Duran explains why he quit (April 1981 Ring interview)

I'll try and find it again. It has been posted on this site.

What we do know is, SRL was more like Montreal than it ever was like N.O., either before or after. That is a fact.

 

Castro? When Duran fought him or ever? come on. Castro? Hill was a better fighter than Duran beat since Ray.

 

Yes, Castro. My point stands.

Arguable, Duran at 38 beat a guy that unlike Hill, beat Hearns not once but twice.

Your bias couldnt be more obvious. You will dismiss Barkley and Moore as a favorable stylistic match up for Duran, but fail to see that Hill and Benitez was just that for Hearns.

It goes both ways.

 

I dismiss Barkley and Moore as not elites, which I mean wins over elites get a guy the all time great ranking. There is a reason Duran beat Moore and Barkley and not Hearns and Benitez. You say I am biased, but biased would be if he had beaten Benitez and Hearns at 154 and Hagler at 160. Then you could say, wow he beat these guys and still he says Duran is overrated. And the other issue I have with the opinion of some regarding Duran relating to the Barkley and Moore fight is, people say this proves Duran is great, yet when he lost to elites Hearns and Benitez, his fans will say he lost because he was not in shape. Yet he beat Moore and Barkley because he somehow trained for lesser guys and not Hearns and Benitez. I think Duran gets the benefit of excuses when he lost big fights, and gets credit for beating rather limited guys like Moore and Barkley. Yes limited. Moore had 11 fights and I will ignore the dental surgery aspect, and Barkley lost to everyone. Barkley's only claim to fame is beating Thomas Hearns, which was a great win, but that is the only great win he had. You really think Duran was going to ever take Hearns right hand at 147-160? Hearns would jab and use his reach and speed and Duran leans in and Hearns will nail him with a counter right or short left hook, which actually got Duran hurt in round one in 1984. That is what I mean by elite. Hearns was going to jab and wait and use his arm length and nail Duran with the right. And Benitez was going to use his speed and defensive skills and land his punches before Duran could even land his, and 154 was Benitez best weight. But he started at 140. And like I said Hearns beat Hill when he was 32 almost 33.. Hearns beat and undefeated guy with 10 title defenses 30 pounds above his first title win.. That is better than any win Duran had since 1980. And Hearns when he beat Hill was the same age Duran was when Duran fought Hearns,, And Hill was near Hearns age, when Hearns fought Duran.

 

Barkley and Moore beat two men you have argued as elites in this thread, so you are not making a lick of sense here.

Like I already explained and others already explained countless times, Duran's legacy as a legendary all time great was already sealed before he stepped in the ring with any of these guys.

He was a 14 year 75+ fight 31 year old veteran fighting some 30 pounds over his pro debut weight when he stepped in the ring with Benitez. Duran could drop every fight he fought from 81 to 90, hell, if he even lost the first fight to Leonard he would still be going down as an all time great. The fact that he actually pulled off multiple huge upsets he had no business winning and even pushed Hagler like he did is phenomenal stuff any true boxing fan should be able to recognize the greatness of.

Like I already said Benitez was a solid favorite over Duran for a reason. The fight was seen as a retirement cash out he had little hope of winning in a weight class he had no business being in. I don't dispute Duran had limitations as he aged and fought younger bigger men in higher weight classes. And I'm not going to keep repeating that again.

Regarding Hearns and Barkley. There is context to be considered. Barkley had just stomped out Hearns and actually was a bigger favorite over Duran..than Hearns was over Duran. At the time of the fight, Barkley was not seen as a lesser challenge than Hearns or even Benitez was when Duran fought them. Barkley was a 2.5 to 1 favorite, that's 83% odds. At the time of the fight, this was seen as the most dangerous fight of Duran's career.

Sorry Doc Brown, not everyone had your gift to predict Duran would beat Barkley.

I've done addressed this several times.

Now at 147, the fired up, quick and energetic Duran that fought Palomino and Leonard I could very beat Benitez and give Hearns some trouble.

