Has any fighter had as volitile career as duran?

[rightsideup]

Ok, you may be right.. I thought I heard them say on the espn classic Leonard special they said it was the kids, but I'm not 100%

In the infamous words of a certain person "I misremembered"

I am sure it turning pro was a combination of all those circumstances. Beside his wonderful performance's in the ring he was a true free agent in a financial sense as well. He and Mike Trainer made an excellent team.

[TBear]

#10 cancels fight with Pryor and forced into early retirement

I am not sure where you got this detail my man.

Ray Leonard cancelled his fight with Roger Stafford and retired with the detached retna.

Pryor was just a fantasy match suggested primarily after Leonards retirement. At the time of Leonards retirement Pryor was still fighting guys like Miguel Montilla and was a couple fights away from his super fight with Arguello. It was after Pryor beat Arguello that this matchup was really suggested.

[Mugwump]

i think he means exactly what he said.

from going to the top of the world, IE beating Leonard, to the bottom when Hearns completely destroyed him...

Whilst I'm sure many will agree with the above both you and they are making the mistake of conjuring up a completely misleading narrative.

Stories are important. We create, pass on and modify such (big and small) hundreds of times each week because they help us make sense of an infinitely complex and chaotic world.

But fiction and fact are two different things.

First: Whilst Duran was outstanding beating an equally outstanding Leonard, it is worth pointing out that Leonard didn't enter the ring that night as everyone's unbeatable, undisputed champion. Whilst no-one doubted his ability and skills there were many who doubted whether he had the guts to match.

You may argue his performance against Duran nullified such claims. But any critic, no matter how eloquent, who feels comfortable elevating a fighter he had grave concerns about 12 rounds prior to the lofty position of ultimate test to be considered the best (in a fight that he LOST) is there to be shot at.

Second: The idea that Duran somehow plummeted to the bottom of the heap after he was KTFO by a multi-weight champion and BOXING LEGEND throwing one of the greatest punches in history (not to mention cracking a chin which had withstood the best shots of equally luminous opponents) is nonsensical.

When Duran really did suffer problems (largely because of age, wear and tear plus the deterioration caused by boiling off too much weight) do you think any of his often mediocre opponents entered the ring without the nagging fear that even with Duran's numerous handicaps they might still end up taking a terrible beating?

Boxing would cease to exist without stories. But we should recognise such and know that they consist of a boiled down assortment of facts, factoids, wishful thinking, misinterpretations and/or downright lies bound by an appealing narrative. The better the narrative the more times the story is told.

Yes, you can paint a picture of "Roberto Duran" by joining together tiny nuggets of "history" such as beating Leonard, the Hearns KTFO, "No Mas", "Redemption" against Barkley etc. in one grand narrative. But that is no closer to understanding the reality of Duran and his achievements than if you were to make it all up.

I'm not criticising you per se, but I do think we have reached a paradoxical point in time where we've never had greater access to boxing (and sport in general) delivered across multiple media platforms in PAL, NTSC, SECAM, HD, 4K, 3D, web streams with more "pundits" and "analysts" than we can shake a stick at.

And yet - I can't think of any point in my lifetime when it has been discussed (both in the media and amongst fans) at a more superficial level.

Right now I'm betting there are several posters who completely discard this post. But not because of its content. Rather, they just think it's tooooooo loooooooooooooong.

Anyone who formed the 1st Generation of Internet users (between ages 40 and 50ish) will ruefully recall that back then feigning even tiny amounts of expertise or knowledge to win a debate on, say, the specifics of the Apollo Moon program would more than likely end in humiliation when you and the rest of the group discovered the other guy was in fact the lead project designer on Apollo.

Everyone you talked to seemed to have a post-doctoral qualification or highly-specialised skills and if you wanted to survive within the group you either had to be smart or become smart - quickly - because there were only so many scathing, sarcastic responses you could endure which questioned your very right to be judged above the intellect of beasts. It was a tough world to survive in but rewarding, too. You could almost feel your IQ rising each time your modem squawked to life and made a connection (unlike the pre-frontal lobotomy that is fifteen minutes immersed in the main forum).

