Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-28-2007, 02:08 PM   #61
Street Lethal
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 493
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Elusive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbi
Duran never quite showed the the same movement that Leonard did 4 years later, but he was moving more than he usually does against Hagler. His was elusive mainly because of his ability at slipping and blocking punches. Hagler actually got through with more punches than people give him credit for, but they were not serious blows as Duran moved his head at the moment of impact. Upperbody movement was also another area that Duran implemented well.
I think this is true. Good post.
Street Lethal is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-28-2007, 02:12 PM   #62
Street Lethal
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 493
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Who Thought Duran Hagler Was Close

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnThomas1
It's called "boxing". SRL, master practitioner of the art of hit and not get hit

Running away is not boxing. The art of hitting and not getting hit involves blocking, slipping, ducking, rolling, etc., not running. Running is chickenshit stuff.

The sport is called boxing, otherwise known as fighting, not running or surviving. If you are going to get in the squared circle, then fight, dammit. Leave the running to track stars.
Street Lethal is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2007, 02:59 PM   #63
Robbi
Marvelous
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 7,550
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Who Thought Duran Hagler Was Close

Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Lethal
Running away is not boxing. The art of hitting and not getting hit involves blocking, slipping, ducking, rolling, etc., not running. Running is chickenshit stuff.

The sport is called boxing, otherwise known as fighting, not running or surviving. If you are going to get in the squared circle, then fight, dammit. Leave the running to track stars.
Its called "running" to some people because they are biased towards the fighter who comes out the winner. Muhammad Ali, and Pernell Whitaker among others should have went the the Olymipcs to compete in the 800 metres. Because if they are running, then they should be on the running track and not in a boxing ring.
Robbi is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2007, 04:44 PM   #64
JohnThomas1
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,090
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Elusive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by redrooster
How was Duran elusive? He went flat footed with Hagler all night.
Well given your depth of knowledge and understanding it's highly likely you consider guys like Hamsho and Antuofermo more elusive than Duran. Read the post dimwit, more elusive than the above. Not exactly difficult.
JohnThomas1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2007, 04:45 PM   #65
JohnThomas1
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,090
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Who Thought Duran Hagler Was Close

Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Lethal
Running away is not boxing. The art of hitting and not getting hit involves blocking, slipping, ducking, rolling, etc., not running. Running is chickenshit stuff.

The sport is called boxing, otherwise known as fighting, not running or surviving. If you are going to get in the squared circle, then fight, dammit. Leave the running to track stars.
What happened to your big proclaimation yesty that you weren't going to talk to me or dinner anymore?

Pigs can fly too

JohnThomas1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2007, 06:04 PM   #66
Robbi
Marvelous
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 7,550
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Who Thought Duran Hagler Was Close

Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Lethal
Running away is not boxing. The art of hitting and not getting hit involves blocking, slipping, ducking, rolling, etc., not running. Running is chickenshit stuff.

The sport is called boxing, otherwise known as fighting, not running or surviving. If you are going to get in the squared circle, then fight, dammit. Leave the running to track stars.
Fighters can run all they want as long as they are moving their hands and hitting the target. Very few fighters can move effectively and score punches as well. Its what you call smartness, and fighting with a gameplan to get your arm raised at the end.

If you can't appreciate one fighter outclassing another with movement, feints, jabs, and combinations, then you have no business being a boxing fan. Boxing is not just about slipping, ducking, rolling, blocking, and countering.
Robbi is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2007, 07:36 PM   #67
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,208
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Who Thought Duran Hagler Was Close

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnThomas1
...Against a big name with some decent defensive skill he hardly looked like the consumate war warrior he had been made out to be.
Well, Duran was more than a big name and had more than decent defensive skill... and let's remember that Hagler may have painted himself as the angry champion since his "crowning" in England but Hagler was actually a boxer first and foremost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnThomas1
Trouble is we don't have much to go on. It was an ordinary era for top middleweights and it took 3 smaller guys to spark it up. Marvin was murder on your average come forward fighter. It's interesting that two of the three best fighters he defended against, one a good technician (he had to be in this one) and one a speedster showed a very different side of Marvin Hagler.
Those 3 smaller guys were the greatest LW, Jr. MW and top 2-3 greatest WW ever. They would have sparked up a graveyard.

