BoxRec

On June 15, 1984, 32 year old Roberto Duran fought 25 year old Thomas Hearns. Thomas beat Roberto by a 2nd round technical knockout. Roberto, at 32 years old was past his prime. Had a younger, less battle worn, & prime Duran fought a prime Hearns. --------------

What advantages would Roberto have over Thomas?


What advantages would Hearns have over Duran?


What do you see happening in this fight?



Who would win? Why?




Please explain.

Duran has no advantages over hearns. His advantages in defense and chin are taken away with Tommy's size and power.

Tommy Hearns was almost as bad a match-up for Roberto Duran as George Foreman was for Joe Frazier.

An even worse match-up was FLoyd Patterson fighting Sonny Liston... I guess If you're not convinced the 1st time somebody ices your ass -- try him again!!!

That's almost like Michael Spinks deciding he hadn't had enough of Mike Tyson yet... There are certain individuals you were NOT born to fight.

It depends the weight classification both are at.

At 154lbs and above, it's all The Hitman.
At 147lbs and below, it's all The Hands of Stone!

golden oldie wrote: Never forget the guy was easily boxing the ears off Leonard until he gassed.

you mean the first fight?

I'm sure you recall Hearns getting wobbled badly in the sixth round, with that left hook-cum-uppercut, then blitzed with combinations, and taking a smashing left hook to the body from Leonard which visibly sagged Hearns. who then proceeded to take a beatdown in the 7th and 8th rounds too, on decidedly shaky legs, especially in the 7th

so when you say 'easily boxing the ears off Leonard until he gassed', do you mean he gassed in the 5th/6th?

or is getting wobbled and beaten up like Tommy did in the 6th and 7th, your equivalent to 'easily boxing the ears off Leonard'.

here's a link, the sixth round starts after about 2 minutes, you can watch it for yourself, you'll notice how at the endo f the 7th round Hearns' legs wobled quite badly on his way to the corner, presumably whilst he thinks something like 'easily outboxing someone doesn't normally feel so hard'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtRGu4pLeBc

Is Leonard v Hearns the best WW match up of all time along with Robinson v Gavilan?

Hearns was an absolute beast at 147 and 154, the only WWs I'd back to beat him in hypothetical match ups are Robinson, Leonard, and Griffith.

I was somewhat surprised at the time regarding Hearns-Duran. I expected something closer to Duran-Leonard 1.

Had never seen Duran KOd like that.

Well it happened just the way it happened....so some are saying that's how it would have happened 10 out of 10 times.

I believe these guys were very competitive, and Roberto even at that age discrepancy would likely win 1 out of 3 and they might fight to a draw once....but it would always be a good fight.

This outcome was an outlier in my opinion. A fluke.....and not likely to repeat itself in 10 runs.

Hearns would always have the advantage especially at their mutual ages...but that particular outcome was the dime landing on it's side.


Sometimes fate steps in and forces oddities.....like in the case of Kalan's birth.

(Hey Special K, nothin' but love for ya man....sometimes it's just too easy to go for the cheap laugh, I should be more sensitive to your feelings)

In 5 more attempts Hearns would beat Barkley 4 out of 5.

In 5 more attempts Moore would likely have a 3 run streak against Charles.

A younger Joe Frazier would be far more competitive against Foreman.
Without Sharkey's assist Carnera never lays a serious glove on him.

Some of these thoughts along the lines of "that's the way it was, and would always be" makes me laugh.

When two greats step in the ring....anything can happen....and often does.

In another 20 tries .....Snipes never decks Holmes again.

Wouldn't happens 10 out of 10, more like 8 out of 10.

Duran would have a punchers chance but not much more than that. Duran always struggled when going against a guy who boxes, so Hearns could win that way. If it came down to a slugging match, Hearns would blow Duran away most of the time, but it would Duran's only chance.

Duran could deal with the size and weight difference.. He did adjust very well with Marv Hagler right??? It was the combination of height and reach that ventured out of his frame of reference for any fight he fought before in his life.. Lightweights might not see 6'1" guys with a 78" reach in a 100 fights.. They WON'T see anyone at 135 with wide shoulders who swings like Hearns.. That just doesn't exist at Lightweight.