Even the boxing usenet groups (which were old when the World Wide Web was born) were full of smart people. And before anyone busts my balls over "academic elitism" - this has nothing to do with what university you went to - or whether you attended at all. It's more about caring enough of a flying phuck to trouble the 2lbs of grey jelly between your ears before pressing "POST".

Flash forward twenty five years and there exists an entire class of Internet users who break out in a cold sweat if a post exceeds the Twitter word limit. At this rate we shall hit the point of singularity when words and then finally letters are sucked into the swirling vortex surrounding a single full-stop which thereafter will be the beginning, middle and end of every conversation.

For years I mistakenly poked fun at Francis Fukiyama's claim that we have arrived at the "End of History". Had I known he meant no one is intelligent enough to write it and even if they were - language itself is .......... .

BARUMPHHHH ... HUMBUG

{/OLD MAN RANT}

[billeau2]

Whilst I'm sure many will agree with the above both you and they are making the mistake of conjuring up a completely misleading narrative.

Stories are important. We create, pass on and modify such (big and small) hundreds of times each week because they help us make sense of an infinitely complex and chaotic world.

But fiction and fact are two different things.

First: Whilst Duran was outstanding beating an equally outstanding Leonard, it is worth pointing out that Leonard didn't enter the ring that night as everyone's unbeatable, undisputed champion. Whilst no-one doubted his ability and skills there were many who doubted whether he had the guts to match.

You may argue his performance against Duran nullified such claims. But any critic, no matter how eloquent, who feels comfortable elevating a fighter he had grave concerns about 12 rounds prior to the lofty position of ultimate test to be considered the best (in a fight that he LOST) is there to be shot at.

Second: The idea that Duran somehow plummeted to the bottom of the heap after he was KTFO by a multi-weight champion and BOXING LEGEND throwing one of the greatest punches in history (not to mention cracking a chin which had withstood the best shots of equally luminous opponents) is nonsensical.

When Duran really did suffer problems (largely because of age, wear and tear plus the deterioration caused by boiling off too much weight) do you think any of his often mediocre opponents entered the ring without the nagging fear that even with Duran's numerous handicaps they might still end up taking a terrible beating?

Boxing would cease to exist without stories. But we should recognise such and know that they consist of a boiled down assortment of facts, factoids, wishful thinking, misinterpretations and/or downright lies bound by an appealing narrative. The better the narrative the more times the story is told.

Yes, you can paint a picture of "Roberto Duran" by joining together tiny nuggets of "history" such as beating Leonard, the Hearns KTFO, "No Mas", "Redemption" against Barkley etc. in one grand narrative. But that is no closer to understanding the reality of Duran and his achievements than if you were to make it all up.

I'm not criticising you per se, but I do think we have reached a paradoxical point in time where we've never had greater access to boxing (and sport in general) delivered across multiple media platforms in PAL, NTSC, SECAM, HD, 4K, 3D, web streams with more "pundits" and "analysts" than we can shake a stick at.

And yet - I can't think of any point in my lifetime when it has been discussed (both in the media and amongst fans) at a more superficial level.

Right now I'm betting there are several posters who completely discard this post. But not because of its content. Rather, they just think it's tooooooo loooooooooooooong.

Anyone who formed the 1st Generation of Internet users (between ages 40 and 50ish) will ruefully recall that back then feigning even tiny amounts of expertise or knowledge to win a debate on, say, the specifics of the Apollo Moon program would more than likely end in humiliation when you and the rest of the group discovered the other guy was in fact the lead project designer on Apollo.

