Just finished Hagler-Duran...

Hagler fought Leonard the same way he felt about his career at the time: disinterested. He gave away early rounds and didn't fight with that desire to win he was just going through the motions. I am a fan of Leonard too but I'm pretty sure Leonard knew how disinterested Hagler was at the time so that's why he was so eager to fight Marvin. I do think that Leonard would fight a peak Hagler but knowing Leonard and Hagler I think that Leonard would've always presented problems to him. Peak Hagler beats Leonard IMO and I do think that Leonard wasn't ready at that time(early 80's) to be a MW. The waiting of that fight(so he could bulk up, get his eye problems out of the way, etc.) and the fading of Hagler really helped Leonard win.

 

The Hagler apologists are almost as bad as Duran's.Over the years they've managed to make an old feeble underdog out of a dominant middleweight champion,and a man that was rated as the very best fighter in the sport at the time,against an inactive Welterweight that was unproven and untested at the weight,and had a history retinal problems.Logic tells you that the latter should not only have been beaten,but also destroyed in what it actually should have been: A mismatch.


The Thomas Hearns fight also seems to have left an inaccurate image of what type of fighter Hagler actually was.Hagler was not a swarmer,he was a boxer.The likes of Duran,Leonard and Geraldo took Hagler's preferred style away from him and forced him into doing most of the leading.The Hearns fight was a fluke that was initiated by Thomas Hearns own stupidity.

 

I'm starting too feel that Hagler could be one of the most overrated on this board. It's starting to get ridicolous with the excuses made for him.

 

What excuses?:huh He won the fight, clearly.

You Robertards are just trying to topsy-turvy this mother ****er like usual

 

Marvin clearly won,,,,,,,,,,,,,but was clearly not super-dominant,,, like many expected.

Same thing with his fight with Vito Antuofuermo I.
He chirped big-time in Las Vegas,
to the point tjhat many thought Vito wouldn't even show-up.
Who expected that fight to go more than 5 or 6 rounds,,,,,,,,,,,no one....

Marvin should have won every round versus Roberto.........No ifs, ands, or buts.

 

He did. But there are all these: "if he was a 100% focussed be would have won in 8" etc, etc. There are nothing to suggest that Hagler didn't do what he could in there.

You can't have seen much of my posting. But being called both a Leonard nuthugger and a Duran nuthugger must mean I'm doing something right.

 

Hey, when we're not talking Ali we actually agree on some things. Well, I'll be...

 

I gave that list two times and you guys did not respond to it. You say you want the list and when I gave it you barely responded. No reason posting a list. It is on ESB. Not hard to find my list.

 

yeah Thomas fought wrong. Same as the way Ray fought with Duran in 1980. It happens. Problem with Hearns fighting wrong is that he fought a guy who was the division above him. Tommy was too cocky. He though because he stopped Duran and had his right hand back he could go in there and stop Marvin the same way. Marvin had a great chin. I think Tommy could have stopped Marvin, but not by one right hand. He should have held Marvin and used his jab to swell Marvin's face up and maybe the fight be stopped on cuts or swelling.

 

Well the same goes for you guys. You guys make great points with all other fighters and fights, but when it comes to Duran this unfair ranking comes up like he does not have to win fights to be great in those fights.

This is exactly what I have been hearing from Duran fans for years and it isn't fair ranking for Duran's opponents. Duran fans will say Duran is top ten because he lost to Hagler and had a great performance, yet Hagler won? This logic goes against reason. Duran lost to Benitez,Hearns and Hagler, but comes out great because he lost to Hagler in a good performance, yet the other greats actually had to win the fights to get credit, and still they don't get the credit in winning that Duran gets in losing. I admire how you defend Duran, but it isn't objective.

Duran fans will say Duran was past his prime when he lost to great Benitez and Hearns at the same era he fought Hagler, yet they say Duran proved his greatness in losing to Hagler and ignore the Benitez and Hearns fights as he was out of shape or uninspired. How can you have it both ways? Why don't we do that with all fighters. Frazier was not beaten by Foreman in 1973 because he was uninspired. Helps Foreman's record, but objectivity is thrown out the window.
Duran fans say Hagler didn't prove anything. How is this possible? Duran lost the fight. and lost to Benitez and Hearns decisively. He lost to Hearns when he was fellow 154 pound champion. Those fights have to be recognized in a fair and objective judgement of Duran. Also, since Duran fought better guys when he moved up than he ever did at lightweight, that is what we have to really rate his skills. not the lightweight competition but his competition vs. the greats.

 

I had the opportunity to see most of Hagler's fights recently, and I think if anything he is under-rated. Every loss I saw was either so close as to be debatable or a simple bad job at the score cards. He was maybe hurt once in his whole career against guys who looked pretty good to me.

Now, the Duran fight: I think Hagler normally fought at a much quicker pace than this, and ironically I give Duran credit for SLOWING the pace down with his intelligent boxing, something no one could do since Hagler had won the titles when he decided to stop everybody. The ex-lightweight slowed the pace and made it competitive, and I think this was all in Duran's skill with distance, timing, just good boxing. I give him a TON of credit for this performance, the first title defense to go the distance with Hagler, and probably the smallest guy Hagler had ever faced.

Duran was awesome, Hagler was awesome, and that's all I can say.

 

Of coarse I can see where the Duran fans are comming from :good I can see where the Leonard fans are comming from , I just disagree with them and think that my method of thinking is correct. But I cannot understand where you are comming from?

Hearns who is a monster WW should beat the carrer LW in Duran, same goes for Hagler, Leonard etc...as they are bigger then he is (that is why there is diferent divisions) that fact that he beat Leonard, one of the best WW and had a good showing vs Hagler, one of the best MW, shows how good he was.

Duran had two carrers, one at LW were he is one of the best ever and above LW were he could be brillant (Leonard, Hagler, Barkley) and he could be poor (Hearns, Benitez, Laing). He second carrer is what makes him a top ten ATG, opossed to just a ATG from his LW rain.

Ali is kind of the same as in he had two carrers, one pre exile and one post exile, that what makes him so great, lost a few and looked ave at times but had some good spots, was not the same boxer in some ways but had experiance on his side, a lot of win and an iron chin. Diferance is that he was not the smaller man in there like Duran, and that what makes Duran so great.

 

I agree except I give credit for Hagler for forcing Hearns to trade more. When Hearns tried to use more movement and box, Hagler cut off the ring well on him and kept getting to him.

Hagler did a great job of fighting in a manner different from his usual style.

 

Hold on aramini,,,,,,,,,,

The first Monroe vs. Hagler fight,,,,,,,wasn't even close. That was a real loss.

Everything else, could have gone either way.
Hagler vs Seales II
Hagler vs. Watts I
Hagler vs. Antuofuermo
Hagler vs. Leonard

 

Barkley is a greater fighter than Hearns. 2-0 1 KO, even beat Tommy after his ATG win over Hill, so he obviously couldn't have been past his best, can't have it both ways, how can you say he was great when he beat Hill but not greater no longer when he lost to Barkley, doesn't work that way. Fights against the mediocre opposition is what matters, and he Tommy couldn't beat Barkley either time, but Duran beat Barkley around the same time he beat Hearns, so there.