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 02-29-2008, 07:47 PM   #46
laxpdx
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,389
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 1980 Roberto Duran vs. Thomas Hearns @welter

Duran was the better championship fighter. By 1975 he had already gone all 15 rounds in his career; 1,2,....14, 15. Thomas didnt have the number of defenses like Duran.

Something I don't understand: why is no one gives Duran a chance, even at welter? Hagler beat Tommy quickly and Marvin is small like Roberto. Why can Marvin be successful and Roberto can't?


See next post.
laxpdx is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-29-2008, 07:54 PM   #47
laxpdx
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,389
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 1980 Roberto Duran vs. Thomas Hearns @welter

Quote:
Originally Posted by laxpdx
Duran was the better championship fighter. By 1975 he had already gone all 15 rounds in his career; 1,2,....14, 15. Thomas didnt have the number of defenses like Duran.

Something I don't understand: why is no one gives Duran a chance, even at welter? Hagler beat Tommy quickly and Marvin is small like Roberto. Why can Marvin be successful and Roberto can't?
How do you see this one going Rooster? Earlier in the post you said Hearns always beats Duran, and then this one. BTW, concerning Hagler, he was as short as Roberto, but wasn't he bigger-boned and stronger, i.e. a natural MW? I remember you made this point a while back in a post about a Hearns-Ayala match.....please clarify.....your insights are always helpful.... to me, anyway...

Last edited by Bummy Davis; 03-10-2007 at 09:25 AM.
laxpdx is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2008, 10:42 AM   #48
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 1980 Roberto Duran vs. Thomas Hearns @welter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbi
Disagree Stonehands. With you stating "Duran really had no business over Jr. WW" your talking as if he was much smaller than his opponents at WW. Don't forget that Duran grew into a very large lightweight at the end of his reign.

And he wasn't exactly dwarfed by Palamino and Leonard. He could certainly compete with those fighters for power, durability, and strength. Duran's strategy and the way he fought Palamino and Leonard was all about being aggressive; physically imposing himself inside.

He proved against those opponents he wasn't out of his depth, although his overall skill level played a massive part in those wins as well.

And here is something to take note of. This isn't a direct comparison to Duran's move up, but you'll find it interesting.

Shane Mosley, as you probably know, also moved up from lightweight to welterweight. And IMO his handspeed was noticeably quicker after he moved up. I'm not saying Duran was the same. Sometimes when a fighter struggles with weight, he's slower, for obvious reasons. Mosley has recently admitted that while he was boiling himself down to lightweight he was really a natural welterweight all along. Hence the reason his handspeed looked sharper after the move up to welterweight. Against lightweights he still had the power and size advantages to knock them out.

I can mind Emanuel Steward spoke to De La Hoya's trainer, Robert Alcazar, at the weigh-in for the first Mosley encounter. Alcazar turned around to Steward and said "this guys a lightweight Manny" and Steward responded with "how can he be a lightweight he's just stepped onto the scales at 147lbs". What Steward was referring to was that Mosley and De La Hoya were the same size physically, even though Mosley had been a lightweight three fights prior to facing De La Hoya.
Shane was 5'9.

I am not talking about his skills... which always made the difference for him, even when he was pushing 50 becuase that was all he had left. In terms of his body, Duran was a LW. He wasn't a large LW. He was barely 5'7. He was strong, exceptionally so for a small man, but his body was box-shaped. It wasn't designed to carry 147 pounds although he could compete there. It sure as hell was designed to compete at 152 or 160.

Gil Clancy made this argument when Duran was fighting Brooks (I think) and I think it was valid then and if we can refrain from taking what happened later for granted, it is still valid. A guy like Hearns has the requisite frame. Shane does to a lesser extent. There just aren't many Hispanic fighters in history who began at FW who compete at WW and there are none who have been dangerous at MW. I think that Duran is freakish in that respect.
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2008, 11:27 AM   #49
enquirer
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,604
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 1980 Roberto Duran vs. Thomas Hearns @welter

