MARVIN HAGLER-I don't think so

So you directly avoid the questions because you know how stupid the context makes you look. It's just plain silly you even brought it up. When Hearns beat Wilfred HE WAS IN HIS PRIME. When Duran lost to Wilfred, he was past his prime. Simple.

Your own examples defeat your own argument. You mention Hearns beating Hill while past his best, well, that is exactly why he is given credit for it. Just like Duran gets credit for wins while past his best. Get this through your thick skull. GETTING CREDIT FOR SOMETHING ISN'T THE SAME AS BEING AT THEIR BEST. The reason Tommy gets kudos for the win is because he wasn't Prime anymore and still beating good competition to win titles. That is exactly why, and exactly why his results also were mixed as he got up their in age, the SAME as Duran. When you're past your best, you often get mixed results. This is the same for Duran, SRR, Hearns, SRL and virtually ever fighter that has ever lived.

What I think is really going on here is, you're just upset that Duran did better than Hearns against more common foes. He got obliterated by Hagler, Duran lasted the distance. He got TKO'd and earned a draw against SRL, Duran beat SRL, something Tommy never did. Barkley destroyed Hearns once and beat him again. Duran while further past his best than Hearns, beat that same Barkley. That just must bother you so much that you make outlandish silly claims about Duran that ignore the context of these fights. It's sad.

 

you have arguments on a message board to excuse Duran? He fought until 2001 and he fought Benitez pretty much 20 years before, yet the excuse is he was not prime. Well he was not an old fighter either, and he got credit for beating Moore and Barkley a year and a half and 7 years later. Prime is an interesting question. Hearns prime in 1982? I don't think so, more like 1984 or even 1985. He did well, and did beat more greats than Duran and in more impressive fashion, like it or not and despite the excuses.

I do not mention Hill, because losing an argument or whatever you said, I mention Hill because all fighters in all ages fight with age or something against them and have that great win in their career where they didn't use an excuse. Spinks against Holmes, Hopkins against Tarver maybe, Pacman vs. Oscar,, Hearns vs. Hill and his 5 titles and the list goes on. The excuses for Duran really were too much, and you continue it like all fans of Duran do.. The sport of boxing needs honesty, not excuses. And Virgil Hill was a great win and Thomas did not get the credit he should have gotten for that win, certaintly not as much as Duran got for Moore or Barkley. And the only reason Duran got the credit for Barkley so much, is because of Barkley's win over Hearns. This is the double standard which I talk about. Duran is the king of excuses, but if you take his losses and those names off his resume, my point was does he have this great great resume? It is good, but not great.

I am upset Duran did better than Hearns against common foes? No, because he did not. Define doing better? Fighting Hagler in a counnterpunching rather boring fight where Hagler did not press forward and push the fight. Duran lost to them all. He was easily beaten. Hearns hurt Hagler and had a great fight, one of the best ever. Hearns beat Benitez easily. He knocked Duran cold and not with one punch, but with many-contrary what people think about it being a one punch knockout.. I mean you talk about Barkley, ignoring the fact they actually fought each other and Hearns won easily in what was really a unification fight. He should have had the win over Ray in 1989, and in 1981 busted up Ray's eye and Ray says himself Hearns was his toughest opponent, how much that means who knows since guys do sometimes say someone they beat was their toughest opponent and ignore the one's who beat them. Barkley? Duran beats the guy who beats Hearns after the fact, well sure that will look good just because Barkley was champ because he beat Hearns. but I knew he could beat Barkley, I am talking about great fighters. That is like had Spinks beaten Douglas after Douglas knocked out Tyson. Would that have really elevated Spinks to the level ha he beaten Tyson. He would have beaten Douglas, not a great fighter. That is what the whole post was about. What great fighters did Duran really beat, and I said he lost to them all, which is factual. He beat one, who to me was still relatively inexperienced and on his 2nd title defense, yet Ray learned and came back and fought his fight.. And then Duran managed to lose easily to the rest of the greats he fought. That is fact. This really is not about Hearns, but I do think he beat greater fighters than Duran and in better fashion so the argument you had is easy to counter, and it has nothing to do with Barkley, who was not a great fighter, but had a lot of heart and a style of standing in front of fighters and bombing away. Against greats, Hearns was more competitive and more devastating. Regardless of anything else. And I think you know it, and I do believe that is why you have a very defensive attitude. I think many Duran fans know he gets too much credit, and when I talk they know it is the truth, so they come up with the excuses. What else can they bring up. They are all losses against greats. Like I said, I think the Benitez fight is the key to it all-sizewise and age and everything else, coupled with Duran's age when he retired. I do not believe he went downhill after moving up, I think he deficiencies were more pronounced as he found more resistance.

 

Duran had the bad habits only after he moved up? No,he always had them, but his fans make it sound like he moved up and just became this old slow fighter at 29 years old, which is just excuses. Moving up to welterweight and junior middleweight at his age was not as big a deal as his fans make it look.. He just started to find resistance and losses, and the excuses come up.

 

Well, Duran's record speaks for itself.
I agree, moving up to welterweight especially was a natural progression. I think he stopped making lightweight when he was 26, nothing unusual. He outgrew the division naturally, most likely.
Lots of top welterweights start out as lightweights and move up around their mid-20s.
Duran was a legit welter-size welter.

 

well ... I think Duran is where he is p4p because of his total dominance at 135 .. Did he face the likes of SRL ,Hearns, and Hagler there. No. But he dominated a lot of very good ones there and for a very long time. And I think his win over SRL gets a tad overlooked because I think it is a better win than SRL, Hearns, or Hagler ever had.....

 

Ludicrous bloviating. Duran has a good argument as the greatest lightweight ever. Had he quit 9 years and 66 fights into his career that would not change. But he chose to go up a division and add to his legend. Welter was not his primary place of work, and certainly middle wasn't.

 

Duran never faced another great like a Floyd or Pernell at lightweight, who would have probably won unanimous decisions. I think the Benitez fight at 154 is significant.

 

Pernell? I think he could maybe beat Leonard and outbox him.. Hearns would outbox Pernell, Pernell would probably outbox Hagler, and I think edge Floyd. I think he was that good. Hearns was trouble only because Hearns had the reach and speed to offset Pernell if Hearns could hold back his urge to fight aggressive, which made for great fights but was his downfall.

 

Doubt it. Hearns destroyed Duran. That's enough satisfaction.