How highly do you rank Hearns win over Duran?

Only the Duran that fought Leonard in Montreal stood a chance vs Hearns, that Duran was offensively and defensively fast in every aspect of the game.
The Duran that eventually fought Hearns at 154 lbs was a fighter that was at 200 lbs weeks before the fight. You cant train to just make weight when you're dealing with a fighter the phyical attributes of Tommy Hearns.
For a fighter of Duran's style and qualities to beat Hearns, he has to be at the top of his game physically as well as mentally, Duran was rarely that in most of his fights post Montreal which is why in many instances he fought to the caliber of his opposition and was able to squeek by on his skillls alone. You cant do that with a physically gifted fighter like Hearns.

 

Certainly, if they fought again Duran would do better. However, that's only because he couldn't do worse. As others have said, this is a very bad matchup for Duran. Hearns was very close to his prime while Duran was already past his. Hearns had an absurd height, reach and power advantage. It is hard to see my man ever winning this fight at this point in their careers. Duran was never the same after their bout. He didn't fight for a year and a half and only had one big win (Barkley) in his final 15 years. Hearns pretty much ended Duran as a great fighter.

 

I have no problem with anyone rating it the greatest KO ever, and quite a few do.

Not only do we have loads of evidence beforehand of what an incredibly tough nut to crack Duran is, we also have a decade and a half of evidence after the Hearns fight when he continued fighting on and on and on as an old man in weight divisions miles about that of his prime. He beat Barkley 5 years later to win a middleweight title and comfortably soaked up quite a few bombs in doing so.

It was just shocking and hasn't become any less shocking with time - more so if anything as per the above.

 

This,,,I give Hearns a lot of credit for the KO and before the fight I recall saying that I thought Hearns would win by UD. Mainly because Roberto at this point had filled his bank account with millions again but also I thought Roberto wouldn't be able to get near Tommy and the fight would be a snore fest. I think Tommy only had 2 ko's in his previous 6 fights and hadn't looked like the hitman since his days at 147. You want to see the difference in Duran watch the 1st Leonard fight, Duran moved and attacked like a lion and his quickness bothered Ray. Against Hearns he looked lethargic, like he was sparring ,that doesn't diminish what Tommy did ,he took care of business against a fighter that seemed not to take this fight seriously. That Duran came back 5 years later and beat a huge middleweight that ko'ed Hearns is an incredible accomplishment . I also agree that after Montreal ,you never knew what you were going to get with Duran, the fighter who thrashed Moore ,went 15 with Hagler and beat Barkley or the guy who lost to Benitez, Laing and Robbie Sims .

 

It was awesome.

Nobody thought it would be a Cuevas like anilihation, but it was

Duran was physically overmatched.

He could barely touch Hearns

Hearns destroys Duran who beats Barkely. Barkley beats Hearns.

Styles make fights

 

very

 

It was one of the most shocking , brutal victories I’ve ever seen.

 

Fights like Hearns vs Duran can have that look that firmly suggests the complexion/outcome would NEVER be different.

That doesn’t always hold true just based on superficial appearances.

However, Hearns vs Duran, perhaps more than any other fight of the same ilk, looked like it would be destined for concrete repeat over numerous retries.

And, when you technically break down the whys and wherefores behind Hearns dominance, it appears to solidify the belief that Hearns would always win that fight in similar fashion, far more often than possibly not.

Their fight didn’t bear the nuanced characteristics of a perfect storm that would be far less likely to repeated upon rematch.

When Foreman rematched Frazier, the complexion was a bit different, the bout lasting a bit longer.

George boxing with greater, self imposed meter and Joe accenting more on being evasive.

But Foreman’s essential stylistic advantage was still overwhelmingly apparent even though both fighters came in with some modification to their strategies.

So, if there was any possible variances in a Hearns vs Duran rematch, they might move along the same lines as above, but only serve to delay the inevitable by a few rounds.

Literally, everything Hearns landed shook Duran to his toe tips.

IMO, it would always only take 2-3 Hit Man punches to put Roberto on the slippery slope and leave him fighting purely just to hang in there.

 

Listen, Hearns was so great he demolished Duran. Duran was so great he took away Leonard's title. Leonard was so great he knocked out Hearns after Hearns had nearly beaten Leonard. And that's the Duran that Hearns knocked out.

 

It was a solid win. Duran drained weight too quickly to make 154, that’s on him. He fought much better at 160 against Hagler, who knocked out Hearns. In fact, if that was a 12 round fight, he beats Hagler. He claimed to have injured his right hand in the 5th round.

If he rematches Hearns at 154 or 160 it’s a closer fight, not sure about the outcome.

 

I think it’s the greatest KO in boxing history.

 

So I watched a few classic bouts of yesteryear with my middle son…he’s kinda new to boxing but not a total novice…and he saw highlights of Barkley beating Hearns, Duran beating Barkley and Hearns demolishing Duran.
So the lad looks at me puzzled and says exact what I thought he’d say…
“So how come Duran smashed the Barkley guy and the Barkley guy smashed Tommy, but Tommy smashed the guy who smashed the guy who Tommy couldn’t smash?????”

Welcome to boxing son…!

 

The victory that most defined the career of Thomas "Hitman" Hearns.

 

His best win.