Fab 4: Which is Most Moronic Move?

Norton couldn`t get away from Foreman`s out stretched arms, he parried Norrton`s shots like Saddler used to and punched from where his hands were near the target, it`s a myth that the younge Foreman didn`t have short punches, his blows were hard to evade.

 

He said I`ve got the shits.

 

Douglas being overweight and unprepared was more moronic, checking his glove for blood and quiting wheen he wasn`t that hurt from Holy`s right hand was also moronic, he just didn`t have his heart in it at all.

 

This is true.

 

asero,

I think only the Hagler example in the Leonard fight is a good example of a "moronic move," so it wins the award by default. Let me try to explain why:

To begin with, in the Hagler v. Hearns fight, I think Hearns had no choice but to "punch his way out" and gain Hagler's respect. For whatever reason, Hagler came out uncharacteristically fast and aggressive and forced Hearns to battle. In fact, given Hearns' seemingly shot legs even during the first round, his approach may have been a necessity. I don't think Hearns had the conditioning to go the full distance, even if he got on his bike, ran and jabbed. Finally, Hearns came far closer to winning with this strategy than is sometimes credited. On the one hand, who knows whether he would not have knocked Hagler out if he didn't break his hand in the early or middle of the first round. We all saw the first big right shook Hagler more than perhaps any punch in Marvin's career; and Hagler started taking the rights well only because Hearns was throwing funny hammer fist type of punches once the break occurred. It's obvious onscreen, and I knew something was up even before I heard reports of the break. On the other hand, more likely, Marvin was having a lot of issues with cuts at this stage in his career, and I think Hearns would have more likely have forced the trigger-happy Richard Steele to stop the fight on cuts but for the break.

Next, in the case of Duran v. Leonard I, to chide Leonard's camp for the wrong strategy is a bit of a 20/20 hindsight thinking, among other things. Duran was a smaller guy, with presumptively weaker chin and punch in absolute (that is, not pound-per-pound) terms. It is also reasonable to think that Leonard would beat Duran to the punch due to the faster hands. So why not force the action and exchange? Test the aging, smaller guy. Sure, this may have been the wrong decision in hindsight, but at the time it was an eminently reasonable decision. And "moronic" requires something on the order of "how could any sensible being have thought that at the time?" I also think Leonard's camp has oversold the "bad strategy" argument to rationalize the loss, too. Instead, I think what Montreal showed was that at their best Duran was simply better than Leonard - even in absolute terms. But that's an argument that is not germane to this thread.

Now, in the "no mas" bout, I think Duran simply had a reflex, visceral decision to abandon a scene where he was being embarrassed and frustrated. It's almost a "crime of passion" type of situation, as we call it in law, and there is not much of a rational element in it to call "moronic." But I guess this is a semantic issue, as I think "moronic" or "stupid" as something close to "badly reasoned," rather than "absent any reason" or whatever.

 

Yeah, you pretty much echo what I wrote in my typical long-winded fashion.

Dude, "Fab Four" examples!

 

He did quit, but those were not the exact words.

 

YES it is, he said something along the lines of "I'm not going to carry on", which translates in Spanish: "No sigo".
Very different from "No mas".

 

I don’t think Duran quitting against Leonard was “ Moronic.” Not exactly sure why he did it but I think he may have been having a legitimate problem in there. I’ve heard rumors over the years that he was sick. Not sure what to believe but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t out of stupidity. I think Hearns slugging with Hagler was probably the biggest mistake of all the ones listed

 

I agree. Not so much a moronic move but career damaging to an extent. He is still regarded as one of the greatest fighters of all time and probably the best at 135 but he definitely lost some paydays and fans because of the no mas fight.

I agree Hearns made poor tactical decision to bang with Hagler but because of that decision to fight, they produced one of the truly greatest rounds in boxing history. It did not hurt his legacy at all.

 

No it didn’t ruin either legacy, Duran quitting against Leonard nor Hearns losing to Hagler. But I still think it was foolish of Hearns to fight Hagler’s fight. He had the height, reach and the ability to box. Not saying he would have won the fight regardless of what he decided to do, but I think his chances would have rose considerably.

