Hearns -Duran

Tommy Hearns beats the living **** out of Duran 10/10

George Foreman always parks Joe Frazier too.

Get over it you fat ****s.

 

Duran didn't have a choice what he was going to do if Tommy was using his jab and landing it since the right was going to land right after. Tommy punched much harder than anyone Duran ever fought. The right was going to come and all the followup left hooks to the body and head. Robbie Sims was 1986 so that was out of the era where he won his 154 point title, and Kirkland Laing was a fluke as most Duran fans want to say, otherwise you have to discount Durans title winning fights at 154 and 160. But Duran beat Moore, so he was not washed up , and he beat a past his prime Cuevas before that.
Hearns beat him legit and would have always beaten Duran. There is no doubt. Tommy was too fast and his punches could not miss. Duran did not have the defense and skills of Leonard no matter what you guys say. Hagler beat Tommy by forcing him to throw the right, but Hagler took every right Tommy threw. As for Duran, the only question would be how long does Duran want to take the right hand before he goes down. Only one man avoided Hearns right hand and that was Wilfred Benitez. Pretty amazing.

 

Duran happens to be my fav fighter of all-time. But I'd be lying to myself if I thought he could beat Hearns, even at WW.

 

The fight was fixed :

"How about Leonard and Duran?"
"Are you kidding? Duran hated Leonard. He owed big money in Colombia, and made the deal. Only thing was he wouldn't lay down, so he quit. He had a choice. Either play ball or keep the lightweight title and fight for peanuts in Panama. The Hearns fight was the same, and the third time against Leonard he didn't even try."



[url]http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/box5-00.htm#liston[/url]

 

Duran would have had a chance at 147 against Tommy, as Hearns was quite spindly at that weight and Duran more fluid. A chance I say, because I'd still pick Hearns.

 

Duran only loses when he doesn't train or wasn't motivated.When it comes to fighting guys like Leonard(rematch),Benitez and Hearns,he simply has no motivation to train hard.And why should he? These men are good,but they're not Davey Moore or Pipino Cuevas.Unlike the three fights mentioned,those were fights that actually mattered and meant something.:roll:

There is a huge difference between evading and rolling with punches while smothering an opponent on the inside and doing the same while being kept on the outside.Hearns had the height,reach,speed and power to control Duran at a distance.And he wasn't fighting like a complete and utter moron like Leonard did in Montreal,either.



Nobody is arguing that Duran had somehow gotten better in four years and moving up another weight class.But the manner in which he was beaten - what credible argument is there to suggest Duran's chances are any greater had they fought a few years earlier? Hearns still possessed all the wonderful physical advantages at 147,still had tremendous hand speed,and he was arguably even more of a devestating a puncher at 147.

 

how does Duran look better? Leonard beat him easily once he didnt fight his fight. Beat Duran almost every round and Hearns gave Leonard his toughest fights as Leonard admits to now. Hagler said Hearns was one of his toughest fights.. Benitez beat Duran easily and Hearns won his title from Benitez the same year. Both lost to Hagler, but Hearns gave Hagler the tougher fight and staggered him. And Hearns stopped Duran easily. Hearns beat Minchillo easily. The only thing Duran has on Hearns is Barkley, yet had Barkley not stopped Hearns, Tommy was going to stop Barkley in the next round or two on cuts or from a bodypunch. Even Barkley says Hearns was the hardest puncher he ever faced. Fact is Duran could not take Hearns punch. Hearns was too quick. Hearns was not Davey Moore.

 

and if Duran did do better than Hearns against common opponents like you say, then Duran was obviously motivated and a decent fighter when he lost to Hearns. So there should be no excuses. You cannot excuse the Benitez fight or Duran/Hearns. It says a lot. .

 

Hearns outclassed Duran. Benitez outclassed Duran and Hearns beat Benitez. Leonard outclassed Duran when he fought his fight, and Hearns gave Ray his toughest fights. Hearns staggered Hagler, and Duran and Hagler fought 15 rounds which Hagler won by winning the last few round in a fight Hagler said was like a sparring contest. Hearns beat real ATG fighters and Duran beat one. The only thing Duran has over hearns is the Barkley fight, which Barkley was made for him and bad for Hearns style. But Barkley lost to Kalambay,Nunn and Benn in one round. So the only way Duran fans can make Duran better than Hearns is to mention Iran Barkley. Had Duran fought Virgil Hill or Michael Olajide whom Hearns beat easily. Duran would have lost. When it counted, Duran could not beat great fighters. Which is why I think his ranking in the ATG list should be 20-30 and not at all near 1-5 as many think. Hearns against the top fighters 2-2-1 and Duran is 1-5. The point here is that Duran could not come close to beating Hearns. He beat ok fighters like Moore or Barkley, but not greats Benitez and Hearns. There is no way to excuse it.

 

Duran was stopped 2 times in his career. Hearns in 1984 and by Joppy 13 years later. The fact he fought for a title 13 years after he was knocked out by Tommy shows Duran was not near being washed up when he fought Hearns in 84. It is really a surprised Hearns beat Duran? He beat Cuevas,Benitez,Hill,Shuler and so many others with power and skill.

 

Duran got knocked out fighting hearns at his best weight.

What happens if hearns boils down to lightweight and fights duran at his best weight?

 

Duran followers just can't accept that the guy was beatable. People would prefer that you think he took a dive rather than got outclassed.