Roberto Duran's legacy?

[Abradolf Lincler]

His legacy would have been better had not gone beyond WW.

But I think ES raises a good point that although fighting far beyond his best weight, Duran was still able to pull off a couple of memorably historic wins after some devastating defeats.

Even his losing performance against ATG beast Hagler enhanced his reputation.

He probably ended up losing more fights than necessary by moving up to as heavy as super middleweight (although defeats will mount when you stick around long enough to fight in 4 different decades no matter the weight).

But those few special performances at the higher weights demonstrated what a remarkable fighter Duran truly was.

Fair point, but imho, it tarnished his legacy to move up and lose the way he did.

I disagree. Great fighters' legacies don't take significant hits on account of past prime losses. They only stand to gain from that point on.

[elmersalsa]

For me he was the best fighter of the last 50 years. Of the "Big Four" of the 1980s he was the best in the p4p sense. Break it down:

From 1968-2001, a record of 103-16 (70) from 130 pounds to 175 pounds. The majority of those losses came in the 90s and 2000s when he was in his late 40s and early 50s.

From 1968-1978 he campaigned strictly at 130 pounds, winning the championship, and defending the title 13 times. He also had a dozen plus fights in between those defenses. By time he vacated the title and gunning for the 147 pound title he was 71-1-0 as a pro when he defeated Ray Leonard in 1980.

So from 1968-1980 is the first era of Duran. 72-2-0 following the "No Mas" return match with Leonard. By this time he was already considered the greatest Lightweight of all time. He still is.

From 1981-1989 is the second era of Duran. This is the era he's mostly remembered for. The Duran whose driven solely by the desire to try and eradicate the "No Mas" from the minds of the public. He wins the Junior Middleweight title. He challenges Marvin Hagler for the Middleweight title and narrowly loses. He manages to win the Super Middleweight title against Iran Barkley. It was an exciting time for Duran, but there was losses to Thomas Hearns, Wilfred Benetiz as well as to the unlikely Robbie Simms and Kirkland Laing. After losing, once again, to Ray Leonard (who ran away most of the time) he announced his retirement.

1991-2001.... Unfortunately.... Is the third era of Duran and is a mixture of sadness and surprise.... The surprise is how, even in this state, Duran fought for the Super Middleweight (and Middleweight) title three times, as well as managing to win the NBA Super Middleweight title against Pat Lawlor, who defeated Duran back in the beginning of Duran's comeback.... Some have argued that Duran was robbed against champion Vinny Pazienza in their first bout.

The irony is that it wasn't age that ultimately retired Duran, but a car wreck. He was 50 years old at retirement. He was 16-5 (13) overall in world title fights. The greatest Panamanian fighter of all time.

Nuff said.

[elmersalsa]

He shouldn't and you are right, SenorPipino. But, if he never won those two titles, I don't think his legacy would have been greater than it is now. His mark was that he came back after devastating losses. Not too many boxers did that. I could count it with one hand. It won't pass more than 4.

That's a good point about Duran's legacy actually enhanced by climbing far past his realistic weight ceiling and scoring a couple of remarkable victories.

But past welter, the added weight was a burden to carry and Duran could no longer fight consistently at a high level.

Now go ahead. Name those 4.

Well, besides Duran, as I think about it, not too many boxers had come back the way he did. After losing their primes, that's it for many of them. But these are the very few that I considered great come backs after their primes ended:

Bob Fitzsimmons: At middleweight, went up to heavyweight and won the heavyweight crown beating James J. Corbett. It was the best and defining victory of his career. Then, he lost the crown against James J. Jeffries. In the rematch, it was much worse. Jeffries destroyed him. Then, he lost to the great Jack Johnson. He moved down to light-heavyweight and became the first triple crown champion in boxing history.

George Foreman: Considered invincible in his prime, was a victim of the great Muhammad Ali's rope-a-dope in Kinshasa, Zaire. He made a come back beating 5 bums in Toronto. Then, won a thrilling slugfest with Ron Lyle. Then, he destroys Smokin'Joe for the second time. Heavyweight contender Jimmy Young gives him a boxing lesson in San Juan, Puerto Rico and all of the sudden, he sees "Christ in the sky" and retired. Comes back ten years later and in 7 years after his come back, he becomes the WBA World Heavyweight Champion by stunning champ Michael Moore in a thriller. Big George was losing the fight big time!

