Best losing effort: Duran-Hagler or Whitaker-DLH?

:goodagreed. personally, i scored it 8-6-1 for hagler

 

:yep

 

Same here, although I had to vote for Whitaker because, despite Duran's fine efforts (particularly from around the 10th to 13th rounds, when he gets the better of several exchanges) he's the clear loser on the cards. Anyone scoring this Fighter A vs Fighter B should have Hagler comfortably ahead.

 

No, he wouldn't have. Why people insist on perpetrating this myth, I'll never know. Well, I do know, as this is Duran, so why let any facts get in the way of a good story...or what we see with our own eyes (see New Orleans for further example). :yep

This is true, in parts. There were times when Roberto made Marv look amateurish and starstruck, but he didn't score enough to win this fight while he had a hole in his arse.

"Loser and still champion" is the kind of headline The Sun would have after Bruno was (again) battered in his quest to lift the heavyweight crown. This issue was a few months after the fight and shows Duran's enduring popularity in selling magazines- the post-fight issue had Hagler as its cover star. Well, he was the clear winner after all.

 

Along with the Davey Moore fight,the Hagler one was Duran's best performance,post Montreal. Hagler definitely deserved the decision though. I made it 8-6-1 Hagler.

 

I don't see the controversy with the Hagler fight. It was a fight where Hagler fought uninspired in the middle rounds and picked it up and won a decision late. Whitaker/Delahoya was more of a competitive fight. In a rematch Hagler would have destroyed Roberto.

 

This is a hard one, i think Pea done better against Oscar than Duran did against Hagler, i had him up one point, however, i think what Duran did against Hagler is astonishing and a better loosing performance.

 

Hagler was much better against Duran than Marv was against SRL. Yet, I thought that El Cholo did better over the first 12 or 13 rounds than Ray did in the entire 12 rounds against Hagler. (Yes, a stunningly surprising performance by SRL, but not superior to what Duran did in taking the then P4P best active fighter in the world the championship distance in 1983.)

If Hagler-Duran had been scheduled for 12 rounds, Ray's place in history would have been truncated considerably. We know now that Marv was slowing down in April 1987 (something Ray shrewdly deciphered a year earlier at ringside for Hagler-Mugabi), but in November 1983 Marv was coming off of Scypion, which many consider his peak performance.

SRL apologists like to say he lost in Montreal because he fought the wrong fight, Duran's fight in the trenches. (Everybody who's familiar with Ray's career prior to Montreal knows that what he did in New Orleans is what actually ran against his typical MO boxer-puncher template.) Against Hagler, Duran didn't really have the option of fighting in the trenches like he did in Montreal, because Marv was too big and strong, standing his ground as the larger man, and forcing El Cholo to repeatedly bounce back from mid ring to the ropes. But the Panamanian showed that he could box effectively when physically bullied, something Frazier was not able to do against Foreman. Hearns did crumple pretty quickly against Marv in 1985, but former FW Duran hung tough in 1983.

Regarding Whitaker-DLH, I've read substantial debate over who the real winner should have been, much less over who the rightful winner of Hagler-Duran was. Going in, hardly anybody expected what Duran was about to do. As Gil Clancy summarized, "The fight belonged to Hagler, the night to Duran." Al Bernstein actually enthused upon the conclusion of the Hagler-Hearns was that, "This makes up for the 'loss" to Duran!" Marv was predicted to do to Duran what Hearns actually did achieve seven months later.

 

It wouldn't have made much difference, Hagler would have still retained his title and also, if scheduled for 12, would have likely finished as strong as he did anyway, as his corner instructed him to take the final two rounds to win (the fact is, they didn't think he 'had' to, but because of some voodoo economics on the judges cards, he actually did need them!). A rematch may have taken place, which he'd Hagler would have won by a bigger margin that most boxing writers at ringside had him ahead in the fight itself (the most common cards had him around 4/5 rounds ahead).

I thought Whitaker may have pipped it myself too, I certainly gave him more rounds over '12' than I gave Duran over '15'. Well, did anyone really have Duran ahead (Latin American boxing writers and a few berks on boxing forums excepted)?

 

I've corrected it for you mate, we know what you meant.

But, I will say again,

This content is protected

of even those Three Blind Mice at ringside after 12 rounds. Hagler would have retained his title, be it 12 or 15. Let that be the end of that particular myth.

 

Whitaker for at least half of the fans won and was arguably further past his prime at 34 coming several very poor performances. Delahoya was also the bigger man, despite going up in weight he was a diuretics/sauna drainer who would enter the ring around 156-160lbs and was 24 at his physical peak and 5'11 to Whitaker's 5'6

Duran was still only 32 and at this stage, Hagler was only 3years younger at 29. Ofcourse Duran was past his prime and best weight but not quite as much as is made out, he wasn't a 'fat lightweight', he never made LW after the age of 26, was a big strong WW against Leonard and probably carried muscle aswell as fat upto 160lbs, yes he was a blown up WW at that stage, not a blown up LW anymore than DLH was a blown up LW against Hopkins. So there is a size disadvantage but not quite as much as is made out, Monzon for example had a much greater size advantage over Napoles

Hagler ofcourse was a much better boxer than DLH, Duran put up an excellent performance but Hagler was in control of that fight despite maybe choosing the wrong fight. HE respected Duran's power after Duran dismantled Moore and didn't impose his size because of this, he also fought in Duran's range not using too much movement, so he didn't take fully take advantage of Duran's lack of size or Duran's older legs.

In the end it's apples and oranges, a borderline win over a Prime borderline great past prime or a competitive clear loss against a bigger great. All things considered I go with Whitaker

 

Excellent post, i totally agree. :good