Roberto Duran vs Marvelous Marvin Hagler

Id give an edge to Hagler`s reign. He beat a great fighter in Tommy Hearns who was at the top of his game. Also Duran himself who was still very good if not great at the higher weights and John Mugabi and Mustafa Hamsho.

Duran beat DeJesus twice. Viruet, Lampkin were good fighters but I think the quality wasnt as good as Marvin Hagler`s championship run.

Marvin Hagler also had a very impressive pre title run when he fought those Philly middleweights. Monroe, Watts, Briscoe and he beat Sugar Ray Seales.

Duran beat Koybashasi before he won the title which was an impressive win.

 

The avie makes it a good bet I'm going with Duran. It's close, as you say, but I think the 20 or so non-title fights Duran had made him the more dominant fighter in his division, and in all honesty, I think there were a few outstanding JLW and JWW fighters that avoided that division until Duran vacated.
Not to give credit for fights that never happened, but it does say something about how he was viewed by other potential opponents.

 

Hearns was in his prime and coming off a devastating win. He had moved up to `60. Maybe at `60 he wasnt quite the force he was at `47 and `54 but at the time the fight was a hard one to choose a winner.

My question would be if Hearns wasnt at the top of his game against Hagler when was he at the top of his game?

 

Hearns is the difference in their title reigns. That said, I certainly feel Buchanan & DeJesus were better Lightweights than any of the Middleweights Hagler beat were...Middleweights. Yeah. Very comparable title runs overall.

 

Duran's lightweight reign is 2nd only to Leonards IMO. A champion for 7 years running and defended it against better comp than Marvin had in his division at that time. Not to slight Marvin, he was a terrific champion and looked just dominant as anybody at that weight against solid competition I just believe Duran's reign holds more weight from a historical standpoint.

 

I read a superb article in the Sep, 1980, issue of the Ring about Duran's lightweight greatness and head to head ability against past lightweights. The people giving their opinion have been around since the 40's at least, some had seen Benny Leonard during the 20's. Some were trainers like Cus Dmato and Ray Arcel, Teddy Brenner and many others. They talked about Benny Leonard, Lew Tendler, Tony Canzoneri, Beau Jack, Jimmy Carter, Bob Montgomery, Henry Armstrong, Barney Ross, Ike Williams, Carlos Ortiz, etc. Basically they all agreed that Duran was really good but never in the class of Williams and Canzoneri, etc. They really asked the question, who did Duran beat? One even laughed at Lou Bizzaro taking Duran into the late rounds.

Jack Fiske said "When I try to place Roberto Duran in a one-to-ten listing, I can never wipe the memory of his title defense against Lou Bizzaro, Leonica Ortiz and Vilomar Fernandez. Bizzaro lasted 15 rounds, Ortiz went the full 15 round limit and Fernandez was there until the 13th. Bizzaro, without a doubt, was the most pathetic lightweight challenger in history, although a great runner. Ortiz, at the time he met Duran had a 22-5-1 record. Fernandez 19-5-1, had only knocked out five men. Ike Williams would have knocked out all three in one night.

"The best fighter Duran ever met was Esteban De Jesus, who beat him one out of three. Probably on par with De Jesus was Ken Buchanan, from whom Duran won the title on a controversial low blow in the 13th round. Duran's manager would never honor a commitment of a return bout contract with Buchanan after that"

"None of the old timers participating in the poll gave De Jesus or Buchanan a call on their all-time lists. Think about it".


Teddy Brenner "Duran, to me, was an exciting, colourful, hard punching, charismatic fighter, but I think he suffered a geniune lack of competition. While he held the title, the fighters in the lightweight division were at the lowest calibre in the divisions history".

 

Some fair comments, just referring to hs title reign of course. It was a long reign, in a great TV era, but not as string as lightweight champs of the past. I do think some of those experts were being harsh on Duran.

Carlos Ortiz is particularly scathing about Duran in 'The Arc of Boxing'.

But the fighters were better then they appeared on paper IMO. Viruet, Thompson and Guts were all quality. Duran Vs Gato would've been ace.

Buchanan was his best win at the weight. De Jesus title fights as well.

 

I say Hearns and Duran himself make Hagler's reign better, that is better than Buchanan and Dejesus. Hearns was moving up, but still Duran never fought that elite quality at lightweight.

 

Good point.

Hearns gets severly overrated over WW imo. His reputation over 148 mainly rests on beating a past prime natural LW and a natural WW, quite possible past his prime also. The best he beat at 160 is probably Roldan, who came close to taking him out. So I don't think his credentials at 160 are all that. Not more than the short time belt holder at the weight he in fact was, I'd say.

 

He beat Virgil Hill at 175. Benitez fought better at 154 than any other weight, then couldn't do well at 160. And Duran was a natural lightweight when he fought Hearns, he was a champion who had a decent right hand and great inside skills and ability still, but he could not deal with the speed. I think Hearns best win at 160 was Shuler..

 

Fought this was about title reigns.

Marcel was before that, at super feather. Unless I've missed summat here? :huh EDIT: Seen ETM mentioning pre-title wins.

What about Duran's wins at 10 stone over Brooks and Mamby? :hey

 

How was Duran a better Middleweight than DeJesus was a Lightweight, MAG?