Duran explains why he quit (April 1981 Ring interview)

So you are telling me what I am saying about Duran, without reading what I am saying. I basically thinkhe is overrated a bit if people rate him 1-10 ATG. Where are the wins. .. That is simply put. I don't think the Ray Leonard that Duran beat on June 20 1980 was the great Ray Leonard who fought Hearns a year later, or who fought Duran in Nov. Ray improved greatly when he fought Duran's fight and learned that you can get some things before a fight to win the fight after, and he sure used it on other fights namely Hagler. And Ray needed a superfight like that to improve, and he learned he can fight Duran and not be knocked out like he said later. He said, I was going to fight him at his own fight, and I almost beat him. So after that he knew ,if he fought his fight he wins easily and he did. As for what was tougher for Hagler. Hearns was. Hearns rocked him and cut him up. Duran went 15 in a counterpunching fight where Marvin thought he would be thumbed, and he thought it would be an easy fight. and it was, he just had to become a little more aggressive and win a decision. I am not sure a loss means Duran did better. Who talks about Duran vs. Hagler. Hagler vs. Hearns is iconic. If it was so easy, it would not be the standard even GGG and Canelo were thought maybe to match but didn't. Then Duran loses easily to Benitez the same year Hearns outboxed Benitez over 15. And then Tommy knocks out Duran. Your argument is not strong. Hearns vs. Hagler is a legendary fight which is mentioned all the time. That speaks for itself. Hagler himself said it takes two to tango, after watching it again that night April 15, 1985. As for doing better. Than Roldan did better than Duran, he knocked Hagler down and hit him much more than Duran did, although Hagler thumbed Roldan. Yes he had a ceiling and he could not beat any of the elites once he lost to Ray in the rematch. Hearns punched harder than Ray. Duran was going to take Tommy's right hand? No... Speed and leverage means Duran will always get stopped. Duran fought 15 years more than Benitez. Like I said, none of those guys best wins were really prime except maybe Ray over Hearns 1 and Hearns over Duran. . Prime is about a year or two of a fighters career. The fact is Duran does not have great wins over any elite except Ray, which was a close decision win and Ray hung in there fighting Duran's fight. Then after that Ray out classes him and a little over a year after that Duran loses easily to Benitez... and a couple years after he has loses to Hagler and Hearns. So he was not this old fat guy, he was young enough and somehow when he lost he didn't train when he fought the greats. But against mediocre he was in great shape. Does that really make sense?

 

Again, you keep saying it showed his ceiling, when it did no such thing. If Duran was Prime and in his best weight division, and then lost to them, sure that might show a ceiling. However, when you are fighting ATG fighters in THEIR best division, while you yourself are past your prime and best division... how on God's Green Earth does that show your ceiling? You didn't lose to them when you were prime, you fought them past your prime and SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIRS. Is that concept tough for you to grasp? It sure seems like ti is, because you continue to say it, when it's been decisively proven false.

You failed to address why Duran would lose to Sims... Do you think Sims is a better fighter than Duran, did that also show his ceiling? You avoid this question because it destroys your argument. No that didn't show his ceiling at all, it showed, what we already knew, he's past his best division and prime and sometimes you have up and down showings. This isn't rocket science, it's something that has continually happened since boxing has been around. As you get up there in age, you start to lose fights you might not normally lose. Do you hold the Spinks loss against Ali, and call that his ceiling? How about Louis losing to Marciano, was that his ceiling? You don't say those things for those fighters, yet when similar circumstances happen to Duran, oh well now I see what his ceiling is. It's blatant hypocrisy, and it's getting old.

I've already destroyed to notion that SRL fought Duran's fight. You bought into SRL excuse on why he lost, but luckily we know it's not true. We have Angelo point blank saying my guy is the bigger guy, the stronger guy, the harder puncher, the faster puncher with the longer reach. I don't want my guy backing up and moving away from Duran, that is when he's at his best. I want my guy to control the center of the ring, and move there, not against the ropes or backing away. That is EXACTLY what we see, not this BS after the fact excuse of, oh Duran pissed me off so I threw out my original strategy and fought his fight. That's total bs because we have his trainer saying he's going to fight exactly as he did fight. Easy to say that was wrong after the fact, but at the time, they had every reason to believe it would work.

