Boy. I guess I imagined a fight in Montreal on June 20, 1980. The last time ROBERTO DURAN ever fought the style he had for 13 years. Your hatred has fogged yr judgement. Been doing a little blow like yr hero have ya? Whitaker would have been KNOCKED OUT in 9 at the most. You're last two post took away any credibility you had. Arguello over Duran eh? Duran no good wins? LEONARD WINNING EASILY? The ravings of a nincompoop not to visually and viscerally see Duran's greatness. You have no credibility anymore Pee. You're like the fools who say man didn't land on the moon or the Earth was flat. A fool and a liar you shall now forever be known as by anyone that read those posts. Yr idol is in yr name fool, so of course you must put down the acknowledged #1 lightweight ever.
Saad54 nails it again, as usual. Just one of the silliest and most illogical threads ever. Fighters move up when they are chasing paydays or can't make weight. Hagler made his own paydays by being the most dominant fighter at his weight for almost 10 years, which required discipline. No need to chase Spinks and the payday would have probably been less than a typical defense. Never once heard anyone clamor for a Spinks-Hagler fight, not once.
You're a clown. Let's do a proper comparison based on context: Hearns age when he fought Wilfred Duran's age when he fought Wilfred No. of years Hearns was a pro when fighting Wilfred No. of years Duran was a pro when he fought Wilfred
The idiocy continues. You were absent the day God passed out logic and context. You keep saying he lost to all the best he fought... guess the SRL fight was a mirage in my head... Jesus
No DOUBT!! Who would pay more to watch Marvin Hagler vs Michael Spinks than say Hagler vs. SCYPION? Only a moron. Good sound logic! Hey, keep helping Sad54, D9. Such good ideas!
I can appreciate both sides of the story here. Hagler was top notch, yet he never moved up (as many posters would have loved him to). Duran is a better pound-for-pound great. Done? I think so. Stick a fork in it. It's done.
Hearns is a "Leftover." ? LOLLLLLLLLLL Hearns was a huge name. He flattened your boy Duran The hype and suspense for a Hagler/Hearns Superfight was off the charts. Hagler flattened him. Looks like Marvin did get super motivated for Hearns and then exceeded all expectations in a dominant performance. Were you paying attention at all to the boxing scene in 1985?
So what top 10 contenders should Hagler have fought but missed out on? Ronnie Harris? Do you really think the light hitting Harris would have kept Hagler off him for the duration? It's not Hagler's fault Briscoe wasn't prime when he fought him. Hagler didn't turn pro until '72.
Duran didn't take a chance. He cashed in on the Moore win. He was lucky to face a novice with crap defense who was made to order for him in Davey Moore. For all rights, it looked like Duran was done when Benitez easily schooled him and then Laing outsped him. Then, he cashed in and got fights with Hagler and Hearns. There was nobody besides these two he could get really big $$$ to fight. Conversely, there were a lot of guys Hagler could big $$$ for who wanted his title. Duran, Hearns and Leonard. Why should he jump all the way up to 175 lbs and get beaten by a guy who was one of the best LHWs of all time - Michael Spinks. I would call Marvin Hagler smart for not persuing that fight.
Bobo Olson, as MW Champ. moved up and challenged one of the greatest lightheavy Champs of all time, ARCHIE MOORE. (The word "Bobo" in Hawaiian means "huevos"). "Carl Olson was an American boxer. He was the World Middleweight champion between October 1953 and December 1955, the longest reign of any champion in that division during the 1950's" 1955-06-22 : Bobo Olson 170ΒΌ lbs lost to Archie Moore 175 lbs by KO at 1:19 in round 3 of 15 Location: Polo Grounds, New York, New York, USA Referee: Ruby Goldstein World Light Heavyweight Title Attendance: 27,435 Archie Moore earned a $90,000 paycheck for the fight. (The Ring Magazine) Olson was dropped with a left hook.
I always said Duran's nickname should have been Excusas de Piedras. The number of years Hearns was a pro when he fought Virgil Hill at lightheavyweight? Longer amount of time since his first title than Duran to Benitez. The excuses for Duran are too many, which started with him. And then his fans kept it going. I think the clowns are the ones who use excuses for loses, which were not losses when Duran was old or out of weight class.. And Duran fought until 2001. I think that fact is significant.
He did not lose to Sugar Ray Leonard 2 times? And easily and he quit the 2nd fight when Ray was starting to land more to the head and the body.. Look at the video. Duran turned his back and quit as Ray was hitting him to the body. I think Benitez is the key when talking about Duran and fighting elites at 135. Benitez came from 140 and stylistically he would have always been bad for Duran. About Duran losing to all the greats. My comment was factual. Saying he lost to all the greats he fought is true. Did he not lose to them regardless of the excuses of why he lost. Not motivated, too heavy, too old.. ate 5 steaks and drank 2 gallons of water and had to use the bathroom. over and over, and yet when he beat lesser than greats Moore and Barkley, he becomes the greatest of all time again.. Double standards with Duran. But the excuses are something else. I guess this is idiosy or what someone else said trolling, which I am not sure what that is, but it is a comment which tries to diminish my opinion-apparently. Duran was a great fighter, but a bit overrated. he did not fight the cream of the crop at lightweight, and he did later. So it is hard to fit him anywhere. He never had a Floyd or Pernell. that fast defensive guy who would have fought Duran at their distance and countered him with speed. Fought their fight. Like I said, I think Benitez is the key.
I don't think there was any good reason for Hagler to move up to face a prime great light-heavyweight who was about 6 inches taller than himself and a deadly puncher. Especially since the bigger money fights were against Hearns and Leonard. Hagler was a middleweight. He wasn't a huge freak middleweight, he was about 5'8 or 5'9. He wouldn't have defeated Michael Spinks. He was comfortable dominating the middleweight division, which has historically been more prestigous (glamorous) and lucrative than the light-heavyweight division anyway. You know all of this is true. Perhaps you should have titled the thread "Hagler was a whiner" because that's probably the only solid point you're making. But if we judge him on his fights and his record and achievements it's hard to find many holes in him. To use Duran as a model for "moving up" is of limited use anyway. As people here correctly point out, Duran went up the weights and achieved great things but he also lost to Laing, Benitez, Hagler, quit pathetically against Leonard, and was destroyed by Hearns. He also ate like a pig and had bad habits. He's hardly shining example.
Pretty sure he was talking about the paydays to fight Duran, Hearns and Leonard. Nice cherry picking by choosing Scypion. Sorry you cannot read between the lines.