How would Duran retiring after Montreal affect his standing?

I don't see it. a loss to Hagler, and the losing easily to Hearns and Benitez at the same time frame in my mind is not gold? Hagler fought a very lackluster fight and still won a decision. When he did the same with Vito Antuofermo he got a draw. And then beating lower quality Moore and Barkley at the same weights which Duran could not win titles against the legends is not great, it is good to win them, but he didn't beat the legends and was outclassed by Hearns and Benitez-which is always overlooked by Duran fans. This is just overrating and making more out of mediocrity. My point always has been Duran is not top ATG 5. The best thing he did was beat Leonard and then lose easily in the 2nd and 3rd fights and then losing to Hagler but going 15? I just do not see how that is really great considering Hearns beat Virgil Hill in 1991 when Virgil had 10 title defenses and as undefeated. That is great. But Hearns win there is overlooked by boxing historians and fans usually. Duran gets consideration for things which other fighters never have been given credit for. Had Duran had an accomplishment like beating Virgil HIll like Hearns did 30 pounds over his starting weight, Duran fans would still be saying he is the best ever fighter no doubt.

 

Hearns vs Hill is in no way comparabnle to Duran vs Barkley.

Tommy turned pro at roughly the same time as guys like Mike McCallum and Herol Graham etc for gods sake.

 

Very comparable and if anything it is not comparable since the Hearns win over Hill is a win over a HOF fighter. Tommy's win over Virgil Hill was much better than Duran's over Barkley and I didn't even know that was disputed- Barkley was never great and the only thing he did great was beat Hearns. He was an exciting fighter who liked to brawl and fight on the inside, but he was slow and Duran had a great style. Barkley's claim to fame is Hearns. As for Hill, Hill ended up having 25 or so defenses of his light heavy and cruiserweight titles. How many did Iran have? Hill was undefeated when Tommy fought him and had 10 title defenses. How is Duran's win against Barkley better than that? Barkley was the easiest guy for Duran to beat at the time then the other champions like Frank Tate or Kalambay who would both have easily beaten Duran. Tommy turned pro in 1977 and Mike McCallum turned pro in 1981. Not sure when Herol Graham did, but Virgil Hill turned professional in 1984, 7 years after Hearns did. How is that not a great accomplishment? As a matter of fact the Virgil Hill fight was a better win than Duran had over Moore or Barkley combined. I don't understand how that can be disputed. Hill was the top light heavyweight and undefeated and 30 pounds above Tommy's starting first title weight. This is what Duran fans do they turn a mediocre win againt Barkley into a great win, and then downplay a really great win. Barkley lost to everyone at that time Kalambay,Nunn,Benn and even Sims a few years before. Duran did not beat a great fighter and Hearns beat an undefeated fighter in Hill. The only reason Barkley is even remembered is because of Hearns.

 

Hearns that fought Hill was damn near a whole decade worth of fights behind the Duran that fought barkley.Duran had more fights and had fought nearly as many good fighters when he got his win over Leonard for gods sake.

Hill ain't a real HOF'er and certainly wasn't at the time he fought Hearns.He was a good fighter that choked badly in that fight, having only fought a scant handful of decent fighters beforehand.His comp was mediocre and the Hearns fight reflected badly on him at the time.Fair enough he came back from it and had another run against mostly ordianry fighters and a few good wins here and there, before fading himself, but he was never a great fighter..not even close.

LMAO at painting Barkley as some bum not worthy of being a notable win for Duran at that point, especially considering this supposed hack beat Hearns once again after his epic triumph over Hill...the win you are pumping up.Tommy must sure have sucked.OR maybe it was Hill.


Personally i couldn't care less if Duran had fought someone like Kalambay and not won 30 seconds of the fight.he'd still have been entitled to the same credit had he fought and beat Barkley afterward, which is something you can't seem to comprehend.

