Re: Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?
Nobody beats Hagler in a shoot out at 160. Maybe Hearns. Fighting Hearns is like playing with matches next to a fire or trying to defuse a bomb. I can very easily see Hearns putting haglers lights out with one good setup punch. If hagler tried to get inside again Hearns would have held him in the second fight. Once hearns settled hagler down to a boxing match - hagler either gets KO'd, Tko'd by cuts, or out outpointed. a 5 year retired Ray Leonard outpointed hagler. Hearns wins an easy 5 point decision or tko on cuts. Leonard exposed Hagler bigtime. Even Hearns said Leonard would beat Hagler. Tommys weakness was his management not his skills. He was the class of that era with bad management. Can you imagine if Goody and Pat or Dundee trained Hearns. Dont get me wrong I love Hagler but he was tied for 3rd best with Duran in that fab 4. Hearns Leonard 1-2
Re: Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?
As much as id like to think Tommy would beat Marvin , its just not a good fight for him , he cant hurt Marvin , so the pressure gets to him sooner or later.
Re: Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?
He couldn't keep Leonard off him at 147; he wasn't going to keep Hagler off him at 160.
Re: Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?
I don`t know for you guys, but in the first round the only person that is landing clear is Hagler. Every single time that hearns is trowing a shot is on the guard of Marvin. 90% of the time is lile Hagler geting hit above the temple and tommy get hit on the chin. Thats the difference in defensive skills. Emanuel Steward don´t have a fighter with some fundamental denfensive or movement skills. He is like Freddie, he can train only guys with certain talants...
Re: Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?
Hagler could never replicate that performance. Hearns had more upside in a second fight. Hagler could'nt adjust. If Hagler came with the same hand speed from the Mugabi or Leonard fight then Hearns eats him alive. People judge Hagler off that one fight. As a boxer Hagler would'nt have a chance against Hearns. If he chose to box Hearns- Hagler gets knocked out or stoped on cuts. If he pressured Hearns- Hearns would hold him and not "exchange with Hagler" thus wearing down. Also I'm convinced theres a good chance Hearns hurts Hagler in a second fight. Not from a brawl but from long range. Hagler earned the first fight. But Tommy was the better fighter. Also Hagler was not the same fighter after the Hearns fight. Tommy was still in his prime.
Re: Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
He couldn't keep Leonard off him at 147; he wasn't going to keep Hagler off him at 160.
Yeah and in the second fight in 89 Leonard could'nt keep Hearns off of him. Leonard forced Hearns to fight at a catch weight as well. Hagler couldnt knock Leonard down at 160 but Hearns knocked Leonard down twice and out boxed Leonard in both fights. If you don't believe me look at the scorecards from the first fight and ask Leonard himself about the second fight.
Hagler had his one moment and I give him credit. Smartest thing he ever did was to aviod Hearns after the first fight. Not to say he didnt have a chance of winning a second fight against Hearns. But doubtful. "the sun can't shine on the same dogs ass every day"
Re: Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nikola_ganchev
I don`t know for you guys, but in the first round the only person that is landing clear is Hagler. Every single time that hearns is trowing a shot is on the guard of Marvin. 90% of the time is lile Hagler geting hit above the temple and tommy get hit on the chin. Thats the difference in defensive skills. Emanuel Steward don´t have a fighter with some fundamental denfensive or movement skills. He is like Freddie, he can train only guys with certain talants...
I agree about Steward 100 percent. Bad bad fight plan for Hearns. Steward cost Tommy the first Leonard fight and the Hagler fight. Ask the experts-Marvin as a southpaw was taylor made for Hearns. Both of Marvins eyes would have beed swollen shut if he stays long range with Hearns.
Also Tommy was landing shots. But never thru boxing. He was punching going backwards. To much BS in the first fight to discuss. Hagler won a back alley fist fight not a boxing match. I give him and his trainers 100 percent credit. Great fight plan. However thats is the only way he had a chance to win. Most experts agree with this. A second fight would have been much different IMO.
Re: Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electivemed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
He couldn't keep Leonard off him at 147; he wasn't going to keep Hagler off him at 160.