Marvin, as you know, should have earned a title shot earlier than he did. He was a dangerous southpaw who made his bones in Philly and was avoided. By the time he got the title, he was coming down from his prime and I think that his legs went first. He became more stationary and adjusted his style accordingly -relying on skill inside yes, but also more on power and chin. Duran was the greatest technician he faced -easily, and Hagler went the distance for the first time in a defense. The 32-35 year old version of Hagler that fought Leonard was simply not the same. Hagler fought and whipped faster guys than himself -Hearns, Seales, and Monroe among them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnThomas1
Not as much conjecture as the eye theory IMO when he publically stated different. Even old Goody said immediately after the bout that Marvin showed Duran too much respect. Not a bad apple that one.
The 'eye theory' is not a theory at all. It's a very possible and valid inference: Hagler's left eye was sealing shut after the 12 round. That's a fact. If Hagler 'fought' Duran more (as Duran expected he would), Duran would have landed more because he would throw more shots. That's a fact or damn near it. If Duran threw more shots, the eye may have swelled up earlier. That's an inference -and a fair one if not a good one. If Hagler's eye started to swell early on, Duran would aim for it. That's a fact. A one-eyed fighter with many rounds in front of him is in trouble if Duran is in front of him. That's a fact.

As to Goody's critique, well, listen to his advice after round 12: "Marvin, DON'T GET INTO A SLUGGING FEST. Just beat him to the punch. I want you to double up on the jab -that's all I want you to do." Earlier in the fight, Goody was warning him about Duran trying to set him up for the right and laying traps. He said something to the effect of "get in there and land a few and then ..." Marvin chimed in "get the **** out of there."

Hell, before the fight Hagler was all about "busting him up." That made good press. Goody's post-facto statement was not what he was saying in the midst of battle. Duran was indeed setting traps -literally leaving a bait and then jamming him up. Relentless forward motion would have played into Duran's strategy and Hagler saw that. So he boxed him -like Leonard and Benitez and Laing did. Marvin is a boxer too, regardless of his war fetish and regardless of what he became by necessity in his thirties when his legs turned to stone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnThomas1
Marvin stated that he fought orthodox and tried to box because Leonard expected differently. Why in gods name a great like Marvin (with all the natural advantages here) was flustered enough to worry about what Leonard expected rather than simply thinking who cares what he's waiting for i'll mash him anyway, i will never know.
Damn right!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnThomas1
Marvin didn't have to give up anything but his passiveness. Watch him win the first 30 seconds of most rounds then switch modes allowing Duran to come back in quite a few. Duran the trickster still could have and should have been bullied around and beaten convincingly. Of this i have no doubt, no matter how highly one thinks of Roberto.
What you call passiveness, you once called intimidation. I call it caution. Fair but easy to criticize in retrospective but I still stand by my view that it is understandable caution given Duran's strategy, style, experience, and recent history.

I'll give you this olive branch: If Hagler were to fight Duran again for an immediate rematch, he'd have been well advised to be more aggressive and imposed his size and strength and power advantage on the smaller man. If I didn't, I'd join your chorus of criticism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnThomas1
Duran was also 4 pounds heavier than vs Moore, 4 1/2 more than Cuevas and also had 3 steaks early fight day. The weight was his highest since Jimmy Batten in 1982.

Gone was the sharpness and continuity of these bouts.
I disagree. Duran was sharp. He was easily in the best shape he had been in since Montreal and would never be in that kind of shape again. He looked strong and solid and I didn't see an ounce of the fat that was on him even for Moore. Duran made weight early and did it right. Does this mean that he was at his best at MW -no, not even close... but for that fight he gave it his all and was physically as ready as he could be for that division and that champion. For Hearns he lost 4 pounds but looked like he was made out of cake mix.

