Best losing effort: Duran-Hagler or Whitaker-DLH?

WHAT????

Duran was competative with arguably the best Middelweight of all time!!

 

I don't see why people keep saying DLH was "bigger" when he was the one making his debut at the weight, while Whitaker was well settled at 147 and had even fought up at 154. I believe Pea even weighed more on the day of the fight, if I remember correctly.

I also never thought Pea beat DLH, so from my perspective at least the answer is Duran by far.

 

I don't believe Hagler's eye was ever remotely close to what Moore's was. Moores eye was damaged from a massive thumb from memory, may have even been in the first round. The eye got real bad real fast and there was no reversing it.

I'm not 100% sure Duran would have made the eye bad enough to be a factor if Hagler pursued him harder. Admittedly Hagler did have trouble with cuts in some fights.

I'm also not totally convinced Duran would have beaten Hagler if it did, because Hagler would have had to dig in and dig in hard. He would have been forced to use his size and aggression to get his own licks in imo. I don't doubt a one eyed Hagler could have bullied Duran quite a bit.

Having said that Moore's eye was a bit of an aberration and a lot of events would have had to take place to put Hagler in the same situation.

We have that vs Duran needed the breaks fighting at a higher weight against a great (bigger) fighter who was dominating when Duran tried to force the action. One of the lulls was after round 7 (i think) when Hagler noticably reduced the pace.

I'm not convinced Hagler wasn't conserving energy, he'd run out of gas late in one of two 15 round fights (Notably vs Vito) and may have had that in mind. Hagler at this stage had questionable stamina according to the experts. I still believe if he went harder instead of easier Duran would have wilted somewhat and Hagler could have cruised later while still dictating. Just an opinion. I'd be interested to see Marvin against a great that fought at a fast pace or kept continual pressure on. Say a LaMotta and Monzon.

If Hagler and co had the spectre of Cuevas and Moore hanging over them i'd be very disappointed. Those two weren't on the same planet as Marvin and he and his handlers should have been extremely confident he could handle an aged ex lightweight. Duran hadn't actually beaten a top fighter since SRL years earlier. Fine performances but Cuevas was coming off Ring mags 1981 Upset of the Year and Davey was up and coming but miles from rounded. He'd had all of a dozen pro fights and that thumb gave him no chance whatsoever in any case.

Duran had never faced a monster like Hagler. He was in new territory against a fantastic, and quite fearsome at the top of his game champion. All the balls were in Haglers court but he chose not to enforce them. Fair call he got the win, but the public and experts considered he stunk in this fight. They expected much more and the sentiment was with Duran post fight.

Just my opinion, and it's always a pleasure Stoney.

 

Easy call........... "Duran-Hagler" is it..................... Duran was way outta his weight-class in '83 at 160 pounds against Hagler.............. Duran at 156 1/2 pounds was motivated and savvy...... Okay, yes, Hagler was a wee tight and passive in many rds there, but the fight went all 15 rds.... Hagler won.....

Whitaker was NOT outta his class or league at 147 against DLH; just aged...

MR.BILL:hatbbb

 

Both lacked one ingredient that maybe would have won them the fight. Variety. Duran used the jab and ocassional right hand. Whitaker mainly used the jab. They both couldn't put, three or four, together. They were both very one dimensional with their approach.

 

Lemme rephrase that -Hagler's eye was beginning to close late in the bout. More aggression earlier could have meant damaged eye earlier. The Petronellis knew that aggression would also have meant more opportunities for a Duran thumb.

The Petronellis plan was based on what Duran was doing to bigger guys, they expected Duran to be aggressive and so wanted to counter that. Duran's strategy was a surprise to most -he was trying to counter Hagler. So, it became a chess match.

I'm just not as sure as you that Hagler's style was the wrong one given what they knew at the time. Hagler did win, after all. I don't believe that Duran was going to beat Hagler without lots of luck -so Hagler fought a cautious style to near-eliminate even that chance.

Hagler's being in awe of Duran was part of it too, I'm sure.

Agreed -in retrospect, Duran would have had to have wilted.

Goody was very concerned about the thumbs and the low blows before the fight and made it known. I thought the ref did a good job -Christadoulou, right?

