Why do ppl always say Duran moved up 2 weightclasses to beat Leonard?

Everything is framed around diminishing Duran and making Hearns look better. He doesn't give two shits about Benitez himself. Of course, he won't ever say Duran isn't great -- it'd **** up his entire premise and everything falls like dominoes, but he doesn't mind insinuating it to the furthest degree.

 

I'd argue Marcel's resume is actually better than Benitez's. Wins over Argeullo, Serrano, Antonio Gomez twice, Alfredo Marcano twice, Caraballo, Smecca, Arguably beat shibata. Yeah i would say Marcel probably has a better resume than benitez.

 

Hearns had 32 fights but still probably only 100 rounds at the time of professional fighting and had not been hurt much at all. I would even think he had under 100 professional round when he fought Leonard Hearns was relatively green in 1981 same as Ray in June of 1980. They did not know the whole game, and Duran for Leonard and Leonard for Hearns made them much more complete fighters as the Duran 2 and Benitez fight for Hearns showed.

Duran was prime in 1972? More like prime in 1977 or 1978, and he fought Ray in 1980.. FIghters are rarely prime the year they win the title. Yes I am saying Benitez was greater than Dejesus, Marcel and Buchanan.
You guys are the ones saying Benitez beat an older Duran. I am not saying that. Duran was 30 when Benitez beat him and fighting at a weight he had fought at for 3 or 4 years. No excuses, Duran was outboxed. And he was not older. That is an excuse not many fighters get too easily. Hopkins was 15 years older than Duran when he won the lightheavyweight title recently.
Hearns beat Hill when he was 2 years older than Duran was when he fought Benitez. So if you say Benitez is not better than Virgil Hill for example, then you are saying Hearns win over Virgil is much more impressive than Duran losing easily to Benitez at a younger age and at a weight he was more accustomed to. And Wilfred won his first title at 140 just 5 over Duran's at lightweight.

I don't know how much you know about boxing when you say Benitez was old. Benitez fought his best reign at 154, and he was born the same year Hearns was. Hearns didn't decide to fight Leonard in 1989, Leonard handpicked him, Hearns decided to accept it. Who wouldn't.

Height and reach is not always an advantage. Hagler fought better against taller guys than shorter guys since Hagler's reach was 75 inches, which was the reach of a light heavyweight or cruiserweight, yet smaller guys got inside his arms. Look at his fight with Monroe and Fully Obel. Breland lost to much smaller guys, if you weigh the same weight and you are a great fighter you can beat a taller fighter. That is the challenge, but if a guy 6-1 can weigh in at 147 then there will be weaknesses he has to the body and he usually leans back. Most tall fighters lean back from punches, so that can be a big detriment. Tommy had the same problem when he was younger. You cannot say well here is a tall fighter he will win always. It was up to Duran to beat him, and he couldn't. And that was due to speed more than anything else. And Benitez outclasses Duran and so did Ray. And about height and reach, Shuler and Hill are the same height as Hearns and Hearns beat them easily. The guys who beat Hearns were shorter than him usually and put pressure. It was not about height and reach it was about bringing Hearns within punching range. I remember when I lived in California, I went to see Hearns fight a guy named Ed Dalton. Hearns was older then like 38 ,but Dalton was a guy Duran's height I think. He put the pressure on Hearns and it was war for 5 rounds, with Hearns winning by knockout. Yet a few years before Hearns fought a guy at the forum named Kemper Morton. 6-3 I think. Hearns knocked him out in 2 rounds, and landed body shots and came up to the head.

When did Hearns avoid McCallum and when did Mike call him out? Let's go through the years. Hearns in 1984 has 3 title defenses and is scheduled to fight Hagler in April. Mike won his title in October of 1984 on the Hamsho undercard. So 1984 and 1985 are out of the question. Hearns has Shuler scheduled for Nov of 1985 on the same card Hagler has Mugabi. Hagler has a nose injury, the fight postponed to March. Hearns and Hagler win, Ray comes out in May saying he wants to fight Hagler, after Hearns and Hagler scheduled for a rematch in Nov of 1986. Hearns tunes up against Medal in 1986 because he still thinks Hagler fight is going to happen. Then Hagler accepts Ray's challenge. Hearns fight Dewitt as a tuneup to go up and win the light heavyweight title after the Hagler fight prevents him from winning the middleweight title, as he always said he wanted to win 4 titles. So up to 1987 when would he have fought Mike and who spoke about it? Then he fights Roldan in Oct. 1987 and Mike fights Curry in July. Now at that point Hearns was at 175 and Mike at 154. This Hearns avoided Mike thing is overrated. Hearns was focused on Ray and Marvin and his group. The issue of Mike being avoided by Hearns came out years later, but at the time I rarely heard anything about it. At that time it was Donald Curry vs. Mike Mccallum.

