How would Duran retiring after Montreal affect his standing?

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

 

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..

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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 ..

 

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!

 

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?