on this later.

[Sweet Pea]

There's actually a decent amount of footage of Robinson at Welterweight, on Youtube no less. Do people just not look?

[Meast]

Because of stylistical reasons mostly. Hagler didn't have nearly the same advantages in reach and power. His advantages in strength and stamina were easier to cope with.





Yeah fair enough, Hearns had superior reach and power and I think the Hagler maybe gave Duran a bit too much respect.

What do you think about Duran's win against Barkley then? Surely he had to face the same problems he did against Hearns regarding the height and reach advantage plus he was a good few years older.

[Sweet Pea]

The conclusion I've come to is that people who believe Duran to be overrated due to his past prime losses, especially while trying to legitimize them by comparing them to his past prime wins, are either very simple-minded or very uneducated about the man in general.

[Duodenum]

Gotta take care of some things, B, will get back to you on this later.I'm curious myself about the best performance you saw Robinson in. As many bouts as he had, there had to be some variations in the quality of his work. That you thought he won the first match with Gavilan conclusively is priceless eyewitness testimony. Did the crowd generally root for his underdog opponents during his peak? Hearing the audience booing his clowning (a-la Max Baer), in the footage with Bobby Dykes causes me to wonder if this was usually the case.

[Bokaj]

Yeah fair enough, Hearns had superior reach and power and I think the Hagler maybe gave Duran a bit too much respect.

What do you think about Duran's win against Barkley then? Surely he had to face the same problems he did against Hearns regarding the height and reach advantage plus he was a good few years older.

Barkley was a far less boxer than Hearns. But that win is simply tremendous. Perhaps the best of all times.

[Bokaj]

The conclusion I've come to is that people who believe Duran to be overrated due to his past prime losses, especially while trying to legitimize them by comparing them to his past prime wins, are either very simple-minded or very uneducated about the man in general.

Well. No one has expressed that sentiment so far, so you can feel safe from simpletons as of yet.

[Bokaj]

There's actually a decent amount of footage of Robinson at Welterweight, on Youtube no less. Do people just not look?

Whole fights?

[red cobra]

It would have enhanced his legacy no doubt. He would have avoided the ko by Hearns, the boxing lesson given him by Benitez...the no Mas debacle...subtract all that and he would have been in the elite group...Marciano, Tunney, Monzon, Hagler (he didn't lose that fight to Leonard) and Lewis, who walked away while at the top...invincible and unvanquished.

[arther1045]

What I do not understand about Duran being given credit for Hagler is that when Hearns beat him 7 months later at a lower weight and a weight Duran was champion at, then all of a sudden Duran was washed up. Fact is Duran was not washed up in 1984 and fought another 17 years and 35 fights or so.


Duran wasn't washed up agains Hearns. He was in slow motion compared to his prime, and he was fighting a much much bigger fighter, and the bigger fighters ideal weight, and a the bigger fighters prime age.
That Duran was able to give up so much to Hagler ( age,and size ) and make it clse is very impressive.

How many fighters do you know, could move up and fight bigger and younger fighters in hagler and hearns and even come close to either one.

[MrMarvel]

His record is greatly enhanced by continuing. For a lightweight champion to move up in weight and all those years later win the middleweight championship from the man who wiped out Tommy Hearns is a remarkable feat.

Think about who this guy beat: Buchanan, DeJesus, Polomino, Leonard, Cuevas, Moore, Barkley, and arguably Camacho. From lightweight through middleweight, on those occasions when he was on top of his game, he was masterful.

As for excuses made about his losses, there aren't any. There are only the truths of history. The Hagler fight was inspired, but he clearly lost. The Benitez fight was flat, and Duran again clearly lost. The Hearns fight was a blowout. Hearns was peak. Duran made a terrible mistake in New Orleans, accepting a fight he could not get ready for. But he more than redeemed himself and went beyond his past accomplishments to establish himself as a true ring legend.

[john garfield]

I'm curious myself about the best performance you saw Robinson in. As many bouts as he had, there had to be some variations in the quality of his work. That you thought he won the first match with Gavilan conclusively is priceless eyewitness testimony. Did the crowd generally root for his underdog opponents during his peak? Hearing the audience booing his clowning (a-la Max Baer), in the footage with Bobby Dykes causes me to wonder if this was usually the case.

It was odd about Sugar, though fight insiders knew what an arrogant Diva he was, fans LOVED him. His incomparable skills, self-deprecating public face, charitable giving and radiant grill more than trumped all the whispers about whatta cold-hearted SOB he was.

Within 20-feet, he was MAGNIFICENT! A BRILLIANT NOVA, 'n on fight night that's what fans cared about, and Sugar always delivered. KO or hairline decision, he was always thrilling.

He was an attacking Fred Astair. Willing to fight tit-for-tat, but his tat's were three-to-one -- 'n every one lethal. Ringsiders winced at the fusillades 'n the impact. The lucky ones got flattened. The unlucky went the distance 'n got shell shocked. Sugar could be rocked 'n dropped, but it just added to the drama.

Seen every great one live since the early '40s. Ray's the best prize fighter I've ever seen.

The performances to pick from, D. These stand out: Steve Belloise in Yankee Stadium, Georgie Abrams, Costner in Philly, Olson in Philly 'n Gene Buffalo in Wilkes Barre.

[john garfield]

bump

[john garfield]

bump

[MAG1965]

The conclusion I've come to is that people who believe Duran to be overrated due to his past prime losses, especially while trying to legitimize them by comparing them to his past prime wins, are either very simple-minded or very uneducated about the man in general.But Duran fans have their own illogic. They say Duran lost to all the legends in the 1980's because he was our of his prime, but they say he was great when he beat Davey Moore and Iran Barkley when he was older, yet they were not great fighters. A man's prime is not that long, and many fighters win greats fights past thier prime. If all fighters lose all thier a little past prime fights, then you will only rate someone in a two year period. Duran fans use the wins as proof he is great, and the losses are somehow expected. The losses have as much to do with the 1980s as the wins. If he was not great in the 1980's then he should not get much credit for any of it. And the overrating part comes from the fact that Duran fans think he is top 5 ever. I say he is top 25. How can a man who never knocked out an ATG be top 5 ever? And the only ATG he beat was not experienced at the time, and then came back and beat him in two fights easily. I don't think this is uneducation or simple minded. This is using facts and fights. If he was really a top 5 ATG he would have found a way to beat Leonard in the rematch and knock him out and then beat Hearns and Benitez. But he was outclassed. You cannot argue with the facts, and then when those facts come up then Duran was past his prime. So Duran fans make it hard to really rate Duran. So if you rate what you say got him the ATG ranking his lightweight reign, it is no better than other reigns. Duran was greater and more dominant than everyone he fought. Not real ATG fighters at lightweight? Who Buchanan or Dejesus?

[MAG1965]

Yeah fair enough, Hearns had superior reach and power and I think the Hagler maybe gave Duran a bit too much respect.

What do you think about Duran's win against Barkley then? Surely he had to face the same problems he did against Hearns regarding the height and reach advantage plus he was a good few years older.Hearns was faster than Barkley and greater. The fact Barkley beat him does not make him as skillfil or as great or Douglas would be thought of as great as Tyson. Upsets are great, but it does not mean that if a fighter beats the person who upset a great, he beat that fighter. Fact is Duran was an ATG and he fought and ATG in Hearns. He knew who he was up against and he lost. Beating Barkley does not take away from his loss to Hearns and never did. Barkley gave Duran exactly what he wanted. A fight on the inside with a guy who was slower than Duran and not as great of an inside fighter. Barkley was tailormade for Duran. When the fight was signed I thought, well Duran just was given a title.

[Bill Butcher]

With his win in Montreal Duran had amassed a simply astonishing career. Some 80 victories and only one defeat (avenged twice), a great LW reign and superb victories at WW over Palomino and Leonard. He could very well have an argument with the likes of Leonard, Greb, Armstrong etc for the absolute top places.

After Montreal he had one magnificient moment in beating Barkley and performed one of the best losing efforts ever against Hagler. But he also lost in a pretty embarassingly manner against Leonard, Benitez and Hearns, and lost to lesser fighters such as Laing.

So, what do you think? Did Duran's perfomances against Barkley and Hagler outweigh his low points, or would he have been rated even higher if he went out on a high note and retired after Montreal?

Oddly enough, I dont think his ranking would change all that much either way... I still think he`d be top 10.

