Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

Hagler never gave Hearns a return fight and that tells the story...........

---

What tells the story is that Hagler ended the fight with his belt, and Hearns ended it looking he had died standing up.

My bad on Hearns's weight in the first fight; I was indeed incorrect by one pound. That still doesn't explain away Leonard's hurting him badly as early as the 6th round, and it's nowhere near the factual error of calling two top-10 middleweights "unknowns."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita

Never.. Ive heard people saying Hearns could have won had he not got into a brawl but I think Hagler would have beaten him either way.. Hearns could have boxed more in spots but at some point in the fight, he would have got into a tear up and knocked out late..

Hagler's style was all wrong for him..

---

Yes. Hearns was absolutely an all-time great, but Hagler was easily the worst matchup there was for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

There's no reason to automatically rule out Hearns in a rematch. Of course, he'd have to change tactics, seeing as to how his Plan A in the 1st fight didn't work out very well. He came out like gangbusters in Round 1 to try to impose his will and his power on Hagler, who always had a good chin. He lost that battle. Who's to say he couldn't come out in a second fight and just use his jab and boxing skills for a few rounds until he warmed up... and THEN start throwing some ill-intentioned right hands at Hagler? It's possible.

---

I agree that it's "possible," and I don't "automatically" rule it out; the problem I see with it is that it's essentially the plan that didn't work against Leonard. Again, why assume that he would make it to the final bell against Hagler, when he couldn't do it against Leonard? Especially given that 1) Hagler hit harder than Leonard, and 2) Hearns had more KO power at 147 than at higher weights.

---

Hagler DID NOT HIT HARDER THAN LEONARD.................... Maybe equal. Ray had knock out power in both hands and proved it above 160. Hearns floored Leonard above 147, Duran above 147, Andres above 147 (WBC Light Heavy title), Roldan above 147 (WBC middle weight title) Get you facts straight

---

Leonard proved it in his one fight above 160? Please. Hagler clearly had more power than Leonard, and it's reflected in their knockout percentages. Leonard knocked out 62.5% of his opponents, and Hagler knocked out 77% of his.

As for Hearns, rather than cherry-picking his decision wins (Singletary, DeWitt, Sutherland, Minchillo), just look at the numbers. Fortunately, he had about as many fights at or below 147 as he did above, so the comparison is simple: At 147 and below, Hearns had 33 fights and 30 knockouts. That's over 90%. Above 147, he had 34 fights and 18 knockouts. That's barely over 50%. And it started IMMEDIATELY after he went over 147. He scored knockouts in 2 of his first 4 fights over 147. Or 4 of his next 8. Or 6 of his next 12. Or 8 of his next 16. He went from knockout out almost everybody to knocking out about half of his opponents. It's silly to suggest that he had as much power at higher weight classes as he did at 147 and below. Like just about EVERY fighter who moves into higher weight classes, his punching power diminished.

---

Yeah and how many of those fights were above 160lbs for hearns. hearns fought at much higher weight classes than hagler EVER did. Also I selected fights of signifiance. If you want to discredit hearns for knocking out lightheavyweight champ go ahead. I dont think your "cheery picking" when you say he KO'd Roldan, Shuler, Andres, and knocked Leonard down twice (something Hagler couldnt do). Also Hagler fought smaller oppoenets he never "fought up" in weight class. A major black mark when comparing those 3 fighters.

If hagler fought the equal number of oppoents hearns did above 160 then haglers KO percentage drops like a rock. BAD COMPARISON. Both Hearns and Leonard "fought up" throughout their entire career. and one took almost 5 years off from the sport.

We're skidding here. The debate was not who of the two was the greatest but if HEarns could have win against Hagler. Both were tremendous, tremendous fighters, 2 fly high hall of famers. HAgler was a gritty battering ram with top notch movement and a chin made of some material we've never heard about. HEarns was a fast combo puncher with steel in each fists. Just happens in that fight that Hagler turned it into a wild fight and that his chin could took the motor city cobra's power and speed. Tommy, he, couldn't take too much punishment on the button. PErhaps Hearns could have win would he have used more combos and reach advantage to circle Hearns for the whole fight but HAgler was moving just sooo welll and was so resiliant thathe would have been a very dangerous threat from beginning to end. NOw, could he have won it? Based on a pure hypothesis, yes, I believe he had a set of skills that might have pulled out a hard fought and "close" decision. But he didn't and unfortunately, we couldn't see a second episode. 2 greats fighters, one winner, end of story.

[QUOTE=LobowolfXXX;1035982]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

Hagler never gave Hearns a return fight and that tells the story...........

---

Thus back to my original observation: Hagler won because it was a streetfight. Good for Hagler. Who else fought him like that ?? Nobody.... Why...bad strategy...blame Steward......

Hagler knew he would never would get that style fight out of Herans again........thus he ducked Hearns in 86,87,88,89,90...................................

Finally, coming in at 145 was a major mistake for hearns and bad management by his camp. It absoultly cost him in that fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

There's no reason to automatically rule out Hearns in a rematch. Of course, he'd have to change tactics, seeing as to how his Plan A in the 1st fight didn't work out very well. He came out like gangbusters in Round 1 to try to impose his will and his power on Hagler, who always had a good chin. He lost that battle. Who's to say he couldn't come out in a second fight and just use his jab and boxing skills for a few rounds until he warmed up... and THEN start throwing some ill-intentioned right hands at Hagler? It's possible.

---

I agree that it's "possible," and I don't "automatically" rule it out; the problem I see with it is that it's essentially the plan that didn't work against Leonard. Again, why assume that he would make it to the final bell against Hagler, when he couldn't do it against Leonard? Especially given that 1) Hagler hit harder than Leonard, and 2) Hearns had more KO power at 147 than at higher weights.

---

Hagler DID NOT HIT HARDER THAN LEONARD.................... Maybe equal. Ray had knock out power in both hands and proved it above 160. Hearns floored Leonard above 147, Duran above 147, Andres above 147 (WBC Light Heavy title), Roldan above 147 (WBC middle weight title) Get you facts straight

---

Leonard proved it in his one fight above 160? Please. Hagler clearly had more power than Leonard, and it's reflected in their knockout percentages. Leonard knocked out 62.5% of his opponents, and Hagler knocked out 77% of his.

As for Hearns, rather than cherry-picking his decision wins (Singletary, DeWitt, Sutherland, Minchillo), just look at the numbers. Fortunately, he had about as many fights at or below 147 as he did above, so the comparison is simple: At 147 and below, Hearns had 33 fights and 30 knockouts. That's over 90%. Above 147, he had 34 fights and 18 knockouts. That's barely over 50%. And it started IMMEDIATELY after he went over 147. He scored knockouts in 2 of his first 4 fights over 147. Or 4 of his next 8. Or 6 of his next 12. Or 8 of his next 16. He went from knockout out almost everybody to knocking out about half of his opponents. It's silly to suggest that he had as much power at higher weight classes as he did at 147 and below. Like just about EVERY fighter who moves into higher weight classes, his punching power diminished.

---

Yeah and how many of those fights were above 160lbs for hearns. hearns fought at much higher weight classes than hagler EVER did. Also I selected fights of signifiance. If you want to discredit hearns for knocking out lightheavyweight champ go ahead. I dont think your "cheery picking" when you say he KO'd Roldan, Shuler, Andres, and knocked Leonard down twice (something Hagler couldnt do). Also Hagler fought smaller oppoenets he never "fought up" in weight class. A major black mark when comparing those 3 fighters.

If hagler fought the equal number of oppoents hearns did above 160 then haglers KO percentage drops like a rock. BAD COMPARISON. Both Hearns and Leonard "fought up" throughout their entire career. and one took almost 5 years off from the sport.

