Who Thought Duran Hagler Was Close

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

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.

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

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]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

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]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

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.