BoxRec

If Hearns would not had lose against Barckley he would had defended his title against Duran. Can the Duran that beat Barckley could had beat Hearns. I heard that against Leonard in the second fight he lost in 2 months 30 pounds and Leonard knew it i know now why the no mas fight, Against Hearns he lost 40 pounds in 2 months Nothing taking away from Leonard and Hearns But in those2 fights was not the real Duran.

Same result. Styles makes fights. Hearns had too much range, power, speed for most. Duran cant get inside without paying too high a price.

fanman wrote:Same result. Styles makes fights. Hearns had too much range, power, speed for most. Duran cant get inside without paying too high a price.

2x

fanman wrote:Same result. Styles makes fights. Hearns had too much range, power, speed for most. Duran cant get inside without paying too high a price.

Barkley was like Hearns 6.1 ft. And had power in both hands.

marchegianorock wrote:

fanman wrote:Same result. Styles makes fights. Hearns had too much range, power, speed for most. Duran cant get inside without paying too high a price.

Barkley was like Hearns 6.1 ft. And had power in both hands.

Barkley had average power and can not be compare to Hearns in terms of power in any way shape or form. Barkley did not have the power to hurt Duran like Hearns did, and the speed of Hearns was also way more than that of Barkley. Hearns was the superior boxer. Hearns was a solid 10 while Barkley was probably 5 or 6 in terms of power. Barkley had Hearns number but was not in any way an elite fighter. There is a huge difference here and Duran would never beat Hearns, unless Hearns fights with his hands tied behind his back.

Nonsense that's lazy thinking.

But once was probably enough. As I would still give Hearns an edge, but Hearns being so lucky twice with a guy who knew how to evade shots like Duran is just a wee bit assumptive.

That was a once every 8 tries outcome. IMHO. Not a "sure bet" by any stretch.

Even if Hearns couldn't reproduce the early blowout, unlike Barkley, he uses his height, and reach, not to mention his handspeed to maximum advantage. So Duran makes it through 8 withhout being on the canvas, but what happens to his composure and resolve, when the score is 80-72 Hearns at that point. And I think that's a very likely scoring scenario.

Not a chance. The weight class was TOO BIG for the great Roberto Duran. From 154lbs and up, it's the great Thomas "The Hitman" Hearns all the way. From 147lbs down, it would be all Roberto Duran.

Hearns had trouble going into later rounds.
If you watched Hearns fights he always tried to end his fights early, because he knew he
had problems the longer the fights went into later rounds.
Duran got caught very early in the fight and I believe that if he made it to the middle to later rounds he could have
taken out Hearns with body and counter punches.

I reread this thread, and noticed that someone said "styles make fights", giving this as a reason why Hearns would always end up on top. I would say that no way was Duran "made" for Hearns, and in any encounter (at a sensible catchweight for both) this would just about be a "pick em" fight.

However the one STYLE that made for a pretty good day for his opponents is when he used the ridiculous weight loss "style". This is another reason why Leonard was a better "winner" in my opinion. Duran could be susceptible to some bad judgment at critical times. Such as between those Leonard fights, and pre Hearns.

I would add that Duran did like to "psyche" his opponents. And NEVER was there a fighter LESS inclined to be intimidated than Thomas Hearns. However, he did not intimidate Duran either, but Thomas did have a very good night on that occasion. lol.

elmersalsa wrote:Not a chance. The weight class was TOO BIG for the great Roberto Duran. From 154lbs and up, it's the great Thomas "The Hitman" Hearns all the way. From 147lbs down, it would be all Roberto Duran.

From 147 down it would be all Duran? At 147 the end result would have been the same. Duran could not simply get inside of Hearns without paying a hefty price. Hearns would have KO Duran just the same.

At 140 or below I would bet all my money on Duran because Hearns would have been like 12 years old and Duran would have all the advantages. Good one elmer.

Borinken25 wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Not a chance. The weight class was TOO BIG for the great Roberto Duran. From 154lbs and up, it's the great Thomas "The Hitman" Hearns all the way. From 147lbs down, it would be all Roberto Duran.

From 147 down it would be all Duran? At 147 the end result would have been the same. Duran could not simply get inside of Hearns without paying a hefty price. Hearns would have KO Duran just the same.

At 140 or below I would bet all my money on Duran because Hearns would have been like 12 years old and Duran would have all the advantages. Good one elmer.

(about the 140 and below)

marchegianorock wrote:If Hearns would not had lose against Barckley he would had defended his title against Duran. Can the Duran that beat Barckley could had beat Hearns. I heard that against Leonard in the second fight he lost in 2 months 30 pounds and Leonard knew it i know now why the no mas fight, Against Hearns he lost 40 pounds in 2 months Nothing taking away from Leonard and Hearns But in those2 fights was not the real Duran.