---

You're either missing the point of the "moving up" argument, or drifting far off course. It's simply a fact that Hearns had a lot more firepower at 147 than he did at 160. That's not "good" or "bad"; it's just a fact.

The point of that observation is that because Hearns couldn't keep Leonard off of him at 147, where Hearns had possibly the most dominant punch in the history of the division, then it's unlikely that he could have kept Hagler off of him at 160, where Hearns had markedly less power.

[QUOTE=electivemed;1036130]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

Hagler never gave Hearns a return fight and that tells the story...........

---

Thus back to my original observation: Hagler won because it was a streetfight. Good for Hagler. Who else fought him like that ?? Nobody.... Why...bad strategy...blame Steward......

Hagler knew he would never would get that style fight out of Herans again........thus he ducked Hearns in 86,87,88,89,90...................................

Finally, coming in at 145 was a major mistake for hearns and bad management by his camp. It absoultly cost him in that fight.

---

You're Monday morning quarterbacking when you say it was a bad strategy. Pure 20-20 hindsight. If Hearns had tried to box, and lost, you'd be calling THAT a horrible strategy, and saying things like, "Oh, if he'd just slugged it out, he would have stopped him early, like he did with Duran. Why did he try to box him, like he did with Leonard and lost? He should have gone toe to toe."

Hearns and Steward knew that he couldn't keep Hagler off of him with a more defensive strategy, because they'd tried that strategy against Leonard and lost, and Hagler hit harder than Leonard. So they threw caution to the wind and tried to blitz him early. This was also not a bad shot because Hagler was a notoriously slow starter. It wasn't a bad strategy; it just didn't work.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

There's no reason to automatically rule out Hearns in a rematch. Of course, he'd have to change tactics, seeing as to how his Plan A in the 1st fight didn't work out very well. He came out like gangbusters in Round 1 to try to impose his will and his power on Hagler, who always had a good chin. He lost that battle. Who's to say he couldn't come out in a second fight and just use his jab and boxing skills for a few rounds until he warmed up... and THEN start throwing some ill-intentioned right hands at Hagler? It's possible.

---

I agree that it's "possible," and I don't "automatically" rule it out; the problem I see with it is that it's essentially the plan that didn't work against Leonard. Again, why assume that he would make it to the final bell against Hagler, when he couldn't do it against Leonard? Especially given that 1) Hagler hit harder than Leonard, and 2) Hearns had more KO power at 147 than at higher weights.

---

Hagler DID NOT HIT HARDER THAN LEONARD.................... Maybe equal. Ray had knock out power in both hands and proved it above 160. Hearns floored Leonard above 147, Duran above 147, Andres above 147 (WBC Light Heavy title), Roldan above 147 (WBC middle weight title) Get you facts straight

---

Leonard proved it in his one fight above 160? Please. Hagler clearly had more power than Leonard, and it's reflected in their knockout percentages. Leonard knocked out 62.5% of his opponents, and Hagler knocked out 77% of his.

As for Hearns, rather than cherry-picking his decision wins (Singletary, DeWitt, Sutherland, Minchillo), just look at the numbers. Fortunately, he had about as many fights at or below 147 as he did above, so the comparison is simple: At 147 and below, Hearns had 33 fights and 30 knockouts. That's over 90%. Above 147, he had 34 fights and 18 knockouts. That's barely over 50%. And it started IMMEDIATELY after he went over 147. He scored knockouts in 2 of his first 4 fights over 147. Or 4 of his next 8. Or 6 of his next 12. Or 8 of his next 16. He went from knockout out almost everybody to knocking out about half of his opponents. It's silly to suggest that he had as much power at higher weight classes as he did at 147 and below. Like just about EVERY fighter who moves into higher weight classes, his punching power diminished.

---

Yeah and how many of those fights were above 160lbs for hearns. hearns fought at much higher weight classes than hagler EVER did. Also I selected fights of signifiance. If you want to discredit hearns for knocking out lightheavyweight champ go ahead. I dont think your "cheery picking" when you say he KO'd Roldan, Shuler, Andres, and knocked Leonard down twice (something Hagler couldnt do). Also Hagler fought smaller oppoenets he never "fought up" in weight class. A major black mark when comparing those 3 fighters.

If hagler fought the equal number of oppoents hearns did above 160 then haglers KO percentage drops like a rock. BAD COMPARISON. Both Hearns and Leonard "fought up" throughout their entire career. and one took almost 5 years off from the sport.

---

You're either missing the point of the "moving up" argument, or drifting far off course. It's simply a fact that Hearns had a lot more firepower at 147 than he did at 160. That's not "good" or "bad"; it's just a fact.

The point of that observation is that because Hearns couldn't keep Leonard off of him at 147, where Hearns had possibly the most dominant punch in the history of the division, then it's unlikely that he could have kept Hagler off of him at 160, where Hearns had markedly less power.

---

Hearns did a great job keeping Leonard off of him in both fights? Not sure what your talking about. My only guess is your refering to Hearns being overtrained in the first fight and out of gas?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

There's no reason to automatically rule out Hearns in a rematch. Of course, he'd have to change tactics, seeing as to how his Plan A in the 1st fight didn't work out very well. He came out like gangbusters in Round 1 to try to impose his will and his power on Hagler, who always had a good chin. He lost that battle. Who's to say he couldn't come out in a second fight and just use his jab and boxing skills for a few rounds until he warmed up... and THEN start throwing some ill-intentioned right hands at Hagler? It's possible.

---

I agree that it's "possible," and I don't "automatically" rule it out; the problem I see with it is that it's essentially the plan that didn't work against Leonard. Again, why assume that he would make it to the final bell against Hagler, when he couldn't do it against Leonard? Especially given that 1) Hagler hit harder than Leonard, and 2) Hearns had more KO power at 147 than at higher weights.

---

Hagler DID NOT HIT HARDER THAN LEONARD.................... Maybe equal. Ray had knock out power in both hands and proved it above 160. Hearns floored Leonard above 147, Duran above 147, Andres above 147 (WBC Light Heavy title), Roldan above 147 (WBC middle weight title) Get you facts straight

---

Leonard proved it in his one fight above 160? Please. Hagler clearly had more power than Leonard, and it's reflected in their knockout percentages. Leonard knocked out 62.5% of his opponents, and Hagler knocked out 77% of his.

As for Hearns, rather than cherry-picking his decision wins (Singletary, DeWitt, Sutherland, Minchillo), just look at the numbers. Fortunately, he had about as many fights at or below 147 as he did above, so the comparison is simple: At 147 and below, Hearns had 33 fights and 30 knockouts. That's over 90%. Above 147, he had 34 fights and 18 knockouts. That's barely over 50%. And it started IMMEDIATELY after he went over 147. He scored knockouts in 2 of his first 4 fights over 147. Or 4 of his next 8. Or 6 of his next 12. Or 8 of his next 16. He went from knockout out almost everybody to knocking out about half of his opponents. It's silly to suggest that he had as much power at higher weight classes as he did at 147 and below. Like just about EVERY fighter who moves into higher weight classes, his punching power diminished.

---

Yeah and how many of those fights were above 160lbs for hearns. hearns fought at much higher weight classes than hagler EVER did. Also I selected fights of signifiance. If you want to discredit hearns for knocking out lightheavyweight champ go ahead. I dont think your "cheery picking" when you say he KO'd Roldan, Shuler, Andres, and knocked Leonard down twice (something Hagler couldnt do). Also Hagler fought smaller oppoenets he never "fought up" in weight class. A major black mark when comparing those 3 fighters.

If hagler fought the equal number of oppoents hearns did above 160 then haglers KO percentage drops like a rock. BAD COMPARISON. Both Hearns and Leonard "fought up" throughout their entire career. and one took almost 5 years off from the sport.

