Who Thought Duran Hagler Was Close

[TIGEREDGE]

I thought it was a close fight. HAGLER won no doubt but duran give him one of his hardest fights. shows how great duran was to be a major force at 5 weights

[Luigi1985]

Yes, it was a close fight, but IMO Hagler could have been a bit more aggressive...

[Asterion]

9-5-1 Hagler.

[laxpdx]

Hagler looked way too passive. He should've KO'd Duran in the mid to late rounds, IMO.

[JohnThomas1]

Tho i thought Hagler was mighty disappointing i think he was ahead by more than the cards read. I know it actually.

[Robbi]

Hagler showed Duran far too much respect. I think Hagler was intimidated by Duran's reputation, and the magnitude of the event probably made Hagler slightly nervous. I'm sure Hagler looked at Duran's performance against Moore and said to himself "This guy is for real". Everyone expected Duran's aggressive style to play right into Hagler's hands. It was a superfight between two massive stars which was a mismatch before the first bell rang. Nobody gave Duran a chance. He never just fooled Hagler with his cute defensive tactics, but all the journalists and fans as well.

Duran was a master of mind games. Palamino was warned before he met Duran at a press conference that things could get very nasty. Palamino was ready for it all to kick off. When they both met face to face, Duran walked over to Palamino, shook his hand, then asked for his autograph.

[Duodenum]

Duran was a master of mind games. Palamino was warned before he met Duran at a press conference that things could get very nasty. Palamino was ready for it all to kick off. When they both met face to face, Duran walked over to Palamino, shook his hand, then asked for his autograph.Recalling Arcel's comment that Duran would rather fight than eat, he seemed more interested in having a good time against Palomino. Carlos was now a former champion, and it was generally known that he wanted to be retired by the time he turned 30. He had his degree, already performed with Tony Danza in Taxi, and was looking forward to the next phase of his life. My chief memory of that bout is actually encapsulated in a news photo of Duran at the weigh-in, drink cup in hand, with a broad relaxed smile on his face as Palomino was on the scale. He had to know that Palomino lost the hunger which once made him a champion.

Regarding Hagler/Duran, I felt Marv might have been too respectful of Roberto's reputation. My view was that El Cholo was winning after 12 rounds, then Hagler swept the championship rounds to take the decision. Essentially, it seemed to me that Marv ultimately prevailed with his youth, strength and conditioning. However, Duran produced a magnificent display of boxing over the first 12 rounds, and demonstrated that he didn't need to be able to advance in order to win. I also feel that Duran performed better over the first 12 rounds against Hagler than SRL did, despite Marv being vastly superior in repelling Duran's challenge to how dreadful his showing against Ray was.

[Street Lethal]

Hagler elected to box the master and outboxed him. It proved more in terms of his legacy than had he elected to wade in slugging. It showed that Hagler was an extremely skilled boxer who could cleanly outpoint another extemely skilled boxer. Whereas Leonard could not outbox Duran, Hagler could, showing the world who was the better boxer.

[Thread Stealer]

It was one of the most exaggerated "close" fights ever.

Hagler won 10-4-1.

I really wanted to give Duran more rounds, because I like him more than Hagler, but I couldn't do it.

[Thread Stealer]

Hagler elected to box the master and outboxed him. It proved more in terms of his legacy than had he elected to wade in slugging. It showed that Hagler was an extremely skilled boxer who could cleanly outpoint another extemely skilled boxer. Whereas Leonard could not outbox Duran, Hagler could, showing the world who was the better boxer.

Everyone knew (or should have known) that Hagler was a good boxer before that.

Hagler was more of a boxer-puncher than slugger for most of his career.

[Robbi]

Recalling Arcel's comment that Duran would rather fight than eat, he seemed more interested in having a good time against Palomino. Carlos was now a former champion, and it was generally known that he wanted to be retired by the time he turned 30. He had his degree, already performed with Tony Danza in Taxi, and was looking forward to the next phase of his life. My chief memory of that bout is actually encapsulated in a news photo of Duran at the weigh-in, drink cup in hand, with a broad relaxed smile on his face as Palomino was on the scale. He had to know that Palomino lost the hunger which once made him a champion.

Regarding Hagler/Duran, I felt Marv might have been too respectful of Roberto's reputation. My view was that El Cholo was winning after 12 rounds, then Hagler swept the championship rounds to take the decision. Essentially, it seemed to me that Marv ultimately prevailed with his youth, strength and conditioning. However, Duran produced a magnificent display of boxing over the first 12 rounds, and demonstrated that he didn't need to be able to advance in order to win. I also feel that Duran performed better over the first 12 rounds against Hagler than SRL did, despite Marv being vastly superior in repelling Duran's challenge to how dreadful his showing against Ray was.

If you have the fight close or wide in favour of Hagler, one thing everyone knows who has posted on this thread so far. Duran should have put combinations together more often. He was very focused on his defense, but his work was more behind the jab with the odd right hand mixed in as well.

Duran simply wasn't busy enough with power shots. I'm not saying he should have fought Hagler toe-to-toe, but landing 3-4 punch combinations at mid-distance then reassessing his next move from the outside would have been perfect.

Duran's intelligence was evident throughout the fight. Hagler done him a favour by standing off. But If Hagler came out smoking early and bossed the fight their is a good chance Duran would have not seen 8 rounds.

But you could also say Duran let Hagler off the leash as well. He was just doing enough to hang in there competitively with Hagler. Just a bit more authoritive work, more straight right hands combined with combinations, and Hagler would have kissed his title "goodbye".

[Street Lethal]

Everyone knew (or should have known) that Hagler was a good boxer before that.

Hagler was more of a boxer-puncher than slugger for most of his career.

But the perception was that he was more a puncher than a boxer. If that had not been true you wouldn't have all these assessments saying that Hagler gave Duran too much respect. The expectation was that Hagler would take Duran apart with aggression and power. Instead, he put on a clinic. People don't see that because of their perception of Hagler.

[Stonehands89]

I've grown weary of hearing how Hagler was intimated by the event, by Duran, or what have you. This fight is a clear illustration of the general tendency to apply criticisms to the past based on knowledge that was unknown at the time. Here's what Hagler did not know in November of 1983:

1. That Duran would be KOd by Hearns the next June.
2. That he himself would steamroller Hearns in April of 85.

Here's what Hagler did know in November 1983:

1. The Duran had fought aggressively in his previous two wins against Cuevas and Moore -and destroyed them both. Both men tried to punch with him and paid dearly. Duran's "backalley baroque" makes that costly.

2. Duran had been dropped twice before and never KO'd in 81 fights.

3. Duran was very inspired and in great condition.

--Fact is, Hagler won the fight and towards the end of it, had an eye that was beginning to look like Davey Moore's. Duran eats one-eyed fighters. If Hagler had gone straight at the smaller man, this damage would have occured earlier in the fight and Duran would aim right for that eye like he was doing. It was a heavy risk and as it turns out, an unnecessary one for Hagler to go straight at him.

Normally, of course it is sensible to take the fight to the smaller man. But Duran was so much more than a smaller man.

[TIGEREDGE]

I've grown weary of hearing how Hagler was intimated by the event, by Duran, or what have you. This fight is a clear illustration of the general tendency to apply criticisms to the past based on knowledge that was unknown at the time. Here's what Hagler did not know in November of 1983:

1. That Duran would be KOd by Hearns the next June.
2. That he himself would steamroller Hearns in April of 85.

Here's what Hagler did know in November 1983:

1. The Duran had fought aggressively in his previous two wins against Cuevas and Moore -and destroyed them both. Both men tried to punch with him and paid dearly. Duran's "backalley baroque" makes that costly.

2. Duran had been dropped twice before and never KO'd in 81 fights.

3. Duran was very inspired and in great condition.

--Fact is, Hagler won the fight and towards the end of it, had an eye that was beginning to look like Davey Moore's. Duran eats one-eyed fighters. If Hagler had gone straight at the smaller man, this damage would have occured earlier in the fight and Duran would aim right for that eye like he was doing. It was a heavy risk and as it turns out, an unnecessary one for Hagler to go straight at him.

Normally, of course it is sensible to take the fight to the smaller man. But Duran was so much more than a smaller man.

great statement

[Robbi]

I've grown weary of hearing how Hagler was intimated by the event, by Duran, or what have you. This fight is a clear illustration of the general tendency to apply criticisms to the past based on knowledge that was unknown at the time. Here's what Hagler did not know in November of 1983:

1. That Duran would be KOd by Hearns the next June.
2. That he himself would steamroller Hearns in April of 85.

Here's what Hagler did know in November 1983:

1. The Duran had fought aggressively in his previous two wins against Cuevas and Moore -and destroyed them both. Both men tried to punch with him and paid dearly. Duran's "backalley baroque" makes that costly.

2. Duran had been dropped twice before and never KO'd in 81 fights.

3. Duran was very inspired and in great condition.

--Fact is, Hagler won the fight and towards the end of it, had an eye that was beginning to look like Davey Moore's. Duran eats one-eyed fighters. If Hagler had gone straight at the smaller man, this damage would have occured earlier in the fight and Duran would aim right for that eye like he was doing. It was a heavy risk and as it turns out, an unnecessary one for Hagler to go straight at him.

Normally, of course it is sensible to take the fight to the smaller man. But Duran was so much more than a smaller man.

Solid points. But Hagler also knew Duran's last victim was a relatively inexperienced pro who was exposed on the night. Full credit to Duran though as he had some poor performances beforehand, Laing and Benitez. Moore was also the odds makers favourite before a first bell rang.

Duran v Cuevas. I have to disagree with you that Duran fought aggressively, as he did the opposite apart from when he went in for the kill during the 4th round. His showing against Cuevas would be one of the ones in his career I'd tag "boxing display". He boxed superbly, circling behind the jab, and softening up Cuevas before siezing the right moment to strike. He kept his distance and stood off. It was a very patient display.

Not too sure when you last seen the fight, but with fresh viewing of it I'm sure you'd change your view on how Duran fought that night.

[Bummy Davis]

If I Remember Correctly It Was Even Going Into The Last 2 Rounds And Hagler Won Them,i Have Not Watched That Fight In Years, It Was Close But Hagler Won, But A Lot Closer Than I Expected

[buzzsaw]

Duran exposed the downward slide of the Marvelous One’s skills. Sugar Ray Leonard was also doing the ringside commentary for that fight and I can just imagine what he was seeing and thinking.

[Vantage_West]

Hagler looked way too passive. He should've KO'd Duran in the mid to late rounds, IMO.yeah should of koed duran cause it was the later rounds:roll:

[JohnThomas1]

My view was that El Cholo was winning after 12 rounds, then Hagler swept the championship rounds to take the decision. However, Duran produced a magnificent display of boxing over the first 12 rounds, and demonstrated that he didn't need to be able to advance in order to win.

So you had Duran ahead on your scorecard after 12 rounds?

[JohnThomas1]

But you could also say Duran let Hagler off the leash as well. He was just doing enough to hang in there competitively with Hagler. Just a bit more authoritive work, more straight right hands combined with combinations, and Hagler would have kissed his title "goodbye".

Well everyone knows i consider Hagler a tad overrated in here but i have to proffer an opinion on this one. There's a reason Duran didn't get busier, didn't get more offensive and was more than content to hang in there with Hagler.

He would have got hammered is why. Many of Haglers best moments are when Duran is forcing the issue more, and slightly surprisingly (even with Duran being smaller) Hagler was the more effective fighter inside. This of course is why Duran hung back far more than normal. Full kudo's to him finding his best strategy and executing it well against the bigger stronger man.

[JohnThomas1]

I've grown weary of hearing how Hagler was intimated by the event, by Duran, or what have you. This fight is a clear illustration of the general tendency to apply criticisms to the past based on knowledge that was unknown at the time. Here's what Hagler did not know in November of 1983:

1. That Duran would be KOd by Hearns the next June.
2. That he himself would steamroller Hearns in April of 85.

Here's what Hagler did know in November 1983:

1. The Duran had fought aggressively in his previous two wins against Cuevas and Moore -and destroyed them both. Both men tried to punch with him and paid dearly. Duran's "backalley baroque" makes that costly.

2. Duran had been dropped twice before and never KO'd in 81 fights.

3. Duran was very inspired and in great condition.

Other things he knew were that Duran had long been a natural lightweight and was the naturally much smaller man. He also knew Benitez (who Hagler wasn't impressed by) had ripped Duran about 13 rounds to 2, he knew about No Mas and had also been beaten by Laing. Duran was never going to be a killer at 160 and Hagler always talked the talk, but in this one failed to walk the walk.

Hagler should hardly have been intimidated by Duran whipping a guy with but 12 fights to his name. This is a guy going by the (self proclaimed) motto of "Destruct and destroy". Monzon himself said later that when you fight the smaller guys moving up you need to be aggressive and use your size advantages, basically. Cuevas had been beaten by the ordinary Roger Stafford right prior. Excellent displays by Duran, but hardly the sort of stuff that should have the Monster that was Hagler shaking in his shoes. Hagler was well known for fobbing off victories such as these and talking it up confidently. In this one, he is a victim of his own reputation.

Fact is, Hagler won the fight and towards the end of it, had an eye that was beginning to look like Davey Moore's. Duran eats one-eyed fighters. If Hagler had gone straight at the smaller man, this damage would have occured earlier in the fight and Duran would aim right for that eye like he was doing. It was a heavy risk and as it turns out, an unnecessary one for Hagler to go straight at him.
In all my years i have never seen Hagler make mention of your theory about the eye. Personally i don't go with it.

