BoxRec

I hant heard much talk on this fight but this fight signified why duran is one of the greatest fighters of all time. His prime and best unbeatable days were at lightweight and a peak preformance against leonard. DURAN was coming off a huge win over davey moore, but moved up to middleweight to face hagler. but duran was never a middleweight (way to small). all the weight he put on for middleweight was with age and he still weighed in at 156 for hagler. HOWEVER, hagler was at his peak coming off wins over Fulgencio Obelmejias and tony sibson. he had won his last 7 bouts by knockout and it looked like the aging smaller duran would get pummeled. BUT DURAN GIVES A ALL TIME MIDDLEWEIGHT LEGEND ONE OF HIS TOUGHEST FIGHTS IN HAGLERS PRIME. DURAN SWARMED HAGLER EARLY AND LANDED SOME LEGIT BLOWS BUT THE REAL REASON HE LASTED THE DISTANCE AND GAVE HAGLER A GOOD FIGHT WAS :intimididation. hagler was scarerd of duran. HE GAVE DURAN WAY TOO MUCH RESPECT IN THE FIGHT.
he was extremely cautious in the fight instead of coming out and destroying guys like he did thomas hearns. after 12 rounds the fight was up for anyone, but hagler came through in the final stretch winning the last 3 rounds to win the fight. Shouldnt this fight have gone 12 rounds and not 15?? i know hagler never fought another fight for 15 rounds agian. I WONDER IF IT HAD BEEN 12 ROUNDS, I THINK DURAN WAS SLIGHTY AHEAD ON THE SCORECARD AND WOULD HAVE WON THE DECISION. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A HUGE UPSET. IT WAS LUCKY FOR HAGLER THAT IT WAS 15 CAUSE HE PROVED THE STRONGER FIGHTER LATE.

what do u guys think of this fight??? do u think this fight enhances durans legend as one of the greatest fighters of all time. do u guys see this as a bad mark on haglers record for not being able to put away an aging overblown welterweight and haviung trouble outboxcing him???
was it durans style that gave so much trouble for hagler and not thomas hearns ??

Maybe but I see it a different way.

I think Hagler had a bad night and knowing that he did, he came up with a stupid game plan against Roberto Duran and almost lost.

I remember watching that fight live on HBO. I am a Duran fan, but Hagler won the fight easily. Sure Hagler was cautious, too cautious. He was fighting the legend of Duran.....But Duran was never a serious threat to Marvin at any time during the fight. When the cards were read at the end, and the score was so close, I was amazed, as were those who were watching the fight with me. Hagler won the fight easily, it was poor judging that almost took the fight away from Hagler, not anything Roberto did.

I agree with Ringsider. the fight was not as close as the judges said. BUT Duran getting to 15 was a great achievement in itself. Remember Hagler was KOing legit middles with consumate ease.

I have read people saying that hagler gave Duran too much respect but I think it's more to do with Duran. Roberto was a master strategist with a great boxing brain. He fought a fight that made Hagler uncomfortable. hagler liked to move forward and counter. He didn't really like to lead unless he was in one of his slugfests. Duran forced him to lead and really created the blueprint of how to beat him. Duran just didn't have the physical tools to do it being naturally such a smaller man.

I think Leonard saw what Duran did so successfully and took it on for his fight. Whatever you think of Hagler-Leonard it was no walkover for Hagler. Leonard made him look bad. Hagler was by this time older and slower and ray was bigger and faster than Duran.

Of course this is all just opinion. Duran showed how to beat him and the Mugabi fight showed that Marvin had slipped a little. Ray got his 12 rounds limit and the rest is still being argued over to this day.

My thoughts on Hagler vs Duran are that I agree with BB49 in that Hagler may have showed Duran a little too much respect. But the main reason to my mind that the fight followed the pattered that it did is that you had two counter punchers facing each other. Sure both fighters had reputations for being intimidating, agressive, destroyer types but at the core of their fighting make-up they were basically skilled, offensive counterpunchers.

I really don't think that Duran going the distance with Hagler should harm Haglers legacy as Duran was no normal former Lightweight, he was a special type of fighter.

