Is Marvin Hagler vs Thomas Hearns Slightly Overrated ??

I know it was massive fight and etc, but i see a lot of people calling this one of the greatest fights of all time. But i want to know why people think this ?? yes 1st round was incredible but after the 1st round it was one sided fight, i just think people tend to overrate this fight and forget about other classics that are better fights like, Ramirez vs Rosario 2, Chacon vs Edwards 2, etc. But whats your opinions ??

I kinda agree with what you say. When you watch it now it does not have the same impact. When the fight was live though, I tell you, my father and I could not even breath when we watched it. The atmosphere, anger and emotion in that ring may never be repeated.

The best for me Hagler v Hearns even tho the wrong man won :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

The best for me Hagler v Hearns even tho the wrong man won :)

---

Yes but why is it the best to you ?? 1st round was amazing but other than that it was one sided. There have been much better fights IMO than Hagler vs Hearns i'll name 10 right now.

Corrales vs Castillo 1
Eubank vs Watson 2
Ramirez vs Rosario 2
MAB vs Morales 1
Sithchatchawal vs Monshipour = Better 1st round than Hagler vs Hearns.
Gatti vs Ward 1
Holyfield vs Bowe 1
Barkley vs Duran
Chacon vs Edwards 2
Chacon vs Limon 3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricardo "Finito" Lopez

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

The best for me Hagler v Hearns even tho the wrong man won :)

---

Yes but why is it the best to you ?? 1st round was amazing but other than that it was one sided. There have been much better fights IMO than Hagler vs Hearns i'll name 10 right now.

Corrales vs Castillo 1
Eubank vs Watson 2
Ramirez vs Rosario 2
MAB vs Morales 1
Sithchatchawal vs Monshipour = Better 1st round than Hagler vs Hearns.
Gatti vs Ward 1
Holyfield vs Bowe 1
Barkley vs Duran
Chacon vs Edwards 2
Chacon vs Limon 3

---

Just really because of the impact of the 2 , Hagler the rock chinned BEAST againest the power hitting hitman , watching it live was just amazing,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricardo "Finito" Lopez

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

The best for me Hagler v Hearns even tho the wrong man won :)

---

Yes but why is it the best to you ?? 1st round was amazing but other than that it was one sided. There have been much better fights IMO than Hagler vs Hearns i'll name 10 right now.

Corrales vs Castillo 1
Eubank vs Watson 2
Ramirez vs Rosario 2
MAB vs Morales 1
Sithchatchawal vs Monshipour = Better 1st round than Hagler vs Hearns.
Gatti vs Ward 1
Holyfield vs Bowe 1
Barkley vs Duran
Chacon vs Edwards 2
Chacon vs Limon 3

---

Also without being offensive to you Ricardo , you wont have seen vertually any of those fights live or live on TV , so its kinda hard for you to live the moment the same watching replays.Therefore you didnt know the hype and peper hype at that time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricardo "Finito" Lopez

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

The best for me Hagler v Hearns even tho the wrong man won :)

---

Yes but why is it the best to you ?? 1st round was amazing but other than that it was one sided. There have been much better fights IMO than Hagler vs Hearns i'll name 10 right now.

Corrales vs Castillo 1
Eubank vs Watson 2
Ramirez vs Rosario 2
MAB vs Morales 1
Sithchatchawal vs Monshipour = Better 1st round than Hagler vs Hearns.
Gatti vs Ward 1
Holyfield vs Bowe 1
Barkley vs Duran
Chacon vs Edwards 2
Chacon vs Limon 3

---

Just really because of the impact of the 2 , Hagler the rock chinned BEAST againest the power hitting hitman , watching it live was just amazing,

---

yep i agree, and when have such high profile stars/boxers gone at it like that before ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricardo "Finito" Lopez

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

The best for me Hagler v Hearns even tho the wrong man won :)

---

Yes but why is it the best to you ?? 1st round was amazing but other than that it was one sided. There have been much better fights IMO than Hagler vs Hearns i'll name 10 right now.

Corrales vs Castillo 1
Eubank vs Watson 2
Ramirez vs Rosario 2
MAB vs Morales 1
Sithchatchawal vs Monshipour = Better 1st round than Hagler vs Hearns.
Gatti vs Ward 1
Holyfield vs Bowe 1
Barkley vs Duran
Chacon vs Edwards 2
Chacon vs Limon 3

---

Just really because of the impact of the 2 , Hagler the rock chinned BEAST againest the power hitting hitman , watching it live was just amazing,

---

yep i agree, and when have such high profile stars/boxers gone at it like that before ?

