What if Duran and Hearns had tried to unify at Welterweight in 1980?

Your right. Leonard was also much more durable than Hearns was at any point in his career.

 

I'm really not sure which way it would go. Duran was a different fighter back in 1980 than he was in `84. A world`s of difference in speed, quickness, defense and the ability to close ground and cut off distance. Hearns could still catch him but Duran would be a more difficult target. We also can`t discount the fact that Hearns isn't gonna be able to take too much from Duran at `47. So if Tommy doesn't take him out early and there is some give and take I don't see Hearns surviving a war of attrition.

All things considered I would call this a genuine toss up.

 

Think it's a much more competitive fight at the very least.

154 was Hearns' optimal weight in terms of strength, conditioning and whatnot. The 145lb Hearns that showed up against Sugar Ray was definitely more fragile and slowed down in the late rounds.

Duran at 147 was also a lot better than he was at 154 against Hearns - far more hungry, motivated, in shape, and with Arcel in his corner, he could make good use of his physical strength and in-fighting skill to pull off the upset.

 

Duran in 80 was a different beast to Duran of 84. Remember reading that
Duran was in great shape morning of Hearns fight but by fight night the
muscle tone had gone . The Duran who fought Leonard was in great shape
amd hard , ripped muscles. Duran still wouldn't be able to overcome the
physical differences but the 80 version loses on points in a tight but
competitive battle on points to Hearns

 

The Duran that beat Leonard is a different beast than the 33 year old that that fought Hearns, plus I believe that Hearns was at his peak at that 154 pound weight. Tommy was dangerous early but the Duran of 1980 would have cornered him sometime after 10 and knocked him out. Just like Leonard did.

 

And we saw what happened when Leonard fought in a style that allowed him to take fuller advantage of the speed and length disparities. Eking out a razor-thin decision against Leonard in the first fight is very impressive but overcoming Hearns' enormous reach and height advantages, while negating his monstrous one-shot ko power, would always have been an even taller order (no pun intended).

 

Its got nothing to do with physique....its about two different worlds.

Duran 80 was pretty much undefeated.A focused ferocious defensively adept boxer puncher.he still hadnt made the big bucks and had arcel and the confidence and hunger and anger of a man undefeated champion for years but who hadnt earned sshhitt.....he beat a srl who wasnt really too much less formidable than hearns

By 84 duran went into that hearns fight with ten days of training...its in his book....he had suffered many defeats since had become fat bloated and lazy but in between had earned big wins and paydays over cuevas,moore and than the big bucks with hagler...the hagler performance and money led him to lose ambition and eat and party non stop

Duran 80 imo beats the 145 hearns stops him late.

Even the 83 duran makes it close

 

The young, virtually undefeated "hungry" Duran also partied, ate, and drank too much and hated training. The notion that he suddenly got lazy, lost his determination, and developed bad habits post-Montreal seems pretty revisionist.

 

We've been over this before, so I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but he did fight HIS fight, the one he normally fought. It wasn't a smart fight against Duran was the issue. The commentators expected him to move more, because they didn't think he'd want to stay in the pocket with Duran, not because him moving around like he did in NO was his normal way to fight. That was his ABNORMAL way to fight. He went into the Duran fight thinking he'd box just as he had in the past and one that one him the belt and Olympic glory. Problem then was, he got hurt in the 2nd and 3rd and his head wasn't clear for another 4 rounds or so. That made him stand his ground even more and be like, f it, let's go to war then. Make no mistake though, NO wasn't his normal way to fight, far from it, and we've gone over this before bud.

 

There isn't an either or there, nor does one eliminate the other. For example, Duran could always party in between fights, but if you give yourself enough time to get into shape, that can be masked with good results and performances. If you do the same thing, and don't give yourself time, that is a world of difference. Surely, you can see the difference here and how it can fit nicely into the whole scheme of things using logic and reason.

 

I would pick Hearns to win...by KO.

 

I disagree here. You act like SRL left hook wasn't a deadly weapon.. it certainly was, and one him many KO victories. SRL was also faster than Hearns and had better defense. SRL also had a much better chin. I could list things SRL does better than Hearns, and yet Duran beat him, and convincingly. My point is, Duran of 80, imo, would stand a decent chance of catching up to Hearns. He may not, but it would look like a much different fight than the one they had

 

Duran in 1984 was 7lbs and four years further away from his prime.

Hearns in 1980 was also 7lbs and four years away from his prime. Only a year previously he had been quite fortunate to beat Harold Weston and while he was rapidly improving, a year is only a year.

The way the trajectories of their careers was going, Hearns would inevitably end up being Duran's better. I just don't think that point had arrived when this match up could have been made.

Hearns always wins in 84 but in 80 I'll go with the ATG with the experience.

 

Yes, we've been over this before and Leonard absolutely did move more against his most aggressive, physically imposing opponents than he did in Montreal. I thought that the numerous gifs I posted from various fights already resolved our disagreement. The difference is obvious from the first minute of each fight.

As I'm sure you know, Leonard used different strategies and tactics against different types of opponents. Your suggestion that the commentators were shocked and astonished that Leonard did not unveil a new, unfamiliar style in this fight makes less sense than the obvious alternative, that they had seen Leonard use his legs to thwart pressure fighters and maulers in past fights.

 

Let's be clear: Duran barely beat him... Fight easily could have been a draw or even a one-point Leonard win.