Duran (Montreal) vs. Hearns (SRL 1)

I doubt dismiss those who say Hearns was all wrong for Duran, especially give the result when they fought. That said, Duran is also the guy who beat Barkley, the same Barkley who beat Hearns so it's not a slam dunk that Hearns just automatically always beats Duran.

As to who would win this fight, I think it boils down to whether or not Duran could get on the inside and stay there, if he can he has a change. That said and despite my comments above, I'd probably still pick Hearns.

 

Duran was my favourite fighter, but Hearns from 1980 onwards would of always had his number. It probably would of gone a few more rounds at 147lbs, but I still see The Motor City Cobra getting the job done convincingly.

 

I think Hearns still wins. Duran would certainly fare better than he did in 1984 at 154, but I'm among those who thinks Hearns is all wrong for Duran.

 

hell, i hate this ****ing **** of "montreal" duran "tokio" douglas etc etc like if they were super versions with super powers... thomas hearns not just would desttoy "montreal" duran but he would **** on his face after.... and holyfield would have exposed "tokyo" douglas "madrid" douglas" new york" douglas and " moon" douglas always easily.

 

Hearns wins on points. His style would still have been wrong for Duran but I see it going the distance

 

Duran has to avoid the long right hand of Hearns which he should be able to do with Ray Arcel and Freddie Brown in his corner, anyone could be caught cold and Duran was not in top condition. I think Duran finds a way to win at 147

 

Considering the weight would suit Duran more this could go the distance. Hearns is a stylistic nightmare for Duran though with that long piston like jab & right hand, so it's easy to go with Hearns either by late K.O or decision. But....if Duran's stuck to Hearns chest all night that negates Tommy's best weapons. Question is, could he take Tommy's best shots while getting himself into position, or avoid enough of them so he doesn't take too much punishment. Duran was a good defensive fighter after all.

I'll go with Hearns by decision, but I'm really not sure.

 

Tokyo...

After all that...do you have a response to the original question?

I think that Duran from the Leonard fight was a one off. He never really fought like that Welterweight before or after. He went back to his Buchannan days in the Leonard fight. Montreal Duran has the best chance of beating Hearns of the 1st Leonard fight because Duran's would be coming after him and putting tons of smart and slick pressume on Hearns. Duran can deal with speed showed but his dealing with Leonard.

Leonard was taking a beating from Hearns until he decided to risk his life and rush Hearns. As soon as he did he immediately turned the tables. Each time Hearns has been put under pressure he has problems with it. Even when Benetiz decided to apply harder pressure he was successfull at time.

What Duran cannot do is stand in from of Tommy and try to box with him or even circle him. Tommy is too fast, he will have the advantage...but if Duran gets inside and stays there, I think he can sting Tommy and beat him by KO...just like Leonard did...without taking the prolonged beating.

 

Hearns was Duran's unbeatable for. Ditto Frazier vs Foreman and Patterson vs Liston.

 

I say Duran has a much better chance here.

Hearns had an unbelievably weak glass chin

And Duran was already way past prime in 84

A similar question would be prime hearns vs old ass 87 washed up haggler

In that giant ring

I give the edge to glass chin in that one

A prime Duran can catch hearns on the inside And it only takes one punch

Hearns doesn't hit as hard at the lower weight an I think Duran has the edge

 

Montreal Duran beat Leonard handidly, while Hearns just a year later was knocked out by Leonard, obviously Duran would be the smart pick...

Who cares about what happened.in 1984- Duran was way beyond his prime..

Other things to consider, Barkley Knocked.out jelly legs , and.beat him again, and Duran kicked Barkleys ass....

Duran pushhed Hagler to the limit in 83- and Hagler called Duran the best boxer he ever faced, 2 years later Hagler beat Hearns to a pulp in under 3 rounds,Lol...

The Duran of 80 wins this, Hearns would have a bullseye, on those skinny ribs, Duran would work the body, and eventually break Hearns down and win a decision...

 

This is a key point. Hearns was very dry at the weight & maybe vulnerable to body shots.

 

What I've not seen mentioned in this thread and a factor that I think is worthy of consideration is that the SRL that faced Hearns in Sep 81 was undoubtedly a superior SRL to the one that faced Duran in Montreal, principally because of what SRL experienced in Montreal.

SRL in Sep 81 was a more experienced, mature and battle hardened pro than he was in Montreal, Montreal made SRL a better fighter.

My point is, that using the respective performances of Duran & Hearns against SRL at that time as a yardstick to judge how a fight between Duran & Hearns would unfold is not comparing like for like.

This is a tough fight to call - gun to my head I pick Hearns, I've read in several places (including quotes from Steward years later) that Durn (believe it or not!) was somewhat intimidated by Hearns.