Normally, of course it is sensible to take the fight to the smaller man. But Duran was so much more than a smaller man.
So too were Napoles and Griffith, but Monzon kept a steady beat on them and won impressively. The fact is that if Hagler took the fight to Duran more than he did he would have won much easier, and quite possibly have stopped him. Duran was in big big trouble in one of the midrounds then Hagler came out next round and eased the pressure right off. He was apparently wary of Duran's counterpunching skills despite his success and dominance in the previous round. This is a disappointing turn of events from one of the greatest and supposed meanest, and one that a Monzon or Hopkins would not have gone for.

The shame is, Hagler still hadn't learnt his lesson when SRL came around. Again, if he fought the way he talked it quite likely would have been a different turn of events. It didn't take rocket science to know solid steady pressure (if not more) was going to make life very difficult for a guy who hadn't fought in years and was up in the weights. Instead Leonard was allowed to cruise, building up points while saving crucial wind for the latter stages.

[JohnThomas1]

Duran exposed the downward slide of the Marvelous One’s skills. Sugar Ray Leonard was also doing the ringside commentary for that fight and I can just imagine what he was seeing and thinking.

What Duran did was show us how much a master technician could trouble Hagler. Hagler never dominated a technician. His era was full of come forward fighters who he absolutely feasted on most times.

[Robbi]

Other things he knew were that Duran had long been a natural lightweight and was the naturally much smaller man. He also knew Benitez (who Hagler wasn't impressed by) had ripped Duran about 13 rounds to 2, he knew about No Mas and had also been beaten by Laing. Duran was never going to be a killer at 160 and Hagler always talked the talk, but in this one failed to walk the walk.

Hagler should hardly have been intimidated by Duran whipping a guy with but 12 fights to his name. This is a guy going by the (self proclaimed) motto of "Destruct and destroy". Monzon himself said later that when you fight the smaller guys moving up you need to be aggressive and use your size advantages, basically. Cuevas had been beaten by the ordinary Roger Stafford right prior. Excellent displays by Duran, but hardly the sort of stuff that should have the Monster that was Hagler shaking in his shoes. Hagler was well known for fobbing off victories such as these and talking it up confidently. In this one, he is a victim of his own reputation.


In all my years i have never seen Hagler make mention of your theory about the eye. Personally i don't go with it.


So too were Napoles and Griffith, but Monzon kept a steady beat on them and won impressively. The fact is that if Hagler took the fight to Duran more than he did he would have won much easier, and quite possibly have stopped him. Duran was in big big trouble in one of the midrounds then Hagler came out next round and eased the pressure right off. He was apparently wary of Duran's counterpunching skills despite his success and dominance in the previous round. This is a disappointing turn of events from one of the greatest and supposed meanest, and one that a Monzon or Hopkins would not have gone for.

The shame is, Hagler still hadn't learnt his lesson when SRL came around. Again, if he fought the way he talked it quite likely would have been a different turn of events. It didn't take rocket science to know solid steady pressure (if not more) was going to make life very difficult for a guy who hadn't fought in years and was up in the weights. Instead Leonard was allowed to cruise, building up points while saving crucial wind for the latter stages.

I agree JT. As I said in my earlier post, If Hagler came out smoking he more than likely would have stopped Duran inside 8 rounds. The continual heavy punches and strength of Hagler inside would have been too much for Duran to handle. Hagler definitely bossed Duran inside, no question about it. Thats Duran's office in there, but it was not a place he liked being during the fight. Certainly not for long periods anyway.

I just feel Duran should have worked his hands a bit more, because he was too focused on exclusively using the jab and slipping punches. Duran's great old trick was evident, moving his head just before the point of impact, thus reducing the power from Hagler's landed punches.

We can go on about different aspects of the fight all we want. But when we look at the basics, Duran took a prime Hagler 15 rounds. And he was the only fighter to do so in all of Hagler's successful defenses. A very fine achivement indeed even though his was the loser.

[Duodenum]

So you had Duran ahead on your scorecard after 12 rounds?It has been many years JT, but scoring off the television rebroadcast, I indeed had Duran ahead after 12 rounds. A surprising number of those who knew Hagler, and lived in his area agreed with that assessment. (My sister was one of those who knew him.)

Now, please keep in mind that I am always aware that what seems apparent on a television monitor may be very different from what is observed from ringside. (For all his failings, Howard Cosell could be very good at articulating the difference between what the monitor indicated, and what was actually happening in the ring. "That punch made a lot of noise and excited the hometown crowd, but it was partially blocked." Cosell could raise his voice to convey drama and excitement, but he could also be appropriately calm when the audience at his venue was inappropriately roused by flamboyant but ineffective action.)

The most interesting thing Steve Farhood ever wrote that I read was how he scored the Mike Spinks/Eddie Davis fight in favor of Mike as he watched it live from ringside. Later, he rescored the match of a review of the videotaped broadcast, and wound up scoring it in Eddie's favor this time.

I would do the best I could scoring a match at home, but always retain the understanding that what the footage reveals could be deceptive. That's why judges score live from ringside, and why the viewing of footage should be supplemented by a consensus of informed and knowledgeable eyewitness accounts.

[Shake]

Duran had a plan that night -- the same he later utilized on Iran Barkley. Counter with right hands to the same eye all night. Try and use the thumb to assist the eye in closing. When the fighter has one eye shut, capitalize.

Hagler was fearful of Duran using his thumb. IIRC, Hagler told his corner that Duran was 'trying to get the thumb in there'.

Hagler was, imo, also a bit awed by the past results of Duran. It seemed evident that he could be outpointed, but not knocked out, and he thrived in slugfests.

Hagler, student of the game as he was, put all this together and decided his best bet was to box him. Little did he know that Duran would surprise him by playing counterpuncher.

[Street Lethal]

Hagler never dominated a technician.

Thomas Hearns was a technician. Hagler destroyed him. Duran was a technician. I thought Hagler dominated from the sixth round on. Hagler faced several other technicians on the way up.

"Hagler never dominated a technician" is a bold thing to say, and it's not supported by the historical record.

[JohnThomas1]

Thomas Hearns was a technician. Hagler destroyed him. Duran was a technician. I thought Hagler dominated from the sixth round on. Hagler faced several other technicians on the way up.

"Hagler never dominated a technician" is a bold thing to say, and it's not supported by the historical record.

Hearns and Hagler went to war, there wasn't anything technical about this fight whatsoever. Hagler went right after Hearns and Tommy happily obliged.

Duran was a technician yes, and also way over his head weight wise. Tho i agree Hagler was ahead by more than the cards show, Duran's effectiveness standing off Hagler was most surprising. Duran is a better infighting technician than out and out was where he went better than expected.

SRL was a technician, and had Hagler in knots at times. Yes Leonard was aging too with no warm up to boot.

I can't remember Hagler beating any top quality technicians coming up at all. I'm not talking a Sugar Ray Seales level fighter but someone with some class such as Duran and Leonard. Hopkins is a technician but truth be told class technicians at 160 were rarer than hens teeth during Marvins career.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Hagler won handily if we're being honest. After initially being star-struck (something that would haunt him again four years later) he boxed sensibily to win around 10-5. Monzon vs Napoles is what a great middleweight champ does to someone stepping up. Let the lighter guy have his day in the sun before trouncing him. I think most expected Marv to do the same after the 6th, instead of asking for Duran's autograph in the clinches. Still, at least he got his gloves signed after the bout. I have one of them, bought on e-bay for 200 quid. It reads:


To Baldy,

Leonard's better than you,

Love,

Roberto.

xxx

[JohnThomas1]

Hagler won handily if we're being honest. After initially being star-struck (something that would haunt him again four years later) he boxed sensibily to win around 10-5. Monzon vs Napoles is what a great middleweight champ does to someone stepping up. Let the lighter guy have his day in the sun before trouncing him. I think most expected Marv to do the same after the 6th, instead of asking for Duran's autograph in the clinches. Still, at least he got his gloves signed after the bout. I have one of them, bought on e-bay for 200 quid. It reads:


To Baldy,

Leonard's better than you,

Love,

Roberto.

xxx

:rofl

And a chilling prophecy it turned out to be!!!

[Stonehands89]

Solid points. But Hagler also knew Duran's last victim was a relatively inexperienced pro who was exposed on the night. Full credit to Duran though as he had some poor performances beforehand, Laing and Benitez. Moore was also the odds makers favourite before a first bell rang.
I don't think that neither Hagler nor his handlers were watching Moore -they were watching Duran handle a larger, younger, faster man with ease. They knew that Duran was not to be underestimated -and they didn't.

Duran v Cuevas. I have to disagree with you that Duran fought aggressively, as he did the opposite apart from when he went in for the kill during the 4th round. His showing against Cuevas would be one of the ones in his career I'd tag "boxing display". He boxed superbly, circling behind the jab, and softening up Cuevas before siezing the right moment to strike. He kept his distance and stood off. It was a very patient display.

Not too sure when you last seen the fight, but with fresh viewing of it I'm sure you'd change your view on how Duran fought that night.


I've watched the fight 57 times and counting. During's style of aggression was not necessarily akin to Pacman's style of aggression. 'Backalley baroque' illustrates Duran's aggressive style well. Duran was picking punches and working the jab against Cuevas, sure. And he jumped in and warred with him whenever he could. At one point in round 3 he disdainly pounded his chin and then went toe-to-toe with Cuevas. The fight heated up fast and ended inside of 4 rounds because Duran was close to him throwing shots -the fact that he spun his man, countered him, jabbed him, and used his vaunted defense does not detract from his aggression -it merely made it more intelligent.

[achillesthegreat]

Hagler won by a few points. It wasn't controversial and Duran on no ones card could win.

Its just Norton-Holmes, the cards were AS CLOSE as possible. They can't get any closer. In fact the cards were a few points off.

[Robbi]

I don't think that neither Hagler nor his handlers were watching Moore -they were watching Duran handle a larger, younger, faster man with ease. They knew that Duran was not to be underestimated -and they didn't.



I've watched the fight 57 times and counting. During's style of aggression was not necessarily akin to Pacman's style of aggression. 'Backalley baroque' illustrates Duran's aggressive style well. Duran was picking punches and working the jab against Cuevas, sure. And he jumped in and warred with him whenever he could. At one point in round 3 he disdainly pounded his chin and then went toe-to-toe with Cuevas. The fight heated up fast and ended inside of 4 rounds because Duran was close to him throwing shots -the fact that he spun his man, countered him, jabbed him, and used his vaunted defense does not detract from his aggression -it merely made it more intelligent.

Duran was aggressive during the 4th round when he stopped Cuevas, but for the most part the way he went about his business while the fight lasted was by boxing patiently from long range. Its not as If he stalked Cuevas down behind the jab while coming forward at the same time. Not much heavy artillery at all until the finish during the 4th round. Certainly not enough for his showing to be tagged "aggressive" in my eyes, far from it.

[Stonehands89]

Other things he knew were that Duran had long been a natural lightweight and was the naturally much smaller man. He also knew Benitez (who Hagler wasn't impressed by) had ripped Duran about 13 rounds to 2, he knew about No Mas and had also been beaten by Laing. Duran was never going to be a killer at 160 and Hagler always talked the talk, but in this one failed to walk the walk.
Granted. However JT, boxing insiders know full well that the Duran who fought Leonard II and Laing (and in my opinion, Benitez) was simply not the same as the one who destroyed Cuevas and Moore. Anyone who claims that these are mere excuses and that Duran was ready for No Mas and there were "not" long term effects in the ring don't understand the rudiments of psychology. Duran is tempermental -he was a passion fighter, not a workman. Sans passion, Duran dropped several levels in effectiveness.

Secondly, consider also the styles. Leonard, Benitez, and Laing were boxer-movers. Cuevas and Moore were sluggers. The former set won easily, the latter set lost miserably. Neither the Petronelli's nor Hagler were going to discount the obvious.

Hagler should hardly have been intimidated by Duran whipping a guy with but 12 fights to his name. This is a guy going by the (self proclaimed) motto of "Destruct and destroy". Monzon himself said later that when you fight the smaller guys moving up you need to be aggressive and use your size advantages, basically. Cuevas had been beaten by the ordinary Roger Stafford right prior. Excellent displays by Duran, but hardly the sort of stuff that should have the Monster that was Hagler shaking in his shoes. Hagler was well known for fobbing off victories such as these and talking it up confidently. In this one, he is a victim of his own reputation.
Why is respect and caution being confused with intimidation? I don't believe that Hagler was afraid -he was a champion who sought and found the best strategy to deal with one of the most ferocious fighters who ever lived. In the end, the fact is that Hagler outboxed Duran. He turned up the heat when he had to and wore out the smaller man -I just don't see why the grandiose criticism has taken root out here. A better argument could be made that Hagler showed versatility. He wasn't simply a "destruct and destroy" kind of fighter. He can outbox a master.

In all my years i have never seen Hagler make mention of your theory about the eye. Personally i don't go with it.
Why would he? And the fact is if he didn't, it was plain to see anyway that Hagler's eye was swelling up and Duran was aiming for it.

So too were Napoles and Griffith, but Monzon kept a steady beat on them and won impressively. The fact is that if Hagler took the fight to Duran more than he did he would have won much easier, and quite possibly have stopped him. Duran was in big big trouble in one of the midrounds then Hagler came out next round and eased the pressure right off. He was apparently wary of Duran's counterpunching skills despite his success and dominance in the previous round. This is a disappointing turn of events from one of the greatest and supposed meanest, and one that a Monzon or Hopkins would not have gone for.
Monzon fought one way. Hagler was more versatile, despite his later reputation. Napoles was stopped twice on cuts before Monzon. Griffith could be stopped.