Yeah and in the second fight in 89 Leonard could'nt keep Hearns off of him. Leonard forced Hearns to fight at a catch weight as well. Hagler couldnt knock Leonard down at 160 but Hearns knocked Leonard down twice and out boxed Leonard in both fights. If you don't believe me look at the scorecards from the first fight and ask Leonard himself about the second fight.
Hagler had his one moment and I give him credit. Smartest thing he ever did was to aviod Hearns after the first fight. Not to say he didnt have a chance of winning a second fight against Hearns. But doubtful. "the sun can't shine on the same dogs ass every day"
Sorry; thought we were talking about in their primes. The 33-year-old Leonard who had had five fights in the last 8 years couldn't execute the fight plan well enough to beat Hearns (and I agree that Hearns was robbed on the cards), but the prime Leonard of '81 showed how it was done. As far as the sun shining...I like Hearns, but at 160, against a 30-year old Hagler, it would have taken a lot of days before daylight landed on his has. Hagler takes him 7 out of 8 times. It was Hearns who was lucky there wasn't a rematch. He should be glad he left the ring vertically the first time.
Re: Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electivemed
People judge Hagler off that one fight.
I thought they judged him on the ten years that he went without losing a fight. Hearns popped Hagler with his best shot, and Hagler's knees buckled; Hagler popped Hearns with his best shot, and the fight was effectively over. Hagler was a great pressure fighter, and he took a better punch than Hearns did. Hearns was an all-time great, but he could be beaten. Leonard showed how to do it, and Hagler did it to perfection.
Re: Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electivemed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
He couldn't keep Leonard off him at 147; he wasn't going to keep Hagler off him at 160.
Yeah and in the second fight in 89 Leonard could'nt keep Hearns off of him. Leonard forced Hearns to fight at a catch weight as well. Hagler couldnt knock Leonard down at 160 but Hearns knocked Leonard down twice and out boxed Leonard in both fights. If you don't believe me look at the scorecards from the first fight and ask Leonard himself about the second fight.
Hagler had his one moment and I give him credit. Smartest thing he ever did was to aviod Hearns after the first fight. Not to say he didnt have a chance of winning a second fight against Hearns. But doubtful. "the sun can't shine on the same dogs ass every day"
Sorry; thought we were talking about in their primes. The 33-year-old Leonard who had had five fights in the last 8 years couldn't execute the fight plan well enough to beat Hearns (and I agree that Hearns was robbed on the cards), but the prime Leonard of '81 showed how it was done. As far as the sun shining...I like Hearns, but at 160, against a 30-year old Hagler, it would have taken a lot of days before daylight landed on his has. Hagler takes him 7 out of 8 times. It was Hearns who was lucky there wasn't a rematch. He should be glad he left the ring vertically the first time.
If Hearns was so easy to beat why then did Leonard not fight him right after the Hagler fight? If leonard goes back in the ring with Hearns between 82-87 Hearns ends Leonards career and eyesight. Hagler won a 3 minute shootout. It was over after round one. If Hearns had the chance to exchange with Hagler 5-10 times over 7-8 rounds with each exchange lasting 5-10 seconds Hagler looses those exchanges and the fight. He just didnt have the hand speed or boxing ability Hearns had. After the Hagler-Duran fight Haglers trainers knew Marvin couldnt box with the elites of the division and changed his style to a brawler. Hearns management team was dumb enought to let it happen.
If they fought again before 1988 Hagler is a bloody mess and gets stopped. All other elite fighters Hagler ever fought he went into the late rounds with Hagler (Duran Leonard Mugabi Roldan). Best move Hagler made was to not fight Hearns again.
As to being in their prime Leonard layed off 5 years was past 30 with no warm up fights and beat Hagler. He went on to have 1-2 more tune up fights and challanged a ring worn Hearns and Hearns soundly beat him. Hagler won but Heans management team was dumb enough to lose it for Hearns.
Re: Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electivemed
People judge Hagler off that one fight.
I thought they judged him on the ten years that he went without losing a fight. Hearns popped Hagler with his best shot, and Hagler's knees buckled; Hagler popped Hearns with
his best shot, and the fight was effectively over. Hagler was a great pressure fighter, and he took a better punch than Hearns did. Hearns was an all-time great, but he could be beaten. Leonard showed how to do it, and Hagler did it to perfection.
