Roberto Duran vs Marvelous Marvin Hagler

Bold statement. His reputation at 154, like Hearns', mainly rests on beating Duran. Yes, he looked very impressive doing so, but so did Laing.

Benitez dimensions, especially his reach, were that of a WW. When Hearns had a massive advantage in reach he looked awesome almost every time, but with less of a reach advantage it was a different thing. That's why I think we miss a big part of Hearns at 154 not having seen him against naturals at the weight like Jackson, McCallum etc. Since we didn't it's nonsense to call him unbeatable at the weight.

 

Benitez fought well at 140, 147, and 154. I think his best work was probably 147

 

Benitez fought more calm and with experience at 154 and that was the last weight he was still great. The way he calmly beat Duran was impressive.
If you go by dimensions, then Qawi should have been in the 140 pound class. That is why I mention Virgil Hill. If Hearns can handle guys like Hill or Andries 20 pounds above 154, he can handle anyone as far as size. Look at McCallum. His biggest win ever was against a guy who was not even a champion or proven at 154.

 

In the book "Reading The Fights", Gerald Early offers the opinion that Durans considerable skills at LW might be a bit overrated. He wonders whether such fighters like Bizzaro, the Viruet brothers or Vilomar Fernandez would've lasted into the later rounds if they had been fighting the likes of Benny Leonard, Ike Williams, Henry Armstrong, Joe Brown, Carlos Ortiz or Joe Gans. It's a valid question I feel and I'm a diehard Duran fan. Duran is an all time great, no question about that but the lightweight division he ruled wasn't that deep which isn't his fault. Maybe that 's why he moved up in weight....to make more money and cement his legacy which he did. Beating the likes of Leonard, Moore and Barkley, as well as going the distance with Hagler certainly enhanced his greatness more than if he stayed at LW and feasted on good, though not great fighters. Pound for pound I'm sure many would rate Duran higher than Hagler but I think Marvin faced better comp at MW than Duran did at LW.

 

It was. But he was also stylistically perfect for Hearns, with a massive reach disadvantage and nopunch to speak of at the weight.

Mugabi, now that's would be a wholly other kettle of fish, for example. But we'll never know exactly how that would turn out.

So it was Barkley's dazzling skills that made him beat Hearns twice? His size had nothing to do with it?

His most known, yes, not necissarily his best. He also beat Jackson and Kalule, and they were quite proven at the weight. For me, taking out Jackson like that is his best win at the weight.

McRory also had the dimension of a natural 154 even though he started at WW.

Kalule, Jackson, McRory and Curry compared to Duran and Benitez at 154...

 

Jackson is Mike's best win at the weight.

As for Benitez @ 154; wasted the more than capable Maurice Hope there, as well as Duran. Tommy's jab in this fight was top drawer.

 

Exactly. Therefore I stick with my original postulation. Given the almost identical record in title defenses, Duran's extra 20 wins vs the division during his reign make him the more dominant fighter within his division.

 

Mugabi punched great yeah, but to compare Hagler to Hearns as far as punching, Hearns would have hit him and stopped him. Duane Thomas stopped John in 3. Post Hagler sure.

The first fight it was Hearns who got careless with Barkley. Tommy actually would have stopped Barkley either TKO cuts or with bodypunches, something no one else was close to doing.. The second fight? Tommy didn't have his legs much and he still almost won a decision. It was SD. Barkley did have a good style for him, which is what I always talk about out here styles make fights. Yet you match great fighters with greats it is always interesting. Barkley was not great.

Jackson in 1986 was not the Jackson of 1989 Kalule was a good win, but he was not champ when Mike fought him.

You cannot compare McCrory (no championship at 154) Curry (no championship either) Kalule or Jackson (inexperienced with Hearns with Benitez (champion who defended against Santos and Roberto Duran, and Duran who ws WbA champ when Hearns fought him.

McCrory was not a great fighter. he was tall but his reach I think was 73 inches. Not a huge reach at all. I think Mayweathers is 72

 

I used to read the boxing magazines all the time in 1986. Julian Jackson was a no name guy then. Really. I would see results and see Ko1 ko2 ko3 etc on his fights, but he was not proven yet. To say that is Mike's best win I am not sure. I think Curry was easily.

 

Duran is great, but his competition was not what someone like Arguello's was in the lighter weights. Alexis vs. Duran could have been surprising. Duran could be hit with the right, and if Alexis could get his weight up and match Duran's size advantage I am not sure who I would pick.

 

I dont agree that he is severly overated. If he wasnt at his best he was pretty damn close to it.

Even at 80% of his peak he was still a better win than anybody Duran faced during his lightweight reign. Duran beat some good fighters. Im not shitting on his reign but Tommy Hearns was a great fighter.

 

I won't hijack this thread. Just say (again) that I don't think it was a fluke that Barkley beat Hearns, nor that Roldan and Kinchen (at SMW admittely) came close to it, as well as a depleted SRL (also SMW). Hearns looked vulnerable over 154 and he might have been made to look vulnerable at 154 as well if he stayed long enough to fight stylistically more challenging fighters than Benitez and Duran.

Still, Hearns was probably Hagler's best defense. Great fight, but I'm personally a bit more impressed by Duran's two wins over DeJesus.

 

Pretty equal.... Duran and Hagler are my top dogs at 135 and 160.... That'll never change.....
:bbb

MR.BILL:rasta