Thomas Hearns vs. Luigi Minchillo

[MRBILL]

Hearns won with ease, but he was still worried about his brittle right hand when he defended against Minchillo..... Hearns popped his knuckle on his right against Benitez in '82.....

Hearns later busted his knuckle again against Hagler, and bruised it badly in '86 against Medal....

MR.BILL

[MAG1965]

Hearns pretty much controlled this fight with Minchillo having some spurts. Minchillo was not a bad fighter. Tough european. Had Hearns been able to throw his right with full leverage he would have done it, but he was shy to throw it. In the Duran fight he figured he better throw it since he could not let Duran get a chance and he did.

[orriray59]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

Hearns pretty much controlled this fight with Minchillo having some spurts. Minchillo was not a bad fighter. Tough european. Had Hearns been able to throw his right with full leverage he would have done it, but he was shy to throw it. In the Duran fight he figured he better throw it since he could not let Duran get a chance and he did.

Although Duran wasn't at his best, nobody has ever beaten him like that.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by orriray59

Although Duran wasn't at his best, nobody has ever beaten him like that.

You are right, no one ever beat Duran like that. Although it was not that surprising. Hearns was the hardest puncher and quickest hard puncher Duran ever fought. He punched much harder than Hagler,Benitez or Leonard or anyone Duran ever fought in his many years boxing.
I do not agree with the excuse Duran was not at his best. Duran was champion at 154 and just fought Hagler 7 months before. He was never at his best when he fought another great fighter and he lost. That was always the excuse. Fact is, this was a unification fight and Hearns beat a fellow champion. I don't understand why Duran was never at his best when he fought the great fighters like Benitez,Leonard and Hearns. It had something to do with his opponents. He was great, but for his high ranking I would have thought he would have more wins over legendary fighters. He was given many chances to beat many of the greats. Duran was great if a guy stood in front of him. Certain guys like Olajide would have easily beaten Duran, and a guy like Nigel Benn would have a hard time beating him. The guys who moved and used the ring always had a chance to beat him. Hearns didn't use the ring, but his power was extraordinary.

[orriray59]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

You are right, no one ever beat Duran like that. Although it was not that surprising. Hearns was the hardest puncher and quickest hard puncher Duran ever fought. He punched much harder than Hagler,Benitez or Leonard or anyone Duran ever fought in his many years boxing.
I do not agree with the excuse Duran was not at his best. Duran was champion at 154 and just fought Hagler 7 months before. He was never at his best when he fought another great fighter and he lost. That was always the excuse. Fact is, this was a unification fight and Hearns beat a fellow champion. I don't understand why Duran was never at his best when he fought the great fighters like Benitez,Leonard and Hearns. It had something to do with his opponents. He was great, but for his high ranking I would have thought he would have more wins over legendary fighters. He was given many chances to beat many of the greats.

Well, he did batter a prime Sugar Ray Leonard, he did terrorize Ken Buchanan, he dominated and stopped Davey Moore, outpointed Barkley (who defeated Tommy Hearns), arguably beat Camacho when he was way over the hill, hung in there with Hagler, defeated De Jesus twice, etc.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by orriray59

Well, he did batter a prime Sugar Ray Leonard, he did terrorize Ken Buchanan, he dominated and stopped Davey Moore, outpointed Barkley (who defeated Tommy Hearns), arguably beat Camacho when he was way over the hill, hung in there with Hagler, defeated De Jesus twice, etc.

yeah but the best guys he ever fought who are ATG are Benitez,Leonard,Hearns,Hagler with a record of 1-5 (0), and in that loss to Ray, Ray avenged it. Stopping Moore and beating Barkley is still not beating a great. Ray Leonard was not prime, he was in his second defense of his first title. All Ray had to do was fight his fight and he didn't just beat Duran, he outclassed him. Duran quit when he was going to get knocked out. This is why I think Duran is overrated. He is still great but overrated. The guy lacks great wins over great fighters, regardless of having excuses when he did fight the greats, where are the wins over greats? Buchanan, Moore and Barkley are not great fighters. This is something which people have to acknowledge. Ok he is great. Dominant fighter, but why couldn't he beat the great fast great guys Hearns,Benitez,Leonard when they were in shape and ready to fight, and that was for titles.

