Hearns vs. Duran = ouch

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 10 May 2006, 14:42

BoxBuzz wrote: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.

I never saw the first Monroe fight. I didn't even know it existed on film, nor the second one!

I have seen the third, and Hagler looked very impressive. Ultra smooth, fast and technically flawless.

I have seen the first Watts fight. Many think Hagler won, though I think Watts probably won by a point, though it can be argued either way. It's interesting that these two losses came close together; perhaps Hagler was just going through a rough patch? He claims he was fighting off illness leading up to the fight with Monroe, in which Hagler got his head bashed in, and that may have been what caused his lacklustre performance.

I don't think it matters too much that Hearns broke his hand. Hagler took the shot well and weathered the following ten punch combination pretty easily. He closed the distance, regained his bearings and started fighting back and landing his own punches immediately. Besides, this isn't the only fight where Hagler's durability was tested. Hart, one of the hardest hitting middleweights of all time, landing some evil looking hooks to Hagler's head and body but got virtually no reaction from the future champion. John Mugabi landed some awesome punches, but again, Hagler wouldn't budge and only just blinked.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 10 May 2006, 15:55

ringsider wrote:
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!! :)

I was staying on topic. I was just taking your own argument and applying it to a different fight. You say Duran was made to order for Hearns, so why couldn't you make the same argument Hearns was made to order for Hagler? You could say that Duran fought a foolish fight against Hearns just as you said Hearns fought a foolish fight against Hagler.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 10 May 2006, 16:11

Ambling Alp wrote:
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.

Sure, LaMotta beat Robinson, too.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 11 May 2006, 00:54

I was staying on topic. I was just taking your own argument and applying it to a different fight.

I don't believe the two different fights are comparable. Duran was a slick defensive fighter, who could box and punch, but he was only a big lightweight. Duran left most of his KO power in that lighter division. Hagler was a natural MW, a bigger man. He wasn't much for moves or defense. His foot work was plodding. Hagler could bang, but only if you stood right in front of him could he hit you. He wasn't that quick, so so. To say he took "the beast's shots" is a bit misleading, as Mugabi was a 154 pounder moving up to fight middleweight. Hagler's biggest attribute was he could take a shot, and he was always in shape. His boxing skills were nothing to write home about. His greatest advantage was his southpaw style and awkwardness. Those things hardly compare to the polished skills of a dynamite lightweight like Duran.

Had Duran been a natural MW, I give him a real good shot against Hearns. Hearns was bigger than both in height, but how you fight Hagler or Duran to win was totally different.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 11 May 2006, 01:12

ringsider wrote:
I was staying on topic. I was just taking your own argument and applying it to a different fight.
I don't believe the two different fights are comparable. Duran was a slick defensive fighter, who could box and punch, but he was only a big lightweight. Duran left most of his KO power in that lighter division. Hagler was a natural MW, a bigger man. He wasn't much for moves or defense. His foot work was plodding. Hagler could bang, but only if you stood right in front of him could he hit you. He wasn't that quick, so so. To say he took "the beast's shots" is a bit misleading, as Mugabi was a 154 pounder moving up to fight middleweight. Hagler's biggest attribute was he could take a shot, and he was always in shape. His boxing skills were nothing to write home about. His greatest advantage was his southpaw style and awkwardness. Those things hardly compare to the polished skills of a dynamite lightweight like Duran. Had Duran been a natural MW, I give him a real good shot against Hearns. Hearns was bigger than both in height, but how you fight Hagler or Duran to win was totally different.

I just cannot express in words how much of a total idiot I think you are.

Let me ask you a straight question. I want a straight answer. Which Hagler fights have you seen?

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 11 May 2006, 02:04

I'm guessing the last three....

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 11 May 2006, 02:11

Your idea of what a good fighter is and mine are totally different. I started seeing Hagler fight in the 70's. His draw with Vito was one of the first I believe. He won that fight and was robbed. His demolition of Minter, and on and on. That still doesn't mean he wasn't a plodding foot in the bucket southpaw. There were no decent MW around back then. Who Hamsho? He was another lefty!! Sibson? You gotta be joking? The list of wannabe real MW contenders of the early 80's is endless. Wilfred Scypion, Caveman Lee? Juan Roldan. Come on now!! Duran was a big lightweight, Hearns a big welter or Jr. middleweight, those aren't MW contenders!! As I said Hagler was always in shape, and could bang. His foot work stunk, he wasn't a great boxer or counter puncher. He had a great chin. He was an awkward southpaw who was willing to mix it up. Those where Marvin's biggest assests.

