Tommy Hearns vs Roberto Duran

I hope you don`t literally believe that. Your a bit unrealistic, height advantage yes but shorter figters beat taller fighters happens all the time. Especially when the smaller fighter is an exceptional talent. Hearns had his own chin issues so a peak Duran would be insane to give no chance.

 

Hagler was 5'9.5", about 2 or 3 inches taller than Duran, but he was all muscle. He was like a bigger, stronger, version of the Duran of the 70s.

 

Yea he`s been listed around 5-8 or 5-9. Look at them during their fight. They appear to be the same height. My point was that a sharp Duran at Welterweight would be a big threat to Hearns and anyone. Hearns could get him but if he doesnt get him out early then your looking at Tommy Hearns same old leaky defense and wobbly legs against Duran who is coming in a much different way. The quickness, intensity, energy and punch output were at another level.

 

Thomas Hearns hit much harder than anyone Duran ever fought against. And much faster. It was not a great fight for Duran. Welterweight or Junior Middleweight. They would have fought at 168 in 1989, and at that weight both were a little small.. So it might have been and interesting fight.

 

duran hagler tale of the tape:
Duran 5' 7.5"
Hagler 5' 9.5"
Reach was even more of a difference:
Duran 67"
Hagler 75"

 

Agreed and that includes Hagler.....Hearns was a hell of a puncher at 154 even at Middleweight

 

Not at 154.

Duran was not shot.

Hearns was in peak form.

Duran just wasn't nearly as good at 154 lbs as when he fought Leonard at 147 lbs.

He would never get inside a peak 154 Hearns. Duran was never as good at 154 lbs.

 

I meant Duran beat Cuevas and Moore because of style.

My bad

You were inferring that the '84 Duran that was starched by Hearns was somehow faded from the '83 version of Duran that beat Cuevas and Moore.

I say that that is not the case and at 154 lbs. Hearns would always beat Duran.

Duran would never be able to reach Hearns at 154 lbs.

Maybe the prime 147 Duran who fought Lenoard would have a chance.

But, at 154 lbs, NO.

I hope this clears it up for you

 

How much of a difference was there for Hearns at 147 vs 154?

Was his punch that much harder? Was his body able to absorb more punishment?

Could Duran rock him at 147, but not at 154?

When Hearns fought Leonard the first time he only weighed 145, and said that he had no trouble at all making the weight. Wen Leonard looked at him and saw how skinny he was, he thought he could easily beat him up.

At 154 he was still all muscle. Not an ounce of fat. Did he weight train to get bigger?

 

It's more a case of Duran being much more effective at 147 lbs than he was at 154 lbs. In addition, Hearns seemed a bit sturdier at 154 lbs. than he was at 147 lbs.

 

Duran is always best at the weights he had a great win, but if someone mentions Moore, they say it was a great win and he was a great fighter, or Barkley at 160.. Duran gets so much credit for his wins, and excuses for his losses. Which is rather unfair to other guys he fought. Had he beaten Hearns in 1984, it would have been his best win and it would have elevated him to even greater status, but since he lost and it was one of Hearns best wins, there are excuses for that and the Benitez fight where he lost easily also. in either fight he did not fall with easy punches, he took punches and lost a 15 to Benitez.. So it took something to beat him, but those guys were elite and he couldn't climb that mountain. Not that skilllevel. Beating Moore and Barkley were not the mountains Benitez and Hearns were. And saying, well Barkley beat Hearns in 1988 at middleweight, still Duran never beat Hearns.

 

All fighters have their excuses when they lose.

 

" I tried to get under those long arms and he knocked me crazy with that right hand."

 

It was more of the height and reach that made the difference in my opinion. Duran had to fight almost standing straight up. Duran was successful against one of the fastest fighters in history in R.Leonard, so speed wasn't the biggest factor. But Leonard was closer to his size than Hearns who had the height and reach of a heavyweight. ( his reach was longer than Louis and Frazier) that along with that punishing jab, and that destructive right hand and PLUS his speed, well,with all those advantages it was almost impossible for Hearns to lose...... I've seen some on this site say Mayweather jr. Would beat Hearns.... They really need to wake up and apologize.

 

I agree. The only way to beat Hearns is to turn it into a slugfest. Leonard could not outbox Hearns.