Another issue Hagler had with Hearns is that Hagler didn't hate Hearns anymore after the fight. He respected Hearns for coming after him. The motivation just wouldn't have been there for Hagler. That was Hearns big downfall as well. After Leonard retired in 82 Hearns had no redemption opportunity. He was the king of the ring from 82-85 with no challenges. He underestimated Hagler and paid for it. Hagler would have had the same issue in a rematch. Once Hagler got his glory after the Hearns match along with the abuse he took in the fight he was never the same. I'm also glad he didn't fight Leonard agian. Hagler would have lost by more. Hagler was a punching bag his last two fights. Had he fought Hearns in either of those fights it wouldn't have been good for Hagler. Facts are Marvin wasn't the same fighter after the Hearns fight and Hearns became a true middleweight and up. Marvin was a great brawler - however duran didnt fall for it, leonard didnt fall for it, hearns did. Any other style but all out war Hagler loses by alot against Hearns.
Re: Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electivemed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electivemed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
He couldn't keep Leonard off him at 147; he wasn't going to keep Hagler off him at 160.
Yeah and in the second fight in 89 Leonard could'nt keep Hearns off of him. Leonard forced Hearns to fight at a catch weight as well. Hagler couldnt knock Leonard down at 160 but Hearns knocked Leonard down twice and out boxed Leonard in both fights. If you don't believe me look at the scorecards from the first fight and ask Leonard himself about the second fight.
Hagler had his one moment and I give him credit. Smartest thing he ever did was to aviod Hearns after the first fight. Not to say he didnt have a chance of winning a second fight against Hearns. But doubtful. "the sun can't shine on the same dogs ass every day"
Sorry; thought we were talking about in their primes. The 33-year-old Leonard who had had five fights in the last 8 years couldn't execute the fight plan well enough to beat Hearns (and I agree that Hearns was robbed on the cards), but the prime Leonard of '81 showed how it was done. As far as the sun shining...I like Hearns, but at 160, against a 30-year old Hagler, it would have taken a lot of days before daylight landed on his has. Hagler takes him 7 out of 8 times. It was Hearns who was lucky there wasn't a rematch. He should be glad he left the ring vertically the first time.
If Hearns was so easy to beat why then did Leonard not fight him right after the Hagler fight? If leonard goes back in the ring with Hearns between 82-87 Hearns ends Leonards career and eyesight. Hagler won a 3 minute shootout. It was over after round one. If Hearns had the chance to exchange with Hagler 5-10 times over 7-8 rounds with each exchange lasting 5-10 seconds Hagler looses those exchanges and the fight. He just didnt have the hand speed or boxing ability Hearns had. After the Hagler-Duran fight Haglers trainers knew Marvin couldnt box with the elites of the division and changed his style to a brawler. Hearns management team was dumb enought to let it happen.
If they fought again before 1988 Hagler is a bloody mess and gets stopped. All other elite fighters Hagler ever fought he went into the late rounds with Hagler (Duran Leonard Mugabi Roldan). Best move Hagler made was to not fight Hearns again.
As to being in their prime Leonard layed off 5 years was past 30 with no warm up fights and beat Hagler. He went on to have 1-2 more tune up fights and challanged a ring worn Hearns and Hearns soundly beat him. Hagler won but Heans management team was dumb enough to lose it for Hearns.
The boxing ability doesn't help if you don't make it to the final bell. Leonard hadn't been off for 5 years; he'd been off for just under three. Leonard did better against Hagler than Hearns did because Leonard had a better chin than Hearns.
When Leonard was outslugging Hearns, Hearns adopted the style that some people think he should have used against Hagler - he used his reach, jabbed, and sought limited exchanges from long range. It didn't work. It wasn't enough to keep Leonard off of him, and it wouldn't have been enough to keep Hagler off of him. That's why he slugged it out with Hagler; not because he and Emanuel Steward were stupid, but because they knew that boxing Hagler wouldn't work for 12 rounds. It's like gambling with the odds against you, say, at roulette. Your best bet is to put it all on the line in one big shot; if you try to grind it out slowly with a disadvantage, you'll get eaten alive.