If you fought all 80 of your fights at Super Welterweight you've probably seen that height and reach before, but if you only had 10 fights there you probably haven't.. It's the unfamiliar that throws you a curve.. A swing you think is going to miss reaches you -- and the next swing after that one smashes you on the chin and and knocks you cold.. It may be the only time in 118 fights you ever got knocked cold -- but it would happen again if you fought the next day. You don't have a terrible defense. You just never dealt with anyone that tall with arms that long before while most contenders at 160 have seen it.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Wouldn't happens 10 out of 10, more like 8 out of 10.

Duran would have a punchers chance but not much more than that. Duran always struggled when going against a guy who boxes, so Hearns could win that way. If it came down to a slugging match, Hearns would blow Duran away most of the time, but it would Duran's only chance.

Yeah, Duran strugged very much with Sugar Ray in Montreal, right? LOL!

Hearns looked real good at 154 versus Duran.. 154 seemed to suit him.. But Duran looked more impressive at 160 against Barkey and Hagler than Hearns did.. Kind of curious.. Those true Middleweights weren't impressed with Hearns at 160.. They tried to walk through him and get hold of that chin.

Kalan wrote:Hearns looked real good at 154 versus Duran.. 154 seemed to suit him.. But Duran looked more impressive at 160 against Barkey and Hagler than Hearns did.. Kind of curious.. Those true Middleweights weren't impressed with Hearns at 160.. They tried to walk through him and get hold of that chin.

The Hitman almost took Marvelous' head off in the first round. Sugar Ray, Marvelous and the Blade and the Cincinnati Hawk gave us THE BLUEPRINT of how to beat The Hitman. You could only beat him by applying constant pressure. Nobody outboxed Hearns in his career.

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Wouldn't happens 10 out of 10, more like 8 out of 10.

Duran would have a punchers chance but not much more than that. Duran always struggled when going against a guy who boxes, so Hearns could win that way. If it came down to a slugging match, Hearns would blow Duran away most of the time, but it would Duran's only chance.

Yeah, Duran strugged very much with Sugar Ray in Montreal, right? LOL!

LOL right back at you. On your own newly revised (and completely unbiased scoring) scoring, you only gave Duran 8 rounds out of 15. That is struggling.

In the 2nd fight, Leonard boxed and Duran lost badly. Benitez outboxed Duran fairly easily as well. Even against Edwin Viruet, the judges had to save Duran who had all sorts of trouble in that fight because Viruet had some boxing ability.

First, TKO 8 trumps a 15-round decision.
Second, you are comparing elmer's scoring in the first fight to the judges scoring in the second. That's not the same thing.
Third, the point differential in 7 rounds of scoring is not the same thing as the point differential after 15 rounds.

I would say badly beaten is getting knocked out cold in just two rounds, which happened to Duran. Never happened to Leonard.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Wouldn't happens 10 out of 10, more like 8 out of 10.

Duran would have a punchers chance but not much more than that. Duran always struggled when going against a guy who boxes, so Hearns could win that way. If it came down to a slugging match, Hearns would blow Duran away most of the time, but it would Duran's only chance.

Yeah, Duran strugged very much with Sugar Ray in Montreal, right? LOL!

LOL right back at you. On your own newly revised (and completely unbiased scoring) scoring, you only gave Duran 8 rounds out of 15. That is struggling.

In the 2nd fight, Leonard boxed and Duran lost badly. Benitez outboxed Duran fairly easily as well. Even against Edwin Viruet, the judges had to save Duran who had all sorts of trouble in that fight because Viruet had some boxing ability.

Duran convincingly won outright in Montreal. It was not a close fight. It looked closed due to Leonard's holding, grabbing and clutching for survival instead of fighting.

Second fight? Duran was in a OFF NIGHT.

Yes, the great Wilfred Benitez beat Duran in a weight class that Duran struggled to move with speed. Duran looked slow as hell. No fire. No rhythm. No pep in his punches. Benitez was even stronger than Duran that night. Do we believe that Benitez is stronger than Duran inside? Please!
Fighting 20 pounds over your natural weight class requires more fights to get accustomed to the weight. Everyone knows that 154lbs and above is not Duran's best weight. Too fat, too slow and not much movement like at welterweight and lightweight. He even looked BADLY against Luigi Minchillo and Nino Gonzalez at 154lbs. Do you believe that Duran would struggle against those two bums if the fights were at least at welterweight?