His top 10 ranking, certainly from my point of view comes mostly from his career pre no mas, I judge fighters at their best mainly, of course I count achievements past prime but not as strongly as their best yrs because its not really fair to completely excuse past prime losses but at the same time praise past prime wins, both have to be called fairly.

For any damage that Roberto did himself in past prime losses, he managed to even out or better those by his past prime multiple weight triumphs so all in all.... his ranking wouldnt change THAT much IMO.

[anarci]

I agree, but I honestly believed Hagler held back in that fight. He showed way too much respect for Duran. Believe it or not Hagler was kind of intimidated by Duran thats why he showed him so much respect.

Also I disagree with you Hagler DIDNOT dominate Duran:nonoNo way. I thought it was pretty close or maybe even after 12 rounds

[McGrain]

Isn't Duran's the only hand Hagler shook pre-fight? Or is that a myth?

[Sweet Pea]

But Duran fans have their own illogic. They say Duran lost to all the legends in the 1980's because he was our of his prime, but they say he was great when he beat Davey Moore and Iran Barkley when he was older, yet they were not great fighters. A man's prime is not that long, and many fighters win greats fights past thier prime. If all fighters lose all thier a little past prime fights, then you will only rate someone in a two year period. Duran fans use the wins as proof he is great, and the losses are somehow expected. The losses have as much to do with the 1980s as the wins. If he was not great in the 1980's then he should not get much credit for any of it. And the overrating part comes from the fact that Duran fans think he is top 5 ever. I say he is top 25. How can a man who never knocked out an ATG be top 5 ever? And the only ATG he beat was not experienced at the time, and then came back and beat him in two fights easily. I don't think this is uneducation or simple minded. This is using facts and fights. If he was really a top 5 ATG he would have found a way to beat Leonard in the rematch and knock him out and then beat Hearns and Benitez. But he was outclassed. You cannot argue with the facts, and then when those facts come up then Duran was past his prime. So Duran fans make it hard to really rate Duran. So if you rate what you say got him the ATG ranking his lightweight reign, it is no better than other reigns. Duran was greater and more dominant than everyone he fought. Not real ATG fighters at lightweight? Who Buchanan or Dejesus?Case in point.

[Sweet Pea]

Whole fights?No. Does it matter?

[Bokaj]

No. Does it matter?

Whole fights had been terrific, but I'll take whatever there is to find. I've only found the Docusen fight from his WW days. Is there more?

[Sweet Pea]

Whole fights had been terrific, but I'll take whatever there is to find. I've only found the Docusen fight from his WW days. Is there more?

IjmymFHotQg

rMs0Z1leFMU

rvDwBS9OHrE

And here's his fight with Bobby Dykes:

VLka0hGIJWY

-rCNrlzDJ98

[Bokaj]

Thanks a bunch!

[TheGreatA]

Robinson vs Fusari:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


[Only registered and activated users can see links]


[Only registered and activated users can see links]


[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Robinson later admitted that he carried Fusari the distance but it's some of the best footage we have of Sugar Ray fighting at welterweight.

The last two rounds of the Robinson-Dykes fight:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[arther1045]

But Duran fans have their own illogic. They say Duran lost to all the legends in the 1980's because he was our of his prime, but they say he was great when he beat Davey Moore and Iran Barkley when he was older, yet they were not great fighters. A man's prime is not that long, and many fighters win greats fights past thier prime. If all fighters lose all thier a little past prime fights, then you will only rate someone in a two year period. Duran fans use the wins as proof he is great, and the losses are somehow expected. The losses have as much to do with the 1980s as the wins. If he was not great in the 1980's then he should not get much credit for any of it. And the overrating part comes from the fact that Duran fans think he is top 5 ever. I say he is top 25. How can a man who never knocked out an ATG be top 5 ever? And the only ATG he beat was not experienced at the time, and then came back and beat him in two fights easily. I don't think this is uneducation or simple minded. This is using facts and fights. If he was really a top 5 ATG he would have found a way to beat Leonard in the rematch and knock him out and then beat Hearns and Benitez. But he was outclassed. You cannot argue with the facts, and then when those facts come up then Duran was past his prime. So Duran fans make it hard to really rate Duran. So if you rate what you say got him the ATG ranking his lightweight reign, it is no better than other reigns. Duran was greater and more dominant than everyone he fought. Not real ATG fighters at lightweight? Who Buchanan or Dejesus?


What Duran fans claim is that Duran was only at about 75% of his best in the 1980s, and fighting against bigger younger fighters he still did some good things, but couldn't beat all time greats giving up all that age,size, and weight. Nobody could have beaten Hagler and Hearns giving up what Duran did. Just the age alone was alot. We saw what happened to Leonard the one time in his 30s he tried to fight a primed good ( not great ) fighter in Norris..It wasn't even close.

Give us the list of fighters in their 30s who beat all time greats in 20s in their primes.

People on here like to complain that Duran fans are ridiculous, but the ones who don't take everything into account are the ones out in left field. Duran didn't start boxing in 1980 at 147 as Duran bashers would want you to believe.
I will be waiting for this list.

[Bokaj]

What Duran fans claim is that Duran was only at about 75% of his best in the 1980s, and fighting against bigger younger fighters he still did some good things, but couldn't beat all time greats giving up all that age,size, and weight. Nobody could have beaten Hagler and Hearns giving up what Duran did. Just the age alone was alot. We saw what happened to Leonard the one time in his 30s he tried to fight a primed good ( not great ) fighter in Norris..It wasn't even close.

Give us the list of fighters in their 30s who beat all time greats in 20s in their primes.

People on here like to complain that Duran fans are ridiculous, but the ones who don't take everything into account are the ones out in left field. Duran didn't start boxing in 1980 at 147 as Duran bashers would want you to believe.
I will be waiting for this list.

There's not many that did so well at an old age as Duran did. As you said, a great fighter like Leonard was well beaten by Norris at only 34. Duran was several years older when he beat Barkley.

What exactly we should make out of his losses to Benitez and Hearns is hard to say. The "no mas" was a pure disgrace, though, and doesn't do him any favours. But the perfomances against Hagler, Moore and Barkley really are pure gold.

[MAG1965]

What Duran fans claim is that Duran was only at about 75% of his best in the 1980s, and fighting against bigger younger fighters he still did some good things, but couldn't beat all time greats giving up all that age,size, and weight. Nobody could have beaten Hagler and Hearns giving up what Duran did. Just the age alone was alot. We saw what happened to Leonard the one time in his 30s he tried to fight a primed good ( not great ) fighter in Norris..It wasn't even close.

Give us the list of fighters in their 30s who beat all time greats in 20s in their primes.

People on here like to complain that Duran fans are ridiculous, but the ones who don't take everything into account are the ones out in left field. Duran didn't start boxing in 1980 at 147 as Duran bashers would want you to believe.
I will be waiting for this list.Juan Roldan was 5-7 same height as Duran and he almost stopped Hearns in 1987. Saying no fighter giving up so much can beat another fighter is not true.
Duran was not old when he lost to ATG fighters Benitez and Hearns. He was younger than Floyd was when Floyd fights Shane in May when he fought Hearns. I will give you a fighter who beat an ATG in his 30's. Hearns beat Virgil Hill easily. 30 pounds above his first title weight.
Hearns didn't start boxing until 1991 either. And Hearns beat Virgil over a decision fighting Virgil's fight when Virgil was undefeated. My argument was always that Duran was not a top 5 ATG fighter. I think he is great, but top 25 which is good.

The age aspect of Duran to Hagler was only a little over 2 years, and some would say Hagler lied about his age and was more like Duran's age. So the age part is not relevant. No other fighter gets credit for losing fights or beating guys like Moore or Barkley as much as Duran does. He still lost to all the legends in the 1980's, and what is significant about that is they were the best fighters he ever fought at any weight. He never fought a guy as good as Hearns at lightweight.

[MAG1965]

What Duran fans claim is that Duran was only at about 75% of his best in the 1980s, and fighting against bigger younger fighters he still did some good things, but couldn't beat all time greats giving up all that age,size, and weight. Nobody could have beaten Hagler and Hearns giving up what Duran did. Just the age alone was alot. We saw what happened to Leonard the one time in his 30s he tried to fight a primed good ( not great ) fighter in Norris..It wasn't even close.

Give us the list of fighters in their 30s who beat all time greats in 20s in their primes.

