Much is made here of Hagler and what must be perceived as his fragile/bendable/breakable mindset…….throw a curveball at him and he'll swing and miss every time. Get in his head and he's suddenly a robot devoid of self-awareness and initiative. Like all such boilerplate platitudes, this is too simple to be true and cuts the man short. We do this with a lot of fighters here. One such bit of "evidence" used against him in this argument is his performance against Duran in 1983. He was heavily derided at the time for being too cautious, for not using his superior natural size and strength against the smaller man coming up in weight. That sounds logical now and even after the final bell was still echoing in our ears I suppose but I think that going in, the intel everyone had at their disposal probably should have dictated a game plan similar to what we actually saw; waiting for the naturally, historically aggressive Duran to come forward and counter him. Remember that Hagler was actually considered quite a good sharpshooting counterpuncher back then, he was the complete package. The idea that he'd go all out such as he did against Hearns was probably unrealistic and perhaps not even wise, given Duran's ability to slip and counter himself. The Petronellis were noted as saying that they wanted Marvin to be relatively cautious and let Duran come to him at least in part because of Duran's noted use of his head and thumbs, etc. coupled with Hagler's history of cutting and swelling and scar tissue around the eyes. Now I would also say that Hagler probably should have turned it on earlier than he did, rather than letting Duran back into the fight in the 11th round. After testing Duran's strength to that point it should have been obvious to Marvin what his opponent had left. Where do you fall? Should Hagler have been more aggressive form the start? Did he fight the right fight from the get-go? Somewhere in the middle?
I tend to believe the fight he fought, or how he always fought around that time was pretty perfect for beating Durán, the tippy toe out-boxing and stopping to exchange or throw hard shots is almost perfect for beating a swarmer, especially a smaller. What I think happened in this fight, was Hagler gave Durán too much respect for his power, had he shrugged off those shots, which I fully believe he could've done, and threw more when he sat down on his shots, he'd have stopped Durán imo.
Pretty much fought the best way to beat him. Maybe a little something lurking at the back of his mind for him NOT to go full out and aggressive at Duran. Quite possibly maybe have ended up stopping him if he had, hard to say. Only have to look at how many times Duran actually was stopped in his career to see how hard it actually was.
I had it 9-5-1 for Hagler; never understood anyone seeing it for Duran, though I do think there are a few.
Do you know who was in Madison square garden the night Duran savaged Davy Moore? That's right Marvin Hagler,, Marvins corner thought Roberto was going to come after him and they were going to a counter punch strategy . Hagler said after the fight that Duran was using his strategy on him,trying to sucker him in and hit him with the right hand,, and it worked, Leonard said during the mid rounds that Duran was trying to frustrate Hagler. Duran told Gil Clancy later on that he just got tired in the last 3 rounds and it looked it. Hagler was turning it on toward the end against an obviously gassed Duran and couldn't really nail him. Had Marvin turned it up earlier he might have gotten the stoppage, but he'd also have gotten hit with some wicked counter rights that he didn't seem to want to risk.
No problem with that score at all, I'm a big Duran fan and I think I had it 9-6 Hagler, I think it was 8-6-1 at worst.
I dont think he fought the wrong fight. Duran just came of a spectacular win against Moorer. Marvin was always a boxer puncher and not this seek and destroy monster alot of people made him out to be. I dont think Hagler was ever stopping Duran but that being said he could have turned up the heat a little sooner.
I thought Hagler won more clearly than the judges did. That said, I do think he should have kept the pace faster and attacked more, which could have broken Duran down better and faster. I think Hagler fought at the pace Duran wanted, which allowed Duran to be fairly comfortable overall. Duran kept it that way in part by boxing defensively himself, and throwing hard quick counterpunches which kept Hagler cautious and respectful.
Personally I thought he fought tentative. I thought he would fight aggressively, push the older,smaller Duran hard. Make him use his legs, wear him down, get a mid-to late fight stoppage.
I think he gave him too much respect,I also think Duran's head movement put him off his game.Duran was pretty much," smoke and mirrors," in that fight,with a good deal of snarl and bluff ,imo.
Hagler himself said he had no choice. You dont run in on Roberto Duran! He aint no weakchinned and bodied He a rns. Hagler would have been slaughtered.
Duran was a 32 years old ex lightweight, having his first fight at middleweight. Which middleweights of any ability at all did he"slaughter"?
Watch the fight 1 rd at a time. Each a separate little fight. Watch who is landing and controlling. Watch who is running and weary. Add the rounds. ROBERTO DURAN WON THAT FIGHT. Leonard thought so in a post fight interview. Even Hagler said after he fought Leo that Duran landed more right hands than Leo.
