Roberto Duran .Vs. Thomas Hearns 1980

I think Hearns wins every time. It is just a bad match up for Duran.

 

I don’t think Hearns hit with less power at 147, at all.
Barkley, by my estimate didn’t hit harder than Hearns, and certainly didn’t have the same level of precision. Barkley hit hard enough to knock Hearns out and was able to withstand Hearns best. In their first match he was taking a pasting until he caught Hearns, it was really nasty, but he took it and won.
Duran was able to outbox Barkley and to a degree minimize some of the damage due to his better skills at slipping and rolling with punches. Different fighter styles. Roberto by the time he fought Barkley had likely forgotten more about boxing than Barkley ever knew. He was able to use that.
Against Hearns that experience was made irrelevant by the physical and speed disparity.
I love Duran. He is probably my favourite fighter. If he fought Hearns in Montreal in 1980 instead of SRL I don’t believe we would not be talking about Montreal Duran.
Same logic can be applied to FOTC Frazier and George Foreman, Frazier doesn’t win this fight.
Determination and training would be of no consequence. It’s like a cycling contestant training for a crash up derby with a bulldozer. Training and mental outlook can only take one so far. Styles make fights.
Again only my opinion but I think it’s a pretty solid argument.

 

Same opinion as this fellow here.