Hearns vs. Duran = ouch

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 09 May 2006, 08:31

I used to think that Duran was amde to roder for Hearns but the last few months i thougth about how to beat Tommy. You need a cast iron jaw, a good defence when coming forward and you have to be able to hit the body. These are all things Duran can do maybe as good as anyone. Duran was past his prime age and weight but still it was a great performance by Tommy.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 09 May 2006, 09:06

ringsider wrote:Duran was made to order for Tommy Hearns, so I did not find the out come to that fight, surprising. I remember watching it on CBS Sports Spectacular. The same thing would happen 9 out of 10 times, if they fought 10 times.

Every once in a while a fighter gets a gift....a moment that probably could not happen again. Duran was not being as elusive as he usually could be in fact he showed greater abilities in his next fight. He definately had a bad day.

This is one of the most ill informed statements I have ever seen posted here. However with that said there are many people who I have respect for who have the same opinion. But most of them have a very high perhaps too high a regard for Tommy Hearns. And this certainly can be counted as his greatest achievement. But duplicating that particular moment with Roberto in top form? Not on your life.

Any other time the fight would have been competitive and could go either way.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 09 May 2006, 10:36

BoxBuzz wrote:
ringsider wrote:Duran was made to order for Tommy Hearns, so I did not find the out come to that fight, surprising. I remember watching it on CBS Sports Spectacular. The same thing would happen 9 out of 10 times, if they fought 10 times.
Every once in a while a fighter gets a gift....a moment that probably could not happen again. Duran was not being as elusive as he usually could be in fact he showed greater abilities in his next fight. He definately had a bad day.

This is one of the most ill informed statements I have ever seen posted here. However with that said there are many people who I have respect for who have the same opinion. But most of them have a very high perhaps too high a regard for Tommy Hearns. And this certainly can be counted as his greatest achievement. But duplicating that particular moment with Roberto in top form? Not on your life.

Any other time the fight would have been competitive and could go either way.

I'd pick the Duran who beat Barkley to beat Hearns... but Hearns would always have been tough for Duran at 154 because of his speed... at 160 I think Duran would have been too durable for a slower Hearns.
What intrigues me most is if they had met at 147... I'd say that the Duran who beat Leonard at 147 would have too much for Hearns and would probably stop Tommy late....

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 09 May 2006, 11:04

You guys are delusional. Much as I like Duran, Tommy had his number. Styles make fights, and Duran did not have the style to get in on a tall Hearns.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 09 May 2006, 11:08

ringsider wrote:You guys are delusional. Much as I like Duran, Tommy had his number. Styles make fights, and Duran did not have the style to get in on a tall Hearns.

He beat a tall Barkley didn't he??... anyone can see that Duran was not 100% in his fight with hearns...

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 09 May 2006, 11:55

Barkley is not Hearns, and we are talking about 152 pounds. Get a grip, we are also talking 4 years before Duran beat Barkley .

Barkley was in a lot of wars, and he never was a quick fighter. That takes its toll.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 09 May 2006, 12:35

Duran let Hearns beat on him.

Prime for prime at welterweight, I think Duran could take him.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 09 May 2006, 13:02

Hey ...we are not talking about at welterweight. For one Hearns was prime at welter. Duran was at his best at Lightweight.

Although I believe the same thing would have happened. Tommy is just too tall for Roberto. There are some guys, who other guys just can't beat, this is one of those cases I believe. Tommy style, height. quick jab, and powerful right are a guy like Durans nightmare.

Remember Duran was just a blown up lightweight.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 09 May 2006, 13:12

ringsider wrote:Barkley is not Hearns, and we are talking about 152 pounds. Get a grip, we are also talking 4 years before Duran beat Barkley . Barkley was in a lot of wars, and he never was a quick fighter. That takes its toll.

Barkley was in his prime when he fought Duran and went on to win another 2 world titles... I suggest you get a grip and try watching some fights for a change instaed of talking crap all the time. 8) ..
Also Hearns fought Duran at 154 pound not 152!... don';t you even know the weight divisions??