That aside, I agree that Hagler would have had an easier time had he imposed his strength more and punched more instead of waiting... but again, we see that now. Who cannot see the risks that Hagler saw with that approach considering what he knew beforehand?

... Duran was not in big trouble at all in the fight. He absolutely not. I know that shot you are talking about, it was one that knocked him off balance. Duran shook his head but what's more, he showed no signs of being in danger. By all reports at the time, Duran had a chin that was rock solid.

The shame is, Hagler still hadn't learnt his lesson when SRL came around. Again, if he fought the way he talked it quite likely would have been a different turn of events. It didn't take rocket science to know solid steady pressure (if not more) was going to make life very difficult for a guy who hadn't fought in years and was up in the weights. Instead Leonard was allowed to cruise, building up points while saving crucial wind for the latter stages.
.... I can meet you half way. I do not fault Hagler's winning, though low risk strategy against Duran. Duran was the bane of aggressive, come forward fighters throughout his career. Boxer-movers did better with him.

However, Hagler fought a fool's fight against Leonard. Leonard fists were not as damaging as Duran's partly because he was more mobile and less set -even while punching. Leonard was fleet of fist and foot and had to be cornered and beaten. Against Duran, Hagler gave Duran the benefit of the doubt over his size and decided to box with a puncher. This is not unwise. Against Leonard, Hagler boxed with a boxer. This was stupid.

[Stonehands89]

Duran was aggressive during the 4th round when he stopped Cuevas, but for the most part the way he went about his business while the fight lasted was by boxing patiently from long range. Its not as If he stalked Cuevas down behind the jab while coming forward at the same time. Not much heavy artillery at all until the finish during the 4th round. Certainly not enough for his showing to be tagged "aggressive" in my eyes, far from it.
Duran was being patient and cautious with Cuevas -who had dynamite in his fists. He was never out of range and was waiting for Cuevas to throw in order to counter him, and he was wrecking the ribs when Cuevas got close and leaned in. The third round was war.

Overall, Duran fought an aggressive fight, stopping his man inside of 4. He spent 2 rounds measuring, waiting, countering and working the body. He was not rushing in to Pipino because of the inherent risk.

[Robbi]

Duran was being patient and cautious with Cuevas -who had dynamite in his fists. He was never out of range and was waiting for Cuevas to throw in order to counter him, and he was wrecking the ribs when Cuevas got close and leaned in. The third round was war.

Overall, Duran fought an aggressive fight, stopping his man inside of 4. He spent 2 rounds measuring, waiting, countering and working the body. He was not rushing in to Pipino because of the inherent risk.

I'll watch it again later. Being agressive in my book is coming forward and landing power punches on a regular basis. And Duran done that for about 20% of his fight with Cuevas, including the finish.

[Street Lethal]

Hearns and Hagler went to war, there wasn't anything technical about this fight whatsoever. Hagler went right after Hearns and Tommy happily obliged.

Duran was a technician yes, and also way over his head weight wise....

SRL was a technician, and had Hagler in knots at times. Yes Leonard was aging too with no warm up to boot.


You can't save yoruself from being wrong by changing your argument. Everybody can see what you are doing here. You said Hagler never beat a technician. Hearns was a technician. Hagler beat him. Your statement is false. Part of beating a technician is to make him fight your fight. That's what Hagler did. He was a versatile boxer.

Duran was a technician as you admit, but your point about him being over his head weightwise is wrong. He obviously wasn't over his head weightwise against a huge Iran Barkley. Duran even knocked Barkley off his feet. The truth of the matter is that Hagler outboxed a master, the same man who administered a boxing lesson and a first class ass whipping to Leonard in Montreal.

Of course you believe Leonard beat Hagler, but your point about Leonard aging with no warm up to boot is inaccurate and wrong. First, relative to Hagler, Leonard was a young man. Even by absolute standards he was young for a welterweight/middleweight. Second, Leonard had plenty of warming up for that fight. He trained for the fight for a year and was fighting 12 round fights with middleweights using small mitts and no headgear. He was in the best shape of his life for Hagler, and it was this that allowed him to survive to the final bell. I can give him credit for that, but I can't give him credit for beating Hagler, because he didn't. In other words, Hagler beat another technician.

[Street Lethal]

Hagler won handily if we're being honest. After initially being star-struck (something that would haunt him again four years later) he boxed sensibily to win around 10-5. Monzon vs Napoles is what a great middleweight champ does to someone stepping up. Let the lighter guy have his day in the sun before trouncing him. I think most expected Marv to do the same after the 6th, instead of asking for Duran's autograph in the clinches. Still, at least he got his gloves signed after the bout. I have one of them, bought on e-bay for 200 quid. It reads:


To Baldy,

Leonard's better than you,

Love,

Roberto.

xxx

In case it was ambiguous, this extreme animosity you harbor for Marvelous Marvin Hagler, you provide us with a crystal clear instance of hatred.

And, as is the pattern, your hatefulness is applauded by your shadow, JohnThomas1.

Interesting.

Are you British?

[apollack]

I don't think it was close at all. Duran fought a cautious, crafty fight, but hardly threw at all. Sure when he landed he landed fairly solidly, but his output was so paltry I just can't see how you can give him a lot of rounds that they did. It seems to me that the judges were influenced by the crowd, which was pro-Duran. I think Hagler fought the wrong fight by not keeping constant pressure on him. When it was a fight and not a cautious outside boxing match, Hagler was the superior guy, and he might have stopped Duran had he kept that style up.

[Robbi]

You can't save yoruself from being wrong by changing your argument. Everybody can see what you are doing here. You said Hagler never beat a technician. Hearns was a technician. Hagler beat him. Your statement is false. Part of beating a technician is to make him fight your fight. That's what Hagler did. He was a versatile boxer.

Duran was a technician as you admit, but your point about him being over his head weightwise is wrong. He obviously wasn't over his head weightwise against a huge Iran Barkley. Duran even knocked Barkley off his feet. The truth of the matter is that Hagler outboxed a master, the same man who administered a boxing lesson and a first class ass whipping to Leonard in Montreal.

Of course you believe Leonard beat Hagler, but your point about Leonard aging with no warm up to boot is inaccurate and wrong. First, relative to Hagler, Leonard was a young man. Even by absolute standards he was young for a welterweight/middleweight. Second, Leonard had plenty of warming up for that fight. He trained for the fight for a year and was fighting 12 round fights with middleweights using small mitts and no headgear. He was in the best shape of his life for Hagler, and it was this that allowed him to survive to the final bell. I can give him credit for that, but I can't give him credit for beating Hagler, because he didn't. In other words, Hagler beat another technician.

A fighter can he over his head weightwise even if he pulls out the victory. Just because Duran beat Barkley via decision you can't exactly say he wasn't up against it. He was a natural lightweight who was also comfortable at welterweight, and he was pushing it far with moving up to jr Middleweight.

Hearns was a technican, your absoultely correct. But when he shared a ring with Hagler, he never fought like a technician. His techincal skills went straight out the window as soon as the first bell rang, and the same can be said about Hagler. I don't think any knowledgeable boxing fan would would say Hearns fought like a "technician" against Hagler.

Duran maybe administered a first class ass whipping to Leonard in Montreal, but he never gave him a boxing lesson. Duran pawed with the jab to get himself into range before unleashing barrages with both hands to the body and head. Duran used the jab at times from the outside against Leonard effectively, but it was no "boxing lesson".

[Street Lethal]

Duran was a study in defensive genius against Leonard in Montreal. Leonard couldn't catch his man cleanly. Duran was slipping and rolling with the punches. Leonard's only option that night was to gut it out with his back against the ropes. His size saved him. Leonard is a technician, but Duran didn't let him be the technician in that fight. Hagler didn't let Tommy be a technician either. He took Hearns out of his game. Both Duran and Hagler were smart boxers. They usually applied the right stragegy.

How Hagler beat Duran was by smart boxing. Hagler understood that Duran was a brilliant boxer. He watched him dominate Palomino and Leonard. He saw the destruction of Davey Moore. He knew Duran could take a shot and was hard to hit. He knew Duran had the experience. But he also knew Duran was an aging ring great. He knew that if he boxed smartly, he could outpoint Duran over the distance. If the knockout came then it came. But Hagler did what Sugar Ray Robinson did so often, play a game of chess wit his foe.

Can you imagine people going on about the fact that so many opponents went the distance with Sugar Ray? Imagine if they had said that Ray gave Tommy Bell and Kid Gavalin too much respect. Or suppose they said that about his distance wins over Olson and LaMotta. It sounds odd, doesn't it? Robinson was a deadly puncher. Nobody doubts that. But not every fight and fighter is the same. Sometimes you have to win by outboxing your opponent. Hagler couldn't knock everyone of his title fight opponents out. He managed to knock all but 3 of them out. That's impressive as hell, considering that he fought 15 world middleweight title fights (the same number as Carlos Monzon).

[JohnThomas1]

You can't save yoruself from being wrong by changing your argument. Everybody can see what you are doing here.

Careful of those voices in your head mate. Paranoia might set in ;)

You said Hagler never beat a technician. Hearns was a technician. Hagler beat him. Your statement is false.

Technicians like Duran and SRL stood off Hagler and made him chase or lead. Marvin went right at Hearns and Hearns accomodated. Tommy opted to leave behind the jab and movement and go the kill. His confidence was sky high after his decimation of Duran (especially compared to Hagler - Duran) and he really thought he could take Hagler out. If you can't see the fight for what it is then condolences and i hope you become more learned as your knowledge and understanding develops, whatever ID that may be in.

Part of beating a technician is to make him fight your fight. That's what Hagler did. He was a versatile boxer.

Suuuuuuuuuuuure. Tommy was real shy about slugging pronto too

:nut


Duran was a technician as you admit, but your point about him being over his head weightwise is wrong.

Shuffle along now. Anyone at their best at 135 (as well as being a long way from this time )and fighting a guy always ranked #1 to #5 at 160 near the top of his powers is indeed a little over his head weight wise. Kudo's to Duran, and Haglers lack of aggression.

He obviously wasn't over his head weightwise against a huge Iran Barkley.

Only a dimwit would be comparing Duran vs Hagler to Duran vs Barkley. The class differential is such that anyone with half a brain simply wouldn't be going there. Sorta like shooting an elephant with a pea shooter.

Duran even knocked Barkley off his feet.

And? WTF does this prove? He barely made Hagler blink let alone wobble let alone drop.

The truth of the matter is that Hagler outboxed a master, the same man who administered a boxing lesson and a first class ass whipping to Leonard in Montreal.

Of course you just had to throw that one in there, as if we didn't know who it was already :lol:

Of course you believe Leonard beat Hagler

Believe? I know.

First, relative to Hagler, Leonard was a young man.

That's right, i forgot about you finding these online brith certificates or whatever it was

:lol:

Even by absolute standards he was young for a welterweight/middleweight.

Absolute? Absolute bullshit, like everything you spew forth :hi:

Second, Leonard had plenty of warming up for that fight. He trained for the fight for a year and was fighting 12 round fights with middleweights using small mitts and no headgear.

You forgot to add your customary "secret sparring sessions" and "behind closed doors on ships"

:rofl:rofl:rofl

He was in the best shape of his life for Hagler, and it was this that allowed him to survive to the final bell.

It's sad what a closed mind does. Survive? Try thrive!

:happy

I can give him credit for that, but I can't give him credit for beating Hagler, because he didn't. In other words, Hagler beat another technician.

And like your view matters a shit :lol:

Anyways, i've been thru all this with your other clones and drones. Anyone that is so inclined to waste the time utterly schools you and it gets to where it isn't even a worthwhile brain stimulator, so outrageous is your fantasy.

Until you pass the pepper

:hi:

[fists of fury]

Nope. It wasn't that close.

[JohnThomas1]

Granted. However JT, boxing insiders know full well that the Duran who fought Leonard II and Laing (and in my opinion, Benitez) was simply not the same as the one who destroyed Cuevas and Moore. Anyone who claims that these are mere excuses and that Duran was ready for No Mas and there were "not" long term effects in the ring don't understand the rudiments of psychology. Duran is tempermental -he was a passion fighter, not a workman. Sans passion, Duran dropped several levels in effectiveness.


I can go for this but it's also an obvious truth that Duran went loads better vs guys that came to fight as opposed to box slickly. If he can't get up for these everyday handymen we have to say categorise it as a weakness IMO. Benitez and Leonard II were massive fights, and Duran was surely looking to prove himself post Leonard II vs Benitez. I just think Benitez was a stylistic dilemna at this particular weight and even the Moore/Cuevas Duran wasn't going to do much better. Benitez was a great fighter, and a real Will O' The Wisp. It seems to be a recurring theme that his troubles up in the weights always happen to come vs fleeter non stand and deliver type guys.

Secondly, consider also the styles. Leonard, Benitez, and Laing were boxer-movers. Cuevas and Moore were sluggers. The former set won easily, the latter set lost miserably. Neither the Petronelli's nor Hagler were going to discount the obvious.

I hadn't read this when replying above. My answer here is that Hagler had his best and most convincing moments during the closer and more heated action and was the stronger inside fighter in this one. When he stepped on the pedla Duran looked to be in danger of being stopped then Marvin came back and took his foot off the pedal. I really do think his one weakness is not being able to think that well in the ring. Bad tactics, not being able to adapt, not being certain and not reading certain situations well. His great arsenal and the skillset of his era hid these factors well, for the most part.

