Thomas Hearns vs. Luigi Minchillo

[Clinton]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

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.

Just because Duran fought at 154 as early as 1978, that doesn't mean that was his natural weight. That's not the 1st time I've seen you write that. He got fat. That's it. Just because he fought at 154 at that particular point in time, doesn't mean that was his natural weight. Your point is moot in that subject. No matter how hard you try, you are not going to convince anyone that Duran was a natural 154 pounder even though you've written that more than a few times. It's that simple.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by Clinton

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?

I never said he was prime, I am saying that he cannot be rated 1-10 ATG with his lightweight career, so he needs more than Leonard at welt in one fight and then losing the second to make him that highly rated. He needed another win over Hearns or Benitez at 154. That would have helped his legacy, and had he beaten them then I would have said he was probably 1-10 ATG. But he did not come close to beat them and winning their titles.
Roberto's fans will say he was greatest ever because he almost beat Hagler (even though I never saw that as almost) and he beat Moore and Barkley for his 3rd and 4th title, which I think is great, but just not 1-10 ATG, and his lightweight career does not make him 1-10 ATG. That is my point, not the fact he was great. He was.
I never said Hearns was a great light heavyweight, but I do think his win over Hill was always underrated and he beat a guy 4 divisions above his starting weight for his first title who had 10 defenses and was undefeated. He had almost as many defenses and Moore had fights. As for Hearns, I was hoping in 1992 he would fight anyone but Barkley for his first defense, but he signed to fight Barkley. Bad style matchup for him always.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by Clinton

Just because Duran fought at 154 as early as 1978, that doesn't mean that was his natural weight. That's not the 1st time I've seen you write that. He got fat. That's it. Just because he fought at 154 at that particular point in time, doesn't mean that was his natural weight. Your point is moot in that subject. No matter how hard you try, you are not going to convince anyone that Duran was a natural 154 pounder even though you've written that more than a few times. It's that simple.

Duran was not a little 154 pound fighter. That is something his fans want to say so he looks like he surmounted all these odds. he was a big enough fighter and had a hard right hand. I saw him fighting even in 1994 on USA tuesday night fights, and he knocked out guys with his right hand at 168 pounds. He was not this little guy. Look at him now standing with Hearns and Leonard. He really is not much smaller than them. Hearns had a very slim lean build yet he was tall. People seem to think Hearns was a natural 175 pound fighter. He was not. Tyson was 5-10 and he was heavyweight. Height is not the determination, and not for Duran either. Duran did not lose to Leonard Benitez and Hearns because of size, he lost because of speed. I am not saying Duran was as great at 160 as he was at 135, but at 154 and 160 is where he fought great fighters, and not at 135.

[Clinton]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

Duran was not a little 154 pound fighter. That is something his fans want to say so he looks like he surmounted all these odds. he was a big enough fighter and had a hard right hand. I saw him fighting even in 1994 on USA tuesday night fights, and he knocked out guys with his right hand at 168 pounds. He was not this little guy. Look at him now standing with Hearns and Leonard. He really is not much smaller than them. Hearns had a very slim lean build yet he was tall. People seem to think Hearns was a natural 175 pound fighter. He was not. Tyson was 5-10 and he was heavyweight. Height is not the determination, and not for Duran either. Duran did not lose to Leonard Benitez and Hearns because of size, he lost because of speed. I am not saying Duran was as great at 160 as he was at 135, but at 154 and 160 is where he fought great fighters, and not at 135.

Duran was 5 7 with a reach of about 67 inches, a smaller chest and bigger waist than Sugar Ray Leonard at 147,so yes he was a small 154 pounder that was past prime. In fact, Duran's physical dimensions are almost identical to Julio Cesar Chavez's. Leonard is 5 10 with what, a 74 reach,and Tommy is 6 1 with a 78 reach(both with bigger chests than Duran), so Duran is noticeably smaller. I believe that Tommy beats Roberto 10 out of 10, but the Duran that beat Leonard would have put on a better show against Tommy than the one that lost to Kirkland Laing BEFORE fighting Tommy. And I believe that the Duran that beat Leonard would have beaten Wilfred. And maybe Marcel, Buchanan and DeJesus aren't ATGs, but they were great fighters were they were on the go.

[Clinton]

Originally Posted by MAG1965

I never said he was prime, I am saying that he cannot be rated 1-10 ATG with his lightweight career, so he needs more than Leonard at welt in one fight and then losing the second to make him that highly rated. He needed another win over Hearns or Benitez at 154. That would have helped his legacy, and had he beaten them then I would have said he was probably 1-10 ATG. But he did not come close to beat them and winning their titles.
Roberto's fans will say he was greatest ever because he almost beat Hagler (even though I never saw that as almost) and he beat Moore and Barkley for his 3rd and 4th title, which I think is great, but just not 1-10 ATG, and his lightweight career does not make him 1-10 ATG. That is my point, not the fact he was great. He was.
I never said Hearns was a great light heavyweight, but I do think his win over Hill was always underrated and he beat a guy 4 divisions above his starting weight for his first title who had 10 defenses and was undefeated. He had almost as many defenses and Moore had fights. As for Hearns, I was hoping in 1992 he would fight anyone but Barkley for his first defense, but he signed to fight Barkley. Bad style matchup for him always.

You've always written that Duran lost to those guys because of their speed, but you've NEVER admitted that Duran was past it when he hit 154. More importantly, you've never written that Duran was NOT a natural 154 pounder, instead making it out that Duran was naturally the same size as Leonard and Tommy(and Benitez, too), when he obviously wasn't. Most importantly, you never addressed the 3 questions that I posed to you concerning Laing. And so what Hill had 10 title defenses going in? His comp wasn't that great, and quite honestly, he also lost to DM and Jones at 175. Had he fought in the Saad and Spinks era, he wouldn't have cracked the top 5 at 175.

[Flea Man]

Here's Minchillo's fight with Duran. Pretty decent scrap, Duran clearly not quite there but shows some nice flourishes, some talk from Minchillo after about the usual Duran tricks, thumb to the eye etc but pretty close bout really. I had it 6-4 Duran.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpdUaSK4KV0[/ame]

[conraddobler]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

Here's Minchillo's fight with Duran. Pretty decent scrap, Duran clearly not quite there but shows some nice flourishes, some talk from Minchillo after about the usual Duran tricks, thumb to the eye etc but pretty close bout really. I had it 6-4 Duran.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpdUaSK4KV0[/ame]

I saw the Hearns fight on Youtube and was amazed by Minchillo's chin. Here's the Mcallum fight.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by 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

Spot on.

[orriray59]

Nice to see one of my old threads being bumped.
Minchillo was a tough ol' fuck for sure.