Who Thought Duran Hagler Was Close

[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]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

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]

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

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.

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

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.

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

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.

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

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.

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

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]

Originally Posted by Robbi

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]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

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]

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Street Lethal

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]

Originally Posted by Street Lethal

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

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

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

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

Absolute? Absolute bullshit, like everything you spew forth

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"

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!

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

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

[fists of fury]

Nope. It wasn't that close.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

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?

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.