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 09 May 2006, 13:13

Ringsider you have the real fight on your side....all we have is hypotheticals. So you have the higher ground. I just think that particular fight was a fluke. And you don't. And there ya are...

So If I say Barkley beats Hearns 10 for 10 I suppose I got the higher ground as well on that point. Or Leonard beats Hagler 10 for 10 I can claim "authority" based on what played out. Anyone want to go for Louis Marciano 10 for 10?.......

I thought not....

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 09 May 2006, 14:19

I do not think the fight was a fluke. I think the 2nd round KO was a fluke. I expected it to come later. After 6 or 7 rounds. Whether Duran was in shape mentally, physically, etc., it would not matter. Tommy had his number.

Barkley was not in his prime silkov. Barkley never had a prime. What Barkley had was heart. Barkley was a very good journeyman. Barkley was fighting Robeto Duran, an all time great. Iran got beat by skills, the little things of boxing, and he just barely got beat.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 09 May 2006, 18:32

ringsider wrote:Hey ...we are not talking about at welterweight. For one Hearns was prime at welter. Duran was at his best at Lightweight. Although I believe the same thing would have happened. Tommy is just too tall for Roberto. There are some guys, who other guys just can't beat, this is one of those cases I believe. Tommy style, height. quick jab, and powerful right are a guy like Durans nightmare. Remember Duran was just a blown up lightweight.

Just a blown up lightweight? You're smeging clueless.

You must have forgotten how Duran competently whacked Palomino, outclassed Gonzalez and made Leonard's wife feint at ringside under the beating he was giving the champion. Say what you want about Duran-Hearns, but don't tell me Duran was just a blown up lightweight, because that couldn't be further from the truth.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 09 May 2006, 21:10

Just a blown up lightweight? You're smeging clueless.

No, sadly you are the clueless one.

Roberto was a blown up lightweight.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 09 May 2006, 21:14

ringsider wrote:I do not think the fight was a fluke. I think the 2nd round KO was a fluke. I expected it to come later. After 6 or 7 rounds. Whether Duran was in shape mentally, physically, etc., it would not matter. Tommy had his number.

Barkley was not in his prime silkov. Barkley never had a prime. What Barkley had was heart. Barkley was a very good journeyman. Barkley was fighting Robeto Duran, an all time great. Iran got beat by skills, the little things of boxing, and he just barely got beat.

and Barkley beat Hearns twice.......Which does help with my hypothetical

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 09 May 2006, 21:56

For Duran to beat Hearns, he would have had to slip punches like Pernell Whitaker, while countering like Salvador Sanchez. Against a guy half a foot taller, with quicker hands and more power, I can't see that happening.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 09 May 2006, 22:49

ringsider wrote:
Just a blown up lightweight? You're smeging clueless.
No, sadly you are the clueless one. Roberto was a blown up lightweight.

Despite being one of the greatest welterweights of all time?

Do you know what 'blown up' means? It means a fighter who has packed weight on himself, be it through eating more or vigorous weight training programs in an attempt to bulk himself to compete at higher weight classes. Roberto Duran naturally filled out into a welterweight. He was struggling to make the lightweight limit.

Tell me... What is your evidence that Duran was 'just a blown up lightweight'?

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 10 May 2006, 00:27

Tell me... What is your evidence that Duran was 'just a blown up lightweight'?

You can be as stupid as your last post.

Duran moved up to welterwieght after he could no longer make the LW limit, after doing it for years. That is a blown up LW.

Figure it out.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 10 May 2006, 01:12

ringsider wrote:
Tell me... What is your evidence that Duran was 'just a blown up lightweight'?
You can be as stupid as your last post. Duran moved up to welterwieght after he could no longer make the LW limit, after doing it for years. That is a blown up LW. Figure it out.

That is not blown up!!!!!!!!!!!

Read it again you smegwit:

DoubleM wrote:Do you know what 'blown up' means? It means a fighter who has packed weight on himself, be it through eating more or vigorous weight training programs in an attempt to bulk himself to compete at higher weight classes. Roberto Duran naturally filled out into a welterweight. He was struggling to make the lightweight limit.

