Did Duran just have Leonards # that night, Or did Sugar just fight the wrong fight?

JohnThomas1;17994701]Really? I've never heard of anyone having it anywhere near what the judges did. I've seldom seen anyone describe it as anything but comfortable. Common scores from experts around the time and also in here over the years was about 10-5 Hagler, some going down to 9-6.

In your opinion. Mine is they were a lot nearer the mark than those of Hagler fans, or Duran detractors

By definition official scorecards can't be conjecture.

What is without doubt pure conjecture and frankly absurd is the idea that an American trainer, of an American fighter, fighting in front American officials, in America would tell his fighter he needs to win the last 2 rounds due some imaginary bias towards a Panamanian fighter, as opposed to acknowledging his boy was quite possibly losing.

Then again Dundee saying " Your blowin it son " to Leonard in a fight is probably bullsh!t too, eh?

.

See above. I simply don't buy into conspiracy theories of crooked Murican judges penalising Murican fighters in America against foreign fighters. I know the reverse to be true, as evidenced in Lewis / Holy 1 and a certain Eugina Williams.

He certainly was NOT out boxing Duran, it was the last few rounds where he out fought Roberto that won him the fight.

Sentimentality from Americans towards a Panamanian is rarer than rocking horse sh!t. so I wouldn't have too much faith in that theory if I were you.

I wouldn't deny Duran had trouble with runners a la Leonard in New Orleans, but that is nothing to do with speed, plenty of fighters are good at running, doesn't make them speed merchants. As for Tommy Hearns he without doubt had very fast hands for the power he generated from his shots, unlike Leonards pitty patty arm flurries that were designed to catch tame judges eyes. However Hearns exceptionally long reach did for Duran as much as anything else in their fight. He simply couldn't work out a way to get past it, before it was goodnight nurse.

Plenty, relatively speaking. I have no interest in the alleged " class " of fighters. Suffice to say it is a word that gets bandied about far too much these days. Just like the term ATG.

 

Hearns landed a few big rights on him; otherwise, he landed very few solid shots on him, as almost everything big were parried or outright hit air. The more I watch this fight, the more shocked I am how much Hearns missed even against an older Duran. I suggest you re-watch the fight; it's only two rounds. Even after the initial booming right hand that put Duran down in the 1st, Hearns lands very little solid.

 

Exactly.

And they outline what Dundee told them about Leonard's aggressive game plan.

 

Depends what you mean by "solid" and "very little," I guess. Hearns touched him up plenty, with jabs and rights during both rounds. Hearns didn't really place his punches well but he executed brilliantly-- even the punches that missed kept Duran backing up, harried and harmless.

 

Hearns landed more square right hands on Duran in under 2 rounds than others. Landing a few big right hands on Duran in under two rounds is about as good as it gets, Duran is a defensive marvel imo.

 

Who's talking Hagler fans or Duran detractors? This is the balanced consensus view. I'd love to see your card, i had it 9-5-1 from memory. How did yours go?

The fight wasn't scheduled for 12, it's pure conjecture Duran would have won in a 12 round fight.

Well what was actually SAID is posted there for all to see. Common sense says it would have been said before the end of a 12 rounder too. It's not even debatable really.

The fights there for all to score. It's been done myriads of times in here over the years. The vast majority of cards are as i said, around 10-5 or at best for Duran 9-6. The scorecards were criticised widely among the media and boxing publications right after the fight. Criticism of the scoring is all over the internet. There's not much more to say.

You're too stuck on country. Duran won the crowd over against Hagler, who was roundly booed a couple of times. Hagler also had a siege mentality when it came to fighting in Las Vegas.

Leonard hit Duran hard at various points thru both fights. He had oodles of power at 147. Leonard also exchanged a bit among the running in the rematch, and landed the harder blows. Very hard blows at times.

Benitez didn't run.

Yeah a combination of things did Duran in from Hearns, the whole gamnut really. The spped, power, reach, the lot.

Plenty? Should be easy to name a few then? Those three are in a pretty elite class when we are talking speed, i'm very keen to hear who matched them in Durans victim list. Maybe i can move him up another spot in the P4P list.

 

New York Times

 

I am not disagreeing with what you said. Moreover, contrary to some Duran supporters, I think no version of Duran beats Hearns. Hearns is too big, too lanky, and hits too hard for Duran at any shape or age or psychological state.

All I am saying is that the dramatic ending of the bout tends to obscure what actually happened in the fight. Some folks think - or recall - a fight where Hearns landed at will; but it was actually a fight where Hearns landed a few haymakers and virtually missed everything else he threw. This wasn't so, and it doesn't take long to go and check.

 

This is why it mystifies me that Hagler was so passive versus both Duran and Leonard. He of all people would have known he could get jobbed if it's a close fight. Hagler didn't win the Leonard fight, but he has no grounds to complain even if he sould've eked out a close win. Not the brightest boxer out there. This is also why I don't favor him against some of the best middleweights of history, including Monzon.

 

I'm hearing you. I favour quite a few over him H2H. For some reason he's never impressed me as much as others.

 

If you look at what Dundee said prior to the fight and then afterwards, it's obvious that he fabricated his post fight ****ysis because it certainly differs from his pre-fight ****ysis.

 

What exactly are you accusing him of obviously fabricating? Which claims in particular?

 

You said SRL didn't retreat or use lateral movement. Look at round one, shall we count the times he retreated and circled and boxed? You won't like the results. You keep claiming you've seen the fight. Amuse me then. Watch the first round, and tell me how many times he retreated, and how that mushes with your, he didn't retreat stance?

Then what happens... he gets hurt the next round and his mind is in cloud for the next 3 to 4 rounds. All the while taking brutal punishment to the body. You don't seem to mention that commentary about the brutal body shots and how they will affect SRL later it the fight. i.e. less movement. Can you explain to me how you could be so wrong about your description of a fight you claimed you recently watched?

 

We've been through this before. Of course he used some lateral movement. Nothing at all like the footwork that he used in the many other fights that I've posted repeatedly for your viewing pleasure and edification. Again, your claim that Leonard came out fighting this fight just like he always fought is absolutely bizarre and obviously wrong. Can't say that strongly enough. I'm sincerely confused by your refusal to acknowledge the obvious.

 

PS--Other posters and I have already explained why we don't find the "mind in a cloud" explanation particularly plausible, so I won't rehash here.