Y did Duran try 2 box Hearns rather than swarm / attack him ?

Frankly, these posts are gold.

It's too convenient that Duran has great excuses for all his losses.

Great fighter. Probably one of the 10 or 15 best to ever do it. But on that night, he could have been in any shape he wanted to, he got iced, his DISCIPLINE and his CHIN weren't up to the task.

 

I think "no mas" controversy aside, most of the Duran excuses arguments and back and forths are something that has popped up(or at least got much more widespread) with the internet giving voice to debating fans.

BAck then it was pretty much accepted that Duran was in decline and no longer the fighter he was.Certainly after Benitez and Laing.

The training habits and stuff were well known but not necessarily used as excuses for losing to Benitez and Hearns, everybody knew Duran was a loudmouth that wouldn't admit clean defeat.That he could lose to great fighters like that who were in their prime at 154 was no big deal really...though the manner of the hearns loss was still quite shocking obviously.

Now you get these tedious back and forths where it's either Duran was making excuses for everything and was really in his prime and in perfect shape for every loss he ever had, or you get it the other way with everything being excused.

There's too much historical context being blurred by people with an agenda.MAG is one of those, even if he stumbles across the odd good point sometimes.

The idea of saying Duran was aging and above his best weights for most of his losses just seems to rub a lot of people the wrong way.

 

no my reasoning -it isn't because of the internet. Actually, I heard these excuse back in 1980 and thought it more and more as each fight Leonard 2, Benitez,Hearns happened. And the fact he did well against Hagler which people said was a testiment to his greatness (still a loss) to many, would mean he was still a good fighter at 32 years old. And. Duran was still a top fighter in 1980-1984. He was only 28 entering the decade, and having fought at 154 since he was 27. How is that above his best weight and aging? That is why I say these are excuses and exaggerations.
I was hoping for Duran to duplicate in the rematch, and Ray just shined. I didn't expect it, but Ray came to fight and to fight his fight. And Duran comes out with an excuse. I could even see the scrambled picture on UHF where I tried to watch the fight without ordering it, and I could see Ray up on the ring apron after celebrating.. Ray was dazzling. Well after this fight Duran does not say Ray outclassed me and fought his fight, all Duran could say or the word was then that he ate 2 steaks and had a gallon of water. Then only a year and 2 months later he fights Benitez at a weight he fought at before Hearns,Benitez and Leonard, and Benitez beats him easily and for Benitez he says he was out of shape. Now if people talked to me in 1982 I would have said the same thing I say now. Then after Hearns it became apparent that everytime he had a challenge he said he was out of shape to save face, yet he was in shape for beating Moore, and 5 years after Hearns after winning the middleweight title he looks good beating Barkley. And this was 10 years before the internet, and 25 years before I joined ESB. I was there watching these fights. This is not just a guy hearing rumors. I hoped Duran would show up and prove that he could win the fights and not just lose and say he had an excuse, and hope his lightweight legacy would make people believe the excuse.

Duran is the one who made is seem like he was on the decline by saying he was out of shape and losing those fights. I say he was not as much on the decline, and that he just could not deal with speed. I do not make up these threads, so when people say MAG always says the same stuff about Duran, remember I have not made a thread about Duran in I think all my time here on ESB. But I see the threads and I know about the subject and comment. I do think Duran is great. Dominant lightweight in an ok era and 4 time champion.

 

Duran was an amazing fighter. An animal with an amazing killer instinct and stonecold old school mastery.

His excuses are still ****. He fought other great fighters, and did so rather frequently. He still lost. It happens.

I get sick of fighters doing everything they can to discredit eachother. I get the massive egos thing, but in the end, just admit it: You were the lesser athlete that night. Only a moron would take that to mean you aren't a badass, or a legend, and Roberto Duran was both. For every Hearns, we can watch Cuevas or Moore. For every Leonard II, Leonard I or Buchanan. Sometimes, Roberto just couldn't get it done. No shame, and against Hearns, he got straight iced. Couldn't handle the power. It happens, styles.

