Re: Duran legacy?
In the 70s Duran was a monster, a phenomenon, he just got better and better.
Some of us suggest he peaked when beating Palomino; the majority say his first (big) fight in the 80s (Leonard) was his best; either way going into Montreal Duran was 72-1; the defeat avenged twice.
And then the King of Machismo (sorry Hector) quit in a fight he was losing but hardly being destroyed in...
Duran was finished, but he carried on, and frankly it got worst; Benitez beat him easy and then the quirky Laing embarrassed him.
At an all time low Duran was brought in as cannon fodder for Cuevas, but Duran defied the critics and beat the former champ, but many, perhaps rightly suggested that Cuevas was shot himself and a matchup with the new sensation Davey Moore would be the finale for Duran.
When the fight came Duran thought as well as he had for three years and dismantled the much hyped Moore in eight, a sort of redemption had been earned for Montreal, but still...
Duran then stepped up and fought the Marvelous One and gave him battle; well done hands of stone, a good way to finish... But no.
Hearns was next and he destroyed Duran, it was a little embarrassing, even more so in some ways than Montreal. Duran refused to call it a day though and things went downhill as Hagler's younger brother, Robbie Sims beat him; and sluggish wins over win contenders were not anything special.
But Duran had a name and Iran Barkley coming off the first win over Hearns needed a body, Duran fit the bill. The hope was Duran would lose with a bit of dignity, but he stood little to no chance over the primed Blade.
And then it happened; Duran fought as good as he had for six years and finally redeemed himself after Montreal, winning a brutal war.
And that is why I think only Robinson, Armstrong and perhaps Greb are better fighters pound for pound in the history of Queensberry Rules boxing.
Last edited by Britkid; 03-04-2016 at 04:38 AM.
"Boxing is like jazz. The better it is, the less people appreciate it."