---

You're either missing the point of the "moving up" argument, or drifting far off course. It's simply a fact that Hearns had a lot more firepower at 147 than he did at 160. That's not "good" or "bad"; it's just a fact.

The point of that observation is that because Hearns couldn't keep Leonard off of him at 147, where Hearns had possibly the most dominant punch in the history of the division, then it's unlikely that he could have kept Hagler off of him at 160, where Hearns had markedly less power.

---

Hearns did a great job keeping Leonard off of him in both fights? Not sure what your talking about. My only guess is your refering to Hearns being overtrained in the first fight and out of gas?

---

Hearns was not "out of gas" in the 6th round in the first fight. He was just unable to handle Leonard's pressure.

edit

I'm telling you strategy that many experts also agree with. Hearns could have boxed circles around Hagler. This whole Hearns couldnt keep Leonard or Hagler off of him is way off base. Hearns fought Hagler with poor judgement and poor strategy. The Leonard fights Hearns held Leonard at bay until he ran out of gas in fight 1 then in fight 2 he beat Leonard up pretty bad. Vegas jobed Hearns in fight 2. I dont know where you going with this "couldnt keep them off of him" routine??

If Hearns boxes Hagler and also has a chance to set up on him he wins.............. also if Hagler wanted to bull rush again Hearns wouldnt infight with him. The science is called "tying up your man" But you believe only Hagler had this mystic ability to learn from mistakes (like the fight where Duran made Haglers face look like pancake batter after 15 rounds)

I like hagler but he got what he deserved in the long run......... He cried like a "lil bitch" after the Leonard fight........also turn around is fair play....... Leonard never gave him a rematch-just like Hagler never gave Hearns a rematch.........The difference is Hearns and Leonard went on to win several more world championships and Hagler became an actor and quit boxing. If hagler had any balls he would have rematched Hearns after the Leonard fight.......the winner would have gotten Leonard.

Instead Hagler showed his true character after he made some money and quit.

History will show it was Hearns and Leonard as the cream of the crop of that era. hagler will be an enigma.........and he brought that on himself.................

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

There's no reason to automatically rule out Hearns in a rematch. Of course, he'd have to change tactics, seeing as to how his Plan A in the 1st fight didn't work out very well. He came out like gangbusters in Round 1 to try to impose his will and his power on Hagler, who always had a good chin. He lost that battle. Who's to say he couldn't come out in a second fight and just use his jab and boxing skills for a few rounds until he warmed up... and THEN start throwing some ill-intentioned right hands at Hagler? It's possible.

---

I agree that it's "possible," and I don't "automatically" rule it out; the problem I see with it is that it's essentially the plan that didn't work against Leonard. Again, why assume that he would make it to the final bell against Hagler, when he couldn't do it against Leonard? Especially given that 1) Hagler hit harder than Leonard, and 2) Hearns had more KO power at 147 than at higher weights.

---

Hagler DID NOT HIT HARDER THAN LEONARD.................... Maybe equal. Ray had knock out power in both hands and proved it above 160. Hearns floored Leonard above 147, Duran above 147, Andres above 147 (WBC Light Heavy title), Roldan above 147 (WBC middle weight title) Get you facts straight

---

Leonard proved it in his one fight above 160? Please. Hagler clearly had more power than Leonard, and it's reflected in their knockout percentages. Leonard knocked out 62.5% of his opponents, and Hagler knocked out 77% of his.

As for Hearns, rather than cherry-picking his decision wins (Singletary, DeWitt, Sutherland, Minchillo), just look at the numbers. Fortunately, he had about as many fights at or below 147 as he did above, so the comparison is simple: At 147 and below, Hearns had 33 fights and 30 knockouts. That's over 90%. Above 147, he had 34 fights and 18 knockouts. That's barely over 50%. And it started IMMEDIATELY after he went over 147. He scored knockouts in 2 of his first 4 fights over 147. Or 4 of his next 8. Or 6 of his next 12. Or 8 of his next 16. He went from knockout out almost everybody to knocking out about half of his opponents. It's silly to suggest that he had as much power at higher weight classes as he did at 147 and below. Like just about EVERY fighter who moves into higher weight classes, his punching power diminished.

---

Yeah and how many of those fights were above 160lbs for hearns. hearns fought at much higher weight classes than hagler EVER did. Also I selected fights of signifiance. If you want to discredit hearns for knocking out lightheavyweight champ go ahead. I dont think your "cheery picking" when you say he KO'd Roldan, Shuler, Andres, and knocked Leonard down twice (something Hagler couldnt do). Also Hagler fought smaller oppoenets he never "fought up" in weight class. A major black mark when comparing those 3 fighters.

If hagler fought the equal number of oppoents hearns did above 160 then haglers KO percentage drops like a rock. BAD COMPARISON. Both Hearns and Leonard "fought up" throughout their entire career. and one took almost 5 years off from the sport.

---

You're either missing the point of the "moving up" argument, or drifting far off course. It's simply a fact that Hearns had a lot more firepower at 147 than he did at 160. That's not "good" or "bad"; it's just a fact.

The point of that observation is that because Hearns couldn't keep Leonard off of him at 147, where Hearns had possibly the most dominant punch in the history of the division, then it's unlikely that he could have kept Hagler off of him at 160, where Hearns had markedly less power.

---

Hearns did a great job keeping Leonard off of him in both fights? Not sure what your talking about. My only guess is your refering to Hearns being overtrained in the first fight and out of gas?

---

Hearns was not "out of gas" in the 6th round in the first fight. He was just unable to handle Leonard's pressure.

---

I guess that is why Hearns won rounds 9,10.11,12 he couldnt keep Leonard off.....right........ watch the tapes son and report back....................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

I'm telling you strategy that many experts also agree with. Hearns could have boxed circles around Hagler. This whole Hearns couldnt keep Leonard or Hagler off of him is way off base. Hearns fought Hagler with poor judgement and poor strategy. The Leonard fights Hearns held Leonard at bay until he ran out of gas in fight 1 then in fight 2 he beat Leonard up pretty bad. Vegas jobed Hearns in fight 2. I dont know where you going with this "couldnt keep them off of him" routine??

If Hearns boxes Hagler and also has a chance to set up on him he wins.............. also if Hagler wanted to bull rush again Hearns wouldnt infight with him. The science is called "tying up your man" But you believe only Hagler had this mystic ability to learn from mistakes (like the fight where Duran made Haglers face look like pancake batter after 15 rounds)

I like hagler but he got what he deserved in the long run......... He cried like a "lil bitch" after the Leonard fight........also turn around is fair play....... Leonard never gave him a rematch-just like Hagler never gave Hearns a rematch.........The difference is Hearns and Leonard went on to win several more world championships and Hagler became an actor and quit boxing. If hagler had any balls he would have rematched Hearns after the Leonard fight.......the winner would have gotten Leonard.

Instead Hagler showed his true character after he made some money and quit.

History will show it was Hearns and Leonard as the cream of the crop of that era. hagler will be an enigma.........and he brought that on himself.................

---

History shows Leonard and Hagler as the cream of the crop of that era, since they're the ones with winning records in the Hearns/Leonard/Duran/Hagler big-4. Hearns should have gotten the decision against Leonard in the second fight, but that would still leave him at 2-2; Hagler was 2-1 and Leonard would have been 3-2 even had the second Hearns fight gone against him. And, of course, Hagler and Leonard didn't get knocked out by the likes of Iran Barkley.

The "couldn't keep him them off of him" routine is pretty self-explanatory. On three separate occasions in his relative prime (from just before his 23rd birthday to age 29) Hearns fought pressure fighters who could take a punch and bang back, and he got knocked out by three of them. So it's a bit counterintuitive to expect that he would have won, and the guy who NEVER got knocked out, would have been knocked out in a second fight. You can say he would have "boxed circles around" Leonard in '81 or Barkley in '88, too. And in Leonard's case, he did for quite a few rounds. But he didn't make it to the final bell in any of those fights. In fact, in two of them, he didn't make it to the 4th round.

