Roberto Duran

[Kev]

Duran was in my mind overrated. I will never think different. He never fought that great a guy at lightweight, although he was dominant. When he moved up to welt in 1980 that was not that big a jump and even when Ray fought his fight, he couldnt stop Ray, Then Ray easily beat him in 2 fights. Duran then lost to these great fighters Benitez,Hearns,Hagler. Having an excuse for all of them that he did not train. He would fight the top guys and lose, then fight a guy like Davey Moore and Iran Barkley between those fights and look good and that would boost him to another big fight. And then he would lose to the top guy again. But the memory of his dominance made people forget that he lost and he also knew how to make excuses. Although no one really buys his excuses. I respect him as a warrior, but his skills have been far overrated. His foot positioning was too wide for a good boxer to not exploit. He was good defensively on the inside, but not on the outside. he had great inside reflexes. But when a guy had him on the outside he was very ordinary. Problem is at lightweight he did not have a Pernell or a Floyd to fight and outbox him. Which they would have.

He was a great fighter who sometimes lost to ordinary fighters and failed to beat the true greats.

To me he reminds me very much of James Toney.

Both immense talent who are as tough as they come and live to fight. But they both trained more in the kitchen than in the gym and so therefore never truly reached their potential.

[WelshDevilRob]

I'm not a huge Duran fan but any man that can beat a prime Sugar Ray Leonard is Great. I don't understand how people say otherwise.

[LegendBoxing65]

Duran was in my mind overrated. I will never think different. He never fought that great a guy at lightweight, although he was dominant. When he moved up to welt in 1980 that was not that big a jump and even when Ray fought his fight, he couldnt stop Ray, Then Ray easily beat him in 2 fights. Duran then lost to these great fighters Benitez,Hearns,Hagler. Having an excuse for all of them that he did not train. He would fight the top guys and lose, then fight a guy like Davey Moore and Iran Barkley between those fights and look good and that would boost him to another big fight. And then he would lose to the top guy again. But the memory of his dominance made people forget that he lost and he also knew how to make excuses. Although no one really buys his excuses. I respect him as a warrior, but his skills have been far overrated. His foot positioning was too wide for a good boxer to not exploit. He was good defensively on the inside, but not on the outside. he had great inside reflexes. But when a guy had him on the outside he was very ordinary. Problem is at lightweight he did not have a Pernell or a Floyd to fight and outbox him. Which they would have.

yeah but duran was great in defeat. he always gave it his all. with the exception of leonard 2
and c'mon he lost 2 guys 3-4 weight divisions above his natural weight

Troy, that has always been his excuse. But in the 80s they were all moving up in weight and trying new challenges. Hearns moved up to Cruiserweight eventually. And he won two titles 30 pounds above welt. Duran could normally go up to 220 pounds. Even Thomas Hearns who people say is so much bigger than Duran cannot get above 205 pounds now. How much does Duran weigh now? I saw him at the Hall of Fame event and he looks to be 250 or 260. My point is this. If he was so great as some people say top 5 P4P ever. What did he do to warrant that high a ranking? For that high a ranking he should have beaten Leonard in the rematch,Benitez in his fight with him, Hearns in his fight and Hagler. But he lost to them all. Beating Moore and Iran and having a dominant lightweight career vs. average competition does not make him top 5 p4p ever. Not in my mind. I know it is almost crazy for anyone to challenge the status of the great Roberto Duran. But in my mind there were flaws in style and one excuse in one fight ok, but excuse in all of them he lost? yet then when he beat Iran he was in good shape. Well coincidentally Iran fought Duran the way you fight Duran for Duran to win. On the inside. Then that wide stance is a benefit and not a hindrance.

i dont make excuses for duran-hearns! hears was taller, stronger, better boxer, i must admit i never expected duran to get ko the way he did but tommy is awsome, hearns is what like 6'2 and duran 5'9 something like that? and duran gave hagler a great fight, and duran beat srl, something hearns or hagler could not do!