[orriray59]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

yeah but the best guys he ever fought who are ATG are Benitez,Leonard,Hearns,Hagler with a record of 1-5 (0), and in that loss to Ray, Ray avenged it. Stopping Moore and beating Barkley is still not beating a great. Ray Leonard was not prime, he was in his second defense of his first title. All Ray had to do was fight his fight and he didn't just beat Duran, he outclassed him. Duran quit when he was going to get knocked out. This is why I think Duran is overrated. He is still great but overrated. The guy lacks great wins over great fighters, regardless of having excuses when he did fight the greats, where are the wins over greats? Buchanan, Moore and Barkley are not great fighters. This is something which people have to acknowledge. Ok he is great. Dominant fighter, but why couldn't he beat the great fast great guys Hearns,Benitez,Leonard when they were in shape and ready to fight, and that was for titles.

I see your point MAG, but do you not understand that the number of ATG's that you have victories over isn't the thing by which we define fighters?

Alright, so let's talk about Duran's loss to Hagler. Hagler is one of the ATG middleweight champions, many people argue him to be the GOAT at middleweight. Duran fights him and nicks a few rounds, but ultimately loses a clear decision.

This is the same fighter who spent most of his career at lightweight. Did he lose decisively? Yes.

Out of the 9 fights that Hearns, Duran, Leonard and Hagler had Duran's victory over Leonard is the most meaningful. Duran in a weight class above his best weight, beating one of the ATG welterweights in his prime.
Yes, he lost to Benitez and Hearns, and yes, he got beaten twice by Leonard afterward.

But he simply was not at his best for any of these. I'm not trying to make excuses, but outside of his loss to DeJesus, all of his other losses he was pretty much past prime.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by orriray59

I see your point MAG, but do you not understand that the number of ATG's that you have victories over isn't the thing by which we define fighters?

Alright, so let's talk about Duran's loss to Hagler. Hagler is one of the ATG middleweight champions, many people argue him to be the GOAT at middleweight. Duran fights him and nicks a few rounds, but ultimately loses a clear decision.

This is the same fighter who spent most of his career at lightweight. Did he lose decisively? Yes.

Out of the 9 fights that Hearns, Duran, Leonard and Hagler had Duran's victory over Leonard is the most meaningful. Duran in a weight class above his best weight, beating one of the ATG welterweights in his prime.
Yes, he lost to Benitez and Hearns, and yes, he got beaten twice by Leonard afterward.

But he simply was not at his best for any of these. I'm not trying to make excuses, but outside of his loss to DeJesus, all of his other losses he was pretty much past prime.

I like your points also, and this is just our different opinions. I think of all those losses Duran had past his prime when when he fought the greats- i think they were significant, because that is when he fought greats. And he still could win titles, which shows he was not this washed up guy. He could always punch and always loved boxing and had great skills.
But beating fellow greats. That is how I determine greatness. People think it is about Duran and that I am not impressed with his career much or don't like him much, no I like Duran, but I always thought about level of the guys someone beats makes him great. Duran never beat that level consistently. Look at Evander. regardless of older he beat Foreman, Tyson, drew with Lennox, beat Bowe. He beat some big names and didn't lose. Now had he lost and said well I was not in shape, would that have been as good as beating them? I don't think so. The fighters who would have beaten him deserved respect.

Had he fought greats as a lightweight then we would have the wins to show how great he was. I know that is not everything, but in the way I think about it beating greats show a fighter can fight at that high level. Losing to Hearns and Leonard and Benitez and then beating Buchanan and Moore is not the same thing. Cannot be. Fighting at a high level and winning is sort of like the NBA and winning championships- it shows a player is great.

See I don't see the win over Leonard as very meaningful because of timing. What is significant is that it taught Leonard to fight his fight and to learn that winning a fight is also before the fight and psychological. I see that Ray was still green and in his second defense of his first title.

