Roberto Duran vs Marvelous Marvin Hagler

I respect that. Barkley,Kinchen and Roldan? Those fights along with Leonard make up a time of adjustment for Tommy. He had to adjust to being heavier with his right not being as effective, and to fight more inside fights when he had to. With Roldan he had no choice, Roldan was throwing awkward punches and a few hit Tommy, but his experience let him survive and throw more body punches which got a cleaner right hand through. With Barkley, had Tommy only been more defensive and worked the body and focused on not going for the home run yet being defensive he would have won, but he was a risk taking kind of fighter who liked to brawl. Kinchen? Part of that time of adjustment, but I think the Hearns who fought Virgil Hill would have fought a slower fight with Kinchen and found a home for his right and stopped Kinchen. He got better as he got older, when his other skills diminished and still beat a fight like Hill. At 154? The pre Hagler Tommy Hearns was great. He was stronger at that weight and stylistically those brawlers who later troubled him would not have troubled him as much at 154. Tommy was not a big guy if you look at his legs and compare him to when he fought Hill. Hill was wider and much bigger. Even Hagler whom Tommy towered over, still had a bigger looking body when they fought. The bigger guys could gamble more in those fights of trying to fight him. He usually still won. As for Hearns,Remember, only Barkley stopped him besides Ray and Marvin. You can mention Uriah Grant, but that was the year 2000 when he looked terrible and slow. It was hard to watch. By the way, to see how Tommy was even thin at 160, look at my avatar picture of Tommy and James Shuler.

 

Laughable, indeed. I'm a huge Duran fan but slate him when it's due. I'm certainly not a person who makes excuses for his defeats. Anyway, it's quite clear that Arguello was a fighter who needed distance, timing and wasn't good when forced backwards during a fight. While he was competitive against Pryor, he had problems with his style. Duran is equally as good as Pryor, offensively, and has far better defense. I'm not sure if Arguello could survive the type of Duran who beat De Jesus in their 3rd fight.

Bad style match up for Arguello.......Just like Hearns would always have been a bad style match up for Duran, always.

 

I love Arguello. One of the great hearts in all of Boxing history, and a great champion, even after he left Boxing and was murdered by people who couldn't fight his integrity...but...at 135..no one beats Duran...period.

 

Duran beats Arguello.

There are a few lightweights Id give a decent shot at Duran. Pernell Whitaker. Ike Williams. Benny Leonard. Carlos Ortiz.

Duran might win all those matchups but each of those guys is capable of beating him.

 

Pea was beautiful to watch, but didn't have the power to deal with Duran. Even with his defensive and counterpunching skills, without being able to back Duran off occasionally, he succumbs to the relentless pressure and goes down late.
Ike, I'm still learning about, so I'll withold judgement.
Benny was the most similar to Roberto of this group and it would have been an interesting fight. In his prime, Leonard gives Duran a hell of a battle and loses by tko in the later rounds.
Ortiz is an interesting choice. More problems for Duran than the others because despite his 50% KO rate, he had better power than people give him credit for, and an iron chin. I can see Ortiz wining the early rounds and Duran coming on in the later rounds. Depends when that rally by Duran happens.

 

Duran had a much better reign. Why?

He had many non-title bouts, Hagler had none.

Duran had the WBA and The Ring titles. He unified the WBC title by beating De Jesus. Hagler just won them all at once.

Duran scored 10 consecutive KO's before going the distance, while Hagler scored 7 before he had to go the distance. Duran looked good in his decision win, while Hagler could not stop a fat lightweight in Duran.

Duran was also the same Duran that took Marvin the distance.

Duran only had 15-round title fights, Hagler had 15 and 12-round title fights as the years went on.

Duran never lost at lightweight, his first loss was at light welterweight, and Hagler lost at middleweight once, Hagler should have had a 66-1 record while Duran had a 72-1 record.

Duran moved up and went on to win titles, Hagler just stayed in his weight class in his entire career.

Duran spend his prime destroying the lightweight divison, Hagler spend his entire career demolishing middleweights.

Duran's biggest fights were against bigger men, Hagler's biggest fights were against smaller men moving up.

Duran has IMO the clear edge here.

 

Twattythomas bumping yet another Duran related thread just to fawn feverishly over him.


"Destroying the lightweight division" = fighting a handful of ranked contenders over a near decade and shamelessly ducking Rodolfo Gonzalez.

 

I guess they must have really thought a lot of Al Roth and Kid Berg. Herb Goldman rated Duran #3 at 135 in 1987.

 

Yeah great article I always enjoy the old timers opinions. However the opinions were based prior to seeing Duran really challenged when he moved up tp face other ATG fighters. So are we just sticking with Durans LW reign?

 

Duran's reign was busier and the non-title fights were not all bums. Saoul Mamby went on to win a world title after all.

Both reigns were impressive though. I take nothing away from Hagler.

And I think some maybe underestimating Dejesus. If Duran had not been around, he would have been champion for a while IMO.

 

Hmmmmmm, Cus D'Amato.

Floyd Patterson = game but not quite up to it.

Jose Torres. = very good and well up for it.

Mike Tyson. = ****. Every excuse you can think of, and then some.