1. The no mas fight was fixed, duran was paid money to throw it but had too much pride to lay face down on the matt to a guy he knew he could beat easily
2. Duran would not beat hearns ever. Hearns just spotted weaknesses in Duran that other opponents didn't, no matter what Duran did, it'd be wrong. Styles make fights, and sometimes a certain fighter will just ruin you. If you are smart and have a good manager, you don't fight these guys unless you HAVE TO, to win the title, in which case you change your style.

hernanday wrote:

marchegianorock wrote:If Hearns would not had lose against Barckley he would had defended his title against Duran. Can the Duran that beat Barckley could had beat Hearns. I heard that against Leonard in the second fight he lost in 2 months 30 pounds and Leonard knew it i know now why the no mas fight, Against Hearns he lost 40 pounds in 2 months Nothing taking away from Leonard and Hearns But in those2 fights was not the real Duran.

1. The no mas fight was fixed, duran was paid money to throw it but had too much pride to lay face down on the matt to a guy he knew he could beat easily
2. Duran would not beat hearns ever. Hearns just spotted weaknesses in Duran that other opponents didn't, no matter what Duran did, it'd be wrong. Styles make fights, and sometimes a certain fighter will just ruin you. If you are smart and have a good manager, you don't fight these guys unless you HAVE TO, to win the title, in which case you change your style.

Not sure I would agree that Roberto Duran was paid money to throw the fight but I guess its a possibility. In my opinion it was more of Leonard acting
and running around the ring like a clown. You get points for aggressiveness. He clearly was on his bicycle and did not want to fight Duran.
As far as Duran never beating Hearns.... you could never back up that statement and is clearly an opinion of yours. Duran's record speaks for itself.
He's got more KO's than Hearns or Leonard has wins.

So does Campas.

Rover wrote:So does Campas.

Not sure if that was in response to my post....by the way Who is Campas

RAPIDFIRE wrote:

Rover wrote:So does Campas.

Not sure if that was in response to my post....by the way Who is Campas

A jr. middleweight titlist who fought Tito, Vargas and DLH.

Borinken25 wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Not a chance. The weight class was TOO BIG for the great Roberto Duran. From 154lbs and up, it's the great Thomas "The Hitman" Hearns all the way. From 147lbs down, it would be all Roberto Duran.

From 147 down it would be all Duran? At 147 the end result would have been the same. Duran could not simply get inside of Hearns without paying a hefty price. Hearns would have KO Duran just the same.

At 140 or below I would bet all my money on Duran because Hearns would have been like 12 years old and Duran would have all the advantages. Good one elmer.

Duran at 154lbs was a STATIONARY TARGET. NO MOVEMENT.

Hearns at 154lbs was PERFECT. I don't think Leonard, nor Duran nor Benitez beat him there at 154lbs.

At 147lbs, Hearns had frail legs.

At 154lbs, Hearns legs were more sturdy. He was stronger and hit harder at 154lbs than at 147.

Those are facts sir.

Rover wrote:

RAPIDFIRE wrote:

Rover wrote:So does Campas.

Not sure if that was in response to my post....by the way Who is Campas

A jr. middleweight titlist who fought Tito, Vargas and DLH.

Roger That Rover....appreciate your post

elmersalsa wrote:

Borinken25 wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Not a chance. The weight class was TOO BIG for the great Roberto Duran. From 154lbs and up, it's the great Thomas "The Hitman" Hearns all the way. From 147lbs down, it would be all Roberto Duran.

From 147 down it would be all Duran? At 147 the end result would have been the same. Duran could not simply get inside of Hearns without paying a hefty price. Hearns would have KO Duran just the same.

At 140 or below I would bet all my money on Duran because Hearns would have been like 12 years old and Duran would have all the advantages. Good one elmer.

Duran at 154lbs was a STATIONARY TARGET. NO MOVEMENT.

Hearns at 154lbs was PERFECT. I don't think Leonard, nor Duran nor Benitez beat him there at 154lbs.

At 147lbs, Hearns had frail legs.
At 154lbs, Hearns legs were more sturdy. He was stronger and hit harder at 154lbs than at 147.

Those are facts sir.

Have to disagree.. how could any of those comments ever be proven. Fact is they can't. I think what all of you are missing is fact that Roberto Duran was
33 years old when he fought Hearns. Hearns was 26 years old. I've seen Tommy Hearns on queer street many times. That is strictly a boxing term used
to describe a fighter that's really hurt and out on his feet ready to drop. Hearns always had frail legs no matter what weight he fought at.
Roberto Duran was never a runner nor was he ever a stationary target with no movement.
Those are the facts

marchegianorock wrote:

fanman wrote:Same result. Styles makes fights. Hearns had too much range, power, speed for most. Duran cant get inside without paying too high a price.

Barkley was like Hearns 6.1 ft. And had power in both hands.