People on here like to complain that Duran fans are ridiculous, but the ones who don't take everything into account are the ones out in left field. Duran didn't start boxing in 1980 at 147 as Duran bashers would want you to believe.
I will be waiting for this list. Well how high do you rate Duran? If you tell me top 5 ATG, then I would be curious as to how? Beating Buchanan and Dejesus. Giving Hagler a good fight but losing at the same time frame easily to Benitez and Hearns? I always talk about this subject on ESB if you go back and read all the posts I have made on this subject since Dec. of 2008 when I joined up here. This is not just a subject I just posted on. Your list just off the top of my head? Hopkins beat Tito. Hearns beat Hill, Foreman would have beaten Tyson in his 40s. If you want to talk size Spinks beat Holmes 1985 and 1986. Something Duran never did, beat an ATG with a size differential. Leonard beat Hagler in 1987 with a size differential. Boxing is full of that stuff. My point was always for Duran to be top 25 ATG then he did what he should of, but for top 5 ATG he should have beaten the legends of the 1980's. He didn't .

[MAG1965]

There's not many that did so well at an old age as Duran did. As you said, a great fighter like Leonard was well beaten by Norris at only 34. Duran was several years older when he beat Barkley.

What exactly we should make out of his losses to Benitez and Hearns is hard to say. The "no mas" was a pure disgrace, though, and doesn't do him any favours. But the perfomances against Hagler, Moore and Barkley really are pure gold.I don't see it. a loss to Hagler, and the losing easily to Hearns and Benitez at the same time frame in my mind is not gold? Hagler fought a very lackluster fight and still won a decision. When he did the same with Vito Antuofermo he got a draw. And then beating lower quality Moore and Barkley at the same weights which Duran could not win titles against the legends is not great, it is good to win them, but he didn't beat the legends and was outclassed by Hearns and Benitez-which is always overlooked by Duran fans. This is just overrating and making more out of mediocrity. My point always has been Duran is not top ATG 5. The best thing he did was beat Leonard and then lose easily in the 2nd and 3rd fights and then losing to Hagler but going 15? I just do not see how that is really great considering Hearns beat Virgil Hill in 1991 when Virgil had 10 title defenses and as undefeated. That is great. But Hearns win there is overlooked by boxing historians and fans usually. Duran gets consideration for things which other fighters never have been given credit for. Had Duran had an accomplishment like beating Virgil HIll like Hearns did 30 pounds over his starting weight, Duran fans would still be saying he is the best ever fighter no doubt.

[Mantequilla]

Hearns vs Hill is in no way comparabnle to Duran vs Barkley.

Tommy turned pro at roughly the same time as guys like Mike McCallum and Herol Graham etc for gods sake.

[MAG1965]

Hearns vs Hill is in no way comparabnle to Duran vs Barkley.

Tommy turned pro at roughly the same time as guys like Mike McCallum and Herol Graham etc for gods sake.Very comparable and if anything it is not comparable since the Hearns win over Hill is a win over a HOF fighter. Tommy's win over Virgil Hill was much better than Duran's over Barkley and I didn't even know that was disputed- Barkley was never great and the only thing he did great was beat Hearns. He was an exciting fighter who liked to brawl and fight on the inside, but he was slow and Duran had a great style. Barkley's claim to fame is Hearns. As for Hill, Hill ended up having 25 or so defenses of his light heavy and cruiserweight titles. How many did Iran have? Hill was undefeated when Tommy fought him and had 10 title defenses. How is Duran's win against Barkley better than that? Barkley was the easiest guy for Duran to beat at the time then the other champions like Frank Tate or Kalambay who would both have easily beaten Duran. Tommy turned pro in 1977 and Mike McCallum turned pro in 1981. Not sure when Herol Graham did, but Virgil Hill turned professional in 1984, 7 years after Hearns did. How is that not a great accomplishment? As a matter of fact the Virgil Hill fight was a better win than Duran had over Moore or Barkley combined. I don't understand how that can be disputed. Hill was the top light heavyweight and undefeated and 30 pounds above Tommy's starting first title weight. This is what Duran fans do they turn a mediocre win againt Barkley into a great win, and then downplay a really great win. Barkley lost to everyone at that time Kalambay,Nunn,Benn and even Sims a few years before. Duran did not beat a great fighter and Hearns beat an undefeated fighter in Hill. The only reason Barkley is even remembered is because of Hearns.

[Mantequilla]

Hearns that fought Hill was damn near a whole decade worth of fights behind the Duran that fought barkley.Duran had more fights and had fought nearly as many good fighters when he got his win over Leonard for gods sake.

Hill ain't a real HOF'er and certainly wasn't at the time he fought Hearns.He was a good fighter that choked badly in that fight, having only fought a scant handful of decent fighters beforehand.His comp was mediocre and the Hearns fight reflected badly on him at the time.Fair enough he came back from it and had another run against mostly ordianry fighters and a few good wins here and there, before fading himself, but he was never a great fighter..not even close.

LMAO at painting Barkley as some bum not worthy of being a notable win for Duran at that point, especially considering this supposed hack beat Hearns once again after his epic triumph over Hill...the win you are pumping up.Tommy must sure have sucked.OR maybe it was Hill.


Personally i couldn't care less if Duran had fought someone like Kalambay and not won 30 seconds of the fight.he'd still have been entitled to the same credit had he fought and beat Barkley afterward, which is something you can't seem to comprehend.

[MAG1965]

Hearns that fought Hill was damn near a whole decade worth of fights behind the Duran that fought barkley.Duran had more fights and had fought nearly as many good fighters when he got his win over Leonard for gods sake.

Hill ain't a real HOF'er and certainly wasn't at the time he fought Hearns.He was a good fighter that choked badly in that fight, having only fought a scant handful of decent fighters beforehand.His comp was mediocre and the Hearns fight reflected badly on him at the time.Fair enough he came back from it and had another run against mostly ordianry fighters and a few good wins here and there, before fading himself, but he was never a great fighter..not even close.

LMAO at painting Barkley as some bum not worthy of being a notable win for Duran at that point, especially considering this supposed hack beat Hearns once again after his epic triumph over Hill...the win you are pumping up.Tommy must sure have sucked.OR maybe it was Hill.


Personally i couldn't care less if Duran had fought someone like Kalambay and not won 30 seconds of the fight.he'd still have been entitled to the same credit had he fought and beat Barkley afterward, which is something you can't seem to comprehend.I am not going to say Barkley was a great fighter because he beat Hearns. Hearns has better wins against ATG fighters than Duran does in my mind. He beat 3 greats for titles. Cueves at 147, Benitez at 154 and Hill at 175, and he knocked out Duran, which no one else did when Duran was a fellow WBA champion. And Duran could not beat Benitez and Hearns outboxed Benitez.
For you to say Hill was not HOF is a little surprising considering he has more title defenses and title fights than Duran himself. And I do not think Barkley was great. Because he beat Tommy doesn't make him great. And Duran beating him was not a great win, it was an exciting fight but Duran was 38 and had an inside style he loved. I knew when they signed that Duran would have a win there. Barkley was fighting on ESPN before the Olajide fight. Why overrated him? If you say Barkley was great it might make Duran look a little better, but Barkley was not great. I liked his personality, but he was slow and a brawler.
And Hearns who fought Hill was 14 years into his boxing career (more into his career than Duran when he fought Leonard) and 11 years after his first title win (which was near the time span of Duran fighting Hearns after his first title win).
I am surprised you think Duran's win over Barkley is as good as Hearns over Hill. Hill is HOF and I think ATG and Barkley is not. Hill previous to Hearns beat Stewart for his title and defended against Czyz and Emebe and typical light heavyweight contenders. Later he beat Maske and Tate (2 times) and Tiozzo at 190. Very respectable first reign, and the guys he beat were not much different than some of the guys Duran fought at lightweight in the 1970's. He did not have the knockouts of a Hearns or Duran but he was HOF top fighter. Barkley was not. How can this be disputed? The logic which some Duran fans have about Duran is that if he were still fighting now at almost the age of 59, that alone would prove he is great regardless of anything else. It is the whole career which matters. Duran's wins against ATGs is not very many. I would say only Leonard is ATG, and Duran beat Ray when Ray just won his title and fought his fight for 15 rounds, and still Duran couldn't stop him.

