Duran explains why he quit (April 1981 Ring interview)

what does it matter how long he fought. He was making those excuses 20 years before his last fight. And the excuses were when he lost to the elites. He made the excuses that he didn't train against Leonard 2, or Hearns or Benitez, and he lost those fights. What a surprise. Yet he trained for lesser more limited guys Barkley and Moore.

 

How original.

 

Buchanan has some of the best foot movement you'll see and Duran was able to close him off. Buchanan was more fleet of foot than Floyd that's for sure. Buchanan would have boxed rings around Castillo.

 

+

truthful. If what I am saying is flawed then why do people answer me. I think people know deep down that Duran had some flaws which came out more when he moved up and fought better guys, which then affected his confidence more than that he was moving up.. The fact he gets credit for Palomino and Leonard and he did well, shows he did good at the higher weights when he had someone in front of him. Benitez was not a big stretch in weight. Duran fought at 154 as early as 1978 before Hearns, Benitez and Leonard fought there, which to me demonstrates Duran was not small or out of shape at 154. It was all excuses when he lost.

 

I don't see Duran having to much of a problem with Floyd. It's not like Floyd was fighting guys the caliber of a Duran. If Floyd had problems with DLH pressure( yes I know Floyd won), Duran is a whole new level. Duran cuts him off, bangs to body and head, stops Floyd late

 

I like you as poster but u are so way off the mark in this thread its unreal.

Duran has never said he didnt train for benitez.he actually says he overtrained.btw both duran and i score that fight far closer than the very biased hbo team of srl,palomino and the oddly off the mark,...barry tompkins and merchant.

Both the moore and barkley fights were last chance saloon ones for duran... after a number of years in the wilderness and disgrace......so he absolutely trained hard for those fights.... as duran already knew they were his only way to the distant carrot of huge future paydays with hagler and srl .......those fights were on the line and if he lost those were gone forever..

After almost a decade and a half of dieting hard ....and after his epic 1983 ....and redemption ......its entirely plausible in my mind he took the hearns fight for money and wasnt there mentally.....
.theres also a school of thought he was intimidated by hearns but i dont buy it.

So i would say the no mas and hearns fights and srl 3..... he didnt train as he should have....in all 3 cases it was mission accomplished before the fight with the huge cheque....
Id also say on the other scale he didnt train for laing,batten...as he couldnt be bothered.......robbie sims he was robbed.....that robbery meant he had to wait 3 years for a title shot...in a period when in one year (1987)...6 fighters fought for 3 vacant titles and guys like a shot sibson were getting shots...so hell yeah roberto trained for Barkley

 

He is no different from any other fighter. Every book I've read where the fighter in subject has a bad performance or loses is usually prefaced with anecdotes about poor training, distractions..etc.

Oh, the "Hands of Stone" book. Interesting.

Luis DeCubas, Juan Carlos Tapia, and Plomo observed that Duran was in poor shape and was unable to train properly for the Hearns fight. Maybe they are making the excuses, maybe they are just telling the truth, but doesn't really matter, none of these men are named Roberto Duran.

 

Good point.

 

Waiting for that list of "Elites" that Hearns and Benitez beat. You can ramble all day about why Duran's opponents aren't elite but you can't even name the elite wins for the guys you are arguing as better, because you know the logic you presented is full of holes and would get badly exposed.

We all put our cards on the table, you are hiding your cards up your ass and insisting you are smarter because we can't guess what you have. **** off or Man up.

 

Don't forget the Viruet Bros, Marcel, and DeJesus. All these guys had excellent foot work and defense, they just weren't Light Middles who had the luxury of facing an older slower Duran.

Marcel in particular was great, he outboxed Arguello, but you know he was only 5'6" with a 68" reach, and not almost a decade younger than Duran.

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I recall a taped interview, he said "yo no soy superman"

 

Because SRL knew Duran was partying like a Roman and that he'd be out of shape. I heard him say that in a show once.

 

45 year old Duran was also blatantly robbed when he fought Comacho in the first fight. It doesn't get mentioned as much as it should. That's an excellent win that should be on his record.

 

Good post. Marcel was tremendous. Duran was real young in that fight. Duran was only 19 while Marcel was 22 I think.

 

Its funny u mention this neebur last night i rewatched that fight and felt the same as i did 21 yrs ago duran was robbed.it was a close but clear win over a still semi relavent camacho.

In reality even in the mid 1990s duran had wins over castro and camacho two former world champs..m