Why is Roberto Duran so hated?

It's not Duran, it's his idolators.

 

Did you watch the final Norm Macdonald special on Netflix? I feel like there are some tidbits in there for you download into your brain and repackage as your own.

 

I think that Roberto Duran was disliked in the beginning of his title reign at 135 lbs because of the way he took the WBA title from Ken Buchanan on June 26 1972 in Madison square Garden. The bout ended with Buchanan grabbing his private parts in round 13 and claiming a foul low blow. Many called him a dirty street fighter, he was a former street fighter, many fighters were from the tough streets, ghettos, slums and barrios, Duran and Carlos Monzon were classic examples. Some were from the correctional facilities, Bernard Hopkins and Dwight Muhammad Qwai. Butall these former students of street fighting were also very talented. He claimed o dislike our ethnic group (Hispanics) but he was always in attendance at the boxing matches in my hometown hanging out with many of our race having a few cold ones. But in his career, he used intimidation. As I have posted, he gave Joe Frazier the creeps, Joe once remarked, He Reminded Me Of Charles Manson In The Ring, Those Cold Homicidal Eyes That Want To Hurt Someone.

 

Probably because he acted like a rotten human being most of his career.

 

What sports greatest athletes are judged by the end of their careers?
Do we judge Michael Jordan by his time with the Washington Wizards?
How about Joe Montana with his time with the Kansas city Chiefs?
Muhammad Ali after 1975?
Joe Louis after 1950?
Ray Robinson after 1960?
How about Pele with his time with the Cosmo?
Most athletes are judged by their absolute primes.
Why would Duran be different?
Sure his career dragged on after New Orleans
but it's a testament to his greatness that he was
able to fight on so long and be competitive (A key word)
with moments of brilliance (Davey Moore, Iran Barkley,
Hagler, though a losing effort)
At times 30-40 lbs and years above his best fighting weight
and age.
Sure his actions in New Orleans were a MAJOR hit to
his credibility, but you don't believe he did enough to earn
some of that credibility back?
No redemption?
Most judge their athletic hero's by their very best years.
Most athletes hang on for far too long, especially in
boxing.
But Duran at his very best, in my opinion head to
head beats the hell out of damn near any lightweight
in history. And I'll add Jr. welter to that list, though he
never fought at the weight.
He's one of the top 10 fighters in the history of the
sport I've seen. And I watched most of the best
fighters that have been filmed.
No question in my mind about it.

 

Michael Jordan didn't play for the Washington Wizards for two-thirds of his career.

With Duran, we're talking about the last 20 YEARS of his career.

Hagler lost his last fight and his title to Leonard. Hagler didn't keep losing for another 20 years. He wasn't getting punched in the armpit and quitting against Pat Lawlor in the 90s.

Ali's last six fights hurt his career. He went three out of six in those.

Duran's last 46 FIGHTS collectively hurt his career.

Duran may have been one of the best fighters all time during the first THIRD of his career, but in other TWO-THIRDS of his career he mediocre, for the most part.

Don't get mad at me for saying it. He was. I can't ignore the last 20 years of his career. I watched the whole goddamn thing. If you want to be included among the best ever, don't be average to mediocre for the better part of 20 years.

Some people can only focus on a period when a fighter is really good and totally ignore the rest. That's easy to do when you didn't sit there for 20 years watching it come apart.

I thought Roy Jones irreparably damaged his career, too. The first 14 years of his career -- from 1989 to 2003 - amazing. The last 14 years of his career, he was mediocre for the most part. Same as Duran.

That's on Jones. Just like it's on Duran. They didn't have to fight for 10 to 20 years past their sell-by date.

 

I’m not sure there’s a fighter who ever had a career quite like Roberto Duran. I once asked whether had Duran retired straight after Montreal and never come back, where people would rank him and the feeling was somewhere in the top 20 all-time.

But in most pound for pound lists, Duran sits in or around the number 10 spot. By that rationale, retiring with a near perfect record at the top of his game would see him ranked lower by more people than he is now even when factoring No Mas into the equation.

Had the troughs never happened, he wouldn’t have been able to stun everyone with the comebacks. It’s a little like Ali. The low moments and losses allowed his great wins to become more elevated.

Whether that is reasonable is another question, but it does show the depth of feeling people have for him as a fighter.

 

Zoomers is why.

 

You are doing a major disservice to that part of Duran's career. He did screw up more times than he should have had after No Mas, but your point is basically that he was unnimpresive the whole way through after it, that could not be further from the truth. Sure, he may not have been anywhere near as good as he was in his prime, but let's not ignore that he was over 40 for his last Twenty five fights and he proved that he could hang with good fighters until he was damn near 50.

Sure, he may have been "mediocre" in comparison to your average ranked fighter, but longevity matters, and Duran had it in spades. That is never going to change no matter how past it he looked while you were watching his career unfold. He performed well against Pazienza and arguably beat Camacho while he was literally middle aged and 4 weight classes highter than he should have been. Accomplishments like these matter when a fighter's career is all said and done, now matter how sad or pathetic they may seem at first. On top of that he had victories over Cuevas, Moore, Barkley while 3-4 weight classes higher than he should have been and at 37 in Barkley's case. He went the distance in one of the best losing efforts of all time against Hagler, very possibly a top 3 ATG Middleweight. Add his 1968-1980 career and you have a certified top 10 ATG.

 

I'm not "mad' about your opinion. After all it is yours. You've
explained it and it's reasonable and rational, and understandable.
Though I don't agree with it .
Duran like every athlete that has existed couldn't defeat
father time. Unless you've been on that
level it is hard to understand why they continue to push when they are clearly diminished. Most
of the time it's financial because it's the only work they've ever known,(Duran) sometimes it's pure ego
(Jones Jr.)
But to hold over their heads how there careers ended is a little
harsh. At least in my opinion. Because it's so easy to see the difference
when a fighter is prime. And when he is past prime in the film era.
Even in Duran's case because his decline was so long and drawn
out.
Father time is undefeated.... Some learn that faster than others.

 

Pointing out his age and how far above his natural weight he was for Paz and Camacho is very ironic.

 

What's wrong with that?

Why would one need to qualify the statement: "[Duran] was the greatest lightweight ever", by then talking about the next 20 years of his career?

 

Both of them were literally a decade younger than Duran and naturally bigger. Pazienza was close to his prime and camacho was 35 when he arguably lost to a 45 year old version of him. Stop bellitling Duran every single time someone mentions his name.

 

I have not noticed any unusual amount of hatred for Duran. In fact, when I came to this website one of the things that surprised me the most was how much respect there is for his skills and accomplishments.

 

Paz was a natural lightweight who broke his neck and took steroids to get to 168. He also ud'd Duran twice.

Camacho was a natural 130/35 cokehead who was journeyman level above 147. He also ud'd Duran.

This is universes away from Hopkins level old guy accomplishments and isn't even close to what Vitali did.