Duran explains why he quit (April 1981 Ring interview)

Side note: Saw it live on tv and was one of the best things to ever see in sports ,, "hey! .. I'm 40 years old and busting my a** out here !! "

 

am I ahead? Seems like people want my opinions, they keep responding to what I say. I think my points are valid.

 

I was being factious.

 

Yeah, I read the biography on him by Christian Guidance. It's a great read, but my god, Duran has an excuse for every loss or poor performance.

"Oh I didn't train hard, I was hurt, the IRS beat me, etc.."

Hell, he even made an excuse (I think in a Sports illustrated article) for the first Leonard fight, one in which he gave one of the all-time great performances. He said something like "I wasn't feeling that well and I would have fought better".

 

Your points are flawed and you're embarrassing yourself.

 

Nope, you are writing a lot but you aren't saying anything.

It's arguable and one fighter having a better win than another in a fixed time period means absolutely nothing, especially dealing with two fighters that are not even generational peers. Tommy Hearns turned pro in 1977, Duran turned pro in 1968. You would hope Hearns has the better wins and performances post 1980 and beyond, but the truth is they are pretty damn close. Duran's overall longevity is without question superior.

Barkley got those fights because he knocked Hearns out of the middleweight division. Then he got the Toney super fight after beating Hearns again for his Light Heavy title. So your argument that Hearns is clearly better in this period is just plain preposterous. Barkley was the guy to beat when Duran fought him.

When he was past prime outside of the Light Weight Division, he matched up poorly against Benitez..and Laing..and Sims..and Hearns.

Pathetic. You built your entire argument on this formula and when pressed to explain yourself you shriveled up like testicles in the cold. I knew you would not list any of these so called Elite wins, because it would completely expose the holes in your argument and make you look even stupider than you already do.

Until you can man up and produce these Elite wins, i got nothing more to say to you.

 

Every fighter makes excuses for losses. It's their ****ing career.

Hearns said Barkley beat him with a "lucky punch."

Leonard claims he "fought the wrong fight"

They all do it, stop pretending Duran is unique in that regard.

 

Many fighters make excuses because they have to for their confidence, but Duran is one of the worst. He has an excuse for pretty much every single loss, although others have more unique excuses.

"I was distracted by my friend betraying me by rooting for Ali"- George Foreman

"The fumes from Sergio's hairspray bothered me"- Kermit Cintron

 

Bull****, Duran is no worse than anyone else. And given that Duran was fighting until he was 50 years old from 119 to 168, he's due some excuses. He was only defeated one time in his prime weight class in the first 13 years of his career.

 

Who made more excuses than him for poor performances or losses?

The book by Christian Guidance on him is excellent but Duran is perhaps the king excuse maker of all great boxers.

I'm not talking about his greatness or how many losses he had in his prime. He was the greatest fighter of the 70s and his greatness should not be questioned. But he was perhaps the worst of all great boxers when it came to making excuse after excuse after excuse.

 

Leonard was generally flat-footed anyway though.

His most common style was to box flat-footed behind his jab, look to open up with combinations, particularly his left hook. He changed his style more for the rematch, the Hagler fight, and Duran 3 to be more fleet-footed and defensive.

Leonard had said he fought the wrong fight in Montreal, but it wasn't that he fought really uncharacteristic. It was more of a mistake that he did NOT fight that uncharacteristic (dancing and moving).

Yeah, I think Floyd might win at 154. Duran wins from 135-147. Even though Floyd wasn't the same above 147 (actually above 140), Duran wasn't the same above 147 and was noticeably slower on his feet.

His quick feet at the lower weight would close the gap on Floyd and he'd do enough good work to win a hard fought decision.

 

Duran wasn't even in his prime weight class when he lost to DeJesus in their first encounter. A lot of people dont realise that loss was a ten round non title fight at light welterweight not lightweight. So realistically Duran never lost a fight at his prime weight.

 

Good post but I don't believe it would be a hard fought decision at lightweight or if we're talking Montreal Duran above that. Duran would probably hate Floyd worse than he hated Leonard and would be highly motivated to beat the living **** out of him.

 

I am so flawed but everyone answers me, and no one can say Duran really did beat great fighters. I want people to prove me wrong and they can't. It is all excuses about Duran instead of, well he beat this great.. But it is always excuses. I always called Duran Manos de excusas.

 

stylistically I think Floyd wins 140 and above, and maybe 135.. Duran couldn't deal with speed or foot movement.