If Duran face McCallum instead of Hearns, who you got?

At welter i agree he was fine,but that was the limit of his physicality i suggest. At welter he was small (yes,there are some other welters about his size as well.) and obviously guys who started out there or were 'natural' at that weight had an advantage over him.You must also look at his height (or lack of.) and the fact duran was not a natural 'outhouse' like tua or tyson,nor did he add on quality muscle like holyfield...He basically just got fatter above 147. (bless his soul!)
Like you said this whole business of 'size' is not wholly objective,but i think one can grasp it intuitively when watching the film. (very Zen!.)
I think as an example micky spinks may have been taller and the same weight in the ring as tyson,but it was ovious straight away who the natural heavyweight was,ditto foreman moorer,etc,etc...
ps: i personally think hagler looks much bigger than duran??!! The picture of duran leonard 1 is deceptive as i think the angle is wrong,on tape duran looks smaller than ray, 'the little midget' as hearns called duran!

 

Funny, that Hagler seemed much more respectful of Duran's power than he did of Leonard's. After the early rounds he just walked through Leonard's blows (even the solid ones) like they were nothing. That (and his superior strength and stamina) is what made the fight so razor close, because Leonard was really outboxing him.

 

When it comes to Duran, I'd say he looked every bit as good against Palomino and Leonard (the first fight) as he ever did at LW. But at LMW and above he was of course slower and didn't have the relative power and strength he did at LW and WW. There's no doubting that. This was both because of added weight and of advancing age.

But let's be clear: I don't buy for a minute that he was a changed fighter for his rematch against Leonard. It's very likely that he wasn't as focussed as he was in Montreal, but it's also very likely that the opposite is true for Leonard.

 

He quit like a bum.
I think that represents a massive change to what he was as a fighter, generally.

 

I learned long ago that debating Mag on Duran is always like this. This is one of those cases were he made his mind up, now twists everything to try and back his opinion. he actually told me once that Duran was a bigger fighter then Hearns. He also told me that M. Spinks was a better all time fighter then Duran, and gave me a long twisted explanation why. If you listen to Mag you would think Duran started fighting in 1980 at 147.

Mag, give us your list of fighters you rank highwer then Duran p4p. Just a simple list. Don't try and change it to list of fighters who beat more all time greats then Duran. Just a list of fighters you rank higher then Duran PFP. Watch this.

 

No. It was just aside of him that no other fighter had been able to expose before. It had been there all along.

 

So he was a quitter all along but managed to go 73 professional fights (some of them tough and tricky) without ever showing an ounce of quit ??

 

Yes. That is a FAR, FAR, FAR more likely scenario than this side of him emerging from nowhere during six months after his biggest victory. He never showed any inclination for quitting afterwards either. That was probably just something that came out during the specific circumstances of that one fight.

 

Well, doesn't that qualify for him being a changed fighter ?

I'm guessing you credit SRLeonard and SRLeonard alone for Duran quitting (by causing him frustration etc.) ?
But imagine if Leonard fought like that the first time around, do you really think Duran would have just quit like that in the 8th round ?

At the very least I think Duran was changed by his own success, and his arrogance and contempt for Leonard's ability.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K71eD8WMmDk&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYaCpRIpof8&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abmZoQRxRrc&feature=related[/ame]

 

That calls for a lot of speculation. You can just as well speculate that Duran's taunts about boning Leonard's wife before the first fight made Leonard fight a more stupid and reckless fight than he would have otherwise.

But I prefer the third option: taking both fights on face value.

 

Bokky,i read a quote recently (cant remember where exactly.) that hagler was cautious in the duran fight because every time he loaded up on duran,roberto hit him with the sneak right hand. Hagler also had a swelling from this exact punch as well. Maybe hagler had to 'walk through' leonards punches because there was no other way to win,i mean he was too slow to outbox leonard. I think leonard punched just as hard if not harder than duran at 160.

 

That's exactly what I do.
On face value it looked like Duran just quit like a bum, and on face value that is totally out of character for him.

 

But you can just as easily say that Leonard never before or after fought with as little composure as he did against Duran in Montreal. If you will you can put this down to Duran's taunts and mind games before the fight. Or you can put it down to Duran's perfomance in the ring.

It's no difference with the rematch. Trying to have your cake and eat it too (in either direction) just reveals bias as I see it.

 

You're probably right. It always amazes me though how little respect Hagler had for Leonard's power.