Why is respect and caution being confused with intimidation?

I really don't think Hagler was intimidated. He started cautiously vs Leonard too, not because he was intimidated by Ray, but the fact that he was intimidated by the magnitude of the occasion. Duran was considered Hagler's first true "Superfight".

In the end, the fact is that Hagler outboxed Duran. He turned up the heat when he had to and wore out the smaller man -I just don't see why the grandiose criticism has taken root out here.

And he should have too. Duran was never known for fighting many fights predominantly from the outside and Hagler had the better of the inside exchanges, which left Roberto with no-where to go. Except outside. From where he did as well as he could. Surprisingly well, tho yes definitely outboxed. I could go with the momentum of other respected posters in here agreeing with the cards, but i have to stay true to myself and agree Hagler won by more than the cards showed.

A better argument could be made that Hagler showed versatility. He wasn't simply a "destruct and destroy" kind of fighter. He can outbox a master.

I can't agree. His "versatility" (standing off and boxing early) quite likely cost him the fight vs Leonard, and i just know that if he didn't stand off Duran he would have stopped him.
Especially after the 6th i think it was. The time was perfect.

Why would he? And the fact is if he didn't, it was plain to see anyway that Hagler's eye was swelling up and Duran was aiming for it.


Why would he? Because at least he would have had a better excuse from which to defend against almost universal criticism for his performance vs Duran. Almost all agreed Hagler's stock went down and Duran's up after this bout. Hagler copped a lot of criticism. This is fact. All he came up with was that he was wary of Duran's counterpunching.

Monzon fought one way. Hagler was more versatile, despite his later reputation. Napoles was stopped twice on cuts before Monzon. Griffith could be stopped.

Marvin on the outside is more versatile, but Monzon is far far more adept at solving the different puzzles in front of him, adapting and imposing his style. He was far better at dealing with a diversity of styles. His fights were just full of cool precision, confidence, surety and solid decision.

That aside, I agree that Hagler would have had an easier time had he imposed his strength more and punched more instead of waiting... but again, we see that now. Who cannot see the risks that Hagler saw with that approach considering what he knew beforehand?


We saw Duran wilt when Hagler finally opened up, trouble was Marvin didn't, or didn't want to. When a SRL or Duran (or hundreds of others) saw the sign to hit the go button then batten down the hatches because these guys were gonna go hard until you were out of there or they reassessed.

Duran was not in big trouble at all in the fight. He absolutely not. I know that shot you are talking about, it was one that knocked him off balance. Duran shook his head but what's more, he showed no signs of being in danger. By all reports at the time, Duran had a chin that was rock solid.

Personally i thought he was definitely wilting, as did the world press.

I can meet you half way. I do not fault Hagler's winning, though low risk strategy against Duran. Duran was the bane of aggressive, come forward fighters throughout his career. Boxer-movers did better with him.

We can agree to disagree as in my belief a rock solid aggressive talking 160 pound ATG should not have been taking a negative attitude into a fight against a previously natural 135 pounder past his peak. Monzon agree's. The naturally much bigger man should be at least imposing his size and showing who was boss without neccessarily getting tactically silly.

However, Hagler fought a fool's fight against Leonard. Leonard fists were not as damaging as Duran's partly because he was more mobile and less set -even while punching. Leonard was fleet of fist and foot and had to be cornered and beaten.

Agreed. Leonard did however hit Hagler much harder than some think, tho not all that often. Leonard still packed a very decent punch here.

Against Duran, Hagler gave Duran the benefit of the doubt over his size and decided to box with a puncher. This is not unwise. Against Leonard, Hagler boxed with a boxer. This was stupid.

I'd hardly call Duran a puncher at 160. We'll say Hagler boxed the aggressive come forward fighter.

But......did he really do this, or did Duran stand off Hagler after finding out he couldn't compete evenly on the inside and it was going to be a dangerous choice of strategy?

Personally i'll go for the latter, and add that this is what disappointed me. Marvin, after finding himself stronger inside allowed Duran to stand off him and make it a tighter fight than it should have been.

[redrooster]

I felt that Duran was holding his own and had him scoring more effectively so after 12 it looked close.

I watched it on giant screen so Duran seemed larger than life. Hagler looked incredibly tight even during he second round even though there was nothing wrong with him physically. Yet Duran, the lighter man, was scoring more heavily and it was easier to score the rounds since he was scoring more heavily and with all the cleaner blows.

I hated the way Marvin was throwing pitty pat inside and seemed nothing compared with the year before and walked straight in but not behind his jab, which is a no-no in boxing. It makes it easy to counter and that's why Marvin was so marked up.

I'm not trying to put down Marv but his dance routine in the 11th made no sense to me at all and I was tempted to credit Roberto the round just for chasing a middleweight. I was wondering if he was ever going to wake up and do some fighting. Maybe he thought he was giving an exhibition? :huh

Even on the inside he couldn't do anything right except outscore Duran with arm punches and that's why I had Duran ahead after 13 rounds.

Marvin simply outhustled Duran the last two rounds but even then struggled so I gave Marvin the fight by a point. I know it's retarded but that's how I scored it at the time.

[Sonny Carson]

It wasn't close on my card. Hagler couldn't deal with a technician? Sugar Ray couldn't even deal with Duran's defense in the first fight.

[JohnThomas1]

It wasn't close on my card. Hagler couldn't deal with a technician? Sugar Ray couldn't even deal with Duran's defense in the first fight.


Sure fixed it second and third fight didn't he, not to mention the Duran Leonard faced at 147 was far far better equipped than the one Hagler faced at 160. On a P4P basis Marvin would have had fits with the version from Montreal. More than fits actually, Dooran W15.

[Robbi]

Sure fixed it second and third fight didn't he, not to mention the Duran Leonard faced at 147 was far far better equipped than the one Hagler faced at 160. On a P4P basis Marvin would have had fits with the version from Montreal. More than fits actually, Dooran W15.

Hopkins would have whooped all three. No question in my eyes. Maybe not whopped, but certainly beaten all three.

[redrooster]

Sure fixed it second and third fight didn't he, not to mention the Duran Leonard faced at 147 was far far better equipped than the one Hagler faced at 160. On a P4P basis Marvin would have had fits with the version from Montreal. More than fits actually, Dooran W15.


Duran from 1980 doesn't have the strength to compete. If Hagler believed him to be an actual threat he wouldn't be arm punching with him, but rather he'd flatten him quickly.

[Robbi]

Duran from 1980 doesn't have the strength to compete. If Hagler believed him to be an actual threat he wouldn't be arm punching with him, but rather he'd flatten him quickly.

Hagler would have smoked the Duran who beat Leonard in Montreal. Certainly if its a 147lb Duran against a 160lb Hagler. Its simply fantasy anyway, and would not be sanctioned.

[Sonny Carson]

Sure fixed it second and third fight didn't he, not to mention the Duran Leonard faced at 147 was far far better equipped than the one Hagler faced at 160. On a P4P basis Marvin would have had fits with the version from Montreal. More than fits actually, Dooran W15.
Yeah by running away.

[Robbi]

Yeah by running away.

Just because Leonard moved laterally with Duran and never gave him the opportunity to get into exchanges you can hardly call it negative. Leonard accomplished what he had to do to win the fight after losing the first encounter.

This term "running away" is just a ridiculous statmement to make when a boxer outclasses a fighter from long range with smart defense behind the jab.

Leonard threw Duran a rubik's cube that night, and Duran couldn't solve the puzzle. Tough luck.

[Stonehands89]

I hadn't read this when replying above. My answer here is that Hagler had his best and most convincing moments during the closer and more heated action and was the stronger inside fighter in this one. When he stepped on the pedla Duran looked to be in danger of being stopped then Marvin came back and took his foot off the pedal. I really do think his one weakness is not being able to think that well in the ring. Bad tactics, not being able to adapt, not being certain and not reading certain situations well. His great arsenal and the skillset of his era hid these factors well, for the most part.
I can't agree that Duran was ever in danger of being stopped. He got tired early, got a second wind and found a bit of a groove and then faded at the end. I'd be curious to know when you saw him "in danger of being stopped."

Your reasoning behind Hagler's weakness is interesting... and I am curious about whether it will hold up under scrutiny. Be forewarned... I consider the Leonard fight as unindicative of Hagler's prowess in the ring. If you base that observation on 2 fights -one of which he won and the other which is obviously highly controversial (5% of threads out here are devoted to it!), it will take more.


I really don't think Hagler was intimidated. He started cautiously vs Leonard too, not because he was intimidated by Ray, but the fact that he was intimidated by the magnitude of the occasion. Duran was considered Hagler's first true "Superfight".
Well, that is pure conjecture. Hagler may have been just too convinced that Ray was impotent so he decided to outbox him. Incidentally, he may have indeed outboxed him in 1982...


And he should have too. Duran was never known for fighting many fights predominantly from the outside and Hagler had the better of the inside exchanges, which left Roberto with no-where to go. Except outside. From where he did as well as he could. Surprisingly well, tho yes definitely outboxed. I could go with the momentum of other respected posters in here agreeing with the cards, but i have to stay true to myself and agree Hagler won by more than the cards showed.

...But......did he really do this, or did Duran stand off Hagler after finding out he couldn't compete evenly on the inside and it was going to be a dangerous choice of strategy?

Personally i'll go for the latter, and add that this is what disappointed me. Marvin, after finding himself stronger inside allowed Duran to stand off him and make it a tighter fight than it should have been.
I agree that Hagler won by more than the cards showed... albeit slightly. Duran did not get steamrolled and he was not dominated. He was competitive -but clearly lost.

Duran said that he was going to surprise Hagler and everyone else that night. His plan was to not to war with Hagler inside, it was to force Hagler to come in so that Duran could counter and spin. Duran played trickster and in so doing threw Hagler off his game because Hagler thought he was going to fight a bull. Instead, he had to give up the red cape and don horns on his egg.

Duran got winded partly because although he was elusive, he was not mobile -such things are cowardly to him. He stayed inside the perimeter and relied on smarts and skill. At one point Duran pushed Hagler back and Duran himself was propelled backwards off that rock. Hagler didn't budge. Leonard indeed took that strategy and expounded upon it with mobility. Duran did not, in my estimation, have to make an adjustment once he realized that Hagler was too strong inside... he conceded that before the fight and sought to stay at angles, feint, lead, spin, and counter. It was actually very sophisticated stuff if you watch him closely... I think his problem was the strength of Hagler and the ambidexterity which threw Duran off because Hagler would suddenly punch from opposite angles than expected. Duran got tired and was getting caught more than he anticipated which got him more tired.


I can't agree. His "versatility" (standing off and boxing early) quite likely cost him the fight vs Leonard, and i just know that if he didn't stand off Duran he would have stopped him.
Especially after the 6th i think it was. The time was perfect.
Are you lurching into fallacious thinking? Duran getting KOd was not something that could be safely assumed before Hearns. Shit, or after Hearns. Additionally, what cost him in a fight 4 years after 1983 should not be used to make judgements him when he hadn't experienced that yet. In fact... Hagler was an extremely adept boxer and dealt with Briscoe by boxing, not warring. In the 70s, Hagler was almost as likely to box and give movement before Vito as he was to destruct and destroy (his opponents and the English language).


Why would he? Because at least he would have had a better excuse from which to defend against almost universal criticism for his performance vs Duran. Almost all agreed Hagler's stock went down and Duran's up after this bout. Hagler copped a lot of criticism. This is fact. All he came up with was that he was wary of Duran's counterpunching.
This is fallacious reasoning. Hagler couldn't read the future. He sought the win and took the win. It is just too easy to knock him because he didn't do what Hearns did 8 months later. Fact is, Hagler fought a far more ready and dangerous Duran than that milk-dud that Hearns faced.

Relevant information is this: the Hands of Stone was known as an extremely adept counter puncher. He had made mincemeat of a muscular and younger fighter and still packed a whallop a mere 6 pounds away from Hagler. It was not an established fact that Duran significantly lost power as a MW... he hadn't stepped up yet! All that was known is that he was one of the greatest fighters who ever lived, hit like hell, was elusive, and a ferocious puncher and counterpuncher. That would have been enough for me to be careful with the man.


Marvin on the outside is more versatile, but Monzon is far far more adept at solving the different puzzles in front of him, adapting and imposing his style. He was far better at dealing with a diversity of styles. His fights were just full of cool precision, confidence, surety and solid decision.
Okay... but the point remains that Monzon made subtle adjustments in the course of a fight but it was really about imposing his will. His style was not exactly sophisticated but it was very effective. Hagler could be as hard as Chinese Math in there.


We saw Duran wilt when Hagler finally opened up, trouble was Marvin didn't, or didn't want to. When a SRL or Duran (or hundreds of others) saw the sign to hit the go button then batten down the hatches because these guys were gonna go hard until you were out of there or they reassessed.
I think that you are selling Hagler very short here. Hagler was a damn good finisher. Mintor. Monroe. Scypion. Lee. Hearns! The list is exhausting. I see Hagler's performance here as understandable caution against a legend.


Personally i thought he was definitely wilting, as did the world press.
'Wilt' isn't 'hurt'.


We can agree to disagree as in my belief a rock solid aggressive talking 160 pound ATG should not have been taking a negative attitude into a fight against a previously natural 135 pounder past his peak. Monzon agree's. The naturally much bigger man should be at least imposing his size and showing who was boss without neccessarily getting tactically silly.
Usually so. Yes indeed. If you consider the information available at the time and history, I would say you can make a case... but so can't I.