Everyone you talked to seemed to have a post-doctoral qualification or highly-specialised skills and if you wanted to survive within the group you either had to be smart or become smart - quickly - because there were only so many scathing, sarcastic responses you could endure which questioned your very right to be judged above the intellect of beasts. It was a tough world to survive in but rewarding, too. You could almost feel your IQ rising each time your modem squawked to life and made a connection (unlike the pre-frontal lobotomy that is fifteen minutes immersed in the main forum).

Even the boxing usenet groups (which were old when the World Wide Web was born) were full of smart people. And before anyone busts my balls over "academic elitism" - this has nothing to do with what university you went to - or whether you attended at all. It's more about caring enough of a flying phuck to trouble the 2lbs of grey jelly between your ears before pressing "POST".

Flash forward twenty five years and there exists an entire class of Internet users who break out in a cold sweat if a post exceeds the Twitter word limit. At this rate we shall hit the point of singularity when words and then finally letters are sucked into the swirling vortex surrounding a single full-stop which thereafter will be the beginning, middle and end of every conversation.

For years I mistakenly poked fun at Francis Fukiyama's claim that we have arrived at the "End of History". Had I known he meant no one is intelligent enough to write it and even if they were - language itself is .......... .

BARUMPHHHH ... HUMBUG

{/OLD MAN RANT}

Bravo BRAVO!!!!!!!


You were right about this post having length issues....But your one mistake was in assessing the nature of this problem: THIS POST IS TOO SHORT!!

I wish we could spread more Green K. Very well said M Very well said.

[StarshipTrooper]

Bravo BRAVO!!!!!!!


You were right about this post having length issues....But your one mistake was in assessing the nature of this problem: THIS POST IS TOO SHORT!!

I wish we could spread more Green K. Very well said M Very well said.

Yeah, I don't have problems with long posts. That being said, I stopped making them myself because 99.9% of Boxing Scene won't bother reading anything longer than 2 or 3 sentences. Too much TLDR attitudes swirling around the bowl around here.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I am not sure where you got this detail my man.

Ray Leonard cancelled his fight with Roger Stafford and retired with the detached retna.

Pryor was just a fantasy match suggested primarily after Leonards retirement. At the time of Leonards retirement Pryor was still fighting guys like Miguel Montilla and was a couple fights away from his super fight with Arguello. It was after Pryor beat Arguello that this matchup was really suggested.

There have been interviews with Pryor where he has said that him and Ray was signed and he was in the car when he heard on the radio that Ray retired due to the eye.. Pryor said he pulled over and started crying.. I'm pretty sure we had a thread about this not to long ago..
I also believe it's on pryor's wiki page for what it's worth

[TBear]

There have been interviews with Pryor where he has said that him and Ray was signed and he was in the car when he heard on the radio that Ray retired due to the eye.. Pryor said he pulled over and started crying.. I'm pretty sure we had a thread about this not to long ago..
I also believe it's on pryor's wiki page for what it's worth

Speaking of wiki,
The Leonard cancelling his fight against Stafford and retiring-this story is on Sugar Ray Leonard's wiki page. Stafford had just beaten Cuevas and the fight was signed. Leonard had agreed to fight Pryor sometime after he fought Stafford but retired before the Stafford bout with the eye injury.

Off topic; when Leonard retired, Stafford fought Milton McCrory in a title elimination bout. I was ringside.

[Wuckoo]

I kind of feel like hagler had to occasional ups and downs. Not to the extent of Duran though.

I mean hagler had to really work to get recognition. He made next to nothing for his pro debut while Leonard made thousands. He also kept coming close to that mega fight with Leonard only for it to be postponed for years. He was also the victim of a few robberies.

In general a lot of the great from the 80s to late 90s had demons or ups and downs.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Mike Tyson

[Wuckoo]

Mike Tyson

Probably this. Duran at least managed to stay at the top for a while and there were never any huge upsets or breakdowns in comparison to Tyson. Ray ravel and his trainer stayed with him for a good while whereas Tyson kept switching after cus died.