Excellent match between two of my favourite fighters.
I used to think the 84 result would occur even at welter in 80,but a closer analysis of the ray leonard fight and durans prowess at lighter weights combined with hearns lesser advantages at 147 tells me otherwise. Also,the duran of 84 at 154 was a completely different fighter than the one at 147,never mind 135. Hearns also had more strength and was more comfortable at 154 and had matured as a fighter.
I think the way duran dealt with leonards speed,power and size in 80 shows what duran could do at 147. Duran coped with rays speed,size and power with a solid chin,superb reflexes,an indomitable will and the best offense/defense combination of any fighter in history.
Leonard at 147 is not a million miles away from hearns in power and has similiar speed and only a little less size. Ray also has the better chin,stamina and defense than hearns.
Hearns is always a possibility to win because of his freakish power,jab and,speed and size,but i think the duran at 147 has the skill and most importantly the reflexes that he didnt have in 84 at 154 to do it...The key to this fight is if duran can slip hearns jab,if he can he wins if he cant he loses.....I think duran at 147 can. I think this would be a helluva fight and great to watch which skillset combination would prevail...
By the way,p4p no contest,duran by haglerisation to the power ten...
enquirer is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2008, 12:03 PM   #50
Robbi
Marvelous
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 7,550
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 1980 Roberto Duran vs. Thomas Hearns @welter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89
I am not talking about his skills.
I had to put skills into my response when I talked about Duran's performances against Palamino and Leonard. I mentioned he wasn't dwarfed by those opponents, far from it, and he could compete with them physically as he imposed himself aggressively against both. But it wasn't all about beating those opponents strictly with brute strength and coming forward, thus I threw in "skills" for obvious reasons. Duran was cuter and slicker than given credit for, as you know.
Robbi is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2008, 12:43 PM   #51
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 1980 Roberto Duran vs. Thomas Hearns @welter

I understand...

I think that Duran was at his best at LW and his effectiveness physically diminished 12 pounds over that limit. Also, he didn't age into the WW division. His voracious appetite forced him upwards.

I rank him so high because there is no other LW who did what he did to MWs. I can't see either Benny Leonard, Gans or Whitaker standing in with Hagler for 15. I really can't.
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2008, 01:04 PM   #52
Lobotomy
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 632
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 1980 Roberto Duran vs. Thomas Hearns @welter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell
On those citing Duran's lack of "hunger" and a killer instinct in the ring...

What about Hearn's carrying his "nice guy" mentality into the ring?

Surely he could of been far more lethal and dominating in some fights if he was there with Duran's mentality, like he had against Moore.
Well, as I pointed out in a previous post, Tommy in fact maintained his "nice guy" mentality with Duran as evidenced by all the glove touching he initiated during that affair. Now Russell, I don't know about you, but it's hard for me to understand how Hearns could have been much more lethal and dominant than he was when he took Roberto out. (Unless, of course, you feel that Tommy should have sent Duran out on a stretcher like El Cholo did Ray Lampkin.)

After Hearns destroyed Cuevas, referee Stanley Christodoulou said that Tommy had the meanest expression on his face that he's ever seen on a boxer. (The dark shadowy lighting of the Joe Louis Arena, "The House that Hearns built," makes it difficult to see his downturned face clearly during it.) When asked about this, Tommy simply replied that it wasn't from a conscious effort to intimidate his opponents (in contrast to staredowns during the referee's pre fight instructions), but only represented intense concentration. At the outset of SRL/Hearns I, we see Ray's expression of intense concentration, but it looks more like this: This does not mean that Ray was scared, it just happens to be what his face looked like when maintaining careful alertness.

Once again, it merits reminding that while Hearns did not originally like the "Hit Man" nickname, preferring "The Motor City Cobra" (because he felt the Hit Man moniker detracted from the positive things he was trying to do for the city of Detroit), he finally and significantly embraced it openly for his fight with Duran. His greatest effectiveness was as a coldly calculating "killer," very much in the mold of his Detroit forebearer Louis. Among Duran's truest ancestors in boxing was Dempsey. What you are suggesting is that ice should be transformed to fire, but that would entail a change in the intrinsic nature of what made Tommy so successful.

Tommy blasted out Cuevas and Duran, while outboxing SRL, Benitez, and Hill. He outslugged ATG sluggers and outboxed ATG master boxers, proving many professional "experts" wrong who originally ridiculed him for deluding himself into believing he was highly skilled. But Hearns proved himself right, and the "experts" wrong with his diplays of patience and artistry. And during his long prime years, he never, repeat: NEVER, lost a match by decision. (When Barkley finally turned the trick in their rematch, it was only a split decision, despite Tommy being virtually shot.)

