SRL's best performance?

Duran always used that not in shape excuse when he lost to greats. He used it when he fought Benitez and lost easily in Jan. of 1982 ( a fight which is ignored by Duran fans), and he used that excuse again with Hearns. With Ray in the second and third fights he moved. Compare the first fight and second and see round one in both. What is the difference in Ray's foot movement? That is the key. Duran quit right after Ray started to land big punches to the head and body in round 8. Duran knew he was going to be knocked out. As for the Hearns fight. Being in shape or not wouldn't have helped Duran take Tommy's right hand. All fighters would love to have the excuse they were out of shape everytime they lost and for people to buy it. He was out of shape everytime he fought a great? Why wouldn't he train for the best fighters he fought? That is why it is evident that he just could not beat the elites since when he fought them that is when he used the not in shape excuse. But it is good people bought his excuses to help his legacy I guess, but it is not accurate. I do not think that is the proper way to preserve a legacy. I think Duran should have had to beat more legends to be ranked where some rank him. He beat only one legend and then lost the next fight easily. He is great, but not what people think.

 

Easily Benitez. The quality of opponent, the feints, the jab, the counter punching, the foot work, everything was on point that night. I'd say Robinson was the only welterweight in history that could have beaten Ray that night, and even that was far from guaranteed.

 

@ MAG i rate Duran highly but i do agree on the weight excuses. I think it was Ray coming in smarter in the rematch that caused Duran to lose more than anything else, especially since Duran was doing some decent work early on.

 

benitez. that was a master class of boxing

 

lightweight - dominant reign, something like ten knock-outs in eleven title bouts? only loss in this period (although above lightweight limit) avenged twice, with style each time.

welterweight - first to beat all-time great leonard. ends up going 1-1 with leonard at leonard's optimum weight.

middleweight - great performance against hagler, with duran on the slide. good win against barkley with duran really past his best.

so he had many memorable nights in three historic divisions, and also has a belt at 154 to boot. yes, the hearns and benitez losses are blotches. but he doesn't need excuses for those performances. the loss to hearns was emphatic, but duran was there in the ring with him. is pacquiao fighting paul williams now? no. will it ever happen? no. is williams an easier fight than hearns? hell yes! (i use this example purely as a size comparison)

palomino and cuevas are solid wins above his natural weight, while laing and sims are bad losses. all in all though, duran was dominant at one weight (top three lightweight of all time, at least), and has some great weight jumping achievements to boot.

it's a shame people make excuses for him (and that duran made excuses himself), but this shouldn't affect how we see his resume. it's spectacular, and leaving him out of a top fifteen of all time (pound for pound) is very difficult to justify.

 

and to answer this thread... benitez.

 

SRL vs. Duran 2

 

his lightweight reign was not great opponents. Decent but not great. Nothing to put him into the top 30 ATG. Pernell Whitaker was better than anyone he ever fought at 135. Mosley was better than anyone he fought at 135. Mayweather. etc.

Hearns and Benitez are blotches you say, but only to Duran fans since he lost them decisively. Losing to the two legends who fought great at 154 is significant. Also, the fact he was fighting for the title in both, it is surprising how he could not muster better performances, considering he fought at 154 before Hearns and Benitez ever did.

Palomino was past his prime when he fought Duran and Cuevas was 3 years past the Hearns fight.

He lost to Hagler. He lost to Hearns, He lost to Benitez and he lost to Leonard easily. Excuses affect his legacy in that people think that is why he lost and not the great fighters he fought. He beat the mediocre guys and not the elite guys,which shows us the elite is what beat him and not the excuses. He was a great fighter, but quality of opposition should not help him that much in legacy if he didn't win the fights.

 

he's always said duran in interviews...but i met him a few years back in a bar and got to spend a few minutes chatting and he told me that his toughest fight was donny lalonde..
i'm trying to remember exactly how he worded it...the stage of his career, the size and toughness of lalonde...he said for him it meant a lot.
true story.

 

i take your point that merely stepping in the ring with these guys isn't enough to secure his legacy. i'm simply saying that there's more to it than the win-loss column. hyping every loss as a great performance or excusing it altogether is blind. likewise, simply looking at the stats is misleading. a balanced view tends to be closer to the mark.

just to make a point in isolation... if pacquiao got in the ring with martinez and dropped a close unanimous decision, would that not enhance his legacy? if he got in the ring with paul williams and got sparked out, would you not praise him for trying? i'm not saying these circumstances should be blown out of proportion, but would they not add to him, rather than detract?

 

Don´t listen to MAG, he is one of the resident Duran-haters.

 

:deal

 

Well if Pacman had been fighting at 154 for the last 4 years it would be a legit loss like Duran had with Hearns and Benitez. Duran fought at 154 before either guy did, and weighed in between fights much more than either of those guys did. I do not discount Duran's legacy fighting great guys like Hearns,Leonard,Benitez, but I do not think he should be rated 1-5 ATG as some do for beating Moore and Barkley. If people are going to do that, where do you rank Hearns for beating Cuevas and Benitez and Hill for titles. and for stopping Duran? See those are real wins over real greats when it mattered. 4 times.

 

I am just trying to be realistic about Duran and his ATG ranking. I have not changed my tune in over 2 years on esb as you know. I try to find out why Duran would be 1-5 atg. From what I hear is because he had a decent career at lightweight and then moved up and beat SRL. And because he gave Hagler a tough fight and beat Moore and Barkley. But that logic eliminates his losses to Hearns,Benitez, Ray and Hagler since he had excuses against the onlyl ATG fighters he fought and he lost. The ranking does not make sense. Fact is he only beat one ATG in his career. How does that get him 1-5 ATG ranking. Unheard of. He had great machismo and fighting spirit and he broke down guys spectacularly when he had the advantages. I admit that. He had a certain charisma, but if you look at wins and losses. He does not have the ATG wins he should. People are influenced by his machismo and destruction vs. lesser guys and do not see the overall matchups. I saw his lightweight career and wanted him to prove and have that same destruction against the top guys, later etc.. And each time he didnt. And each time I heard he was out of shape. Being a big boxing fan then the losses to the greats over and over added up to me, so by the time he beat Moore and Barkley I knew it was all style matchup and the quality of those wins was not like wins over Hearns,Benitez level-whom he lost to.

 

Against Hearns without doubt. He was thoroughly getting outboxed in that fight due to the physical disparity and due to Hearns having what I'd call a flash stiff jab. So he decided to go for broke, take to give. Made a good account of his chin too.