I think that it was one of Duran's best performances in terms of both strategy and skill and considering the formidability of the opponent. Watch round 6 again. Hagler did indeed win the round but the crowd's cheering at his punching masks what is happening. Duran is evading most of the shots. He is slipping and rolling. It is not often that you see a fighter roll with an uppercut but he was. If Hagler was orthodox, Duran's defensive display would have been celebrated -but Hagler is incredibly confusing because he'd switch so smoothly and it was hard to detect. Duran is angling, sticking out the left and holding it there to land the right, and bending like an elastic. He's feinting right and left and looping the right just like you should against a southpaw. Beautiful skill -even if he did lose the round.

I'll say this -Hagler should have left the head alone for a while and concentrated on the ribs -one shot he threw up the middle saw Duran pitch and fold for a hot second. You know he felt it.
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2007, 05:43 AM   #68
My dinner with Conteh
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,999
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Who Thought Duran Hagler Was Close

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnThomas1
What happened to your big proclaimation yesty that you weren't going to talk to me or dinner anymore?

Pigs can fly too


He's ignoring me. He won't reply to my PMs, my e-mails, won't answer when I phone. Stood me up for a retrospective of Casablanca down the locals flicks, he's always late...
My dinner with Conteh is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2007, 06:01 AM   #69
JohnThomas1
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,090
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Who Thought Duran Hagler Was Close

Quote:
Originally Posted by My dinner with Conteh
He's ignoring me. He won't reply to my PMs, my e-mails, won't answer when I phone. Stood me up for a retrospective of Casablanca down the locals flicks, he's always late...
Well dang, he stayed true to half his promise!!! Personally i am sick of him emailing, ringing, sending flowers and driving past my house looking for reconcilliation. Once the feeling is gone it's gone, and i just don't think i can regain past passion after the cold heartless way he let me down. Time will tell.

JohnThomas1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2007, 07:38 AM   #70
JohnThomas1
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,090
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Who Thought Duran Hagler Was Close

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89
Well, Duran was more than a big name and had more than decent defensive skill... and let's remember that Hagler may have painted himself as the angry champion since his "crowning" in England but Hagler was actually a boxer first and foremost.
Hagler was a boxer first but was also coming off 8 solid stoppages in a row from the time he won the 160 title. His previous 4 defenses were totally dominating performances. He also told us he wasn't going to leave his title fight fate in the hands of judges anymore, and he had been delivering on that for quite some time. His abilities lay claim to him being a genuine boxer puncher. He had fine power and definitely wasn't a Whitaker type who was going to outpoint you over the distance thru brilliant skill and speed. Marvin was a hard puncher and quite dangerous even in boxing mode.

Quote:
Those 3 smaller guys were the greatest LW, Jr. MW and top 2-3 greatest WW ever. They would have sparked up a graveyard.
Fair call, But Napoles and Griffith weren't too bad either if you get my drift. Gomez was #1 Junior Feather ever and Sanchez took the bit between the teeth and could almost be said to have dominated his man. Gomez in turn was compelling vs top #3 Bantam Zarate, Tyson was devastation vs Top 5 light heavy Spinks. Marvin disappointed me a bit, and thousands of others. This was before we had the hindsight of Hearns - Duran. He was majorly criticised.

Quote:
Marvin, as you know, should have earned a title shot earlier than he did. He was a dangerous southpaw who made his bones in Philly and was avoided.
For sure, not many wanted to mix it with Marvin at all.

Quote:
By the time he got the title, he was coming down from his prime and I think that his legs went first.
Debatable. Many prominent sources thought his absolute peak performance was against Sibson.

Quote:
The 32-35 year old version of Hagler that fought Leonard was simply not the same. Hagler fought and whipped faster guys than himself -Hearns, Seales, and Monroe among them.
Leonard was just as far removed, if anything more counting the weight and layoff. When it came to speed, class, lateral movement and just sheer ability Leonard was the most dangerous of this trio. Let us remember Monroe also beat Hagler and was definitely on the downslide by the time Marvin beat him, having been stopped by someone called David Love in between Hagler bouts. Seales also drew him if memory serves me correct.