That honestly does not make sense. Saying Hearns did not beat great fighters his height and weight? Well you tell who were the great fighters in his era who were his height and reach? He fought the greats he was going to fight. That is the intrugue of Hearns. A taller hard puncher who was fast and could box who seemed to have a shaky chin. All fighters have to be perfect heights and weights? That is why the fab 4 is remembered. There were so many styles and personalities. Taller Hearns, Southpaw Hagler, Flashy Leonard, Brutal Duran. As for height and reach-Virgil Hill was his height and relative reach. Virgil 6-1 1/2 and 77 inch reach and naturally bigger. Hearns outboxes him and wins a UD 30 pounds above Hearns first title weight and Hill was undefeated and to this day one of the most underrated guys ever. Hearns made his career moving up and winning titles, but now he has to fight guys his height and reach to prove more??
If it was so easy to be 6-1 and weight 147 and be great why don't most guys who are 6-1 or 6-2 just get to 147 and do this. It was be so easy to do wouldn't it? Lose weight and be a legend and beat guys like Cuevas and Benitez and Duran and Hill. Easy, Just be tall and get to 147 pounds.

Can you prove Benitez was shot at the age of 24? It is funny, you said something like I "spew BS" but everything you are saying is guess work and unproven. How was Benitez shot at 24? A shot fighter beat Duran easily?? A shot fighter can take Hearns 15 rounds and avoid Hearns punches.

At least Duran lost when he was 31 and 33? No he lost when he was 29,30 and 32 to great fighters, and he lost easily to all of them. I am not making it up. At the same age Hearns was winning the light heavyweight title against a guy who was 26 and the same height and reach as Hearns, something you said Hearns only beat fighters he "dwarfed" as though he weighed 40 pounds more than them. They had to work the body and get inside. That is what makes a great fighter. Hagler and Leonard did it and Duran and Benitez and Cuevas could not. And Hill could not jab Tommy. Tommy outjabbed him. Twice Tommy outboxed the boxer and outpunches the punchers.

The announcers saying the Xmas gift thing I remember. But those guys didn't score the fight if I recall, and those announcers were Ferdie Pacheco and Steve Albert if I recall. Ferdie always spoke nonsense. But I thought it was in a reference to thanksgiving, but Xmas. That was Ferdie Pacheco, and he didn't say that about the decision he said it about Hearns holding in the 4th round and not being DQed. Hearns holding was a good move. Got him to survive and fight on and fight Ray in the rematch. And that fight is significant because Ray fights Hearns and looks old and washed up, something he counted on Tommy to be, and then Ray still could outbox Roberto easily. Which is significant.

 

I always said Duran was great. He had a great lightweight career and overall an impressive resume My argument is about the excuses which he gets for losing at 147-154 when he was not as old and washed up as people say, and I will argue he was not old or washed up as a fighter. This is really about his legacy in the Leonard,Benitez,Hearns,Hagler era. You guys think it is about Duran, it is about excuses and why he gets them and others do not. And the fact is those guys he fought from 147-160 define his legacy, and the Duran fans know it. So they want to give him excuses for it, as though had he been in shape he would have beaten those guys. But he was far from beating them. The totality of his career his great. I cannot stay top 10 ATG, but I always said top 25. Top 10 means he would have overcome his size issues and all the other excuses and the bottomline is he would have won.

 

I never said Duran was not great. I said the excuses he uses at 147-160 when he fought at that weight as early as 1978 and the fact he was 29-32 years old are not valid excuses. Great fighter who stepped up and was not as washed up or small as people thought and just lost to great fighters, one of those being Benitez.

 

so you build up Duran and then say Benitez had a gift against Carlos Palomino, yet when Benitez easily beats Duran that means nothing? You are doing what you are accusing me of doing. Yet in the case of Benitez vs. Duran the fact is Benitez easily beat Duran when Duran was only 30 and fighting at a weight he fought at for a long time. And Duran said he trained for this fight.

 

No benitez really isnt any better than buchanon, marcel or de jesus. He has the worst longevity and he doesnt even have the better overall resume. Marcel's resume is better.