Hearns won too many world championships over too many outstanding boxers for me to question his effectiveness.
Lobotomy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2008, 09:23 PM   #53
Robbi
Marvelous
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 7,550
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 1980 Roberto Duran vs. Thomas Hearns @welter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89
.I rank him so high because there is no other LW who did what he did to MWs. I can't see either Benny Leonard, Gans or Whitaker standing in with Hagler for 15. I really can't.
Stonehands. I can see Whitaker doing it. Only if Hagler fought him exactly the same way he fought Duran, and thats unlikely. But Whitaker never fought a 15 rounder throughout his career. He never had stamina problems over 12 rounds, so I'm sure he'd be able to eek out another three rounds without too much problem.

He certainly has the durability IMO. And Hagler couldn't afford to stand off a slickster like Whitaker. I'm sure my opinion aint laughable. Whitaker boxed superbly against Vazquez, who was a full fledged Jr middleweight, and as good as dominated him. Whitaker showed impressive handspeed, boxing ability, and movement up at 154lbs. Vazquez was no pushover either. One of the best Jr middleweights of the 90's.

Whitaker has the chin to stand up to Hagler, only briefly. If he got dragged into punch-up he'd more than likely evaporate. Again thats not a foregone conclusion. Whitaker stood up to the murderous bombs of Trinidad and was never knocked out in his entire career.

Depends how Hagler plays it. If he was cautious, ala Duran, he'd get taken the distance IMO. If he came out smoking against one of the finest defensive technicians the sport has ever witnessed, I'd probably opt for a late stoppage.
Robbi is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2008, 10:21 PM   #54
dpw417
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,389
vCash: 75
Default Re: 1980 Roberto Duran vs. Thomas Hearns @welter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89
Good points.

Here's something though. Leonard was not willing or able to penetrate Hearns and early on... he was content to stay outside and stay mobile. He wasn't engaging Hearns. When he did step in and land, the fight changed. Leonard was able to stay just outside the long reach, but had enough of a reach and height of his own to be able to short step in and land. Duran wouldn't have that luxury. He'd have to stay close, inside the pocket and take over. Hearns isn't as dangerous there.

Duran would have to outdo his performance against Leonard and that is hard to do. Hearns is the more dangerous fighter for him. Leonard strides high in all categories. Hearns strides higher in fewer categories but when it comes to chin, strength, endurance, and conditioning, he becomes all to mortal again. Duran's strategy would be based on exploiting where Hearns is weaker and neutralizing where he is most dangerous.
Several have made points re Hearns' chin, strength, and endurance. But those deficiencies were made clear at middleweight, not welterweight...and I'm not sure that's a fair statement in the first place considering his losses ( basically the first three; Leonard, Hagler, and Barkley) to two ATG fighters and one bonafide puncher. Also it is true that Hearns would/could be susceptible to a Duran onslaught on the inside, given Hearns' penchant for not clinching...I can see that scenario playing out...
But the reasons I don't see that unfolding are twofold...The first being is footspeed, I'm not sure Duran closes the distance between he and Hearns fast enough...Leonard was able to. BUT he did not attack in Duran's head on lines...Roberto was most furious in his attack, and he slipped punches beautifully against Leonard...but he did get hit with incoming and at the weight, Hearns hit much harder. In his fight with Hearns, Leonard strategically set up his attack in the early rounds, picking his spots...Roberto's skilled kamikaze attacks worked against Leonard, but against Hearns? Very risky stuff...Despite Hearns' shortcomings (or perceived) Leonard had to fight the fight of his life to defeat Hearns...
Hearns did not have the handspeed/coordiantion of Ray, but he had very fast handspeed in his own right.
Remember Zeferino 'Speedy' Gonzalez? A tall welter whom Duran decisioned in '79 (I think)...this brings us to another facet of Hearns that is being overlooked (maybe) while he had not reached his peak physically and disregarded fundamentals like clinching which would haunt him against Leonard...Hearns was an outstanding amatuer boxer...he has another avenue in which to beat Duran! He can outbox him! Zeferino Gonzalez cannot box nearly as well as a Thomas Hearns, but with his height he was able to give Duran trouble stylistically (but Duran was only trained for three weeks I think prior to this fight) with his height he was able to stay out of Duran's wheelhouse...For some strange reason when faced with these this tall welter (and with Hearns too) Duran tried to stand tall when he went to them...when faced with a taller foe...Duran stands straight up!
Not good against Hearns!
dpw417 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2008, 06:24 PM   #55
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 1980 Roberto Duran vs. Thomas Hearns @welter

