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

Its wasn't a meaningless win for Hearns. It was a good win and the way he did it was very impressive. Duran was still a good 154lber. He brought some things to the table even past his best division. He also brought a big name and a good $$$$ payday.

Hearns did what he was supposed to do.

The fight proved one thing and one thing only. Tommy Hearns was a better 154lb boxer than Roberto Duran. A simple fact.

 

Do you realize how you reinforce my case without even realizing it? You mention how insignificant Barkley is... I agree he wasn't a world beater.. yet Tommy lost to him.. TWiCE.. JUST as far into his career as Duran lost to Tommy... Wanna know the key difference.. Tommy WAS an ATG fighter fighting in HIS PRIME AT.. let me repeat.. AT his best weight. Just like SRL was and Hagler was. All well into Duran's career. What is so difficult to understand... On one hand you say Hearns lost to barkely but it was well into his career and he wasn't the same fighter.. Odd because Duran lost to Hearns just as far into is career.. but Hearns IS an ATG figther unlike barkley. Who are you more likely to lose to.. an ATG fighter in their prime at their best weight... or an semi good fighter at his best weight? Just answer the question. So.. as you can see... The excuse you gave for Barkley carries even more weight for Duran.

 

Whatever way you look at it Duran wasn't as good post lightweight for all kinds of reasons mainly lifestyle. It doesn't matter wether he was at certain weights before other people, he just did have a physical disadvantage against all of them. They were simply all naturally bigger men, he started out as a bantamweight. When that photo was taken, Barkley was there as well, you wouldn't imagine that them two had shared the ring together the size difference. I was sitting with them at the fights.

 

You put Roberto Duran to sleep, you accomplished something. Keep the gloves. To say that doesn't happen very often is an understatement.

 

Your whole argument is based around Iran Barkley? The best stylistic matchup for Duran and worst one for Hearns? Well still, what greats did Duran beat? What great fighter did Duran ever knockout?

You don't read what people post, so you think I am reinforcing your case. If Tommy only fought Barkley and never fought Duran or Benitez or Cuevas or Hill, then I could see your point. Barkley was not close to Tommy's level, that is why it is seen as a great stylistic matchup for Barkley. His past does not match the win, and Hearns resume is much better than Barkleys And Hearns still wanted the rematch. I thought he should have stayed away from it. He had beaten Virgil Hill and had other fights to fight, but he wanted to fight Barkley. Yes losing to Hearns was more possible and it was predictable that Duran would when he fought guys who were great, he always seemed to lose.
Against Benitez,Hearns,Leonard,Hagler 1-5 . I think sticking around the Barkley comparision does benefit the Duran argument, but Hearns beating Virgil Hill or Benitez is something Duran never could do. Barkley is what people use to say Duran was great, yet they say he was washed up when he fought Leonard 2, Benitez and Hearns. at the age of 29-32. And he fought until he was 50, another 35 times and 17 years after Hearns. As a matter of fact, the Hearns fight was the mid point in Duran's career in years. 17 years in and 17 from his retirement.
And Hearns beating Virgil Hill when Tommy was 32, and Duran losing to Hearns when Duran was 32 is good proof of something. Duran did not beat an undefeated guy 4 weight classes above his starting championship weight. He never did.

And comparing Barkley to Hearns is where you get confusing. Barkley (when he fought Hearns) had not been champion yet. He had lost to Kalambay and a few years before that to Robbie Sims. He got the fight by beating Olajide in early April. So Hearns losing to him was an upset. Hearns by 1984 when he fought Duran was considered a legend and had fought Leonard, and beaten Cuevas for his first title and Benitez for his second. He had only lost once to Sugar Ray Leonard. I am looking more at the wins a guy has , and how he did vs. other greats. If you look at my posts on other subject, I always say a man if great if he beats other great fighters. Virgil Hill I think get the bad end of people's opinions because he was not exciting. Yet the man has 25 or so title defenses in 4 reigns as champion. Thankfully, they still inducted him in the Hall of Fame this year.

 

just because Tommy was 6-1 doesn't mean fighting at light heavyweight was natural for him. If you look at him 168 and above, his legs were always small for his body, but he won two 175 pound titles. And he didn't just fight anyone, he fought the best lightheavyweight who was champion for almost 4 years. He didn't handpick Virgil, Virgil kept calling him out because he thought he could beat Hearns after seeing Tommy against Barkley and Kinchen. But Tommy fought a smart fight against a Hall of Fame fighter who was undefeated. Virgil called out Tommy for years. He thought because Tommy threw a lot of punches, he could land the counter left. Tommy fights him and doesn't throw his right carelessly.
My point about Duran is , he fought well until he fought the great fighters. If the ranks were filled with Moores and Barkleys, Duran would have been undisputed middleweight champion. He was good enough to beat them and didn't say he was out of shape after he fought them. Yet when he fought the greats Hearns,Benitez,Leonard 2, he was out of shape. And take into consideration that those guys were the greatest guys he ever fought. He didn't have that competition to fight at lightweight. It isn't like he beat Arguello and Chavez or Mayweather at lightweight and moved up.

