Could any other former lightweight champion go 15 rounds with a prime Marvin Hagler?

Duran was 5'7 with a 67 inch reach, he gave up 8 inches in reach to Hagler and 11 inches to Hearns plus 6 inches in height .That's a huge disadvantage

 

If height and reach were the only variables only the taller fighters in the division would be champions. Margarito would have beaten Manny. No one would ever beat Hearns. Hearns did something with that speed and height and reach in his whole career which is why he excelled, with the help of Steward's brilliance. Most great fighters learn what do to with what they have best.. Which is why he was great. Duran won a title there at 154 and he is given credit for it and beat a big Barkley, so in those fights he had enough to beat them and hurt both. And his fans will state this. But when the loss to Hearns comes up then he becomes a lightweight who was small and way past his prime.

And there were ways to beat Tommy, but you had to work to get there. Hagler knew he had to crowd him and take away what Tommy did well which was jab and land the power from the outside and pick guys apart. Tommy could be beaten as anyone can it was a matter of finding a way to get inside and land and then keep it up. I never used Tommy not being a middleweight as an excuse nor that ridiculous massage excuse, nor even Tommy's weighing in 145 for Ray in the first fight. If anything Tommy was inexperienced when he fought Ray in 1981 and needed a little more seasoning, but that is boxing. He was at the marquee level and he lost. He signed the contract.

It was not easy to beat Hearns, but it could be done. Not many guys did it, as not many beat Duran. About Duran. To say he was not equipped to fight at 154 then takes away from that accomplishment against Moore and the Barkley win since if he was so small how did he win those fights? If he is diminished at the weight than his wins naturally would be diminished. My point has always been you cannot have it both ways. Does he get credit for the wins and his opponents get credit for beating him which is fair, or does he get the excuses for the losses and no credit for the wins. It cannot be both ways otherwise there is no fairness in that. What more can be said?

By your comments I suppose Hearns would have moved up and beaten Qawi easily at 175 because he was taller and had more reach. Then people will say, well Qawi was a natural light heavy. Well then Hearns would get the excuse? Probably not. People would have said look how the shorter Qawi broke down Hearns. The height and reach advantage hurt Hearns in that people assume is the only variables.. Duran knew how to box with the measurements he was given and he was great at it. Hearns knew how to box with what he was given. All great fighters are given what they have and excel. They win and they lose. I have discussed this issue for years and years. On this subject there is not much more I can say. I will leave it at that. I honestly have talked about Duran and all this so much I get the feeling here we go again when it comes up. I have said what I can say and I am going to stop now. It will get nowhere. Take care.

 

I agree and think you might be giving him too much credit.

Ray Robinson is usually classed as a top 5 all time middleweight which I think is very debatable.
Ray was pretty much a win some, lose some guy against guys like Basilio, Turpin and Fullmer, none of which were as good as a Hagler or Hearns.
Robinson had all the attributes to be a great middleweight, and he didn't usually have so much of a reach and height disadvantage as Duran did above lightweight.

Leonard had even more of an advantage against Duran on their third fight, Duran had totally lost his ability to cut the ring off by that point, which makes the third fight totally insignificant in my opinion.

We don't level the same criticisms to Robinson for not winning every fight above welterweight. (He was certainly closer to a more natural middle than Duran was a Junior middle)