I'd hardly call Duran a puncher at 160. We'll say Hagler boxed the aggressive come forward fighter.
You're opinion may have been different in November 1983, when his previous two KOs were fresh on the mind. But... okay. I'll take the compromise!

[Street Lethal]

I didn't see Leonard fixing any problems in the second match with Duran. It was a pretty evenly contested fight until Duran quit. Given all we know about Duran's condition, the fact that Leonard didn't dominate all the way is quite telling. It mildly funny to watch the fanboys drool over that fight. I guess after watching their idol taken to school in Montreal, they had to come up with something to redeem their man.

The rubbermatch was a joke. Leonard ran all night. Boxers who rip fans off with that running shit deserve all the criticisms they get. I was happy to see Norris pound Leonard mostly because of how Leonard ripped me off in the third Duran fight. Leonard had a bad habit of running away from shit. He wouldn't give Tommy an immediate rematch. He wouldn't fight Hagler when Marvin was prime. He wouldn't give Hagler a rematch. A great fighter is supposed to take on all the legacy defining challenges. Not Leonard, no sir.

And if I can be blunt about things, anybody who thinks that the Duran of the first Leonard fight would have whipped the 1980 version of Marvelous Marvin Hagler doesn't know jackshit about the sport of boxing. Duran was much more prepared for Hagler when he fought him than he would have been had they met in 1980. Duran had settled into middleweight. He was a hard 160 pounds by that time. He had more years of experience on him by that time, and experience is invaluable when facing a master like Hagler.

[Robbi]

I didn't see Leonard fixing any problems in the second match with Duran. It was a pretty evenly contested fight until Duran quit. Given all we know about Duran's condition, the fact that Leonard didn't dominate all the way is quite telling. It mildly funny to watch the fanboys drool over that fight. I guess after watching their idol taken to school in Montreal, they had to come up with something to redeem their man.

Anyone who never seen Leonard fix any problems in the second fight doesn't know anything about boxing. He fought the opposite kind of fight than he did 5 months earlier. Lateral movement, jabs, and lead right hands down the pipe. He simply fixed the problem with superb ring generalship and keeping his distance. While Leonard wasn't particularly busy with his hands, he was preventing Duran from getting into postion to punch. Leonard's movement was the key. He made Duran miss, and made him pay. Stategy entirely different.



The rubbermatch was a joke. Leonard ran all night. Boxers who rip fans off with that running shit deserve all the criticisms they get. I was happy to see Norris pound Leonard mostly because of how Leonard ripped me off in the third Duran fight. Leonard had a bad habit of running away from shit. He wouldn't give Tommy an immediate rematch. He wouldn't fight Hagler when Marvin was prime. He wouldn't give Hagler a rematch. A great fighter is supposed to take on all the legacy defining challenges. Not Leonard, no sir.

It seems the rubbermatch was a joke because Leonard won the fight, if it was roles reversed would you say the same?. I think not. Two trucks colliding provides for entertainment, but one sided fights can also be pleasing on the eye if your not one dimensional when it comes to the sport. Leonard running all night in my your eyes is boxing in mines. Sadly for yourself not every fighter is tuned entering the ring to constantly come forward seeking to get into exchanges, thus making life difficult for themselves when they have other options up their sleeve. Its all about winning.

And if I can be blunt about things, anybody who thinks that the Duran of the first Leonard fight would have whipped the 1980 version of Marvelous Marvin Hagler doesn't know jackshit about the sport of boxing. Duran was much more prepared for Hagler when he fought him than he would have been had they met in 1980. Duran had settled into middleweight. He was a hard 160 pounds by that time. He had more years of experience on him by that time, and experience is invaluable when facing a master like Hagler.

Duran was prepared for Hagler, but certainly not physically. Duran had settled into middleweight?. The same man who was 7 years as lightweight champion in his prime years, then moved up another two divisions before even sharing a ring with Hagler at middleweight. 5 months prior to taking Hagler the distance he won the jr middleweight title, so somehow I don't think he was settled into the weight. You really are having a laugh. Duran was far from hard at 160lbs I can assure you, as he never he reached the limit, weighing in at 156lbs. Even 6 years after the fight he was dwarfed when measuring up against Barkely. Still not a natural middleweight, never was and never would be come to think of it.

[JohnThomas1]

Yeah by running away.

It's called "boxing". SRL, master practitioner of the art of hit and not get hit

:good

[Holmes' Jab]

I had Hagler up by around 4 points at the time of the final bell.

It wasn't quite as close as some have stated, having said that had Hagler been a tad less cautious he may well have won by a late stoppage. Duran fought valiantly, though never looked like troubling Marv that much throughout much of the contest. :good

[JohnThomas1]

I can't agree that Duran was ever in danger of being stopped. He got tired early, got a second wind and found a bit of a groove and then faded at the end. I'd be curious to know when you saw him "in danger of being stopped."

Just went back to the fight and admittedly Duran wasn't as bad off as i thought. Marvin did however seize the iniative in round 6 by getting more aggressive only to revert back to the overly respectful tactics of prior rounds.

I will say this, if Duran was just another average title defense without the big name or reputation i think Marvin would have stopped him with 15 rounds to play with. He would not have been star struck and would have fought with much more intensity. Against a big name with some decent defensive skill he hardly looked like the consumate war warrior he had been made out to be.


Your reasoning behind Hagler's weakness is interesting... and I am curious about whether it will hold up under scrutiny. Be forewarned... I consider the Leonard fight as unindicative of Hagler's prowess in the ring. If you base that observation on 2 fights -one of which he won and the other which is obviously highly controversial (5% of threads out here are devoted to it!), it will take more.
Trouble is we don't have much to go on. It was an ordinary era for top middleweights and it took 3 smaller guys to spark it up. Marvin was murder on your average come forward fighter. It's interesting that two of the three best fighters he defended against, one a good technician (he had to be in this one) and one a speedster showed a very different side of Marvin Hagler.

Well, that is pure conjecture. Hagler may have been just too convinced that Ray was impotent so he decided to outbox him. Incidentally, he may have indeed outboxed him in 1982...
Not as much conjecture as the eye theory IMO when he publically stated different. Even old Goody said immediately after the bout that Marvin showed Duran too much respect. Not a bad apple that one.

Marvin stated that he fought orthodox and tried to box because Leonard expected differently. Why in gods name a great like Marvin (with all the natural advantages here) was flustered enough to worry about what Leonard expected rather than simply thinking who cares what he's waiting for i'll mash him anyway, i will never know.

Yes Marvin possibly would have outboxed Ray in 82, he certainly should have given the size advantages. Then again, after seeing the short circuiting in 87 who could be certain.

I agree that Hagler won by more than the cards showed... albeit slightly. Duran did not get steamrolled and he was not dominated. He was competitive -but clearly lost.
Total agreement here.

Duran said that he was going to surprise Hagler and everyone else that night. His plan was to not to war with Hagler inside, it was to force Hagler to come in so that Duran could counter and spin. Duran played trickster and in so doing threw Hagler off his game because Hagler thought he was going to fight a bull. Instead, he had to give up the red cape and don horns on his egg.
Marvin didn't have to give up anything but his passiveness. Watch him win the first 30 seconds of most rounds then switch modes allowing Duran to come back in quite a few. Duran the trickster still could have and should have been bullied around and beaten convincingly. Of this i have no doubt, no matter how highly one thinks of Roberto.

Duran got winded partly because although he was elusive, he was not mobile -such things are cowardly to him.
Duran was also 4 pounds heavier than vs Moore, 4 1/2 more than Cuevas and also had 3 steaks early fight day. The weight was his highest since Jimmy Batten in 1982.

Gone was the sharpness and continuity of these bouts.

He stayed inside the perimeter and relied on smarts and skill. At one point Duran pushed Hagler back and Duran himself was propelled backwards off that rock. Hagler didn't budge. Leonard indeed took that strategy and expounded upon it with mobility. Duran did not, in my estimation, have to make an adjustment once he realized that Hagler was too strong inside... he conceded that before the fight and sought to stay at angles, feint, lead, spin, and counter. It was actually very sophisticated stuff if you watch him closely... I think his problem was the strength of Hagler and the ambidexterity which threw Duran off because Hagler would suddenly punch from opposite angles than expected. Duran got tired and was getting caught more than he anticipated which got him more tired.
I'll agree to all this and also add the weight factor as i did above.

Are you lurching into fallacious thinking? Duran getting KOd was not something that could be safely assumed before Hearns. Shit, or after Hearns. Additionally, what cost him in a fight 4 years after 1983 should not be used to make judgements him when he hadn't experienced that yet. In fact... Hagler was an extremely adept boxer and dealt with Briscoe by boxing, not warring. In the 70s, Hagler was almost as likely to box and give movement before Vito as he was to destruct and destroy (his opponents and the English language).
Fair call, but i still ponder that if Duran wasn't the marquee name just how things would have ended up. Not to take anything away from Duran.

This is fallacious reasoning. Hagler couldn't read the future. He sought the win and took the win. It is just too easy to knock him because he didn't do what Hearns did 8 months later.
Hagler copped it from all and sundrey and lost far more than he gained in this bout. Criticism came from every corner. This was pre Hearns when comments weren't taking this destruction into account.

Fact is, Hagler fought a far more ready and dangerous Duran than that milk-dud that Hearns faced.
I'll take Hearns by KO over the guy Hagler faced too. Hagler made Duran look better than he really was this day. Hearns was not one to give any such leeway. If anything, his problem was too far the other way at times.

[JohnThomas1]

Relevant information is this: the Hands of Stone was known as an extremely adept counter puncher. He had made mincemeat of a muscular and younger fighter and still packed a whallop a mere 6 pounds away from Hagler.
A very very inexperienced and open one not in the same stratosphere (on soooo many levels) as Hagler.

It was not an established fact that Duran significantly lost power as a MW... he hadn't stepped up yet! It was an established fact Duran lost power at 147 and pounded Moore from asshole to breakfast before finally getting the stoppage. He pounded the guy unmercilessy with his cleanest punches and the stoppage was from severe accumulation. Given these facts you didn't really expect him to regain the power from his halcyon days at 135 when stepping up to did you? Hagler knew full well that he pounded Moore for ages.

All that was known is that he was one of the greatest fighters who ever lived, hit like hell, was elusive, and a ferocious puncher and counterpuncher. That would have been enough for me to be careful with the man.
To be honest i think you are making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill. Roberto wasn't coming in to fight some star struck rookie, he was coming in to face the self proclaimed meanest fighter in boxing. A guy that had been bent on his own recent destructions over bigger and better men than Roberto. Roberto should have been the one with something to fear, not Hagler.

Okay... but the point remains that Monzon made subtle adjustments in the course of a fight but it was really about imposing his will. His style was not exactly sophisticated but it was very effective. Hagler could be as hard as Chinese Math in there. To a Hamsho maybe. Monzon never confused himself and really was all the things i said.

I think that you are selling Hagler very short here. Hagler was a damn good finisher. Mintor. Monroe. Scypion. Lee. Hearns! The list is exhausting. I see Hagler's performance here as understandable caution against a legend. Yet he couldn't finish two much smaller men that were smarter and more elusive than the above.

'Wilt' isn't 'hurt'. Fair call, but i would have loved to have seen some sustained pressure.

You're opinion may have been different in November 1983, when his previous two KOs were fresh on the mind. But... okay. I'll take the compromise!
As stated, Roberto pounded a hapless Moore for an eternity. I can compromise tho.

[redrooster]

Yet he couldn't finish two much smaller men that were smarter and more elusive than the above.



How was Duran elusive? He went flat footed with Hagler all night.

[Robbi]

How was Duran elusive? He went flat footed with Hagler all night.

Duran never quite showed the the same movement that Leonard did 4 years later, but he was moving more than he usually does against Hagler. His was elusive mainly because of his ability at slipping and blocking punches. Hagler actually got through with more punches than people give him credit for, but they were not serious blows as Duran moved his head at the moment of impact. Upperbody movement was also another area that Duran implemented well.

[Street Lethal]

Duran never quite showed the the same movement that Leonard did 4 years later, but he was moving more than he usually does against Hagler. His was elusive mainly because of his ability at slipping and blocking punches. Hagler actually got through with more punches than people give him credit for, but they were not serious blows as Duran moved his head at the moment of impact. Upperbody movement was also another area that Duran implemented well.

I think this is true. Good post.

[Street Lethal]

It's called "boxing". SRL, master practitioner of the art of hit and not get hit

:good

Running away is not boxing. The art of hitting and not getting hit involves blocking, slipping, ducking, rolling, etc., not running. Running is chickenshit stuff.

The sport is called boxing, otherwise known as fighting, not running or surviving. If you are going to get in the squared circle, then fight, dammit. Leave the running to track stars.

[Robbi]

Running away is not boxing. The art of hitting and not getting hit involves blocking, slipping, ducking, rolling, etc., not running. Running is chickenshit stuff.

The sport is called boxing, otherwise known as fighting, not running or surviving. If you are going to get in the squared circle, then fight, dammit. Leave the running to track stars.

Its called "running" to some people because they are biased towards the fighter who comes out the winner. Muhammad Ali, and Pernell Whitaker among others should have went the the Olymipcs to compete in the 800 metres. Because if they are running, then they should be on the running track and not in a boxing ring.

[JohnThomas1]

How was Duran elusive? He went flat footed with Hagler all night.

Well given your depth of knowledge and understanding it's highly likely you consider guys like Hamsho and Antuofermo more elusive than Duran. Read the post dimwit, more elusive than the above. Not exactly difficult.

