Duran vs Hearns 1980

And pound-for-pound, the lightweight version of Stonehands KO's Hearns, Leonard, Hagler, Barkley, etc. THAT Duran w/ all his power and speed was one tough hombre. Happy Thanksgiving to all!

 

Duran by brutal late KO. I know this won't be a popular call, but I believe it absolutely. The Duran of the Palomino and Leonard fights was as fine a welterweight fighting machine as ever stepped through the ropes. Hearns was a superb boxer, but in this war of attrition there would be only one winner. Duran, bloodied and behind on points, breaks Tommy down in savage style around the 12th or 13th round.

 

Hearns' coldcock of Duran just comes 4 years earlier.It has been said that Roberto was a bit intimidated by Tommy.

 

In my opinion the duran of 1980 at 147 could have beaten the hitman. Duran above 147 never had a lot of leg mobility,and his combinations were sporadic and slower,his output and stamina were also reduced.
The 84 bout featured an absolutely career best tommy,at his best weight versus an overweight,older duran who underestimated how good hearns was.
I watched the first leonard duran fight a few nights ago,and the difference in mobility and speed of the 147 duran to that above is VERY marked. To me tommy won their fight based mostly on his jab and speed,duran coped with ray leonards comparable speed very well at the lower weight. To me the key is if duran can cope with tommys jab then he wins,simple as that.
Hearns also has some disadvantages at 147,as he seemed weaker,less rounded and obviously less experienced.
I cant really see any repeat of the 84 affair at all,either tommy outpoints duran,or duran wins by KO...

 

Hearns KO.

 

I do feel as if some of the replies here are somewhat romantically inspired given what a great fighter Roberto Duran was. At WW, Duran was fighting above his natural weight class already, but the 1980 victory over SRL was superlative, even if Leonard did adopt the wrong strategy.

The fact of the matter is that the 2 reasons why Hearns won in 1984 still remain, namely Tommy's speed and his power. Regardless of whether Hearns was mature or not, he still had all of his offensive skills in place. Duran lost the fight in 1984 because he wasn't able to deal with Tommy's speed, as much as his power.

Obviously the 1980 Duran is better prepared and a more effective fighter than the 1984 one that turned up at Las Vegas. He'll be able to move his feet quicker and perhaps get out of the way of some of the heavy artillery coming his way. However, the first time that Hearns lands full leverage with the right cross or left hook it's still going to scramble his brains.

If Duran can get out of the way of the missiles coming at him, or turn his head at the last second like Leonard did, he has a chance to get inside and work Tommy's ribs. If he can pound Hearns to the body he can break him down. At the same time though he'll still be getting hit and therein lies Roberto's downfall.

SRL demonstrated that its possible to beat the 1981 Hearns by punishing him to the body. Of course Duran is more than capable of doing that but I think that Tommy would always have Roberto's number. SRL, being a natural welterweight and a slightly faster fighter than Hearns, was able to get out of the way or move his head to minimize the damage of Tommy's firepower. Duran was a little bit slower and that would be his downfall.

Speed kills, as they say. Hearns by stoppage.

 

Interesting post doppelganger. I would say that in general robertos head movement was better than ray leonards,maybe by the time duran got to 154 and age 33 his reflexes were diminshed,and that doesnt help against prime tommy at 154. To me the key to this fight is if duran can slip the jab/close the distance correctly. It was the fact that duran couldnt cope with the speed and brace himself for impact/see the shots or turn his head slightly which did for roberto,and these i feel are all a direct consequence of duran losing that vital split second of reflex due to age and weight...
As an aside,i feel durans chin is better than leonards as well,additionally the duran of 84 was not quick enough to get off and counter hearns,the 80 version was obviously much more able to do this and so get hearns respect or slow him down with a bomb or two,once duran can navigate the potential early storm (or even put some hurt on him) then this is a totally different fight,especially over a schedhuled 15...

 

Doppelganger, you indicate the opinion that SRL was slightly faster than Hearns, then emphasize that Tommy's speed would be the main problem for Duran to cope with. But since Roberto had little difficulty making Ray miss badly in Montreal, then isn't it contradictory to assert that the slightly less fast Hearns would somehow have more success landing?

I accept Duran's excuse of heavy partying as the main reason behind his atypical collapse at the fists of Hearns. He stood up to massive shots both before and after that episode, and never crumbled like that before or since. Coming off of Hagler, he was clearly overconfident. Tommy had conservatively decisioned Benitez, Sutherland and Minchillo entering the match with Duran. He no longer appeared to be the killer of Cuevas from four years earlier. This helped lull Manos de Piedra into a false sense of security. What did he have to fear?