[MAG1965]

Hearns that fought Hill was damn near a whole decade worth of fights behind the Duran that fought barkley.Duran had more fights and had fought nearly as many good fighters when he got his win over Leonard for gods sake.

Hill ain't a real HOF'er and certainly wasn't at the time he fought Hearns.He was a good fighter that choked badly in that fight, having only fought a scant handful of decent fighters beforehand.His comp was mediocre and the Hearns fight reflected badly on him at the time.Fair enough he came back from it and had another run against mostly ordianry fighters and a few good wins here and there, before fading himself, but he was never a great fighter..not even close.

LMAO at painting Barkley as some bum not worthy of being a notable win for Duran at that point, especially considering this supposed hack beat Hearns once again after his epic triumph over Hill...the win you are pumping up.Tommy must sure have sucked.OR maybe it was Hill.


Personally i couldn't care less if Duran had fought someone like Kalambay and not won 30 seconds of the fight.he'd still have been entitled to the same credit had he fought and beat Barkley afterward, which is something you can't seem to comprehend.Actually talking about Hill and Barkley, I wanted to see Barkley fight Hill because stylewise Hill would have knocked out Barkley in a similar way he stopped Kinchen in 1989 with a left hook counter. Barkley was not a bum, but he was not a great fighter and he lost to most guys he fought who were good in the late 1980's and early 1990's.
Still you cannot excuse the fact that Duran lost to Benitez easily when he was 30 years old and at 154, and Hearns beat Virgil Hill when he was 32 and 30 pounds over his original title winning weight. Duran never had a win like that. Barkley is not Hill regardless of what you say about Hill not being HOF, he is HOF and Barkley is not.

[Jersey Joe]

Since many people have him in the top 5, I don't think it's really possible for him to be rated much higher. A mid/late 30s career at that weight is always going to be past-prime, yet he pulled out a legitimate title win 2 old divisions above his natural weight, at age 37. Has any other fighter done that? Even Ray Robinson couldn't capture the light heavyweight crown. IMO that more than offsets his losses to naturally bigger, younger opponents.

Duran would be arguably top 10 just for his pre-Leonard record. After Leonard II he was getting past prime, he would be *expected* to get KTFO or dominated in all his middleweight fights against legit opponents, yet there he was beating some of them, taking Hagler the distance (first time in a Hagler title fight), and winning a middleweight title as a middle-aged man. Also don't forget that he was still in pro fights at age 50!

[Sweet Pea]

:lol:@ Hill being an all time great.

[Jersey Joe]

Juan Roldan was 5-7 same height as Duran and he almost stopped Hearns in 1987. Saying no fighter giving up so much can beat another fighter is not true.
Duran was not old when he lost to ATG fighters Benitez and Hearns. He was younger than Floyd was when Floyd fights Shane in May when he fought Hearns. I will give you a fighter who beat an ATG in his 30's. Hearns beat Virgil Hill easily. 30 pounds above his first title weight.
Hearns didn't start boxing until 1991 either. And Hearns beat Virgil over a decision fighting Virgil's fight when Virgil was undefeated. My argument was always that Duran was not a top 5 ATG fighter. I think he is great, but top 25 which is good.

The age aspect of Duran to Hagler was only a little over 2 years, and some would say Hagler lied about his age and was more like Duran's age. So the age part is not relevant. No other fighter gets credit for losing fights or beating guys like Moore or Barkley as much as Duran does. He still lost to all the legends in the 1980's, and what is significant about that is they were the best fighters he ever fought at any weight. He never fought a guy as good as Hearns at lightweight.

Roldan was knocked out though, and was basically the same age as Tommy and was a middleweight, so it doesn't really prove your point.

Floyd will be 32, Mosley 38, so Floyd is 6 years younger. Whereas Duran was more like 5-10 years *older* than Barkley, Leonard, Benitez, Hearns, Moore etc. Duran had fought about 80 fights at that age, compared to Floyd with 30something.

Hearns victory over Hill is a great win at a higher weight, I agree - but you were asking for knockouts and it was a decision win. And Virgil Hill is not even remotely in the same league P4P as Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, or even Benitez. And you are forgetting that Duran beat the bigger, younger Leonard - Leonard the top 20-30 ATG, remember? When did Hearns, Hagler, or even Leonard beat a bigger, younger fighter from the top 30 ATGs...or even the top 100? When did Duran lose a title fight in his natural weight division?

You are not applying your own criteria fairly. There is a reason that Ring magazine put Duran at #5 P4P - or do you think they are blind fanboys too?

[Jersey Joe]

Barkley was a far less boxer than Hearns. But that win is simply tremendous. Perhaps the best of all times.

Barkley outpointed Hearns over 12 rounds, something no other boxer has ever done.

[MAG1965]

Roldan was knocked out though, and was basically the same age as Tommy and was a middleweight, so it doesn't really prove your point.

Floyd will be 32, Mosley 38, so Floyd is 6 years younger. Whereas Duran was more like 5-10 years *older* than Barkley, Leonard, Benitez, Hearns, Moore etc. Duran had fought about 80 fights at that age, compared to Floyd with 30something.

Hearns victory over Hill is a great win at a higher weight, I agree - but you were asking for knockouts and it was a decision win. And Virgil Hill is not even remotely in the same league P4P as Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, or even Benitez. And you are forgetting that Duran beat the bigger, younger Leonard - Leonard the top 20-30 ATG, remember? When did Hearns, Hagler, or even Leonard beat a bigger, younger fighter from the top 30 ATGs...or even the top 100? When did Duran lose a title fight in his natural weight division?

You are not applying your own criteria fairly. There is a reason that Ring magazine put Duran at #5 P4P - or do you think they are blind fanboys too?Ring magazine can say what they want. In 20 years he will not be rated as high. I think the aura of machismo made Duran rated higher. Duran had charisma and people liked him, and that is great, but I am talking about facts and ATG's here. As for my criteria, no it was not my criteria that a great has to knock out an ATG, but what I said was Duran never knocked out an ATG -which is true. Hearns did -which was Duran and Cueves, and Hearns outboxed boxers Benitez and Hill, and knocked out a puncher as a puncher in Cuevas. I didn't say a win over an ATG has to be a knockout, but Hearns does have better wins over ATG fighters than Duran, but he also has 2 losses to Leonard and Hagler which hurts him probably more than it should have. That is fact. The two losses against Hagler and Leonard for Hearns hurts a very impressive resume. As for Duran- Leonard in 1980 is not a top ATG fighter. Ray in 1980 was not great yet. He just won his title over Benitez in November of 1979, and this was June of 1980. Then Ray beat Duran easily in the rematch and 3rd fight. Why is that significant, because Ray beat Duran in a similar easy fashion 9 years apart. The Ray of 1981 for example would beat Duran easily over and over again. He got better with the first Duran fight experience and I am not sure anyone who disagrees really believes it. Ray would have coasted in his wins against Duran after 1980. It shows if he fought his fight he beats Duran easily with speed and he did. If you want to talk about age then Hearns was 32 when he fought Hill, the same age as Duran was when Duran lost to Hearns, and Hill was 27. I think Duran is getting consideration here for things he should not be getting credit for. He was dominant at lightweight and great, but still the ATG names are what is important. Sort of the logic is since Duran was older when he moved up in weight then he should get more credit for beating mediocre guys like Moore and Barkley, and that should help his great ranking. Yet in those same years he cannot beat the legends Benitez and Hearns and Hagler. I think to be rated as an ATG top 5 you have to beat greats to be rated over them. Fighting mediocre guys at 32 and 38 (which is not really as old as some are trying to say) does not make him great because he was not "prime". Because when he was prime at lightweight, his resume was good but not filled with ATG fighters. I can say all these things and you guys discuss it back, but I am not sure your arguments for Duran being top 5 ATG or even top 10 are legit. He was dominant at lightweight vs. an average competition or lets say decent guys, but not ATG's. Then he beat Ray Leonard in 1980, but then lost to Ray in a rematch easily and then lost to all the legends and beat two mediocre guys in the 1980's for two more titles -and also went the distance with Hagler and lost, and that is considered ATG 5. I am not sure. You can bend any fighters record and make them ATG top 5 then but ATG 5 in the history of boxing still warrants beating other fellow ATG fighters. Leonard meets the criteria more. He beat 4 ATG fighters yet had a short career, but he has to be rated higher than Duran. Hearns beat greats but lost to 2 greats so that is his problem in ranking.