Ruben Olivares: At Bantamweight, the Mexican was a superb knockout artist. One of pound per pound greatest punchers. His prime ended when his countryman, Rafael Herrera gave him a beating of his life. Lost to Herrera on the rematch. Went up to featherweight and wins the feather crown. Loses the crown to the great Alexis Arguello of Nicaragua in a fight that he was winning. Considered washed up, wins the feather crown again when he stunningly surprised champion Bobby Chacon in two rounds.

Eder Jofre: The Brazilian was a phenomenal bantam King in his prime. The great Fighting Harada of Japan takes his crown. In the rematch, Harada beats him again. Jofre retires. Then comes back in a second career as a featherweight and at 37 years old, he wins the WBC featherweight crown. Then, he embarrassed the great Vicente Saldivar of Mexico in 3 and retired for good at 40.


Any others?

[elmersalsa]

Keep in mind that the great Bob Fitzsimmons became triple crown champion at the age of 42.

[SenorPipino]

I suppose Ali's odyssey of being stripped, being banned, losing the FOTC, and then regaining the crown in a stunning upset 7 years later, qualifies as a terrific comeback.

This topic is probably a new thread in itself.

[elmersalsa]

That's why in my view, The Hands of Stone should be up there in the top 5 pound per pound of the all time greats. What boxer had a comeback the way he did after being considered finished by many was/is remarkable.

One can be a great boxer in his prime and in his own weight class. The next thing is can you come back after devastating losses and not in your prime nor in your former weight class and come on top again? That's a mark of a great boxer.

Roberto Duran, to me, the greatest boxer of the last 50 years. I can't see it any other way.

[Cojimar 1946]

I am curious as to how someone could have Duran the best fighter of the past 50 years. I think Floyd Mayweather has clearly surpassed Duran. He also moved up in weight (130 to 154), has a great resume, was more consistent, and showed much greater longevity. I simply can't see any reasonable case for Duran.

[elmersalsa]

I am curious as to how someone could have Duran the best fighter of the past 50 years. I think Floyd Mayweather has clearly surpassed Duran. He also moved up in weight (130 to 154), has a great resume, was more consistent, and showed much greater longevity. I simply can't see any reasonable case for Duran.

Floyd Mayweather, Jr is a top 10 pound per pound boxer in my view, but he is not as incredible as the great Roberto Duran.

Even though he beat the very best fighters of his era, I can't picture him in the top 5 all time great pound per pound greats. Guys like Harry Greb, Willie Pep, Duran, Sam Langford, Ray Robinson and Henry Armstrong were more incredible.

[Duran1970]

His legacy would have been better had not gone beyond WW.

But I think ES raises a good point that although fighting far beyond his best weight, Duran was still able to pull off a couple of memorably historic wins after some devastating defeats.

Even his losing performance against ATG beast Hagler enhanced his reputation.

He probably ended up losing more fights than necessary by moving up to as heavy as super middleweight (although defeats will mount when you stick around long enough to fight in 4 different decades no matter the weight).

But those few special performances at the higher weights demonstrated what a remarkable fighter Duran truly was.

5 decades

[SenorPipino]

His legacy would have been better had not gone beyond WW.

But I think ES raises a good point that although fighting far beyond his best weight, Duran was still able to pull off a couple of memorably historic wins after some devastating defeats.

Even his losing performance against ATG beast Hagler enhanced his reputation.

He probably ended up losing more fights than necessary by moving up to as heavy as super middleweight (although defeats will mount when you stick around long enough to fight in 4 different decades no matter the weight).

But those few special performances at the higher weights demonstrated what a remarkable fighter Duran truly was.

5 decades

You are correct, sir.

Duran managed to squeeze in a few fights post 2000.

Interesting note:

Bitter rivals Duran and Leonard both ended their careers with a loss to Macho Camacho.

I'm sure it wasn't the way they wanted to go out.

[SenorPipino]

His legacy would have been better had not gone beyond WW.

But I think ES raises a good point that although fighting far beyond his best weight, Duran was still able to pull off a couple of memorably historic wins after some devastating defeats.

Even his losing performance against ATG beast Hagler enhanced his reputation.

He probably ended up losing more fights than necessary by moving up to as heavy as super middleweight (although defeats will mount when you stick around long enough to fight in 4 different decades no matter the weight).