And I've done said Duran vs Barkley is arguably a greater win or just as good. Duran certainly over came greater odds. 2.5 to 1(5 to 1)> 2 to 1..is actually a big difference.

 

Barkley and Moore beat them not Duran. You just made my point, but that does not make Barkley and Moore elites. Benitez was beaten after the Hamsho fight after he moved up one division too many and moved back down. Hearns was a bad style for Hearns, but that still does not make Barkley a Hearns who can box and punch and has a jab. The way Barkley lost to Duran, a great like Hearns did not. Hearns stuck his jab out and countered Duran and knocked him out with the right. Point here is Duran did not beat Hearns or Benitez, and beating Moore and Barkley was not the same thing. Cannot be.

His legacy was sealed, but I dispute is where he should be ranked. He is about 20-25. He does not have the wins over elites to be 1-5 or 1-10..

Pulled off multiple huge upsets? How?? He was beaten by Benitez so soundly when he was not that old, that when he fought Hagler people thought he was washed up, but he fought Hagler at his distance and did ok counterpunching, but still lost. Where are the multiple wins? Barkley? Barkley was an ESPN fighter just a year before, lost to Sims in 1984. His breakout win was Kinchen on the Hearns/Dewitt undercard in Detroit in Oct. of 1986.

A win over Barkley is not a win over Hearns. It does not work. Then you have to look at Barkley's other fights. Outboxed by Kalambay in Oct. of 1987, knocked down by Olajide but won, Nunn beats him rather easily and Benn stops him in one round a year after that. Duran beat Barkley by decision in a close and entertaining fight, but to say that is a win like he would have had beating Hearns? No way. You know that.

You can say he could beat Hearns at 147 since he didn't fight him there. Had Hearns never fought Duran his fans would say he would beat Hearns at 154. But the fight happened. It was not weight which beat Duran it was speed and using that reach and arms so Duran had to fight his arms. Hearns knew tactics. Duran thought about the jab and was cut and then Hearns knocked him down with the right after hurting him first with a counter left.

Did you say Duran beating a guy like Barkley was bigger than Hearns beating Virgil Hill who was champ for 10 title defenses and was undefeated and a medalist in the Olympics. You cannot mean that. This is why Duran fans overrate Duran. If they say that, then they can say anything. Virgil had in all his titles about 24 title defenses. And Barkley was better win for Duran?

And one last point, if Duran was so small at 154 like I said so much. Why did he weigh in at 154 before Hearns.Benitez or Leonard ever fought there.. The excuses for Duran have always been a little ridiculous. His weakeness at lightweight with the wide stance was not exploited at lightweight, because the guys there were not good enough. He had the edge in most of those fights. Carlos Palomino was not a great fighter, and probably a good fighter similar to the guys Duran fought at lightweight and Duran was impressive. Palomino was ok. A southern California fighter who did not think defense just offense. But Duran fights faster guys like Leonard, Hearns and Benitez and that was a totally different story.

 

I can tell you for sure I knew Duran would beat Barkley. When I heard about the fight I thought, well Duran got the best opponent to win the title back as he could get. A guy who swing and leaves himself open. Duran fought him close opposed to Kalambay outboxing him. It was not that hard for anyone to think Duran could beat him. THe Hearns fight made people think Barkley was more than he was.

 

Your words:

" I dismiss Barkley and Moore as not elites, which I mean wins over elites get a guy the all time great ranking."

You are fumbling all over the place and not making sense. I'm not saying that to be an ass and I'm not exaggerating, your thoughts are just plain contradicting and not constructed logically.

You define greatness as wins over elites, Barkley and Moore beat men you consider elite, but you are arguing tooth and nail against your own formula.

Once more, that is because you are biased and stretch the words "elite" for fighters you like.

What the hell does being beaten by Benitez have to do with what I said?

Duran pulling off multiple upsets is an indisputable fact!

Leonard 9-5 favorite
Moore 5-2 favorite
Barkley 5-1 favorite

I don't have time for Strawmen. You are going to have to address what I actually argued if you want my time.