The hearns of 89 was a far different fighter to the hearns of 84.oh my goodness! Tommy had lost most his swagger and flamboyance of 84/87 by the one punch of Barkley. Against kitchen and srl 2 he was far slower of hand and foot and didn't have the same confidence. If....and its a huge if the fight had been made its an even bigger if that Duran comes in motivated 2 fights in a row in 89. But its conceivable he could beat Tommy like he did barkley.Tommy had slipped a lot by than.

I love Hearns. But here's what he hated. A steel chinned guy, with a good defence, who hit the body hard and was still there in the later rounds...

You can say Hearns just had his number..."styles" and "fights"...but many would have said the same thing before Griffith rematched Carter.

RAPIDFIRE wrote:[.

Have to disagree.. how could any of those comments ever be proven. Fact is they can't. I think what all of you are missing is fact that Roberto Duran was
33 years old when he fought Hearns. Hearns was 26 years old. I've seen Tommy Hearns on queer street many times. That is strictly a boxing term used
to describe a fighter that's really hurt and out on his feet ready to drop. Hearns always had frail legs no matter what weight he fought at.
Roberto Duran was never a runner nor was he ever a stationary target with no movement.
Those are the facts[/quote]

Well, I have to counter disagree. I agree with you that Hearns was 26, IN HIS COMPLETE PRIME, while Duran was considered washed up years earlier. He was also 33 like you mentioned. The true FACT is that Duran was NOT IN HIS PRIME. The other fact is that Hearns did what he had to do against a guy that was not in his prime, not in his natural weight range, (weight class was too big for him), and in his 30s. That is a fact. 154lbs was a terrible weight class for Duran. Not to mention middleweight on up.

Hearns at 154lbs was stronger, punched harder with the same speed and had sturdier legs. That is a fact.

And then you mentioned that I said that Duran was a runner? I have never said that. But he had swift feet and hands with great coordination, giving you angles at his very best. That is how he beat Ken Buchanan, Esteban Dejesus and Sugar Ray Leonard. WATCH HIS FEET. IT WAS A THING OF BEAUTY!


But some folks in this forum BELIEVE that this great fighter was a STATIONARY TARGET, A BRUTE, a PRESSURE FIGHTER that only knows to come forward. That Sugar Ray ABANDONED his style and fought Duran's fight, without considering Duran's skills and abilities of bobbing and weaving. That is why I said Leonard CAUGHT DURAN IN AN OFF NIGHT. He was slow of foot and hands in New Orleans.

elmersalsa wrote:

RAPIDFIRE wrote:[.

Have to disagree.. how could any of those comments ever be proven. Fact is they can't. I think what all of you are missing is fact that Roberto Duran was
33 years old when he fought Hearns. Hearns was 26 years old. I've seen Tommy Hearns on queer street many times. That is strictly a boxing term used
to describe a fighter that's really hurt and out on his feet ready to drop. Hearns always had frail legs no matter what weight he fought at.
Roberto Duran was never a runner nor was he ever a stationary target with no movement.
Those are the facts

Well, I have to counter disagree. I agree with you that Hearns was 26, IN HIS COMPLETE PRIME, while Duran was considered washed up years earlier. He was also 33 like you mentioned. The true FACT is that Duran was NOT IN HIS PRIME. The other fact is that Hearns did what he had to do against a guy that was not in his prime, not in his natural weight range, (weight class was too big for him), and in his 30s. That is a fact. 154lbs was a terrible weight class for Duran. Not to mention middleweight on up.

Hearns at 154lbs was stronger, punched harder with the same speed and had sturdier legs. That is a fact.

And then you mentioned that I said that Duran was a runner? I have never said that. But he had swift feet and hands with great coordination, giving you angles at his very best. That is how he beat Ken Buchanan, Esteban Dejesus and Sugar Ray Leonard. WATCH HIS FEET. IT WAS A THING OF BEAUTY!


But some folks in this forum BELIEVE that this great fighter was a STATIONARY TARGET, A BRUTE, a PRESSURE FIGHTER that only knows to come forward. That Sugar Ray ABANDONED his style and fought Duran's fight, without considering Duran's skills and abilities of bobbing and weaving. That is why I said Leonard CAUGHT DURAN IN AN OFF NIGHT. He was slow of foot and hands in New Orleans.[/quote]


Well told... I think we're pretty much in agreement here.. I did not think or directed the comment about about Duran being a runner at you.
As you stated and I agree Duran had great defensive skills and one of the best counter punchers ever... also look at his knock out record. He never did cut much either however he did get cut in the Hearns fight and what I believe was not from a punch.
If I'm spending money to see a fight I would have no problem laying down the coins to see Duran however watching two runners like Leonard or
even Camacho for example on their bicycles trying to steal rounds/fights are boring.

Also let's not forget that Duran's win over Barkley was a dodgy decision, Duran was hugely popular as he got older, remember how the judges were only two rounds from giving him the decision over Marvin Hagler.