I also agree that the fight was much closer than the scorecards suggested it was almost if the judges were thinking "Hagler should be destroying this old Lightweight" and mark him down accordingly.

One thing I do not agree BB49 on is that Hagler was intimidated by Duran, gave him too much respect yes, intimidated no.

i hear a lot about how Hagler gave Duran too much respect........but what else could he have done?? gone all out and waste energy trying to KO the elusive duran?

Sorry, but to suggest this fight was some sort of shut out for Hagler is just laughable. HAS ANYONE WATCHED THE FULL FIGHT, EVERY ROUND, WITH NO COMMENTARY RECENTLY???????? Really doesn't seem like it on this thread...

Hagler has a history of struggling with smaller guys because he never quite found a solid, one-trick way to beat them. He wasn't a big middleweight, or a particularly strong one, so had to rely on boxing them. This involved making abundant usage of his abnormal reach/jab. For example, he looks to out-class Sibson (who had done no sparring for the fight) in the early rounds, but look what happens before the finish, when Hagler sits in the pocket and exchanges - they look kinda equal, apart from the obvious fact Sibson has had more taken out of him by that point. An aggressive fighter like Sibbo who doesn't do what he did - and fall under the spell of the jab from the off - may give Hagler some problems eh? Step in Vito 2, where Hagler blatantly nuts the shorter guy to open up an eventual fight ending cut. Good old pro trick there.

He looked good when he circled and threw out his tentacle. But what happenend when the opponent took away that long jab?

my scorecard wrote:Duran 1 - could be even

Duran 2

Duran 3 - could be even, maybe Hagler

Duran 4

Duran 5 - could be Hagler

Hagler 6 - first clear Hagler, good round

Even 7

Even 8 - could easily be close Duran

Hagler 9 - close

Duran 10 - close

Even 11 - breather, NOTHING happened

Duran 12 - cleanest yet, Hagler marked up over left eye

Even 13 - could be nicked either way, toward Duran more likely - won 2nd half

Hagler 14 - cleanly, but cut bad and Duran sneers

Hagler 15 - cleanly like 6



Duran Hagler

1 - 10 9

2 - 10 9

3 - 10 9

4 - 10 9

5 - 10 9

6 - 9 10

7 - 10 10

8 - 10 10

9 - 9 10

10 - 10 9

11 - 10 10

12 - 10 9

13 - 10 10

14 - 9 10

15 - 9 10

Duran 146 - 143 Hagler


A case could easily be made for giving Hagler a few of those close rounds, and I have no problem with the final decision - the way Hagler rallied in the last two rounds made me want him to nick it. He'd obviously learned his lesson from Vito 1, where he could easily have lost, also.

Hagler really looked best against tall opponents during his championship reign:

Fully Obel - a padded KO artist.

Tommy Hearns - a glass chinned, overtrained welterweight who fought a stupid fight.

Mustafa Hamsho - a contender level fighter who's best traits were his fouls.

Caveman Lee - beyond shot fighter who seemed to be involved in hall of fame wars in successive weekends during the early 80's (get the tapes, awesome fights!). He went over from a jab and simply did not want to fight that night, very sad considering the way he ended up.

Hagler was mostly aggressive against tall fighters because it was really his only way for a clean win. Monroe had hurt him frequently and shut him out (I read that Hagler was out on his feet at one point), and obviously I saw Cyclone Hart gave him plenty to think about before somewhat bizarrely quitting.

But back to the Hagler - Duran fight: how was Hagler not intimidated??! Look at his body language:

He doesn't raise his hands in victory until a full THREE MINUTES after the final bell. This is the first sign you look to see if a fighter thinks he has done enough.

Instead, Hagler only raises his arms to shoo away Duran - who is poised, ready to fight more after the fight had ended. Hagler walks away muttering to himself with a glum face and not even facing Duran - who is standing staring at Hagler's back with a sneer. Duran, who was unmarked, gassed around round 10 (which Hagler failed to capatalise on), looking at the back of Hagler, who had a swollen face and was cut. One thing was going through Hagler's mind at that point - "Vito 1, Vito 1, Vito 1".

