fantasy fight: duran vs hearns 1989

marchegiano007 · Post by **marchegiano007** » 23 Jan 2006, 02:39

what would had happen if hearns would had stopped barkley on cuts in 3 rounds adn faced the duran that faced barkley in 1989 and beat him. for me the 1989 duran that beat barkley could had ko hearns in 10 rounds. unfortunately because hearns lose to barkley that fight never happened.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 23 Jan 2006, 02:52

I'm not so sure.

I think Hearns would have won on points.

He was too big & tall for Duran.

marchegiano007 · Post by **marchegiano007** » 23 Jan 2006, 02:56

Syntax Error wrote:I'm not so sure.

I think Hearns would have won on points.

He was too big & tall for Duran.

well remenber that iran barkley was the same height than hearns 6'1 against duran 5'7 and duran was able to dropped barkley in the 11th round and barkley has a beter chin than hearns. only hearns right hand was better than barkleys right hand.

barry · Post by **barry** » 23 Jan 2006, 07:46

>>>Um, same thing that happened in 1984?<<<

Uhhhh....yep!!!!

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 23 Jan 2006, 13:08

Decagon wrote:Um, same thing that happened in 1984?

I was thinking the same thing. Hearns almost took Durans head clean off. Hearns kept his power as he moved up in weight; Duran was less durable after ever weight division climb.

Hearns KO 2 (AGAIN)

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 23 Jan 2006, 13:16

I don't know what to say here. Duran beat's Barkley in 89 in a fight that could have gone either way, and it's called by his fans an amazing victory. Yet later that year when SRL gave him a boxing lesson, I was told it was a meaningless fight.

Duran matched up better with Barkley than Hearns did, because the fight was on the inside. Against Duran, Hearns would simply use his clear advantage in reach,power and handspeed.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 23 Jan 2006, 13:58

This topic has been gone over quite a bit. I guess the thing that surprised me is that few share my belief that their match was a fluke. And that any other attempt would have been a very competitive fight.

Which happens to my take on it.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 23 Jan 2006, 14:09

BoxBuzz wrote:This topic has been gone over quite a bit. I guess the thing that surprised me is that few share my belief that their match was a fluke. And that any other attempt would have been a very competitive fight.

Which happens to my take on it.

I agree that a rematch could have been quite a bit different. Unfortunately, not many fighters fight a series of fights against an opponent anymore, so when there is a match like Hearns-Duran, most people believe that since they already fought, and one guy dominated the other, there's no reason to fight again. But historically, there have been many cases of a fighter getting KO'd and then returning to beat the guy that KO'd him.

While I think Hearns size and skill would have troubled Duran in a rematch, I think Duran may have been able to come up with a different plan so that he could have made a competitive fight of with Hearns. Maybe even beat him.

It's intereting that so many of the same posters that put Duran in their all-time p4p top 10 don't seem to think he was good enough to pull off a victory over Hearns, or even find a way to be competitive. Yes, Duran was a natural LW, but he was carrying his weight pretty well at MW at that time, and Hearns was not a particaularly strong MW.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 23 Jan 2006, 15:54

Yep and the Hearns-Barkley-Duran dynamics tell me we may have learned more if there had been more encounters.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 23 Jan 2006, 16:14

The thing is Duran was very weight drained against Hearns and this contributed to the loss... but I think Hearns would always have troubled Duran because of his speed... if they matched up at 160 I could see perhaps a peak fitness Duran wearing Hearns down, I certainly wouldn't give him no chance against Hearns.
What about at 147???

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 23 Jan 2006, 16:16

Quite simply, alot of people rate Duran highly PFP, but strongly favor Hearns against him, because Duran was at his best at Light Weight.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 23 Jan 2006, 16:19

Decagon wrote:
The Great John L wrote:, not many fighters fight a series of fights against an opponent anymore, so when there is a match like Hearns-Duran, most people believe that since they already fought, and one guy dominated the other, there's no reason to fight again. But historically, there have been many cases of a fighter getting KO'd and then returning to beat the guy that KO'd him.
True, but that's in about 1% of all rematches where one fighter won by kayo in the first bout. For every Zale-Graziano or Lewis-McCall, there are 100 Tyson-Brunos.