 

I am not going to say Barkley was a great fighter because he beat Hearns. Hearns has better wins against ATG fighters than Duran does in my mind. He beat 3 greats for titles. Cueves at 147, Benitez at 154 and Hill at 175, and he knocked out Duran, which no one else did when Duran was a fellow WBA champion. And Duran could not beat Benitez and Hearns outboxed Benitez.
For you to say Hill was not HOF is a little surprising considering he has more title defenses and title fights than Duran himself. And I do not think Barkley was great. Because he beat Tommy doesn't make him great. And Duran beating him was not a great win, it was an exciting fight but Duran was 38 and had an inside style he loved. I knew when they signed that Duran would have a win there. Barkley was fighting on ESPN before the Olajide fight. Why overrated him? If you say Barkley was great it might make Duran look a little better, but Barkley was not great. I liked his personality, but he was slow and a brawler.
And Hearns who fought Hill was 14 years into his boxing career (more into his career than Duran when he fought Leonard) and 11 years after his first title win (which was near the time span of Duran fighting Hearns after his first title win).
I am surprised you think Duran's win over Barkley is as good as Hearns over Hill. Hill is HOF and I think ATG and Barkley is not. Hill previous to Hearns beat Stewart for his title and defended against Czyz and Emebe and typical light heavyweight contenders. Later he beat Maske and Tate (2 times) and Tiozzo at 190. Very respectable first reign, and the guys he beat were not much different than some of the guys Duran fought at lightweight in the 1970's. He did not have the knockouts of a Hearns or Duran but he was HOF top fighter. Barkley was not. How can this be disputed? The logic which some Duran fans have about Duran is that if he were still fighting now at almost the age of 59, that alone would prove he is great regardless of anything else. It is the whole career which matters. Duran's wins against ATGs is not very many. I would say only Leonard is ATG, and Duran beat Ray when Ray just won his title and fought his fight for 15 rounds, and still Duran couldn't stop him.

 

Actually talking about Hill and Barkley, I wanted to see Barkley fight Hill because stylewise Hill would have knocked out Barkley in a similar way he stopped Kinchen in 1989 with a left hook counter. Barkley was not a bum, but he was not a great fighter and he lost to most guys he fought who were good in the late 1980's and early 1990's.
Still you cannot excuse the fact that Duran lost to Benitez easily when he was 30 years old and at 154, and Hearns beat Virgil Hill when he was 32 and 30 pounds over his original title winning weight. Duran never had a win like that. Barkley is not Hill regardless of what you say about Hill not being HOF, he is HOF and Barkley is not.

 

Since many people have him in the top 5, I don't think it's really possible for him to be rated much higher. A mid/late 30s career at that weight is always going to be past-prime, yet he pulled out a legitimate title win 2 old divisions above his natural weight, at age 37. Has any other fighter done that? Even Ray Robinson couldn't capture the light heavyweight crown. IMO that more than offsets his losses to naturally bigger, younger opponents.

Duran would be arguably top 10 just for his pre-Leonard record. After Leonard II he was getting past prime, he would be *expected* to get KTFO or dominated in all his middleweight fights against legit opponents, yet there he was beating some of them, taking Hagler the distance (first time in a Hagler title fight), and winning a middleweight title as a middle-aged man. Also don't forget that he was still in pro fights at age 50!

 

@ Hill being an all time great.

 

Roldan was knocked out though, and was basically the same age as Tommy and was a middleweight, so it doesn't really prove your point.

Floyd will be 32, Mosley 38, so Floyd is 6 years younger. Whereas Duran was more like 5-10 years *older* than Barkley, Leonard, Benitez, Hearns, Moore etc. Duran had fought about 80 fights at that age, compared to Floyd with 30something.

Hearns victory over Hill is a great win at a higher weight, I agree - but you were asking for knockouts and it was a decision win. And Virgil Hill is not even remotely in the same league P4P as Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, or even Benitez. And you are forgetting that Duran beat the bigger, younger Leonard - Leonard the top 20-30 ATG, remember? When did Hearns, Hagler, or even Leonard beat a bigger, younger fighter from the top 30 ATGs...or even the top 100? When did Duran lose a title fight in his natural weight division?

You are not applying your own criteria fairly. There is a reason that Ring magazine put Duran at #5 P4P - or do you think they are blind fanboys too?

 

Barkley outpointed Hearns over 12 rounds, something no other boxer has ever done.

 

