Ray Arcel on Hagler - Hearns.

This is good post. If someone has to fight Duran's fight that is different, but I do not think anyone fought his fight after that. Hagler fought a slower pace fight which worked into Duran's hands until Marvin started to up the pace. Hearns would not, although Hearns got hit with 2 right hands in that fight with Duran he didn't have to. I think it was Hearns recklessness which always gave guys a chance with him when he didn't have to. I always thought it was Leonard who gave Duran that first fight, and it was probably for the best. Had he beaten Duran the first time easily, the era of the fab 4 would not have started off so good, and the Hagler vs. Hearns fight in the middle of the decade helped their reputation. Their styles all 4 of them created some interest. They were not similar in personality or style or size and it showed. Include in the Benitez. Duran showed skill for sure, but I think he also showed some of his limitations, and the fact I Palomino or Leonard do not put him top 10 ATG, which is what I always said is the general thinking about Duran, at least the thinking I cannot accept with his wins. Palomino was a good fighter. West coast fighter out of California trained by Jackie McCoy and Noah Cruz. Decent trainers although not great stick and move trainers of the east coast at the time. Those guys in California don't like to use jabs and set up punches. They think fighting has to be inside. Well with a guy like Duran, it doesn't work. Palomino. Decent fighter, but not great. Ray was a great but rather green I always thought at that point. What shows this? Fighting Duran's fight. Because he was upset. Just falling for that shows he was not elite yet. All 4 guys showed weaknesses. I think Ray was the most complete out of all of them.

 

There was talk. Right after the fight Hearns was put down for brawling and giving up his chance to win. It was seen as a great fight, but many people came down on Hearns for fighting a rather stupid fight and it was a very dumb way to fight. He threw it away trying to put Marvin out. Both guy were reckless but Marvin gambled right. Today we see it as a classic fight. I don't see how a rematch would have been the same as that first fight. The variable would be Hearns I think and how he decides to fight. Don't get a slugging match with Marvin who was stronger and could take Tommy's punch, although I wonder how Hagler would have taken Hearns punch had Tommy not broken his hand. He was hurt by the first punch Hearns landed. I just wonder had Hearns not broken his right hand and Marvin switched to righty a few times, Tommy would have had that right landed on Marvin clean. The southpaw stance was probably why he broke his hand. Back of the head muscles stronger than the muscles on the side. I still believe that Hearns slowing that pace jabbing and holding Marvin. Fighting a smart smart Virgil Hill style fight, he could beat Marvin. By TKO with swelling. I could see it. Marvin's right side of his face was swelling at the end of round one with Hearns.. The style favors Hagler, but I remember how easily Hearns hit Marvin and how easily Marvin swelled, so that is why I give Hearns a good chance in a rematch and Hearns seemed to really want it like he knew something. And Marvin did not want it. Although who can blame him. He won the first fight after being hurt and cut.

 

I don't see anyone rating Duran as an all-time great at 154, 160 or more .. by the time he went up to 154 he was not the same fighter he was in Montreal. Even if Ray fought Roberto's fight and again I feel it is a combo of elements why it went the way it did, it was still an incredible performance by Duran as Ray was that exceptional. At 154 Duran's limitations showed comprised of both age and size against the very best. He was pretty easily decisioned by Benitez in what my have been Wilfredo's best performance. He would later get decimated by Hearn's there .. he looked pretty good against a cautious, under performing Hagler at 160 but then really ran hit and cold , losing to Robbie Simms and essentially no longer operating as a top fighter but a top name. I personally rate him an all time great for sure but do acknowledge there is a lot to process.