Criticizing his strategy after the fact is just Monday morning quarterbacking, no matter how many "experts" do it. It's like calling a fake punt bold and genius if it works, or stupid if it doesn't. You can always say it was wrong after it doesn't work. He had three superfights before Hagler - he slugged it out with Duran and Cuevas and won in spectacular fashion; he tried to box Leonard, and he got knocked out. So when he took on Hagler, he adopted the strategy that he had the most success with in the past - the best defense is a good offense. It worked against Duran; it didn't work against Hagler. If he had adopted your suggested strategy and lost in the late rounds, you'd be on the board saying, "That was a stupid fight plan. He should have slugged it out like he did against Duran."

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

There's no reason to automatically rule out Hearns in a rematch. Of course, he'd have to change tactics, seeing as to how his Plan A in the 1st fight didn't work out very well. He came out like gangbusters in Round 1 to try to impose his will and his power on Hagler, who always had a good chin. He lost that battle. Who's to say he couldn't come out in a second fight and just use his jab and boxing skills for a few rounds until he warmed up... and THEN start throwing some ill-intentioned right hands at Hagler? It's possible.

---

I agree that it's "possible," and I don't "automatically" rule it out; the problem I see with it is that it's essentially the plan that didn't work against Leonard. Again, why assume that he would make it to the final bell against Hagler, when he couldn't do it against Leonard? Especially given that 1) Hagler hit harder than Leonard, and 2) Hearns had more KO power at 147 than at higher weights.

---

Hagler DID NOT HIT HARDER THAN LEONARD.................... Maybe equal. Ray had knock out power in both hands and proved it above 160. Hearns floored Leonard above 147, Duran above 147, Andres above 147 (WBC Light Heavy title), Roldan above 147 (WBC middle weight title) Get you facts straight

---

Leonard proved it in his one fight above 160? Please. Hagler clearly had more power than Leonard, and it's reflected in their knockout percentages. Leonard knocked out 62.5% of his opponents, and Hagler knocked out 77% of his.

As for Hearns, rather than cherry-picking his decision wins (Singletary, DeWitt, Sutherland, Minchillo), just look at the numbers. Fortunately, he had about as many fights at or below 147 as he did above, so the comparison is simple: At 147 and below, Hearns had 33 fights and 30 knockouts. That's over 90%. Above 147, he had 34 fights and 18 knockouts. That's barely over 50%. And it started IMMEDIATELY after he went over 147. He scored knockouts in 2 of his first 4 fights over 147. Or 4 of his next 8. Or 6 of his next 12. Or 8 of his next 16. He went from knockout out almost everybody to knocking out about half of his opponents. It's silly to suggest that he had as much power at higher weight classes as he did at 147 and below. Like just about EVERY fighter who moves into higher weight classes, his punching power diminished.

---

Yeah and how many of those fights were above 160lbs for hearns. hearns fought at much higher weight classes than hagler EVER did. Also I selected fights of signifiance. If you want to discredit hearns for knocking out lightheavyweight champ go ahead. I dont think your "cheery picking" when you say he KO'd Roldan, Shuler, Andres, and knocked Leonard down twice (something Hagler couldnt do). Also Hagler fought smaller oppoenets he never "fought up" in weight class. A major black mark when comparing those 3 fighters.

If hagler fought the equal number of oppoents hearns did above 160 then haglers KO percentage drops like a rock. BAD COMPARISON. Both Hearns and Leonard "fought up" throughout their entire career. and one took almost 5 years off from the sport.

---

You're either missing the point of the "moving up" argument, or drifting far off course. It's simply a fact that Hearns had a lot more firepower at 147 than he did at 160. That's not "good" or "bad"; it's just a fact.

The point of that observation is that because Hearns couldn't keep Leonard off of him at 147, where Hearns had possibly the most dominant punch in the history of the division, then it's unlikely that he could have kept Hagler off of him at 160, where Hearns had markedly less power.

---

Hearns did a great job keeping Leonard off of him in both fights? Not sure what your talking about. My only guess is your refering to Hearns being overtrained in the first fight and out of gas?

---

Hearns was not "out of gas" in the 6th round in the first fight. He was just unable to handle Leonard's pressure.

---

I guess that is why Hearns won rounds 9,10.11,12 he couldnt keep Leonard off.....right........ watch the tapes son and report back....................

---

I saw it at the time and many times since then, "son." In case your recollection is rusty, Leonard is the one standing at the end, and Hearns is the one getting rescued by Davey Pearl, looking like Nick Nolte after a bar closes.

I didn't mean that Hearns couldn't keep Leonard off of him at all; I meant that he couldn't do it until the final bell. He looked great in the first two rounds against Barkley, too; up 20-18 on all cards. Didn't get him the W.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

There's no reason to automatically rule out Hearns in a rematch. Of course, he'd have to change tactics, seeing as to how his Plan A in the 1st fight didn't work out very well. He came out like gangbusters in Round 1 to try to impose his will and his power on Hagler, who always had a good chin. He lost that battle. Who's to say he couldn't come out in a second fight and just use his jab and boxing skills for a few rounds until he warmed up... and THEN start throwing some ill-intentioned right hands at Hagler? It's possible.

---

I agree that it's "possible," and I don't "automatically" rule it out; the problem I see with it is that it's essentially the plan that didn't work against Leonard. Again, why assume that he would make it to the final bell against Hagler, when he couldn't do it against Leonard? Especially given that 1) Hagler hit harder than Leonard, and 2) Hearns had more KO power at 147 than at higher weights.

---

Hagler DID NOT HIT HARDER THAN LEONARD.................... Maybe equal. Ray had knock out power in both hands and proved it above 160. Hearns floored Leonard above 147, Duran above 147, Andres above 147 (WBC Light Heavy title), Roldan above 147 (WBC middle weight title) Get you facts straight

---

Leonard proved it in his one fight above 160? Please. Hagler clearly had more power than Leonard, and it's reflected in their knockout percentages. Leonard knocked out 62.5% of his opponents, and Hagler knocked out 77% of his.

As for Hearns, rather than cherry-picking his decision wins (Singletary, DeWitt, Sutherland, Minchillo), just look at the numbers. Fortunately, he had about as many fights at or below 147 as he did above, so the comparison is simple: At 147 and below, Hearns had 33 fights and 30 knockouts. That's over 90%. Above 147, he had 34 fights and 18 knockouts. That's barely over 50%. And it started IMMEDIATELY after he went over 147. He scored knockouts in 2 of his first 4 fights over 147. Or 4 of his next 8. Or 6 of his next 12. Or 8 of his next 16. He went from knockout out almost everybody to knocking out about half of his opponents. It's silly to suggest that he had as much power at higher weight classes as he did at 147 and below. Like just about EVERY fighter who moves into higher weight classes, his punching power diminished.

---

Yeah and how many of those fights were above 160lbs for hearns. hearns fought at much higher weight classes than hagler EVER did. Also I selected fights of signifiance. If you want to discredit hearns for knocking out lightheavyweight champ go ahead. I dont think your "cheery picking" when you say he KO'd Roldan, Shuler, Andres, and knocked Leonard down twice (something Hagler couldnt do). Also Hagler fought smaller oppoenets he never "fought up" in weight class. A major black mark when comparing those 3 fighters.

If hagler fought the equal number of oppoents hearns did above 160 then haglers KO percentage drops like a rock. BAD COMPARISON. Both Hearns and Leonard "fought up" throughout their entire career. and one took almost 5 years off from the sport.