 

Hagler's slow start against Leonard -

Hagler was the bigger, stronger, more active fighter and he should have pressured Ray more from the start yes. Having said that Hagler himself would have tired more as well and the changed dynamic is debatable.

In closing i would say that Hagler and most other people on the planet thought Marvin would beat Ray no matter what Marvin did. Hagler wanted to show he could outbox Ray and this shows that Ray had him well and truly covered mentally and strategically.

Medium level - Given it's based on the hindsight of a hugely unexpected loss.

Hearns fighting to Hagler's strengths -

Hearns should have attempted to box early, for sure. I don't buy the narrative Hagler completely forced him to go toe to toe as Hearns was quite willing then after hurting Hagler very willing. Tho he'd have been pressured he could have boxed more.

In closing there's some hindsight in this one too. Even tho Haglers chin was a brick so was Durans. Hearns had just blown Duran away completely where as Hagler did not impose his will on him much at all over 15 rounds. Quite a few would not have been completely surprised to see Hearns stop Hagler at that point in time. There were also plenty however that saw a stick and move policy also aimed at carving up Haglers tender brow.

Medium/High - Based on less hindsight than the first example.


Leonard brawling with Duran -

I am in the crowd that think the Leonard of the second fight would beat the Duran of Montreal. I also believe Ray could have made a somewhat better effort to box.

Duran gave him an invaluable crash course in boxing psychology 101 in that initial bout. He knew that his best gameplan involved an aggressive Leonard and his pre fight antics somewhat brilliantly guaranteed him of just that. Sure he built up a hatred of Ray and all that he stood for (glittery easier path, money, fame etc) but i firmly believe a big part of the antics were part of an ATG strategy.

Even after Durans impressive showing against Palomino Ray would have thought that he could have outslugged Duran if need be given he was moving up from 135 and Ray had so much speed and power in his fists. Duran had trolled him up into a rage and Leonard wanted to hurt Duran as much as Duran wanted to hurt him.

In closing Duran out thought Ray leading up to the bout and it was always going to end up in a bit of a brawl. Leonard had to learn this lesson before he could ever combat it. It was one of the best lessons he ever learned and he was the master of big fight psychology thereafter.

Low/Medium - Credit and spoils go to the victor who comprehensively outsmarted the temporarily vanquished. It's also open to interpretation whether it would have made a difference.

Duran quitting against Leonard -

No matter what the excuses and interpretations are this has to be one of the worst decisions ever made in a boxing ring - hands down. Sure Roberto has redeemed himself and all but it did him so much harm at the time. His image of being one of the greatest warriors ever to enter a ring was demolished, at the very least for quite some time with some never letting it rest. It will certainly never be forgotten. He also gave Ray the ultimate revenge by not taking his beating like a man. So much irony in this one comparative to the first fight. Leonard absolutely took his beating like a man.

In closing it's a stand out winner. It caused Roberto so much anguish and that's a shame.

Immense - It doesn't get any bigger.

 

I don't think what Duran did was moronic. It was reaction, so how can it be moronic. Hearns fighting Hagler? Ray fighting Duran? Ray thought he could win that way and he was mad, but he lost the fight because of it, but in the long run losing to Duran and then winning did more for Leonard than had he won the first fight. I think Hagler coming out righty and slow was the moronic move, and then how he was mad about it after.

 

Hearns trying to take out Hagler early.

 

I think Hearns would have been smarter to punch more with the right when Hagler went righty since when Marvin was southpaw Hearns would have to move to the right to punch the side of Hagler head which was when Marvin would be more open to being hit and hurt by Hearns. When Hearns hurt Hagler, Hearns was against the ropes and could land to the side of Marvin's head,which was how he would hit him on the side of the temple maybe a little lower on the rightside. But when Hagler went southpaw, Hearns was punching a little awkwardly trying to punch to the side but the strength of Marvin's head caughing a lot of resistance since the back of the head muscles were very strong in Marvin and probably in most people compared to the side of the head muscles. A punch which Hearns might have worked on more of the rematch would have been the uppercut.