Hagler - Duran : Why such a cautious fight ?

There are at least three MASSIVE DURAN FANS posting on this thread.

You're ******ed:deal

 

Trash.

 

This post is ****.

 

I think Hagler showed against Minter that he could perform under pressure. He went into the champion's home country and destroyed him in 3 rounds.

Against Hearns, he built up expectations with promises of him going to war and delivered them all. I imagine there must have been a lot of pressure on Hagler since he was going against a devastating puncher and fought with a style entirely different to his usual counter punching methods.

Duran said he had trained harder for the Hagler fight than he had for any of his fights since the first Leonard bout.

In my opinion Duran simply threw off Hagler by coming in with an entirely different gameplan than what was expected. It was not the pressure that got to him because there was not a whole lot of pressure. Credit should be given to Duran for displaying another side of himself against a bigger, stronger man. Going to war would not have worked.

Hagler did not always have the best possible gameplans to his fights though. He threw away the early rounds against Leonard by boxing orthodox and had trouble adapting to Duran's unexpected approach.

 

I feel that way about most of mine. It was "stream of consciousness" and "thinking on paper" type stuff, and the sort of result I usually delete.

Any post of mine that gets a positive response shocks the hell out of me, and it's a crap shoot anytime I hit, "Submit Reply."

You may have noticed that I'm posting much less and phasing out my presence here at ESB. (Frankly, I'm surprised to be here now.) Getting to 2000 posts was a shock, but I'd stunned make 3000 at the pace I'm now slowing to.

 

I don't agree with Manassa's words, he tends to be a bit harsh (that being an understatement). I think yours was a fair post with many opinions that could be debated. Few people here put such an effort in their posting.

I myself tend to post things that I don't always necessarily agree with. I just like to discuss boxing, that's all. It's what this place was made for.

 

Yeah, I agree, though Manassa never fails to absolutely crease me up.

Don't take it badly, I agree with The GreatA it's all about debate, and I've seen you make some seriously good points on other threads :good

 

Why do people say "He crawled inside his head"? Are you expert psychologists now? Stick with what you can see: Duran is a master boxer and he boxed very well but not enough to win. That's the story.

I appreciate the post with the quotes. Very interesting to hear the interpretations by the participants of that night. (Not armchair psychics.)

 

I watched the Montreal fight this afternoon with my son who'd never seen it, i'd allways raved on about it, cracked a few corona's & settled down for the action. My lad never said a peep, my son likes Leonard but he was in shock at the beating that Duran dished out, it was more than a beating it was one of the most masterfull displays of boxing that you'll ever see in how too neutralise a bigger & faster man & one that was being hailed as the "New" Messiah.

It's been a few years since i've sat & watched it & with the volume low & it was breathtaking, how the **** the judges had it that close is a scandal, Duran pissed it by a street, it was a total domination, whatever Leonard tried was met with superier speed firepower & all round ring smarts, Duran done a job on him from start too finish:smoke

It seems too be a modern & generational phenom for me that Duran gets knocked by some people on ESB, i find that absolutly incredible, without doubt it's from an age group between 25/37 who know **** all except u-tube & box-rec + the usual public bar/doorman gobs who've done a bit of sparring ect & anyone older obviously had the crap smacked out of them at school week in week out:yep

I've watched the sort of crowd that followed Leonard back in 89 Mirage & as we all know Leonard was a media darling & hype machine & his audience were not really fight fans, just sort of joe sheep public/michael jackson lovers, people that just wanted too be part of the event ect, buy the ticket/souvenier, no real knowlage of the sport. This was the case back in 89 when i met 3 brits couples who were going too the 3rd fight in vegas, really nice people, knew **** all about boxing but knew all about sugar ray, they'd never heard of Montreal:huh Only the Hagler fight & LaLonde, if you get my drift thats the sort of following Leonards allways had, the surburban, the preety people, the arab you could sell sand too, the GULLIBLE,that sort:smoke

 

Slitting your wrists is not the answer.

You should just get out of Alan Minter's arse. You're ****ing wedged in there, so I think you'll have to make your way forward and climb out of his mouth. He was never going to beat Hagler, cuts or not - he was having the **** punched out of him.

 

two names should explain why:

Davey Moore, end of story.

 

**** post. Ignore.

 

Nice analysis, explain why.

 

Wasn't the fight with Tommy Hearns a big moment? Did Hagler choke? If you think Hagler was cautious after what Duran did to Moore, imagine how he should have felt after what Hearns did to Duran! If anything would psyche out a fighter it would be Hearns at peak powers. Hagler didn't looked psyched out to me. The argument doesn't make sense. We are supposed to believe that Hagler was psyched out by Antuofermo, Duran, and Leonard in light of Minter and Hearns?

Why are people surprised by the fact that Antuofermo and Roberto Duran are good enough to take Hagler the distance? Antuofermo must have had something; he was the world champion. After his defense against Hagler, Antuofermo lost his title to Minter in a fight the AP had 145-143 for Antuofermo. (Antuofermo suffered a moment much like Hagler did in the Leonard fight, with a judge turning in a criminally lopsided score for the challenger.) So he was champion with some gusto. Duran would go on long after his fight with Hagler to win the WBC middleweight title from a middleweight who struck me as quite a big physically bigger and possibly stronger than Hagler.

So Hagler went the distance against these guys and you're ready to perform psychoanalysis on the man to find out why?

These types of threads seem to me to have an agenda: chip away at the Hagler mystique to bring Hagler a bit back to earth. Then others can shine a bit more brightly, no? At least isn't that the point?

 

**** off

This thread is bringing out the worst in me. I'm sorry.

EDIT: No I'm not.

--EDIT: I am, but I'm not quite as sorry as Minter was for letting a black man take his title.