Who Thought Duran Hagler Was Close

I'm not so sure actually. Duran didn't have the power (allied to lack of size and SRL like style and slickness) to take the title from Marvin IMO. Marvin controlled the inside exchanges and Duran, tho surprisingly effective standing off, was hardly likely to outbox him for 15. Tho a bit past it when Marvin fought them guys like Monroe, Hart and Briscoe presented potential (we didn't know just how great Marvins chin really was) fight threatening assets. Antuofermo even, a big strong crude 160 who held Marvin to a draw. Duran was certainly the "greatest" Marvin had fought, and i'd venture to say the most skillful, but at 160 i'm really not sure he was the most "formidable" Marvin had faced.

I couldn't agree less. Leonard totally outboxed Hagler at various times and walked away with his title. As for the praise for Duran's risk taking as opposed to Leonard's, two things. Firstly you have been praising and defending Marvin's cautious approach vs Duran, a fighter infinitely less dangerous to Marvin than Marvin was to Leonard, yet you also criticise Leonard for too much caution when (secondly) Leonard was more of a boxing slickster type than Hagler. Leonard won the fight! So did Hagler vs Duran. Duran actually aborted his customary style and stood back far more than normal. Smart move, because he would have been in serious trouble if not. As Leonard would have been engaging more. Smart move again. Leonard landed plenty of leather in boxing mode in this one.

No doubt, but realistically he didn't even get close.

Yes but i stand solidly behind my conviction that Duran beating the likes of Moore and Cuevas should not have cast doubt as it did too such a dominant great champion as Hagler. These two performances AND his great effort vs Hagler sure didn't worry Hearns, he came out and absolutely decimated Roberto.

Duran was actually the one that didn't want any part of an aggressive Hagler. He summed up the situation perfectly, Marvin didn't. He allowed Duran to stand off him and cruise.

Duran wasn't a banger at 160, he hit Moore all night long at 154 let alone 6 pounds up.

Not gonna happen. What if he slugged and stopped him? Lots more chance of that than vice versa.

 

Well Hearns broke his right hand vs Benitez and Benitez is one of the greatest ever defensive genius's as well as being less aggressive than Duran.

I agree not everyone stops every opponent, but the fact of the matter is that Hagler's performance was considered to be a stinker due to his lack of aggression and dominance against a smaller older man. Again, when he had some offensive success he immediately and inexplicably reverted back to a more cautious approach.

This was Leonard's natural style. If we cut it real deep Duran actually fought FAR less aggressive than was customary, and comparatively fought more out of style than Leonard. He had to, just as Leonard had to stick to boxing and not get lured into thinking he could match it with the bigger man.

Agreed.

I disagree because Hagler did anything but use his "immense physicality". It would have been even harder to use/impose vs a slightly quicker, sharper and more mobile Duran.

I can totally agree to this, but Hagler was also disappointing no matter how i cut it. Bottom line - Hagler deserves some criticism for a sub par effort while Duran deserves all the accolades he gets for a superlative effort given the circumstances.

That's it in a nutshell for me. We've prolly gone as far as we can but i've enjoyed the banter immensely, as usual. Tho i don't always agree with you, you certainly put forward fantastic debate, vision and devotion.

 

Correct-a-mundo. I should have said that Duran was the greatest of Marvin's opponents up to that time, but not necessarily the most formidable.

Duran was the same age that Marvin was when Marvin fought Ray. He was also further into a far longer career, and again, a natural LW! He took far more risks against far fiercer and younger Marvin and did so for 9 minutes longer than Ray. 9 minutes alone against Hagler feels like eons.

Ray was 30, taller than Marvin, and while it is true he was coming off of a 5 year lay-off, he ate, drank, and breathed Marvin during a long training camp. Ray fought a relatively safe fight outside, in a larger ring, with larger gloves, over less rounds, against a faded Marvin. He won, and Duran didn't, but even that is controversial.

...and would you have predicted that?? Anyone outside of Hearns and Steward who claimed that they did is a liar. However, I see your point. You would not deny that Duran was at least feeling good again and was therefore more dangerous, though, right?

Yes.

...the point was he was a better banger than Napoles and far better than Griffith. A lightweight 15 or 21 years into his career who can still manage to rearranging the faces of two younger, hard-hitting, MW champions (Moore, Barkley) and drop them both confirms that he could bang at 160 in my mind.