If the Leonard (vs. Hearns) fight hadn't happened, it would be one thing to say that Hearns could have beaten Hagler with a different strategy. But it did. Hearns adopted that strategy when he had a points lead and just had to survive, because he already had a points lead. And he couldn't do it. The fact that he beat Leonard years later, when Leonard wasn't anywhere near the fighter he was in '81, is irrelevant. It didn't work against a prime Leonard.
Hearns was a great fighter, but if you could stand up to his power shots and throw a good punch yourself, he was vulnerable. (See also: Iran Barkley).
Re: Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electivemed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electivemed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
He couldn't keep Leonard off him at 147; he wasn't going to keep Hagler off him at 160.
Yeah and in the second fight in 89 Leonard could'nt keep Hearns off of him. Leonard forced Hearns to fight at a catch weight as well. Hagler couldnt knock Leonard down at 160 but Hearns knocked Leonard down twice and out boxed Leonard in both fights. If you don't believe me look at the scorecards from the first fight and ask Leonard himself about the second fight.
Hagler had his one moment and I give him credit. Smartest thing he ever did was to aviod Hearns after the first fight. Not to say he didnt have a chance of winning a second fight against Hearns. But doubtful. "the sun can't shine on the same dogs ass every day"
Sorry; thought we were talking about in their primes. The 33-year-old Leonard who had had five fights in the last 8 years couldn't execute the fight plan well enough to beat Hearns (and I agree that Hearns was robbed on the cards), but the prime Leonard of '81 showed how it was done. As far as the sun shining...I like Hearns, but at 160, against a 30-year old Hagler, it would have taken a lot of days before daylight landed on his has. Hagler takes him 7 out of 8 times. It was Hearns who was lucky there wasn't a rematch. He should be glad he left the ring vertically the first time.
If Hearns was so easy to beat why then did Leonard not fight him right after the Hagler fight? If leonard goes back in the ring with Hearns between 82-87 Hearns ends Leonards career and eyesight. Hagler won a 3 minute shootout. It was over after round one. If Hearns had the chance to exchange with Hagler 5-10 times over 7-8 rounds with each exchange lasting 5-10 seconds Hagler looses those exchanges and the fight. He just didnt have the hand speed or boxing ability Hearns had. After the Hagler-Duran fight Haglers trainers knew Marvin couldnt box with the elites of the division and changed his style to a brawler. Hearns management team was dumb enought to let it happen.
If they fought again before 1988 Hagler is a bloody mess and gets stopped. All other elite fighters Hagler ever fought he went into the late rounds with Hagler (Duran Leonard Mugabi Roldan). Best move Hagler made was to not fight Hearns again.
As to being in their prime Leonard layed off 5 years was past 30 with no warm up fights and beat Hagler. He went on to have 1-2 more tune up fights and challanged a ring worn Hearns and Hearns soundly beat him. Hagler won but Heans management team was dumb enough to lose it for Hearns.
The boxing ability doesn't help if you don't make it to the final bell. Leonard hadn't been off for 5 years; he'd been off for just under three. Leonard did better against Hagler than Hearns did because Leonard had a better chin than Hearns.
When Leonard was outslugging Hearns, Hearns adopted the style that some people think he should have used against Hagler - he used his reach, jabbed, and sought limited exchanges from long range. It didn't work. It wasn't enough to keep Leonard off of him, and it wouldn't have been enough to keep Hagler off of him. That's why he slugged it out with Hagler; not because he and Emanuel Steward were stupid, but because they knew that boxing Hagler wouldn't work for 12 rounds. It's like gambling with the odds against you, say, at roulette. Your best bet is to put it all on the line in one big shot; if you try to grind it out slowly with a disadvantage, you'll get eaten alive.
If the Leonard (vs. Hearns) fight hadn't happened, it would be one thing to say that Hearns could have beaten Hagler with a different strategy. But it did. Hearns adopted that strategy when he had a points lead and just had to
survive, because he already had a points lead. And he couldn't do it. The fact that he beat Leonard years later, when Leonard wasn't anywhere near the fighter he was in '81, is irrelevant. It didn't work against a prime Leonard.
