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

If not getting stopped is the only requirement. Duran fought to win that fight all 15 rounds. It's actually a bit of a sleeper as a classic fight.

 

It was a good win, but Barkley's strengths fit right into Hearns weakness. It was not really a beating which he gave Hearns, and Hearns was headed for probably a 4th round TKO. There were worse I agree with you and I love his spirit and heart. But Barkley sure left himself open in favor of being aggressive and landing his punches especially in his later career when he seemed to improve defensively in 1992 or so. Then he fought Toney. He had a lot of heart.

 

That fight said as much bout Hagler as it did Duran .. Durtan never should have went thew distance but Hagler lacked some confidence some times and I think it may have to do w stamina and punching himself out .. Duran never came close to hurting Hagler but fought courageous and cute and Hagler held back .. great performance by Durzan but to me it was way too much about Hagler under performing .. he did it a few times .. Vito 1, Briscoe and of course Leonard ... Marvin's biggest weakness was between his ears ....

 

something about Hearns worked well to motivate Hagler and that Marvin had no choice but to swing for the fences and the cut made it so he had to push the fight. There was question that cut was going to be a factor with the amount of blood.

 

Look at it this way. You'll never be any younger than you are right now.

 

Interesting point. He may have lacked confidence in certain ways. At the same time his biggest asset was also his determination.

 

It was but Marvin was a bit of a headcase , building his own self worth and seat at the table .. the whole Marvelous thing ... to me he had some concerns over stamina and punching himself out , he had some issues with wanting to be viewed as highly skilled and in the same glass as some top guys .. he clearly held back against Duran and Leonard unlike how he went balls to the wall against Hearns ..

 

That's what I've said for years now. Hagler when forced out of his comfort zone. ( Aggressive punchers/brawlers)When Made to initiate instead of counter usually became hesitant. Like he's over thinking what he should do.
Every fighter had a weakness, that in my opinion was his. Hagler probably would destroy fighters like Greb, Walker,Triple G, or Zale. And probably loses to fighters like Robinson, Jones Jr. Or even M.Nunn.

 

NOPE.

 

Hearns was well past prime, this is the thing, just like Duran was.

The point is that Benitez, Leonard and Hearns weren't career lightweights, they were naturally bigger men.
Benitez at 17 was fighting at a higher weight than Duran at 27. What don't you get about them not being the same size or do you just not like Duran?

 

The thing is if I don't go along with what everyone says I don't like Duran. That is a odd way of thinking. I think hew as the greatest inside instinctive fighter ever. When he had an advantage and saw the weakness he could exploit it better than anyone could. If he could win a title at 154 and then move up 5 years later and beat a big guy like Barkley he was not that small a guy and he hurt Barkley and dropped him. I know that much about boxing, the excuses go beyond the reality and they always do even with Hearns and the leg massage and nonsense with Hagler or the weight excuse for Hearns with Ray. Hearns fought as high as Cruiserweight.. I mention Hearns because he fought Duran. I could mention Pacman or Mosley or Marquez or Spinks.. being Holmes. The fact he beat Barkley shows he was not just a lightweight when he fought him. He had fought for 10 almost 10 years outside lightweight. Barkley was a good win, but it was not Spinks win against Holmes for example or even Hearns against Hill. Barkley was not a long term champion. Did he ever defend a title?

 

He was still a small guy at 154 and especially 160. And he came up against three of the best ever guys at those weights, in their primes (Hearns Benitez and Hagler).
They weren't lightweights that had move up... This is the point.
He was able to beat Moore and Barkley even though they were both very good at 154 and 160 they weren't ATG level.

Duran was a lightweight for 10 years and was past his best above 135. You don't seem to be able to understand this and use his losses against a great (greatest) middleweight and two junior middles (arguably 1 and 2 greatest) as some kind of knock against him.
Hence why people can only think that you don't like Duran.

Arguello was 3+ inches taller than Pyror, (and taller than Hagler) yet was way past his best and above his best weight when they fought.

 

I love Duran , but he was 1-5 against this group of fighters, including his loss to Benitez , this shouldn't elevate above the fab -5 because he lost the vast majority of the fights in the group. And he was the only one to quit in one fight, may not have won a rd in one,, and blitzkrieged in one.
How these performances elevates him in your opinion is beyond me.

 

Duran is the greatest of the 4 based on his overall career, his dominance, level of competition and longevity. As ready established when they met head to head he was the oldest and smallest of the 4. Was the only one to beat Leonard for years and ran Hagler to the wire all the way to 160.
Had Duran retired in 1979 you could make a pretty strong case he was better than the other 3.

 

I get that but Duran was a natural fighter. He could have fought another 10 years if not for that car accident which hurt his ribs and lungs.
I think in someways I give Duran more credit than many people in here. Which is odd to say, but I think he had the ability and found ways to beat most guys. I just like to give credit to the guys who beat him, the issues I have are with the reasoning and excuses. Duran beat guys up to a point and then speed sometimes was his weakness, at least what happened.

Saying I dislike him is not really factual. It is more the way some of his fans defend him by discounting others which is what I argue with. If I disliked Duran or wanted to discount him, then I am discounting one of the best wins of one of my favorite fighters Thomas Hearns. Duran won when he could exploit a win but when speed was in the picture that was his achilles. The elite speed. I don't think he fought that level which Hearns, Leonard and Benitez were at lightweight, and I do not think anyone here would argue that. Yes he was elite, but elite speed was what beat him each time convincingly..

I think that is where we differ. I don't think Duran was that small at 154 and 160. Not as much as people think. They put the135 pounds in there and say, ok he fought much of his career there, so therefore he belonged no where else.. Yet he hurt Barkley with that right hand. Hagler was held back by something. And when he hit Leonard, he said he felt like Bricks hit him I think it was a left hook which rocked and wobbled Ray in round 2 of the first fight. Hearns knew he was hit when he hit him and regrouped. Duran could hit. And the reason I discount the Leonard fight fair or not is because of the way Ray won in the second fight and third fight. I thought the third fight supported the second fight, even though it was later it showed Ray even slowed down himself could dominate with speed advantage and style. And he did. So I thought it was significant.