Why wasn't Hagler more aggressive vs. Duran and Leonard?

for duran, even with a clear loss, he deserves more credit than he gets. duran feinted and psyched his way through that fight, exhibiting masterful ring generalship throughout. when hagler pressed, he dominated. but through subtle movement, feints and well timed right hand counters he robbed hagler of his rhythm and control of the fight. it's been said that hagler fought out of respect for duran...maybe. but duran was visibly much smaller and his power couldn't have scared hagler. hagler's respect was won in that ring when he removed hagler's aggression from him and forced him into a tactical counter punchers fight, one which duran could shine at.

with leonard, it seemed to be arrogance as much as anything. he wanted to outbox the boxer and beat leonard at his own game. he wanted to beat leonard as an orthodox fighter. ****, he wanted to beat leonard in front of his own "crowd" and in a giant ring. he couldn't. his corner (all due respect) did him no favours and should have pushed him for the knockout and to use his physical attributes better. whether fair or not, they should have realized the fight was slipping away and leonard was taking it on generalship and even showmanship. the best way to neutralize the judges is knock the ****er out...hagler and his corner failed to see the need and it cost him the title

 

Hagler & his corner where caught out by durans tactics juxtaposed with Duran showing what a skillful fighter he actually was when adopting a countering stratergy. Hagler gets to much stick for this fight & Duran not enough credit IMHO.

 

skill level by excellent counter punchers with accurate power kept Hagler at bay, I think Hagler pulled out the Duran fight by the last 2 rds (if I remember correctly) If Duran took another rd or 2 the fight could have been his. Leonard (Dundee) used experience to steal rds with strong round finish (stealing close rounds

 

First off, the guys capable of troubling Hagler had to have tools in their closet to utilize.

Second, and equally important was corners. Whenever Marvin faced the great trainers, they studied him closely and found faults and had their guy's ready.

Look at what Freddie Brown did with Antuofermo in that first fight. His pre-fight summation was dead nuts and was very specific about what Vito could not do against Hagler. But, what he could do and had to do. Everyone thought it'd be an easy nights work for Marvin, but there was Vito at the end and Marvin hardly looking Marvelous.

Then Brown > retiring pointed out the things Duran would and could do and how that was not going to be an easy night for Hagler. And it was not.

Steward w/ Hearns and Francis w/ Mugabi sure did not make for easy bouts for Marvin either.

And recall what Dundee was saying about Marvin's style and what his guy was going to do pre-fight. And he was right, wasn't he?

But great trainers coupled w/ guys with tools means Marvin is not going to do what he does best. Those guys took it away from him. Just a big disparity comparing Petronelli's and their pre-fight tactics to the great trainers. It's a real good thing they always had Hagler in top shape, or those results could have been worse.

 

simple , He took them both for granted. Hagler did better when he thought a guy was dangerous like Thomas Hearns but if you could sucker Tommy into a brawl you could win if you can take a punch. Hearns loved brawling!!!! As for Marvin Hagler, he thought Roberto Duran would come at him and he would counterpunch. But he won. I am not sure there is any problem in that fight. Marvin won the fight!!! He won a boring fight. With Leonard, he took Ray for granted and came out right handed.!! Too bad he didn't see both as dangerous punchers, he would have stopped both in 5!!

 

Duran doesn't deserve credit for a loss!!!! Give me a break!! It was Hagler who deserves to be insulted for taking people for granted and we paid good money to see him do well. Duran is a guy who gets so many excuses for losses and now he deserves credit for losses??? This is the same guy who was beaten by Benitez cleanly a year or so before Hagler and Hearns stopped Duran in 2 only 8 months after MArvelous Marvin Hagler!!!!!

Duran was a great fighter but wow people excuse this guy for everything!!!!! I give Hagler credit for thinking Hearns was dangerous and going for broke with him. Had you told Hagler that Duran was a huge puncher and dangerous he would have come out breathing fire.

 

Can you imagine!!!. Duran beats Hagler and then Hearns moves up and stops him in 2 rounds and wins the middleweight title easily!!! And he would of!!! Little Duran never had a chance against Hearns!!!
And then Benitez who beat Duran easily would have moved up and challenged Hearns in a rematch and lost. Hearns would have been the guy benefitting. Then Hearns would have had to fight Mugabi. He would have probably won but you never know with Tommy Hearns propensity for brawling!!!!!!

 

Benitez does not get enough credit for beating Duran!!! Hearns gets enough credit because he well known but Wilfred never got the credit for making Duran look like a fool!!

 

The Petronellis were very good trainers.
I'm not sure why they get criticized.

I don't buy in to the myth of some of these "great trainers". It's just silly personality cult stuff that feeds off itself.

 

I agree to a certain extent.
I thought Hagler was a clear winner against Duran in a boring fight. The judges made it closer than it really was.

Yes, there was an attitude with Hagler that no 'welterweight' like Leonard could trouble him either. Definitely he was over-confident. I thought he won against Leonard, but it was razor close, and Hagler paid the price for his arrogance.

 

*****!

 

There was nothing boring about the Duran/Hagler fight if you were around at the time & it all depends on what you want too see in a fight, i thought Durans performence was exceptional & so did all the scribes of the day & when you consider he was alleged to be washed up 12 months previous after losing to Kirkland Laing. Who was the last former undisputed Lightweight champion to challenge for the undisputed Middleweight crown & at the age of 32 when back in 83 that was veiwed as geriatric.

Duran fought a very smart fight & showed the world that he was indeed a top echelon perveyer of the fistic arts when you consider that leonard & hearns wanted absolutly no part of getting into the ring with the P4P king but Duran stepped up to the plate & gave a masterful performence of all round boxing nous & least we forget that he was still the 135 champ just 4 years previous & in all reality had no right to be in the ring with a 160LB titan such as hagler but he stepped up in style!!!

 

Hearns gets way too much credit for beating Duran IMHO.

It was a borderline mismatch, one that Duran couldn't possibly win.

 

So, the best thing we can say about the fight is the loser did better than expected ?

The winner of the fight put on a lukewarm performance in a fight that didn't thrill.
There was no big demand for a rematch, that's for sure.