Yes, as I already explained Duran overcame greater odds in beating Barkley than Hearns did in beating Hill. The Betting ddds are not the end all determining factor but anyone who actually considers context can at the very least see why Barkley was a huge win.

You argue Duran vs Barkley wasn't a great win because of the stylistic advantage, yet refuse to awknowledge Hearns had a stylistic advantage over Hill. Hill was a boxer who lacked aggression and power, something Hearns always did well against. Hearns was also not a 37 year old former Lightweight at a giant reach and height disadvantage.

Title defenses, Olympic medals,...etc. these are things you are only using as arguing points when it suits you and not a standard you apply across the board.

Weight isn't the issue. It's that Duran was slower and older at these weights, and given up giant reach and height discrepancies in most instances.

Not true. Marcel, Buchanan, DeJesus, and Viruet were just as capable of "exploiting a wide stance" as Benitez or ****ing Kirkland. In fact, like I already said...DeJesus has the best win over Duran on record.

Than why the hell are you so far up Benitez's ass? He's Benitez's best win at Welter, possibly his best win period. And 7 lineal title defenses, do title defenses only matter when it's a Tommy Hearn's opponent?

 

Nobody believes you.

If your argument depends on convincing people at your word you predicted a major upset decades ago, you don't have a strong argument.

 

Are you really this dumb or simply obtuse. I've already corrected your logic 10x on this, and you continually avoid the subject. So you're either dumb or simply obtuse, and I'm not sure which. You can't say Duran didn't beat any elites, because he did, SRL was elite, and Dejesus and Ken B. were either elite or on the border. Second, you keep saying that since Duran didn't beat Wilfred or Hearns, he can't be elite, since he lost to elites. What will it take to sink into your brain that you're making a faulty comparison here? Duran was PAST HIS BEST WEIGHT CLASS and PAST HIS PRIME. He had already been fighting for over a decade when he faced W.B. and Hearns. What is so hard to understand about such basic concepts? You could only come to the conclusion you did if Duran fought them while he was at their best, and so were they. That isn't the case though is it? They were at their best weight, while Duran wasn't at his best weight. They were Prime, Duran was past his prime. Is English not your first language? Do you understand the concepts being discussed here? So how does it prove what you're claiming it proves, when your comparison is unsound and faulty? Do tell

 

Didn't I say Elites as plural? And Duran beat one.. Cuevas could be two, but he did not win a title at 154 at that weight, if you say he was washed up or not. Who is fumbling, I am very very clear. Duran did not beat elite fighters, except Ray. And even there he was beaten easily in the rematch and rubber match. Who is stretching the word elite? You know what I mean when I say that. And you or others who favor Duran do not come up with elites to show he beat them. You come up with Moore and Barkley, which proves you cannot come up with elites he beat.

Barkley and Moore beat Hearns and Benitez, but Duran did not. And they did not beat them in a big superfight. Frazier beat Ali, but do we really think Leon Spinks is great. There is a context, but with Duran we don't even have a context, since he is void of beating elites. No one mentions Kirkland Laing as great. Maybe Palomino should have beaten Laing after and you guys would say that is the same as Carlos beating Duran. We give Duran the benefit of the doubt, but against Benitez and Hearns, whom Duran knew the style and who he was going against he lost easily. Duran with all his experience and knowledge should have known what they were about and he did, he just couldn't do anything with them.He needed guys like Moore and Barkley who had weaknesses to exploit and Duran had a great fight. But against elites, no such weaknesses.

Regardless of the fact Barkley and Moore found some weakness in legends Hearns and Benitez, Duran did not. And here is the logic. Remember when Tomas Molinares beat Starling in July of 1988? So if Honeyghan after losing to Starling beats Molinares, that is the same as beating Starling? No.

In my mind, Duran did not pull off multiple upsets against elites. He pulled off what looks like upsets against mediocre guys like Moore and Barkley. who were not that elite level fighter who goes up and down in weights and outclasses guys with boxing or punching. I don't think Duran beating a guy who is 11 fights is an upset. Someone put the odds out there, and Duran is great because he beat a guy in regards to Vegas odds? Or Barkley, because he was overrated because he beat Hearns in June of 1988. It is still the quality of the guys in front of him, and those two guys were not elite great fighters.. Even Ray in 1980 June was still green in my mind and fought Duran's fight because Duran got under his skin. But I gave Duran that, even thought Ray won the rematch.