---

You're either missing the point of the "moving up" argument, or drifting far off course. It's simply a fact that Hearns had a lot more firepower at 147 than he did at 160. That's not "good" or "bad"; it's just a fact.

The point of that observation is that because Hearns couldn't keep Leonard off of him at 147, where Hearns had possibly the most dominant punch in the history of the division, then it's unlikely that he could have kept Hagler off of him at 160, where Hearns had markedly less power.

---

Hearns did a great job keeping Leonard off of him in both fights? Not sure what your talking about. My only guess is your refering to Hearns being overtrained in the first fight and out of gas?

---

Hearns was not "out of gas" in the 6th round in the first fight. He was just unable to handle Leonard's pressure.

---

I guess that is why Hearns won rounds 9,10.11,12 he couldnt keep Leonard off.....right........ watch the tapes son and report back....................

---

I saw it at the time and many times since then, "son." In case your recollection is rusty, Leonard is the one standing at the end, and Hearns is the one getting rescued by Davey Pearl, looking like Nick Nolte after a bar closes.

I didn't mean that Hearns couldn't keep Leonard off of him at all; I meant that he couldn't do it until the final bell. He looked great in the first two rounds against Barkley, too; up 20-18 on all cards. Didn't get him the W.

---

Keep using Barkley as the example and i will use Haglers 2 losses to nonames in the late 70's early 80's and Leonards bad chin against norris, hearns, commacho, howard............ apples to apples in my book. Go back and do your history son........it was not the gameplan to go toe to toe with hagler.....and it had nothing to do with haglers pressure either........i'm tired of doing your homework for you son.......if you dont like what hearns camp said thats your issue......i'm telling you he had poor strategy and poor advice for that fight......Pure and simple if he sets up on hagler- hearns wins.....and thats exactly what would have happened in the rematch. in fact anytime he chose to fight hagler from 82 forward hearns wins with the right fight plan..........

I think Hearns had an excellent chance of beating Hagler if they were to rematch. I think he breaking his hand contributed to him not winning the fight. But it wasn't the reason why he lost. Nor was it bad strategy. Hearns going to war with Hagler was not a mistake. Cuz that what he was all about. He was always more Hitman than Cobra. Hearns was a personal favorite and an ATG. But he an achilles heel. A weak chin. He had trouble taking a big punch. It's the reason why he lost to Hagler and Barkley. And that's not even debatable. Hearns had amazing firepower. And managed to carry a lot of it up in weight. That firepower and his seriously underrated boxing skills is why he can never be counted out in a rematch. Even against Hagler. But that chin was always a handicap. And was is downfall more than once

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

There's no reason to automatically rule out Hearns in a rematch. Of course, he'd have to change tactics, seeing as to how his Plan A in the 1st fight didn't work out very well. He came out like gangbusters in Round 1 to try to impose his will and his power on Hagler, who always had a good chin. He lost that battle. Who's to say he couldn't come out in a second fight and just use his jab and boxing skills for a few rounds until he warmed up... and THEN start throwing some ill-intentioned right hands at Hagler? It's possible.

---

I agree that it's "possible," and I don't "automatically" rule it out; the problem I see with it is that it's essentially the plan that didn't work against Leonard. Again, why assume that he would make it to the final bell against Hagler, when he couldn't do it against Leonard? Especially given that 1) Hagler hit harder than Leonard, and 2) Hearns had more KO power at 147 than at higher weights.

---

Hagler DID NOT HIT HARDER THAN LEONARD.................... Maybe equal. Ray had knock out power in both hands and proved it above 160. Hearns floored Leonard above 147, Duran above 147, Andres above 147 (WBC Light Heavy title), Roldan above 147 (WBC middle weight title) Get you facts straight

---

Leonard proved it in his one fight above 160? Please. Hagler clearly had more power than Leonard, and it's reflected in their knockout percentages. Leonard knocked out 62.5% of his opponents, and Hagler knocked out 77% of his.

As for Hearns, rather than cherry-picking his decision wins (Singletary, DeWitt, Sutherland, Minchillo), just look at the numbers. Fortunately, he had about as many fights at or below 147 as he did above, so the comparison is simple: At 147 and below, Hearns had 33 fights and 30 knockouts. That's over 90%. Above 147, he had 34 fights and 18 knockouts. That's barely over 50%. And it started IMMEDIATELY after he went over 147. He scored knockouts in 2 of his first 4 fights over 147. Or 4 of his next 8. Or 6 of his next 12. Or 8 of his next 16. He went from knockout out almost everybody to knocking out about half of his opponents. It's silly to suggest that he had as much power at higher weight classes as he did at 147 and below. Like just about EVERY fighter who moves into higher weight classes, his punching power diminished.

---

Yeah and how many of those fights were above 160lbs for hearns. hearns fought at much higher weight classes than hagler EVER did. Also I selected fights of signifiance. If you want to discredit hearns for knocking out lightheavyweight champ go ahead. I dont think your "cheery picking" when you say he KO'd Roldan, Shuler, Andres, and knocked Leonard down twice (something Hagler couldnt do). Also Hagler fought smaller oppoenets he never "fought up" in weight class. A major black mark when comparing those 3 fighters.

If hagler fought the equal number of oppoents hearns did above 160 then haglers KO percentage drops like a rock. BAD COMPARISON. Both Hearns and Leonard "fought up" throughout their entire career. and one took almost 5 years off from the sport.

---

You're either missing the point of the "moving up" argument, or drifting far off course. It's simply a fact that Hearns had a lot more firepower at 147 than he did at 160. That's not "good" or "bad"; it's just a fact.

The point of that observation is that because Hearns couldn't keep Leonard off of him at 147, where Hearns had possibly the most dominant punch in the history of the division, then it's unlikely that he could have kept Hagler off of him at 160, where Hearns had markedly less power.

---

Hearns did a great job keeping Leonard off of him in both fights? Not sure what your talking about. My only guess is your refering to Hearns being overtrained in the first fight and out of gas?

---

Hearns was not "out of gas" in the 6th round in the first fight. He was just unable to handle Leonard's pressure.

---

I guess that is why Hearns won rounds 9,10.11,12 he couldnt keep Leonard off.....right........ watch the tapes son and report back....................

---

I saw it at the time and many times since then, "son." In case your recollection is rusty, Leonard is the one standing at the end, and Hearns is the one getting rescued by Davey Pearl, looking like Nick Nolte after a bar closes.

I didn't mean that Hearns couldn't keep Leonard off of him at all; I meant that he couldn't do it until the final bell. He looked great in the first two rounds against Barkley, too; up 20-18 on all cards. Didn't get him the W.

---

Keep using Barkley as the example and i will use Haglers 2 losses to nonames in the late 70's early 80's and Leonards bad chin against norris, hearns, commacho, howard............ apples to apples in my book. Go back and do your history son........it was not the gameplan to go toe to toe with hagler.....and it had nothing to do with haglers pressure either........i'm tired of doing your homework for you son.......if you dont like what hearns camp said thats your issue......i'm telling you he had poor strategy and poor advice for that fight......Pure and simple if he sets up on hagler- hearns wins.....and thats exactly what would have happened in the rematch. in fact anytime he chose to fight hagler from 82 forward hearns wins with the right fight plan..........

---

First, calling Bobby Watts and Willie Monroe "nonames" does nothing but demonstrate your ignorance of the middleweight division in the 70s.

Second, there's a difference between losing a close decision to a top-ten contender and not surviving the third round.

You're entitled to your speculation, but it's largely unfounded. There's no reason to think that Hagler would have been knocked out by Hearns, because Hagler was never knocked out by ANYONE. Moreover, there's no particular reason to think that Hearns would have survived another fight against Hagler, because he didn't survive the first one. Had he not also been knocked out by Leonard and Barkley, this might be written off as an aberration, but instead, we have a pattern - guys who could take a punch and had some power of their own gave Hearns trouble. There was NO worse matchup for Hearns in the 80's than Hagler.

