Ray Arcel on Hagler - Hearns.

I do and I have no doubts it played a part in his loss to Leonard. The idea that it was solely down to Leonard conjuring up some kind of master strategy to defeat Duran is bordering on magical thinking. To outright state that Duran "was not good enough" when he was fighting legends, two and three divisions above his best weight; all of whom carried the physical advantages, shows great bias on your part.

But, we've been here before and I think everyone participating on every forum knows your views on Duran, since you do tend to take any opportunity to peddle them. Some might agree. Most won't. I know I do not and we're never going to agree on any aspect of this, as it's been discussed already; apart from, maybe, Duran's "food positioning".

 

Well look, it is biased if I said he was not great. I admit he was great. Probably the best instinctive natural fighter who ever lived and I think that is a compliment. If he had someone wounded, he was the best at sensing what to do and doing it. but I cannot say the best ever or top 10 on his wins.

The reasoning I use to say it was not enough is the criteria that he was top 10 ATG. I do not think he had enough wins against greats to warrant this. I always said being a top 10 ATG means he beat fellow ATG fighters, and he would have to beat many. But he was a great fighter who was good enough to be great. I am countering more the idea that he was top great ever at top 10.
To me he was not versatile enough and his wins and opponents demonstrate this. When I say this to many fans it seems like I am going against a set idea.

I peddle the ideas as responses but not out of the blue usually. It is in response more than likely. And I do not like his excuses when he lost since when he lost to guys who were too fast when he fought them he still made the excuses. And many of his fans believe these excuses even thought he lost onesided and the fights were showcases for anything other than a fight he could excuse.


One person even posted on another thread other people's opinion about Duran having fast foot movement. I think it was Carlos Palomino who said the comment on the best I faced.

I never said he was not great. I am partial to guys like Ali or Leonard who had the resume and wins over greats. A top ten great fighter to me was someone like Ray Leonard. He beat 4 greats and beat them differently. One fighter I love is Thomas Hearns, but he cannot be top 10 with the ways he lost, and yet I still think he had better wins than Duran regardless of other arguments. On beating greats fighters I think Hearns beat better greats than Duran.

 

I agree with you that beating other greats is very important but not so much as to dismiss so many other important factors. well at least for me .. And for the reasons you have for Duran, as you know you are in the minority with your opinion, I am with my opinion on Leonard. So I can relate … Ray is over rated to me and here's why .. Yes he beat atg's and was a phenomenal boxer, we all know that … But he didn't accomplish what Duran, Hagler, and Hearns did as far him not having nearly as many fights ..And he wasn't the I'll fight anyone anywhere anytime fighter the others were.. He lost to Duran a fighter that had moved up and got his rematch which he wanted, and then he didn't give Tommy what he demanded from Duran, and this very important to me as far as I am concerned. Because in a way people assume that Ray would have been just as successful with another 25 fights as the others had fighting to be the best. This was not Ray throughout his entire career .. So as much for yes Ray did beat them, he wasn't even close to them in Activity and I think that takes away from what Duran Hagler and Hearns really did accomplish ..

 

This is a good post. I see your point and I can almost agree. He had as short career and did not sacrifice like they did in years, but he did in that short time and I think pressure and retinal issue got to him. Everyone wanted to fight him and had he fought Pryor, that would have been an incredible resume for that short career. Well the beating greats was impressive and he did it with different styles and weights and the real greats -top legends, yet it was short but unheard of and he knew it. But who has ever fought that many greats in that period in that way. I think he knew he could fight great for a little while, but could not keep it up and he was always into orchestrating the great image after Duran. I think Duran taught him to use all the facets of boxing. I think after Finch and the retina he must have felt mentally exhausted after Hearns in 1981 and after the retina he felt he needed a break. I don't think he was a natural fighter who loved it like Hearns or Duran did nor did he have their power to get fights over with like they did. He fought an unheard of level of fighters to that point. He didn't accomplish their longevity, but I think he is rated higher because of his wins and how he beat them. Hearns beating Hill in 1991 after so many years was impressive, and underrated I thought. But his losses to Ray and Marvin really hurt his legacy. I don't think Ray could have done what Hearns and Duran and Hagler did. That amount of fights was not in the cards for Ray. He couldn't have done it. I also think his defense was good, but not as great as Mayweather in someways so he had to work to get the wins and come from behind. I think he knew there was a flaw in him and he didn't want to press his luck fighting so much after he won such great fights against Duran and Hearns.. But he always gutted it out and found a way to win.

 

I think the best way for Hearns to beat Hagler would not have been by knockout or even decision but by cuts. He nearly did it.(Even though it was Hearns mouthpeice that did it) I see Hearns with two great hands cutting Marvin up.

 

For me, this scenario is just reaching .. There was nothing in that fight that says Marvin doesn't get the same result. Why wouldn't he pressure Hearns again? It worked the first time.. He doesn't need to change his strategy .. As for Hearns staying on the outside in a rematch, yay he could attempt that but when Marvin walks through, Hearns goes back to the brawler instinct that he loved so much .. Bail on the strategy and I want to kick your a** .. If he doesn't break his hand, I do think the fight goes longer, but the outcome is the same for me

 

I have lost no discussion here. You have lied at least 5 times on this thread alone. You are a degenerate, pathological liar. Period. Shame on you.

 

Again JUST WHERE DID I WRITE DURAN WAS TOP 10 ATG, you pathological liar? I havent even attempted to make an atg list in years. Meanwhile, Azumah was an atg feather and pretty damn terrific at 130, but was better at 135 than Buchanan was? Based on what you pathological liar? You deal in facts? Then why lie so much on this thread alone, you degenerate liar?

 

Pernell beat Azumah who was an all time great. And a lot better than Buchanan or anyone Duran beat at lightweight. That is a fact. Duran is a bit overrated if people rate him in the top 10 ATG and that is a statement, regardless of what you believe or not, you are not saying much. That is what I say and that is what I believe. He lacks the wins over great fighters, and Azumah like it or not is greater than anyone Duran fought at 135. You are just reacting to what I say and not saying anything. And this discussion about Duran comes up because I do not think he is top 10 ATG so I will keep saying this unless you come up with anything logical about boxing, I am saying I do not think Duran is top 10 ATG. This is why I talk about Duran, so that is the premise for any discussion for Duran which involves me. I am not sure what you are arguing about. If you agree he is not top 10 ATG then that is great. I deal all in facts and Duran did not beat all time great fighters except Ray, and then Ray easily beat him in the rematch when he moved. Ray was the variable. Even the fight with Ray which is his only claim to beating a great, the rematch is used to excuse Roberto. You should read more about boxing and learn about the sport.

 

You lost the conversation a long time ago when you tried to make me out to be a liar and dishonest and it backfired on you, because anyone who hears me talk knows that I deal in facts and no excuses. Shame on you for trying to act righteous and coming out looking like a guy who plays games and does not know what he is talking about. You talk like an idiot, but perhaps that is just the way you present yourself.

 

Trying to make me look bad and you coming out worse is rather funny.

 

Facts? You are a degenerate pathological liar and have been exposed as such multiple times, you liar.

 

Lol. You are a degenerate pathological liar.

 

Azumah was not an atg 135 pounder. You have lied yet again, you degenerate, pathological liar.