 

Man, you know a fight is controversial when it's still being argued about thirty plus years after the fact.

 

So Elite=Wins over more than one fighter you deem Elite.
In that case your logic is still bogus because who is the second elite Benitez beat to become elite?

So Duran, like Moore and Barkley is not elite according to your logic. Which would in turn send out aftershocks and make nobody connected with these guys elite.

I know this is a boxing forum, but there is a point where you have to be able to communicate your ideas clearly.
If this idea of beating elites is so important to you. Who do you deem to be elite that Hearns and Benitez beat to make them elite?

So here's another problem with your logic. You get so confused by your own reasoning you back yourself into a corner and then have to ex machina your way out with a new twist. "Well..they beat them but um um um....it wasn't..uh huh.. A SUPER DUPER FIGHT!"

Funny, he pretty much beat the same Duran that Benitez did. The Laing fight pretty much hammers home my point that Duran simply started running into stylistic issues as he increased in age and weight.

Well that sounds like a personal problem. In reality, the fights were upsets that is undisputed fact.

I have no idea what half this means, it's not even a straw man, it's just nonsense. I get the last portion though, and I'm looking forward to your list of elites and the elite(s) they beat to become elite.

This is weird. Why the hell are you tossing out theoretical odds, when we have the real odds.

No logic dictates that you apply context properly. Hearns might have the greater overall career but in 1989 to the early 90s, you could make a case for Barkely being the more vital fighter in this period.

And he lost to Barkley in his next fight, because Hearns like Duran ran into stylistic issues when he was past prime.

If you don't get why these wins are important, you are either a helpless hater or just helpless.

Duran beat Leonard, and they are about the level of Benitez. Absolutely.

Significantly bigger, not greater.

Hearns clearly had the reach advantage and was at no height disadvantage, which more than what Duran had over Barkley. I've done explained why Hill was a stylistic advantage for Hearns.

How is Duran at 32 or 37 supposed...

You must have me confused with you, I don't deny credit for upset victories. Just because I think Duran vs Barkley could be argued as the greater win doesn't mean I don't think Hearns vs Hill wasn't great.

[url]https://i0.wp.com/media1.giphy.com/media/WIAxZtUxUY000/giphy.gif[/url]

 

The best analogy I have seen on this forum ... Great Movie !!!

 

I think I told you guys enough. I seem to be repeating myself now. Go back and read what I said, it is very clear what I am saying.. And the Hearns win over Hill is much better than any win Duran had over anyone from Leonard on. Hill was better than anyone Duran beat after that. If Hearns had a long reach but not a clear reach advantage.. Look at the reaches. Hill at 77 1/2 and Hearns at 78. That is clear, and given Hill younger and people thought faster, it showed Hearns was exceptional fast and was fast enough to beat a hall of famer like Hill why is that held against Tommy? If Duran would have beaten Hill, it would be seen as the greatest win of all time in boxing. Beating Barkley. a guy who fought on ESPN a year before to Hill as a greater win is absurd. With the same reach as Hill (basically), Hearns being fast is why he beat Hill and that is why he beat him. So you validated Hearns great win, and was it greater than Duran over Barkley. Hill was greater than Barkley so yes it was.

1989 to the early 1990s Barkley was more vital? More vital to other's careers in that he gave Benn one of his best wins, or Nunn or Kalambay or Duran. He lost to 4 guys and if he was really Hearns level. he would not have. But I don't argue that. Hearns was on the downside in 1989 after being stopped by Barkley but he still could beat Hill in 1991, which is a great win.. Barkley would have lost to Hill.

No really, Laing beat a Duran who knew there was no title on the line. When a title is on the line and he was fighting Benitez, a legend Duran would get in shape as he did and put more out there, an he lost easily. It was a legit win for Benitez. Duran could not bully or use what he was good at to win. This was Benitez. Very fast handed guy and exceptional at 154, and exceptional and elite is what Duran had problems with.

