Was Duran-Hagler even going into the 15th round on judges scorecards?

This is somewhat true, like when they boo because there isn't brawling. British fans are usually more educated on the sweet science but then again we have our fair share of morons

 

Mag, you don't get it mate. It's amazing that duran fought so well against a prime hagler inspite of him being a natural lightweight 30 pounds above his prime weight and a few years past his best. This performance doesn't make him a great middleweight, that's using circular referencing and they never hold up because they can't be resolved.

 

Most judged in fights in Germany aren´t German either but nevertheless succumb to the scoring tradition here.

Because Leonard was the golden boy, the media darling ... and that fight wasn´t about aggression vs. clean punching.

 

true and hagler wasn't aggressive until the 5th, that was a deep hole to dig out of

 

All the greats moved up and fought beyond their prime weight. If you define prime weight as starting weight where they won the title. Duran grew out of the 135 pound limit and as early as 1978 was fighting at 154? Why would he do that if he was natural and prime at 135? Benitez won his first title at 140 and still beat Duran easily at 154. Leonard started at 147 and Hearns at 147 and fought up to 190. Hearns beat Virgil Hill, which if that had been Duran it would have been seen as the greatest win in the history of boxing. The Hagler/Duran fight was not a brawl or a great fight. It was a fight where Marvin fought more relaxed than he should have and he had to realize he was letting the fight get too close, so he pored on the pressure and won the rounds and the fight.

 

It might all makes sense to you, MAG, but to everyone else you come across as the most simple-minded poster on the forum. You have the critical thinking skills of a kindergartner.

 

So if Duran would have beaten Hagler, the Benitez fight would not be a factor in rating him, as it seems to not be a factor anyway in Duran losing to Hagler?
The situation which is apparent especially in the 1980s is that the wins Duran has are recognized but his losses to other significant greats are not? And these are losses which were almost outclassings by other greats. Benitez won his title just 4 years after Duran did his at 135, a weight class up. That is simpleminded or kindergarten thinking?
I think it more simpleminded or naive to ignore Duran losing to Leonard easily in the rematch, Benitez in Duran's fight for Wilfred's 154 pound title in Jan of 1982- and the Hearns fight in 1984, seeing how Duran troubled Hagler a bit enroute to a decision loss. Ignoring significant fights which were losses with excuses and recognizing wins or good showing as unbelievable and greatness is overrating wins and situations in favor of Duran-and not just small overrating. Big time. It is an interesting phenomenon which happens from other fans of other fighters also, but Duran gets the most benefit from it.

 

What we have today in all reality are TV champions/HBO creations & listen to Al bernstein, Jim Lampley & co & they always have put the emphisis on aggression.

They are the front men in the front line who's job it is to sell a product which is exciting to the armchair casual fan sat with his popcorn & 6 pack who's bled his $$$ for the unbeaten crash bang wallop spectacle. It's got ****-all to do with whose the best boxer it's all to do with whose the most exciting fighter regardless of opponants actual merit.

Hence we have the now total domination of the sport by executives who have'nt a clue or the interest in boxing hence they'll issue patronage to a promoter to supply them with a line of bodies that must be marketable in the HBO/Showtime mould. Hence the reason for all these wanker belts as a justification for touting out the usual long line of crap for so called world title fights. Everyone wants a piece of the PPv pie & if Benitez or Whitaker where around today they'd not get a look in.

I always study the crowd of those fights in the 80's i've got on tape, the big fights held in the the pavilion at Caesars Palace for example. They are all totally intence on the fight & back then & before it was only fight fans that attended the fights & obvioulsy the ones that could afford it goes without saying seeing that all the major battles where fought from a monday too a friday & not yer saturday nights.

In this day & age what i've witnessed at the MGM Grand in Vegas on many an occasion now is what i would describe as "The Boxing Tourist" who are in town for the weekend & take in a fight as they would a meal. It's no longer the pilgrimage it once was or is as i still view it for me. It's packed with pissheads stuffing nachos & cheese sauce or anything in a wrapper & booing their heads off at the 1st sign of a boxing match breaking out.

They want to see some poor ****er dragged out feet first. It's now an entertaiment thing & it's got to be all action & explosive or it ai'nt gonna make it. No wonder most of us are of the opinion that yesterdays champions would dominate what passes as champions today. Very few today have had to come through the blood & guts route, area/national/continental/contender/challenger. Half the audience in who attend these fights ai'nt got a clue who's who in the ring & forget the ****in undercardatsch

If you promise to fight face 1st then you are destined for the top by the quick route. Hence Hatton's appeal in the UK & in the States. If you're a pure technician then you've got to get another marketing string to your bow as in get a arrogant **** persona for the TV interviews.

So with no disrespect intended to a younger generation or to some Americans on here that have been brought up on this diet of controlled violence. When it comes the the subtle qualities of the "Fistic art of SELF DEFENCE!! there would'nt know **** from sugar.