The after-the-fact game plan comments are like watching someone stand on 17 in blackjack and lose. You can say later that he should have hit, but everyone's a genius the next day. He was guided by some of the best minds in boxing at the time - the same strategists the guided Hearns to his greatest successes. They saw what worked against Duran and Cuevas, and they reasonably thought it was the best chance against Hagler.

;DROBOWOLFXXX WINS THIS DEBATE BY A CRUSHING KO OVER ELECTIVEMED:p

First off there`s a lot of shoulda coulda woulda going on here and the bottom line is HAGLER didnt just beat HEARNS he CRUSHED hearns and it wasnt by some lucky one punch KO , it was a systematic beat down like chopping down a tree. Hearns was facing one of the all time best middleweights in history and while Hagler was on the downside of his prime he was still too much for a blown up welterweight like Hearns. Second point that bothers me is the whole broken hand excuse...gimmi a break(no pun intended) , how many fighters have broken a hand during a fight and either went the distance or won the fight with one good hand...now if hearns was such a great ''boxer '' than surely he could have jabbed and moved around and boxed hagler and at least lasted longer than he did, but he couldnt because Hagler was hell bent on destroying Hearns and no matter what Hearns did that night Hagler would not be denied...period. Styles make fights and Haglers style is perfect to beat guys like Hearns, tall rangy guys like Fulgencio Obelmejias cant stand up to Haglers relentless pressure.Hearns didnt box Hagler because Hagler imposed his will on Hearns and he would do that if they fought 10 times in a row...and for what its worth hagler had one of the greatest jaws in boxing and i dont think a heavyweight could have knocked Hagler out cold but we all know Hearns can be knocked out dont we?? lets deal with facts not hypotheticals. Hagler made a tactical error when he fought Leonard, he fought orthodox at the start of the fight giving away crucial rounds AND he tried to out box leonard , had he fought leonard the way he fought hearns my guess he would have knocked leonard out, but thats just a guess. Thirdly What would Hagler gain by giving a fighter that he beat so decisively a rematch, he knew he was at the end of his career and only had a few fights left in him, why waste them on Hearns...it was a no win situation ...if the fight was even remotely close or controversial than ya, he would have given hearns a rematch im sure.

Tommy Hearns is my favorite fighter of all time , but It is my opinion that Marvin was just a bad style for Tommy , yes breaking his hand was a huge handicap when you are trying for a quick KO against one of the strongest chins in history.
But i think Marvin would get to Tommy at some point and stop him, thats my view and im a Tommy Hearns fan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Tommy Hearns is my favorite fighter of all time , but It is my opinion that Marvin was just a bad style for Tommy , yes breaking his hand was a huge handicap when you are trying for a quick KO against one of the strongest chins in history.
But i think Marvin would get to Tommy at some point and stop him, thats my view and im a Tommy Hearns fan.

---

Yes Al I agree Tommy was a great fighter, but Marvin was like a Pit Bull he was relentless those were
day's shit do I miss them.;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dia bando

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Tommy Hearns is my favorite fighter of all time , but It is my opinion that Marvin was just a bad style for Tommy , yes breaking his hand was a huge handicap when you are trying for a quick KO against one of the strongest chins in history.
But i think Marvin would get to Tommy at some point and stop him, thats my view and im a Tommy Hearns fan.

---

Yes Al I agree Tommy was a great fighter, but Marvin was like a Pit Bull he was relentless those were
day's shit do I miss them.;D

---

Agreed...the 1980`s were the best years to be a boxing fan...the fighters and the action and drama were amazing...i always say that as fun as MMA is to watch there best fights couldnt match the drama of say a hagler / hearns fight ..or holmes vs cooney just to name 2 from that decade...thank god i can youtube any fight i want and relive them over and over

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Yes, Hearns had the tools and skills to stay away from Hagler and possibly win on points. He did injure his hand in the fight and his legs were weak as well. So he could do it and he always wanted a return as he felt he could beat Hagler. He did unofficially beat Leonard.

---

Nobody had the tools to stay away from Hagler. Nobody. The guy was too focused, and too aggressive. Especially the version of Hagler that fought Hearns.

Let's put it this way. Was there any man who could have ever stayed away from a prime Hagler, Marciano, or Frazier?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

Tommy beats Marvin in a return match. Hagler was taylor made for Hearns. Slow hands would have killed marvin in a return fight. If they box at all Tommy knocks Marvin down with combinations. The reason Marvin didnt get knocked out in the first fight is that he always had his neck in the "flexed position" waging war. In a return fight Marvin would be forced to box Hearns thus exposing his chin and relaxing his neck resulting in FLASH KNOCKDOWN's. Marvin was very lucky Hearns fought him the way he did in 1985. Hearns biggest problem is he had a bad trainer/manager. Both Hagler and Leonard's trainer out managed Hearns trainer. Had Hearns had Dundee as his trainer he beats everyone. Hearns was the best boxer, had the most FLASH power, and had the best footwoork of all his opponents. Hagler gets sliced up and stopped in a return match IMO
Hearns and Hagler wasnt a boxing match it was a street fight. Hearns has it all over Hagler from a boxing prospective. Not even close. Yes Marvin was stronger

---

This guy right here is a moron. I'll tell you why. I even had to stop reading after a few pages because of how strong this guys Hearns nuthuggery is. I love Hearns. But I've never seen anybody hug his nuts quite that hard.

1. Marvin did not have slow hands. You're an idiot for even saying that.
2. Neck in the flexed position? Are you retarded? If that's the case, than Marvin never fought without his neck in the flexed position, so you're an idiot.
3. Hagler has magnificent fucking footwork. Try and disprove me, dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

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

---

4. Hearns would never in his wildest dreams "settle" Hagler down. How the fuck do you even imagine that as something that could be done?
5. Ray Leonard caught Hagler on his way out. Hagler lost his fire. He didn't want to box anymore, and he was going to retire. He was tipping off of the boxing page, and Mugabi pushed him over. Leonard merely caught him at the right time.
6. How in the fuck was Hagler tied for third best with Duran? He beat Duran by UD. He beat Hearns as well! That would put him as number two, Einstein.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

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.

---

7. Hagler is known for being able to adjust to his opponents.
8. Hagler was shot when he fought Leonard and Mugabi.
9. After the Hearns fight, he was on the downfall. He didn't want to box so much anymore. He was beginning to lose his fire. He became civilized. He had the money, the belts, he'd just knocked out Tommy Hearns. He was ready to settle down and relax. The guys mentality completely changed. That's the only reason that Thomas Hearns would have beaten Hagler. But Tommy Hearns would have never beaten a PRIME Hagler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

There's no reason to automatically rule out Hearns in a rematch. Of course, he'd have to change tactics, seeing as to how his Plan A in the 1st fight didn't work out very well. He came out like gangbusters in Round 1 to try to impose his will and his power on Hagler, who always had a good chin. He lost that battle. Who's to say he couldn't come out in a second fight and just use his jab and boxing skills for a few rounds until he warmed up... and THEN start throwing some ill-intentioned right hands at Hagler? It's possible.

---

I agree that it's "possible," and I don't "automatically" rule it out; the problem I see with it is that it's essentially the plan that didn't work against Leonard. Again, why assume that he would make it to the final bell against Hagler, when he couldn't do it against Leonard? Especially given that 1) Hagler hit harder than Leonard, and 2) Hearns had more KO power at 147 than at higher weights.

