Hagler Duran

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 08 Sep 2006, 11:26

Anyone seen this fight?

mattyp151 · Post by **mattyp151** » 08 Sep 2006, 12:02

<-----

mattyp151 · Post by **mattyp151** » 08 Sep 2006, 12:03

DOuble post.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 08 Sep 2006, 12:13

Mattyp151 wrote:DOuble post.

Why don't you make that triple.

mattyp151 · Post by **mattyp151** » 08 Sep 2006, 12:33

Hagler wasn't Hagler, and Duran waited on him to attack so he could counterpunch, but neither happened often enough. One of those great fights on paper, but anything but in actuality.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 08 Sep 2006, 12:48

Pundit, if you're getting this fight you're really going to be surprised by what you'll see the first 4-5 rds. Hagler makes probably the worst start of his career, and look's tentative while showing Duran more respect than anyone he probably ever fought. All he get's for the respect he shows Duran is alot of counters and lost rounds. Around, the 5th or 6th, Hagler wakes up and starts overloading Duran with combinations. Too his credit, Duran never appears to be in trouble, but contrary to the official scoring, the 1st third of the fight is all Duran, while the final two thirds are all Hagler. Hagler by 3 to 5 pts at the end would be a more accurate tabulation of the way the bout really went.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 08 Sep 2006, 14:32

Seamus wrote:Pundit, if you're getting this fight you're really going to be surprised by what you'll see the first 4-5 rds. Hagler makes probably the worst start of his career, and look's tentative while showing Duran more respect than anyone he probably ever fought. All he get's for the respect he shows Duran is alot of counters and lost rounds. Around, the 5th or 6th, Hagler wakes up and starts overloading Duran with combinations. Too his credit, Duran never appears to be in trouble, but contrary to the official scoring, the 1st third of the fight is all Duran, while the final two thirds are all Hagler. Hagler by 3 to 5 pts at the end would be a more accurate tabulation of the way the bout really went.

Thanks much

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 08 Sep 2006, 15:57

Considering that Hagler had all the physical advantages, but was only 11 months younger, (yes Marvin WAS born in 1952 and not 1954), this was one of Durans best performances.

Having said that it was also one of Haglers best performamces. Duran was a master boxer, a genius, who could box, punch, brawl and defend. He was, without doubt, the greatest fighter of the 1970's P4P.

If you want a young kid to learn about tactical awareness and how styles make fights, get him to watch this fight.

One for the purists, a 15 round thriller and chessmatch rolled into one.

I had it 145 - 142 for Marvin at the end.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 08 Sep 2006, 17:40

To me this fight was slightly suprising that Hagler did'nt win it more impressivly. But what was a major suprise is what happend to Duran against Hearns.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 08 Sep 2006, 18:48

Great fight, Duran showed what a great boxer he was in this fight to go 15 competitive rounds with a peak Hagler... very impressive...

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 09 Sep 2006, 01:55

It was a horrible fight. All it showed was what a plodder Hagler was. How he was afraid of the smaller man Duran, and and yet still basically Hagler won almost every round, inspite of what the judges said. It was snoozefest a of fight IMHO. So much potential, so little happened.

I don't know what fight KO Artist was watching, but it sure wasn't Hagler/Duran.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 09 Sep 2006, 03:38

Decagon wrote:The scores were waaaaaaay too close. I could easily see Hagler winning that fight 11-4, if one were to give him as many breaks as the judges gave Duran.

I agree. Hagler, whilst showing Duran too much respect WAS doing enough to win the vast majority of the rounds. Not one of Marvin's most impressive showings, that's for sure. Duran seemed to have got inside Hagler's head and made him too tentative. Duran was still having a go at poor old Marvin's physche (sp?) after the final bell; standing there making monkey spanking gestures. Funny stuff.

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 09 Sep 2006, 04:09

ringsider wrote:It was a horrible fight. All it showed was what a plodder Hagler was. How he was afraid of the smaller man Duran, and and yet still basically Hagler won almost every round, inspite of what the judges said. It was snoozefest a of fight IMHO. So much potential, so little happened. I don't know what fight KO Artist was watching, but it sure wasn't Hagler/Duran.