Ray Leonard saw it, and knew it, and did it. Ray Leonard would have beat him in the early 80's because Sugar Ray could box, Hagler could not.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 11 May 2006, 03:30

ringsider wrote:Your idea of what a good fighter is and mine are totally different. I started seeing Hagler fight in the 70's. His draw with Vito was one of the first I believe. He won that fight and was robbed. His demolition of Minter, and on and on. That still doesn't mean he wasn't a plodding foot in the bucket southpaw. There were no decent MW around back then. Who Hamsho? He was another lefty!! Sibson? You gotta be joking? The list of wannabe real MW contenders of the early 80's is endless. Wilfred Scypion, Caveman Lee? Juan Roldan. Come on now!! Duran was a big lightweight, Hearns a big welter or Jr. middleweight, those aren't MW contenders!! As I said Hagler was always in shape, and could bang. His foot work stunk, he wasn't a great boxer or counter puncher. He had a great chin. He was an awkward southpaw who was willing to mix it up. Those where Marvin's biggest assests. Ray Leonard saw it, and knew it, and did it. Ray Leonard would have beat him in the early 80's because Sugar Ray could box, Hagler could not.

You've just proved yourself a liar

Sovoth · Post by **Sovoth** » 11 May 2006, 10:40

ringsider wrote:His boxing skills were nothing to write home about.

Surely you jest? Hagler's boxing skills were truly awesome, matched only by his will to win. Hagler is one the greatest middleweights in history.

Everyone's got an opinion though I guess.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 11 May 2006, 10:48

DoubleM wrote:
ringsider wrote:Your idea of what a good fighter is and mine are totally different. I started seeing Hagler fight in the 70's. His draw with Vito was one of the first I believe. He won that fight and was robbed. His demolition of Minter, and on and on. That still doesn't mean he wasn't a plodding foot in the bucket southpaw. There were no decent MW around back then. Who Hamsho? He was another lefty!! Sibson? You gotta be joking? The list of wannabe real MW contenders of the early 80's is endless. Wilfred Scypion, Caveman Lee? Juan Roldan. Come on now!! Duran was a big lightweight, Hearns a big welter or Jr. middleweight, those aren't MW contenders!! As I said Hagler was always in shape, and could bang. His foot work stunk, he wasn't a great boxer or counter puncher. He had a great chin. He was an awkward southpaw who was willing to mix it up. Those where Marvin's biggest assests. Ray Leonard saw it, and knew it, and did it. Ray Leonard would have beat him in the early 80's because Sugar Ray could box, Hagler could not.
You've just proved yourself a liar

Not sure many on this board would agree with ringsiders opinion, but why do you say he is a liar?

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 11 May 2006, 10:51

Yeh Haglar could box.

That is why the only time he needed to box, and show some hand/foot speed and cut a ring off, he spent 12 rounds chasing Ray Leonard, and looking like a novice!! The only other time he boxed was against Duran, and had Duran been a REAL MW, Duran would have beat him.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 11 May 2006, 10:58

ringsider wrote:Yeh Haglar could box. That is why the only time he needed to box, and show some hand/foot speed and cut a ring off, he spent 12 rounds chasing Ray Leonard, and looking like a novice!! The only other time he boxed was against Duran, and had Duran been a REAL MW, Duran would have beat him.

Ringsider

If Duran had been a real MW he would have beat Hagler, true. If he'd have been a real WW he'd have KO'd Leonard. if he'd have been a real HW he would probably have beaten Ali, etc...

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 11 May 2006, 11:40

The Great John L wrote:
DoubleM wrote:
ringsider wrote:Your idea of what a good fighter is and mine are totally different. I started seeing Hagler fight in the 70's. His draw with Vito was one of the first I believe. He won that fight and was robbed. His demolition of Minter, and on and on. That still doesn't mean he wasn't a plodding foot in the bucket southpaw. There were no decent MW around back then. Who Hamsho? He was another lefty!! Sibson? You gotta be joking? The list of wannabe real MW contenders of the early 80's is endless. Wilfred Scypion, Caveman Lee? Juan Roldan. Come on now!! Duran was a big lightweight, Hearns a big welter or Jr. middleweight, those aren't MW contenders!! As I said Hagler was always in shape, and could bang. His foot work stunk, he wasn't a great boxer or counter puncher. He had a great chin. He was an awkward southpaw who was willing to mix it up. Those where Marvin's biggest assests. Ray Leonard saw it, and knew it, and did it. Ray Leonard would have beat him in the early 80's because Sugar Ray could box, Hagler could not.
You've just proved yourself a liar
Not sure many on this board would agree with ringsiders opinion, but why do you say he is a liar?

Because he obviously hasn't seen the fights he's telling us about.

Sovoth · Post by **Sovoth** » 11 May 2006, 12:05

ringsider wrote:That is why the only time he needed to box, and show some hand/foot speed and cut a ring off, he spent 12 rounds chasing Ray Leonard, and looking like a novice!!

Now I appreciate where DoubleM is coming from in his assessment of you!

I think even die-hard Leonard fans would be hard pushed to say that their man deserved that decision. I am a fan of both fighters and happen to think Hagler was the victim of an injustice just as he was against Vito first time around.

Still, it's all a matter of opinion!

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 11 May 2006, 12:33

the leonard fight is hardly an indication of either fighters superiority as both were past their prime.it was a close fight and in no way was it an unjust decision.