The fact he fought Duran's fight to beat him at his own game shows how immature and not yet really prime Ray was. Ray really would have been prime about late 1982 or 1983, but not in 1980. He beat Duran fighting his own fight in the rematch and outclassed him, didn't just beat him. That is significant. No way a fighter of Duran's level is going to be outclassed like that, and then he excuses it away as being out of shape. I think the best win of all the 9 fights as you say is Leonard over Hearns and Hearns over Duran and Hearns over Benitez. Hagler over Hearns was impressive, but that was more a brawl where the natural middleweight with the better chin won. They are all great. Even Benitez over Duran because of how impressive Wilfred was.

I would say Leonard over Duran 2 and Leonard over Hearns was teh most significant because it showcased his greatness and his domination over his era. Not total dominance, but he did beat all of them. Duran beat one, and then lost to that fighter again and the other 3 greats he fought. Duran loses to all of them, yet his fight he wins is the most significant? I cannot see that. Ray was the one who beat them all, so it has to be his fights he won which was the most important.

[Clinton]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

I like your points also, and this is just our different opinions. I think of all those losses Duran had past his prime when when he fought the greats- i think they were significant, because that is when he fought greats. And he still could win titles, which shows he was not this washed up guy. He could always punch and always loved boxing and had great skills.
But beating fellow greats. That is how I determine greatness. People think it is about Duran and that I am not impressed with his career much or don't like him much, no I like Duran, but I always thought about level of the guys someone beats makes him great. Duran never beat that level consistently. Look at Evander. regardless of older he beat Foreman, Tyson, drew with Lennox, beat Bowe. He beat some big names and didn't lose. Now had he lost and said well I was not in shape, would that have been as good as beating them? I don't think so. The fighters who would have beaten him deserved respect.

Had he fought greats as a lightweight then we would have the wins to show how great he was. I know that is not everything, but in the way I think about it beating greats show a fighter can fight at that high level. Losing to Hearns and Leonard and Benitez and then beating Buchanan and Moore is not the same thing. Cannot be. Fighting at a high level and winning is sort of like the NBA and winning championships- it shows a player is great.

See I don't see the win over Leonard as very meaningful because of timing. What is significant is that it taught Leonard to fight his fight and to learn that winning a fight is also before the fight and psychological. I see that Ray was still green and in his second defense of his first title.

The fact he fought Duran's fight to beat him at his own game shows how immature and not yet really prime Ray was. Ray really would have been prime about late 1982 or 1983, but not in 1980. He beat Duran fighting his own fight in the rematch and outclassed him, didn't just beat him. That is significant. No way a fighter of Duran's level is going to be outclassed like that, and then he excuses it away as being out of shape. I think the best win of all the 9 fights as you say is Leonard over Hearns and Hearns over Duran and Hearns over Benitez. Hagler over Hearns was impressive, but that was more a brawl where the natural middleweight with the better chin won. They are all great. Even Benitez over Duran because of how impressive Wilfred was.

I would say Leonard over Duran 2 and Leonard over Hearns was teh most significant because it showcased his greatness and his domination over his era. Not total dominance, but he did beat all of them. Duran beat one, and then lost to that fighter again and the other 3 greats he fought. Duran loses to all of them, yet his fight he wins is the most significant? I cannot see that. Ray was the one who beat them all, so it has to be his fights he won which was the most important.

Mag's irrational obsession with denying Duran's being past prime at 154 continues as he turns yet another thread which didn't even mention Duran into just that.I'm going to fill you in on a little secret, Mag. No matter how many time you write the same stuff, you're never going to convince anyone otherwise. Cheers

[Clinton]

Originally Posted by orriray59

I see your point MAG, but do you not understand that the number of ATG's that you have victories over isn't the thing by which we define fighters?

Alright, so let's talk about Duran's loss to Hagler. Hagler is one of the ATG middleweight champions, many people argue him to be the GOAT at middleweight. Duran fights him and nicks a few rounds, but ultimately loses a clear decision.

This is the same fighter who spent most of his career at lightweight. Did he lose decisively? Yes.

Out of the 9 fights that Hearns, Duran, Leonard and Hagler had Duran's victory over Leonard is the most meaningful. Duran in a weight class above his best weight, beating one of the ATG welterweights in his prime.
Yes, he lost to Benitez and Hearns, and yes, he got beaten twice by Leonard afterward.