He stands in the ring with the Petronelli's and gives off very weird signals - raising his hands to his hips then dropping them, doing a bizarre jig around the ring, giving half-hearted jibes to his taunting opponent. Hmm, what does this remind you of?

This was a pre-cursor of the Leonard fight. Duran had intimidated and mind-phuked Hagler - who was very vulnerable to this type of tactic.

I wonder, considering how easily 6 foot legit middleweight Willie Monroe handled Hagler by out-boxing him, I wonder how that coupled with the unprecedented psychological onslaught that Bernard Hopkins brings, how Hagler would have fared there? Hmm...

Okay Manos

It's been a long time since I saw this fight but I'm pretty sure that Hagler wins a comfortable but comeptitive decision on my scorecard (3-4 rounds). I've read a lot of your posts and I know that you know what you're talking about, so maybe I should re-evaluate.

Also I do remember the body language after the fight was over. Hagler didn't seem too pleased, whilst Duran was continuing to taunt him. But Hagler did have a distrust of judges after Vito 1 (you are right to mention this) so it could be down to that. He may ahve just feared the worst.

Looks like I'm going to have to dig this one out and give it another viewing...

Manos de Oro is obviously posting the scores to "HIS" fantasy fight.......because that sure is not how the real Duran/Hagler bout went.

You might want to cut back on the sauce when you are trying to judge a fight.

Ezzard mate, watch it with no sound, or muffled sound at best. Try and stay alert when scoring each and every round. As I said above, I have no problem with Hagler nicking it, but to suggest it was anything other than a close fight is really strange.

ringsider wrote:Manos de Oro is obviously posting the scores to "HIS" fantasy fight.......because that sure is not how the real Duran/Hagler bout went.

Thanks for that fact-ridden reply, ringsider. It was really convincing.

The way you suggested the fight was a 12 round split decision for Hagler on that other thread, made me look out for your posts as you obviously have studied this fight in great depth.

Manos de Oro wrote:BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHHagler wasn't
particularly strong BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

I think that it is quite wrong to say that hagler was not strong, If anything the man was one of the strongest middleweights.

Grimm wrote:

Manos de Oro wrote:BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHHagler wasn't
particularly strong BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

I think that it is quite wrong to say that hagler was not strong, If anything the man was one of the strongest middleweights.

Funny how you pick one tiny phrase out such a long post. I think it's called 'clutching at straws'.

Just out of interest:

How do you explain fat, old, lightweight Duran physically pushing him backwards numerous times out of the clinch?

How do you explain short, squat, Juan Roldan literally being able to push Hagler from one side of the ring to the other from out of the clinch?

Or what about his reluctance to get in close with a shot Bennie Briscoe and un-sharp Tony Sibson?

All these men are smaller than Hagler, yet could bully him in close. Hagler was unable to successfully hang, let alone dominate, in the clinch with any of them.

The only reason I can see for this is that he wasn't particularly strong. His bone structure/build tells most of the story and judging a book by it's cover seems to work in this case.

Manos de Oro wrote:

Grimm wrote:

Manos de Oro wrote:BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHHagler wasn't
particularly strong BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

I think that it is quite wrong to say that hagler was not strong, If anything the man was one of the strongest middleweights.

Funny how you pick one tiny phrase out such a long post. I think it's called 'clutching at straws'.

Just out of interest:

How do you explain fat, old, lightweight Duran physically pushing him backwards numerous times out of the clinch?

How do you explain short, squat, Juan Roldan literally being able to push Hagler from one side of the ring to the other from out of the clinch?

Or what about his reluctance to get in close with a shot Bennie Briscoe and un-sharp Tony Sibson?

All these men are smaller than Hagler, yet could bully him in close. Hagler was unable to successfully hang, let alone dominate, in the clinch with any of them.

The only reason I can see for this is that he wasn't particularly strong. His bone structure/build tells most of the story and judging a book by it's cover seems to work in this case.

Being pushed out of a clinch tells nothing of your strength. He didn't dominate in close because one of his obvious advantages was his reach.

Grimm wrote:Being pushed out of a clinch tells nothing of your strength. He didn't dominate in close because one of his obvious advantages was his reach.

That's a better post from you... but I disagree. In my opinion, clinches are a proper gauge of strength. What other measure of strength can you use in a fight? Punch power?.. that's something completely different.