Hearns was a great fighter, but if you could stand up to his power shots and throw a good punch yourself, he was vulnerable. (See also: Iran Barkley).
Hearns weak chin is based on his fights after Hagler retired and there was no motivation. Using your logic leonard had a week chin because he got knock down by kevin howard, donny lalonde, hearns, norris, commacho?? Hearns chin was perfect until the hagler fight. In fact he just wore out in that fight.
Your logic doesnt add up. Duran almost outboxed hagler, leonard clearly outboxed hagler, and hearns clearly outboxed everyone he fought in his prime. Steward was clearly out managed in the first leonard fight and in the Hagler fight. Over training in the leonard fight hurt Herans. Not paying attention to his fighter and poor game plan caused him to loose the hagler fight. hearns stood up to multiple powershots in both leonard fights and the hagler fight.
Hagler is a bad ass but beatable. A rusty leonard beat him, Duran lost the last round to lose the decision, and Hagler lost to unknowns eariler in his career. His draws were highway robbery he won those draws. People judge hagler on a 2 and a half round street fight with hearns then turn around and dont give hearns the respect he deserves. Hearns could have very easily gone into a second fight with hagler and KO'd hagler in one round. Not likely but your talking tommy hearns. hearns could easily box 12 rounds with hagler. No problem going the distance if its a boxing match. this constant pressure issue you keep bringing up dosent apply. You keep comming in on hearns and your gonna get major damage. All Hearns had to do in the second fight is tie hagler up and have short exchanges. hearns jab would have rally effected hagler. hagler, goody, and pat knew they stood no chance in a late round fight with hearns. Look at all of hearns fights when he knew he could outbox you. He was masterful and crusied to victories while inflicting major damage.
Eddy Futch once said 'Had Tommy backed out and boxed Marvin after that wonderful first 15 second exchange, the fight was over" "He had Marvin out of his defensive shell after the first 30 seconds of the fight". He would have knocked hagler out if he ever set up on Marvin. Cheers to Marvin for not letting that happen.
Re: Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electivemed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electivemed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electivemed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LobowolfXXX
He couldn't keep Leonard off him at 147; he wasn't going to keep Hagler off him at 160.
Yeah and in the second fight in 89 Leonard could'nt keep Hearns off of him. Leonard forced Hearns to fight at a catch weight as well. Hagler couldnt knock Leonard down at 160 but Hearns knocked Leonard down twice and out boxed Leonard in both fights. If you don't believe me look at the scorecards from the first fight and ask Leonard himself about the second fight.
Hagler had his one moment and I give him credit. Smartest thing he ever did was to aviod Hearns after the first fight. Not to say he didnt have a chance of winning a second fight against Hearns. But doubtful. "the sun can't shine on the same dogs ass every day"
Sorry; thought we were talking about in their primes. The 33-year-old Leonard who had had five fights in the last 8 years couldn't execute the fight plan well enough to beat Hearns (and I agree that Hearns was robbed on the cards), but the prime Leonard of '81 showed how it was done. As far as the sun shining...I like Hearns, but at 160, against a 30-year old Hagler, it would have taken a lot of days before daylight landed on his has. Hagler takes him 7 out of 8 times. It was Hearns who was lucky there wasn't a rematch. He should be glad he left the ring vertically the first time.
If Hearns was so easy to beat why then did Leonard not fight him right after the Hagler fight? If leonard goes back in the ring with Hearns between 82-87 Hearns ends Leonards career and eyesight. Hagler won a 3 minute shootout. It was over after round one. If Hearns had the chance to exchange with Hagler 5-10 times over 7-8 rounds with each exchange lasting 5-10 seconds Hagler looses those exchanges and the fight. He just didnt have the hand speed or boxing ability Hearns had. After the Hagler-Duran fight Haglers trainers knew Marvin couldnt box with the elites of the division and changed his style to a brawler. Hearns management team was dumb enought to let it happen.
If they fought again before 1988 Hagler is a bloody mess and gets stopped. All other elite fighters Hagler ever fought he went into the late rounds with Hagler (Duran Leonard Mugabi Roldan). Best move Hagler made was to not fight Hearns again.
