But you can't really compare them at different stages of their careers, fighting at a lower weight. If you starve down a young Hearns to lightweight, does he beat Duran? Knocks him out in two ? Hearns is still Hearns at lightweight, he still has all the attributes, the reach, the same power, the height? Duran is still Duran, slow and ponderous in say 1978 just as he was at 154? This is an extreme, but it's still tantamount to your argument that the result would be the same whenever they fought.
Ironically you are actually touching on why Hearns is such a difficult match for Duran. He is the naturally bigger man and is whether we are speaking 147 or 154. This along with all the other physical attributes are why he is such a stylistic dilemma for Duran. I didn't find Duran slow and ponderous against Davey Moore at 154 and nor did i find him slow and ponderous against Hagler at middleweight. These three fights were all within the time frame of 1 year. It's beyond extreme.
It's the same argument you're making. Nothing ironic at all, what are you talking about? Duran was slow and ponderous compared to his lightweight Iteration. Just like Hearns was weak and inexperienced at 147 compared to 154.
Duran was much better at 147 than 154, Hearns was better at 154 than 147, ergo it is illogical to assume the result of a fight between them at 147 would be the same as the fight at 154. This isn't putting Duran on a pedestal, it is just common sense, stylistic nightmare or not. What part of this do you dunderheads not understand?
RC, I appreciate the kind words. Thank you. You're an elite poster and a class act as well. Always have been, always will be.
You are vastly overstating Hearns deficiencies at 147 and i mean VASTLY. Coming into the Leonard fight he was 32-0 with something like 30 ko's. He had obliterated a guy many class as great in 2 rounds. He had numerous wins over top 10 contenders. Peak Leonard went life and death with him and had to pull off one of the greatest come from behind late ko's in the history of boxing. Leonard is quite likely the 2nd greatest H2H fighter in welterweight history. Trying to convey Hearns as weak at 147 isn't going to cut it. The guy was almost killing people and was one of the most feared punchers of all time at any weight.
I'm not overstating anything. You are underestimating Duran's welterweight peak. Leonard is the 2nd best welterweight of all time? What was the name of that bloke who beat him again?
They rematched almost a decade later, at a completely different weight, while both were still dangerous. That fight was going almost identically to the first. Hearns out boxing him thoroughly and shaking him up in spots, with Leonard starting to really put the hurt on him towards the end. Tommy wins over 12 at any weight . Leonard wins over 15.
I know exactly what Duran did at 147. I also know what Hearns did. Didn't Duran turn his back and quit in the rematch? 1-1. Unfortunately public demand would never have remotely considered a rubber match at that time. Leonard wasn't utter peak for Duran. He certainly was for Hearns tho.
On exactly what do you base your very strong opinion that Hearns was vastly superior at Jr. Middle compared to Welter?
Duran quitting when he was out of shape after he'd just spanked Leonard is irrelevant. Duran detractors like to bring up this as though it takes away his win. Sugar wasn't prime 10 months before but 'utter' prime v Hearns? You're clutching at straws now. We had this discussion on the forum very recently.
Beat Duran easily, beat Benitez convincingly for the title who was infinitely better than Pipino, Ko'd the very durable Geraldo while weighing 153lbs, unbeaten, could have dominated if not for wanting to fight Hagler. He was clearly much stronger physically and had grown in to his frame, stamina was obviously better, Ko power arguably even more destructive. Why don't you ask the collective boxing fanbase who repeatedly agree that he was the complete fighter at junior middle and rank him as the no 1 154 fighter in history. I hope that's good enough for you.
