1980 Roberto Duran vs. Thomas Hearns @welter

Duran was the better championship fighter. By 1975 he had already gone all 15 rounds in his career; 1,2,....14, 15. Thomas didnt have the number of defenses like Duran.

Something I don't understand: why is no one gives Duran a chance, even at welter? Hagler beat Tommy quickly and Marvin is small like Roberto. Why can Marvin be successful and Roberto can't?


See next post.

 

How do you see this one going Rooster? Earlier in the post you said Hearns always beats Duran, and then this one. BTW, concerning Hagler, he was as short as Roberto, but wasn't he bigger-boned and stronger, i.e. a natural MW? I remember you made this point a while back in a post about a Hearns-Ayala match.....please clarify.....your insights are always helpful.... to me, anyway...

 

Shane was 5'9.

I am not talking about his skills... which always made the difference for him, even when he was pushing 50 becuase that was all he had left. In terms of his body, Duran was a LW. He wasn't a large LW. He was barely 5'7. He was strong, exceptionally so for a small man, but his body was box-shaped. It wasn't designed to carry 147 pounds although he could compete there. It sure as hell was designed to compete at 152 or 160.

Gil Clancy made this argument when Duran was fighting Brooks (I think) and I think it was valid then and if we can refrain from taking what happened later for granted, it is still valid. A guy like Hearns has the requisite frame. Shane does to a lesser extent. There just aren't many Hispanic fighters in history who began at FW who compete at WW and there are none who have been dangerous at MW. I think that Duran is freakish in that respect.

 

Excellent match between two of my favourite fighters.
I used to think the 84 result would occur even at welter in 80,but a closer analysis of the ray leonard fight and durans prowess at lighter weights combined with hearns lesser advantages at 147 tells me otherwise. Also,the duran of 84 at 154 was a completely different fighter than the one at 147,never mind 135. Hearns also had more strength and was more comfortable at 154 and had matured as a fighter.
I think the way duran dealt with leonards speed,power and size in 80 shows what duran could do at 147. Duran coped with rays speed,size and power with a solid chin,superb reflexes,an indomitable will and the best offense/defense combination of any fighter in history.
Leonard at 147 is not a million miles away from hearns in power and has similiar speed and only a little less size. Ray also has the better chin,stamina and defense than hearns.
Hearns is always a possibility to win because of his freakish power,jab and,speed and size,but i think the duran at 147 has the skill and most importantly the reflexes that he didnt have in 84 at 154 to do it...The key to this fight is if duran can slip hearns jab,if he can he wins if he cant he loses.....I think duran at 147 can. I think this would be a helluva fight and great to watch which skillset combination would prevail...
By the way,p4p no contest,duran by haglerisation to the power ten...

 

I had to put skills into my response when I talked about Duran's performances against Palamino and Leonard. I mentioned he wasn't dwarfed by those opponents, far from it, and he could compete with them physically as he imposed himself aggressively against both. But it wasn't all about beating those opponents strictly with brute strength and coming forward, thus I threw in "skills" for obvious reasons. Duran was cuter and slicker than given credit for, as you know.

 

I understand...

I think that Duran was at his best at LW and his effectiveness physically diminished 12 pounds over that limit. Also, he didn't age into the WW division. His voracious appetite forced him upwards.

I rank him so high because there is no other LW who did what he did to MWs. I can't see either Benny Leonard, Gans or Whitaker standing in with Hagler for 15. I really can't.

 

Stonehands. I can see Whitaker doing it. Only if Hagler fought him exactly the same way he fought Duran, and thats unlikely. But Whitaker never fought a 15 rounder throughout his career. He never had stamina problems over 12 rounds, so I'm sure he'd be able to eek out another three rounds without too much problem.

He certainly has the durability IMO. And Hagler couldn't afford to stand off a slickster like Whitaker. I'm sure my opinion aint laughable. Whitaker boxed superbly against Vazquez, who was a full fledged Jr middleweight, and as good as dominated him. Whitaker showed impressive handspeed, boxing ability, and movement up at 154lbs. Vazquez was no pushover either. One of the best Jr middleweights of the 90's.

Whitaker has the chin to stand up to Hagler, only briefly. If he got dragged into punch-up he'd more than likely evaporate. Again thats not a foregone conclusion. Whitaker stood up to the murderous bombs of Trinidad and was never knocked out in his entire career.

Depends how Hagler plays it. If he was cautious, ala Duran, he'd get taken the distance IMO. If he came out smoking against one of the finest defensive technicians the sport has ever witnessed, I'd probably opt for a late stoppage.