Quote:
Originally Posted by dpw417
Several have made points re Hearns' chin, strength, and endurance. But those deficiencies were made clear at middleweight, not welterweight...and I'm not sure that's a fair statement in the first place considering his losses ( basically the first three; Leonard, Hagler, and Barkley) to two ATG fighters and one bonafide puncher.
Leonard hurt him in round 5.. at WW. I am not one of those critics who argue that he had a glass jaw. That is wrong and inaccurate. But he could get tapped there and the fight could change... Leonard was no banger and he proved it. Before Leonard, Hearns was stopping damn near everyone and often early.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dpw417
Also it is true that Hearns would/could be susceptible to a Duran onslaught on the inside, given Hearns' penchant for not clinching...I can see that scenario playing out...
But the reasons I don't see that unfolding are twofold...The first being is footspeed, I'm not sure Duran closes the distance between he and Hearns fast enough...Leonard was able to. BUT he did not attack in Duran's head on lines...Roberto was most furious in his attack, and he slipped punches beautifully against Leonard...but he did get hit with incoming and at the weight, Hearns hit much harder.
Duran did not become "Legs of Stone" until after Montreal. He was getting into Leonard at will. He used anges, countered, pivoted right and left all night. He also ran straight in more out of disdain than stupidity. Leonard didn't put a mark on him and never hurt him. I see him being more careful with a proven puncher like Hearns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dpw417
In his fight with Hearns, Leonard strategically set up his attack in the early rounds, picking his spots...Roberto's skilled kamikaze attacks worked against Leonard, but against Hearns? Very risky stuff...Despite Hearns' shortcomings (or perceived) Leonard had to fight the fight of his life to defeat Hearns...
Hearns did not have the handspeed/coordiantion of Ray, but he had very fast handspeed in his own right.
Remember Zeferino 'Speedy' Gonzalez? A tall welter whom Duran decisioned in '79 (I think)...this brings us to another facet of Hearns that is being overlooked (maybe) while he had not reached his peak physically and disregarded fundamentals like clinching which would haunt him against Leonard...Hearns was an outstanding amatuer boxer...he has another avenue in which to beat Duran! He can outbox him! Zeferino Gonzalez cannot box nearly as well as a Thomas Hearns, but with his height he was able to give Duran trouble stylistically (but Duran was only trained for three weeks I think prior to this fight) with his height he was able to stay out of Duran's wheelhouse...For some strange reason when faced with these this tall welter (and with Hearns too) Duran tried to stand tall when he went to them...when faced with a taller foe...Duran stands straight up!
Not good against Hearns!
Duran was not a stupid fighter, although he fought the stupidest fight of his life against Hearns. You forget that Duran was incredibly flexible, agile, against Leonard. He was not the least bit stiff or stand up in that fight.

Again, the question as to whether Duran could beat Hearns in 1980 depends on whether or not he could get safely inside. I say yes. He'd get caught at times, surely but I don't see an inspired, ready Duran getting KOd so easily as the deflated balloon version in 1984.
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2008, 08:00 PM   #56
JohnThomas1
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,119
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 1980 Roberto Duran vs. Thomas Hearns @welter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell
What about Hearn's carrying his "nice guy" mentality into the ring?

Surely he could of been far more lethal and dominating in some fights if he was there with Duran's mentality, like he had against Moore.
Hearns was respecting Duran and showing his nice guy image to the point of touching gloves, yet he still decimated Duran in the most chilling manner one could imagine. Hearns being a genuine nice guy didn't hurt him one bit, look at the string of devastation he left for the duration of his career. Alexis Arguello is as nice a man who has ever boxed, respecting you immensely both before the bout, as well as after he almost decapitated (most times) you.
JohnThomas1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2008, 08:53 PM   #57
dpw417
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,389
vCash: 75
Default Re: 1980 Roberto Duran vs. Thomas Hearns @welter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89
Leonard hurt him in round 5.. at WW. I am not one of those critics who argue that he had a glass jaw. That is wrong and inaccurate. But he could get tapped there and the fight could change... Leonard was no banger and he proved it. Before Leonard, Hearns was stopping damn near everyone and often early.