As to being in their prime Leonard layed off 5 years was past 30 with no warm up fights and beat Hagler. He went on to have 1-2 more tune up fights and challanged a ring worn Hearns and Hearns soundly beat him. Hagler won but Heans management team was dumb enough to lose it for Hearns.
The boxing ability doesn't help if you don't make it to the final bell. Leonard hadn't been off for 5 years; he'd been off for just under three. Leonard did better against Hagler than Hearns did because Leonard had a better chin than Hearns.
When Leonard was outslugging Hearns, Hearns adopted the style that some people think he should have used against Hagler - he used his reach, jabbed, and sought limited exchanges from long range. It didn't work. It wasn't enough to keep Leonard off of him, and it wouldn't have been enough to keep Hagler off of him. That's why he slugged it out with Hagler; not because he and Emanuel Steward were stupid, but because they knew that boxing Hagler wouldn't work for 12 rounds. It's like gambling with the odds against you, say, at roulette. Your best bet is to put it all on the line in one big shot; if you try to grind it out slowly with a disadvantage, you'll get eaten alive.
If the Leonard (vs. Hearns) fight hadn't happened, it would be one thing to say that Hearns could have beaten Hagler with a different strategy. But it did. Hearns adopted that strategy when he had a points lead and just had to
survive, because he already had a points lead. And he couldn't do it. The fact that he beat Leonard years later, when Leonard wasn't anywhere near the fighter he was in '81, is irrelevant. It didn't work against a prime Leonard.
Hearns was a great fighter, but if you could stand up to his power shots and throw a good punch yourself, he was vulnerable. (See also: Iran Barkley).
Hearns weak chin is based on his fights after Hagler retired and there was no motivation. Using your logic leonard had a week chin because he got knock down by kevin howard, donny lalonde, hearns, norris, commacho?? Hearns chin was perfect until the hagler fight. In fact he just wore out in that fight.
Your logic doesnt add up. Duran almost outboxed hagler, leonard clearly outboxed hagler, and hearns clearly outboxed everyone he fought in his prime. Steward was clearly out managed in the first leonard fight and in the Hagler fight. Over training in the leonard fight hurt Herans. Not paying attention to his fighter and poor game plan caused him to loose the hagler fight. hearns stood up to multiple powershots in both leonard fights and the hagler fight.
Hagler is a bad ass but beatable. A rusty leonard beat him, Duran lost the last round to lose the decision, and Hagler lost to unknowns eariler in his career. His draws were highway robbery he won those draws. People judge hagler on a 2 and a half round street fight with hearns then turn around and dont give hearns the respect he deserves. Hearns could have very easily gone into a second fight with hagler and KO'd hagler in one round. Not likely but your talking tommy hearns. hearns could easily box 12 rounds with hagler. No problem going the distance if its a boxing match. this constant pressure issue you keep bringing up dosent apply. You keep comming in on hearns and your gonna get major damage. All Hearns had to do in the second fight is tie hagler up and have short exchanges. hearns jab would have rally effected hagler. hagler, goody, and pat knew they stood no chance in a late round fight with hearns. Look at all of hearns fights when he knew he could outbox you. He was masterful and crusied to victories while inflicting major damage.
Eddy Futch once said 'Had Tommy backed out and boxed Marvin after that wonderful first 15 second exchange, the fight was over" "He had Marvin out of his defensive shell after the first 30 seconds of the fight". He would have knocked hagler out if he ever set up on Marvin. Cheers to Marvin for not letting that happen.
Before delving further into opinion, you're simply factually wrong when you state that Hagler lost to "unknowns" early in his career, and this casts some doubt on your opinion regarding Hagler, as anyone who would consider Bobby Watts and Willie Monroe "unknowns" has some gaps in his knowledge of the middleweight division of the 70s. Both Watts and Monroe were high ranking middleweights when Hagler lost to them. Anyone who followed boxing in the mid-70s knew very well who they were, and how good they were. In the Ring Magazine 1975 year-end ratings (decided the month of the Monroe fight and 2 months after the Watts fight), they were ranked 7 and 6, respectively, and anyone who knew boxing in the 70s knew them. Hagler was an up-and-coming 21 year old, nowhere near his prime, and took consecutive fights against top-10 contenders less than 2 months apart.