[cuchulain]

Rated higher.

Not so sure.

He is currently a five or six on a lot of alltime lists.

He still had Moore and Barkley ahead of him, not to mention a close go with Hagler.

Had he retired after Montreal, SRL's standing would have dropped five to ten spots. Maybe more.

[Bill Butcher]

I think anywhere from 5-10 can be argued for Duran.... above is being a little generous, below is being a little harsh.

Ps. I really think Hearns name should be mentioned more amongst the greats, he was a phenomenally skilled boxer, could brawl very well too, won titles in multiple weights in a very tough & talented era with fewer titles than today, was one of the hardest ever punchers p4p, beat some ATG fighters, always fought the best & was an all time top tier fighter in both the WW & LMW classes.... he had a couple of losses in his prime to 2 of the greatest fighters of all time but they were both in their own primes & Hagler was the bigger guy at his comfortable weight. The Barkely losses were past prime & even the best have style trouble as Hearns MIGHT have had with Barkely, Id certainly pick a peak Tommy over Barkely.

Hearns was an amazing fighter IMHO, what more could you ask from a career ?

[PernellSweetPea]

I think anywhere from 5-10 can be argued for Duran.... above is being a little generous, below is being a little harsh.

Ps. I really think Hearns name should be mentioned more amongst the greats, he was a phenomenally skilled boxer, could brawl very well too, won titles in multiple weights in a very tough & talented era with fewer titles than today, was one of the hardest ever punchers p4p, beat some ATG fighters, always fought the best & was an all time top tier fighter in both the WW & LMW classes.... he had a couple of losses in his prime to 2 of the greatest fighters of all time but they were both in their own primes & Hagler was the bigger guy at his comfortable weight. The Barkely losses were past prime & even the best have style trouble as Hearns MIGHT have had with Barkely, Id certainly pick a peak Tommy over Barkely.

Hearns was an amazing fighter IMHO, what more could you ask from a career ?hey I agree what you say about Thomas Hearns. Hearns fought everyone of the legendary greats and only lost to 2 of them. Not too shabby. Imagine guys now fighting 6 ATG fights and beating 4 of them. If anything Hearns is underrated and Duran a little over-rated but both were great and both came to fight always! Hearns had guts but it was his downfall with the Marvelous Marvin! Had he boxed and sat back and jabbed and landed his right hand he would have won that fight. The man wanted to knock Hagler out. Give him credit. I hope someday boxing has another guy like Hearns who comes to fight and goes for the knockouts even though his chin might be a little suspect. If that is not a gutsy guy I don't know what is. Hearns chin was not that weak, but the way he stuck it out going for knockouts was a little risky. He didn't seem to care that he was risking being hit. Even Duran hit him with 2 right hands when Tommy was going for the knockout. Give credit to both Hearns and Duran.

[arther1045]

Juan Roldan was 5-7 same height as Duran and he almost stopped Hearns in 1987. Saying no fighter giving up so much can beat another fighter is not true.
Duran was not old when he lost to ATG fighters Benitez and Hearns. He was younger than Floyd was when Floyd fights Shane in May when he fought Hearns. I will give you a fighter who beat an ATG in his 30's. Hearns beat Virgil Hill easily. 30 pounds above his first title weight.
Hearns didn't start boxing until 1991 either. And Hearns beat Virgil over a decision fighting Virgil's fight when Virgil was undefeated. My argument was always that Duran was not a top 5 ATG fighter. I think he is great, but top 25 which is good.

The age aspect of Duran to Hagler was only a little over 2 years, and some would say Hagler lied about his age and was more like Duran's age. So the age part is not relevant. No other fighter gets credit for losing fights or beating guys like Moore or Barkley as much as Duran does. He still lost to all the legends in the 1980's, and what is significant about that is they were the best fighters he ever fought at any weight. He never fought a guy as good as Hearns at lightweight.

The lengh you went to to try and come up with any just proves my point.
Roldan was at his best weight for the Hearns fight. There was no age disadvatage. And Hearns won the fight..not sure why you would list this.

You are trying to compare Hill to a primed Hearns or Hagler..come on..And hearns was the same size as Hill.

Why do you try to deny that Duran was well past his best when he fought Hagler. Guys who say this just den the obvious. Put in a tape f Dura at his best, then watc Dran against hagler. He was bloated and i slow motion compared to his prime..Yet he still gave hagler everything he could handle.

[MrMarvel]

Barkley outpointed Hearns over 12 rounds, something no other boxer has ever done.

Good point. But Hearns did not box well in that fight.

[arther1045]

Well how high do you rate Duran? If you tell me top 5 ATG, then I would be curious as to how? Beating Buchanan and Dejesus. Giving Hagler a good fight but losing at the same time frame easily to Benitez and Hearns? I always talk about this subject on ESB if you go back and read all the posts I have made on this subject since Dec. of 2008 when I joined up here. This is not just a subject I just posted on. Your list just off the top of my head? Hopkins beat Tito. Hearns beat Hill, Foreman would have beaten Tyson in his 40s. If you want to talk size Spinks beat Holmes 1985 and 1986. Something Duran never did, beat an ATG with a size differential. Leonard beat Hagler in 1987 with a size differential. Boxing is full of that stuff. My point was always for Duran to be top 25 ATG then he did what he should of, but for top 5 ATG he should have beaten the legends of the 1980's. He didn't .


Not much of a list like I predicted.
Hopkins and Tito there was no size difference.
Hill not in the same league as Hearns or hagler who Dran lost to. I do know that Hearns in his prime did fight primed Leonard and hagler and got koed both times. Didn't even make it past the 3rd round vs Hagler. Yet youknock Duran for giving up alot of age and size to those 2 and going 1-1 with Leonard and giving Hagler a great fight.

You are trying so hard to find something that you actually have to list Foreman and Tyson.

Spinks was in his prime when he beat a well past his prime Holmes..Doesn't fit. And we all know Holmes actualy won the 2nd fight.

Leonard had the age advantage against Hager, and he wasn't giving up the size that Duran was against Hagler.Doesn't fit..

I am still waiting for a realistic list of fighters giving up age, and size, and beating primd all time greats..You have given me none.

I think I have debated this with you before.. If it was yo you actually told me that Duran was bigger then Hearns, and that Spinks should be rated higher then Duran all time. Is this you?

Again I am waiting for a real list..if you don't have one, just admit tha you judge Duran too harshly, becaue you blame him for not being able to do, what hardly anyone has ever been able to do..

[arther1045]

I don't see it. a loss to Hagler, and the losing easily to Hearns and Benitez at the same time frame in my mind is not gold? Hagler fought a very lackluster fight and still won a decision. When he did the same with Vito Antuofermo he got a draw. And then beating lower quality Moore and Barkley at the same weights which Duran could not win titles against the legends is not great, it is good to win them, but he didn't beat the legends and was outclassed by Hearns and Benitez-which is always overlooked by Duran fans. This is just overrating and making more out of mediocrity. My point always has been Duran is not top ATG 5. The best thing he did was beat Leonard and then lose easily in the 2nd and 3rd fights and then losing to Hagler but going 15? I just do not see how that is really great considering Hearns beat Virgil Hill in 1991 when Virgil had 10 title defenses and as undefeated. That is great. But Hearns win there is overlooked by boxing historians and fans usually. Duran gets consideration for things which other fighters never have been given credit for. Had Duran had an accomplishment like beating Virgil HIll like Hearns did 30 pounds over his starting weight, Duran fans would still be saying he is the best ever fighter no doubt.


That Duran had a better head to head record vs common opponents then Hearns, despite the fact that Duran was the older smaller fighter in all of these fights, while Hearns didn't face any of these disadvantages should tell you somthing..


I think you once told me that Hearns performance against Hagler was more impressive then Duran's.. This is the type of thinking you have to use to come up witgh your conclsions.Do you still say this. Getting blown out in 3 while not wining a round, is better then losing a close 15 round decision?