Coming off of Montreal, there's no way Roberto would have approached a Hearns who had just destroyed Cuevas with the same largesse and lassitude. In 1980, everybody was predicting that Tommy would slaughter El Cholo exactly as he did Pipino. In fact, SRL's own promoter, Bob Arum, publicly predicted when asked in a televised interview prior to the Leonard-Hearns unification bout that Tommy would catch Ray early and end it quickly. (I remember this vividly, as it seemed such a stunning admission, coming from who it did.)

While undefeated, it was Hearns who was supposedly "invincible," in the minds of most, not Roberto. (A noteworthy exception to this was KO Magazine, which suggested that Duran, "May be invincible when in prime condition," even before Montreal. I believe they may have been right.)

Against Hearns in 1980, Duran would have felt himself against the wall, desperately fighting for his physical survival with everybody expecting him to get KTFO before the sound of the opening bell had faded away. That's a caged and cornered Duranimal I wouldn't bet against, especially if Hearns only managed to wound him first.

 

Too hard to call, Hearns had improved by the time he actually beat Duran in 84 compared to 80 where as Roberto had got worse, Id lean towards Hearns but it could go either way in reality regardless of what anycunt says about styles.

 

exactly. Hearns was too fast and powerful for Duran. I think Duran gets stopped in 4 rounds in 1980. I think he could go 2 more than he did in 1984, but he would be stopped just as convincingly. Hearns speed shocked Duran, and that he could land his punches so clean -Duran didn't have a chance. Not many guys went after Duran to knock him out like Hearns did. That makes a difference.

 

4 rounds indeed:nut You would say that would'nt you, another lunatic fantasy assumption, it's the same old bitter **** spewed out by you again & again & again. You've never ever once given Duran credit for anything have you, you hate him!!! You just can't get over or accept the fact that your all time dreamboat SRL got his arse handed to him.

You have a serious mental disorder that needs seeing too pal, this obsession/quest/crusade against one of the all time greats can only be described as a quantum bore & weird. Any post/thread that has a duran in it & BANG you appear like a bad attack of herpies spewing out any & every possible scenario that ultimatly ends in a duran defeat, you rubbish his victories & you crow at his missfortune, now you go get some help/therapy as it's obvious that something sinister/bad has happended to you in the past involving a Duran look-alike:smoke

 

Bravo :good

 

Well what I said was contradictory in a literal sense. But I'm sure you appreciate that it's not as simple as saying that; if X is faster than Y and Z dealt with X's speed then Z must be able to deal with Y's speed too. Ray played into Duran's hands that night in New Orleans and I don't think SRL made the best of his particular physical advantages, one of which was speed. May I also tie things down to one particular facet of speed, namely hand speed. I think that Duran can't simply avoid getting out of the way of Tommy's punches, more so because they are coming down from height, making them harder to initially see. Tommy's jab is the key as everything that's good about him works off that single punch. And it's a fast, snapping, telephone pole jab that he throws.

Fair enough, I think it's definately true that Duran wasn't in tip-top shape but he has only himself to blame for that of course. There's the assertation that Duran feared Hearns, perhaps 'fear' is too strong a word, let's say he was wary. I don't know if that's true or not but perhaps there's two reasons why Duran did not come into the fight in top shape. Either he felt that Hearns was not that challenging enough an opponent or he came in just for the money. Was he afraid of Tommy and the only reason he took the fight in 1984 was, as you said, no longer the 'Hitman' and instead was the 'Motor City Cobra'? Interestingly enough, Hearns chose the Duran fight to announce the return of the Hitman nickname.

I think even Ali stated that 'Hearns is awesome' after the demolition of Cuevas. At the time (and I was slightly too young to appreciate it), Tommy's destruction of a feared killer like Cuevas must have sent some shockwaves around the boxing world. Thing is, if Tommy had landed with his full power against Leonard he might have ended things early but of course, SRL was far too clever and slick to take too much punishment from Hearns, though he was definately hurt a few times. Duran too would not have folded in two rounds either, but I do think he would not have gone the distance.

Ok, you're making romantic-tinged assumptions there but we all do it, it's why we love this sport right? You state that Duran was 'caged and cornered' but wasn't that the case in their actual fight? I think if Hearns hits Duran with any full leverage right hands in a 1980s fight and 'wounds' him he'll go for the kill like he did in 1984. And even a nearer peak Duran won't be able to survive for too long.

 

Hearns = Stylistic nightmare and can either jab and move or wack him out. Duran may get lucky and Hearns wasnt at his peak, but he still had the tools to do the job. Hearns KO 4-8 in a classic.

 

Hearns KO's him every time. 1,000 times out of 1,000.