Ring magazine can say what they want. In 20 years he will not be rated as high. I think the aura of machismo made Duran rated higher. Duran had charisma and people liked him, and that is great, but I am talking about facts and ATG's here. As for my criteria, no it was not my criteria that a great has to knock out an ATG, but what I said was Duran never knocked out an ATG -which is true. Hearns did -which was Duran and Cueves, and Hearns outboxed boxers Benitez and Hill, and knocked out a puncher as a puncher in Cuevas. I didn't say a win over an ATG has to be a knockout, but Hearns does have better wins over ATG fighters than Duran, but he also has 2 losses to Leonard and Hagler which hurts him probably more than it should have. That is fact. The two losses against Hagler and Leonard for Hearns hurts a very impressive resume. As for Duran- Leonard in 1980 is not a top ATG fighter. Ray in 1980 was not great yet. He just won his title over Benitez in November of 1979, and this was June of 1980. Then Ray beat Duran easily in the rematch and 3rd fight. Why is that significant, because Ray beat Duran in a similar easy fashion 9 years apart. The Ray of 1981 for example would beat Duran easily over and over again. He got better with the first Duran fight experience and I am not sure anyone who disagrees really believes it. Ray would have coasted in his wins against Duran after 1980. It shows if he fought his fight he beats Duran easily with speed and he did. If you want to talk about age then Hearns was 32 when he fought Hill, the same age as Duran was when Duran lost to Hearns, and Hill was 27. I think Duran is getting consideration here for things he should not be getting credit for. He was dominant at lightweight and great, but still the ATG names are what is important. Sort of the logic is since Duran was older when he moved up in weight then he should get more credit for beating mediocre guys like Moore and Barkley, and that should help his great ranking. Yet in those same years he cannot beat the legends Benitez and Hearns and Hagler. I think to be rated as an ATG top 5 you have to beat greats to be rated over them. Fighting mediocre guys at 32 and 38 (which is not really as old as some are trying to say) does not make him great because he was not "prime". Because when he was prime at lightweight, his resume was good but not filled with ATG fighters. I can say all these things and you guys discuss it back, but I am not sure your arguments for Duran being top 5 ATG or even top 10 are legit. He was dominant at lightweight vs. an average competition or lets say decent guys, but not ATG's. Then he beat Ray Leonard in 1980, but then lost to Ray in a rematch easily and then lost to all the legends and beat two mediocre guys in the 1980's for two more titles -and also went the distance with Hagler and lost, and that is considered ATG 5. I am not sure. You can bend any fighters record and make them ATG top 5 then but ATG 5 in the history of boxing still warrants beating other fellow ATG fighters. Leonard meets the criteria more. He beat 4 ATG fighters yet had a short career, but he has to be rated higher than Duran. Hearns beat greats but lost to 2 greats so that is his problem in ranking.

 

Not so sure.

He is currently a five or six on a lot of alltime lists.

He still had Moore and Barkley ahead of him, not to mention a close go with Hagler.

Had he retired after Montreal, SRL's standing would have dropped five to ten spots. Maybe more.

 

I think anywhere from 5-10 can be argued for Duran.... above is being a little generous, below is being a little harsh.

Ps. I really think Hearns name should be mentioned more amongst the greats, he was a phenomenally skilled boxer, could brawl very well too, won titles in multiple weights in a very tough & talented era with fewer titles than today, was one of the hardest ever punchers p4p, beat some ATG fighters, always fought the best & was an all time top tier fighter in both the WW & LMW classes.... he had a couple of losses in his prime to 2 of the greatest fighters of all time but they were both in their own primes & Hagler was the bigger guy at his comfortable weight. The Barkely losses were past prime & even the best have style trouble as Hearns MIGHT have had with Barkely, Id certainly pick a peak Tommy over Barkely.

Hearns was an amazing fighter IMHO, what more could you ask from a career ?

 

hey I agree what you say about Thomas Hearns. Hearns fought everyone of the legendary greats and only lost to 2 of them. Not too shabby. Imagine guys now fighting 6 ATG fights and beating 4 of them. If anything Hearns is underrated and Duran a little over-rated but both were great and both came to fight always! Hearns had guts but it was his downfall with the Marvelous Marvin! Had he boxed and sat back and jabbed and landed his right hand he would have won that fight. The man wanted to knock Hagler out. Give him credit. I hope someday boxing has another guy like Hearns who comes to fight and goes for the knockouts even though his chin might be a little suspect. If that is not a gutsy guy I don't know what is. Hearns chin was not that weak, but the way he stuck it out going for knockouts was a little risky. He didn't seem to care that he was risking being hit. Even Duran hit him with 2 right hands when Tommy was going for the knockout. Give credit to both Hearns and Duran.

 

The lengh you went to to try and come up with any just proves my point.
Roldan was at his best weight for the Hearns fight. There was no age disadvatage. And Hearns won the fight..not sure why you would list this.

You are trying to compare Hill to a primed Hearns or Hagler..come on..And hearns was the same size as Hill.

Why do you try to deny that Duran was well past his best when he fought Hagler. Guys who say this just den the obvious. Put in a tape f Dura at his best, then watc Dran against hagler. He was bloated and i slow motion compared to his prime..Yet he still gave hagler everything he could handle.