[JohnThomas1]

Running away is not boxing. The art of hitting and not getting hit involves blocking, slipping, ducking, rolling, etc., not running. Running is chickenshit stuff.

The sport is called boxing, otherwise known as fighting, not running or surviving. If you are going to get in the squared circle, then fight, dammit. Leave the running to track stars.

What happened to your big proclaimation yesty that you weren't going to talk to me or dinner anymore?

Pigs can fly too

:lol:

[Robbi]

Running away is not boxing. The art of hitting and not getting hit involves blocking, slipping, ducking, rolling, etc., not running. Running is chickenshit stuff.

The sport is called boxing, otherwise known as fighting, not running or surviving. If you are going to get in the squared circle, then fight, dammit. Leave the running to track stars.

Fighters can run all they want as long as they are moving their hands and hitting the target. Very few fighters can move effectively and score punches as well. Its what you call smartness, and fighting with a gameplan to get your arm raised at the end.

If you can't appreciate one fighter outclassing another with movement, feints, jabs, and combinations, then you have no business being a boxing fan. Boxing is not just about slipping, ducking, rolling, blocking, and countering.

[Stonehands89]

...Against a big name with some decent defensive skill he hardly looked like the consumate war warrior he had been made out to be.
Well, Duran was more than a big name and had more than decent defensive skill... and let's remember that Hagler may have painted himself as the angry champion since his "crowning" in England but Hagler was actually a boxer first and foremost.

Trouble is we don't have much to go on. It was an ordinary era for top middleweights and it took 3 smaller guys to spark it up. Marvin was murder on your average come forward fighter. It's interesting that two of the three best fighters he defended against, one a good technician (he had to be in this one) and one a speedster showed a very different side of Marvin Hagler.
Those 3 smaller guys were the greatest LW, Jr. MW and top 2-3 greatest WW ever. They would have sparked up a graveyard.

Marvin, as you know, should have earned a title shot earlier than he did. He was a dangerous southpaw who made his bones in Philly and was avoided. By the time he got the title, he was coming down from his prime and I think that his legs went first. He became more stationary and adjusted his style accordingly -relying on skill inside yes, but also more on power and chin. Duran was the greatest technician he faced -easily, and Hagler went the distance for the first time in a defense. The 32-35 year old version of Hagler that fought Leonard was simply not the same. Hagler fought and whipped faster guys than himself -Hearns, Seales, and Monroe among them.

Not as much conjecture as the eye theory IMO when he publically stated different. Even old Goody said immediately after the bout that Marvin showed Duran too much respect. Not a bad apple that one.
The 'eye theory' is not a theory at all. It's a very possible and valid inference: Hagler's left eye was sealing shut after the 12 round. That's a fact. If Hagler 'fought' Duran more (as Duran expected he would), Duran would have landed more because he would throw more shots. That's a fact or damn near it. If Duran threw more shots, the eye may have swelled up earlier. That's an inference -and a fair one if not a good one. If Hagler's eye started to swell early on, Duran would aim for it. That's a fact. A one-eyed fighter with many rounds in front of him is in trouble if Duran is in front of him. That's a fact.

As to Goody's critique, well, listen to his advice after round 12: "Marvin, DON'T GET INTO A SLUGGING FEST. Just beat him to the punch. I want you to double up on the jab -that's all I want you to do." Earlier in the fight, Goody was warning him about Duran trying to set him up for the right and laying traps. He said something to the effect of "get in there and land a few and then ..." Marvin chimed in "get the fuck out of there."

Hell, before the fight Hagler was all about "busting him up." That made good press. Goody's post-facto statement was not what he was saying in the midst of battle. Duran was indeed setting traps -literally leaving a bait and then jamming him up. Relentless forward motion would have played into Duran's strategy and Hagler saw that. So he boxed him -like Leonard and Benitez and Laing did. Marvin is a boxer too, regardless of his war fetish and regardless of what he became by necessity in his thirties when his legs turned to stone.

Marvin stated that he fought orthodox and tried to box because Leonard expected differently. Why in gods name a great like Marvin (with all the natural advantages here) was flustered enough to worry about what Leonard expected rather than simply thinking who cares what he's waiting for i'll mash him anyway, i will never know.
Damn right!

Marvin didn't have to give up anything but his passiveness. Watch him win the first 30 seconds of most rounds then switch modes allowing Duran to come back in quite a few. Duran the trickster still could have and should have been bullied around and beaten convincingly. Of this i have no doubt, no matter how highly one thinks of Roberto.
What you call passiveness, you once called intimidation. I call it caution. Fair but easy to criticize in retrospective but I still stand by my view that it is understandable caution given Duran's strategy, style, experience, and recent history.

I'll give you this olive branch: If Hagler were to fight Duran again for an immediate rematch, he'd have been well advised to be more aggressive and imposed his size and strength and power advantage on the smaller man. If I didn't, I'd join your chorus of criticism.

Duran was also 4 pounds heavier than vs Moore, 4 1/2 more than Cuevas and also had 3 steaks early fight day. The weight was his highest since Jimmy Batten in 1982.

Gone was the sharpness and continuity of these bouts.
I disagree. Duran was sharp. He was easily in the best shape he had been in since Montreal and would never be in that kind of shape again. He looked strong and solid and I didn't see an ounce of the fat that was on him even for Moore. Duran made weight early and did it right. Does this mean that he was at his best at MW -no, not even close... but for that fight he gave it his all and was physically as ready as he could be for that division and that champion. For Hearns he lost 4 pounds but looked like he was made out of cake mix.

I think that it was one of Duran's best performances in terms of both strategy and skill and considering the formidability of the opponent. Watch round 6 again. Hagler did indeed win the round but the crowd's cheering at his punching masks what is happening. Duran is evading most of the shots. He is slipping and rolling. It is not often that you see a fighter roll with an uppercut but he was. If Hagler was orthodox, Duran's defensive display would have been celebrated -but Hagler is incredibly confusing because he'd switch so smoothly and it was hard to detect. Duran is angling, sticking out the left and holding it there to land the right, and bending like an elastic. He's feinting right and left and looping the right just like you should against a southpaw. Beautiful skill -even if he did lose the round.

I'll say this -Hagler should have left the head alone for a while and concentrated on the ribs -one shot he threw up the middle saw Duran pitch and fold for a hot second. You know he felt it.

[My dinner with Conteh]

What happened to your big proclaimation yesty that you weren't going to talk to me or dinner anymore?

Pigs can fly too

:lol:


He's ignoring me. He won't reply to my PMs, my e-mails, won't answer when I phone. Stood me up for a retrospective of Casablanca down the locals flicks, he's always late...

[JohnThomas1]

He's ignoring me. He won't reply to my PMs, my e-mails, won't answer when I phone. Stood me up for a retrospective of Casablanca down the locals flicks, he's always late...

Well dang, he stayed true to half his promise!!! Personally i am sick of him emailing, ringing, sending flowers and driving past my house looking for reconcilliation. Once the feeling is gone it's gone, and i just don't think i can regain past passion after the cold heartless way he let me down. Time will tell.

:fire

[JohnThomas1]

Well, Duran was more than a big name and had more than decent defensive skill... and let's remember that Hagler may have painted himself as the angry champion since his "crowning" in England but Hagler was actually a boxer first and foremost.


Hagler was a boxer first but was also coming off 8 solid stoppages in a row from the time he won the 160 title. His previous 4 defenses were totally dominating performances. He also told us he wasn't going to leave his title fight fate in the hands of judges anymore, and he had been delivering on that for quite some time. His abilities lay claim to him being a genuine boxer puncher. He had fine power and definitely wasn't a Whitaker type who was going to outpoint you over the distance thru brilliant skill and speed. Marvin was a hard puncher and quite dangerous even in boxing mode.

Those 3 smaller guys were the greatest LW, Jr. MW and top 2-3 greatest WW ever. They would have sparked up a graveyard.

Fair call, But Napoles and Griffith weren't too bad either if you get my drift. Gomez was #1 Junior Feather ever and Sanchez took the bit between the teeth and could almost be said to have dominated his man. Gomez in turn was compelling vs top #3 Bantam Zarate, Tyson was devastation vs Top 5 light heavy Spinks. Marvin disappointed me a bit, and thousands of others. This was before we had the hindsight of Hearns - Duran. He was majorly criticised.

Marvin, as you know, should have earned a title shot earlier than he did. He was a dangerous southpaw who made his bones in Philly and was avoided.

For sure, not many wanted to mix it with Marvin at all.

By the time he got the title, he was coming down from his prime and I think that his legs went first.

Debatable. Many prominent sources thought his absolute peak performance was against Sibson.

The 32-35 year old version of Hagler that fought Leonard was simply not the same. Hagler fought and whipped faster guys than himself -Hearns, Seales, and Monroe among them.

Leonard was just as far removed, if anything more counting the weight and layoff. When it came to speed, class, lateral movement and just sheer ability Leonard was the most dangerous of this trio. Let us remember Monroe also beat Hagler and was definitely on the downslide by the time Marvin beat him, having been stopped by someone called David Love in between Hagler bouts. Seales also drew him if memory serves me correct.

The 'eye theory' is not a theory at all. It's a very possible and valid inference: Hagler's left eye was sealing shut after the 12 round. That's a fact.

You've forced me to dig deep here and i have. You might have a point. On looking back i have discovered Marvin was cut over the right eye vs Antuofermo in his drawing effort (SRR when confronted with similar adversity vs Turpin dug deep and mounted a furious assualt that put paid to Turpins night) and in this fight he presented a modest offensive surge when it mattered most. There's a pattern there. Granted he came back firing vs Hearns but we can all agree Hearns had totally shot his wad and the fight was just going thru the motions until Hagler wore him down. He had zero left in the tank.

If Hagler 'fought' Duran more (as Duran expected he would), Duran would have landed more because he would throw more shots. That's a fact or damn near it. If Duran threw more shots, the eye may have swelled up earlier. That's an inference -and a fair one if not a good one. If Hagler's eye started to swell early on, Duran would aim for it. That's a fact. A one-eyed fighter with many rounds in front of him is in trouble if Duran is in front of him. That's a fact.

As described SRR simply went ballistic and knocked out Turpin, which sure prevented any chance of the eye becoming a factor.

As to Goody's critique, well, listen to his advice after round 12: "Marvin, DON'T GET INTO A SLUGGING FEST. Just beat him to the punch. I want you to double up on the jab -that's all I want you to do." Earlier in the fight, Goody was warning him about Duran trying to set him up for the right and laying traps. He said something to the effect of "get in there and land a few and then ..." Marvin chimed in "get the fuck out of there."

Fair comments, but Goody did indeed make the statement. Sounds a bit like Duva telling us he told Taylor to box in the 12th vs Chavez

:lol:

Hell, before the fight Hagler was all about "busting him up." That made good press. Goody's post-facto statement was not what he was saying in the midst of battle. Duran was indeed setting traps -literally leaving a bait and then jamming him up. Relentless forward motion would have played into Duran's strategy and Hagler saw that. So he boxed him -like Leonard and Benitez and Laing did. Marvin is a boxer too, regardless of his war fetish and regardless of what he became by necessity in his thirties when his legs turned to stone.

The fact of the matter is that Hagler would have given Roberto a right royal pounding if he went on his usual attack. You are making Duran sound a lot scarier and better than he actually was at this weight, against a guy as tough and skilled as Hagler to boot. Duran's the one who should have been shitting, not Hagler. The only guy Duran ever beat at 160 was Barkley who is hardly in Haglers class.

I'll give you this olive branch: If Hagler were to fight Duran again for an immediate rematch, he'd have been well advised to be more aggressive and imposed his size and strength and power advantage on the smaller man. If I didn't, I'd join your chorus of criticism.

Damn right, trouble was that Hagler was always vastly more effective in rematches. Why? Because he had a poor sense of strategy, adaption and pace during his more tougher contests. He'd come back after such fights knowing full well where he went wrong and what he should have done. SRL, Monzon and co adapted during the heat of the battle and didn't often need to come back and set the slate clean. This is why head to head i cannot rate Hagler near the top of the tree and pick about 4 guys over him. In the ring under intense scrutiny he just wasn't as smart as other greats.

I disagree. Duran was sharp. He was easily in the best shape he had been in since Montreal and would never be in that kind of shape again. He looked strong and solid and I didn't see an ounce of the fat that was on him even for Moore. Duran made weight early and did it right. Does this mean that he was at his best at MW -no, not even close... but for that fight he gave it his all and was physically as ready as he could be for that division and that champion. For Hearns he lost 4 pounds but looked like he was made out of cake mix.

I agree with the numerous experts who thought Duran, tho fighting superbly wasn't quite the same man who beat Moore. He fought more in spurts, had moments of tiredness, and looked slower in general. Granted he pushed his body as hard in training and was in superb shape that way, but i and many others believe he would have been netter off coming in around 4 pounds lighter instead of trying to get close to Haglers weight. He would have been faster and had more stamina for starters.

I think that it was one of Duran's best performances in terms of both strategy and skill and considering the formidability of the opponent.

Sensational effort by Duran for sure. I split it in two, slightly disapponting from Hagler and a great effort from Duran.

Duran's defensive display would have been celebrated

I myself liked the way Duran rendered Hagler's normally decent jab almost ineffectual. Jab after jab sailed harmlessly over his head.

[redrooster]

Well given your depth of knowledge and understanding it's highly likely you consider guys like Hamsho and Antuofermo more elusive than Duran. Read the post dimwit, more elusive than the above. Not exactly difficult.

i read the post. how was Duran elusive?