 

Several have made points re Hearns' chin, strength, and endurance. But those deficiencies were made clear at middleweight, not welterweight...and I'm not sure that's a fair statement in the first place considering his losses ( basically the first three; Leonard, Hagler, and Barkley) to two ATG fighters and one bonafide puncher. Also it is true that Hearns would/could be susceptible to a Duran onslaught on the inside, given Hearns' penchant for not clinching...I can see that scenario playing out...
But the reasons I don't see that unfolding are twofold...The first being is footspeed, I'm not sure Duran closes the distance between he and Hearns fast enough...Leonard was able to. BUT he did not attack in Duran's head on lines...Roberto was most furious in his attack, and he slipped punches beautifully against Leonard...but he did get hit with incoming and at the weight, Hearns hit much harder. In his fight with Hearns, Leonard strategically set up his attack in the early rounds, picking his spots...Roberto's skilled kamikaze attacks worked against Leonard, but against Hearns? Very risky stuff...Despite Hearns' shortcomings (or perceived) Leonard had to fight the fight of his life to defeat Hearns...
Hearns did not have the handspeed/coordiantion of Ray, but he had very fast handspeed in his own right.
Remember Zeferino 'Speedy' Gonzalez? A tall welter whom Duran decisioned in '79 (I think)...this brings us to another facet of Hearns that is being overlooked (maybe) while he had not reached his peak physically and disregarded fundamentals like clinching which would haunt him against Leonard...Hearns was an outstanding amatuer boxer...he has another avenue in which to beat Duran! He can outbox him! Zeferino Gonzalez cannot box nearly as well as a Thomas Hearns, but with his height he was able to give Duran trouble stylistically (but Duran was only trained for three weeks I think prior to this fight) with his height he was able to stay out of Duran's wheelhouse...For some strange reason when faced with these this tall welter (and with Hearns too) Duran tried to stand tall when he went to them...when faced with a taller foe...Duran stands straight up!
Not good against Hearns!

 

Leonard hurt him in round 5.. at WW. I am not one of those critics who argue that he had a glass jaw. That is wrong and inaccurate. But he could get tapped there and the fight could change... Leonard was no banger and he proved it. Before Leonard, Hearns was stopping damn near everyone and often early.

Duran did not become "Legs of Stone" until after Montreal. He was getting into Leonard at will. He used anges, countered, pivoted right and left all night. He also ran straight in more out of disdain than stupidity. Leonard didn't put a mark on him and never hurt him. I see him being more careful with a proven puncher like Hearns.

Duran was not a stupid fighter, although he fought the stupidest fight of his life against Hearns. You forget that Duran was incredibly flexible, agile, against Leonard. He was not the least bit stiff or stand up in that fight.

Again, the question as to whether Duran could beat Hearns in 1980 depends on whether or not he could get safely inside. I say yes. He'd get caught at times, surely but I don't see an inspired, ready Duran getting KOd so easily as the deflated balloon version in 1984.

 

Hearns was respecting Duran and showing his nice guy image to the point of touching gloves, yet he still decimated Duran in the most chilling manner one could imagine. Hearns being a genuine nice guy didn't hurt him one bit, look at the string of devastation he left for the duration of his career. Alexis Arguello is as nice a man who has ever boxed, respecting you immensely both before the bout, as well as after he almost decapitated (most times) you.

 

Yep. That's the question all right can he get inside(?) It's the getting caught at times, that would be a concern for Duran...Hearns was a cannon at welter...Duran coming into him gives him so many more opportunites to land that right cross than Leonard strategically gave him.
Addendum: Looks like I goofed on the qoute thing...oops. Please read inside the qoute box for my response. Sorry.

 

I'm not trying to diminish anything that Duran did. He was a great fighter. I think WW should have been his max, though.

 

Solid points, but every ying has a yang.

Ted Spoon is not trying to convert anybody on this issue, but rather testing how far the points can be stretched.

Duran was indeed four years removed from the brilliance we saw in Montreal, but a fighter is not completely reliant on his seconds like a car is on Petrol. Inside the ring against Hearn's there was a semblance of the man known as 'Hands of Stone' and he was stomped on.

It is completely plausible that the contrasting versions of the combatants would produce a different scenario, but outcome?

Leonard forcing his way into the lanky Hearn's has much to do with the formers reach. When Leonard really made a mark in the 6th it was compliments of a quick looping shot, round thirteen was a long cross, and the finishing touches in the 14th started off a wide, looping shot again.

The dangers that Leonard faced would be amplified against Duran because he is shorter in reach and height. Leonard is better equipped to 'force' a battle on Hearn's than a short-punching Duran. Trying to feint 'the hitman' into traps would prove difficult - it is Duran who has to commit to something as Hearn's commands the outside.

Technical proficiency can be countered against physical superiority. Duran can be 'airtight' in there, but Hearn's would not need much of a chance to shoot lighting down from above.

Thomas Hearn's was a bit of a beanpole at Welterweight, but he was a strong fighter and very hard to bully because he was so explosive. It's hard to see the smaller Duran stepping up successfully against such a package of speed, reach and power.

 

In some cases, yes, your points stand true, but Ted Spoon saw Duran vanquished in a 'predicted' fight. Hearn's did not use every ounce of strength in his body to rid of Duran, it was simply a case of when he put his foot down on the gas, Duran started to get buried.

Duran goaded Hearn's into following him into the ropes where he found it extremely difficult to avoid those long range jolts and was quickly belted about the ring and then onto the canvas.

Hearn's did not just blast Duran out - lets call it like it was and say he was the complete master of him.