How would Duran retiring after Montreal affect his standing?

By the way. I noticed that Duran was ranked number 18 ATG in 1984. Given that, how did he jump 10 places in 2006 to 8 by losing to Hearns and beating Barkley? 10 places? Duran gets considerations other fighters do not. That is my opinion. Hearns was ranked 84 in 1984 and in 06 he was ranked 49 or so. So he beats Duran and Hill and fights Hagler and Leonard and he goes to 49 and Hagler is 47 from 74, and Duran loses to Hearns and beats a guy like Barkley and he goes to top 10? I think the list is popularity. In another 25 years he will not be rated as high.

 

You both are biased. You both bend the facts to whatever you believe. I like the message boards but sometimes you guys should say you points and then let it go. Why keep going. Duran is great who cares where he is ranked.

 

In the 1940's Ray Robinson was "not in Henry Armstrong's class".

In 1936, Barney Ross was thought to be a very good fighter, but not a great by any means.

In the 1970's, Ali barely made the top 10 heavyweights.

Lennox Lewis famously said: "History will treat me better than my critics". He was right.

Fighters can only be accurately judged after they have long retired.

 

Please pick a spot in time between 1970 and 1978 and list list all the fighters ranked above Ali at that point.

 

In a funny way i think durans ranking is better including the post montreal efforts. I mean a dominant lightweight reign,and beating an atg at welter is something special,but winning crowns at 154 and 160 and taking on the biggest and baddest when your are old,past prime and 25 pounds above your natural weight is something else entirely. (duran was a lightweight until about 26/27,hearns was 154 at the same age,hearns also had the physicality to get bigger with muscle,duran got bigger with fat.)
In my book what duran achieved overall is unparalelled by any fighter in history,fighting in multiple weights,against atgs,past prime and still holding his own. The leonard and barkley wins,and the hagler loss are simply stupendous given the circumstances. I dont know of any fighter in history who was still at 135 at an advanced mature age,then going all the way to world level at 160 when older??? I dont know if its ever been done in boxing history this way? Maybe only fitz or armstrong can compare?

ps; the hearns win against hill is bloody fantastic when you think about it, 11 years and 30 pounds after he destroys cuevas for his first crown tommy wins in style again...