1% of the rematches? Sounds like that statistic would require quite ab it of research. Are you sure of that?

And of course, even if that were true, the difference is that Duran is no Bruno. Certainly an all time top 10 P4P has the ability to improve his performance in a rematch.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 23 Jan 2006, 17:32

Decagon wrote:We're also not talking about Pat Lawlor, on the other side.

No, we weren't talking about Pat Lawlor at all. But Duran-Lawlor is an example of someone coming back to beat an opponent that KO'd them in their first encounter. Care to supply 99 examples where the KO'd fighter lost the rematch? Of course, with the McCall-Lewis and Rahman-Lewis examples added to the mix you need to come up with 297 examples.

Perhaps that 1% wasn't a very educated guess...

marchegiano007 · Post by **marchegiano007** » 24 Jan 2006, 13:10

Seamus wrote:I don't know what to say here. Duran beat's Barkley in 89 in a fight that could have gone either way, and it's called by his fans an amazing victory. Yet later that year when SRL gave him a boxing lesson, I was told it was a meaningless fight.

Duran matched up better with Barkley than Hearns did, because the fight was on the inside. Against Duran, Hearns would simply use his clear advantage in reach,power and handspeed.

I'm not taking anything away from hearns in his victory against over duran, but did you know that duran has to lose 30 pounds in the second leonard fight and has to lose 40 pounds in the hearns fight, in less than 2 months before those fights took place, he was very drained for those fights but look at the duran that beat leonard in the first fight well conditioning, and in the barkley fight and old man but well conditioning. boxing is a sport of possibilities not facts.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 24 Jan 2006, 14:31

marchegiano007 wrote:
Seamus wrote:I don't know what to say here. Duran beat's Barkley in 89 in a fight that could have gone either way, and it's called by his fans an amazing victory. Yet later that year when SRL gave him a boxing lesson, I was told it was a meaningless fight.

Duran matched up better with Barkley than Hearns did, because the fight was on the inside. Against Duran, Hearns would simply use his clear advantage in reach,power and handspeed.
I'm not taking anything away from hearns in his victory against over duran, but did you know that duran has to lose 30 pounds in the second leonard fight and has to lose 40 pounds in the hearns fight, in less than 2 months before those fights took place, he was very drained for those fights but look at the duran that beat leonard in the first fight well conditioning, and in the barkley fight and old man but well conditioning. boxing is a sport of possibilities not facts.

Whose fault is that for ballooning up between fights? Duran would do the same thing if he got a rematch with Hearns. He was known for it. He was the little man's version of Riddick Bowe.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 24 Jan 2006, 14:58

Decagon wrote:
The Great John L wrote:
Decagon wrote:We're also not talking about Pat Lawlor, on the other side.

No, we weren't talking about Pat Lawlor at all. But Duran-Lawlor is an example of someone coming back to beat an opponent that KO'd them in their first encounter. Care to supply 99 examples where the KO'd fighter lost the rematch? Of course, with the McCall-Lewis and Rahman-Lewis examples added to the mix you need to come up with 297 examples.

Perhaps that 1% wasn't a very educated guess...
But Duran-Lawlor is a typical example of someone getting knocked out, and then winning the rematch. So are Lewis's fights with Rahman and McCall. A fighter has a crappy performance against a man nowhere near his own ability, and wins the rematch.

And it's not always losing to a guy with a lot less ability. It's actually quite common (certainly much higher probability than the 1% you stated) and off the top of my head here's a few other examples

Louis-Schemeling
Patterson-Ingo
Norton-Garcia
Watts-Cobbs
Chacon-Edwards

and two rematches that ended in draws that could have easily been given to the fighter KOd in the 1st fight

Rahman-Tua
Young-Shavers

So it appears that maybe it isn't quite as uncommon as you may think.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 24 Jan 2006, 15:08

Decagon wrote:I see Louis-Schmelling fitting the exact mold of the lesser fighter winning by kayo in the first match, but losing the second. Same with Garcia-Norton and Patterson-Ingo. I'd also throw out Tua-Rahman, since it was a premature stoppage, and Young-Shavers, since Young was so, well young.

You sound like a klit fan. Nothing counts if it doesn't fit with your argument. Your statement was simply that only about 1% of fighters that get KOd win in a rematch. I think that's not correct, and is typical of one of your unfounded remarks. What do you base that 1% on, because it seems like a pretty common occurence to me? Is it possible that it might be much higher than 1%?

