Montreal Duran vs. Hearns (Leonard 1)

Hearns destroys him again.

 

147-154 was Hearns prime weight, while it clearly wasn't Duran's......how bout a 135 pound Thomas Hearns going against a prime Duran?

 

Debatable!!!

 

Probably half of the equation as to why many arent giving Duran much of a chance. I dont think its 100% due to Hearns strengths, however awesome they may be. This is why OP inserted 'Montreal' into the question. Duran was arguably never better, even @ 135, considering the opposition.

 

theres a bunch of terribly deluded ****s in this thread

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmLya0g815U"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmLya0g815U[/ame]

 

Hearns is just wrong for Duran's style

 

No, but look what happened. That was perhaps the most dominant, obliteration of any great vs great fight in the history of the sport. He knocked him all over the ring, down several times, lifted him clean off his feet with a body shot.

Not one single loss of Duran's 16, are accepted as legit on ESB Classic.

Go ahead and tell me...he didnt train. He ate loads of cake and had to cut 80lbs a couple weeks before the fight. He was passed his prime. He needed a poo. He had cramp. Hearns didnt knock Duran out, Duran knocked himself out on Hearn's fist. Hearns pulled a fast one setting up the fight, giving Duran only 6 full months to prepare for the fight...

etc...etc...etc

 

Hearns @ 147 is wrong for just about anybody. He's routinely favored to beat just about everybody no matter their style. Thats because Hearns as a welterweight is physically wrong. Having both the power and boxing skill he did is wrong.

 

Not true. Leonard beat him at Hearns' best. Robinson would imo. While I agree with you I also think that Hearns just would especially destroy Roberto. It's evident in their actual fight..

 

Leonard can punch, but to compare his punching power to Hearns is not accurate. Hearns was the hardest puncher Duran ever faced, and he was stopped by him. That plays a big factor in what would happen if they fought a few years before.

 

Leonard never beat Hearns at Hearns best. I give Ray credit for that win. Hearns was champion in his 4th title defense and Ray beat him. But Hearns was prime more when he fought Duran in 1984 after going 56 rounds since the Leonard fight in 3 decision fights. Same as Leonard was not prime when Duran fought him the first time. Ray was on his 2nd title defense of his first title. I always said Ray was closest to prime when he fought Hearns in 1981 since he retired the next year, but Ray's prime would have also been about 1983 to 1984.

 

It's as prime and peak as Hearns could ever be at 147 considering it was his final fight in the division. It certainly couldnt of been before when people then turn around and say he was inexperienced. Hindsight is of course 20/20, but Hearns was the favorite in that fight. Hearns was winning that fight. It's one of the greatest and most monumental wins anybody could put on their resume and had everything to do with Leonard's will.

 

Hearns. RD can't get inside.