BoxRec

A few days ago, I watched Hagler-Duran. It's always been my contention Hagler showed far too much respect, & the fight shouldn't have wound up as tight as it did.

What are some other fights, in your view, where the winning (or perhaps even losing) fighter could've done more, but held back, seemingly unneccessarily?

A fight from the not so distant past that came to mind was Mark Johnson-Fernando Montiel. Montiel showed far too much respect for Johnson in the first half and did nothing in rounds one through seven. When he finally came to the realization that he was far behind he decided to step on the gas and dominated the last five rounds. It wasn't enough for him close the gap though and he exited the ring without his title. This fight stands out for me because I had been impressed with Montiel and fully expected him to look good in beating Johnson. Really frustrating to watch him hold back when he could have scored a clear win if he put in a consistant effort.

crusader wrote:A fight from the not so distant past that came to mind was Mark Johnson-Fernando Montiel. Montiel showed far too much respect for Johnson in the first half and did nothing in rounds one through seven. When he finally came to the realization that he was far behind he decided to step on the gas and dominated the last five rounds. It wasn't enough for him close the gap though and he exited the ring without his title. This fight stands out for me because I had been impressed with Montiel and fully expected him to look good in beating Johnson. Really frustrating to watch him hold back when he could have scored a clear win if he put in a consistant effort.

I haven't seen the bout. Any theories on his thinking? What gave him pause?

Since we are talking about him: Hagler-Antuofermo 1 and Hagler-Duran. I dont have a problem with a draw in the first Antuofermo fight (due primarily to what appeared to be stamina problems for Hagler). In the Duran fight Hagler again showed far too much respect (very similar to Leonard) and really only pulled it out by the skin of his teeth late. He just did not seem inclined to do much and allowed the smaller, older man to be very competetive.

I think Hagler always struggled when his opponent didn’t lead. Duran was not the all-action aggressor. He stood off and countered – which was really Hagler’s game. I don’t read anything into this “too much respect” argument.

Hagler looked like he was holding back against Leonard too, but that’s because again he was unsure of himself when leading. I think he became uncertain of his fight plan and looked tentative. In most of his defences, and when he won the title, he almost always got his opponent’s to fight his fight. Duran didn’t do this and IMO many of the writers didn’t get this. Instead of seeing how differently Duran fought to Hagler’s other opponents they just caught a more simple hook and hung their fight analysis on it.

I honestly believe that if Duran had had the benefit of contemporary methods of putting on weight he may have made this fight very close indeed.

Leonard came back not long after this fight because like Duran he could see the chink in Hagler’s armour. The KD against Howard scuppered those earlier plans though.

Ezzard wrote: I honestly believe that if Duran had had the benefit of contemporary methods of putting on weight he may have made this fight very close indeed.

He did make this fight very close. It was a one round swing, meaning if one more round had gone to Duran he would have won a majority decision.

klompton wrote:

Ezzard wrote: I honestly believe that if Duran had had the benefit of contemporary methods of putting on weight he may have made this fight very close indeed.

He did make this fight very close. It was a one round swing, meaning if one more round had gone to Duran he would have won a majority decision.

On Judges cards, yes. I didn't think it was as close as that though. What do you think? Most have it 10-5 or 9-6... Interested in your take.

I dont remember my exact card but I think I probably had it about 2 or 3 rounds ahead for Hagler. I definately dont think Duran won it but I also dont think Hagler looked good at all against a guy he should have probably blown away. Hagler liked to put forth the image of a killer in there (his anthems of "war" and "destruct and destroy" come to mind) but he really wasnt. Its like you said, if you made him come to you, you were busy, and you countered him effectively he could definately be beat. His fight against leonard is incredibly perplexing because he basically gave away the first four rounds, not only through his inactivity but also a completely ineffective plan of fight from a stance that he was not comfortable with. Ive always thought he was trying to beat Leonard at his own game and Leonard was trying to win. Big difference in those two strategies and it worked for Leonard. Every time I watch that fight I root for Hagler but I have never been able to give him the win.

10-5 to Hagler is about right in my opinion. Duran clearly had the better of the first 3rd of the fight, but Hagler had the rest. He clearly one, but it was only because he was the busier fighter.

I was just watching a fight on Youtube and Ferdie Pacheco (who speaks Spanish) said Duran told him he just ran out of gas in the last 3 rds vs Hagler.

Duran was actually leading on the judges scorecards after 12 rounds. I remember that Duran won the 12th handily connecting with lead rights and Hagler's left side of the face looked swollen and battered.

Marvn pressed the action in the last 3 rounds, which I think he won but not exactly dominated.

So in the end two judges gave him a one point edge and another one two. I agree that was a bit generous to Duran. I had it even after 12 so with those 3 last rounds going to Hagler it was 9-6 for me.

Seamus wrote:
I was just watching a fight on Youtube and Ferdie Pacheco (who speaks Spanish) said Duran told him he just ran out of gas in the last 3 rds vs Hagler.