We know who the elites are. Bradley is not elite because he edged Pacman. Leon Spinks? Upsets are upsets, but the elites have a combination of winning titles impressively and having elites they beat. Duran has the former but not the latter. And the former does not give him 1-10 ATG status. I am saying Duran lacks say what Pacman had wins over Morales, Barrera or JMM or Delahoya or Mosley. Look at that level. Especially the fact he moved up and still kept winning. No excuses because he moved up and lost and he was fat and old. He moved up and kept winning at the elite level. Pacman has arguments for ATG top 10..

 

does it matter what the excuses are. If Duran was the best ever he should have found a way to beat Hearns and Benitez at 154 or Leonard in the rematch or Hagler at middleweight. But he didn't. If he was the greatest ever he would have beaten them. Just saying he was fat or old when he fought them, yet he fought at 154 before Hearns or Leonard or Benitez fought there, that is not enough to make him great. Fighting and losing to guys makes a guy great? It is nice he fought that level, but he still lost. Leonard did not. Pacman did not.

How did you destroy the notion that SRL fought Duran's fight? I don't recall you doing that. I challenge anyone on here to put the two fights one and two side by side and see how Ray fought differently in fights one and two. He knew he could take Duran' punch and he knew the style he would fight and win and dazzle Duran. Get in and out hit and not be hit. 2nd fight. Ray was the variable on those fights because Ray could fight moving or inside. But inside really was not his fight. Yet in the 7th and 8th Ray started to land to the body and head harder, and that is when Duran quit. Duran knew he was going to get stopped and quit. I always believe this. Ray was the bigger guy well sure, but yet Duran weighed up to 250 after he retired. That means something. Angelo doesn't want Ray to win if he want him to fight inside, he was just bsing as Ray would do. Ray knew what he was doing, same as against Hagler. Angelo can say what he wants, but he also said later this time we were going to fight our fight and we won.. So it matters when you talk to Angelo. Like with Hagler, Ray knew he didn't want to engage with Duran. Hit and not get hit and he wins and he did. Easily. Fighting Duran on the inside did not work. He did well, but that was Duran's fight and in Duran's range. When Ray fought the next fight moving and picking his shots he won easily. We have the second fight on tape don't we? Everyone look at it.

I think after Hearns that Duran declined and he took off the rest of 1984 and all of 1985 in retirement then came back and he never was the same. That happens. He would have beaten Sims when he fought Hearns or Benitez.. He was never that level of superfighter again. Hearns knocked him cold an I noticed he was different and less sharp. Barkley was a great style. But I think he could have beaten Barkley later also. Louis was way past his prime. Listen, Duran was champ when he fought Hearns which I always say, if a guy is champ he cannot be washed up, and won a title in a great win as you guys say against Barkley in 1989, 7 years after Benitez easily beat him and 5 years after Hearns beat him. So how is that the same as Louis. Duran still won titles as you guys say and beat guys in wins which some say was greater than Hearns over Hill, which is ridiculous. You cannot have it both ways. If he was good enough to win titles and have a great win with Barkley in 1989 as you guys say, yet when he lost 5 -7years before with Hearns and Benitez -he was washed up and it was not a real loss. If you say he was washed up and too high in weight when he fought and lost to Benitez and Hearns in 1982 and 1984, then how can he get credit for wins in 1983 and 1989. If he gets credit for a great win as you guys say he should, then those guys who beat him easily should get credit and somehow you guys say they shouldn't. I think that is selecting reasoning.

 

I had no idea that Iran Barkley was greater than Thomas Hearns. The thought had never even crossed my mind in 30 plus years. Until now.

 

Why? Hearns is without question P4P better. Just like Duran is P4P better than Benitez, Hearns, and most of the guys he lost to on the decline.

Its pretty much if Ward moved up to Heavy in his late 30s and got outboxed by Pulev. It dont make Pulev better overall.