Mike Mccallum has said in a video interview that he wanted hearns after he beat braxton and mccrory and hearns mangers and promoters gave him a picture of hearns and said thats th cloest you will get too tommy. Mccallum's testimony of why the fight didnt tae place is certainly more credible than what an online thomas hearns mark says. Mccallum always wanted hearns, hes far more credible than the bs you continue to spew.

Hearns was only 29 and he gets knocked the **** out by a club fighter. Hearns was green in 1981 and leonard was green in 1980 despite the fact tht they already had 7 wins against ranked fighters and the media labelled tommy #1 pound for pound, you really love trolling dont you. Hearns LOST his BIGGEST fights, hes the ultimate chocker.

 

Build up duran? He's consistenly ranked as one of the greatest ever and always 20-40 spots higher than thomas hearns on every all time list, i dont need to build him up. He had over 14 years of experience by the time he fouht benitez, thats when smaller weight fighters decline, your too dull to realize that.

Hagler dusted hearns in 3 rounds, clubfighter barkley beat him twice, even james kinchen beat him and got robbed. There was a poll here a few months back about contrroversial decisions and manyy people acknowledged hearns-kinchen as a robbery, lol at 30 he couldnt deal with the might james kinchen and needed a christmas gift.

 

This content is protected

You didn't answer the questions.

:rofl BOOM!

 

I don't regard Kinchen as a robbery. I haven't seen that fight in 20 years and I remember that Kinchen thought because he won round 4 and 5 and maybe 2 more that he won the fight. Hearns won the first 3 I remember, the 4th round being 10-7 made it even. Otherwise Hearns edged that fight and won easily enough with the other announcers on the top rank show Bernstein and I forget who else (maybe Dave Bontempo) saying Kinchen is just not doing enough to win these rounds. Which has always been his problem as a fighter, and that Hearns closed the show the way he had to with his experience. I am not sure why the Kinchen fight is mentioned. Kinchen/Hearns was still a win for Tommy. Kinchen had the big knockdowns and still lost the fight because he could not put it all together.

 

you take Emanuel Steward giving him that picture as proof that they ran from Mike? Mike never called out Hearns much and there was not much talk about it. That same interview you mention Mike talking about Emanuel giving him that picture, I did watch. That is the one where Mike says he told Hagler at the Hall of Fame that he ducked him and that Hagler said nothing. Hagler was never in a position to fight Mike and by the time Hagler retired, Mike was still at 154. So how is that credible? If he said Hagler ducked him yet he never was at middleweight until after Hagler retired, what he said in the same interview where he said Hagler ducked him is more credible than what I say? I suppose so.

 

Of course you will score it for tommy, but many people on this site and across the internet scored it for the great club fighter james kinchen. I am supposed to excuse tommy's mediocre performances after 1985 becauseTommy lost his soul after hagler smashed him into pieces.

 

And I will add Hearns had fighters to fight. Mike wanting to fight Hearns is no different than anyone else at the time. Hearns was a big name at 154. Many guys wanted Hearns. Mugabi or other fighters calling him out. Virgil Hill called him out. Barkley called him out after fighting Van Horn. A lot of guys did. But at that time I don't recall many people talking about Hearns/McCallum. Hearns had his plate full with Hagler and the middleweights and Mike was a junior middleweight. Hearns really did not campaign at 154 past 1985. He fought there once in a tuneup, but fought a good fighter but not a big puncher in Mark Medal. He just needed a tuneup and then gave up the title in 1986 to fight at 175.

 

Duran and Leonard were not middleweights when hagler fought them, mugabi was also fighting at 154, try again. All it does is dimish hearns, because he could have beaten a great fighter in hisprime hade he fought mccallum, not smaller fighters like benitez or old has beens, the theme of tomy's career.

 

Yes Hagler smashed Tommy's soul. Which is why Tommy fought 25 fights after Hagler and Hagler fought 2 times. Tommy won 4 more titles. WBC middleweight, 2 at light heavyweight and one at supermiddleweight. and had 2 more superfights. Who excuses a mediocre performance? But I think beating Duran,Benitez,Cuevas or Hill is much more notable than having a hard fight against James Kinchen. And I might add, Hearns was scheduled to fight Fulgencio Obelmejias for the WBA Supermiddleweight title and on Oct 18 1988 2 weeks before the fight, Obel gets a rib injury and pulls out. The WBO is formed and Kinchen who just won the NABF title gets the fight. So Hearns won his 5th title on the night he beat Kinchen. I don't really see Hagler as smashing Tommy's soul. I actually thought Tommy took a rather devastating loss and moved on very well from it. Becoming elite again.