If Duran had beaten Hagler...

agreed that it would look different at 147 but at 154, i just don't see duran winning more than 1/10

 

well, hagler's stock would of diminished incredibly so duran's stock wouldn't of risen all too much.
marvin would still be a lock for top 30 of all time though. your average joe doesn't knock tommy hearns the **** out.

a lot of people view duran as a top 10 sort of guy, (including me) and i'm sure this would push him to the top 8. maybe even top 5 if you give him a bit of leeway.

 

In a perfect world at 154 with Duran behaving in a proper & sensible proffesional manner with regard to keeping himself in shape..................your not far wrong with regards to Hearns winning the majority, but not by KO. Look!!! Durans a ****in ENIGMA!!!! yer just never knew what Duran would show up & thats the teeth clenching frustrating thing about him.

Look what Barkley did to hearns in the 1st fight & look at the state of hearns face after the 2nd barkley fight & duran took all those shots from a monster like barkley that flattended hearns & smashed his face into what looked like a halloween pumpkin in tne 2nd fight.

That Hearns blowout of Duran was just one of those things that happens when one guy peaks against an opponant that sleepwalks into the ring, it was an abberation, it happended plenty of times in the past, but saying that Hearns was a monster that night he KO'd Duran, no doubt, but it's got to be put into it's proper context, it was a great & exceptional night for Hearns but in reality it was a one-off spectacular against an opponant who underestimated him big time but not to be repeated i'am sure.

 

No But it would definitely make me drop Hagler out of my top 4 at 160lbs and, maybe my top10.

 

:admin

what about the rest of his career? he still had the wins over hearns, mugabi, hamsho, antuofermo, watts, briscoe, finnegan, and monroe.

surely the loss to duran wouldn't have such a drastic effect, would it?

 

Yes. Hearns and Mugabi were not really middleweights, Antuofermo should have been emphatically beaten first time round, Briscoe was past his best,[35].For Hagler to lose to a 32 year old ex lightweight would be the coffin nail in his standing ,for me at least.

 

incredible to me this stuff. DURAN is ALREADY ONE OF THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME AND THOSE FROM HIS ERA ACKNOWLEDGE IT ALWAYS. Ask your beloved Tyson or any of them . Stupid responses.

 

I know what yer meanatsch it's enough to make yer ****in hair bleed when i read some of this supercilious revisionist shite on here with regards to Duran from pricks who have'nt a clue & are more interested in having their cyber ego's stroked. As we know Duran was already a lock for top 5 before he even handed Leonard his arse in Montreal & most of these dummies & self styled fistic moralists have no idea that even the New Orleans debacle had absolutly no real affect on Duran & his standing in boxing back then, none what so ever & it's only these wankers 30 years later who deem to pontificate that it's a big thing that he lost to Leonard/benitez/laing/sims ect ect...pricks.

I recall plenty of the press castigating Leonard for his antics in New Orleans as that of a man afraid but 30 years on it's celebrated. What really gets to me is the fact that Duran gets no credit for nearly pulling off what was viewed back then as the near on impossible in beating Hagler. Duran stepped up to the challenge where others shy'd away & everyone knew that Duran was the only man who'd relish the challenge & produced an outstanding display of tactical fistic nous & all you hear on here from some of these zero's is that hagler fought shyatsch

Within 5 years Duran just got pipped from becoming the 1st Undisputed Lightweight Champion to become the Undisputed Middlewight Champion & in a day when there was only 2 governing bodies WBC/WBA & yeh that would have made him the GOAT back in 83 & that was the popular concensus of the scribes of the day.:smoke

 

If he went 12 with Duran, "Hagler would have stepped it up earlier and still won the UD"--? Really? Hagler went 12 with Leonard and should have stepped it up earlier against Leonard -did he?

 

...Icryinmymartini is lashing out at strangers again. This is what happens when he skips his meds.

 

Thank you for reminding me to take mine!

 

Thank the headcase, brother. He's a warning for us all.

 

Leonard was much quicker than Duran and had a 74 inch reach compared to Duran's 67. Duran would have always been an easy enough fight for Hearns. At welt I figure Hearns would stop him in 4 or 5.. at 154 it was 2 since Tommy peaked and had experience at that weight and time, At 160 Tommy beats Duran by stoppage early also. Ray fighting Duran on the inside in the first fight is very different from how Duran would fare with Hearns and how he would fight and beat Hearns. He would have to take the right hand over and over from Tommy to win. Very unlikely. Fact is Duran never fought a guy like Hearns in his career to really say he could beat someone that fast with a jab and right hand like that.

 

right after the fight when interviewed on tv, Leonard said he thought Duran won. And after the Leonard loss, Hagler himself said how could he get decisioned by Leo., when Duran hit him with more right hands. You really had to be from that era to know Duran's value methinks. I've read a lot of stuff ( I have all the boxing mags from the 70s and 80s up to 85, and books, a great dvd collection) and Duran is always considered with Ali as the best fighter of the last 50 years or so. like you say, revisionist historians. Another clear example of this is the lack of respect the Great Ali and Louis get on these boards. This crap is what drove some good posters w/ experince of actually going to fights in the past and being involved away.

 

you have to admit, hagler likely would have fought a different fight with different pacing, aggression and tactics had it been scheduled over 12. not commenting on who wins, by those extra 3 rounds changes the texture of a fight