Yep -and damn near everyone expected Hagler to win -even Arcel. Zale, Graziano, and Griffith went with Hagler. LaMotta did too, but made an interesting comparison. He thought that Duran, who he said had a style much like his own, should fight Hagler the way he did Bert Lytell. He said that if you climb all over a southpaw, their natural advantage goes out the window.

Gene Fullmer called it better than anyone -he said that Duran will wear out at the end and lose on points. He said Duran will raise hell for about 6 rounds and then the weight difference will rise up and "Hagler will do a number on him." Bingo.

Gil Clancy, Murray Goodman, Bill Caplan, and Don Dunphy all picked Hagler by KO.

Hey, we should make this a tradition you and I -debating/discussing Hagler-Duran every 4 years!

 

Fair enough, but the flip is still Hagler forcing him quiet as he did at times thru the bout. I can see how they would worry about thumbing given the Moore fight previous. That quality of thumb can cause all sorts or drama.

That they worried overly about countering such a smaller mans aggression so much baffles me. Hagler held all the aces and was so much bigger and naturally heavier. As it turned out it turned into a chessmatch because Duran himself couldn't handle Hagler inside, not so much that Duran came in with the strategy to box from the outside and confuse.

It's a testament to Duran's adaptability that he could reverse his natural distance and still box reasonable well against the lengthier (and top shelf) boxer. Duran also showed that a greatly skilled fighter could all but shutdown a jab as fine as Hagler's. This impressed me as much as anything.

The only way possible to win for Duran was via a massive lucky cut (or 3 blind mice which wasn't that far away lol) imo.

I would bet any money that Hagler in a rematch vs the exact same Duran would beat him FAR more soundly. Hagler had a history of coming into live matches with far from ideal perforance and strategy then flogging them in rematches. It's my biggest knock on him and the reason i would pick quite a few top shelf ATG's over him, certainly in initial matches. In total contrast a guy like Duran (and Monzon et al) was always bang on. Well, when he was motivated. That waned a bit later on and off.

I agree, which is aother negative.

I am certain we'd have seen this in the rematch.

Yep. Hagler can be seen complaining in a mid round about Duran trying to thumb him.

The old saying is a great big man will almost always beat a great little man.

Interesting, and you and i both know that LaMotta wasn't the one dimensional dumbo many seem to think.

I would disagree Duran "raised hell". Fullmer would have envisioned Duran aggressive and raising hell on the inside and competing well before wearing down due to Hagler size. What Duran did was compete reasonably well from the outside.

Not an outrageous prediction given Hagler's ability, size and peak quotient vs Duran's size and a few other factors.

It's definitely deja vu.

 

Whitaker. I had him (on most occassions watching) beating Hoya. On the other hand I didn't have Duran close to Hagler on the cards. The last 3 rounds ckearly showed Duran wasn't in Haglers league at 160.

 

Marvin took the path of least resistance against Duran. He could have really pushed Duran and eventually punished him imo, but that would mean eating a lot of counters by Roberto, who was still sharp enough to see most of what Hagler threw and react in time if given the opportunity.

I can understand Marvin's choice not to push for a spectacular beating when he would have had to take a fairbit of punishment himself, but I thought he did just fine to outbox one of the most skilled fighters of all time without really relying on heavy handed tactics.

Hagler won comfortably OUTBOXING Duran, not outsizing or outmuscling or outpunching Duran.

Of course, many felt Hagler really struggled, and hence the difference in opinions. For mine, I don't really consider it a letdown on Marvin's part, unless I focus solely on what the fight had to say about his 'heart'.

A good simile to Hagler-Duran is Lewis-Holyfield I imo.

Both fights were fairly clear in favour of one man, both showcased the bigger man outboxing the smaller man, both bigger guys probably could have laid a worse beating on their smaller opponents if they were willing to lay it all on the line, but both bigger guys fought cautiously and did just enough to escape relatively unharmed.

 

Not much to debate here, we're more or less in agreement.

 

That's a really good post.

 

Exactly, probably similar to 4 years ago

 

duran-hagler

 

Yeah, and the rest. I have, The Ring, preview of the fight and virtually every prediction is either, Hagler via KO or points.

 

JohnThomas and Stonehands. Nice sparring session there guys. Keep up the good work.


JT. As you know, SH is one of the best and most accurate, counter-punchers, around here. You, defended and countered, well in return.