"Not gonna happen" doesn't apply in boxing. Ray Arcel "If someone told me that Duran would quit in the ring, I'd have killed them."

I agree that Marvin had the advantage in a slugging match, but again, you dismiss the risks of that too casually and with that part of your argument you are doing so via the benefit of hindsight. Hearns, the post-fight critique of Marvin, do nothing to dispute the argument presented here -which purely revolves around pre-fight factors: Duran's caliber, experience, stoney fists, and recent conquests.

 

JT.

A loose end....

I agree that Leonard did what had to be done to stand a chance against Hagler. Duran also did the best he could have done. I happen to believe that prime for prime, Leonard had the answers for Hagler more than Duran -who was simply too small. However, given the size difference, the Hagler age factor, the risk factor in the ring in terms of how each man made his stand against the MW king, as well as Duran's disdain for any politicking as to ring size, glove size, and round count, makes the 1983 'clear but competitive loss' more impressive than the 1987 'controversial but shocking win'.

Your argument is absolutely sound and your points are well taken -except for the arguments that could not have been known in November of 1983.

One of us is wrong about how threatening Duran actually was to Hagler at the time. You see less threat than I in Duran, I see more threat than you. Your criticism of Hagler pivots on your belief. My acceptance of his more cautious approach to Duran pivots on mine.

Thank you for a great debate. You, Mega, Pontius, Duo, MDWC, Manassa, Spoon, Achilles, McVey, and Janitor have proven the most worthy opponents.

 

Well master technicians can trouble anyone...that's they're so called !
It's true that Hagler preferred fighters to come to him - he was basically a counter puncher despite his fearsome image. Clever Duran knew this and tunred counter puncher himself. MMH still won ten rounds though. If the judges had got it right we wouldn't even be discussing it. We'd be just be saying good survival tactics by Roberto.

 

Totally agree so far, tho i will add the proviso that SRL was quite likely too small to actually win (over Hagler) in their primes as well. It's possible, but even with say hindsight of their actual fight Hagler would be fave.

Still totally disagree here sorry. Duran didn't come close to beating Hagler, Leonard did. We can zero in on Hagler aging but the facts are Leonard had just as many disadvantages and a fair view would probably say more. Hagler was still rated as the man when Leonard beat him and was actually more heavily favoured over Ray than over Duran. The whole topic nearly always depends on which camp you have your foot in. Both men were in over their head weight wise.

Ditto, and this whole debate is really opinion based and both sides have their points.

Well spoken mate and always a pleasure. I am about to read your prior post so have commented here first.

 

I didn't say i don't rate his defense. I just asked you describe his elusive actions. You should have no problem with this if you know what you're talking about.

 

Would you consider Duran an elusive fighter or not?

Would you say Hagler had more difficulty hitting Duran cleany than your hero's Hamsho and Roldan?

 

This is your strategy? You don't know the answer so you try putting me on the spot.

Can you or can't you answer the question? If so, then lets see it.

 

i think it was more competitive than close

 

I know you didn't see Hagler-Roldan. if you had you wouldn't have stupidly left yourself open leaving the impression Roldan was easy to hit. Roldan was the most difficult to hit, much more so than Duran because of his bobbing weaving style, blended with his perpetual motion offense.

John, just forget it. You're getting slaughtered, you're much too easy to destroy and you do a poor job at trying to impersonate me.

 

That's a good way of putting it.

 

Surely not even you can't be dim witted enough not to see Duran slipping, blocking and rolling with punches whether flat footed or not?

 

Show me again where i left the impression Roldan was easy to hit.

Let me get this right, you say Duran wasn't elusive vs Hagler and tell us

You're killer comedy mate

 

Your response proved my point.

i didn't say Duran wasn't elusive. I asked you to tell me what set him apart from the others, and to describe his defense that supposedly gave Hagler fits.

So Duran bobbed and weaved but that's not anything unusual. No fighter makes themself available to be hit.

But you make it look as though Roberto showed Hagler something he'd never seen before.

You attempts to ridicule are your own undoing because you don't go about it in an intelligent way. Making a direct comparison between the defenses of Duran and Roldan, indicates you don't think Roldan posed any problems for marvin, something you now realize was a mistake once I revealed it.