Hagler vs Duran - Was it a razor-thin decision?

[WalkerSmithJnr]

You could be correct on what you claim, BUT i am 100% certain the judges of the fight were there, as was Ring Mag live reporter, and Harry Mullen Boxing News live reporter... all of who had the fight "Razor-Thin" decision .. Maybe they and the judges are wrong, and you and JAB are right

Please link Boxing News and Ring Mag.
This is the same Ring magazine that
did that dodgy middleweight tournament? The one where Marvin Hagler wasn't rated in the top 8 U.S. Middleweights?
Whatever your opinion of Hagler he was certainly one of the top American MWs at the time of the tournament he had beat half the fighters who were in their top 8.
As for the judges are you saying judges are always 100% accurate and if so what was the point of the thread or should we just rubber stamp every judges verdict ever?
It isn't just me and Jab it is the vast majority of the voters on this thread and I have quoted others who scored it different to the judges.

[sonnyboyx2]

Please link Boxing News and Ring Mag.
This is the same Ring magazine that
did that dodgy middleweight tournament? The one where Marvin Hagler wasn't rated in the top 8 U.S. Middleweights?
Whatever your opinion of Hagler he was certainly one of the top American MWs at the time of the tournament he had beat half the fighters who were in their top 8.
As for the judges are you saying judges are always 100% accurate and if so what was the point of the thread or should we just rubber stamp every judges verdict ever?
It isn't just me and Jab it is the vast majority of the voters on this thread and I have quoted others who scored it different to the judges.

Yes, from my experience judges are correct most of the time. I have no reason to doubt the judges for Hagler vs Duran..You are now claiming "Corruption" from the Ring Mag because they scored it "Razor-Thin" lol

[WalkerSmithJnr]

Yes, from my experience judges are correct most of the time. I have no reason to doubt the judges for Hagler vs Duran..You are now claiming "Corruption" from the Ring Mag because they scored it "Razor-Thin" lol

Not at all, for one thing I've yet to see the evidence they scored it razor thin
I mention the Ring magazine middleweight tournament to show that even they aren't 100% unless of course you don't think Hagler was a top 8 U.S. Middleweight?

[WalkerSmithJnr]

Yes, from my experience judges are correct most of the time.

Judges bosses are the promotors and the sanctioning bodies. Most employees try to please their boss.
sanctioning bodies are heavily influenced by the promotors.
The promotors have a vested interest in the results of fights and fighters.
Can you not see potential conflict of interests at times?

This was a result that a close decision was a very helpful business decision.
Hagler is still MW title holder with a great name on his record and Duran has proved what a great fighter he is and can drop back down to LMW his reputation pretty much intact.
Don't get me wrong Duran fought a decent fight and showed a lot of Hagler weaknesses but it wasn't razor thin.

[billeau2]

You could be correct on what you claim, BUT i am 100% certain the judges of the fight were there, as was Ring Mag live reporter, and Harry Mullen Boxing News live reporter... all of who had the fight "Razor-Thin" decision .. Maybe they and the judges are wrong, and you and JAB are right

Thats possible but its a strawman because whether or not Walker hardly addresses the point he made, which is a point that is accepted by people who watch boxing: namely that one does not have to be physically present to view a fight and come to a conclusion.

Also the very premise of your argument is a fallicy. Judges have in the past, often rendered bad decisions...thats a fact.

[JAB5239]

I looked at those links and they pretty much read out the judges scoring.

I posted up some quotes which were ignored. So I guess we just parrot the judges scoring in here except where it disagrees with our view.

As for Hagler being marked up and Duran not, if I remember right Leonard was far more marked up than Duran after their third fight but I doubt anyone scored that for Duran.

It's terrible, but he isn't looking to debate or talk boxing. He's just looking for attention. He practically admits as much in the post I will respond to next.

[JAB5239]

Nope... not trolling or dolling, but to see what i am up against on the forum. like i pointed out.. Razor-Thin is not the definition i used, that came from Ring Magazine of which i have already posted up a link.. But you chose to ignore that LOL...

You could not be more incorrect about this forum. I only post here because you post here. You make me laugh with your ridiculous posts. You make me laugh with your antics LOL.. i enjoy laughing at you, Joseph and Scott. I post on many other forums, but they are not as funny as here with you three posting. Other forums i never laugh, because on those forums, there is posters who know boxing and talk boxing. Unlike on this forum, which is funny

Do you truly believe that you are correct Hagler won by 4rds or more. And that i am incorrect saying Hagler won by winning the last round?... LOL

No, you're trolling. You've been here several years to "know what you're up against". In fact this isn't the first time you have posted on this topic in this section. As far as only being here for me....that's cute. I wasn't here for two years and you were posing away in this section. And I doubt you post at other forums. I know for a fact you were banned from ESB and have little doubt you schtic is tolerated on other forums. You're a troll, end of story.

[JAB5239]

Thats possible but its a strawman because whether or not Walker hardly addresses the point he made, which is a point that is accepted by people who watch boxing: namely that one does not have to be physically present to view a fight and come to a conclusion.

Also the very premise of your argument is a fallicy. Judges have in the past, often rendered bad decisions...thats a fact.

Exactly! Judges are influenced the the sanctioning orgs, the fighters themselves and even the crowd.

[WalkerSmithJnr]

Razor-Thin is not the definition i used, that came from Ring Magazine of which i have already posted up a link.. But you chose to ignore that LOL...

I read all the links you posted and didn't see Ring Magazine, if I missed it sorry.
I've asked you twice to put up those links and am still waiting

[JAB5239]

Nope... not trolling or dolling, but to see what i am up against on the forum. like i pointed out.. Razor-Thin is not the definition i used, that came from Ring Magazine of which i have already posted up a link.. But you chose to ignore that

Outrageous and vivid descriptions are used to sell magazines and entice readers. That doesn't mean it's accurate as proven by you lopsided poll.