Regardless, one example in the Hagler - Duran fight: about thirty seconds from the end of round 3, Hagler is backed to the ropes in a clinch and tries to push off Duran with both hands. His pushing hands are like dust against a brick wall as Duran stands stock still in front of him, before coming on strong.

When Duran pushes Hagler back from in close, Hagler's momentum is shifted violently - his legs fly backwards to counter his body weight.

The polar opposite happens when Hagler pushes Duran.

Duran even spins him around with one arm - his left (obviously to take away Hagler's best right) - hammering away at the same time with his own right along Hagler's left side.

It's all there captured on film.

All these men are smaller than Hagler, yet could bully him in close. Hagler was unable to successfully hang, let alone dominate, in the clinch with any of them.

Hey Manos..... We are talking about boxing here, not wrestling. Clinching is not boxing, or a mearsue of boxing skills, it is wrestling. I am not a Hagler fan, but to say Hagler was not strong is just not true. Why should he waste energy wrestling, and pushing off?....Hagler beat all of those guys you mentioned, KO'd most of them easily.....so who is the "stronger" fighter? It ain't that tough to figure out..

ringsider wrote:Hey you dumbo Manos

I've been posting here since March '04 yet have NEVER had to resort to name calling in a debate once. And yet you, registered for less than two weeks, sink to that level almost immediately. You've pretty much demonstrated your worth to the forum here, bud.

EDIT: I see you've deleted your insult, fair play.

ringsider wrote:I am not a Haglar fan

Why are you trying to blow his trumpet with such weak arguments, then?

ringsider wrote:Hagler beat all of those guys you mentioned, KO'd most of them easily

Maybe you could post your round by rounds? Thanks...

ringsider wrote:.....so who is the "stronger" fighter?

So you're equating punch power with strength, and clinching being some throw-away extraneous factor in a fight?

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

No Manos of course a guy has to know how to clinch, at times....but you don't win rounds or fights by clinching.......A fighter is not scored for good clinching, a fighter is scored for boxing ability and punching/counter punching, boxing skills........clinching is a stall tactic and survivial mechanism, and is not scored by judges. It is penalized if it is too excessive.......

Manos de Oro wrote:Sorry, but to suggest this fight was some sort of shut out for Hagler is just laughable. HAS ANYONE WATCHED THE FULL FIGHT, EVERY ROUND, WITH NO COMMENTARY RECENTLY???????? Really doesn't seem like it on this thread...

my scorecard wrote:Duran 1 - could be even

Duran 2

Duran 3 - could be even, maybe Hagler

Duran 4

Duran 5 - could be Hagler

Hagler 6 - first clear Hagler, good round

Even 7

Even 8 - could easily be close Duran

Hagler 9 - close

Duran 10 - close

Even 11 - breather, NOTHING happened

Duran 12 - cleanest yet, Hagler marked up over left eye

Even 13 - could be nicked either way, toward Duran more likely - won 2nd half

Hagler 14 - cleanly, but cut bad and Duran sneers

Hagler 15 - cleanly like 6



Duran Hagler

1 - 10 9

2 - 10 9

3 - 10 9

4 - 10 9

5 - 10 9

6 - 9 10

7 - 10 10

8 - 10 10

9 - 9 10

10 - 10 9

11 - 10 10

12 - 10 9

13 - 10 10

14 - 9 10

15 - 9 10

Duran 146 - 143 Hagler

Judging fights can be sooooooooooooo subjective...

I honestly haven't seen the fight for years...but from memory, I thought Hagler had won the majority of rounds down the stretch (from R-11 on)...which clinched him the fight...

I do notice on your card that you have 4 rounds even...and 2 others 'could be even'...and another 'could be nicked either way'...another one for Duran you say 'could be Hagler'...that's really a lot of indecision, if you think about it...8 rounds either even, could be even, etc...

I'll side with the official judges...Hagler won...unanimously...the judges all had him winning by atleast 2 rounds...I guess they had less indecision than you, no disrespect intended...

