How much does "No Mas" hurt Roberto Durans legacy

"No Mas" has become a bonafide English phrase that indicates one is getting humiliated and wishes to bow out post haste. That pretty much says it all.

 

For the record, I don't think the fact that he lost to Ray Leonard hurts him. I don't think anyone really thinks that. Outside of Robinson, Leonard was as good as any welterweight in history, and I honestly feel Duran proved himself to be flat out better than Leonard the first time around. There's no shame in any welterweight losing to a peak Ray Leonard, let alone a lightweight. The issue is the not that he lost, but the way he lost. He decided to back out of a fight, not because he was getting beaten badly or anything, just because he didn't like how the fight was going. He gave up on trying to win. Duran's my favorite fighter of all time, but anyone who says this doesn't affect his legacy is talking nonsense.

 

in the two fights Ray comes out ahead at welt, and then add the 3rd fight. Ray won so easily in the second fight and Duran did not win easily in the first, it was obvious that is Ray fights his fight he is better than Duran. Add the Benitez fight against Duran to the equation and Ray looks better. Duran was not as good as Ray at welterweight, and Duran never beat the guys Ray beat. Ray beat ATG fighters. As for Duran, he succeeded in getting Ray so mad that Ray fought his fight in the second fight. But Ray smartened up and fought his fight the second fight.

 

almost kill it, its still what people think when you bring him up

 

Duran's my favorite fighter ever,too,and I agree 100% with this post,start to finish.I remember feeling beyond surprised and astonished when Duran quit.The manner in which he quit was disgraceful.It most definitely affects his legacy.

 

Funny how some people that know nothing of boxing know the phrase "No mas" when Duran's name is mentioned.

 

Sad but true:verysad

 

Sure MAG.

 

Quite a bit, as it would any other fighter. It showed the mental weakness that Duran had.

 

It seems not to hurt his legacy much.
I feel Duran is slightly overrated, or at least he is relative to a large number of fighters of the modern era, from his era 1970s onwards.

Losing to Leonard like that was very BAD.
Losing to Kirkland Laing was very bad.
Getting schooled by Wilfred Benitez was very bad.
Getting iced by Hearns was quite bad too.

But the general trend of Duran lovers is to fast forward to a win over Iran Barkley, (who was the inferior of the 3 middleweight titlists in 1989), or create a lot of mileage out of losing to Hagler by decision, or thrashing the novice Davey Moore.

Other fighters don't get as much favour. Heavyweights like Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson get their bad losses magnified and over-examined. Chavez gets flak for one or two bad decisions that went his way. Spinks gets less credit for moving up to HW than he should, because he was unlucky to have Holmes and Tyson to fight (even though he beat Holmes!). A lot of these fighters get judged off of fights where they were already past prime too.


Of course Duran was great at lightweight, arguably as great as any lightweight ever.

 

Duran doesn't "get" his "bad losses magnified and over-examined" like the 3 others you mentioned?This whole thread is about how "No mas" has affected his legacy,for God's sake.It is discussed infinitely more times than even Chavez's quit job against Randall in the 2nd.Duran deserves the attention and disrespect for it,but I can't remember the last time I read about Chavez's **** behavior against Frankie in 2,and I was a Chavez fan when he was on the go.

 

It shouldn't, but it does.

He had a hall of fame career already at 135, everything above that was gravy, and he did SO MUCH. Beating Leonard at welter is one of the greatest victories of all time. Moore and Barkley and being the first to go the distance with Hagler, as well as hanging with and splitting fights with Jorge Castro as an old old old man (a guy who beat the enormous and strong Derrick Harmon just a few years ago) - awesome achievements for a guy who spent the majority of his career, almost 80 fights, at lightweight.

Every girl I show the second Duran Leonard fight to says, wow, leonard isn't fighting, he's running. How awful. It wasn't really a performance to be proud of on either side, frustrating a guy into thinking his night was a waste of time is an ambiguous kind of moral victory.

 

the point is that a small old fat ex lightweight shouldn't have accomplished any of the stuff that is written off as "not great" at the high weights, and the Laing loss especially is just a lackluster performance where a fast footed guy stayed on the outside against a shorter, older fighter who didn't have the energy to close the distance.

The WAY he beat Barkley is amazing: the little old fat man beating up the naturally huge and strong Barkley from the inside in a war, it's not outspeeding him, it's beating him up.

 

New to the sport of boxing I take it. May I direct you to a couple of boxing websites who focus on boxing history and perhaps you could accidently learn a thing or two.

Those sites are Monte Cox's excellent boxing website,

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/

and the IBRO which stands for the International Boxing Research Organization.

http://www.ibroresearch.com/



http://vimeo.com/2995648


While you're at it you might want to check our boxrec, and watch a few video's because you really shouldn't be asking such an embarassing question.

What's your next question?

Who did Ali beat?

Who did Holyfield fight?

And my reference was based on him being undefeated, which wasn't the case, so while you're brushing up on your boxing knowledge, perhaps you could also focus on improving your comprehension skills.