I don't care about answering your questions for your time. I am spending my time here also. answer the same things I always do because it is about Duran logic. Don't answer me next time. I am answering because your concept of Duran is the same warped excuses that Duran always gets. People overrate him, and you are demonstrating the typical bias for Duran, who was a bully, and bullies are admired, but a guy like Hearns who was not a bully got the job done but since he lost his two biggest fights is held accountable, even though he beat more elites than Duran.

It does not matter odds being a greater win. Virgil Hill was a hall of fame fighter, and Barkley and Moore were not. Who cares about odds. If Duran looks terrible in a fight,and then in his next fight he is 10-1 against some average guy and wins, that means his win is greater because Hearns beat Hill who was 4-1 and Duran overcame 10-1.. ? That is ridiculous. See how there is the Duran logic? In most minds the logic should be -The greater win is who beat the greater fighter. Virgil Hill was 26 and undefeated and 10 title defenses. What happened when Duran at the same age Hearns was when he beat Hill fought Hearns, who was near Hills age in 1984? Duran got knocked out in two rounds. That is something else, the greater win is who wins a fight with higher Vegas odds against him?

Hearns against Hill was a guy who won a title 11 years before 30 pounds below. And Hearns was the first welt to win a title at light heavyweight (2 times)

Weight isn't the issue. yet Duran was older and slower and Hearns was not? And if Duran was so bad, why is he getting credit for beating Moore and Barkley. Obviously they were not very good to lose to an old fat Duran. See how this logic is absurd? And the excuses for Duran when he loses to greats, yet somehow his wins over Moore and Barkley make up for it because he was not favored by Vegas odds.

No, Marcel and Dejesus and Buchanan were not the level of Benitez and Leonard, and there is no way you can validate that. Dejesus had a connection to Benitez, but Benitez was significantly greater.

You said Hearns had advantages over Hill. How ? Hill was 77 inch reach and same height as Hearns and supposedly much faster. How is Hearns at 32 supposed to beat a fast undefeated boxer at 175 when he won his first title at 147.. if you go by your odds theory, Hearns was 4-1 underdog. Not many thought he would win. Hill is the one who wanted that fight for years and he got it. You must think Hearns is greater than Duran if you think he should have beaten Hill, but Duran was a shock to beat Moore when he was younger than Hearns was when he fought Hill, than Duran in 1983 when he fought Moore.

 

Buchanan and Dejesus were good fighters. Very good, but not elite. Duran always had excuses he was past his best or not in shape when he lost, but somehow when he won it was the greatest win ever and proves he is one of the best ever, yet never was this said in a win over Hearns or Benitez or Hagler.

In Duran fans thinking, all he had to do was train and he would have beaten Hearns and Benitez or Hagler. oh shucks. He didn't want to train though.. Jeez, he wanted to party and how funny it is he didn't train and he lost but it didn't matter. Oh well. So they really did not knock him out cold outclass him because he just didn't feel like training, yet when he fought Moore and Barkley he wants to trains and wins. and yeah he is the best ever because he beat the odds. See how this logic is ridiculous.

And about this past their best or prime thing. Prime is very short, but most guys have their best wins past their prime or before. Hearns was past his best probably Hagler on, since he moved up in weight and declined a little, and still Hearns was held accountable. And the Hagler fight going 15 rounds. It was a counterpunching fight. Going 15 doesn't give Duran credit unless it was a slugfest. If Duran's best was at lightweight, he did not fight great fighters at his best so to be rated best ever or near it, he needs a win over an elite which is a mismatch to get that.. And he beat Ray questionably, in regards to how Ray fought and the rematch. So how did he do against the other elites he fought in the few years after Ray. he did poorly. But it does not count because he did not train for the greats he fought. I get it. And he was fat and past his prime. Even though he fought at 154 as early as 1978 before Hearns, Benitez or Leonard reached 154.