---

Hagler DID NOT HIT HARDER THAN LEONARD.................... Maybe equal. Ray had knock out power in both hands and proved it above 160. Hearns floored Leonard above 147, Duran above 147, Andres above 147 (WBC Light Heavy title), Roldan above 147 (WBC middle weight title) Get you facts straight

---

10. Hagler did hit harder than Leonard. Hagler also had knockout power in both hands, and proved it. You haven't disproved any of the guys points.
11. The guy said that Hearns had more KO power at 147 than at other weights. So you name off his accomplishments at 147 and tell him to get his facts straight? That makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita

Never.. Ive heard people saying Hearns could have won had he not got into a brawl but I think Hagler would have beaten him either way.. Hearns could have boxed more in spots but at some point in the fight, he would have got into a tear up and knocked out late..

Hagler's style was all wrong for him..

---

Hearns handed him the fight on a silver platter. Hagler couldnt exchange with Hearns in sharp quick exchanges. Only bar room tatics with no defense.

---

:facepalm:

12. Those 'bar room tactics' were enough for Hagler to knock Hearns the fuck out. Boxing is all about tactics and skills. I've never once seen an untrained brawler beat an experienced boxer. Because it doesn't fucking happen, buddy.


Reply to each of these points specifically, and number them, as well. Prove to me you're not as stupid as you look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tam Seddon

Apparently Hagler told Hearns not to cut him or it would end up in a real fight which it did.

Yes I read that about the massage too, it seems like speculation by Steward though when answering why it went wrong.

Hearns defiantly got the tactics wrong though, but it was never in his nature to step down if someone wanted to fight him. This defiantly was the reason why he lost the fight though. If he had more discipline to his game plan and the factors I mentioned before would he have been able to have beaten Hagler?

---

I don't think it was deep massage that had anything to do with it. It's not like Hagler was hitting him in the leg. I think it all had to do with Hagler hitting him in the head.

As for the fight happening earlier, say 1983,I think Hearns would have been wiped out just as quick and his career would have suffered more from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jody Lane

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tam Seddon

Apparently Hagler told Hearns not to cut him or it would end up in a real fight which it did.

Yes I read that about the massage too, it seems like speculation by Steward though when answering why it went wrong.

Hearns defiantly got the tactics wrong though, but it was never in his nature to step down if someone wanted to fight him. This defiantly was the reason why he lost the fight though. If he had more discipline to his game plan and the factors I mentioned before would he have been able to have beaten Hagler?

---

I don't think it was deep massage that had anything to do with it. It's not like Hagler was hitting him in the leg. I think it all had to do with Hagler hitting him in the head.

As for the fight happening earlier, say 1983,I think Hearns would have been wiped out just as quick and his career would have suffered more from it.

---

I agree, Jody. It seems like people are a lot more accepting of excuses these days. When it comes to being working class people who have to make money doing hard work, we can't really afford to have excuses for why we couldn't get the job done. Instead, for the better, we do everything in our power to get it done right.

I don't think it's too much to hold fighters to this standard, too. Their entire career is boxing, but they don't treat it that way. Excuses will always come up instead of the truth. The truth usually being that they didn't have what it took to win, or they didn't try hard enough. In Hearns case it would have been that he tried hard, had a good game plan, and did his best in the ring. He lost because he couldn't stand up to the Hagler hurricane.

Excuses simply don't cut it.

Let's face fact's Hagler is a Ring Great this guy is one of the best Middle Weight's in boxing history
Tommy hit him cut him, and Marvin still beat Tommy what a fight.;D

This whole''if hagler gave hearns a rematch '' crap drives me crazy...they both had the same amount of time to train and develope a fight plan and then they fought...best man wins...and hagler was the best man in that fight...period. In my opinion the only reasons a rematch should be in order between fighters is if there was a controversial stoppage( head butt ) ...the scoring was waaay off and something smelled bad or the fight was so exciting and competative the fans wanted more(gatti vs ward for example)...while the fight was awesome for as long as it lasted haglers stoppage of hearns was so decisive with hearns litterally being carried`like a child by his handlers i saw no reason for a rematch without hearns doing something in his next few fights to earn a rematch....by then it was too late because hagler pretty much blew his last real load on mugabi...he was 75 % of what he was at his best vs leonard and he never looked back...so just deal with the fact that while hearns was a machine of distruction in most of his fights he just didnt have it vs hagler...case closed.

The only knock out is going to be me knocking you out.
The final facts are this:
Hagler cried and ran like a little girl after he was soundly beat by Leonard. He should have fought Hearns and the winner got Leonard.
After the Hearns fight Hagler was never the same. He would have been destroyed by Hearns in a return fight.
Haglers weak mind was exposed by Leonard.

Haglers weak mind was exposed by Leonard. He is the true dumbass and you’re a close second son…………… As for the rest of your mindless banter it speaks for itself. I think you need to start riding the little yellow short bus…………………….

And yeah I'm talking to you dim Slim......................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

The only knock out is going to be me knocking you out.
The final facts are this:
Hagler cried and ran like a little girl after he was soundly beat by Leonard. He should have fought Hearns and the winner got Leonard.
After the Hearns fight Hagler was never the same. He would have been destroyed by Hearns in a return fight.
Haglers weak mind was exposed by Leonard.

---

Okay dumbass. Let's debate your final facts.

-Hagler wasn't beaten soundly. It's hotly contested to this day whether or not Leonard won that fight.
-He retired because he was out of it. That's why he lost to Leonard. Could Hearns have beaten him? Sure. But that's not the point. Hagler knew he was done.
-You're right about Hagler not being the same after Hearns.
-Hagler's weak mind? That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my entire life. Slap your parents for ever producing such a retarded offspring.

Refute! ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slim the boxingmaniac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

the only knock out is going to be me knocking you out.
The final facts are this:
Hagler cried and ran like a little girl after he was soundly beat by leonard. He should have fought hearns and the winner got leonard.
After the hearns fight hagler was never the same. He would have been destroyed by hearns in a return fight.
Haglers weak mind was exposed by leonard.

---

okay dumbass. Let's debate your final facts.

-hagler wasn't beaten soundly. It's hotly contested to this day whether or not leonard won that fight.
-he retired because he was out of it. That's why he lost to leonard. Could hearns have beaten him? Sure. But that's not the point. Hagler knew he was done.
-you're right about hagler not being the same after hearns.
-hagler's weak mind? That's the stupidest thing i have ever heard in my entire life. Slap your parents for ever producing such a retarded offspring.

Refute! ;d

---

as in: Short bus dim slim do you need a picture?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slim the BoxingManiac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

The only knock out is going to be me knocking you out.
The final facts are this:
Hagler cried and ran like a little girl after he was soundly beat by Leonard. He should have fought Hearns and the winner got Leonard.
After the Hearns fight Hagler was never the same. He would have been destroyed by Hearns in a return fight.
Haglers weak mind was exposed by Leonard.

---

Okay dumbass. Let's debate your final facts.

-Hagler wasn't beaten soundly. It's hotly contested to this day whether or not Leonard won that fight.
-He retired because he was out of it. That's why he lost to Leonard. Could Hearns have beaten him? Sure. But that's not the point. Hagler knew he was done.
-You're right about Hagler not being the same after Hearns.
-Hagler's weak mind? That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my entire life. Slap your parents for ever producing such a retarded offspring.

Refute! ;D

---

The thing with that fight, Leonard was shitting himself he was wide eyed never seen him so full of fear
Hagler wanted to smash him to bit's. Remember Hagler had some very hard fight in his career he took
on all comer's . This guy was a true Champion, one of the very best middleweight's that ever got in the ring, some so called Champ's today not fit to carry his spit bucket rubbish compared to this man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dia bando

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slim the BoxingManiac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

The only knock out is going to be me knocking you out.
The final facts are this:
Hagler cried and ran like a little girl after he was soundly beat by Leonard. He should have fought Hearns and the winner got Leonard.
After the Hearns fight Hagler was never the same. He would have been destroyed by Hearns in a return fight.
Haglers weak mind was exposed by Leonard.

