Are Hagler's title challengers underrated?

This depends on the root cause for why Hagler appeared to be having problems with Duran. I won't go into the Leonard bout; that one falls into the 'Hagler took his time to decide on what to do' category and still yielded a disputed result.

However, I've had the Hagler/Duran discussion on a few occasions before, where the stance taken is that Duran was so small, he had no business at Middleweight and thus, taking Hagler the distance reflects poorly on the then undisputed champ.

My view is that - sure, Duran at Middleweight was a stretch and, perhaps he had no business competing there. He was definitely smaller than Hagler who, despite not being a massive Middleweight, had developed a fearsome reputation, with his reign consisting, thus far, of all stoppage wins. To be fair, at the time, no one was giving Duran a chance.

So why did this one go the distance? What problems did Duran cause Hagler for it to turn out this way? Well, I haven't watched the fight in a while but my impression, at the time, and ever since then, is that, for some reason Hagler was paying Duran a whole lot of respect. Too much of it.

From the start, Hagler sat back for a long while and then demonstrated he could take control in the middle rounds. Then he sat back again. But then, turned the heat up again, for the last couple of rounds.

I remember never doubting Hagler would win. Duran never really owned any part of that fight, other than when Hagler was being inexplicably inactive; making himself look cautious and tentative. Duran took advantage of those period well but it seemed to me that Hagler could have gotten him out there if he had decided to step through the gears.

I'm not sure why Hagler fought that way but I don't think the Duran (or Leonard) bout is necessarily a clear indicator, as to how Hagler would tackle some of those 'slick' boxers mentioned, who came a little later.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Duran had good defense, vast experience and was very smart. It was no shame not knocking him out.

Only Hearns did it (not going to count Duran quitting as a ko loss although of course officially, it was).

 

And it was a stupid move by Hearns. He negated all his advantages.

Hagler would have still beaten him if he elected to box, but it would have gone much longer.

No way Hearns was going to knock out Hagler.

At 160, Hearns had one spectacular ko, over the soft chinned Shuler but was taken the distance numerous times by the likes of Sutherland and Dewitt and even Ernie Singletary.

 

the same guy who was still "prime" against Norris four years later?

 

I can see Hearns believing the hype. The cover of one of the mags had a headline "Hagler is Shaking like a Leaf on a Tree" LOLL

However, Emanuel Steward was a smart dude, and I would be surprised if he didn't see that the best strategy would be to move and box.

I surmise that was the game plan but that Hearns wouldn't or couldn't implement it.

After the fight, they tried to say Hearn's legs weren't there from the start, but it is more likely Hagler's immense pressure and heavy shots took away his legs.

 

That is exactly how I saw it when I watched as well:good. Superbly articulated, MM:good

 

There were stretches when Hearns tried to box, especially in the 2nd round. But Hagler gave him no room to do so.

 

As I said in an earlier post, Hagler bulldozed Hearns and preventing him from doing anything too slick.
Hearns indeed DID try to box and move quite soon into the bout, and Hagler was having none of it. Bulldozed him, flew in with his flying jab or pummelled that body.
It's clear on film when that happens.

 

The Tiberi fight shows otherwise. Toney was beaten on the inside.

 

Hagler carried him.

 

But, he didn't try it from the first bell. He engaged in a firefight, and when he saw that wasn't working, he tried to move and box.

He should have moved from the first bell, before he took any punishment.

Of course, in the end, he loses either way.

 

Hearns came out more boxer than slugger, then Hagler got through with a left to his body and a right over the top, and that bulled him towards the ropes, that's when Hearns responded with a good right hand and it looked like he was trying to take Hagler out. But again 30 seconds later Hearns was trying to box again, using his reach and off the backfoot, but Hagler gave him no let up and forced it into a fight at every little opportunity.

Hagler put the pressure on straight away.

The idea that Hearns willfully went toe-to-toe from the beginning doesn't really fit with a viewing of the video.
He tries boxing and moving A LOT in that first round.

 

[yt]3PPhyBUsxaA[/yt]

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PPhyBUsxaA[/url]

 

No. He didn't have a quality defence once his perimeter was breached. Leonard and Hagler showed that as did much lesser fighters like Roldan, Barkley and Kinchen.

Their fights against Barkley should dispel any doubts that Toney's defence in the pocket was much superior to Hearns's.

 

He had problems with arguably the three slickest fighters he met (could be wrong about Monroe's boxing prowess, but I've heard he was a slick, technical fighter). That's not great empirical data, but about the same as Ali's difficulty with pressure fighters is based on.