The SRL fight was overrated since Ray came and beat Duran easily in the two following fights. I think that is where the overrated started with Duran .He beat Ray Leonard in June 1980 and people thought wow he beat Sugar Ray, but he beat Ray who was very inexperienced and Ray fought his fight. This was Ray's second title defense in 27 fights. Ray was rattled by Roberto calling his wife a name and he said he wanted to beat Duran at his own game. And still Duran did not knock out a guy who had 27 fights at the time and Duran had 72 fight or so. Then Ray beats him easily in the second and third fights. You would think Duran knocked out Ray brutally in the first fight when Ray was experienced. Duran would never have beaten Ray again. To be dominant against a guy he would have won the last two fights with Ray. Too much is made of the fact that Duran beat Ray in 1980 is my point. And Thomas Hearns beat Virgil Hill in 1991 who was much more established than Ray in 1980 and no one cared, and Hearns was the same age when he fought Hill, that Duran was when Hearns beat Duran. Duran gave Hagler a great fight? They stared at each other trying to counterpunch and find opening. That was Hagler's fault and not Duran's greatness. Hagler always did well when he was aggressive. Hagler fought a counterpuncher fight and Duran counterpunched. Duran again gets more credit from a loss than most guys would for a win. Mugabi gave Hagler a much better fight than Duran. And Hearns cut up and wobbled Hagler. I think Duran did anything small and it is made big. As though beating Davey Moore and Iran Barkley is like beating Thomas Hearns and Wilfred Benitez. He still lost to the best guys he ever fought Hearns,Leonard, Benitez,Hagler. And in interviews Duran says he is the best ever.. Ridiculous. What made him best ever? Beating Ray when Ray fought his fight? That would have to be the key. Because his lightweight reign and losing to the greats of the 80s don't make him best ever. Ali was a well rounded guy who found ways to beat styles which were difficult for him. That is why he could be considered great. Great is when a guy finds ways to win when he cannot bully the other guy. Duran was a bully like Tyson, but when the guy was too good he lost bigtime. To Duran's credit he was not stopped like Tyson was. He was better on the inside than Mike defensively.

[LegendBoxing65]

I'm not a huge Duran fan but any man that can beat a prime Sugar Ray Leonard is Great. I don't understand how people say otherwise.

Ray was not prime vs. Duran in 1980 . That is how people spin it so Duran looks good yet Duran could not knock out a guy who had only 27 fights and on his 2nd defense and fighting his fight. All Ray had to do was lose a decision and think a little and he comes back and fights the style he needs and makes the guy quit.. And then in the 3rd fight he wins every round. Ray was not great when Duran beat him in 1980. Ray was great when he fought Hearns in 1981 since he had fought and lost and learned how to win. Hearns was after Ray beat Duran and then sharpened his skills and won the 154 pound title against Kalule. Against Duran, Ray Leonard won the title the previous Nov. and this was his second title defense with 27 fights. That is not prime. That is like saying Delahoya was prime in 1994 or 1995. In a way Hearns fought the best Leonard and the best Hagler (stylewise Marvin got mad and fought his aggressive style). Duran still lost to Leonard the next two times easily, Benitez(easily), Hearns (easily), and Hagler (not easy but not physically difficult.) and that makes Duran how good? To me on his lightweight reign and beating Ray once than losing and then beating Moore and Barkley and winning 4 titles I give him top 20-30.. No better. If he is better he would have beaten those guys and found a way to make his wide stance cut the ring off better or deal with speed better.

[Scrap]

I had the pleasure of being in the gym with Duran for 2 weeks and a pleasure it was. saw some firsts watching him. A character he was, drink anybody under the table, and very personable good sense of humourspent some time with him, Liked him a lot. Hank Caplan was with him but was more interested in tracing the steps of Jack the Ripper which I found hilarious. Im a big fan, but what Legend says has a ring of truth. Boxing is about commitment and condition, this sadly is what Roberto lacked at the end of the day and his failing.

