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

Hearns was still at his best and a natural 175 fighter over 12 years into his career when he lost to Iran Barkley for the second time.Barkley wasn't even very good and Hearns couldn't beat him in two attempts, thus proving his own weakness and non-greatness.

Frankly i find it difficult to accept excuses for his loss to Grant either.Compare to Duran's career, that's around the time Duran was losing in uno mas and beating Barkley and we all know Duran was still prime and had grown into a natural middle by then....as had Tommy in 2000 as a fully fledged cruiser.

No caveats or mitigating factors can be sensibly offered for any of Hearns losses.The man was prime, probably still is.

 

If Hearns or Duran were to come out of retirement this very year and be rendered into a quasi-vegetable state by a 20 year younger fighter...it would turn my stomach and sicken me to the core of my being to see some message board trash try and take that young man's achievement away from him with excuses.

What have we all come to on here when we can't just take wins and losses at absolute face value.Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.

 

Tommy was never really natural at 175 or even 168 and at his best. Anyone who understands body/bone structure knows that. Look at the Virgil Hill fight and tell me who looks bigger, regardless of Ferdie Pacheco saying Hearns looked bigger. And Iran Barkley was 15 years into Tommy's career not 12. 12 years after he won the title from Cuevas. What was Duran doing 12 years after he won his first title? Losing to Hearns at 154. So any argument you make I can counter.

I don't think Hearns losing to Barkley is significant to his legacy when taking into account his beating Cuevas for a title easily and Benitez for a title, Hill for a title (outboxing two boxers) and Duran easily when both were champions-how can that be discounted for a loss to Barkley-in the same way Duran fans discounting his loses to to great fighters Hearns,Benitez and Leonard and Hagler on the fact that he beat Iran Barkley in 1989 That is exactly my point about Duran and how he gets credit for beating mediocre fighters and excuses for losing to the best.
Uriah Grant in 2000? Duran and Barkley took place when Duran was 37. Duran was born June 16, 1951. That fight was I think Feb. 25, 1989 or the 24th. Hearns was 42 when he lost to Grant in April of 2000 since Hearns was born Oct. 18, 1958. He hurt his ankle, and as a matter of fact a Dr. who knew him showed sent me pictures of his bruised ankle. But since we are talking ages. When Duran was 32. He lost to Hearns by knockout. When Hearns was 32 he beat Virgil Hill who was 27 and undefeated and had 10 title defenses which was how many weight class above his starting? 30 pounds and 4 classes. Duran at 154 was 3 and just 20. .So much for that argument on Duran and Hearns at the same age. When facts are brought up about Duran the only thing which can come to his defense is he was out of shape. When that is discounted he was old. Then when I say Hearns and even Hopkins can win titles at the same age, other excuses.
And still that has nothing to do with Duran and why Duran my mind is not a 1-10 ATG. I do not see how. Duran is at most top 20-25.

 

well Duran and Hearns coming out of retirement in 2013 is not the same as Duran and Hearns fighting when they were 32 years old. Now Duran is 61 and Hearns is 54. Most fighters under the age of 30 should beat them no matter what ranking Going back almost 30 years, Duran got credit for beating Moore and Barkley with people saying he was great for those wins. When he loses during the time he beat Moore to Benitez,Hearns at the same weight -somehow he was not in shape, yet for Davey Moore he trained? At the time in 1984 I thought the excuses were ridiculous. It was easy to see that Duran just wanted to save face. And who wouldn't. But there comes a time when you give other fighters credit. We have all seen it. I lost tonight fair and square. I mean Duran said after Leonard that Leonard ran and people said yeah Leonard didn't fight he was a sissy, as Duran said after the 3rd fight in Dec. 1989 in the interview. But with Hearns he couldn't say Hearns didn't come to fight. So he comes up with being out of shape. Was he out of shape? Who knows. Duran seemed to say that when he lost to Benitez,Leonard 2 and Hearns. If he was does it matter? Did he know he would lose and just not train. Who knows. But that has a little to do with a man's greatness. Always train and come to fight. Always have confidence. Train for Davey Moore and Barkley but not for Benitez and Hearns? Where is the logic?

 

Duran connected a couple of times on Hearns chin, but right after Hearns would land and keep landing. Duran just could not hold Hearns off. He got to Hearns chin once or twice, and the last time was in round 2 when Tommy had Duran against the ropes. But Tommy was too fast. I don't see why the out of shape argument was there for Duran. Had he been in shape he still would have been hit clean by Hearns. He might have lasted another round, and still been stopped. The speed difference was a lot.

 

Just accept it MAG.Hearns was prime and peaked for all of his losses.

I'll hear no shallow excuses to refute this.

 

The sun was in his eyes?
He was only good at 135 (Typical excuse to explane his losses to Hearns, Leonard, Benitez & Hagler)
He couldn'd get kellogg's raisin bran and had to settle for Post that morning.

 

Leonard and Hagler get enough credit for beating Hearns, and no one accepts excuses. And Barkley's whole reputation is built on beating Hearns. Yet Duran wanted to take away the wins of his opponents, because he was not in shape or ate 2 steaks and had a gallon of water. Why would he do that for Leonard, and for his previous 72 or so fights he never ate that kind of risky food before a fight? Most important fights he lost he has an excuse. That is what I think is clear. He made excuses when he lost to the most importants fighters of his career, yet he did not have to when he beat Moore or Barkley. What is the variable which Hearns/Benitez/Leonard had which other guys did not? Speed. Being in shape does not and will not make Duran faster. I am not saying I buy the in shape or out of shape reasoning. But say he got in shape, he is still going to be slower.

 

but the one thing I do say is that Hearns also has wins against Hill, Benitez,Duran,Cuevas which are classic knockouts or boxing exhibitions. What hurts Hearns is his quiet demeanor and his losses to Leonard and Hagler. Had he been talkative and an extrovert like Ali that would have helped his legacy a little. Although I do think Hearns legacy will always be strong.

 

Judge the body of work.

Duran is a legend for all his accomplishments. He still lost to Hearns. It doesn't take his accomplishments away from him. He had many other big fights and big wins.

 

Tommy is only 6 inches taller than Duran. 5-7 1/2 to 6-1 1/2. but still enough.Some would say Duran is more like 5-8. I do not agree that Tommy outgrew middleweight. He wanted to win the lightheavyweight title while Hagler and Leonard held up the title in April of 1987,so he went up and beat Andries in March, then went back down to fight Roldan in October.

 

Hearns wouldn't have won if Duran didn't lose
:deal

 

2 c wot wood ochre