Quote:
The 'eye theory' is not a theory at all. It's a very possible and valid inference: Hagler's left eye was sealing shut after the 12 round. That's a fact.
You've forced me to dig deep here and i have. You might have a point. On looking back i have discovered Marvin was cut over the right eye vs Antuofermo in his drawing effort (SRR when confronted with similar adversity vs Turpin dug deep and mounted a furious assualt that put paid to Turpins night) and in this fight he presented a modest offensive surge when it mattered most. There's a pattern there. Granted he came back firing vs Hearns but we can all agree Hearns had totally shot his wad and the fight was just going thru the motions until Hagler wore him down. He had zero left in the tank.

Quote:
If Hagler 'fought' Duran more (as Duran expected he would), Duran would have landed more because he would throw more shots. That's a fact or damn near it. If Duran threw more shots, the eye may have swelled up earlier. That's an inference -and a fair one if not a good one. If Hagler's eye started to swell early on, Duran would aim for it. That's a fact. A one-eyed fighter with many rounds in front of him is in trouble if Duran is in front of him. That's a fact.
As described SRR simply went ballistic and knocked out Turpin, which sure prevented any chance of the eye becoming a factor.

Quote:
As to Goody's critique, well, listen to his advice after round 12: "Marvin, DON'T GET INTO A SLUGGING FEST. Just beat him to the punch. I want you to double up on the jab -that's all I want you to do." Earlier in the fight, Goody was warning him about Duran trying to set him up for the right and laying traps. He said something to the effect of "get in there and land a few and then ..." Marvin chimed in "get the **** out of there."
Fair comments, but Goody did indeed make the statement. Sounds a bit like Duva telling us he told Taylor to box in the 12th vs Chavez



Quote:
Hell, before the fight Hagler was all about "busting him up." That made good press. Goody's post-facto statement was not what he was saying in the midst of battle. Duran was indeed setting traps -literally leaving a bait and then jamming him up. Relentless forward motion would have played into Duran's strategy and Hagler saw that. So he boxed him -like Leonard and Benitez and Laing did. Marvin is a boxer too, regardless of his war fetish and regardless of what he became by necessity in his thirties when his legs turned to stone.
The fact of the matter is that Hagler would have given Roberto a right royal pounding if he went on his usual attack. You are making Duran sound a lot scarier and better than he actually was at this weight, against a guy as tough and skilled as Hagler to boot. Duran's the one who should have been shitting, not Hagler. The only guy Duran ever beat at 160 was Barkley who is hardly in Haglers class.

Quote:
I'll give you this olive branch: If Hagler were to fight Duran again for an immediate rematch, he'd have been well advised to be more aggressive and imposed his size and strength and power advantage on the smaller man. If I didn't, I'd join your chorus of criticism.
Damn right, trouble was that Hagler was always vastly more effective in rematches. Why? Because he had a poor sense of strategy, adaption and pace during his more tougher contests. He'd come back after such fights knowing full well where he went wrong and what he should have done. SRL, Monzon and co adapted during the heat of the battle and didn't often need to come back and set the slate clean. This is why head to head i cannot rate Hagler near the top of the tree and pick about 4 guys over him. In the ring under intense scrutiny he just wasn't as smart as other greats.

Quote:
I disagree. Duran was sharp. He was easily in the best shape he had been in since Montreal and would never be in that kind of shape again. He looked strong and solid and I didn't see an ounce of the fat that was on him even for Moore. Duran made weight early and did it right. Does this mean that he was at his best at MW -no, not even close... but for that fight he gave it his all and was physically as ready as he could be for that division and that champion. For Hearns he lost 4 pounds but looked like he was made out of cake mix.
I agree with the numerous experts who thought Duran, tho fighting superbly wasn't quite the same man who beat Moore. He fought more in spurts, had moments of tiredness, and looked slower in general. Granted he pushed his body as hard in training and was in superb shape that way, but i and many others believe he would have been netter off coming in around 4 pounds lighter instead of trying to get close to Haglers weight. He would have been faster and had more stamina for starters.