[arther1045]

Ring magazine can say what they want. In 20 years he will not be rated as high. I think the aura of machismo made Duran rated higher. Duran had charisma and people liked him, and that is great, but I am talking about facts and ATG's here. As for my criteria, no it was not my criteria that a great has to knock out an ATG, but what I said was Duran never knocked out an ATG -which is true. Hearns did -which was Duran and Cueves, and Hearns outboxed boxers Benitez and Hill, and knocked out a puncher as a puncher in Cuevas. I didn't say a win over an ATG has to be a knockout, but Hearns does have better wins over ATG fighters than Duran, but he also has 2 losses to Leonard and Hagler which hurts him probably more than it should have. That is fact. The two losses against Hagler and Leonard for Hearns hurts a very impressive resume. As for Duran- Leonard in 1980 is not a top ATG fighter. Ray in 1980 was not great yet. He just won his title over Benitez in November of 1979, and this was June of 1980. Then Ray beat Duran easily in the rematch and 3rd fight. Why is that significant, because Ray beat Duran in a similar easy fashion 9 years apart. The Ray of 1981 for example would beat Duran easily over and over again. He got better with the first Duran fight experience and I am not sure anyone who disagrees really believes it. Ray would have coasted in his wins against Duran after 1980. It shows if he fought his fight he beats Duran easily with speed and he did. If you want to talk about age then Hearns was 32 when he fought Hill, the same age as Duran was when Duran lost to Hearns, and Hill was 27. I think Duran is getting consideration here for things he should not be getting credit for. He was dominant at lightweight and great, but still the ATG names are what is important. Sort of the logic is since Duran was older when he moved up in weight then he should get more credit for beating mediocre guys like Moore and Barkley, and that should help his great ranking. Yet in those same years he cannot beat the legends Benitez and Hearns and Hagler. I think to be rated as an ATG top 5 you have to beat greats to be rated over them. Fighting mediocre guys at 32 and 38 (which is not really as old as some are trying to say) does not make him great because he was not "prime". Because when he was prime at lightweight, his resume was good but not filled with ATG fighters. I can say all these things and you guys discuss it back, but I am not sure your arguments for Duran being top 5 ATG or even top 10 are legit. He was dominant at lightweight vs. an average competition or lets say decent guys, but not ATG's. Then he beat Ray Leonard in 1980, but then lost to Ray in a rematch easily and then lost to all the legends and beat two mediocre guys in the 1980's for two more titles -and also went the distance with Hagler and lost, and that is considered ATG 5. I am not sure. You can bend any fighters record and make them ATG top 5 then but ATG 5 in the history of boxing still warrants beating other fellow ATG fighters. Leonard meets the criteria more. He beat 4 ATG fighters yet had a short career, but he has to be rated higher than Duran. Hearns beat greats but lost to 2 greats so that is his problem in ranking.


So much wrong with this post.. So much twisting of things to try and make a point.You keep giving Hearns credit for beatin Cueves, but ignore that Duran also koed him.

You actually try to claim that Leonard in 1980 was not a great fighter.Come on..His fight against Duran in June mighyt have been his best fight ever. You keep saying Leonad bat Duran easily in the 2nd fight..Not true..It was a close fight when Duran quit And Leonard himself admitted Duran was nothing like the first fight. Why even talk about the 3rd fight..It meant nothing but money for both. Yo stat as a fact that Leonard of 1981 would easily bea any version of Duran.. don't buy tha a all. Leonard never facd anything like Dura of 1980, and Duran won pretty easily and clearly, although Leonard was great.

Why do you keep saying that Duran is gievn credit for being great against Moore and Barkey but then being called not grea against Hagler and Hearns. Compred to his prime, Duran was noting special against any of these fighters, but he started at a level so high, he could still beat very good fighters like Moore and barklay een giving up the age and size. He wasn't good enough to give up age and size and still beat all time greats. No fighter in history was..I am still waiting for a serious list.

Once again..against common opponents Duran had a better record ten Hearns, even though Duran had the size and age disadvantage against all common opponents, and Hearns didn't.

[MAG1965]

The lengh you went to to try and come up with any just proves my point.
Roldan was at his best weight for the Hearns fight. There was no age disadvatage. And Hearns won the fight..not sure why you would list this.

You are trying to compare Hill to a primed Hearns or Hagler..come on..And hearns was the same size as Hill.

Why do you try to deny that Duran was well past his best when he fought Hagler. Guys who say this just den the obvious. Put in a tape f Dura at his best, then watc Dran against hagler. He was bloated and i slow motion compared to his prime..Yet he still gave hagler everything he could handle.Your point about Roldan being the same weight does not make sense when you say Hearns was the same size as Hill. Hill was 6 ft 1/2 inches and Hearns 6-1, but Tommy was not a natural 175 pound fighter at all, and Hagler even outmuscled him at 160. Hearns was not natural at 175 and he beat Hill, and Hill is a legit HOF fighter . When Hearns beat him he was undefeated and the best light heavyweight champion with 10 title defenses. Had Duran beaten Hill people would still be saying how great the win was. Tommy does it and no big deal he is the same height.
The reason I brought up Roldan is because of the height issue. Roldan was the same height as Duran and it was not a mismatch as you say Duran and Hearns was in age and size. Duran could hang with other guys well enough but when he fought guys who were great like Benitez and Leonard and Hearns, he was outclassed. How can you dispute facts? Was Duran not outclassed against the legends but he could beat Moore and Barkley?

[MAG1965]

Not much of a list like I predicted.
Hopkins and Tito there was no size difference.
Hill not in the same league as Hearns or hagler who Dran lost to. I do know that Hearns in his prime did fight primed Leonard and hagler and got koed both times. Didn't even make it past the 3rd round vs Hagler. Yet youknock Duran for giving up alot of age and size to those 2 and going 1-1 with Leonard and giving Hagler a great fight.

You are trying so hard to find something that you actually have to list Foreman and Tyson.

Spinks was in his prime when he beat a well past his prime Holmes..Doesn't fit. And we all know Holmes actualy won the 2nd fight.

Leonard had the age advantage against Hager, and he wasn't giving up the size that Duran was against Hagler.Doesn't fit..

I am still waiting for a realistic list of fighters giving up age, and size, and beating primd all time greats..You have given me none.

I think I have debated this with you before.. If it was yo you actually told me that Duran was bigger then Hearns, and that Spinks should be rated higher then Duran all time. Is this you?

Again I am waiting for a real list..if you don't have one, just admit tha you judge Duran too harshly, becaue you blame him for not being able to do, what hardly anyone has ever been able to do..I do not judge Duran harshly, I just want to see who the greats are he beat to give him such a high ranking. I think his fans give him credit for really not as much as they should. If he was not the fighter he was at the lower weights which is what you are saying, well they why give him credit for anything in the 1980's? He was not at their level you are saying. I am saying he still beat mediocre guys like he did at lightweight, but when he moved up to the top competition he didn't win. Significant. I think he was at that level to beat guys he could beat at lower weights, but when he came up against fast guys he did not do that well. What I argue is that people put Duran at the top 5-10 ATG listing, and I do not see it. You have to beat Benitez and Hearns to have done that. He didn't do it at all. I just do not see how he gets rated so high? Doing what? Lightweight reign? Virgil Hill had 25 or so title defenses, but he is not rated top 10. You have to look at opposition. The win over Leonard does not make Duran top 5 ATG. Then where would you rate Leonard.
I gave you a good list considering Spinks was so much smaller than Holmes and Holmes was dominant. Who can find a direct circumstance. But you seem to want me to say Duran was not a good fighter in the 1980s as an explanation for why he couldn't beat the legends, but then his fans will say how great it was that he beat Barkley and Moore. I don't think that argument is very good for an ATG ranking. It is impressive, but it does not get him ATG ranking. Beating ATG fighters would have done it.

[Mantequilla]

It says it all you are actually comparing Virgil Hill's run with Duran.C'mon man, just admit you have something against Duran, it'll look better for you.

[MAG1965]

That Duran had a better head to head record vs common opponents then Hearns, despite the fact that Duran was the older smaller fighter in all of these fights, while Hearns didn't face any of these disadvantages should tell you somthing..