You're elusive!

There was no foot movement. All I saw was Duran pivot on one foot an throw right hands. That was it. There was nothing special about his performance.

And that jab you said Hagler used in the fight, the one you said sailed over Duran's head, Hagler really didn't use one.

Most of your rebuttal to Stone hands is fabricated.

[redrooster]

Duran never quite showed the the same movement that Leonard did 4 years later, but he was moving more than he usually does against Hagler. His was elusive mainly because of his ability at slipping and blocking punches. Hagler actually got through with more punches than people give him credit for, but they were not serious blows as Duran moved his head at the moment of impact. Upperbody movement was also another area that Duran implemented well.

I think Roldan was pretty elusive against Hagler. That part John mentioned of Hagler's jab missing it's mark in the Duran fight is actually true of the Roldan fight because of the head movement.

[JohnThomas1]

i read the post. how was Duran elusive?


Surprise, surprise, Rooster deson't rate the Duran defense. Fair enough, no biggie to me.

There was no foot movement. All I saw was Duran pivot on one foot an throw right hands. That was it. There was nothing special about his performance.

You probably had your chair pointing backwards pointing toward the fight poster. Yeah, they didn't move much at all in this one

:lol:

And that jab you said Hagler used in the fight, the one you said sailed over Duran's head, Hagler really didn't use one.

:rofl

Most of your rebuttal to Stone hands is fabricated.

I just looked up "fabricator" in dic dot com and here was your pic you sent dinner, staring me right in the face. Looks like it really was you after all :rofl

Listen, i'm debating with someone who sure knows his boxing so shuffle along now and let the adults play for a while. You and your henchmen are polluting an otherwise excellent thread.

[redrooster]

John you can do better than that. I know I could.

[Stonehands89]

Hagler was a boxer first but was also coming off 8 solid stoppages in a row from the time he won the 160 title. His previous 4 defenses were totally dominating performances. He also told us he wasn't going to leave his title fight fate in the hands of judges anymore, and he had been delivering on that for quite some time. His abilities lay claim to him being a genuine boxer puncher. He had fine power and definitely wasn't a Whitaker type who was going to outpoint you over the distance thru brilliant skill and speed. Marvin was a hard puncher and quite dangerous even in boxing mode.
... but you'll concede that Duran -even at 160 was the most formidable foe he had faced at that point. Hagler continued with his stoppage rampage for the next 4 years until Leonard. I find it no disgrace that the only two title defenses that Marvin went the distance with were Duran and Leonard -and Duran's loss was more impressive to me than Leonard's win due to the extra 3 rounds, the fact that Duran was on his own comeback, Duran's doing battle and taking far, far more risks inside the perimeter against a younger, faster, better Hagler. If Duran won that fight, it would have been the greatest comeback and triumph ever in my book.

A word on your comment that I am "overstating Duran at MW". If I said that Duran was great at MW from this vantage point, question my credentials and vision. I am not doing that -I am acknowledging what Hagler, Goody, and Pat knew in November of 1983 which saw Duran on a roll and beating up champs and former champs who liked to slug with him. Both were bigger than him.

Fair call, But Napoles and Griffith weren't too bad either if you get my drift. Gomez was #1 Junior Feather ever and Sanchez took the bit between the teeth and could almost be said to have dominated his man. Gomez in turn was compelling vs top #3 Bantam Zarate, Tyson was devastation vs Top 5 light heavy Spinks. Marvin disappointed me a bit, and thousands of others. This was before we had the hindsight of Hearns - Duran. He was majorly criticised.

There are always critics. Marvin disappointed the living hell out of me in 87 and I still haven't stopped being pissed about it after 20 years. Against Duran, he just didn't disappoint me. In hindsite you can make (and you have made) the argument that he could have afforded to work the body more and apply more pressure to wear out the smaller man, but I can see the danger with that considering the factors I've already enumerated. I can't knock a decision win where he dominated the last 3 rounds to clinch it. If he warred with Duran, Duran could have potentially outmaneuvered him, countered him and landed enough to swell up the eye. At the very least, Hagler would have done what Duran had planned on doing and an inspired Duran is extremely dangerous. Neither Griffith or Napoles could bang like Duran. When Griffith lost the decision to Monzon, he hadn't had a KO win over anyone with a winning record in the previous 20 fights. And would if Hagler had slugged with Duran and lost? His reputation would have sunk like a stone and you would never type his name on this site without prefacing it with "overrated".

You bring up Robinson et al. who came back from adversity and finished the job. If the ref let it go and Robinson took a decision would he be criticized for not finishing Turpin? Probably -but I wouldn't join the chorus.

No one knocks everyone out all of the time- not even great champions in title fights who are in there against guys rising in weight. To wit:

-Louis didn't stop Tommy Farr.

-Conn didn't stop Zale, who was outweighed by 12 pounds at fight time.

-Monzon didn't stop Griffith who was not only a natural WW, but was also bald and over the hill.

-Most agree that Hearns was most devestating at Jr. MW, I think that you are one of them, but Benitez went 15 with him.

-Harry Greb himself didn't stop Mickey Walker and Walker was a WW the year before.

With this context, it seems that the criticisms against Hagler are a bit curious. His strategic know-how is dismissed based on what seems to me to be a double standard.

I agree with the numerous experts who thought Duran, tho fighting superbly wasn't quite the same man who beat Moore. He fought more in spurts, had moments of tiredness, and looked slower in general. Granted he pushed his body as hard in training and was in superb shape that way, but i and many others believe he would have been netter off coming in around 4 pounds lighter instead of trying to get close to Haglers weight. He would have been faster and had more stamina for starters.
Don't forget that Duran was in a much stronger man who was heavier than advertized. And he was in close -he was not fluttering about (like Leonard in what I would state is indeed boxing ability, but comparitively unsophisticated -safe and easier). His spurts were such because he was trying to counter Hagler without jamming with him. I saw this as discipline -not deterioration because Duran's impulse was more aggression. Against Hagler, that was ill-advised, so he tamed his nature and applied skill -similarly to what he demonstrated in DeJesus III. Also, he was going to be slower because he had to gain weight no matter how you cut it. Other trainers and pundits before the fight were recommending that he come in at about ~153. Including Leonard. He came in at a solid 156. Which seemed perfect to me because he actually looked stronger to me at that weight than he ever did at 152. Looking back, he would have been a bit too small to handle Hagler who I believe had an immense physicality in there.

Bottom line is that Hagler was too strong, too big, and too skilled to have been beaten by Duran. No matter where Duran came in. Nevertheless Duran's defiance against all of those advantages is underrated -woefully so.

[JohnThomas1]

... but you'll concede that Duran -even at 160 was the most formidable foe he had faced at that point.

I'm not so sure actually. Duran didn't have the power (allied to lack of size and SRL like style and slickness) to take the title from Marvin IMO. Marvin controlled the inside exchanges and Duran, tho surprisingly effective standing off, was hardly likely to outbox him for 15. Tho a bit past it when Marvin fought them guys like Monroe, Hart and Briscoe presented potential (we didn't know just how great Marvins chin really was) fight threatening assets. Antuofermo even, a big strong crude 160 who held Marvin to a draw. Duran was certainly the "greatest" Marvin had fought, and i'd venture to say the most skillful, but at 160 i'm really not sure he was the most "formidable" Marvin had faced.

I find it no disgrace that the only two title defenses that Marvin went the distance with were Duran and Leonard -and Duran's loss was more impressive to me than Leonard's win due to the extra 3 rounds, the fact that Duran was on his own comeback, Duran's doing battle and taking far, far more risks inside the perimeter against a younger, faster, better Hagler.

I couldn't agree less. Leonard totally outboxed Hagler at various times and walked away with his title. As for the praise for Duran's risk taking as opposed to Leonard's, two things. Firstly you have been praising and defending Marvin's cautious approach vs Duran, a fighter infinitely less dangerous to Marvin than Marvin was to Leonard, yet you also criticise Leonard for too much caution when (secondly) Leonard was more of a boxing slickster type than Hagler. Leonard won the fight! So did Hagler vs Duran. Duran actually aborted his customary style and stood back far more than normal. Smart move, because he would have been in serious trouble if not. As Leonard would have been engaging more. Smart move again. Leonard landed plenty of leather in boxing mode in this one.

If Duran won that fight, it would have been the greatest comeback and triumph ever in my book.

No doubt, but realistically he didn't even get close.

A word on your comment that I am "overstating Duran at MW". If I said that Duran was great at MW from this vantage point, question my credentials and vision. I am not doing that -I am acknowledging what Hagler, Goody, and Pat knew in November of 1983 which saw Duran on a roll and beating up champs and former champs who liked to slug with him. Both were bigger than him.

Yes but i stand solidly behind my conviction that Duran beating the likes of Moore and Cuevas should not have cast doubt as it did too such a dominant great champion as Hagler. These two performances AND his great effort vs Hagler sure didn't worry Hearns, he came out and absolutely decimated Roberto.

There are always critics. Marvin disappointed the living hell out of me in 87 and I still haven't stopped being pissed about it after 20 years. Against Duran, he just didn't disappoint me. In hindsite you can make (and you have made) the argument that he could have afforded to work the body more and apply more pressure to wear out the smaller man, but I can see the danger with that considering the factors I've already enumerated. I can't knock a decision win where he dominated the last 3 rounds to clinch it. If he warred with Duran, Duran could have potentially outmaneuvered him, countered him and landed enough to swell up the eye. At the very least, Hagler would have done what Duran had planned on doing and an inspired Duran is extremely dangerous.

Duran was actually the one that didn't want any part of an aggressive Hagler. He summed up the situation perfectly, Marvin didn't. He allowed Duran to stand off him and cruise.

Neither Griffith or Napoles could bang like Duran.

Duran wasn't a banger at 160, he hit Moore all night long at 154 let alone 6 pounds up.

And would if Hagler had slugged with Duran and lost?

Not gonna happen. What if he slugged and stopped him? Lots more chance of that than vice versa.

[JohnThomas1]

No one knocks everyone out all of the time- not even great champions in title fights who are in there against guys rising in weight. To wit:

-Louis didn't stop Tommy Farr.

-Conn didn't stop Zale, who was outweighed by 12 pounds at fight time.

-Monzon didn't stop Griffith who was not only a natural WW, but was also bald and over the hill.

-Most agree that Hearns was most devestating at Jr. MW, I think that you are one of them, but Benitez went 15 with him.

-Harry Greb himself didn't stop Mickey Walker and Walker was a WW the year before.

With this context, it seems that the criticisms against Hagler are a bit curious. His strategic know-how is dismissed based on what seems to me to be a double standard.

Well Hearns broke his right hand vs Benitez and Benitez is one of the greatest ever defensive genius's as well as being less aggressive than Duran.

I agree not everyone stops every opponent, but the fact of the matter is that Hagler's performance was considered to be a stinker due to his lack of aggression and dominance against a smaller older man. Again, when he had some offensive success he immediately and inexplicably reverted back to a more cautious approach.

Don't forget that Duran was in a much stronger man who was heavier than advertized. And he was in close -he was not fluttering about (like Leonard in what I would state is indeed boxing ability, but comparitively unsophisticated -safe and easier).

This was Leonard's natural style. If we cut it real deep Duran actually fought FAR less aggressive than was customary, and comparatively fought more out of style than Leonard. He had to, just as Leonard had to stick to boxing and not get lured into thinking he could match it with the bigger man.

Against Hagler, that was ill-advised, so he tamed his nature and applied skill -similarly to what he demonstrated in DeJesus III.

Agreed.

Also, he was going to be slower because he had to gain weight no matter how you cut it. Other trainers and pundits before the fight were recommending that he come in at about ~153. Including Leonard. He came in at a solid 156. Which seemed perfect to me because he actually looked stronger to me at that weight than he ever did at 152. Looking back, he would have been a bit too small to handle Hagler who I believe had an immense physicality in there.


I disagree because Hagler did anything but use his "immense physicality". It would have been even harder to use/impose vs a slightly quicker, sharper and more mobile Duran.

Also, he was going to be slower because he had to gain weight no matter how you cut it. Other trainers and pundits before the fight were recommending that he come in at about ~153. Including Leonard. He came in at a solid 156. Which seemed perfect to me because he actually looked stronger to me at that weight than he ever did at 152. Looking back, he would have been a bit too small to handle Hagler who I believe had an immense physicality in there.


I can totally agree to this, but Hagler was also disappointing no matter how i cut it. Bottom line - Hagler deserves some criticism for a sub par effort while Duran deserves all the accolades he gets for a superlative effort given the circumstances.

That's it in a nutshell for me. We've prolly gone as far as we can but i've enjoyed the banter immensely, as usual. Tho i don't always agree with you, you certainly put forward fantastic debate, vision and devotion.

[Stonehands89]

I'm not so sure actually. Duran didn't have the power (allied to lack of size and SRL like style and slickness) to take the title from Marvin IMO. Marvin controlled the inside exchanges and Duran, tho surprisingly effective standing off, was hardly likely to outbox him for 15. Tho a bit past it when Marvin fought them guys like Monroe, Hart and Briscoe presented potential (we didn't know just how great Marvins chin really was) fight threatening assets. Antuofermo even, a big strong crude 160 who held Marvin to a draw. Duran was certainly the "greatest" Marvin had fought, and i'd venture to say the most skillful, but at 160 i'm really not sure he was the most "formidable" Marvin had faced.
Correct-a-mundo. I should have said that Duran was the greatest of Marvin's opponents up to that time, but not necessarily the most formidable.