Leonard certainly did hit Hearns...and hurt him! The first instance was a single left left which stunned him...and then Ray assaulted him in the sixth and seventh rounds. To his credit (Hearns) he did not fold at that time. I'd say Leonard carried very decent power at welter (in combination with the speed of his punches). Not a banger...true. But did he have power? Absolutely.
Duran did not become "Legs of Stone" until after Montreal. He was getting into Leonard at will. He used anges, countered, pivoted right and left all night. He also ran straight in more out of disdain than stupidity. Leonard didn't put a mark on him and never hurt him. I see him being more careful with a proven puncher like Hearns.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first two sentences. Duran was at his zenith in this fight from a mental and physical stand point and it was brilliant stuff...the way he moved in. He used every thing he had accumulated from being a great professional against Leonard...and for that evening against that opponent it worked...I disagree that Leonard never hurt Duran...I believe he did! I think Ray mentioned in Sports Illustrated that Duran urinated blood for a few days following the fight...I do not know if that is completely true or not, (he is alot like Bill Clinton LOL) but Leonard stated that was one of the reasons he wanted to rematch him ASAP...the other being he'd heard Duran was partying like there was no tommorow.
Okay back to my point...Duran indeed did a masterful job carrying the fight to Leonard. But as quick as he was, I believe Leonard was able to move faster than Duran to find an opening...I do see your point though.
More careful moving in on Hearns? I think it's 'hell if you do, hell if you don't' in Duran's case...IMO I think Duran would be better off attacking him similarly to the way he did Leonard...because if he hesitates, he may get clocked...and if he gets hit coming in, he'd get clocked harder...he'd pay a worse price coming to Hearns, than with Leonard.


Duran was not a stupid fighter, although he fought the stupidest fight of his life against Hearns. You forget that Duran was incredibly flexible, agile, against Leonard. He was not the least bit stiff or stand up in that fight.

I didn't say Duran was a stupid fighter! Don't put your words into my responses! I don't go by a monicker like 'Stonehands" but I am a Duran fan...As far as the standing straight against taller opponents, it was a tendency I remember Duran doing particularly against Gonzalez and Hearns. It's true he attacked Leonard with more technique and fury, coming in lower...but at times he did get caught. It's high wire risky against Hearns...


Again, the question as to whether Duran could beat Hearns in 1980 depends on whether or not he could get safely inside. I say yes. He'd get caught at times, surely but I don't see an inspired, ready Duran getting KOd so easily as the deflated balloon version in 1984.
Yep. That's the question all right can he get inside(?) It's the getting caught at times, that would be a concern for Duran...Hearns was a cannon at welter...Duran coming into him gives him so many more opportunites to land that right cross than Leonard strategically gave him.
Addendum: Looks like I goofed on the qoute thing...oops. Please read inside the qoute box for my response. Sorry.
dpw417 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2008, 09:20 PM   #58
Sister Sledge
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Based Land
Posts: 9,060
vCash: 75
Default Re: 1980 Roberto Duran vs. Thomas Hearns @welter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89
Hearns had the frame to compete at much higher weights. Duran had really no business over Jr. WW and none at all at MW. You also forget that Duran's prime was 1978. He was already considered a top 3 ATG LW before beating Leonard -which was among the greatest feats in the sport if you look at it objectively and in its historical context. It was frosting on the cake.

Everything after that was sprinkles on the frosting.
I'm not trying to diminish anything that Duran did. He was a great fighter. I think WW should have been his max, though.
Sister Sledge is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2008, 12:34 PM   #59
Ted Spoon
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,050
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 1980 Roberto Duran vs. Thomas Hearns @welter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89
Spoon, I am fully aware of the risk I take painting myself (further?) as a Duran apologist by choosing him against Hearns. I heavily qualified that choice as you can see and have been known to go against him in the past. But that was then, and this is now.

Anytime two men meet later in the ring we get an idea of what would have been had they met earlier. I acknowledge that -but temper it. It is a matter of degrees and it should be approached on a case by case basis. It isn't airtight by any means and we have enough examples that would prove this.

Duran is most unreliable by this measure. Watch him in Feb 1989 against Barkley and then watch that farce 2 years later against Pat Lawlor. Duran had neither the speed, the flexibility, the committment to training, the trainers, the momentum, or the confidence to compete against Hearns. He had all of that in excess 4 years earlier. I think that the comparison between those two versions of Duran is as valid as comparing Mickey Ward to Tomato Ken.

