How would Duran retiring after Montreal affect his standing?

I actually think he'd be rated a bit higher, probably top five for most people. Its difficult to say though.

 

It's a close call either way. Probably high, since the "No mas" fight really damaged his legacy for some. But personally there's hardly a fight around I enjoy watching more than Duran- Barkley. I still marvel at what Duran was able to do in that fight.

 

He probably would be. That is like had Leonard retired after Hagler or Curry after McCrory. If Curry had retired after McCrory he might be in the top 100 ATG list.

 

What I do not understand about Duran being given credit for Hagler is that when Hearns beat him 7 months later at a lower weight and a weight Duran was champion at, then all of a sudden Duran was washed up. Fact is Duran was not washed up in 1984 and fought another 17 years and 35 fights or so.

 

Don't compare Curry's body of work up to McCrory with Duran.

Duran retiring after beating Dejesus for the first time would have achieved more than Curry had up until that time.

 

I believe it would balance out if he retired after Montreal or not, However by continuing to fight it put Duran in a very unique category, He fought in the 60s,70s,80s,90s,2000, also achieved a knockout in every round 1-15 and the Barkley fight in my opinion was icing on the cake. Duran was one of the greatest natural fighters either way you look at it.

 

Thats a tricky one:huh

If he'd retired after ripping Leonards crown away i recken he'd be reveared along with the rest of the gods up on boxings mount olympus as beating Leonard who was the number 1 WW & heir to ALI & being only the 2nd LW since "Hammerin Hank" to succesfully navigate to the WW title.

Also in the fact everyone on this forum would all be wondering what would have happened if duran had fought Iran Barkley & the poll would be 100% in favour of a Barkley KO inside 3 rounds would'nt it & to say otherwise would have got you laughed of ESB

Who else at 30 yrs of age started their L/M career & ended up winning that title at 32 & then went on to win the M/W title at 37

He's had 2 careers, it all depends which one yer pick as being the most succesfull in legacy terms + fighting into 5 decades starting out at bantam & ending it all at 50 years old at Super/middle.

One thing that is certain is that he is without doubt a one-off PHENOM & the nearest too him in recent times i think is Pacman:smoke

 

I don't really think that . Curry won the title, beat Jones,Starling,McCrory and was dominant. Why not compare? Curry was a good fighter. He was not the dominant guy Duran was or had his machismo which got Duran attention, but Curry was a very good fighter and top 10 p4p in those years.

 

Of course he was very good, but what he had done up until that point doesn't compare to Duran's decade long run up the Leonard victory.Not even close.

 

Very true, but you said Curry's career was not as good as Duran's up to when he fought Dejesus the first time and I thought yeah it does compare. But up to Duran fighting Leonard in 1980? No way.Duran's career is HOF and Curry's was not, yet if you look at potential and if Curry retired at that time in Dec. of 1985, people would have thought wow this guys was dominant and great. He would have gone on to beat Hearns and Hagler and retire undefeated. Salvador Sanchez beat some great guys Nelson,Gomez,Lopez, and better than Curry did, but Salvador is seen as great by most people even though he had a 2 and a half year career in the early 1980's. I am not insulting Sanchez, but much of his rating is done because of what he did and what he probably would have done.

 

I meant Curry yretiring after McCrory is about on par with Duran retiring after Dejesus 2, and even that is being generous to Donald.

 

Maybe but Duran and Curry would have both been regarded as top 100 ATG if they retired then. As it turned out Curry fell apart for Honeyghan 9 months after McCrory and then in my mind fought McCallum too soon before finding his punch at 154. His losses were too close together. Duran also was not knocked out until 1984, and then he took 2 years off of boxing and regrouped and game back fresh enough. Curry handled his losses worse than guys like Duran and Hearns. Who knows why some fighters can handle losses and others cannot. I rambled on with this I know.

 

But I agree Donald cannot be compared to Duran. I just meant had he retired after McCrory he would have looked almost invincible. There was a time in 1986 when Duran and Hearns were not being talked about for rematches with Hagler, but Curry was talked about as Marvin's next fight. He was that well known and that fight with McCrory was held in high regard.

 

I don't buy into all this ''if they had retired when'' deal. I mean, I judge people off of accomplishment and what they were like at their guessed best. If anything Duran is rated higher for me. I don't judge him off of his worst losses, I judge him off of things like being a lightweight that fought Marvin Hagler at middleweight and gave a good account of himself. No amount of losses would erase his accomplishments. Same for any fighter. Roy Jones could get knocked out thirty times in a row by Danny Green level opponents. It doesn't change what he did before that. Ray Leonard could come back now and get destroyed by James Kirkland, it changes his standing not at all to me.

 

For me I have him ranked higher by fighting on.

With Duran there are no answered questions, great performances (past peak) against Davey Boy, Hagler and Barkley, with some poor performances against Benitez, Hearns and Leonard (two).

I did not see his fight with Hagler as close as the judges, but to go in with a prime hagler and do so well says a lot, all the top contenders were getting knocked out. Like some one else said, how would Hagler go against some of the best ever light heavys? I cannot see Hagler doing as well a Duran did, but you never know?

How would Tyson (prime) go against one of the top heavyweights?, he might do very well and he might not do so well, you never can say 100% what would of happened.

With Duran there are no unanswered questions, on his best days he can beat any one, even if he had some bad performances thrown in.

Look at RJJ, looked unbeatable in his prime, but once his natrual avantages left him he does not look as good.

By Duran fighting on and in higher wieght classes showed every one that he was a great fighter and had good defence, I think that if he did not fight on that a lot of poeple would say that he did not have the best defence. Like in his fight with Barkley they are both trading shots but Barkley is the one that was the most hurt, Duran was taking less punishment as he was rolling with the shots, but that would not be so aprant if they never meet in the ring.

Some people would have just said that he was a brawler with no defence.