A fight that was full of boxing skill. Hit and not get hit.

If you want pure KO's stick to watching Peter McNeely or WWF. This was a good fight for those who can appreciate the art of boxing.

el tigre del sur · Post by **el tigre del sur** » 09 Sep 2006, 05:59

I have to agree with KO Artist on this one. Every time I watch this fight I am surprised by just how good it really was. There's a lot of skill on show from two seasoned veterans and for mine there is plenty of action throughout the bout.

11-4 to Hagler! Forget about it. I think I scored it by 1 or 2 rounds to Marvin with him finishing the stronger.

IMO This is the fight that proves Duran to be one of the greatest pound-for-pound fighters ever. The greatest Lightweight ever taking it to one of the greatest Middleweights ever. I know Hagler has his detractors on this board but anyone who thinks the Marvellous one isn't in the top 3 MW of all time needs to go back to the tapes.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 09 Sep 2006, 07:28

el tigre, I agree, I sure don't want to get lumped with "Hagler Detractors" though I think some people beleive that. Based on the fact that I have debated in behalf of one or two others that I think to be better than Hagler.

He was first class.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 09 Sep 2006, 07:46

I have it a close fight as well... Marvin was the stronger in the last 3 rounds and that sealed the win.... scorewise I made it about 6 to 8 rounds with one even.... but Duran was compoetitive right up to the end. I think Duran is very underrated at 160 pounds... though his performaces at this point of his career were erratic, his showings against Hagler and Barkley make me think that on those nights duran could have troubled most of the all time middleweights...

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 09 Sep 2006, 07:57

BoxBuzz wrote:el tigre, I agree, I sure don't want to get lumped with "Hagler Detractors" though I think some people beleive that. Based on the fact that I have debated in behalf of one or two others that I think to be better than Hagler.

He was first class.

I don't think there are many people who seriously think Hagler wasn't one of the best 160 pounders of all time. I don't get into making lists; it seems a bit artificial to me as there is little or no footage of many of the earlier greats. But Hagler is the premier middleweight I have seen since I was introduced to boxing in 1977.

Every one of the guys he beat in world title fights, except possibly Caveman Lee, would have been a title holder in this age. Hell, even the Caveman could have been a WBO champ with probably 10 defences!

Even though I scored the Leonard fight for clearly for Sugar Ray it doesn't really detract from Hagler's reign. He was on the slide by then and, hey, Leonard was a great fighter too.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 09 Sep 2006, 08:07

The Hagler that fought Leonard was a different fighter to the one who fought Duran...

theone · Post by **theone** » 09 Sep 2006, 08:41

I know Hagler has his detractors on this board but anyone who thinks the Marvellous one isn't in the top 3 MW of all time needs to go back to the tapes.

In terms of accomplishment I agree. However watching thoses same fight tapes I also came to the conclusion that there are at least four ATG middles who would have beaten him more often than not.

1. Monzon - I think his bigger size and composure would be the difference in a razor thin decision over Hagler.
2.Robinson - Not the one who came out of retirement and fought Fullmer and Basillo; Hagler takes him fairly easy I think. But the Robinson who defeated LaMotta for the middleweight title has almost every advantage over Hagler and would decision him probably every time.
3. Leonard - I bellieve if Leonard would have fought Hagler much earlier he still would have beat him. People talk about how past his best Hagler was when he lost to Leonard. Well, Leonard preformed nothing like his prime self either and would have always been too fast and smart for Hagler.
4. Jones - Yes, Roy Jones Jr. The middleweight Jones would have been too fast for the somewhat plodding Hagler and probably hit harder than him too. Hard enough at least to gain Haglers respect and cruise to a somewhat easy decision victory.

With there defensive skills and solid chins I think Hopskins and Toney would have given Hagler fits, but I believe Marvin edges them out with solid pressure.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 09 Sep 2006, 09:07

theone wrote:
I know Hagler has his detractors on this board but anyone who thinks the Marvellous one isn't in the top 3 MW of all time needs to go back to the tapes.

In terms of accomplishment I agree. However watching thoses same fight tapes I also came to the conclusion that there are at least four ATG middles who would have beaten him more often than not.

