Duran was a slugger?? LMAO. Nonsense. As a former lightweight, You don't take arguably the greatest middleweight of all time 15 rounds. and you don't win a belt at middleweight at the age of 38 being a slugger.
Gtfo. 'Just sluggers'. Just because Duran did't do the shoulder roll don't mean he was not exceptionally skilled. Sick and tired of people giving credit to fighters who are flashy and class them as being more skilled.
Thats actually one of the dumbest things i've ever heard. I mean Hagler was a switch hitter for goodness sake-extremely balanced and comfortable fighting in stance. I often wonder what some people on ESB are watching.
Naw, he means when both fighters game plan are to counter. Personally don't see any fights to be entertaining if both fighters are trying to counter one another. Especially since it takes one person to initiate the battle. Kind of a meh question if you ask me.
Not true. Hagler was largely a boxer for the great majority of his career. The Hearns fight was a big change, out of necessity due to Hearns's dimensions and outside boxing skills, from the way Hagler usually fought. Duran was a versatile fighter who could be a pressure fighter, or box patiently at range and beat guys that way. In the Dejesus rubber match, he showed both, first winning the fight with his boxing skills at range, then turning the pressure up later in the fight.
[QUOTE Duran was a fantastic fighter, but not what i meant by "skilled boxer", same goes for Hagler.They were more sluggers What the f***. these guys are amongst the most skilled boxers ever,maybe not the cutest or fastest or slickest.F**K. hearns hagler duran leonard
People have a tendency to watch a fight and some selected highlights of a certain fighter, and think they ALWAYS fought like that, and that defined their style. I wonder if people years from now are going to watch Mayweather-Judah and say "Mayweather was a stalker who walked down his opponents" or watch Cotto's bouts with Abdullaev and Margarito and say "Cotto was a runner who seldom took a forward step".
Rarely have I ever seen the combination of skill, ferocity, and shear brutality that the first Arguello/Pryor fight provided.
I think we've misunderstood eachother here. They were exceptionally skilled too. What i meant was; if you divide boxers up in the following categories: Boxer (Muhammad Ali), Slugger (Joe Frazier, Mike Tyson etc) i would have to put Hagler and Duran in the 2nd category. I never said "purely brawlers" as someone said. I am a big fan of Duran, and i meant no discredit. He was incrediby skilled, talented etc, but i would still have to classify him as a slugger or aggressor if you like. It might have taken a negative sound to it at ESB, but i have always understood it simply as some being boxers, some being sluggers. Nothing negative about either. The point is that Duran and Hagler are likely to be the agressive guys in there, while the boxers are going to be "on the retreat", countering etc. Very rough categories i know, and some do both things, but what i meant in the opening post was two fighters one would classify as boxers with those two categories. Anyone here ever played Title Bout? The categories that they have, Boxer, Slugger and Either as a showing of what style a fighter is, is what i meant. Nothing negative. ATG fighters with amazing skill. Hope that clears it out. :smooch Edit: Using these categories, among the fab 4: Leonard, Hearns, Hagler and Duran would most likely all be either, but with the last two having an edge towards the slugger side.