Did Hagler Really Fight The Wrong Fight Against Duran?

He had a small cut but you cannot make this fight more dramatic than it was. Hagler was on autopilot and turned it up on the end for insurance for the decision.

 

People bleed during pillow fights too. What's your point?

 

That is not the fight I saw, nor is it the fight the official judges saw. It was a close, fast, crisp title fight. Hagler pulled it out at the end. He had more left the last 3. Many close rounds.

 

Reality usually. That's where I like to keep things. You can go back and bleed on your pillows.

 

Kudos

 

it was a loss. Duran did not win. The thread is named did Hagler fight the wrong fight. But he won. He came in fighting a docile fight and with rounds and someone like Duran you give him range he can land. But Hagler pulled it out officially regardless of Duran doing that little act at the end. That was brillliant. Hagler didn't buy it. He waved off to Duran like saying get out of here.

 

Forgot what we were talking about.

 

It was a good trick. Like how at the end of the Hagler fight he was being roughed up and the bell sounds and he stands there in this macho stance like he was ready to go more. Hagler saw this and said " get out of here with that"

 

Actually thruout boxing articles columns and mags Duran got the praise, not Hagler. As SI said, it proved Duran was a fighter for the ages. Hagler was just that day's best middleweight.

 

And btw Pernell, from 83 on NOBODY was mentioning Benitez! The Duran effort obviously took too much out of him. Never to succeed again. Relegated to the dustbins of history except for dire reports of his ill health. A footnote, a stumbling block in a tale for the ages of Los Manos de Piedra! Just a trivia question answer.

 

Hagler could have fought a better tactical fight for sure. He was a bit star struck by the occasion i think and wanted to win his first Superfight so badly he got a bit careful imo.

Monzon himself said Hagler wasn't aggressive enough and didn't impose his size enough on the smaller man. Having said that Monzon also picked Duran to win pre fight.

Some seem to think people believe Hagler should have went all out and bombarded him but that is a long way from correct. He simply should have kept the pressure on and made Duran, the smaller man, fight at an uncomfortable pace rather that fighting at the pace he wanted/needed.

Duran learnt quite early on that Hagler was the stronger man inside which took away one of Duran's great strengths. After making no headway inside Duran went predominantly to the outside and fought much more conservatively for obvious reasons. He never stopped trying to land that counter right hand tho and was almost certainly trying to get his right thumb in Hagler's eye.

Hagler turned up the heat in the 6th round and Duran was showing some signs of wilting. Inexplicably Hagler eased back.

Hagler in reality won the fight clearly but he could have been more impressive that's for sure. He left himself open to a robbery and that almost happened except for him turning it on the last two rounds.

 

Sports Illustrated?? Not a really fair publication in regards to boxing. That is a big understatement about Marvin. Hagler was just the days best middleweight? I remember him being much much more than that at that time, but Sports Illustrated should know? Sports Illustrated loved a story and they got one. They were not the most boxing saavy guys. They knew the general public loved the story of guys they knew, so they built that story around it. The truth is Hagler fought a little too apprehensive. Duran made a good showing but still he lost. Hagler is diminished a little legacy wise in that fight and Duran is praised for a loss and yet Duran just beat the 154 pound titlist by knockout. You would think the win would give Hagler some credit. Duran was only 32. Floyd was 32 in 2009-11 years ago. Hagler didn't get credit which he should have.
Now people will say this is about the Hagler/Duran fight but then if I mention something else in relation to Duran, somehow it is outside the thread topic. The hype for the fight was built on their past as fighters. How do you put a fight in 1983 into perspective without mentioning other fights in this timespan or weight? How tight should we keep on the subject? The praise is fine but a bit overdone then and now in light of other fights. If you focus on the positives and ignore the not so great, fairness will not happen. The wins or good showing overstated and the losses understated. The Duran performance gets praise, yet if praise is distributed fairly then Hagler should get credit for a win. Not for being hit with the right, but more for realizing he came out too docile and pouring it on when he had to. The scores were too close compared to how they should have been. I forget the actual scores but if I remember correctly 2 points on 2 cards and one point on the other. Because it was still a loss for Duran and Hagler simply had to pour it on and put on the pressure and he won basically knowing what to do.

It was not a great fight. It was a very interesting fight and tactical in someways. Hagler gave Duran too much respect and if you give any room for anything Duran takes what you give him. Hearns didn't give Duran anything but a couple of rights and then Tommy lands and that takes the play away. Benitez didn't let him either. No momentum is what Duran liked. Duran landing on Hagler with the right was masterful but Marvin gave him that and was cautious probably because he felt Davey Moore was thumbed and he could be. But Hagler found a way to turn it around .