1. Monzon - I think his bigger size and composure would be the difference in a razor thin decision over Hagler.
2.Robinson - Not the one who came out of retirement and fought Fullmer and Basillo; Hagler takes him fairly easy I think. But the Robinson who defeated LaMotta for the middleweight title has almost every advantage over Hagler and would decision him probably every time.
3. Leonard - I bellieve if Leonard would have fought Hagler much earlier he still would have beat him. People talk about how past his best Hagler was when he lost to Leonard. Well, Leonard preformed nothing like his prime self either and would have always been too fast and smart for Hagler.
4. Jones - Yes, Roy Jones Jr. The middleweight Jones would have been too fast for the somewhat plodding Hagler and probably hit harder than him too. Hard enough at least to gain Haglers respect and cruise to a somewhat easy decision victory.

With there defensive skills and solid chins I think Hopskins and Toney would have given Hagler fits, but I believe Marvin edges them out with solid pressure.

Monzon. Possibly. I caught him at the end of his career but he's the 2nd best of my time at 160.

Robinson. I'd never take anything away from that cat. Those combos were wicked.

Leonard. Debatable. His beat weight was 147. 160 is a big jump against a peak Hagler. Ray was one of my favourites and it's not beyond the realms of possibility he could do it. But that 13 pounds is a lot to give away. Boxing historian alert! Has a PEAK ATG welterweight ever beat a PEAK ATG at 160?

Jones. He beat Hopkins at 160. Anyone else? Wasn't the Toney win at 168? I'd have to say the evidence for a Jones win is flimsy, at best.

theone · Post by **theone** » 09 Sep 2006, 09:16

Jones. He beat Hopkins at 160. Anyone else? Wasn't the Toney win at 168? I'd have to say the evidence for a Jones win is flimsy, at best.

But Hagler never beat a middlewieght as good as Hopskins; and Jones did it with relative ease.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 09 Sep 2006, 09:40

theone wrote:
Jones. He beat Hopkins at 160. Anyone else? Wasn't the Toney win at 168? I'd have to say the evidence for a Jones win is flimsy, at best.
But Hagler never beat a middlewieght as good as Hopskins; and Jones did it with relative ease.

Yeah, Hopkins was phenom at 160. Hey, just because he lost to the two best fighters he met at 160 let's not worry about that. Don't forget those great wins over Joe Lipsey, andrew council and that great fighter robert allen. Ha! Minter regularly beat blokes like that and minter struggles to crack the top 100 middleweight champs. Revisionism reigns.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 09 Sep 2006, 10:08

Anyway you look at, Hagler was disappointing the night he fought Duran. He just didn't attack him like the guy had killed his pigeons. You could see it right from the beginning, metaphorically speaking, he wasen't breathing fire, he wasen't on a search and destroy mission. Compare that with Tommy Hearns' demeanor for his bout with Duran, (and yes I know Hearns was technically a bad matchup for Duran) and you see a guy with just one objective in mind, knockout. All the great ones have there disappointing nights though, and this one was Marvelous Marvin's. He didn't fight terrible, he just lacked his usual intensity.

theone · Post by **theone** » 09 Sep 2006, 12:01

eah, Hopkins was phenom at 160. Hey, just because he lost to the two best fighters he met at 160 let's not worry about that. Don't forget those great wins over Joe Lipsey, andrew council and that great fighter robert allen. Ha! Minter regularly beat blokes like that and minter struggles to crack the top 100 middleweight champs. Revisionism reigns.

Yup Hopkins was a phenom at middleweight. Its silly to belittle his accomplishments. The fact that he lost to the even greater Jones and two very highly controversial fights past his prime to Jermaine Taylor should not detract from his legacy.

Talk about revisionist! Minter was regularly ko'd by lesser fighters than Lipsey or Council! All before he fought Hagler!

That being said, I still rank Hagler head to head over Bernard, but barely.
Hagler never fought anyone as complete as him. And Jones would most likely have defeated Hagler just as easily as he did Hopkins.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 09 Sep 2006, 13:26

In defense of Alan Minter, all those stoppages were on cuts, something he was very prone to. He was never on the canvas, till Tony Sibson dropped him 3 times in his final bout. Minter was a paradox in that he bled easily, but still had a great chin.