Do you think Duran knew he was going to get blown up by Hearns?

Agree to disagree. I think the difference between "Montreal" Duran and regular Duran is pretty marginal relative to the huge physical/stylistic disadvantages he faced against Hearns.

Not "salty" but yeah, as a kid I really enjoyed telling my classmates that there was no Santa Claus or tooth fairy.

 

I see it the other way. Lightweight, Montreal Duran was a much different animal then some of the subsequent versions. A significant portion of Duran's success was dependent on his edge. This edge was all the more important when facing opponents who were larger than him.

Montreal and before Duran differs from the tooth fairy, I saw that Duran.

 

Do you think FOTC Frazier beats Foreman?

 

Absolutely irrelevant.

 

The difference between Montreal Duran and the bloated version Hearns faced was big enough to make a difference against the stylistic disadvantages he faces against Hearns.

 

I'm reasonably certain that Montreal Duran makes a better showing of himself, but unless he can get on the inside of Hearns, he's not going to beat him.

He did try and do that in there fight, but it took him a while to figure out how before he just say **** it and when for it, since he knew that was his only chance. of winning.

That didn't work out well at all. And every time a new round started he'd be faced with the same problem.

 

"Mugs" Hearns similar to the way Duran did Leonard in Montreal. As other poster have noted the Montreal version was a completely different version than the "docile" version Hearns faced.

 

How so? I think it's as good ****ogy as can be done, actually. There are differences of course, but then that is always the case. In this case there are more than a few similarities.

Frazier had slowed from his peak, just as Duran. Both faced an opponent with large physical advantages - a powerful puncher with a big reach advantage. Both were absolutely obliterated in two rounds, were never in the fight.

A claim that a peak Duran would be fast and sharp enough to get on the inside with Hearns is quite ****og with that a peak Frazier would be fast and sharp enough to the same with Foreman.

For any objective observer, I think the claim that a peak Duran beats Hearns is more or less as reasonable as the claim that a peak Frazier beats Foreman.

The difference would perhaps be that the argument could be made that Foreman was closer to his peak when he met Frazier than Hearns was when still at 147. That could be so. On the other hand, Hearns had generally faced better opposition when he faced SRL (if we're using that version) than Foreman had done before Frazier.

 

I think it's relevant with the exception that Duran showed he could beat a prime SRL who did go on to beat a prime Hearns. Duran also beat a prime Barkley who also beat Hearns.

So it's not inconceivable that Duran perhaps at, or close to, his peak weight of 147 might have had a better shot at a Hearns, who may have been weight drained relative to him being at 154, a weight in which Duran never really excelled at. None of this might have mattered, but it may have.

 

Well, prime Frazier beat Ali who, when several years older, would beat Foreman.

But I think the relevance of such things depends on how close they were to each other stylistically. Granted, Leonard was a lot closer to Hearns style-wise than Foreman was to Ali. But there still were differences. Leonard was a good puncher, but Hearns was a devastating one. Hearns also had an ever bigger height and reach. He was a freak at the weight.

I can't see it any other way than the tactic Duran used against Leonard in Montreal would be substantially harder against Hearns. Even if Hearns would be as relatively static as Leonard was in Montreal (and I'm far from sure that Hearns would back up in such straight lines if Duran managed to back him up) Duran would have to cross a longer distance where he could be reached but not reach, and against heavier but just as accurate bombs.

 

Impossible to disagree with any of this, really.

 

Just rewatched the fight and noticed both KDs happened because Hearns feinted to the body and made Duran drop his left. Nice stuff.

 

Stewart spend a significant amount of time studying Duran's tentancies..and you're correct, he was instructed to jab to the body then unleash the overhand right. For the most part I agree with everything you've said. As a Duran fan, it's not easy to accept he was beatable at his best, but if the right fighter, ie, Hearns fought him, it's hard to envision any other outcome than a Hearns win by KO.

 

Well, for what it's worth, even though Duran looked fantastic at WW, LW was probably his best weight and I don't think Hearns beats him there.

 

No he would probably starve to death trying to make that weight..