But he simply was not at his best for any of these. I'm not trying to make excuses, but outside of his loss to DeJesus, all of his other losses he was pretty much past prime.

Orriray, you took the bait as Mag is always in denial that Duran was past prime and naturally smaller than ALL OF THE GUYS HE FOUGHT when he hit 154, not just the greats. For some reason, he just cannot accept those facts.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by Clinton

Mag's irrational obsession with denying Duran's being past prime at 154 continues as he turns yet another thread which didn't even mention Duran into just that.I'm going to fill you in on a little secret, Mag. No matter how many time you write the same stuff, you're never going to convince anyone otherwise. Cheers

same thing goes with me. No one can convince me that Duran is 1-10 ATG. He is top 25, and he fought everyone he could have. Great fighter, but the wins against the legends is what I think prevents him from being 1-10. This is about 1-10 ATG. If it is that he is a great fighter, we have no discussion.
That is my criteria. Being dominant is one thing, but against who is important. Sure he moved up in weight, but most of thegreats fought big fights outside their best weight. Hearns was supposedly his best at 147 and 154, but he fought another 23 fights above that weight. But he did fight Shuler, Hagler, Leonard, Hill,Roldan,Olajide,Kinchen etc above his beat weight. And it does affect his legacy, but he also beat greats Cuevas,Benitez,Duran at 147 and 154.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by Clinton

Orriray, you took the bait as Mag is always in denial that Duran was past prime and naturally smaller than ALL OF THE GUYS HE FOUGHT when he hit 154, not just the greats. For some reason, he just cannot accept those facts.

I see facts, but I don't see the excuse as valid as much as others said. All those guys moved up in weight. Hearns all the way to 175 where he beat Virgil Hill who had 10 defenses and was undefeated.
Look as far as facts. Here is one which is the truth. Duran fought at 154 the weight you just mentioned as early as 1978. Before Hearns,Leonard and Benitez fought there, and that is the weight he lost to Hearns and Benitez at. one for a title which Benitez held in 1982 and then when Duran was also champion at the weight for Hearns WBC title. His WBA title was stripped because he decided to fight Tommy instead of defend against Mike McCallum, which is why McCallum left Emanuel Steward.

[Flea Man]

And yet Duran destroyed Moore who went on to hit 'El Radar' so hard he broke his ankle

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

And yet Duran destroyed Moore who went on to hit 'El Radar' so hard he broke his ankle

Benitez outboxed Duran easily when he held his title in 1982 when he was champ. And about Benitez 2 years later, he broke his ankle and couldn't fight on. I am not sure what that fight meant. That is like the Mugabi/Rosi fight. Flukes happen. That is like saying James Kinchen beat Buster Drayton, so Kinchen was better than Davey Moore since Buster beat Davey Moore. I would say a head to head matchup of greats Benitez and Duran means much more. Duran was in shape as he said and he lost easily.

[Clinton]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

same thing goes with me. No one can convince me that Duran is 1-10 ATG. He is top 25, and he fought everyone he could have. Great fighter, but the wins against the legends is what I think prevents him from being 1-10. This is about 1-10 ATG. If it is that he is a great fighter, we have no discussion.
That is my criteria. Being dominant is one thing, but against who is important. Sure he moved up in weight, but most of thegreats fought big fights outside their best weight. Hearns was supposedly his best at 147 and 154, but he fought another 23 fights above that weight. But he did fight Shuler, Hagler, Leonard, Hill,Roldan,Olajide,Kinchen etc above his beat weight. And it does affect his legacy, but he also beat greats Cuevas,Benitez,Duran at 147 and 154.

Tommy's one of the greatest fighters I've ever seen, but he lost to Iran Barkley twice. Was Tommy a great lightheavyweight? Nope. A few of questions for you, now that you've made this into a Duran thread again: How good was Kirkland Laing? If Duran was close to prime and natural weight at 154, and you admit Duran is top 25, why did Kirkland Laing beat him? How does a top 25 fighter of all time in his prime and at his natural weight(according to you) lose to a fellow like Laing?