I don't care what the highest listing for his height was. Bump him up to 5'8" with his hair if you want. Doesn't change the point. Hagler was a short MW period. If Duran wanted to fight him for his height... understandable. Hagler still had a big reach that played a factor in the match..
why make him shorter than he is? Hagler was 5-9 1/2 or 3/4, and Duran was near his height in many pictures. Hagler did have a long reach 75 inches.
Yes but he frequently engaged and simply beat Duran to the punch. I would have no argument with anyone labeling it Benitez's best night. It was a compelling performance.
A couple of points if i may DJ. Labeling Duran a swarmer does him a huge injustice IMO, to put it mildly. He was so so much more. He was perhaps the most underrated fighter defensively for around a decade. He had some great wins past 31 and one indeed at what, 37? I wouldn't agree he aged quickly in the ring. He had 12 years of pro boxing and 72 fights behind him when he beat SRL which included around half a dozen years defending his title a dozen times. Things certainly got inconsistent thereafter but he still managed two great back to back efforts against Moore and Hagler and then one last crazy hurrah against Barkley more than half a decade later. His problem in the higher divisions was that he struggled with speed and movement allied to the size when way above his peak weight and aged. What a ride he gave us tho.
Ken Buchanan is 5'7.5" as well and looked much taller than Duran in the ring. Regarding Hagler, he has been listed at 5'10" but that's crap. He was clearly taller than Duran but had a leaning posture. Not interested in debating these guys listed heights though. All guess work and not the point I was making.
I don't think the rather small difference in Hagler and Duran's height was Hagler leaning. Height is always pertinent in regards to boxing.
Hagler's leaning bald head down posture would certainly make him appear shorter. He fought like that cause he was often the shorter guy. Haglers height is a subject for debate. In the linked thread, most concluded he was 5'8". There are pictures of 5'9"-5'10" men like Tyson and Sugar Ray appearing much taller than him. If he is 5'8"...Duran is likely 5'6"...maybe 5'7" with his giant hair. [url]https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/how-tall-was-marvin-hagler.62715/[/url] As I said, Duran appeared shorter than 5'7" listed opponents even when his posture was straight. Buchanan comes to mind. Duran also didn't look much taller than 5'5" Pac. I have nothing else to say on this matter. I wasn't trying to be dishonest. 5'5" or 5'7"...66" or 68" reach ...Duran was an atypically small man for these weight classes, and instead of gaining muscle to move up, it looked like it was mostly water and fat. I feel too much is expected of a pressure fighter on the wrong side of 30, losing his speed, no longer the strongest, and conceding all these physical advantages. His career not surprisingly mirrors Henry Armstrong in many respects, a man I believe who was of comparable skill and physical proportions. It's odd some feel that Duran's achievements post prime mean his post prime losses should count against his legacy. I think the men that beat him past prime like Hearns and Benitez deserve credit, Duran was a beast even if he was past his best and not at an ideal weight division for his dimensions. Durans achievements while past prime are unquestionably legendary and will out live this forum.
Benitez was having one of his best ever nights. Duran always had problems with 'movers' Nonetheless,if this match up had come about at 140lbs two/three years earlier,I'd have favoured Duran.
I've always rated him. If he'd had more discipline and focus,we'd be talking about the Fab 5 of the 80s instead of Fab 4.
Benitez was a great fighter and just too god for Duran at that stage and at that weight. A couple of years earlier at WW would certainly have been more competitive, and I don't know how that would have ended.
Actually, Duran's performance wasn't all that bad. He lost fair and square, but he didn't quit as he did against Leonard. Also credit Benitez for taking the fight to Duran, and not clowning around as Leonard did.
I don't think it is odd. The fact that he fought the best fighters he ever fought past him prime makes it more pertinent than had he fought the best guys before. His level of opposition was much higher post lightweight than during, especially when it came to Leonard, Hearns, Hagler and Benitez.
Duran's legacy as a legend was already cemented after his Light Weight Run which did include victories over great fighters. He was fighting for money and bonus points after that. And shockingly he got more bonus points than was expected with the Sugar Ray, Moore, and Barkley upsets with other game efforts. The Sugar Ray win cemented his status as a p4p fighter. The losses to Benitez and Hearns in no way harmed his legacy. Anyone without a hate boner for the man can see he was a past prime fighter well above his weight class. These fights just showed us that he needed low IQ opponents to win the big ones above Welterweight. The Sugar Ray Leonard loss is the only blemish that harmed his legacy, and why people are hesitant to praise him as Great head to head welterweight.