Exactly, which is why those 3 rounds go to Hagler. If the fight had taken place a few years later we would have had a 12 round controversial decision in favor of Roberto.

klompton wrote:I dont remember my exact card but I think I probably had it about 2 or 3 rounds ahead for Hagler. I definately dont think Duran won it but I also dont think Hagler looked good at all against a guy he should have probably blown away. Hagler liked to put forth the image of a killer in there (his anthems of "war" and "destruct and destroy" come to mind) but he really wasnt. Its like you said, if you made him come to you, you were busy, and you countered him effectively he could definately be beat. His fight against leonard is incredibly perplexing because he basically gave away the first four rounds, not only through his inactivity but also a completely ineffective plan of fight from a stance that he was not comfortable with. Ive always thought he was trying to beat Leonard at his own game and Leonard was trying to win. Big difference in those two strategies and it worked for Leonard. Every time I watch that fight I root for Hagler but I have never been able to give him the win.

Thanks for your opinion, Klompton. I know you must have watched a lot of MWs in your research so you’re probably one of the most qualified around here to talk on the subject. What’s your opinion of Hagler?

I totally agree on the Leonard fight. It was as if Hagler wanted to make a point. BUT I also think he was ever so slightly psyched. I think he knew Ray had the speed to make him look foolish at given moments and he seemed afraid to commit in case Leonard began to show boat. I also think that in the back of his mind Hagler didn’t think he’d get much credit for steamrolling Leonard. After all, Ray had been out of the ring a while and was known as a Welter. I think haggler saw the glory in outboxing Leonard.

Seamus wrote:10-5 to Hagler is about right in my opinion. Duran clearly had the better of the first 3rd of the fight, but Hagler had the rest. He clearly one, but it was only because he was the busier fighter.

I was just watching a fight on Youtube and Ferdie Pacheco (who speaks Spanish) said Duran told him he just ran out of gas in the last 3 rds vs Hagler.

Seamus, I think that’s fair comment. Hagler, in the end, physically overwhelmed Duran and simply outlasted him.

Ezzard wrote:

klompton wrote:I dont remember my exact card but I think I probably had it about 2 or 3 rounds ahead for Hagler. I definately dont think Duran won it but I also dont think Hagler looked good at all against a guy he should have probably blown away. Hagler liked to put forth the image of a killer in there (his anthems of "war" and "destruct and destroy" come to mind) but he really wasnt. Its like you said, if you made him come to you, you were busy, and you countered him effectively he could definately be beat. His fight against leonard is incredibly perplexing because he basically gave away the first four rounds, not only through his inactivity but also a completely ineffective plan of fight from a stance that he was not comfortable with. Ive always thought he was trying to beat Leonard at his own game and Leonard was trying to win. Big difference in those two strategies and it worked for Leonard. Every time I watch that fight I root for Hagler but I have never been able to give him the win.

Thanks for your opinion, Klompton. I know you must have watched a lot of MWs in your research so you’re probably one of the most qualified around here to talk on the subject. What’s your opinion of Hagler?

I totally agree on the Leonard fight. It was as if Hagler wanted to make a point. BUT I also think he was ever so slightly psyched. I think he knew Ray had the speed to make him look foolish at given moments and he seemed afraid to commit in case Leonard began to show boat. I also think that in the back of his mind Hagler didn’t think he’d get much credit for steamrolling Leonard. After all, Ray had been out of the ring a while and was known as a Welter. I think haggler saw the glory in outboxing Leonard.

I think hagler is a great fighter. I think he gives anyone problems and is competetive with anyone. I also think that because of the image he portrayed of being a bald, goateed badass a lot of people think he is invincible. I dont agree. Its kind of like Hurricane Carter, where people see the muscles, the bald head, the goatee, and some of his glossy KOs and think he was this great monster. He wasnt. He was very beatable, not great, and had a very short prime, but people have a certain image frozen in their heads of him and cant see past that. Now hagler was a hell of a lot better fighter than Carter but the image he portrayed was similar and seems to have a similar effect on people.

klompton wrote:
I think hagler is a great fighter. I think he gives anyone problems and is competetive with anyone. I also think that because of the image he portrayed of being a bald, goateed badass a lot of people think he is invincible. I dont agree. Its kind of like Hurricane Carter, where people see the muscles, the bald head, the goatee, and some of his glossy KOs and think he was this great monster. He wasnt. He was very beatable, not great, and had a very short prime, but people have a certain image frozen in their heads of him and cant see past that. Now hagler was a hell of a lot better fighter than Carter but the image he portrayed was similar and seems to have a similar effect on people.

Great assessment klompton. Keep in mind too, he was under the spotlight when all attention turn from the mediocre heavies of the early 80s to the great pool of talent available among the 147-160 pounders.

In all sincerity, his performance against a blown up Duran is also a thermometer of how far Hagler could really go.
Compare that to what Monzon did to a very solid welterweight like Napoles when he too moved up.

Not wanting to turn this into the hundreth Monzon vs Hagler debate, but that is closer to what the idea of invincibility should be.

...the first fight against walcott, ezzard had him in real trouble in the seventh round, but backed off..won the decision clearly, but he said he was following his corner's order not to go for the kayo which he might have had.

although on some non-official scorecards he won eleven rounds in their fourth fight (many made it closer, but still for charles) he was too cautious to win his rounds big. i go along with those who think he was a bit gun shy after the third fight.