How do you rate Hearns win over Duran?

Duran was coming off one of the best performances of his career vs Moore, and having a very competitive fight vs a prime ATG Middleweight in Hagler.

The manner in which Hearns destroyed Duran is a great win I don't see how it isn't.

 

Agree 1000% The excuse making for Duran aside ( Partying, Money, Women, had too take a dump etc)
Hearns was simply all wrong for Duran. Duran could've trained like Hagler , and it wouldn't have made much of a difference.
And it's wasn't so much of a weight advantage , Duran did fine against fighters at Jr.Middle/ Middleweight , it was those other attributes Hearns possed of Height, Reach, and Speed, along with devastating power that was the key difference makers.

Fight rates high for me, because the results were so unexpected, and surprising.
But in hindsight, and realizing now of how big of a physical advantages Hearns had over Duran, the results now seem preordained.

 

The styles make fights thing is really appropriate when it comes to Hearns vs Duran.
I have always thought that Duran was the better fighter and that he would beat many guys that would beat Hearns; Leonard and Barkley for examples, and I think that you could make that case on a historic basis as well. He did better against Hagler than Hearns was able to do. But I don't think that Duran would ever beat Tommy Hearns.

 

I watched it live and agree it was somewhat shocking seeing Duran knocked but he looked like **** from the opening bell and honestly he was wildly inconsistent after the 2nd Leonard fight. He lost to Kirland Lang for God's sake. Jackson was young but ranked 9th by Ring Magazine in 84' and Curry was number one at WW in 84'. Both were killers at that time. Post Hearns, Duran only had one more major win and that was against Barkley who was nowhere near as good as either Jackson or Curry.

 

I agree that it is thought of as historically more significant because of the legend that is Duran. I'm just saying that Duran at that point was not the same guy anymore and only won one more significant fight in his career. Jackson was an ascending and dangerous fighter who was ranked in the top ten when he fought McCallum and Curry was still thought of as ultra dangerous despite losing his Welterweight titles a year or so earlier. Both were seen by boxing folks at that time as far more dangerous than Duran who was really up and down post Leonard.

 

Well Duran was coming off two very notable performances vs Moore, Hagler, when Hearns starched him.

Jackson had not beaten anyone of note when he fought McCallum, and was bit out of his depth at that stage in his career.

Curry as @salsanchezfan already said his bubble kind of got burst when he lost to Honeyghan, and whilst Curry was still formidable at 154 i don't think McCallum's win over Curry is as good as Hearns's win over Duran. As already stated it's the manner in which Hearns destroyed Duran which elevates the victory.

Here's another question do you think Duran at 154 beats Jackson and Curry ?

 

There's an excuse for every Duran lost.

 

BINGO!

 

To answer your question, I really don't think that the Duran that fought Hearns beats anyone of note. That's the problem with Duran at that time, he was wildly inconsistent and by his own admission, he simply didn't train hard and was partying way too much. The Duran that beat Moore fair much better but there is a bug difference between Curry/Jackson and Moore. Curry and Jackson are hall of famers and Moore is simply not.

 

Terrific.

How often do we see terrific results when 2 top notch fighters face each other? Can take years to put these type fights together and most often we get a decision. Very few destructions that are so complete they do not warrant a rematch. Let alone a brutal ko over a guy known for great set of whiskers.

And if you were a manager of a guy at 154, would you be calling out Hearns after that?

 

If you think about it, how really formidable WAS Curry at 154? HIs best win there? Maybe Rosi, and he was terrible in that fight. He has no real solid performances at 154.

 

Also the McCallum fights in question were competitive until they were stopped. Hearns made it look like Duran didn't belong in the ring with him.

This with someone who 5 years later would win a MW title and 10 years later give a SMW contender a tough fight.

It's impossible to be fair and overlook how great a performance it was.

 

He did look on point against McCallum, though. Until the mistake he made that got him Ko'd at least.

 

Eh, sort of; I think he ran McCallum about even for four rounds, but it's just four rounds.

 

Greatest ko of all time