[Chris Nagel]

That's neat Scrap. I've heard stories about his good sense of humor and and from the sound of it he's a real likable guy as well. Thanks for sharing your experience.

[Scrap]

Duran was the first person I ever saw skip without his feet leaving the floor. Using a toe and heel technique I thought it clever at the time. I asked him to go to an amatuer club and he agreed, all the security said 5 minutes as we entered.. an hour later hes on his knees sparring with the little kids loving it and not wanting to go. The security said scrap tell him we have to go , my reply fuck off you tell him, there reply was cunt.

[Chris Nagel]

That's great Scrap. I'm curious, was this during his fighting days?

You said that he skipped without his feet leaving the floor? Could you please elaborate on that Scrap? Maybe I can learn a thing or two from your experience that day.

Anyways what I liked about Duran was that he had good economy of motion, I mean just from looking his footwork you can see didn't waste any movement. I've heard an old boxing axiom that "Good footwork is No footwork." Perhaps it's talking about the least amount of footwork that in necessary.

[Scrap]

Chris it was 87 , 88, the skipping ive dicribed toe and heel at speed its hard to do you have to practice great for timing. The thing is at that level he boxed you have to be fit and sharp, over a long career I suppose you have lapsess in motivation depending on your make up. What I saw was someone going through the motions with a good work ethic, doing a bottle of whisky a day in the process. probably pissed while training Whatever he signed autograths for 2 hours one day without complainet once and had a smile for every photo that was took. When asked if he minded his reply was they have come a long way to meet me its the least I can do, to me thats class.

[Chris Nagel]

I appreciate it Scrap.

[LegendBoxing65]

That's great Scrap. I'm curious, was this during his fighting days?

You said that he skipped without his feet leaving the floor? Could you please elaborate on that Scrap? Maybe I can learn a thing or two from your experience that day.

Anyways what I liked about Duran was that he had good economy of motion, I mean just from looking his footwork you can see didn't waste any movement. I've heard an old boxing axiom that "Good footwork is No footwork." Perhaps it's talking about the least amount of footwork that in necessary.

Roberto didn't have good footwork. His feet were wide apart, but he had good inside handspeed and was not afraid to commit since he had a good chin. But on the outside was his weakness. I do not think there were guys at lightweight when he was fighting who would exploit his weakness for an outside boxer like Pernell or Floyd or someone like that would have.

[Scrap]

Legend he beat one of the best outside fighters of the time to win the title in fairness Buchanan who was no slouch

[LegendBoxing65]

Legend he beat one of the best outside fighters of the time to win the title in fairness Buchanan who was no slouch

Buchanan was no slouch but he was not in the Duran caliber. It was a good win but Duran did not have any equals to his skill at lightweight and not even close. When he moved up in 1980 he went to his caliber and it equaled out, and then when he lost people said he was way above his weight. 147 to a growing man at the stage was not that big a deal. lightweight competition? Some will say Dejesus was great, but Esteban was not in the Duran caliber. Duran did not have a Pernell or Shane or Floyd.. Duran did have the Castillo caliber and the Bramble caliber, which is good ,but that just proves he was better than those guys. Not the top notch. But I think he is great, but when he says in interviews that he is the best ever no doubt I have to ask why is he the greatest ever? For what? Beating Leonard? Losing to Hagler? He showed us everything I will give him that. He beat Leonard, he was knocked out in probably the best knockout the last 30 years in the Hearns fight. He gave us no mas. He went 15 with Marvin. He came to fight, but the win record against great ones is not there to the point where he is the best ever.

[Scrap]

All true to me Leonard was the man, and alwaysa will be.

[Lords Gym]

cc for the insightful read scrap.. Duran is a very likeable fellow. saw him not so long ago , hell we had our picture together, fun to be around.