 

Duran was amazing. And so was Hearns, which is why when people say Duran was out of shape it diminishes Hearns,Benitez and Leonard. But regardless, Duran is an ATG fighter who earned it. I honestly do not know how he would have beaten Hearns in 1984 when Tommy was at his peak in speed and reflexes. And Duran at the time was a fellow champion at 154, having beat Moore exactly one year before, then fighting Hagler in Nov. of 1983.

Actually Duran and Hearns almost fought a rematch in Dec. of 1989 had Hearns won that second fight with Leonard, but Ray got the draw. In that fight Duran would have had a better chance to win since Hearns was a little more shopworn, but I still think Tommy stops him by TKO in about 7 or 8 in 1989 or 1990.

 

I guess, alternatively, you could say Duran tried what worked for him against Hagler who.was also a bigger man.

 

Duran no longer had the speed he still had in Montreal, and Hearns had more reach and was a more destructive puncher than Leonard. Simple as that.

 

I think MAG is the only one here who doesn't acknowledge that really. It's rather the idea that he on top of being aging and above his best weight also was in **** poor shape for some of his most important fights that rub people the wrong way.

 

Hearns is a rather odd puzzle to solve. Moreso for Roberto than for Hagler or Leonard, since he is smaller, doesn't have the footspeed of Leonard or the chin of Hagler.

I don't think he has much chance in a repeat performance. Hearns is like that for some fighters -- just an almost insurmountable hurdle. That left jab flicks in your face from miles away, and when you come in, an arrow like lightning that hurts like no other.

Duran's best gameplan is to come in under the jab and work the body or sneak a right hand upstairs. Duran can't really feint Hearns, since he has to come such a long way and Hearns can keep his ideal distance pretty well.

Leonard had all the tools and he was pretty much out of the fight for the early part of it. He could avoid critical damage, but Roberto is just going to ship too many punches on account of his slower feet.

 

That's the crux of it.

 

In response to the thread, I think if he had of come out all guns blazing, aggresively, people would be asking now "why didn't he come out boxing, feel his way into the fight".

 

Hearns had Durans number plain and simple. In the book Four Kings I believe it was Steward who claimed that Duran was freaked out by Hearns. Duran was usually confident against anyone but not Hearns and it showed in the ring. It was a bad matchup stylewise. Hearns had too much height, reach, speed and power for Duran. If Tommy was a slow slugger Duran would've had a good chance but Tommy wasn't. Duran couldn't get inside enough to do any damage. He was forced outside in Tommy's punching range which was suicide against Hearns and the result showed this.

 

Which fights of the fab four fought long at their "best weight"? Hagler? That is all. Hearns moved up and fought past 147, and even his secondary weight of 154 for years. if you look at any post I make about past or present fighters, the one thing I do not accept are excuses. If they can accept when they win, they should give credit when they lose. If someone lost to Duran and his opponent said he didn't train everyone would say sure he didn't. But with Duran somehow it is believed.

If a guy cannot perform at a high level, why is he given fights with Leonard, Benitez,Hearns,Hagler? Come on. 4 fights and he didn't win any of them, and it is because he was older and out of shape. And he fought at 154 earlier than Hearns,Benitez and Leonard did. The fact he beat Barkley at the end of the 1980s, when he fought those 3 at the beginning is also significant.
And lastly, if Duran fought his best opponents at a higher weight, then that is significant. Unless his lightweight competition gets him to 1-10 ATG. I really have not changed anything I have said for 20 years, and for 4 years on ESB. It must be boring for you guys to hear this again. I really am just repeating what i have already said, but you guys keep responding with the same comments also.

 

I would go with Hearns was able to impose his will or Duran thought he could box with Duran. When a boxer fight's in a way that might not be the best style for him either his oponent was able to impose his will on him or his own ego gets in the way.