. And since most of you guys mention Moore and Barkley as his great wins above 147, those guys are not elite or near great, so that shows the quality Duran could beat. Moore and Barkley were his ceiling, and Hearns and Benitez and Leoanrd were above it. What was the great accomplishment with Moore and Barkley in regards to best ever?. And I am talking here about people saying Duran is top 1-5 ATG. Is is impossible with the guys he beat. So what are you arguing about? If english is my second language or if Duran's excuses are valid about not being in shape or not at his best when he fought elites?

 

Again, you skirted around the subject. You're saying Duran isn't great, because he didn't beat fellow greats W.B. and Hearns, but continually not acknowledge that he was past his best, while they were at their best. ANSWER THIS QUESTION... Does it not make a difference if you're past your prime and past your prime weight, and fight guys who are in their prime and at their best weight? Does that make a difference? Simple question, you keep avoiding.

Nobody is talking about how he trained or didn't trained. I'm addressing this notion that since he didn't beat Hearns or W.B. he can't be elite. This is horrible logic when your factor in the context of those fights. Do you think Sims is a better fighter than Duran? He beat Duran, so does that mean Duran couldn't be that level of fighter to? That is the ******ed logic you're trying to apply here. Him losing to Sims and others, shows he was no longer at his best. Sure, he could rise above that, and pull out some excellent wins, but he could also lose as well. That is EXACTLY what happens when you're past your best, you have an up and down run of things often times. Is this concept new to you?

He fought Hearns at, imo, HIS BEST WEIGHT. He fought W.B. at, imo, his best weight. Not only was it at their best weight, they were also very much in their prime for those fights. Duran on the contrary, fought them while not at his best weight correct? He was also past his best correct? What part about this isn't registering that he had the deck stacked against him going in against ATG fighters? I mean honestly, are these concepts going above your head?

 

No,I did not say he was not great. I said hew as not 1-5 or 1-10 like some place him.

It matters but I think Duran gets selective placing. When he loses he becomes past his prime and too small. when he wins he is the greatest fighter who ever lived. But when he won, it was against Moore and Barkley and not Hearns and Benitez. I answered the question. I don't think he was as far out of his prime as some of you think when he fought those guys. Maybe that is the issue. Being in shape or not is part of being great and knowing different variables. Hopkins is a guy who knew variables to win fights and look for weaknesses. Which Ray Leonard is more like. Duran liked to goin there and if he found that weakness almost psychologically. he went with it and won the fight on that.. But he was not like Ray or Hopkins who tried to win before the fight happened with tactics.

No I didn't say he was not elite.. I said he was not 1-10 atg. I stil think he was ok and when motivated he did better, yet he still had the ceiling of Hearns and Benitez and Hagler. Nothing is above my head. I don't think you see what I am discussing against. That he is 1-10 ATG. Regardless of being old and whatever and say he was so washed up when he fought above lightweight, does his lightweight reign make him top 10 all time? I think no. So what would do that. I think he was great and elite. yes.I don't think I ever said otherwise. I said he was a bit overrated when people say he was 1-10.. I think Ray Leonard is 1-10.. He beat Benitez, Duran, Hearns, Hagler.. several elites with different styles.

 

No, you aren't just saying he's not 1-10, you continue (did so above again) Duran showed he couldn't be a fighter at THIS level i.e. Hearns and W.B. So no, you keep making the same false comparison. Not only is it false, because he beat a better fighter than Hearns EVER beat. Convincingly beating SRL is vastly better than getting TKO and earning a draw. Those are worlds apart, and the best each fought. The next best name each fought was Hagler, and again Duran did better than Hearns there. That is the first thing, as he didn't show his ceiling by losing to them, and he already beat somebody better than them. Not just that though, you keep saying that showed his ceiling, while in the same breathe admitting that it does make a difference that he wasn't prime while they were. That 1000% matters, and why you then can't say, it showed where his ceiling is at, because it didn't.