---

Okay dumbass. Let's debate your final facts.

-Hagler wasn't beaten soundly. It's hotly contested to this day whether or not Leonard won that fight.
-He retired because he was out of it. That's why he lost to Leonard. Could Hearns have beaten him? Sure. But that's not the point. Hagler knew he was done.
-You're right about Hagler not being the same after Hearns.
-Hagler's weak mind? That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my entire life. Slap your parents for ever producing such a retarded offspring.

Refute! ;D

---

The thing with that fight, Leonard was shitting himself he was wide eyed never seen him so full of fear
Hagler wanted to smash him to bit's. Remember Hagler had some very hard fight in his career he took
on all comer's . This guy was a true Champion, one of the very best middleweight's that ever got in the ring, some so called Champ's today not fit to carry his spit bucket rubbish compared to this man.

---

agree

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slim the BoxingManiac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jody Lane

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tam Seddon

Apparently Hagler told Hearns not to cut him or it would end up in a real fight which it did.

Yes I read that about the massage too, it seems like speculation by Steward though when answering why it went wrong.

Hearns defiantly got the tactics wrong though, but it was never in his nature to step down if someone wanted to fight him. This defiantly was the reason why he lost the fight though. If he had more discipline to his game plan and the factors I mentioned before would he have been able to have beaten Hagler?

---

I don't think it was deep massage that had anything to do with it. It's not like Hagler was hitting him in the leg. I think it all had to do with Hagler hitting him in the head.

As for the fight happening earlier, say 1983,I think Hearns would have been wiped out just as quick and his career would have suffered more from it.

---

I agree, Jody. It seems like people are a lot more accepting of excuses these days. When it comes to being working class people who have to make money doing hard work, we can't really afford to have excuses for why we couldn't get the job done. Instead, for the better, we do everything in our power to get it done right.

I don't think it's too much to hold fighters to this standard, too. Their entire career is boxing, but they don't treat it that way. Excuses will always come up instead of the truth. The truth usually being that they didn't have what it took to win, or they didn't try hard enough. In Hearns case it would have been that he tried hard, had a good game plan, and did his best in the ring. He lost because he couldn't stand up to the Hagler hurricane.

Excuses simply don't cut it.

---

And the exact same thing happened to Hagler in the Leonard fight as well. Hagler had his ears boxed off. The age excuse and other excuses you bring up only support his mental weaknesses and inferior boxing skills against Leonard and Hearns............. Hagler fought Leonard hard, tried hard, and lost big

Excuses simply dont cut it...................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slim the boxingmaniac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

the only knock out is going to be me knocking you out.
The final facts are this:
Hagler cried and ran like a little girl after he was soundly beat by leonard. He should have fought hearns and the winner got leonard.
After the hearns fight hagler was never the same. He would have been destroyed by hearns in a return fight.
Haglers weak mind was exposed by leonard.

---

okay dumbass. Let's debate your final facts.

-hagler wasn't beaten soundly. It's hotly contested to this day whether or not leonard won that fight.
-he retired because he was out of it. That's why he lost to leonard. Could hearns have beaten him? Sure. But that's not the point. Hagler knew he was done.
-you're right about hagler not being the same after hearns.
-hagler's weak mind? That's the stupidest thing i have ever heard in my entire life. Slap your parents for ever producing such a retarded offspring.

Refute! ;d

---

as in: Short bus dim slim do you need a picture?

---

I'm sorry, do you have any points to make?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slim the BoxingManiac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jody Lane

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tam Seddon

Apparently Hagler told Hearns not to cut him or it would end up in a real fight which it did.

Yes I read that about the massage too, it seems like speculation by Steward though when answering why it went wrong.

Hearns defiantly got the tactics wrong though, but it was never in his nature to step down if someone wanted to fight him. This defiantly was the reason why he lost the fight though. If he had more discipline to his game plan and the factors I mentioned before would he have been able to have beaten Hagler?

---

I don't think it was deep massage that had anything to do with it. It's not like Hagler was hitting him in the leg. I think it all had to do with Hagler hitting him in the head.

As for the fight happening earlier, say 1983,I think Hearns would have been wiped out just as quick and his career would have suffered more from it.

---

I agree, Jody. It seems like people are a lot more accepting of excuses these days. When it comes to being working class people who have to make money doing hard work, we can't really afford to have excuses for why we couldn't get the job done. Instead, for the better, we do everything in our power to get it done right.

I don't think it's too much to hold fighters to this standard, too. Their entire career is boxing, but they don't treat it that way. Excuses will always come up instead of the truth. The truth usually being that they didn't have what it took to win, or they didn't try hard enough. In Hearns case it would have been that he tried hard, had a good game plan, and did his best in the ring. He lost because he couldn't stand up to the Hagler hurricane.

Excuses simply don't cut it.

---

And the exact same thing happened to Hagler in the Leonard fight as well. Hagler had his ears boxed off. The age excuse and other excuses you bring up only support his mental weaknesses and inferior boxing skills against Leonard and Hearns............. Hagler fought Leonard hard, tried hard, and lost big

Excuses simply dont cut it...................

---

I already refuted all of these points in my other post where you didn't have a reply. Please try to show me some logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

The only knock out is going to be me knocking you out.
The final facts are this:
Hagler cried and ran like a little girl after he was soundly beat by Leonard. He should have fought Hearns and the winner got Leonard.
After the Hearns fight Hagler was never the same. He would have been destroyed by Hearns in a return fight.
Haglers weak mind was exposed by Leonard.

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....did you just threaten to knock someone out via the internet??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.................... .......opps, i just fell off my chair laughing so hard HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PUGWARRIOR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

The only knock out is going to be me knocking you out.
The final facts are this:
Hagler cried and ran like a little girl after he was soundly beat by Leonard. He should have fought Hearns and the winner got Leonard.
After the Hearns fight Hagler was never the same. He would have been destroyed by Hearns in a return fight.
Haglers weak mind was exposed by Leonard.

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....did you just threaten to knock someone out via the internet??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.................... .......opps, i just fell off my chair laughing so hard HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

---

I rest my case! Now go sign on with one of your other 15 account names and reply

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PUGWARRIOR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electivemed

The only knock out is going to be me knocking you out.
The final facts are this:
Hagler cried and ran like a little girl after he was soundly beat by Leonard. He should have fought Hearns and the winner got Leonard.
After the Hearns fight Hagler was never the same. He would have been destroyed by Hearns in a return fight.
Haglers weak mind was exposed by Leonard.

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....did you just threaten to knock someone out via the internet??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.................... .......opps, i just fell off my chair laughing so hard HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

---

I rest my case! Now go sign on with one of your other 15 account names and reply

---

:confused:

Will you two girls stop squabbling over this please. My head is hurting. :)

Hearns vs.Duran, Roberto's worst nightmare to date and yet he defeated Leonard, one out of two times until they fought again as unenthusiastic individuals and once again as with Hearns Leonard was given a return gift. Hearns is beaten by Barkley twice and Duran beat Barkley. Hagler beat Hearns badly and he decisions Duran In a tough fight and Duran was quoted as telling Leonard I just gave you the blueprint for beating Hagler. Leonard beats Hagler although I never thought so. I just thought Ray was blessed with adoring fans and judges that saw differently. Before I say those words take a guess. Did you? Styles make fights and Duran, Barkley, Hagler and Leonard all provided Tommy with a resume that at least says he was in there amongst all time greats but had the unfortunate luck of using the word, oops on a few occasions. Whether it was bad planning or just the fact that he couldn't wake up from his nightmare and say,"Oh shit it was just a dream." He won some and he lost some just like all of us.