Don't be DELUSIONAL about Edwin Viruet, Ambling Alp. Viruet clowned and grabbed and ran for survival. That's all he did. I don't know what fight you was watching. You don't win a fight by clowning. Did Viruet won the second fight, too?

Here's what the audience thought of Duran getting the decision over Viruet in the 1st bout, start at the 40:30 mark

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=yo ... &FORM=VIRE

Seamus wrote:Here's what the audience thought of Duran getting the decision over Viruet in the 1st bout, start at the 40:30 mark

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=yo ... &FORM=VIRE

And you also believe that Edwin Viruet won that fight? SMH!

A lot people did. Of course maybe that was just yet another off night for Duran, like when DeJesus beat him, when Leonard stopped him, or and when Benitez beat him. Maybe he just wasn't motivated or his pet hamster was sick.

Yes I believe Viruet deserved the decision in the 1st bout with Duran. I had it 5-3-2.

Seamus wrote:Yes I believe Viruet deserved the decision in the 1st bout with Duran. I had it 5-3-2.

I had Duran winning. There is no way that you win a fight by clowning and running for survival.

Ambling Alp II wrote:A lot people did. Of course maybe that was just yet another off night for Duran, like when DeJesus beat him, when Leonard stopped him, or and when Benitez beat him. Maybe he just wasn't motivated or his pet hamster was sick.

Those peoples must be blind. Edwin Viruet didn't do nothing to indicate to my eyes that he won the fight. He ran, clowned and grabbed for survival. You don't win a fight like that.

Esteban Dejesus was THE ONLY MAN THAT REALLY BEAT ROBERTO AT HIS VERY BEST. THE ONLY ONE!

Sugar Ray caught Duran in an OFF NIGHT. Not at Duran's best. But, when both were at THEIR VERY BEST, WHO WON? Duran whupped him from post to post.

elmersalsa wrote:

Kalan wrote:Hearns looked real good at 154 versus Duran.. 154 seemed to suit him.. But Duran looked more impressive at 160 against Barkey and Hagler than Hearns did.. Kind of curious.. Those true Middleweights weren't impressed with Hearns at 160.. They tried to walk through him and get hold of that chin.

The Hitman almost took Marvelous' head off in the first round. Sugar Ray, Marvelous and the Blade and the Cincinnati Hawk gave us THE BLUEPRINT of how to beat The Hitman. You could only beat him by applying constant pressure. Nobody outboxed Hearns in his career.

Barkley sure did... In their rematch he outpointed Hearns... In their 1st fight he just clubbed him unconscious.. When you look at how easily James Toney out-boxed and stopped Barkley -- and how easily Barkley was out-boxed by Nunn, Kalambay and others -- you know Tommy didn't didn't fight the greatest boxers.

People in boxing have always said that the unshakeable Durnan was actually intimidated by Hearns.

When they met at gatherings, Duran would never look Hearns in the eye, and really didn't want to fight him.

Duran was Mr. Tough Guy but wanted no part of the Hit Man.

When he stepped into the ring against Hearns, Duran was actually scared and fought like it.

Don't know if it's true, but that's the chatter.

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:A lot people did. Of course maybe that was just yet another off night for Duran, like when DeJesus beat him, when Leonard stopped him, or and when Benitez beat him. Maybe he just wasn't motivated or his pet hamster was sick.

Those peoples must be blind. Edwin Viruet didn't do nothing to indicate to my eyes that he won the fight. He ran, clowned and grabbed for survival. You don't win a fight like that.

Esteban Dejesus was THE ONLY MAN THAT REALLY BEAT ROBERTO AT HIS VERY BEST. THE ONLY ONE!

Sugar Ray caught Duran in an OFF NIGHT. Not at Duran's best. But, when both were at THEIR VERY BEST, WHO WON? Duran whupped him from post to post.

Seamus thought Viruet won. I thought it could have gone either way. Doesn't matter if a fighter ran, clowned, grabbed for survival there is no rule against any of that. Viruet did not do any of that anyway.
Duran wasn't at his very best when he fought a skillful fighter who boxed; I agree with that. "post to post" - loved that one.