But those few special performances at the higher weights demonstrated what a remarkable fighter Duran truly was.

5 decades

You are correct, sir.

Duran managed to squeeze in a few fights post 2000.

Interesting note:

Bitter rivals Duran and Leonard both ended their careers with a loss to Macho Camacho.

I'm sure it wasn't the way they wanted to go out.

I am curious as to how someone could have Duran the best fighter of the past 50 years. I think Floyd Mayweather has clearly surpassed Duran. He also moved up in weight (130 to 154), has a great resume, was more consistent, and showed much greater longevity. I simply can't see any reasonable case for Duran.

I won't argue who wins head to head between the two, but what do you mean when you say that Mayweather had "greater longevity?"

Duran fought professionally for 34 years. Mayweather for 21 years.

Not many modern era fighters match Duran's longevity.

[Cojimar 1946]

What i mean is floyd was still undefeated in his late 30s whereas duran had become inconsistent by that stage.

[elmersalsa]

Why I ranked Duran at #4 in the list of pound per pound of all time greats?

The win over Iran Barkley, at 37, washed up and 25 pounds above his natural weight class in a slugfest fight of the year was incredible. He beat a man taller, bigger, stronger, younger, and in his prime that was coming from a stunning win against the great Tommy Hearns. How Duran did it? Until this day, I don't know.

[Esquire]

One of the greatest of all time.

Top 20 for sure.

Had he retired after the first Leonard fight he would be arguably top 5 all time. He gave back a lot of credibility with his loses later in his career while fighting strictly for the money. A fighter this great shouldn't have 16 career loses.

[DrDuke]

One of the greatest of all time.

Top 20 for sure.

Had he retired after the first Leonard fight he would be arguably top 5 all time. He gave back a lot of credibility with his loses later in his career while fighting strictly for the money. A fighter this great shouldn't have 16 career loses.

Well, he made some statements after Leonard fights too. Of course, he had some falls, but those are not to overlap the achievements.

[Abradolf Lincler]

One of the greatest of all time.

Top 20 for sure.

Had he retired after the first Leonard fight he would be arguably top 5 all time. He gave back a lot of credibility with his loses later in his career while fighting strictly for the money. A fighter this great shouldn't have 16 career loses.

Robinson? Greb? Langford? Armstrong? Charles? The list goes on.

[elmersalsa]

One of the greatest of all time.

Top 20 for sure.

Had he retired after the first Leonard fight he would be arguably top 5 all time. He gave back a lot of credibility with his loses later in his career while fighting strictly for the money. A fighter this great shouldn't have 16 career loses.

The great Sugar Ray Robinson lost 21 times. How about that?

[Esquire]

My point is that he shouldn't be judged for losses against markedly inferior competition late in his career. Even the losses to Pazienza and Camacho irritate me.

In a perfect world our favorites would not have had to fight simply for the money long past their primes.

Oh well.

[Ambling Alp II]

Have never heard anyone criticize him for the losses late in his career. If someone does, they don't really understand boxing.

His losses to DeJesus, Leonard, Benitez, and Laing, are legitimate. Simply losing to Hearns at that stage should not be held too much against him. Losing so badly should be though.

The sheer number of losses without any context (who they were to, how close were they, what stage of a fighter's career he was in etc.) is meaningless. The same with wins. The same with title defenses.

[DrDuke]

Have never heard anyone criticize him for the losses late in his career. If someone does, they don't really understand boxing.

His losses to DeJesus, Leonard, Benitez, and Laing, are legitimate. Simply losing to Hearns at that stage should not be held too much against him. Losing so badly should be though.

The sheer number of losses without any context (who they were to, how close were they, what stage of a fighter's career he was in etc.) is meaningless. The same with wins. The same with title defenses.

Yeah, that's like with Holyfield in 2000s. You can't rate a boxer by performances of his shadow.

[elmersalsa]

The ONLY MAN to really beat a prime Roberto Duran was Esteban De Jesus. Nobody else has done it.

[Jacopodb]

Clearly, Roberto Duran had a very long professional boxing career. Many people consider Roberto to be one of the greatest boxers of all time.

Throughout Duran's pro career, he lost to these boxers. ------------ Ray Leonard (twice), Wilfred Benitez, Kirkland Laing, Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns, Robbie Sims, Pat Lawlor, Vinny Pazienza (twice), Hector Camacho (twice), Jorge Castro, William Joppy, and Omar Eduardo Gonzalez.