I couldn't agree less. Leonard totally outboxed Hagler at various times and walked away with his title. As for the praise for Duran's risk taking as opposed to Leonard's, two things. Firstly you have been praising and defending Marvin's cautious approach vs Duran, a fighter infinitely less dangerous to Marvin than Marvin was to Leonard, yet you also criticise Leonard for too much caution when (secondly) Leonard was more of a boxing slickster type than Hagler. Leonard won the fight! So did Hagler vs Duran. Duran actually aborted his customary style and stood back far more than normal. Smart move, because he would have been in serious trouble if not. As Leonard would have been engaging more. Smart move again. Leonard landed plenty of leather in boxing mode in this one.
Duran was the same age that Marvin was when Marvin fought Ray. He was also further into a far longer career, and again, a natural LW! He took far more risks against far fiercer and younger Marvin and did so for 9 minutes longer than Ray. 9 minutes alone against Hagler feels like eons.

Ray was 30, taller than Marvin, and while it is true he was coming off of a 5 year lay-off, he ate, drank, and breathed Marvin during a long training camp. Ray fought a relatively safe fight outside, in a larger ring, with larger gloves, over less rounds, against a faded Marvin. He won, and Duran didn't, but even that is controversial.

Yes but i stand solidly behind my conviction that Duran beating the likes of Moore and Cuevas should not have cast doubt as it did too such a dominant great champion as Hagler. These two performances AND his great effort vs Hagler sure didn't worry Hearns, he came out and absolutely decimated Roberto.
...and would you have predicted that?? Anyone outside of Hearns and Steward who claimed that they did is a liar. However, I see your point. You would not deny that Duran was at least feeling good again and was therefore more dangerous, though, right?

Duran was actually the one that didn't want any part of an aggressive Hagler. He summed up the situation perfectly, Marvin didn't. He allowed Duran to stand off him and cruise.
Yes.

Duran wasn't a banger at 160, he hit Moore all night long at 154 let alone 6 pounds up.
...the point was he was a better banger than Napoles and far better than Griffith. A lightweight 15 or 21 years into his career who can still manage to rearranging the faces of two younger, hard-hitting, MW champions (Moore, Barkley) and drop them both confirms that he could bang at 160 in my mind.

Not gonna happen. What if he slugged and stopped him? Lots more chance of that than vice versa.
"Not gonna happen" doesn't apply in boxing. Ray Arcel "If someone told me that Duran would quit in the ring, I'd have killed them."

I agree that Marvin had the advantage in a slugging match, but again, you dismiss the risks of that too casually and with that part of your argument you are doing so via the benefit of hindsight. Hearns, the post-fight critique of Marvin, do nothing to dispute the argument presented here -which purely revolves around pre-fight factors: Duran's caliber, experience, stoney fists, and recent conquests.

[Stonehands89]

JT.

A loose end....

I agree that Leonard did what had to be done to stand a chance against Hagler. Duran also did the best he could have done. I happen to believe that prime for prime, Leonard had the answers for Hagler more than Duran -who was simply too small. However, given the size difference, the Hagler age factor, the risk factor in the ring in terms of how each man made his stand against the MW king, as well as Duran's disdain for any politicking as to ring size, glove size, and round count, makes the 1983 'clear but competitive loss' more impressive than the 1987 'controversial but shocking win'.

Your argument is absolutely sound and your points are well taken -except for the arguments that could not have been known in November of 1983.

One of us is wrong about how threatening Duran actually was to Hagler at the time. You see less threat than I in Duran, I see more threat than you. Your criticism of Hagler pivots on your belief. My acceptance of his more cautious approach to Duran pivots on mine.

Thank you for a great debate. You, Mega, Pontius, Duo, MDWC, Manassa, Spoon, Achilles, McVey, and Janitor have proven the most worthy opponents.

[Dave's Top Ten]

What Duran did was show us how much a master technician could trouble Hagler. Hagler never dominated a technician. His era was full of come forward fighters who he absolutely feasted on most times.


Well master technicians can trouble anyone...that's they're so called !
It's true that Hagler preferred fighters to come to him - he was basically a counter puncher despite his fearsome image. Clever Duran knew this and tunred counter puncher himself. MMH still won ten rounds though. If the judges had got it right we wouldn't even be discussing it. We'd be just be saying good survival tactics by Roberto.

[JohnThomas1]

JT.

A loose end....

I agree that Leonard did what had to be done to stand a chance against Hagler. Duran also did the best he could have done. I happen to believe that prime for prime, Leonard had the answers for Hagler more than Duran -who was simply too small.

Totally agree so far, tho i will add the proviso that SRL was quite likely too small to actually win (over Hagler) in their primes as well. It's possible, but even with say hindsight of their actual fight Hagler would be fave.

However, given the size difference, the Hagler age factor, the risk factor in the ring in terms of how each man made his stand against the MW king, as well as Duran's disdain for any politicking as to ring size, glove size, and round count, makes the 1983 'clear but competitive loss' more impressive than the 1987 'controversial but shocking win'.

Still totally disagree here sorry. Duran didn't come close to beating Hagler, Leonard did. We can zero in on Hagler aging but the facts are Leonard had just as many disadvantages and a fair view would probably say more. Hagler was still rated as the man when Leonard beat him and was actually more heavily favoured over Ray than over Duran. The whole topic nearly always depends on which camp you have your foot in. Both men were in over their head weight wise.

Your argument is absolutely sound and your points are well taken -except for the arguments that could not have been known in November of 1983.

Ditto, and this whole debate is really opinion based and both sides have their points.

One of us is wrong about how threatening Duran actually was to Hagler at the time. You see less threat than I in Duran, I see more threat than you. Your criticism of Hagler pivots on your belief. My acceptance of his more cautious approach to Duran pivots on mine.

Thank you for a great debate. You, Mega, Pontius, Duo, MDWC, Manassa, Spoon, Achilles, McVey, and Janitor have proven the most worthy opponents.

Well spoken mate and always a pleasure. I am about to read your prior post so have commented here first.

[redrooster]

Surprise, surprise, Rooster deson't rate the Duran defense. Fair enough, no biggie to me.



I didn't say i don't rate his defense. I just asked you describe his elusive actions. You should have no problem with this if you know what you're talking about.

[JohnThomas1]

I didn't say i don't rate his defense. I just asked you describe his elusive actions. You should have no problem with this if you know what you're talking about.

Would you consider Duran an elusive fighter or not?

Would you say Hagler had more difficulty hitting Duran cleany than your hero's Hamsho and Roldan?

[redrooster]

Would you consider Duran an elusive fighter or not?

Would you say Hagler had more difficulty hitting Duran cleany than your hero's Hamsho and Roldan?

This is your strategy? You don't know the answer so you try putting me on the spot.

Can you or can't you answer the question? If so, then lets see it.

[Danny Ocean]

i think it was more competitive than close

[redrooster]

I know you didn't see Hagler-Roldan. if you had you wouldn't have stupidly left yourself open leaving the impression Roldan was easy to hit. Roldan was the most difficult to hit, much more so than Duran because of his bobbing weaving style, blended with his perpetual motion offense.

John, just forget it. You're getting slaughtered, you're much too easy to destroy and you do a poor job at trying to impersonate me.

[redrooster]

i think it was more competitive than close

That's a good way of putting it.

[JohnThomas1]

This is your strategy? You don't know the answer so you try putting me on the spot.

Can you or can't you answer the question? If so, then lets see it.

Surely not even you can't be dim witted enough not to see Duran slipping, blocking and rolling with punches whether flat footed or not?

[JohnThomas1]

I know you didn't see Hagler-Roldan. if you had you wouldn't have stupidly left yourself open leaving the impression Roldan was easy to hit. Roldan was the most difficult to hit, much more so than Duran because of his bobbing weaving style, blended with his perpetual motion offense.

John, just forget it. You're getting slaughtered, you're much too easy to destroy and you do a poor job at trying to impersonate me.

Show me again where i left the impression Roldan was easy to hit.

Let me get this right, you say Duran wasn't elusive vs Hagler and tell us

Roldan was the most difficult to hit, much more so than Duran because of his bobbing weaving style, blended with his perpetual motion offense.

You're killer comedy mate

:lol:

[redrooster]

Show me again where i left the impression Roldan was easy to hit.

Let me get this right, you say Duran wasn't elusive vs Hagler and tell us



You're killer comedy mate

:lol:

Your response proved my point.

i didn't say Duran wasn't elusive. I asked you to tell me what set him apart from the others, and to describe his defense that supposedly gave Hagler fits.

So Duran bobbed and weaved but that's not anything unusual. No fighter makes themself available to be hit.

But you make it look as though Roberto showed Hagler something he'd never seen before.

You attempts to ridicule are your own undoing because you don't go about it in an intelligent way. Making a direct comparison between the defenses of Duran and Roldan, indicates you don't think Roldan posed any problems for marvin, something you now realize was a mistake once I revealed it.

[Stonehands89]

Totally agree so far, tho i will add the proviso that SRL was quite likely too small to actually win (over Hagler) in their primes as well. It's possible, but even with say hindsight of their actual fight Hagler would be fave.
I don't think that Leonard would have taken Hagler either had Hagler been anywhere near his prime -no matter what. So we agree there. Duran would always have been at more risk of the Hagler guns however... but if Duran was frozen in time and Halger had begun to get ponderous and loop his shots...well, read on.

Still totally disagree here sorry. Duran didn't come close to beating Hagler, Leonard did. We can zero in on Hagler aging but the facts are Leonard had just as many disadvantages and a fair view would probably say more. Hagler was still rated as the man when Leonard beat him and was actually more heavily favoured over Ray than over Duran. The whole topic nearly always depends on which camp you have your foot in. Both men were in over their head weight wise.
Two things to begin: We both know that Hagler wasn't the same. He may have been "the man" but he was fading at an accelerated rate after 1984. The second is that "which camp you favor" can be overcome with objectivity. I happen to rank Duran P4P pretty far above Leonard when all is said and done, but this is really about contrasting styles and analysis. We both are pretty open-minded.

Let's say that Leonard, not Duran was in the ring against Hagler in November of 1983. Hagler obviously would not have any need for caution -he would have went right at Leonard like he had been in the vast majority of his title defenses. Hagler is ~29. 15 rounds. Smaller gloves. Normal-sized ring. Who wins? Take any version of Leonard you want. I'd even allow a combination of Leonards in one.

...do you really think that Leonard would have survived?

Now put the Duran of Nov 1983 in with the Hagler of April 1987. 12 rounds. I can't say that the 32 year old version of Duran would not have done at least as well as Leonard. That Hagler was slow-fisted, looping his shots, very strong, great chin, but Duran would have been faster, more elusive, and in more command of his skills.

...just something interesting to think about.

[redrooster]

^^That's an outcome I would have much rather have seen.

[Street Lethal]

Let's say that Leonard, not Duran was in the ring against Hagler in November of 1983. Hagler obviously would not have any need for caution -he would have went right at Leonard like he had been in the vast majority of his title defenses. Hagler is ~29. 15 rounds. Smaller gloves. Normal-sized ring. Who wins? Take any version of Leonard you want. I'd even allow a combination of Leonards in one.

...do you really think that Leonard would have survived?

Now put the Duran of Nov 1983 in with the Hagler of April 1987. 12 rounds. I can't say that the 32 year old version of Duran would not have done at least as well as Leonard. That Hagler was slow-fisted, looping his shots, very strong, great chin, but Duran would have been faster, more elusive, and in more command of his skills.

...just something interesting to think about.
This sums up how I feel about things.

[JohnThomas1]

Two things to begin: We both know that Hagler wasn't the same. He may have been "the man" but he was fading at an accelerated rate after 1984.

Yes but again, both sides need to be assessed, and truth be told Leonard had at least as many disadvantages regardless of mere gloves and co.

I happen to rank Duran P4P pretty far above Leonard when all is said and done, but this is really about contrasting styles and analysis.

I have Duran ahead of Leonard but by far less than you have. His long term dominance of 135, win over Leonard and 154 and 160 titles put him ahead of Ray. The quit and numerous losses in between title winning efforts of brilliance bring him back a bit tho. When he can still decimate Moore and put on a performance as he did vs Barkley then he surely has to take on a little accountability for such losses in between IMO. Whether he was percieved by some to be out of shape or uninspired is still a weakness on his own part. I've never done a list, but Duran would likely sit between #5 and #8 with Leonard prolly #8 to #12.

Let's say that Leonard, not Duran was in the ring against Hagler in November of 1983. Hagler obviously would not have any need for caution -he would have went right at Leonard like he had been in the vast majority of his title defenses.

What need did Hagler have for caution when they actually fought anyways? He was fighting a rusty aging guy who was a natural welterweight. I can't for the life of me fathom how he needed to show caution anyways.

Now put the Duran of Nov 1983 in with the Hagler of April 1987. 12 rounds. I can't say that the 32 year old version of Duran would not have done at least as well as Leonard. That Hagler was slow-fisted, looping his shots, very strong, great chin, but Duran would have been faster, more elusive, and in more command of his skills.

Sorry mate but i can't see Duran beating this version either, and feel confident he wouldn't. Duran and Leonard are two totally different animals and Duran is never going to dance around and outbox Marvin with blinding flurries. When Leonard stood still, even with the faster hands and superb anticipation, Hagler had his moments. That's why we saw Dundee reminding Leonard not to fight but to box. Duran still wouldn't have been able to hurt Hagler whatsoever. He also had stamina problems fight night.