What was your score for Hagler vs. Duran

Rooster, you should know that styles make fights.

Of course, overall, Hamsho was more limited than Duran and Benitez, who are ATG greats

Hamsho beat Benitez because of a huge physical strength advantage, coupled with Benitez beginning to decline. Conversely, Hagler could match Hamsho's strength, and, at the same time. utilize his vastly superior skills to box around him and slice and dice him up all night.

At the same time, Hagler was troubled by Duran's versatility. Duran could not match Hagler's physical strength, but possessd the boxing skills and defense to make the fight competitive. Hagler helped him a bit by boxing a bit too much and not utilizing his strength advantage enough.

Once again it is disconcerting to read one your diatribes where you call others "know nothings" while you commit basic logical errors, yourself.

 

Hagler had too many rounds where he appeared to hold back almost as if in awe of being in the ring with Duran. I believe this caused the fight to be very close after 13 rounds. Someone in between the 13th and 14th said the magic words probably "you're losing!" and Hagler became a non stop punching machine the last two rounds overwelming Duran for a close win.

 

Marvin Hagler wasn't in awe of being in the ring with Duran, a guy who had lost to Kirkland Laing the previous year.
It's more likely that Hagler was intentionally holding back for business reasons.

 

145-141 Hagler, or 9-5-1 in rounds.

 

You"'re right.Hagler wasn't in awe with being in the ring with the guy who lost to Kirkland laing.That guy wasn't in the ring with him pal

Hagler was in the ring with the guy who beat srl,the 71-1 guy with an unparalleled mix of brutality,power and defensive wizardry and slickest.a man known for fff****ery too.the guy who had just destroyed cuevas and Moore.....that's the guy Hagler was in the ring with And that's the guy he was in awe of....

There was a lot of mutual respect deep down

 

it would be a good case if it weren't so weak. about the only thing you're good for is making excuses when your theories dont pan out. "well Wilfred at 25 was on his way out!"

What a fool you are!

if anyone was sliding it was Mustafa. how does 55 stitches sit in your stomach as opposed to a few jabs from Hearns.

so Wilfred wasnt quick enough for Tommy. He wasnt quick enough for Leonard either - same result

Mustafa was just tougher than Wilfred, and unlike you who thought Wilfred was going to "outclass" Mustafa, I never gave Wilfred a chance

as for Hagler being troubled by Duran's "versatility", I ask WHAT versatility? all he did was paw with his left, pivot and throw a right hand. that was it!

even Hag's half brother Simms, a bottom of the pole middleweight, outpointed Duran while losing to every other ranked middleweight including Czyz.

laing, remember him? How come he wasnt troubled by Duran? Yet you expect me to believe Hagler WAS?

it's clear that you dont give enough thought to the things you write before you post them

and unfortunately, you need someone like me to point them out

 

Duran was a good fighter but let's be honest, (Cuevas was already thru, Moore was a novice, and thumbed early) his mystique here is overblown and you still dint answer the question

 

Are you suggesting that Hagler was looking to set up a lucrative rematch? It's an interesting theory please do expand.

Marvin pre Duran greatly resembled waity Katy Middleton in 2010,still waiting for her big show,now in her 30s..

 

I think Hagler held back for that reason or something similar.
I think it happens a lot in big time boxing. It always has. Mayweather and Pacquiao took it to another level though.

 

That's it. Halger underachieved, Duran over achieved. But the fight was not close. Hagler by 4 or 5 rounds.

 

This was your quote:

"If hamsho is limited, then Benitez and Duran are even more limited, explain that to me"

I did. I explained how Hamsho was more limited. Hamsho was easier for Hagler than Duran because of different styles and strengths/weaknesses.

Just because Hamsho beat Benitez and Benitez beat Duran, it does not follow that he was less limited than them.

He happened to have a style that was perfect for beating Benitez at the time he fought him.

He showed moving up to 160 at that time was a bridge too far for Benitez.

He had a huge physical strength advantage and Benitez was not sharp.

But overall, career wise, no logical person would say that Mustafa Hamsho was less limited than Wilfred Benitez and Roberto Duran.

if you cannot see your logical gaps, I am sorry for you.

And you only look foolish throwing out personal insults at anyone who has the temerity (look it up) to disagree with you.

 

if Hamso was so limited, then how did he end up beating so many top notch fighters who WEREN'T limited?

Bobby Watts in 78
Wilford Scypion 1980
Curtis Parker 1980, 1982
Alan Minter 1981
Bobby Czyz 1982 (unbeaten, highly favored)
Wilfred benitez (triple champion, 25 years old, 3-1 favorite)

and no wonder since Mustafa was 31

EXPLAIN YOURSELF!

Side note: how sharp do you expect him to look with his back to the ropes?

Damn you're easy

 

Completely and utterly disagree. There's not a snowballs chance in hell Hagler held back for this reason.

 

Yep. It is a ridiculous notion. He's also open for the possibilities that Sadler drugged Foreman in Zaire and that Duran took a dive in No Mas, but as silly as those are this is worse. He's just not to be taken seriously.

 

Yeah, because in your world professional fighters never carry other fighters .... ... it's never happened ..... professional boxing is a 100% pure integrity sport ... and every fighter is always trying to KO every opponent every time ....