 

And Duran was WBA Jr Middleweight champion at the time, and had just fought at 160 7 months before.

 

These Duran threads are where I get most of my post count. I actually do not enjoy posting on them as much as you people think. And I respect most of the guys who love Duran like Bogatazo or Duranimal. My points are really about the excuses Duran gets and not really his lightweight career. And even when he won the first Leonard fight, when people say it was the greatest win of all time. How can that be? Ray was not a superfighter yet. 2nd defense of his first title and he was not knocked out. Greater win than Ali over Liston? That level of a win? No way.

 

Yes but light middleweight suited him where he fought Duran. I know what your saying about he fought greater fighters above lightweight but he was older himself, not just in years, he'd had a lot of fights as well and he was smaller.
Don't get me wrong I really rate Tommy's achievements at lightheavy and the blowout of Duran, he did the job. Even if Duran was in top shape Hearn's might of still took him out like that on that night, he was on fire like when he blew away James Schuler.
It's been mentioned here that Duran didn't get in shape because he knew Hearns and Benitez were gonna beat him, I can't see that. It wasn't just them, he did it with lesser fighters as well even going back to his lightweight days but got away with it most of the time. At the time there was talk about how he used to let his weight get out of control between fights, I think that's why they kept him busy.
I think that was just Duran. Sometimes he was in better shape than other times.
I agree though you can't do that and then make excuses about it, it's your own fault. The other fella has worked hard let him take the credit.

 

One day it's going to hit mag like a sledgehammer that most posters on here don't actually make excessive excuses for Duran's 80s losses and that he's actually just a paranoid obsessed maniac.

It's like he's living in some sort of circa late 90s-early 00's timewarp when boxing forums were taking off and still a new thing for many, the nutters were flowing in and all those arguments were raging back and forth between angry middle aged men who had let it all build up since the 70s and 80s and now had place to vent.

 

I do not buy the in or out of shape excuses the same as I don't buy Hearns excuse or his handlers that he had his legs massaged before Hagler and that made them weak. Why didn't he lose to Luigi Minchillo or have his legs massaged before that fight. It seemed convienient, and that is an opinion of my favorite fighter. I don't blame fighters for making excuses, but I don't take them very seriously. They are paid to get in shape and come in the best they can.

 

I think Hearns lost the Hagler fight because he fought the wrong fight, not saying he would of won any other way but he should of tried to box in that one.

 

Well that could be said for either side of the argument. I watched the fights in the 1980s and enjoyed them all, but I lived the fights and read the paper everyday and knew what was going on. The fights are there to be won or lost. I don't think the thought should be " lets lose the fight and then think of a good excuse to save face. "
If Duran was great because he had a great lightweight career, then people should say it. But if they say he was great because he beat Leonard in the first fight, and that was the greatest win ever, then they have to admit that if his greatest win was post lightweight, then post lightweight is valid era where he can be rated. And, that is when he fought the greatest fighters. But to do this, his fans have to create a sort of mental puzzle- a confusing puzzle of selective reasoning and excuses. He won this great fight, but lost the next because he was out of shape-Selectively pick when a fighter gets credit and when he doesn't. He won because he was great, yet lost because he had an excuse. He beat Moore and proved he was great and lost to Hearns soon after at the same weight because he didn't train. He beat Barkley in 1989 at middleweight and he is the greatest ever, but lost to Benitez in 1982 when he was out of shape at 154 and old 7 years before.

I would think a paranoid obsessed boxing fan would have less facts since what I am saying is completely factual. Look it up. It is all there in print. I have not made up one thing.
Too many times I wanted to see Duran come to fight and win, and he ended up losing in fights like Leonard 2 or Benitez or Hearns where he couldn't compete. I mean he barely landed punches or did much. And the excuses were then produced.

 

I love Tommy, but he fought a ridiculous fight based on too much confidence that he would stop Hagler. He believe if he could stop a guy as great as Duran in 2 rounds, that he could stop Hagler just as easily, and Hagler believed to beat Hearns he had to take away Tommy's punching room and brawl and take punches to give them. Hagler earned that victory Also Marvin was so fired up since Hearns insulted him too much in press conferences. That might have worked against Tommy to get Marvin fired up. Tommy is my favorite fighter, but he should have come out clinching and slowing Marvin down. I am not sure anyone would have beaten Marvin that night. He was pumped up and as he said before that he felt good. Great fight, but rather reckless on both guy's part.