 

The problem is for me. To rate him you have to in my estimation rate him against great fighters, and those are the weights he fought most of his greats. It seems unfair, but he had so many opportunities, and he did fight well at higher weights. He was one of the most successful guys moving up. He is just a few and was one of the first to win titles in 4 weights. I think he was the 3rd guy to do it behind Hearns and Leonard (although Ray cheated to get to 4 and 5 with Lalonde) I suppose someone could rate him as dominant at 135, but I don't think we have the real test someone great would have given him. Although he didn't have a great at lightweight to challenge him. I would have loved to have seen him against Arguello, who had a right hand and I think it is a tougher than most people think, although Alexis was smaller than Duran and was always one division below Duran all the time it seems. 147 and 154 was where Duran had the greats he fought. Hearns,Benitez and Leonard are his most significant fights and had he beaten them I think he does get to that top 10 level. Arguello to me would have been that win which would have proved a lot. Do I think he could have? Sure, but I would have loved to have seen it.

By the fighting great fighter level I think Hearns is measured against how he did against greats, not against how he fought Shields or Andries or Dewitt. I never saw beating Ray in June of 1980 as really great, it was a nice win and a great win against Ray at that point. Maybe that is how I am different than most. I think Ray gave him that win more than Duran took it. I also don't think Ray was elite at that point. Sims? He was underrated in many ways. He had a lot of guys and decent power and Duran fought well enough after that lay off and only a few fights coming back since Hearns and only 2 years. I think Sims was 2 years 8 days after he fought Hearns, which is pretty soon after considering he didn't fight for the rest of 1984 or the whole year 1985 I don't think.

 

Yes! yes yes

 

Azumah was a

Azumah was an atg at 135? You are not only a liar but a moron as well. Cheers

 

You sure are a bright one aren't you. Honestly, this whole thread is proof of how stupid and immature you are-in addition to what a low person you are. Who said Azumah Nelson was great at 135? Learn how to read. Who is the liar?

 

I stand by everything I say about Roberto Duran and I will say again and again if people mention him. I don't think he dealt with speed well, and granted he was above his weight. All the greats or most fight above weight. He is no different but somehow the excuses are bought with Duran. He fought at 154 before the other guys.. That is significant. Remember something about all time great fighters and getting older. Hearns beat Hill when Hill was undefeated 11 years after Hearns won his title against Cuevas. Spinks beat Holmes.. Holyfield beat Tyson. Outpunched a harder puncher. Manny beat Oscar,, which had a lot to do with Manny's speed. I know from watching boxing Duran would have a hard time beating Floyd at 135 or 147 or anywhere. I hate to say it, but the style and speed of Floyd would make it hard for Duran to control that fight. Or Pernell who would control Duran and win a decision. He would not be stopped by them , but he would be beaten. I think it would have surprised people how easily. Since it did not happen, people can say whatever they want.

 

I love the fact you just throw away all the pre leon fights as not great and pretend beating LEONARD meant nothing. I like yr posts on other fighters a lot. But about Duran you seem like an obsessed Glenn Close from the bunny movie. It destroys yr entire arguement.

 

I also remember many saying that they were very disappointed that Hearns seemed so out of gas after two rounds with shot legs .. again, it was memorable but unlike a Dempsey - Firpo other than blood Hagler never seriously was visibly hurt and won decisively pretty fast.

 

Duran was outstanding with speed at 135 - 147. He handled Leonard and Ray was as good a combo of speed and power that ever lived .. when he moved further up and was older he lacked the speed to catch the best of the best like Benitez and Leonard again later on but he did surprisingly well as a very old guy fighting world class fast younger men like Paz and Camacho ..

 

It is the truth. And it is significant.

 

My logic on other fighters is just as valid about Duran. He did not have the best food positioning to pursue a mover. That would not change it was his foot positioning which made it very hard to follow Leonard and then when he did get Ray cornered Ray fought out of it and slip out of it. The second fight I am talking about. I am a believer that Ray fought that first fight because of emotions. My instincts tell me this. He did not have to and he has said this. I didn't say it meant nothing, but I don't think it meant as much as saying beating him in 1981. When Ray was a complete fighter mentally and physically, and we owe it to Duran for making Ray a more complete fighter. Ray learned.