An example is the Hagler/Leonard fight. It was a no contest simple as, Leonard pissed it & i hate the **** for it, but he outboxed one of my hero's in Hagler. 8-4 on a good day for Marv. So Duran's efforts against Hagler were well spotted by the 3 eagle eyed judges & his efforts where aknowleged accordingly

They's more to than just trundling foreward in a fight/pressing the action as american commentators say & listining to those commentators whose agenda is whats best for their employers $$$$ take ai'nt the best way to get a just & fair perspective of whats actually taking place within the ring:smoke

 

I was at this fight!! Hagler fought tentative until he realized oh **** he was losing what should be an easy fight. He won the 12-15 rounds and the fight. Simple. You guys make too much out of an easy win for Hag!!!!!

 

I don't think it was easy but it's definitely the kind of fight where people a lot of fans have made their minds up it was really close after they've seen the judges scoring. Hagler winning by a few rounds was the consensus, which was correct.


For the record, Duran actually won the 13th on all three cards.

 

But these greats who moved up through the weight didn't usually have a 7 year rule of a division and a fighter of the decade award already under their belt. They usually don't do this throughout their 30's.

He beat barkley 17 years and nearly 30 pounds after beating buchanan.

What were leonard and hearns doing in 97 after winning their first titles at the start of the previous decade?

There is no shame in losing to benitez who was bigger and younger. Same can be said for hearns and hagler. These are top 50 fighters, two are top 5 at the weightclass. The losses that damage duran are to laing and was it simmons? I forget his name now. But the two journeyman losses are what get held against duran. None of these losses are too negative because they didn't occur in his prime years nor weight.

 

It's funny how that doesn't rub off to much on your fighters and trainers, though.

Every sweet scientist you love seems to come from America with American tutelage. I'd say that boxing is more popular in Europe, so those that are actual real fans in America know there stuff. They're not apart of the ADD ridden superficial all out action of the UFC crowd so they enjoy the intricacies of the sweet science of pugilism. Just my take.

Otherwise, I don't quite know why you guys hype your fighters to endless levels. I know there are fewer boxing stars out there, but if you understood the sport I don't see why British fans would be so deluded about their fighters chances. Not all of course, just to a stronger degree. We have our own though. Lacy, Tyson-Lewis... Good promotion can influence and deceive well I guess.

 

the Barkley fight was Duran's only fight of note in 1989 or since Sims in 1986. And the style was perfect for him. When I heard the fight was signed I thought oh man Duran is going to win another title. 25 pounds after Buchanan, and yet Hearns was 28 pounds above his first weight when he beat the best light heavyweight in Hill in 1991-11 years after his welt win over Cuevas.
Barkley was the least of the titlists in 1989. Let me think who was champion then I think Nunn at IBF, Barkley at WBC and WBA was I think Nunn, who just beat Kalambay. So either way Barkley the least of the champions. I think it was a good win, but not spectacular because Barkley was not spectacular. The only fighter of note he ever beat was Hearns, which is the only reason he is really known.

Ray fighting in 1997 doesn't mean much since he was always playing games and fighting in spurts, and in the 1990's the inactivity caught up with him. Tommy was a different story. Tommy always stayed active and fought. Tommy was going ok in 1997. He had just beaten Karl Willis in North Carolina, and beat Ed Dalton at a fight I was at in Los Angeles when I lived there in Jan of 1997. Tommy later beat Nate Miller for the IBO Cruiserweight title in Manchester, England in April of 1999 on a Hamed undercard. So he was not exactly doing badly in the late 1990s.

You mention Duran's rule. Ray fought better guys and more demanding guys in his welt reign than Duran ever did at 135-and Duran fought at 154 as early as 1978 and he was comfortable at the weight. More than Ray was comfortable at 160 or 168. As for Ray, Ray has a good welt reign and then beat Hagler at 160 and fought Hearns and Duran again- also Lalonde. Hearns had 5 title fights at welt and 5 at 154 and then later beat Hill and defended that title pounds above his best weight. Many guys did that. So Hearns had 10 title fights in addition to all he did above 154. And look at Spinks reign. A guy who had a good light heavyweight reign and then moves up and beats Holmes twice and beats Cooney and that other guys whose name I forget.
I see what you are saying although I don't even see the Laing loss as a big deal. The Sims loss was no big deal since Duran was coming back after the Hearns fight 2 years before. The point I always make is that he fought the better guys he ever fought when he moved up in weight. Regardless of losing to greats Hagler,Hearns,Benitez and Leonard, it is evident that speed was the achilles to Duran and not the weight and age, which was irrelevant since Duran fought until 2001. The fact he beat Barkley which was a good style matchup clears up many things. It makes me think that Whitaker and Mayweather would have probably beaten him with speed, which is hard for me to say since I think Floyd has handpicked his whole career.

I agree no shame in losing to Benitez or Hearns or Leonard. But you can see a stylistic problem there which other greats would have exploited in Duran even at lightweight. He really did not have greats at 135 like Whitaker or Floyd to exploit what the others did, but since they exploited it at 147 and 154, Duran has a good excuse why he lost.

 

Lol we both know barkley held every advantage. He'd iced hearns who'd iced duran. Roberto was a 37 year old lightweight, he had no right winnin.

It's not so much the duran gets excused, it's just that the losses don't really matter since he'd established his greatness by dominating a division and then outgunning the great sugar ray. 72-1, fighter of the decade, goat lightweight, best victory of the 80's. Everything after that victory over leonard is just icing on the cake.

Take hopkins now, a loss to dawson won't in the least hinder his greatness.

 

The best post on this matter folks! Well said luf.