Originally Posted by ushvinder
Wait you consider his win over duran as some legacy building fight? Duran was a 15 year pro with 5 losses in a 3 year span, he was shot.
Hearns built his legacy by beating an old duran and then he fought an ancient leonard in 1989.
If hagler would have fought and defeated mccallum, kalambay and graham, his resume would have been stronger than monzons and he would rank higher, he didnt and thats why he generally ranks lower than monzon on all time lists.
Duran was an old man at 32?? The same age Hearns was when he beat Virgil Hill more weight classes up than Duran had gone to 154?
Certainly it was a legacy building fight. No one to that point had stopped Duran in this fashion let alone stopped Duran at all and anyone who says Hearns did not build his legacy stopping a guy who was fellow champion in 1984 is making Duran a great excuse again.
. Hearns win over Duran was better than any fight Duran won post Leonard in 1980. Duran was champion in 1984 when he fought Hearns, and to Duran's fans own words he almost beat Hagler. I never saw the almost part, but if they can say that they can awknowledge that a man who fought Hearns at the mid point of his boxing career (1984 was 17 years into his career, and he fought until 2001. ) that he was not this washed up little fighter who was slow. He fought another 35-40 times after Hearns. More than Hearns did after that. Hearns fought another 30 or so times.
And the ancient Leonard thing is funny since Ray picked Tommy because he thought Tommy was washed up. He was wrong. So when was Duran was washed up fighter? When did it start? in Nov. of 1980? And then he somehow was great when he beat Moore and Barkley ,but was washed up in all the other fights he lost. This is why Duran gets too many excuses. He was not old when he fought in the fab 4 era and since he was considered one of them, you would have to think he was a threat to beat any of them.