I'm sure this will annoy some people - And it's not meant to. But, if I'm being honest, I've always been slightly perplexed as to why Roberto Duran is ranked so highly on many all time boxing lists (top 10 of all time in some cases). Im not trying to take anything away from him. I get that he's a legend. I get that he was ferocious at the lower weights. I get that he had some amazing wins. But he also had some puzzling - and catastrophic - losses. And obviously came out worse in most of the fights from that 1980s rivalry. Perhaps it's because I missed the 1980s era. But I do consider myself pretty up on boxing history - I've been a fan for nearly 30 years. I have read up on him and watched his biggest fights. But I didn't come away with the same feeling as I did with Ali or Ray Robinson, for example. Where I totally get their lofty ranking. So this is not designed to be a gaudy post. I genuinely want to hear explanations of why he's rated so highly, historically, in the hope I can understand him better.
He was the naturally lightest of the Four Kings. The others were welter and upwards while he was a lightweight. Basically, he was one mean hombre.
Ray Leoanrd is one of the three or four best welterweights there have ever been. For some he is the best. A natural lightweight should not be able to defeat him. The equivalent would be Hearns finding a way past Hagler. Duran's victory over Leonard is arguably the best win that exists, in all of boxing. It was an astonishing achievement. He also had one of the best ever runs at lightweight and its clearly one of the greatest lightweights in history. An outside argument for GOAT status in his own division plus the greatest win in boxing history is already getting him there. But Duran-Barkley was another almost impossible feat. I don't think there's another long-term lightweight in boxing history that could have beaten an aggressive, huge, punching middleweight like Barkley. Barkley isn't great but that victory for Duran is unreal. Final piece of the jigsaw is his appearance on film which is as impressive to most obsessed fans as literally anyone. Take all together and it is obviously as elite as a body of work can get. As for losses, yes, there are many, but Langford had many, Robinson had 20 off the top of my head, Greb was into double figures I think, Armstrong was well into double figures. The point is, when you really dare to be great you can't avoid those losses - it is impossible. You can't find Hearns, Hagler and Leonard from lightweight and not lose most of those fights. If he had won most of those fights, we probably wouldn't even debate the number one slot.
Dominated 135 for years, was a force of nature down at the weight and had excellent wins over Ken Buchanan (who I consider a top 10 LW), Hiroshi Kobayashi, Ray Lampkin, Guts Ishimatsu, both Viruet brothers, Masataka Takayama, and Esteban De Jesus. Was also a monster at 147 with wins over Palomino, Monroe Brooks, and of course, his win over a prime SRL in the Brawl in Montreal, which is arguably the greatest win in the history of the sport. He then had a strong run at 154, beating European champion Luigi Minchillo, Pipino Cuevas, and his brutalising of Davey Moore for the title. He then held off a prime Hagler until the final bell, making him look mortal, and coming only a couple rounds away from pulling off the upset. Then you have his MW title run, a division he had no right to be in, where he captured the MW crown from Iran Barkley, who had knocked out Hearns in his previous fight, and the two of them produce an absolute war and one of the best fights of all time with Duran just edging out the much younger man. Add on top of that the fact Duran should have been given the nod against Vinnie Pazienza and Hector Camacho when he was old as dirt. He is easily the best fighter alive and I have him comfortably in my P4P top 10. Yes he has losses but anyone else going through that gauntlet wouldn't drop a few decisions and I think Hearns was just a bad style who had his number, Benitez was a skilful, crafty technician and an excellent talent, and Laing was a close SD when Duran was in possibly the worst condition of his life and coming off his Benitez loss. His achievements are too exemplary and too extraordinary for his losses to detract too much from what is a stellar career.
His win over SRL is eclipsed only by Frazier beating Ali And no other 135 would be able to come up to MW and bang with Hagler for 15 like he did
In terms of the highest highs and lowest lows, no-one has ever had a career quite like Duran’s. He’s a unique figure in the history of the sport.
Such a gifted boxer, punching well from EVERY angle. Very rare company there. Ray Leonard, probably, the most famous/popular boxer at that time (boxing was MUCH more popular then.. Leonard was a household name) was the favorite over lightweight Duran.. but the Duran advocates were 110% confident, and vocal, that their man would win. I still remember what it felt like for Duran to beat Leonard at that time.. hard to believe. Not that Duran wasn't respected, but he was taking on what was (already) considered to be the best welterweight since Sugar Ray Robinson. That was 1980, but Duran himself was considered the best lightweight of the 70's, near GOAT status, living legend. He liked to party, though (super popular). That tripped him up, even as gifted as he most definitely was.
A lot of losses that might confuse you, you must understand the fire goes out eventually. Roberto Duran was a daily drinker even during his years at 135lbs, His lifestyle and accomplishments really can explain away some losses as much as that isn’t usually in fashion. “Hands of Stone” had the night of his life and the sun came up and that Roberto Duran was gone.
Speaking of lows something to consider someone whose integrity I would not question who was there, said Roberto Duran would drink a bottle of alcohol a day even in preparation for Esteban De Jesus 2.
There was a film made in 2016 which goes up to the Davey Moore. Pretty good: This content is protected