 

You might ought to quit while your behind

 

I think it is very very simple.

Roberto did not quit....he was ready to fight...and is telling the truth about the hot steak,ice cold orange juice....the simple fact is roberto was dying for a shiiitt from round one....thats why he couldnt do his usual thing...he had white trunks on...he had already been paid...and he was the most macho hombre ever.....so whats he gonna do go down in history as the muchacho who shiiiitt in the ring??...
He had no choice he had to quit...and shiiiiiitt to fight another day..

 

I love this post !!!!

 

I just dont think we discuss robertos shiiit enough on here. After nearly 40 years we need to move on...and just accept it could have happened to anyone...mayweather also shiittts,so did ali and hagler....its a fine line....roberto with his eating just fkd up....lets face it he was 72-1 hed just beaten srl...it was bound to go to his head with all the puta"s and hangers on telling him his shiiiit didnt stink anymore.....

Having to shitttt in the ring...( shakes head like tony montana to sosa discussing Omar being an informant)....that could happen to anyone....even hands of stone...it doesnt really change much Roberto is p4p right near the top

 

You keep saying it showed his ceiling, when it did no such thing. Did Ali show his ceiling by losing to Spinks? You said, "If Duran was the best ever he would've beaten Hearns and W.B." Well, if Ali (some consider him the greatest), was the greatest, how did he lose to Spinks? Ali was 36 when he lost to Spinks. When Louis likely lost the first fight to Walcott, he was 33, when he lost to Charles, he was 35 I believe. When Duran lost to Hearns he was 33. I can go on, with other names like SRR, and what they did at 33 and over. Did they also show their ceilings by not winning as they got up there in age? It's the most ******ed line of logic I've heard on this site. Just because a fighter is great when they are younger, and then lose when they are older, doesn't mean they aren't great or their ceiling is shown in the older fights. You can look at any sport in the world, as players get older, they decline in every way physically. That's just the nature of the sports and athletics. When Carl Lewis lost the 100 yard dash final in Atlanta, when he was well past his best, did every racer that finished ahead of him show his ceiling? If you fight or race or play against ATG in their prime, while you're past your prime, you're generally going to lose. That is just a fact, a fact you can't seem to grasp. I simply can't figure out if you're this dumb, or simply have an obsessive hate for Duran clouding your judgment.

How he fought in the second fight, he never did so again, not even for Hagler. That was a one off, that wasn't how he typically fought. He fought more like he did in Duran 1, than he ever did like Duran 2. That is just a fact. He didn't fight the wrong fight, he fought what he thought would work best based on the advice of somebody exponentionally more knowledgeable than either of us came up with. They viewed Duran as the shorter guy, smaller guy, shorter reach, less power etc etc. They said, Duran is a heel to toe fighter, he's the most dangerous when a guy is moving away from him and backing up, I don't want my guy backing up. He's going to hold the center of the ring and box him and KO him. He never said fight him on the inside. DURAN MADE HIM fight there. They had every reason to believe their strategy would work, and they happen to be wrong using hindsight, that doesn't mean they fought the wrong fight at the time.

Again, you keep avoiding this, Duran beat the best fighter either Hearns or Duran faced in SRL. Hearns got stopped in one fight and got a draw in the other. Next would be Hearns, who got sparked out in 3 rounds, Duran went the distance and was leading on the cards after 13. I'd say that's doing clearly better. So how you come to the conclusion that Hearns did better against elites is weird to say the least. Just because Duran happened to have some wins past his prime, doesn't mean he's prime and can consistently do that. Just because Jimmy Connors made it to the semi-final of the U.S. while well past his best, doesn't mean I expected him there for other majors. He wasn't. Just cause The Golden Bear won the Masters in 86, well past his best, doesn't mean he'll win other majors that year or years after. He never did again. Shall I go on? Shall I name other sports or other fighters who lost passed the age of 33 to foes they'd beat in their prime.... and then used your ******ed logic of, well I guess that shows their ceiling? This is like elementary logic you're failing at, and it's quite sad.