Salsanchez just said how Duran could make it so that his losses were like wins with his aura, and that is true and I add to that -how Duran acted sort of created this aura. As though when he lost he had great reason for it and it is true and his fanbase believed it. As though he wanted that to happen if guys didn't do what he wanted. Hearns was the only one who gave him no way to excuse it. Hearns did not leave it to judges or a ref or for Duran to pull out of. That is why that fight was different than all of Duran's other fights.

I think this fight was a good showing for Duran and it proves he was not old or too high in weight, but Hagler won. He didn't have the power he had at 135, but he was not the old fat guy people try to make him out to be. This was created to give him an excuse. And when I mention the losses people get upset on here because they want to perpetuate this inequity in wins and losses in regard to Duran. and this is why I mentioned Benitez in the other thread because this praise for Duran gets a little ridiculous and we lose site of Wilfred's win over Roberto which is practically ignored and forgotten. Why? And Wilfredo Benitez was probably the defensive fighter for the ages not Floyd.

People say well Pernell has something against Duran- which is not true. I just want fairness, and I do not think what I say here is outside the realm of the thread because it pertains to Roberto and Marvin and explains the situation of many fights and how these two guys had a style matchup. Because this is about defense. Marvin stood in front of Duran for the most part, a few moments on his toes probably fearing a counter. Then you have clowns like Clinton or John Thomas who have their negatives opinions because I do not buy into the myth or aura or the fanboy mentality. I want fairness in boxing in relation to eras or history and this again demostrates something, and I am not as impressed by auras or attitudes in the ring as others. I think we have to look at the totality of fights of both Marvin and Roberto to come to a fair opinion of this right. I am more impressed by results and wins against top guys. Teddy Brenner saying after the fight in 20 years Marvin Hagler will be remembered as a good fighter and Roberto Duran as a great. See opinions of the time? Was Brenner right? Of course not. Brenner was Roberto's matchmaker wasn't he?

To be fair, Duran's inside fighting and skills and taking a weakness and finding it was an incredible skill. Hagler gave him room to land and Duran took it. Barkley did too. Talk about age or weight? Not as much a factor as giving Duran what he wanted. And yet with this praise for Duran in his Hagler loss, then Benitez or Hearns don't get the same credit for actually winning against Roberto in this same time span as the Hagler fight, and a lower weight. Which negates the weight argument.

Hagler did well against Hearns because Tommy fought a fight where Marvin could land in range yet got hit clean. Marvin had not choice but to go for broke. It was either he or Tommy and blood coming from his forehead made it an issue. And Duran could not reach Hearns and Hearns was too long for Duran. Styles make fights. Hearns did get credit against Duran, but not Benitez.. Now if Duran did so well at 160 pounds and is called a fighter for the ages based on this fight against a legend and at 160 pounds then this lends credence to the fact he fought well at 160. What other conclusion can someone come up with? And why when he fought Benitez and Hearns at 154 the same rating system of fairness was not used regardless of this aura. This is explaining why I talk about other things. People will get mad at what I say, but I am respectful here and I talk about facts.

Do I think Hagler fought wrong? Yes and no. Yes in that he could have poured it on and still won, and I think he would have won the rematch in 6 rounds. I think had he poured it on in this first fight he might have stopped Roberto in 7 but he took his foot off the gas. Now when I say no he did not fight the wrong fight-no because stylewise Marvin was afraid of the right hand landing and he getting thumbed, as he thought Moore was thumbed. He was cautious for a reason and he won the fight. So the wrong style won him the fight.

 

Benitez kept his title and moved onto Hearns while Duran had to regroup and fight for another title against Moore. This happens in boxing. I do think that your stumbling block thing demostrates the problem with Duran and his fans. Benitez was a stumbling block yet he beat Duran decisively and yet Arcel said after Benitez that Duran should retire. Was Hearns a mere stumbing block for Duran also? He didn't fight for over a year after that. Benitez sure made some bad decisions after Hearns. Hamsho really hurt his trajectory. Benitez with the right picks would have done well. Staying at 154.

 

I was ringside when Hagler won the title from Minter.
I repeat Duran never slaughtered a middleweight of any class ,neither did he stop one!
If you stop 52 opponents in your 62 wins you are a puncher ,whether you can also box or not does not detract from that fact one iota.
You don't stop ;
Finnegan x2
Hamshox2
Obelmiajas
Roldan
Hart
Mugabi
Hearns
Scypion
Watts
Sibson
Antuofermo
Minter
Colbert
Monroex2
Seales
Hamani
If you cannot punch.