People need to be smart here and some people aren't. Hagler-Duran a superfight letdown? It was simply two marquee fighters going up against each other, thats all it had going for it as a 'superfight'. And before the first bell rang, on paper it was anything but a superfight. Virtually nobody in the press thought the fight was remotley competitive. And not sure what the buzz was around Vegas at the time and all around the country. My guess is that all the fans who soaked up the build up had the same opinion as the press. Hagler by demolition. A superfight to me aint a fight that was built up to be a massacre. Not a geniune superfight anyway. How the fight went and progressed was probably more a hit than a miss to all the punters who paid their ticket money to see Hagler murder Duran easily inside 6 or 7 rounds. It just depends what your taste is when viewing a boxing match. Lewis-Tyson a letdown as well? Tyson had a punchers chance, although his skills in his prime would have presented Lewis with a greater danger. It was pretty action packed for as long as it lasted, but it was rather one sided. Superfights don't need to switch back and forth with twists and turns to be successful. To the average boxing fan who watches 4 or 5 fights a year, yes. But not to me anyway.
.............Lotta folks here being pretty liberal with the use of the word "superfight." Vasquez-Larios? Qawi-Saad II? Come on. Nothing remotely like a superfight.
Well, the thread probably wouldn't of gone past page one if we were completely literal with the term.