Quote:
I think that it was one of Duran's best performances in terms of both strategy and skill and considering the formidability of the opponent.
Sensational effort by Duran for sure. I split it in two, slightly disapponting from Hagler and a great effort from Duran.

Quote:
Duran's defensive display would have been celebrated
I myself liked the way Duran rendered Hagler's normally decent jab almost ineffectual. Jab after jab sailed harmlessly over his head.
JohnThomas1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2007, 07:56 AM   #71
redrooster
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,095
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Elusive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnThomas1
Well given your depth of knowledge and understanding it's highly likely you consider guys like Hamsho and Antuofermo more elusive than Duran. Read the post dimwit, more elusive than the above. Not exactly difficult.
i read the post. how was Duran elusive?

You're elusive!

There was no foot movement. All I saw was Duran pivot on one foot an throw right hands. That was it. There was nothing special about his performance.

And that jab you said Hagler used in the fight, the one you said sailed over Duran's head, Hagler really didn't use one.

Most of your rebuttal to Stone hands is fabricated.
redrooster is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2007, 08:02 AM   #72
redrooster
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,095
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Elusive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbi
Duran never quite showed the the same movement that Leonard did 4 years later, but he was moving more than he usually does against Hagler. His was elusive mainly because of his ability at slipping and blocking punches. Hagler actually got through with more punches than people give him credit for, but they were not serious blows as Duran moved his head at the moment of impact. Upperbody movement was also another area that Duran implemented well.
I think Roldan was pretty elusive against Hagler. That part John mentioned of Hagler's jab missing it's mark in the Duran fight is actually true of the Roldan fight because of the head movement.
redrooster is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2007, 08:16 AM   #73
JohnThomas1
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,090
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Elusive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by redrooster
i read the post. how was Duran elusive?
Surprise, surprise, Rooster deson't rate the Duran defense. Fair enough, no biggie to me.

Quote:
There was no foot movement. All I saw was Duran pivot on one foot an throw right hands. That was it. There was nothing special about his performance.
You probably had your chair pointing backwards pointing toward the fight poster. Yeah, they didn't move much at all in this one



Quote:
And that jab you said Hagler used in the fight, the one you said sailed over Duran's head, Hagler really didn't use one.


Quote:
Most of your rebuttal to Stone hands is fabricated.
I just looked up "fabricator" in dic dot com and here was your pic you sent dinner, staring me right in the face. Looks like it really was you after all

Listen, i'm debating with someone who sure knows his boxing so shuffle along now and let the adults play for a while. You and your henchmen are polluting an otherwise excellent thread.
JohnThomas1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2007, 08:21 AM   #74
redrooster
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,095
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Who Thought Duran Hagler Was Close

John you can do better than that. I know I could.
redrooster is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2007, 06:21 PM   #75
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,208
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Who Thought Duran Hagler Was Close

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnThomas1
Hagler was a boxer first but was also coming off 8 solid stoppages in a row from the time he won the 160 title. His previous 4 defenses were totally dominating performances. He also told us he wasn't going to leave his title fight fate in the hands of judges anymore, and he had been delivering on that for quite some time. His abilities lay claim to him being a genuine boxer puncher. He had fine power and definitely wasn't a Whitaker type who was going to outpoint you over the distance thru brilliant skill and speed. Marvin was a hard puncher and quite dangerous even in boxing mode.
... but you'll concede that Duran -even at 160 was the most formidable foe he had faced at that point. Hagler continued with his stoppage rampage for the next 4 years until Leonard. I find it no disgrace that the only two title defenses that Marvin went the distance with were Duran and Leonard -and Duran's loss was more impressive to me than Leonard's win due to the extra 3 rounds, the fact that Duran was on his own comeback, Duran's doing battle and taking far, far more risks inside the perimeter against a younger, faster, better Hagler. If Duran won that fight, it would have been the greatest comeback and triumph ever in my book.