I think you once told me that Hearns performance against Hagler was more impressive then Duran's.. This is the type of thinking you have to use to come up witgh your conclsions.Do you still say this. Getting blown out in 3 while not wining a round, is better then losing a close 15 round decision?better head to head? Hearns beat 3 ATG fighters who were champions and Duran beat Leonard but then was beaten in the rematches. Both beat Minchillo, Both lost to Hagler. Barkley-a guy who was not that great is the only difference. Put Duran in with Virgil Hill and he loses easily. Head to head they are equal more or less. Minchillo, Leonard (whom Leonard had an easy time with Duran after the first fight), Benitez -Hearns beat and Duran did not. The head to head against great fighters and with each other, Hearns comes out ahead-way ahead. Hearns beat Duran easily. Hearns beat Benitez relatively easily. Duran lost to Benitez easily. The only way Duran looks better is by involving Barkley, a guy who lost to everyone in the 1980s and early 90s. you are bending facts to make favorable light on Duran like always has been done for him. I still do not see how he gets 5-10 ATG ranking. What ATG fighters did he beat to get him there? Yes I did say that about the Hagler fight and Hearns. I do think Hearns fight with Hagler was more impressive and tougher for Hagler as said by Hagler himself. Hagler said it was one of his toughest fights, and he said about Duran it was like a sparring session which he had to get aggressive to win the later rounds, which he said he turned it up and won without any trouble. Vito Antuofermo went 15 with Hagler. Roldan knocked down Hagler and went 10 with him. Would you say any other fighter in Hagler's reign hit Hagler as hard and sharp as Hearns?

[MAG1965]

So much wrong with this post.. So much twisting of things to try and make a point.You keep giving Hearns credit for beatin Cueves, but ignore that Duran also koed him.

You actually try to claim that Leonard in 1980 was not a great fighter.Come on..His fight against Duran in June mighyt have been his best fight ever. You keep saying Leonad bat Duran easily in the 2nd fight..Not true..It was a close fight when Duran quit And Leonard himself admitted Duran was nothing like the first fight. Why even talk about the 3rd fight..It meant nothing but money for both. Yo stat as a fact that Leonard of 1981 would easily bea any version of Duran.. don't buy tha a all. Leonard never facd anything like Dura of 1980, and Duran won pretty easily and clearly, although Leonard was great.

Why do you keep saying that Duran is gievn credit for being great against Moore and Barkey but then being called not grea against Hagler and Hearns. Compred to his prime, Duran was noting special against any of these fighters, but he started at a level so high, he could still beat very good fighters like Moore and barklay een giving up the age and size. He wasn't good enough to give up age and size and still beat all time greats. No fighter in history was..I am still waiting for a serious list.

Once again..against common opponents Duran had a better record ten Hearns, even though Duran had the size and age disadvantage against all common opponents, and Hearns didn't.twisting points is done if I do not believe what I am saying. I am sorry that I believe these things. I mean to offend no one at all. I think Duran was a great fighter and dominant, but his wins against ATG fighters never happened much, and then when he did fight them later the excuse he was washed up comes up sort of to say the bar for Duran was lower , that his level to reach was low so that if he reached that lower level which was set for him, he was impressive and great even if he lost when other greats had to actually win the fights against other greats. This is the unfair advantage Duran gets. He didn't have to win the fights. It is really unbelievable. The fact he fought until 2001 (17 years after Hearns) shows he was not as washed up in the 1980's as his fans want him to be.
No Leonard's fight against Duran the first time was not his best fight and Leonard even said it was not. He fought the wrong fight because he was young and inexperience and wanted to beat Duran at his own game. That is a misjudgement of an inexperienced fighter. Leonard beats Duran 10/10 times after that first fight as he went 2/2 after it.
I hope my indentations work here since usually my sentences merge together. As for Ray beating Duran easily. Again it is from his own mouth. He said he was having fun and cruising and Duran quit not when Ray was moving around and Duran was missing, it was when Ray started to land hard punches. Take a look at the fight, Duran was starting to get hit by Ray in the body and head and then Duran quits. He was going to get stopped and he quit. That is what I saw. Then the third fight again an easy fight for Ray- no significant you say, but it does show that stylistically Ray had Duran's number once he fought his fight. Yes I believe Ray beats Duran everytime past 1980 easily. Benitez beat Duran easily in Jan of 1982 by boxing. Why wouldn't Ray have done it again? You are the one bending the facts.
I gave you a list. History is filled with fighters who beat bigger guys. I gave you guys who beat bigger guys like Spinks, which was much more impressive than Duran moving up and beating Ray in 1980 since Duran was fighting at 154 as early as 1978 ( before Hearns even fought that high). How was Duran small for Ray.. And for Hagler, Duran still weighed in easily near 160. All this talk of small and older and not as good a fighter is just a way to explain how he couldn't beat the greats. But he still couldn't beat them, and then in his prime he didn't beat greats. So again I ask what ranks him top 5 ATG as his fans want to put him at?
This common opponent thing does not put Duran in better position at all. Hearns fought a better Ray and gave him tougher fights, and Barkley is the only blemish on Hearns when Duran had many and most against greats. Like I said with another ATG Hearns beat Benitez relatively easy and Duran was outboxed the same year. And with Cuevas, Hearns knocked out in 2 a champion Cuevas and Duran took 4 round to knock out a washed up Cuevas. How is the head to head matchup in Duran's favor. And head to head Tommy outclassed Duran when both were champions. Duran is a fighter who gets credit for giving guys good fights when other guys have to actually beat them. And Hearns beat more ATG fighters than Duran did. That is a fact.

[MAG1965]

It says it all you are actually comparing Virgil Hill's run with Duran.C'mon man, just admit you have something against Duran, it'll look better for you.I think Duran was great but what I see about Duran is his fans giving him considerations other fighters do not get. In boxing that should not happen. A guy should not get credit for doing ok in fights when other greats had to actually beat them. I look at Hearns resume and I see many of the same guys Duran fought, but Hearns has a win against the greats. That is significant. The one thing Duran fans cannot do is put a win against a great on Duran's record and that is what is missing. He beat Ray and that is it, and then Ray outclasses Duran each time out. I am not trying to get people mad, this is what I believe. Top 25 ATG is good. But top 5-10 Duran is not ..

[arther1045]

[quote=MAG1965;6038668]better head to head?

his is when you go frustration last time. I stated a fact that Duran had a better common opponent record then Hearns. Yopu don't ack that.

Once more..Duran had a better record then Hearns vs common opponents. Duran fought all these fights the older smaller fighter, while Hearns fought most in his prime. Its a fact.. Hearns had the frame to move up, he was as tall as his opponents. Duran started at 119 by the way and was still fighter at 135 in his late 20s. Hearns at 175 was a good weight for him. He was tall and grew into it.

just to show us how biased you are, give us your list of fighters you would rank over Duran.

[MAG1965]

[quote=MAG1965;6038668]better head to head?

his is when you go frustration last time. I stated a fact that Duran had a better common opponent record then Hearns. Yopu don't ack that.

Once more..Duran had a better record then Hearns vs common opponents. Duran fought all these fights the older smaller fighter, while Hearns fought most in his prime. Its a fact.. Hearns had the frame to move up, he was as tall as his opponents. Duran started at 119 by the way and was still fighter at 135 in his late 20s. Hearns at 175 was a good weight for him. He was tall and grew into it.

just to show us how biased you are, give us your list of fighters you would rank over Duran.Actually you saying Hearns was natural at 175 shows how you are being biased in favor of Duran and not towards Hearns. Hearns won his first title at 175 without a previous fight at 175. Did Duran win a title ever with his first fight at that weight? As for body comfort, you can tell when a fighter is comfortable at a weight and natural. They have good muscle tone and is not too flabby. Hearns started to get a little flabby at 168 when he fought Kinchen, and at 175 he was not natural at all. When he fought Virgil Hill his legs are much smaller than Virgil's and his bone structure much smaller, but he still outboxed him and it was relatively easy.
The common opponent thing is a way Duran fans have tried to make Duran equal to Hearns since it takes into account Duran beating Barkley, but Duran losing to all the greats of the 1980s, and Hearns beating 2 of them does not really make Duran look better. That common opponent thing looks like frustration also, something you said I was. I am not frustrated. I type a lot because I believe all of this. Duran did not beat ATG fighters to be ranked high 5-10 on the ATG list. That is my point.. All this talk about Duran starting at 119 is irrelevant in light of the fact that he won his first title at 135. Many fighters start young and grow into weights. Duran started his pro career in I think 1967 and he was born June 15, 1951, which would have made him 16 when he started. What does the 119 mean? He was growing. That doesn't give him credit, he grew into 135, and even then he was having tuneups at junior middleweight in 1978. He was a great fighter, but not 5-10 ATG in my mind. If other people think he is that is fine. I do not mean to get people upset, this is just how I have felt for years and I always type about this on here. This is nothing knew for me to talk about Duran. I have nothing against him, but I do not want to give someone credit for things other fighters never got credit for.

