Duran/Hearns the myth

Exhibit A of what I was referring to earlier.

 

He was thicker at the weight. Probably a bit stronger/sturdier. He was also less mobile.

Those are the only differences I have ever noticed. There's nothing to suggest he wouldn't have done the same to those guys at 147.

 

Less mobile? Nonsense. He was better in every way.
You're free to disagree of course, but you'd be in the minority.

 

Thanks brother![/QUOTE]

 

I do agree Hears should be favored at 147 or 154, and I would pick him to win. That said, I seems at 147, I think it's closer than some. Big John illustrates the points well on why Hearns should be favored. However, what I couldn't help but notice in their actual fight, as Pernell even notes, Hearns left himself open to counters and fought too aggressively. He was mixing it up in close, in spots he didn't need to. I can't help but think a peak Duran wouldn't have been sharper, and capitalized on one of those openings, where he didn't in their actual fight. Mix that with not really thinking Hearns egs at 147 as much as 154. Just don't like him hurt at that weight against that Duran. Again, that is just why I think it's closer and could happen, but agree, I'd put my money on Hearns in the end.

 

Because, he was a great fighter. True great fighters not only want to win, but want to win impressively. Theirs nothing more impressive in boxing than stopping the opponent, especially when that opponent is considered great and is prime or close to it.
If Hearns fought with the mentality of say, Mayweather Jr. With his physical ability and advantages, ATG skill set, he may have gone undefeated until the mid 90's. But would history actually remember him favorably?

 

Yes, he would not be remembered well, and being in the fab 4 category helps that legacy. That is why the fab 4 is remembered well they fought everyone. Floyd's big thing was to say he was undefeated, and he probably thinks he can say that none of the greats from the past were undefeated so that makes him the best. He set it up. I don't think Floyd is impressive at all and his career is incomplete. I figure he will keep fighting now and make millions handpicking still at his age now.

My point about Hearns is, and I am one of Hearns greatest fans- but to be honest his defensive lapses did frustrate me when he was fighting. He could have had just as many knockouts by using his jab and breaking guys down slowly, and then using his great left hook to the body once he had them going back, and then dropping in the right hand as they were being cut up and softened up more. Doing that would have been more logical than when he came out going crazy and throwing punches, which was not setting them up like he could do or did more when he younger. He wanted an exciting fight so he would throw everything at them and if the opponent hung in there it became a shootout. This was what happened later in his career at times more than earlier like I said, when he was so sharp they didn't hang around or he outboxed them easily when they did hang around. Later on he seemed to brawl more. Even against lesser guys he made easy fights exciting. But he didn't have to.. It was just a thought. I think he is one of the greatest ever and if anything he is underrated. But still, I never understood the reckless way he sometimes fought, and that reckless way really did hurt him against Hagler and Barkley, and the Leonard rematch was his to win- bad decision or not .Had he come out in round 12 boxing and using his jab he wins that round and the fight. No draw.

 

Why am i not one bit surprised? Duran beats Leonard - relevant. Leonard beats Duran not long later, by a quit none the less - irrelevant.

It in no way takes away his win. The win was amazing. Next fight (not much later) Leonard made it 1-1.

I'm clutching at straws?

You can't even be honest about the length of time between Duran beating Leonard and Leonard beating Hearns!!!!! The length of time was 15 months not 10!!!! you weren't even close!!!

Also i said PEAK not PRIME - don't distort my comments. I'm clutching? There is a big difference between peak and prime. Leonard had entered his prime by the time he fought Duran. A primate would understand that. He was not however "utter peak".

Duran pushed him hard towards his peak with a crash course (a very advanced one) in boxing psychology. Overcoming adversity by coming back after a tough tough loss and making Duran capitulate in the rematch gave him another big push toward his peak. It's possibly debatable whether he was completely peak before stepping in with Hearns or whether he would ave been even (slightly) better by coming out the other side again when he had to show enormous heart and superb adaptability on the fly. I'd guess he was peak stepping into the ring that night.

 

Admittedly i am toeing a very strong line very slightly imo to the side of center. It's only because of what i am up against if you catch my drift mate. Sometimes a harsh but reasonably defendable (imo) approach is needed.

At the same time i do appreciate fully the points you yourself are putting across.

 

Leonard didn't make Duran capitulate in the rematch. Duran did.
Duran came in out of shape, even Leonard admits that, so why can't people like you?
Duran wanted an immediate rematch, which would have been only fair of Leonard to give him one.
If Leonard beat him so easy why didn't he give him a rematch for nearly ten years?
He knew he could never beat an in shape 'peak/prime' Duran.

 

Duran erased this loss (to a degree) by beating Barkley after Tommy got merced. Duran really was an awesome fighter, even if he didn't always get the win or look great in victory. His ability to move up so many weight classes and still compete at the top, his longevity, the number of times he defied the odds, all of these qualities are why he's such a legend and why I personally hold him in such high regard.

Whether or not Tommy would always have his number I wouldn't want to say. Probably the version that fought him wouldn't have been favoured, but Duran proved enough throughout his career to ever write him off against anybody.

 

Yeah, it's an odd fight to demonstrate his badassery. But an undoubted badass he was. As was Hearns.

 

You obviously didn't live the period and don't have much idea of it. Duran's name was disgraced. There was no chance on mother earth a rubber match could sell at the time after he quit.

Yes Leonard was scared of fighting Duran again

 

Duran beat the best Leonard.
Leonard never beat Duran anywhere near his best.
Facts win arguments son.

 

Clearly you did and are one of those old men too ignorant to admit when he is wrong.
Another fact for you, Duran and Hearns are both considered ATG's at 147.
Hearns is at 154, Duran is not.
But Hearns stilk Ko's a prime welter Duran in 2?
It just makes no sense, even if Hearns wins, why can you not grasp that?

You've even admitted above that you appreciate reasons why the KO2 probably wouldn't happen.
Yet here you still are saying that it would?