Did Hagler Really Fight The Wrong Fight Against Duran?

I didn't say he was not of any class ,Please don't put words in my mouth I didnt say.
I said he was a twelve fight novice which he was.
He was favoured because Duran had lost two of his last four fights,and his two wins were over a journeyman and a Welterweight who hadn't fought for over a year ,and who himself had only won two of his last four fights.

 

Good points especially on Monzon. But the one I don't agree with is Hagler " needed to be" technical.
Fighters have fought aggressively technical from the beginning of time. Holmes and Sanchez were very aggressive but fighting from a well balanced and able to get back on the defensive in a milliseconds notice....
No one is saying Hagler should've waded it in like A Pryor or N.Benn hell bent on the Ko and thus leaving wide holes in their defense, that usually resulted with them getting put on their ass more than they should've because of that recklessness. But fighting aggressively behind the jab, putting great pressure on the opponent, forcing them to retreat , get them out of their comfort zone, works just as well as a right hand from Hearns...... ( well it wouldn't work THAT well) but you get the picture.
It's the reason why so many fighters not considered "great punchers" had so many ko's no one considered Ali, Sanchez, or R.Leonard great punchers, yet look at their KO percentage.
Hagler said he learned after the 1st Antefermo fight what could happen when a fight goes the distance. Thus his motto "Destruct and Destroy "was born. But for whatever reasons known only to Hagler himself he could be tricked, or made to fight the wrong fight plan, though he was the ,bigger ,stronger, and more physically gifted fighter at the time of the fight, and he should've been more dominant... It happened with Antefermo 1st fight. It happened with Duran, and of course Leonard. It also happened with some of his other fights, but he avenged them or he managed to win the fight. Of the 3 atg's he fought the only correct fight plan he used was the Hearns fight , which in hindsight was obvious after Leonard intially found the key a few yrs earlier. Pressure Hearns , make him back up, stay on the inside of that jab and right hand, know that your going to take a few, to give a few.
Hagler initially fought tentatively against Duran,
And if he didn't push harder later in the fight, there's a chance he could've lost it, though it really wasn't a close fight....... But why leave it open for debate almost 40yrs later?
And I can damn near guarantee that if they fought a 2nd time, it wouldn't have gone more than 10rds.

 

Hagler putting his foot on and off the gas, throughout the fight, seemed inexplicable to me. But, it ultimately didn’t hurt the result, in a fight I think he won comfortably enough.

A bit of a clinic from Hagler, really.

 

YOU EVER NOTICE THAT WHEN DURAN POST LIGHTWEIGHT FIGHTS A FAMOUS FIGHTER AND DOES WELL, I.E. LEO AND H A G, THE FIGHTERS FOUGHT THE WRONG FIGHT AGAINST HIM. NOTROBERTO SOLVED THEIR STYLE. THEY ALWAYS FOUGHT THE WRONG FIGHT. LOLOL

 

I can't hear you. Can you speak up son. Put some bass in it

 

At the end of the day Hagler's performance was a winning one and that is all that matters. I would go back and watch it again but I cant find a video of that fight where Al Bernstein isnt ruining it for everyone. He even ruined Barkely_Duran. Al would let it be known that Roberto Duran would have to pay him before he would ever call Duran scoring a punch.

 

Didn't Leonard and Hagler both beat him?

 

I like Al and his knowledge, but some of the fights I don't like were the Gil Clancy with Al Bernstein adding in his opinions. Especially their opinion in I think the 12th round of Hearns vs. Kinchen about Tommy. They were wrong and yet they never had to apologize for comments like that or admit they were wrong.

 

What they say?

 

Al had a column in KO mag where he said he did not like Roberto Duran at all and considered Hagler the consummate professional.

 

if I remember correctly. Gil said something like if I could tell Tommy something I would tell him retire, and Al said " he is just not a top fighter anymore" About Tommy. On one performance (Kinchen) after being knocked out by Barkley. The comments were not thought out. How I remember them might not be exact, but pretty close. I have not seen the fight in a long long time. Years.. So. But I remember my thoughts were how wrong they were. Even fight Olajide in 1990 Tommy was on autopilot and he won easily. He got a draw against Ray and beat Virgil Hill.. He fought another 17 times after Kinchen 14-2-1

 

You can hear it in his commentary.

 

He wasn't actually.

Rather rare we aren't aligned ETM!!!

Even going into the Duran fight, with 3 defenses behind him he was considered the 4th best 154, and that's is with Mike McCallum a spot behind him. Of course all Mike had done was beat Kalule after Davey did, at this point.

One of the mags had a unification dream fight article and everyone wrote off a Hearns - Moore fight as a total mismatch. Moore was thought to be extremely raw and no-where near the level.

I have a vague memory Moore may have been an underdog in one or two of those defenses. He kept surprising tho and had a huge heart. He usually got drawn into wars despite being a decent boxer. Many believe he was rushed but on paper the "washed up" Duran seemed like the perfect stepping stone. Young up and comer beats a big name over the hill fighter. We've seen it so many times. He was incredibly unlucky. Guys like Hagler were not looking at him at this stage. Maybe an impressive win over Duran would have seen his rep and marketability rise substantially.

I like Davey, he was a good fighter with immense heart and a fine young man. Who knows what may have become of him without Duran.