Next, "using my logic" doesn't mean Leonard had a bad chin because he suffered knockdowns. I didn't say Hearns had a bad chin because he was knocked down. The difference is, when Hearns got hurt - by Leonard, by Hagler, and by Barkley, the fight was over. Hearns's chin wasn't "perfect" before the Hagler fight; against Leonard, he was hurt in the middle rounds, and again in the late rounds, and he couldn't finish the fight.
Overtraining is a poor excuse for what happened to Hearns in the first Leonard fight. He was doing fine, piling up points, then Leonard realized that he wasn't going to get a decision with Hearns jabbing and using the reach effectively, so Leonard adjusted from boxer to slugger, and Hearns couldn't handle the pressure. Hearns was hurt badly as early as the 6th and 7th rounds. It had nothing to do with "overtraining"; he was just unable to keep Leonard off of him.
He didn't have a bad game plan in the Hagler fight; Hagler just made it look that way. Having been unable to keep Leonard off of him, Hearns knew, as did Steward, that he wouldn't be able to keep Hagler off of him, so he threw caution to the wind and rolled the dice early. It didn't work, but that doesn't mean anything else would have, either. Hagler was a HORRIBLE matchup for Hearns - he could take a punch, and he was a pressure fighter who had a big punch of his own. Hearns did better against fighters who either couldn't take a punch (in which case one right hand was often enough), or who couldn't hurt him (e.g. Benitez), in which case he could use that long reach and cruise to easy points wins.
When you say "Look at all of Hearns fight when he knew he could outbox you." He knew he could outbox Leonard. And he was winning on points. He was also winning on points against Barkley, for two rounds. Hagler fought the best of the best for most of his 14 years, and never got knocked out. He lost three close decisions. Yet you say that Hearns could have "easily" knocked him out in the first round, and I'm being illogical? As opposed to Hearns, who was stopped by Leonard and Barkley, as well as Hagler. Hearns ending the Hagler fight on his back was a perfectly predictable result, and it would have been duplicated. If he changed plans, he would have lasted longer, but he wouldn't have won.
Re: Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?
Interesting thoughts but off base. How can you say Hearns didnt have a bad game plan? Who else would go 3 minutes against Hagler without attempting any defense against Hagler?? That was the worst fight plan OF ALL TIME!!!
You also said: "Hearns was bad with pressure fighters who could take a punch" Pressure fighters....... Hmmm....... how about Duran "Hands of Stone" there was not a better pressure fighter in the world and look what happened to him when he fought Hearns. And I dont recall Duran ever being counted out or in trouble before the Hearns fight. So dont think it wouldnt have happend to Hagler. Hearns was also 22 when he fought Leonard and had the fight won. Hearns and Leonard never lost to a 7 or 8 ranked guy on the way up. Hagler was good but couldnt stand a chance boxing against hearns or leonard. Why is that such an issue to accept. Hearns came in too far below the 147 mark for the first leonard fight (145 lbs thus overtrained by his manager). Why do you debate that. An overtrained fighter runs out of gas in later rounds. Hearns was spent that night. Also that was Hearns first Championship fight in Vegas. Leonard had fought out there multiple times.
If you dont think there is a possibility that Hearns wouldnt have KO'd Hagler in a rematch we have nothing more to discuss. Hagler was a punching bag with slow hands after the first fight. Even if they fought back in 83,84 Hearns would have clearly outboxed Hagler. In a rematch Hearns outboxes Hagler pure and simple. Hagler gets hurt by trying to engage Hearns. Hearns would not infight with Hagler. Hagler was great but very lucky that night the way Hearns fought him the way he did. You think Hagler is this "indestructable object" and Hearns would wilt under constant pressure. I guarantee you Hearns would be ready for that pressure, would tie up Hagler and be ready to hit him HARD on the way in and get out without long infighting. Hearns was very durable until 88 when Hagler retired and Leonard was ducking him after he beat Hagler.
Final facts: Hagler was offered a rematch with Hearns in 86-87-88-98-90 he turned them all down. Also Hagler never fought bigger fighters like Hearns did and Leonard did to some extent. That is a minus against him in my book.
