It was more impressive that he beat Barkley, considering Duran's age and the weight the fight took place at. But Marcel was simply such a better fighter I'm torn on it. Duran had only been fighting for 2 or 3 years himself when he beat Marcel, so the experience factor goes both ways.
No one thinks Saensak Muangsurin is a great win for Hearn's? Saensak was a two time WBC light welterweight champion. Defended it a total of eight times and won it in his third fight! Knocked out Guts Ishimatsu, took a peak Mamby to a close decision... Went to Spain and knocked out 66-3 Miguel Velasquez. Once again went to a fighters backward when he beat Perico Fernandez. Don't know, always felt Muangsurin was one of the fight games unheralded greats. Or a damned near great.
Was this Marcel better than the Barkley that had just stopped Olajide and then Hearns and held a world title tho? I'm just rating the overall win rather so much than Duran's career stage. I take into account high weights of course, but if Duran in his first fight beat a good clubfighter that was 31-3 i won't be looking at it if you follow. Likewise i wouldn't look at a 57 year old Duran beating a good solid clubfighter for the list based on Duran was 57. Marcel at the time Duran beat him was not much bigger than a nobody. I'm not convinced Marcel was even that good anyways. Take Arguello off his record and he's very thin on the ground, tho he's obviously a very decent fighter at his best.
The guy was coming off two losses pre Hearns, one by TKO and the other to a guy 6-2. He had 20 career fights and lost 6. Mamby himself too was coming off a loss. Angel Espada, Bruce Curry and Shields are much better wins for starters.
He crashed quickly. Supposedly he was having eye problems among other things towards the end of his career. I think slaughtering him in three rounds like Hearn's did is still impressive. All three of those rounds were 10-8's.
A guy like this was a lamb to the slaughter with this version of Hearns. He had the height and reach of a lightheavyweight and near enough to the power too. Hearns was 22-0 with 21 ko's going in and streaking. Saensak was 13-3, Hearns had the experience on him as well. Mamby at the time they fought was pure hit and miss, 20-11-5.
Saensak had 13 title fights going into that match too, basically. Anyway, I'm not saying it was Hearn's greatest win or anything. But why discredit it when Duran was even naturally smaller then Saensak and he's almost consensually considered Hearn's best ever win?
I discredit it because he just wasn't that good. I'd never mention the Duran and Saensak wins in the same paragraph myself, let alone compare them in any way. Saensak isn't even a blip on the Hearns radar, and i have never in my life seen the fight particularly noted. Duran is a consensus top 10 P4P fighter :blood Saensak was bigger than Duran, but did Saensak beat SRL and give Hagler a fair match among 50 other feats? Hearns beat dozens of people naturally bigger than Duran, but that doesn't take away anything from Duran. Benitez too came from 140, but he was great all the way thru 154. Saensak isn't a "great", nor even close sorry. He'd be very very lucky to make Hearns top 5 wins at 147, let alone ever.
I was comparing their size, both being smaller then Hearn's making a "Hearn's had LHW dimension" irrelevant. No, Saensak didn't beat Leonard or any other marquee names... I've personally always found him underrated. World class, elite kickboxer turned world champion boxer with almost every fight he ever had being a title fight. Eh. That's just me.
Out of interest how would you summarise Hearns - Saensak and what stood out to you in this fight? Were you impressed with Saensak's efforts under the gun?