If Duran had beaten Hagler...

Sure -I would expect Hagler to always defeat Duran. My rebuttal to powder puncher addresses his moronic reasoning, not the idea that Duran could be expected to take Hagler.

I think that Duran was expecting an aggressive Hagler and that is why he stood off and countered. Hagler was expecting an aggressive Duran and that is why he stood off and countered. The fight was anticipated to be a brawl but ended up a chess match. Anyway, 12 rounds would have seen a different fight altogether -though I think Duran would have been the counter puncher and Hagler aggressive. The question is could Duran have held off that version of Hagler? I suspect that Duran would have tired anyway because of the pressure, and still lost.

If Hagler decided to fight the same fight he did over 15 (and his idea was to box Duran and stay safe) then it gets interesting, though.

 

I never really saw any great mystery in the fight tbh. Fighters often come in with the wrong tactics and it doesn't usually spawn some massive hermeneutic ****ing psychological analysis like it does with Hagler here. Two great fighters fighting, baldy was made to look a bit simple at times, Duran didn't have the energy to pull it out.

 

I agree with this. That's what both men said during the post-fight interview also. The result was a somewhat awkward fight considering the reputations of both men as exciting fighters.

You have to admit it was a smart decision on Duran's part, because he would not have been able to force the issue at all. He had to rely on skills other than what he had used to win fights at lower weights where he was often the stronger man.

 

Leonard-Hagler was scheduled for 12, Hagler-Duran was sceduled for 15, Leonard and Duran are different people. Hagler looked unable to step it up earlier against Leonard, against Duran he looked to be pacing himself for the 15 and taking rounds off. Can you grasp those simple concepts? No because you're biased and have no objectivity on anything Duran related

 

So, that's your answer --one bout was 15 rounds and the other was 12 rounds and the different opponents were different people. And I'm biased.

Profound.

 

Italics!!!!!!

 

Boxers pace themselves for the distance shocker atsch The fact you can't comprehend that simple points means you're either biased or just don't have a clue

If we're honest thought what it all boils down to is a Duran fan that's insecure about Leonard's success that he has to invent imaginary victories for Duran to match them

 

You have to admit that Leonard would have found it very tough to win a 15 round fight even against that version of Marvin Hagler.

 

So it's almost better for Duran's legacy that Duran lost but competed with the great Hagler rather than beating a limited Hagler. :think

 

That's right, my lonely, angry friend --italics. Often used for emphasis, like on labels that you shouldn't ignore.

This content is protected

 

Is this what icryinmymartini means when he talks about spawning "some massive hermeneutic ****ing psychological analysis"--?

 

I can't belive how little credit Duran gets from alot of people here for making that Hagler fight pretty damn competitive. Hagler knocking out everyone that stepped up to challenge him and the little Duran who obsvioulsy did not have the same quickness and stamina he had at smaller weights. He was totally out of gas after 12 rounds.

He struggled on the inside with Hagler strength and uppercuts and so on so he just decided to counter all day.

I think Hagler on his webiste said Duran gave him the hardest fight. And I remember Hagler said in a show after Hagler - Hearns that he did not throw any jabs in the fight, because he thought Hearns had watched the Duran tape where that jab were countered with right hands. It's not like hagler face was unmarked was it.

Going after the logic I've read on general forum where every win from a Manny or Floyd against pretty aveage opposition means climbing way up and beating a guy like Martinez would make them skyrocket, what the hell would a Hagler win do for Duran...

Its not just fighting way above your best weight , after over 70 fight, beeing over 30, its the insane level of the guys he challenged like Hagler and Hearns.

Regarding Hearns. Obviuolsy it doesnt help your legacy to get KTFO but is it suppoed to be a some kind of shame in losing the Heanrs fight?. A lighweight had no buinsess beeing in the ring with a beast with that reach, boxing ability and power. He moved up to light heavy for gods sake. And he was an ATG on top of that.

 

Welcome & well said, it's good to see common sense & obvious observations are alive & kicking in the real world but you'll be driven to the edge with what gets posted on here by some of these no nothing, done nothing, been no-where men whose only expeareance & knowlage of the fight game & it's glorious past is by plagiarism & hoping a high post count qualifies as authority & protection from exposure for these all knowing all conquering modern day rivisionist experts.:smoke

Caution: beware MAG1965 he's the sad resident duran hater.:nut

 

odd because I saw an interview where he said Hearns and Mugabi were his toughest fights. Maybe they interviewed him right after the Duran fight and before Hearns.

 

I think sometimes even on here the classic there is a tendency to judge fighters by one of their not so great great performances than their better ones. I think that Hagler won the fight clearly even though I'm Duran's biggest fan. I really think Hagler had a bad night and Duran had a good night. Hagler was a bit overawed by Duran's rep and Duran was great against southpaws. Bad tactics by Hagler and I think Duran showed him up a bit. If there had been a rematch I would expect a Hagler win probably by stoppage only cos he was bigger and stronger and a great middleweight. As for who was better fighter i would go for Duran. Might all sound a bit contradictory but there you go.