How would Duran retiring after Montreal affect his standing?

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.

 

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 bull****.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

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.

 

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.

We're on the same page then.

 

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

 

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...