A 'blown up' fighter is like Evander Holyfield. Try to think before you type.

Doesn't really matter though. Nobody takes you seriously. You are the same guy who thinks Hagler was nothing more than a plodding southpaw, having seen only the Leonard fight. Haha.

Lenny · Post by **Lenny** » 10 May 2006, 03:47

It's like saying at light heavy Roy Jones was just a blown up middle or that De La Hoya at welter was just a blown up super feather. People aren't always best suited to the same weight throughout their careers, Duran was a natural welter at the time he fought the likes of Leonard

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 10 May 2006, 07:27

Lenny Albert wrote:It's like saying at light heavy Roy Jones was just a blown up middle or that De La Hoya at welter was just a blown up super feather. People aren't always best suited to the same weight throughout their careers, Duran was a natural welter at the time he fought the likes of Leonard

Yes, but Duran dominated the lightweights for years before moving up - he was almost 30 when he fought Leonard in Montreal.
Jones and Golden Balls only had short stints at middle and super-feather respectively.
Duran was like Ray Robinson. Only when he was in his 30's did he prove beatable.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 10 May 2006, 09:29

ringsider wrote:Hey ...we are not talking about at welterweight. For one Hearns was prime at welter. Duran was at his best at Lightweight. Although I believe the same thing would have happened. Tommy is just too tall for Roberto. There are some guys, who other guys just can't beat, this is one of those cases I believe. Tommy style, height. quick jab, and powerful right are a guy like Durans nightmare. Remember Duran was just a blown up lightweight.

I would have to ask if you think Hagler beats Hearns nine out of ten times? Remember now, Hagler looked almost as dominating in beating Hearns as Hearns looked in beating Duran.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 10 May 2006, 12:05

I would have to ask if you think Hagler beats Hearns nine out of ten times? Remember now, Hagler looked almost as dominating in beating Hearns as Hearns looked in beating Duran.

Well now we are getting off topic, but no, I believe Tommy beats Marvin, at least half the time. My opinion is Tommy fought a foolish fight, when he fought Hagler. The victory for Hagler was more due to Hearns's poor stategy than anything Hagler did. Hagler was the same old foot in the bucket, plodding, chasing southpaw. His style was always the same from day one. He could not adapt. Ray Leonard showed us that!! :)

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 10 May 2006, 12:42

This guy is unbelievable...

... He is either a troll, or he just really is that ignorant.

Ringsider, what Hagler fights have you seen? Just his last three?

Try watching him in the early days... You will see a sleek, versatile, well-oiled machine with unparalleled all-around ability. One day he is up on his toes (Briscoe), the next he is seeking and destroying (Seales III).

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 10 May 2006, 13:44

bennie wrote:
Lenny Albert wrote:It's like saying at light heavy Roy Jones was just a blown up middle or that De La Hoya at welter was just a blown up super feather. People aren't always best suited to the same weight throughout their careers, Duran was a natural welter at the time he fought the likes of Leonard
Yes, but Duran dominated the lightweights for years before moving up - he was almost 30 when he fought Leonard in Montreal.
Jones and Golden Balls only had short stints at middle and super-feather respectively.
Duran was like Ray Robinson. Only when he was in his 30's did he prove beatable.

Both DeJesus and Leonard beat Duran before he was 30.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 10 May 2006, 14:14

DoubleM I may share some of your enthusiasm for Hagler as I think the best 3 of all time are probably Monzon Robinson and Hagler pretty much in that order. Did you see the Monroe fights? What did you think of the first one? And what are your thoughts regarding Haglers other loss in and around the Monroe loss? Sometimes the best way to critique someones strengths is to examine the moments that things went wrong.

So I'm just curious as to your feedback on this. Hagler was a great fighter no doubt and an amazing chin. I have always wondered if Hearns broke his hand on Hagler right at the moment that big punch landed and that somehow nullified it's power to some degree...but either way it was a pretty impressive shot to walk through.