Duran retires post SRL win.

I think it actually improves his legacy. Either way he was always going to be remembered as one of the very best lightweights of all time. Then moving up and beating a prime Leonard and Carlos Palamino while eliminating losses to guys like Kirkland Laing, Robbie Simms and the no mas debacle would have certainly left him with a much cleaner record. Hanging around to beat Moore and Barkley wasn't worth losing to some of those other guys. If this were the case he would have had the claim to have beaten every man he ever fought as he avenged his defeat Estaban Dejesus twice.

 

That's a bit too subjective to answer with any real certainty. I agree that with things being as they currently are, Roberto Duran has an argument for being a top 5 p4p great.. Had he retired after beating Leonard with less dents in the armor could he have been as high as #1? who knows. I guess it falls on the shoulders of opinion.

 

I`ve thought about this more than once, my feelings are the SRL win and the subsequent `No Mas`loss pretty much cancel each other out.

So that leaves losses to Benitez, Laing, (what a stinker that was), Hearns, offset by a systematic beatdown of Cuevas masterful display of viciousness against Moore, a close to historical (if he`d won) loss to Hagler and a brilliant display of skills against Barkley. Again, I think they come close to cancelling each other out, although I would say they`re move positive then negative.

So I think over all this helps his standing, in the sense, you got to see what a focused Duran could do at his best, at both 154 and 160 and that was extremely impressive, moreso, I think then seeing the results of an unfocused out of shape Duran loose fights he should have won. I think up to the Barkley fight, I can only say he should have been able to beat Laing, but loosing to Benitez, Hagler, and Hearns, there was no shame in losing those bouts.

End result; I think if he retired after the first SRL win, he goes down as no worse that 3rd on the all time great p4p list, rather than the 5-7th he`s at now.

 

It's his reign at 160 and as a smaller sidenote, his masterclass over Cuevas that catapults him into the Top 10.
I believe people would have said Duran is the best ever, though. (That's actually a plausible case even now considering prime, he was 135).

 

I agree with this completely.

 

But if you're giving him credit for the impressiveness of his victories though, it's only fair to penalize him for the decisiveness of some of his losses. Benitez and Hearns each completely owned him like they had owned few other top contenders (and none of their other great opponents).

 

I think he'd deserve to be more highly regarded, but I'm not sure it would have any serious impact on historical standing given how highly he's ranked already.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well I did suggest he drops from being in the top 3 to being 5-7th, so he is being punished. But loosing to bigger, taller, younger ATG`s at higher weight limits isn`t all that much of a negative outcome. It would be like punishing Mayweather for getting knocked out by GGG.

Keep in mind that Duran was supposed to loose to Moore, and Barkley and he was suppose to get slaughtered by Hagler. Benitez was a 9-5 favourite to win, and Hearns was a 2-1 favourite.

So one of the most appealing aspects of Duran is he would take fights where he was the clear underdog and try his best to win, it didn`t always work out for him, but it`s hard to find many ATG fighters who would risk their reputations by taking fights against fighters they were clearly expected to loose to.

 

At 72-1 ... coming off the wins at welterweight over Leonard and Palomino ... Duran was considered almost "godlike."

If Duran didn't fight and didn't lose to Leonard twice, or Hagler, or get decapitated by Hearns, or thoroughly outboxed by Benitez or Kirkland Laing or Hector Camacho twice, or Vinnie Pazienza twice or Pat Lawlor or William Joppy ... yes he would be viewed much higher.

Most of those were really bad, if not totally embarrassing. It wasn't like he fought a bunch of big names after the first Leonard fight and was robbed.

Even most of his wins, particularly on the USA Network during the 80s and 90s, as a doughy middle-aged man, were sad.

And the Moore and Barkley wins were fights where people seemed more amazed and relieved that he got the win - because he was the underdog going in and expected to lose to both - as opposed to fights up to 1980 where people expected the "GREAT" Duran to not only win but be GREAT.

He was no longer considered "great" entering fights with Moore and Barkley. It was more like "please don't let him get embarrassed again." And when he pulled the upsets, people were thrilled and excited.

THAT in itself is a huge fall compared to the heights he was at after the first Leonard win.

So, yes, definitely, he'd be viewed higher if you removed all the fights after the first Leonard bout. Without question. No fights he won after the first Leonard fight were better than his worse losses. The late losses trumped the late wins by far.

 

I agree.

 

he still will be the same overrated bUm