Let's just say it: Duran was a manic-depressive in the ring during the second half of his career. He was 50% of what he was in 1980 on the night Hearns rocked his world... and Hearns himself was not nearly what he was in 1984 in 1980. He got bigger, he came into his own in terms of experience, and he had that war with Leonard under his belt. Duran was wrong about what he saw in that fight. Hearns wasn't "a chicken", he came out of that fight a better fighter than when he went in.

The 1980 Hearns was not strong enough, comfortable enough, or experienced enough to deal -so easily- with a priming Duran riding a crest of success. Anytime after Leonard, Hearns would have beaten Duran because of what Leonard did to Duran's committment, pride, and momentum, and how Leonard was the impetus for Hearns' coming into his own without myth and brashness.

I see Leonard as the lynchpin in both careers. In a parallel universe, had Arcel went Hearns instead of Leonard, it would have been even more dramatic than what we saw in Montreal.
Solid points, but every ying has a yang.

Ted Spoon is not trying to convert anybody on this issue, but rather testing how far the points can be stretched.

Duran was indeed four years removed from the brilliance we saw in Montreal, but a fighter is not completely reliant on his seconds like a car is on Petrol. Inside the ring against Hearn's there was a semblance of the man known as 'Hands of Stone' and he was stomped on.

It is completely plausible that the contrasting versions of the combatants would produce a different scenario, but outcome?

Leonard forcing his way into the lanky Hearn's has much to do with the formers reach. When Leonard really made a mark in the 6th it was compliments of a quick looping shot, round thirteen was a long cross, and the finishing touches in the 14th started off a wide, looping shot again.

The dangers that Leonard faced would be amplified against Duran because he is shorter in reach and height. Leonard is better equipped to 'force' a battle on Hearn's than a short-punching Duran. Trying to feint 'the hitman' into traps would prove difficult - it is Duran who has to commit to something as Hearn's commands the outside.

Technical proficiency can be countered against physical superiority. Duran can be 'airtight' in there, but Hearn's would not need much of a chance to shoot lighting down from above.

Thomas Hearn's was a bit of a beanpole at Welterweight, but he was a strong fighter and very hard to bully because he was so explosive. It's hard to see the smaller Duran stepping up successfully against such a package of speed, reach and power.
Ted Spoon is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2008, 12:43 PM   #60
Ted Spoon
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,050
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 1980 Roberto Duran vs. Thomas Hearns @welter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
For the purposes of ordinary discussion on "greatness" and "ability" etc. YES, we can make those proximity calculations on, as you say, "general potency".

But when these guys are at their ABSOLUTE BESTS, matched in the ring, I dont think they actually differ in any significant ways in "ability level". When it comes to fighting man-to-man peak-for-peak, gradients of "pedigree" are simplified. They just have to do the right thing in the moment.

Surely, the reason we give a great fighter so much CREDIT for beating (whether by destruction, or not) other GREAT or VERY GOOD fighters is because we acknowledge that those fighters DID POSE AN ACTUAL THREAT. In other words, we credit the guy who beat a guy who could conceivably have beaten him.

Obviously, insistence on such can be limited by hindsight on how the match actually went, but I think that's more so the case in painful 12-round shut-outs, rather than quick blow-outs where a fighter was successful in imposing himself on the other for 4 or 5 minutes.

When great fighters get blasted out, we think, "well, it can happen to the best of them", we rarely expect it to happen, but because we SAW IT and it was so one-sided we usually think, "Of course, this was bound to happen. We should've known". It's all quite contradictory.

Whatever really counts is the fights that happen, I suppose. And really, Hearns is getting high praise whether we say outright that "He always (or usually) destroys Duran" or whether we say "Duran was a guy who I STILL think could have beat Hearns".
In some cases, yes, your points stand true, but Ted Spoon saw Duran vanquished in a 'predicted' fight. Hearn's did not use every ounce of strength in his body to rid of Duran, it was simply a case of when he put his foot down on the gas, Duran started to get buried.

Duran goaded Hearn's into following him into the ropes where he found it extremely difficult to avoid those long range jolts and was quickly belted about the ring and then onto the canvas.

Hearn's did not just blast Duran out - lets call it like it was and say he was the complete master of him.
Ted Spoon 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 05:38 AM.


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