And don't most peope rate Duran higher as an all time great P4P than Hearns, so couldn't Hearns-Duran be considered the "lesser fighter winning by KO" -- i.e., a fluke?

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 24 Jan 2006, 16:30

Well by using the Duran Clause then, I only think it fair that we rate Mickey Mantle the greatest baseball player ever, since it's pretty well known he was boozing it up big time all through his career, while still playing like an All Star. And of course George Best has to be considered the greatest soccer player ever, since he too drank like a fish while seeing how many ladies he could bed in a night, and still managed to to be one of the world's top footballers.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 24 Jan 2006, 16:34

Not sure where the statement came from but if you saying based on some handicap that he still produced results I guess Monzon gets that nod big time as well. Drinker and Smoker from what I've gathered.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 25 Jan 2006, 07:36

Yes, Hearns does rate higher than Duran at 154, most likely due to the result of their only encounter.

Now, how about addressing the premise of our exchanges, or are you again smply trying to ignore the ignorance of your post and hoping it will simply go away? Don't you think that perhaps there's a chance that more than 1% of fighters KO'd win rematches with their conquerers? Perhaps, just once you could attempt to think logically and respond to a challenge of one of your posts. Just think about it. Fighter A is highly ranked but gets KO'd. He campaigns for a rematch to avenge the loss. Seems like there's a pretty fair chance that a quality fighter can turn the tables, and I've given quite a few examples. Is it possible that you mistated that 1%?

marchegiano007 · Post by **marchegiano007** » 25 Jan 2006, 13:30

Decagon wrote:
The Great John L wrote:And don't most peope rate Duran higher as an all time great P4P than Hearns, so couldn't Hearns-Duran be considered the "lesser fighter winning by KO" -- i.e., a fluke?
NO ONE ranks Duran over Hearns at 154. This wasn't a "pound-for-pound" matchup.

well we could said that duran was better at 147 the 1980 duran that beat leonard, if he would had faced the hearns of that year i don't think he would had been ko so quickly.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 25 Jan 2006, 13:51

Decagon wrote:It was an estimate. You've shown no numbers to the contrary. Perhaps you should do some research, and come up with them.

Actually I have presented some "numbers", but again you just don't seem to be able to read very well. In addition to the ones mentioned earlier I would also add Napoles-Backus and Grey-Clarke. And thoseare just from memory.

As I said before, it actually seems quite common and my "estimate" would be that the success rate of fighters in avenging KO losses is quite high. Of course, I have the benefit of actually having been a real boxing fan for about 40 years.

Perhaps you should either stick to writing about wrestling, or else at least make some attempt to learn something about boxing before making such ill informed statements. Of course, your posts do prove rather entertaining.

barry · Post by **barry** » 25 Jan 2006, 18:43

Olivares-C. Castillo
C.Castillo-R.Herrera
Chacon-Olivares
Olivares-Hafey
D. Lopez-O. Gomez

Napoles-Backus

Pre-1950 it can be found very, very often as fighters often took turns winning and losing to each other.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 26 Jan 2006, 01:18

ringsider wrote:Duran gets KO'd again....Duran's style was made to order for Tommy Hearns. Hearns had his number.

I disagree. At welterweight, I think Duran could beat Hearns. Duran was very inconsistent above welterweight... And understandably so - he was far away from his best weight.

As for this fight though, at middleweight, it's a hard one to pick. Duran was brilliant against Barkley, but it was close. I would say Hearns could win on points.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 26 Jan 2006, 14:23

Hey ringsider please go on to elaborate the relationship factor regarding style on these others then. I am very curious as to the "grand unification theory" here.

you have already indicated Duran-Hearns
Please comment on:

Duran-Barkley
Duran-Hagler
Hagler-Hearns
Barkley-Hearns
Hearns-Hagler

I find when I watch all these fights that Duran-HearnsII had the possibility of being very competitive and that it was more of a fluke than a norm. But I would like the concise theory as to why all of this evidence would prove your point rather than my suspicions. (not being sarcastic at all, genuinely want your take if you have the time.) Not that I will be compelled to agree, just love the give and take on this one.