[PernellSweetPea]

no one was ever the same after fighting Thomas Hearns and that includes Duran! Hagler never was sharp again after Hearns and SRL retired soon after the first fight. Cueves never was the same after that second round knockout. Tommy Hearns just took everything out of everyone and once fighters took that right hand clean they never were the same fighters again! Awesome fighter! He had a tendency to want to brawl which exposed his chin and that was weakness in Hearns. Had he been safety first and just tried to set that right hand up and jab he would have come out even better in the history of boxing. Even Duran hit Hearns with a great right hand. Hearns did not believe in defense. Offense was his defense!

[arther1045]

Your point about Roldan being the same weight does not make sense when you say Hearns was the same size as Hill. Hill was 6 ft 1/2 inches and Hearns 6-1, but Tommy was not a natural 175 pound fighter at all, and Hagler even outmuscled him at 160. Hearns was not natural at 175 and he beat Hill, and Hill is a legit HOF fighter . When Hearns beat him he was undefeated and the best light heavyweight champion with 10 title defenses. Had Duran beaten Hill people would still be saying how great the win was. Tommy does it and no big deal he is the same height.
The reason I brought up Roldan is because of the height issue. Roldan was the same height as Duran and it was not a mismatch as you say Duran and Hearns was in age and size. Duran could hang with other guys well enough but when he fought guys who were great like Benitez and Leonard and Hearns, he was outclassed. How can you dispute facts? Was Duran not outclassed against the legends but he could beat Moore and Barkley?


Lets see your list of fighters you rank above Duran..

[MAG1965]

Lets see your list of fighters you rank above Duran..Sure why not. I will just mention fighters I think had better records and more wins against ATG fighters and explain a little. I am not going to go into the early list of boxers. Just so you see what criteria I use.
I will just run this down with who I think did more than Roberto and had defenses of titles won at higher weights and didn't just have good performances but lost against ATGs. I will just mention more modern fighters. Many of the old fighters of the 1940's and 50's padded their record with tomato cans anyway.
Sugar Ray Leonard beat 4 ALL time great fighters opposed to Duran beating only Ray and then losing rematch.
Pernell Whitaker beat Chavez and Ramirez- 8 title defenses at lightweight. 8 title defenses at welterweight. Duran had none and lost to Ray in the second fight easily. Duran never defended his title successfully at an upper weight class.
Muhammad Ali-Beat ATG fighters Frazier,Norton,Foreman,Liston.
Larry Holmes-beat Norton,Ali,Shavers- 25 title fights and 19 title defenses. That beats Duran's title defenses. and ATGs he beat.
Michael Spinks-Qawi, Lopez, Saad Muhammad and then moves up an beats a great Larry Holmes twice. 30 pounds moving up.

Thomas Hearns- beat Cuevas,Benitez and Hill to win world titles and knocks out Duran. 5 titles in 5 weights.
Sugar Ray Robinson-should I really go through this one?
Julio Cesar Chavez-7 title defenses 130,2 at 135, 19 title defenses at 140 at the same age Duran was seen as washed up when he fought Hearns.
Evander Holyfield-beat greats Tyson,Holmes,Foreman and cleaned out a whole division. Qawi fight won on his first title fight in grueling 15 round fight.
Bernard Hopkins-26 title fights beat two all time greats. Stopped both of them.
Wilfred Benitez-beat Duran easily and Cervantes. youngest titlest ever at 140. Defending his titles in the 3 divisions he won his titles and fighting his best almost at his highest title reign at 154.

Alexis Arguello-4 featherweight defenses, 8 super featherweight, 4 lightweight.
Roy Jones Jr.-domination at 3 weight classes-Duran never defended a title he won above lightweight. FACT.
Pacman 25 title fights. Multiple divisions and again defending his title at other divisions to prove it was not a fluke to win it. Domination at higher weights and winning.
Even Foreman beat more ATG fighters than Duran. That is my criteria. How many ATG's did the man beat.
Put at the top
Joe Louis
Henry Armstrong
I am not going to go back 75 years in boxing and this is not a list as much as guys I think did more than Duran and beat more ATGs. Duran gets considerations he shouldn't. When does Barkley and Moore equal an ATG? And why didn't he successfully defend those titles?. I am pretty much sticking to the last 40 years and Duran is near top 20. Add the history of boxing and he probably goes to 30-35. This was all on the top of my head and I am not big on lists, but the people on here mention lists and greats and say Duran is top 5. I do not see it. What more do you want? Duran did not defend titles he won at higher weights. He lost to all the legends. And the only ATG he beat he was beaten by when Ray was inexperienced and fought the wrong fight but it still went 15, and then Ray wins easily the rematch and rubbermatch. Now you tell me what warrants Duran top 5-10 ever? Moving up and beating Ray? Beating Barkley and Moore? I just do not get it. Getting a list from me which you will try and put down does not elevate Duran. He still lost to all the legends at a relatively young age. Many people will say how can these guys be greater than Duran. I think they were more consistent and beat better quality. I think Duran was overrated, but most of you do not. So this is just a matter of opinion. Duran did fight the best, but he didn't beat them. And he gave a good account with Hagler, but he didn't beat him. Vito Antuofermo gave a good account of himself against Hagler also. Should we rate him top 5 ever also? Where is the domination of ATG fighters?

[MAG1965]

By the way. I noticed that Duran was ranked number 18 ATG in 1984. Given that, how did he jump 10 places in 2006 to 8 by losing to Hearns and beating Barkley? 10 places? Duran gets considerations other fighters do not. That is my opinion. Hearns was ranked 84 in 1984 and in 06 he was ranked 49 or so. So he beats Duran and Hill and fights Hagler and Leonard and he goes to 49 and Hagler is 47 from 74, and Duran loses to Hearns and beats a guy like Barkley and he goes to top 10? I think the list is popularity. In another 25 years he will not be rated as high.

[PernellSweetPea]

You both are biased. You both bend the facts to whatever you believe. I like the message boards but sometimes you guys should say you points and then let it go. Why keep going. Duran is great who cares where he is ranked.

[TheGreatA]

By the way. I noticed that Duran was ranked number 18 ATG in 1984. Given that, how did he jump 10 places in 2006 to 8 by losing to Hearns and beating Barkley? 10 places? Duran gets considerations other fighters do not. That is my opinion. Hearns was ranked 84 in 1984 and in 06 he was ranked 49 or so. So he beats Duran and Hill and fights Hagler and Leonard and he goes to 49 and Hagler is 47 from 74, and Duran loses to Hearns and beats a guy like Barkley and he goes to top 10? I think the list is popularity. In another 25 years he will not be rated as high.

In the 1940's Ray Robinson was "not in Henry Armstrong's class".

In 1936, Barney Ross was thought to be a very good fighter, but not a great by any means.

In the 1970's, Ali barely made the top 10 heavyweights.

Lennox Lewis famously said: "History will treat me better than my critics". He was right.

Fighters can only be accurately judged after they have long retired.

[cuchulain]

In the 1940's Ray Robinson was "not in Henry Armstrong's class".

In 1936, Barney Ross was thought to be a very good fighter, but not a great by any means.

In the 1970's, Ali barely made the top 10 heavyweights.

Lennox Lewis famously said: "History will treat me better than my critics". He was right.

Fighters can only be accurately judged after they have long retired.

Please pick a spot in time between 1970 and 1978 and list list all the fighters ranked above Ali at that point.

[enquirer]

In a funny way i think durans ranking is better including the post montreal efforts. I mean a dominant lightweight reign,and beating an atg at welter is something special,but winning crowns at 154 and 160 and taking on the biggest and baddest when your are old,past prime and 25 pounds above your natural weight is something else entirely. (duran was a lightweight until about 26/27,hearns was 154 at the same age,hearns also had the physicality to get bigger with muscle,duran got bigger with fat.)
In my book what duran achieved overall is unparalelled by any fighter in history,fighting in multiple weights,against atgs,past prime and still holding his own. The leonard and barkley wins,and the hagler loss are simply stupendous given the circumstances. I dont know of any fighter in history who was still at 135 at an advanced mature age,then going all the way to world level at 160 when older??? I dont know if its ever been done in boxing history this way? Maybe only fitz or armstrong can compare?

ps; the hearns win against hill is bloody fantastic when you think about it, 11 years and 30 pounds after he destroys cuevas for his first crown tommy wins in style again...