Sugar Ray never truly beat me & he knows it

I don't think I ever used the word prime when describing Duran when he fought in the 1980s. My meaning was, and I think it was clear that he was still decent enough to be held accountable since he won titles at those higher weights and was given credit in those 3 titles wins. The two wins (Moore and Barkley) he was given more credit than I think he should have been, but if his fans want to give him credit then that is more support for the fact that he was good at those wins. His fans will say he had those great wins which prove he was great, and yet then they say he was fat and not prime when he lost at that same weights in those same years so therefore he has excuses. They want it both ways. I think the fails are the excuses and saying Sugar Ray never truly beat me and he knows it.

 

I have written so much on the subject, I think you can get something out of what I say in a very clear way -more than just wanting me to say yes or no to your questions simply to stroke your ego. You know how I feel. And most people agree with you here, so what I say should not really matter. However, you guys responding to my posts makes me think that the things I say about Duran hold some legit truths and deep down you guys know what I am saying is logical.

 

That is good. He had a fighting spirit and charisma most people admire. I am just talking about his resume and the ridiculous claims like the one this thread described. Sugar Ray never truly beat me and he knows it. That sort of logic and the excuses are the denial of Duran and his fans.

 

How do you know this? He was pretty pissed off but he never once seemed scared.

Maybe, but considering Leonard beat Hearns, Duran, Hagler and Benitez. Maybe not. It's debatable.

Hardly his worst tho, was it? He was coming off one the of the greatest performances ever, it's not Leonard's fault Duran bloated up, but it is Leonard's fault Duran quit

 

The problem with Duran and his fans are that his best win is Leonard, who fought the wrong fight. And I think the fight therefore is overrated as far as Duran's talking about it, but the fight itself was great. I just don't think Duran winning was as great as people say. I would have liked to have seen Duran beat one of the other legends Hearns, Benitez or Hagler, and Ray in the rematch to support the win in June 1980 and he never did. He lost rather easily to all. Rather easily, and regardless of excuses. Duran's accomplishments are exaggerated a little in his favor, and his defeats (to much better guys than he beat) are downplayed, in such a way that there is an unfairness. And this I do not understand.. Why not rate him fairly. He lost to the greats and never really beat another great except Ray, who totally outclassed him the last two times they fought.

 

Yup.

 

This

At welter, Duran was still quite lean. IMHO he was somewhat more muscular than he was as a lightweight. He no doubt grew into that weight somewhat. However it is important to note that in 1978 he was still able to make weight for 135.

154 is only 7lbs more, but he really did have the build of a pillow against Hearns. That was a lot more than 7 lbs extra fat. If you do the math he either lost muscle or got extremely dehydrated to make the weight against Hearns. No surprise that he lost big time.

He didn’t look all that bad against Benitez, but he still wasn’t as cut as he was in Montreal.

 

Stop projecting yourself onto me. It's your ego that won't allow you to answer very basic questions as fact or not facts. I even gave you an out and said, you can make of those facts as you will, and it doesn't mean you are agreeing with there meaning, I'm simply asking if they are true or not. Instead your ego won't allow you to answer such basic questions because they call into question the narrative you've been pushing for a decade now. You avoid it so much so, that you say well, I've written enough on this subject that you should know where I'm coming from by now, instead of just answering very basic questions.

I'm still waiting for your responses.

 

Yes duran was a shell of himself guy went on to fight for 20 more years haahaha a reaaal shell ..i guess tommy hearns victory is nothing...vinny paz winning means even less..iran barkley looks REAL bad ...what a load of hooey this whole thread is ..

 

who needs an out? It is not a complicated theme or subject. This is a boxing message board. Too basic to answer. I have written a lot on this subject and I have written the same information.. I could almost copy and paste the things I wrote 10 years ago and you guys wouldn't know the difference. I can see why you guys would get tired of me posting, but you all always seem to answer it. My comments are basic, but not as basic as your questions-you just want me to answer.. yet I think the answers are not as different as you think.

 

I guess to some extent I look at Duran as being like Frazier...his biggest career win was against someone truly extraordinary, so that tends to make up for some losses that can be seen as embarrassing I guess. To beat Ray Leonard in his early prime...the same guy who would beat two other, elite ATGs (Hagler and Hearns... and while we're at it, let's not forget Leonard knocking out a good light heavyweight champ)...that's truly remarkable imo. Especially given Duran was coming up in weight.

Duran in that fight was roughly the same force of nature Frazier was in FOTC imo. He just wasn't going to quit, and again just like Frazier in the FOTC, I'm not sure any fighter before or since in that division could have beaten Duran that night. That guy was the quintessence of jacked to the max...he wanted blood.

Just my opinion.

 

"I guess to some extent I look at Duran as being like Frazier...his biggest career win was against someone truly extraordinary, so that tends to make up for some losses that can be seen as embarrassing I guess."

Duran's loss to Hearns was like Frazier's loss to Foreman.

Frazier lasted longer in the rematch but still got KO'd. could Durán have done better in a rematch? I doubt it. He was past his prime.

Could Durán have beaten Hearns in 1980?
Honestly, I don't know. Durán would have to score a KO, because Hearns could easily keep him at a distance and outbox him. Duran's best chance would be for Hearns to get careless, try too hard for a KO against a very slippery opponent, and leave himself open.

 

Well, as you can surmise, i'm one of his fans. i never said that his wins over Moore and Barkley proved that he was great. His overall performances in the 80s were too inconsistent for that.

Let's judge him at 135. Do you think that any of the Fab 4 could have beat him at that weight?
Hearns was about 132 at 17 just before he turned pro
Leonard was about 137 as an olympian in 1976.
Hagler was already fighting at 165 when he was 19 in 1973

So, Leonard and Hearns could have made that weight but only when they were still very young. Hagler is out of the question. He would have to lose a lot of muscle even when young.

 

I don't know who would have beaten him at 135, but those other fab 4 were better than the guys he fought at 135.. So to say they could not might not be accurate. You ask if they fought at that weight no, but if you put them at their best at that weight. I don't know.. My comments are that the best guys he faced were those guys, and he lost to all of them.