A word on your comment that I am "overstating Duran at MW". If I said that Duran was great at MW from this vantage point, question my credentials and vision. I am not doing that -I am acknowledging what Hagler, Goody, and Pat knew in November of 1983 which saw Duran on a roll and beating up champs and former champs who liked to slug with him. Both were bigger than him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnThomas1
Fair call, But Napoles and Griffith weren't too bad either if you get my drift. Gomez was #1 Junior Feather ever and Sanchez took the bit between the teeth and could almost be said to have dominated his man. Gomez in turn was compelling vs top #3 Bantam Zarate, Tyson was devastation vs Top 5 light heavy Spinks. Marvin disappointed me a bit, and thousands of others. This was before we had the hindsight of Hearns - Duran. He was majorly criticised.
There are always critics. Marvin disappointed the living hell out of me in 87 and I still haven't stopped being pissed about it after 20 years. Against Duran, he just didn't disappoint me. In hindsite you can make (and you have made) the argument that he could have afforded to work the body more and apply more pressure to wear out the smaller man, but I can see the danger with that considering the factors I've already enumerated. I can't knock a decision win where he dominated the last 3 rounds to clinch it. If he warred with Duran, Duran could have potentially outmaneuvered him, countered him and landed enough to swell up the eye. At the very least, Hagler would have done what Duran had planned on doing and an inspired Duran is extremely dangerous. Neither Griffith or Napoles could bang like Duran. When Griffith lost the decision to Monzon, he hadn't had a KO win over anyone with a winning record in the previous 20 fights. And would if Hagler had slugged with Duran and lost? His reputation would have sunk like a stone and you would never type his name on this site without prefacing it with "overrated".

You bring up Robinson et al. who came back from adversity and finished the job. If the ref let it go and Robinson took a decision would he be criticized for not finishing Turpin? Probably -but I wouldn't join the chorus.

No one knocks everyone out all of the time- not even great champions in title fights who are in there against guys rising in weight. To wit:

-Louis didn't stop Tommy Farr.

-Conn didn't stop Zale, who was outweighed by 12 pounds at fight time.

-Monzon didn't stop Griffith who was not only a natural WW, but was also bald and over the hill.

-Most agree that Hearns was most devestating at Jr. MW, I think that you are one of them, but Benitez went 15 with him.

-Harry Greb himself didn't stop Mickey Walker and Walker was a WW the year before.

With this context, it seems that the criticisms against Hagler are a bit curious. His strategic know-how is dismissed based on what seems to me to be a double standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnThomas1
I agree with the numerous experts who thought Duran, tho fighting superbly wasn't quite the same man who beat Moore. He fought more in spurts, had moments of tiredness, and looked slower in general. Granted he pushed his body as hard in training and was in superb shape that way, but i and many others believe he would have been netter off coming in around 4 pounds lighter instead of trying to get close to Haglers weight. He would have been faster and had more stamina for starters.
Don't forget that Duran was in a much stronger man who was heavier than advertized. And he was in close -he was not fluttering about (like Leonard in what I would state is indeed boxing ability, but comparitively unsophisticated -safe and easier). His spurts were such because he was trying to counter Hagler without jamming with him. I saw this as discipline -not deterioration because Duran's impulse was more aggression. Against Hagler, that was ill-advised, so he tamed his nature and applied skill -similarly to what he demonstrated in DeJesus III. Also, he was going to be slower because he had to gain weight no matter how you cut it. Other trainers and pundits before the fight were recommending that he come in at about ~153. Including Leonard. He came in at a solid 156. Which seemed perfect to me because he actually looked stronger to me at that weight than he ever did at 152. Looking back, he would have been a bit too small to handle Hagler who I believe had an immense physicality in there.

Bottom line is that Hagler was too strong, too big, and too skilled to have been beaten by Duran. No matter where Duran came in. Nevertheless Duran's defiance against all of those advantages is underrated -woefully so.
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013