Judging fights can be sooooooooooooo subjective...

ringsider wrote:No Manos of course a guy has to know how to clinch, at times....but you don't win rounds or fights by clinching.......A fighter is not scored for good clinching, a fighter is scored for boxing ability and punching/counter punching, boxing skills........clinching is a stall tactic and survivial mechanism, and is not scored by judges. It is penalized if it is too excessive.......

You're right about the scoring, and thankfully there wasn't that much clinching in the Hagler - Duran fight, which makes it watchable today. Though, clinching isn't always a stall/survival tactic (depends on the fighter) - at its best it can take away confidence, strength and endurance. I thought it did that to a degree in the Hagler - Duran fight.

Something else that hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread: Hagler is on record before the fight as saying he was going to test Duran's strength early, and if he was stronger, blow him out. Regardless of the clinch talk, the fight went (a close) 15 rounds...

Sweet Scientist wrote:Judging fights can be sooooooooooooo subjective...

I honestly haven't seen the fight for years...but from memory, I thought Hagler had won the majority of rounds down the stretch (from R-11 on)...which clinched him the fight...

I do notice on your card that you have 4 rounds even...and 2 others 'could be even'...and another 'could be nicked either way'...another one for Duran you say 'could be Hagler'...that's really a lot of indecision, if you think about it...8 rounds either even, could be even, etc...

I'll side with the official judges...Hagler won...unanimously...the judges all had him winning by atleast 2 rounds...I guess they had less indecision than you, no disrespect intended...

Judging fights can be sooooooooooooo subjective...

Trust me, Sweet Scientist, I usually NEVER have more than two even rounds in a fight. It's just that this was one of those fights where there was so much good defensive work shown by both that it's hard to score clearly. There was very little combos and many of the scoring punches were clipping pot shots that never had much oomph: neither fighter was even remotely hurt at any point in the fight.

I remember this one as well and I had Duran ahead after 12.

But in the Championship rounds as they were once called Hagler came back strong.

On my card They were level with one round to go which the Marvelous one took quite easily as Duran had punched himself by then.

I am an admirer of Hagler but Duran was my idol and as mentioned on an earlier posting this showing eradicated the No Mas fiasco.

Gordon wrote:I remember this one as well and I had Duran ahead after 12.

But in the Championship rounds as they were once called Hagler came back strong.

On my card They were level with one round to go which the Marvelous one took quite easily as Duran had punched himself by then.

I am an admirer of Hagler but Duran was my idol and as mentioned on an earlier posting this showing eradicated the No Mas fiasco.

Did anyone hear of Duran saying that he never said "No Mas"?

Manos de Oro wrote:But back to the Hagler - Duran fight: how was Hagler not intimidated??! Look at his body language:

He doesn't raise his hands in victory until a full THREE MINUTES after the final bell. This is the first sign you look to see if a fighter thinks he has done enough.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on whether Hagler was intimidated by Duran as I just don't see it that way like I say earlier Hagler may have shown Duran too much respect, yes, intimidated, no.

As for Hagler reaction at the end of the fight I really just think that is a case of Hagler having little trust in judges due to the first Vito Antoufermo and Bobby Watts fights.

Manos de Oro wrote:Just out of interest:?

With regards to Haglers strength I would like to offer my opinion on this subject. I think Hagler was a strong Middleweight but not the stongest physically compared to other 'greats'. Although I would not class him as frail etc.

Manos de Oro wrote:How do you explain fat, old, lightweight Duran physically pushing him backwards numerous times out of the clinch??

Duran may have been a 'fat old' Lightweight, but he was also a very special fighter who had great balance and leverage. Sometimes a fighter with better balance and leverage can 'manhandle' a stronger fighter.

Manos de Oro wrote:Or what about his reluctance to get in close with a shot Bennie Briscoe and un-sharp Tony Sibson?

A shot Bennie Briscoe may be a bit strong but Briscoe was indeed a faded force by the time Hagler fought him. However Bennie was still one tough and very strong fighter whom very few managed to physically 'bully' in the ring. Also I think Hagler fought a smart fight that night, why play into Briscoes hands by staying close to allow him to unload that savage left hook of his to the body/kidneys etc.

As for Tony Sibson I always considered him a very strong Middleweight.

Just my observations.