Thomas Hearn's knocking out Roberto was VERY brutal.



1. Since Roberto lost all of these times, do you think that Duran should rank among the greatest of all time?



2. Is Roberto, overrated? Or, is he underrated?

Why?



Please explain.

Someone might have noticed that Duran is my favourite boxer: he showed (with the due exceptions) that, sometimes, the best defence is attack.

The fact that he jumped so many weight classes, does nothing but glory and honour to him: I don't care if he did it because he wasn't self-disciplined enough to stay in weight, or for any other reason, it's not my problem: like Pacquiao, he spanned so many weight classes, that you just couldn't expect a human being not losing some of those fights.

In roughly 119 fights, having summed up 70 KO-victories, he suffered only 4 KO-losses... that's a remarkable record to say the least, considering the quality of his opposition.

[oogiebe]

Clearly, Roberto Duran had a very long professional boxing career. Many people consider Roberto to be one of the greatest boxers of all time.

Throughout Duran's pro career, he lost to these boxers. ------------ Ray Leonard (twice), Wilfred Benitez, Kirkland Laing, Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns, Robbie Sims, Pat Lawlor, Vinny Pazienza (twice), Hector Camacho (twice), Jorge Castro, William Joppy, and Omar Eduardo Gonzalez.

Thomas Hearn's knocking out Roberto was VERY brutal.



1. Since Roberto lost all of these times, do you think that Duran should rank among the greatest of all time?



2. Is Roberto, overrated? Or, is he underrated?

Why?



Please explain.

Someone might have noticed that Duran is my favourite boxer: he showed (with the due exceptions) that, sometimes, the best defence is attack.

The fact that he jumped so many weight classes, does nothing but glory and honour to him: I don't care if he did it because he wasn't self-disciplined enough to stay in weight, or for any other reason, it's not my problem: like Pacquiao, he spanned so many weight classes, that you just couldn't expect a human being not losing some of those fights.

In roughly 119 fights, having summed up 70 KO-victories, he suffered only 4 KO-losses... that's a remarkable record to say the least, considering the quality of his opposition.

I followed Duran from the early seventies to the end. He and Monzon are my all time favorite fighters. Duran was unbeatable at LW (DeJesus exception) and what he did when he moved up (way up) in weight was extraordinary, losses aside.

[Jacopodb]

Clearly, Roberto Duran had a very long professional boxing career. Many people consider Roberto to be one of the greatest boxers of all time.

Throughout Duran's pro career, he lost to these boxers. ------------ Ray Leonard (twice), Wilfred Benitez, Kirkland Laing, Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns, Robbie Sims, Pat Lawlor, Vinny Pazienza (twice), Hector Camacho (twice), Jorge Castro, William Joppy, and Omar Eduardo Gonzalez.

Thomas Hearn's knocking out Roberto was VERY brutal.



1. Since Roberto lost all of these times, do you think that Duran should rank among the greatest of all time?



2. Is Roberto, overrated? Or, is he underrated?

Why?



Please explain.

Someone might have noticed that Duran is my favourite boxer: he showed (with the due exceptions) that, sometimes, the best defence is attack.

The fact that he jumped so many weight classes, does nothing but glory and honour to him: I don't care if he did it because he wasn't self-disciplined enough to stay in weight, or for any other reason, it's not my problem: like Pacquiao, he spanned so many weight classes, that you just couldn't expect a human being not losing some of those fights.

In roughly 119 fights, having summed up 70 KO-victories, he suffered only 4 KO-losses... that's a remarkable record to say the least, considering the quality of his opposition.

I followed Duran from the early seventies to the end. He and Monzon are my all time favorite fighters. Duran was unbeatable at LW (DeJesus exception) and what he did when he moved up (way up) in weight was extraordinary, losses aside.

He always delivered high-level entertainment. Nothing like the Gatti vs Ward fights people drool over today.

[chrisjs1985]

A truly special fighter and unique character. One of the brightest talents in the history of boxing.

On my own personal rankings I rate him as follows

#4 all-time at 135 (behind Leonard, Gans, Ortiz)
#1 all-time greatest Latino boxer
Anywhere between #6-10 all-time pound for pound

His legacy is pretty great.