---

yep i agree, and when have such high profile stars/boxers gone at it like that before ?

Most of the fights i mentioned on my list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricardo "Finito" Lopez

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

The best for me Hagler v Hearns even tho the wrong man won :)

---

Yes but why is it the best to you ?? 1st round was amazing but other than that it was one sided. There have been much better fights IMO than Hagler vs Hearns i'll name 10 right now.

Corrales vs Castillo 1
Eubank vs Watson 2
Ramirez vs Rosario 2
MAB vs Morales 1
Sithchatchawal vs Monshipour = Better 1st round than Hagler vs Hearns.
Gatti vs Ward 1
Holyfield vs Bowe 1
Barkley vs Duran
Chacon vs Edwards 2
Chacon vs Limon 3

---

Also without being offensive to you Ricardo , you wont have seen vertually any of those fights live or live on TV , so its kinda hard for you to live the moment the same watching replays.Therefore you didnt know the hype and peper hype at that time.

---

Ok i can understand that but i can still appreciate fights the same, im not saying Hagler vs Hearns wern't great fight, but when people say its greatest fight of all time. I believe people are forgetting classics that deserve more attention and don't get it.

that's a fairly controversial question, but a good one. I know my personal answer is no - I watched that fight again just a few days ago. In terms of the actual fight inside the ring, there may be more interesting fights, ones that go back and forth a lot more. But in terms of mystique, I don't think we can overrate this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricardo "Finito" Lopez

I know it was massive fight and etc, but i see a lot of people calling this one of the greatest fights of all time. But i want to know why people think this ?? yes 1st round was incredible but after the 1st round it was one sided fight, i just think people tend to overrate this fight and forget about other classics that are better fights like, Ramirez vs Rosario 2, Chacon vs Edwards 2, etc. But whats your opinions ??

---

I have heard it called the "Best 3 rounds of all time"....You have to take it all into perspective...the whole aura around the fight...look at who the two men in the ring were...the fact Hagler has never been hit or hurt like that...the edge of your seat drama knowing Tommy could end anyfighter from MW on down with one punch yet be starched by and power puncher with one shot....

atmosphere played just as important part as the fight itself did...thats a big reason it made it such a big fight

Alot of it depends on the person watching it I would think. I thought it was a great fight, but maybe not as great now as I did watching it when I was a kid with my dad. And though this isn't what you asked Finito; don't forget that it is a great enough fight that alot of middleweight fighters/fights are compared with Hagler/Hearns in terms of greatness. Just look at poor Pavlik before Taylor and after Taylor fight. Manny always saying before that Pavlik was no Hearns or Hagler, and after saying he could of given them both hell. It may not be as great now, but it is a benchmark which alot of guys are put next to and judged.

As people have said there is a world of difference to watching an event unfold live and rewatching 20 odd years later.

Just watching the fight now cannot capture the sense of drama, build up, tension etc.

Plus Hagler and Hearns are two of the biggest boxing stars of all time so of course any tear up involving the two would be much more widely acclaimed than a tear up between two unknowns Sithchatchawal vs Monshipour for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricardo "Finito" Lopez

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

The best for me Hagler v Hearns even tho the wrong man won :)

---

Yes but why is it the best to you ?? 1st round was amazing but other than that it was one sided. There have been much better fights IMO than Hagler vs Hearns i'll name 10 right now.

Corrales vs Castillo 1
Eubank vs Watson 2
Ramirez vs Rosario 2
MAB vs Morales 1
Sithchatchawal vs Monshipour = Better 1st round than Hagler vs Hearns.
Gatti vs Ward 1
Holyfield vs Bowe 1
Barkley vs Duran
Chacon vs Edwards 2
Chacon vs Limon 3

---

Those are some of the best fights that you listed there BUT you gotta understand this was Hagler vs. Hearns.
Without disrespecting the fighters.
Chacon, Boza, Barkley, Bowe, Gatti, Ward, Sithchatchawal, Monshipour,
Ramirez, Rosario, Watson, Corrales, JLC are no where near the caliber of greatness that surrounds Hagler & Hearns. Again no disrepect to any of them but in All Time lists let's say top 50. I'm not even sure if half of them make it in there.
This was 40-1 vs. 60-2-2, the best Middleweight of his time facing off against Hearns who had just blasted off Duran. Who in turn had beat SRL who had beat Hearns. Who Hagler had gone the distance with Duran in a tough fight... So you see ICB theres more then meets the eye there. It's more then just the actual 3 rounds as other people have said it's leading to the fight and the events that took place leading up to it. It's like the 24/7's we have now and the Countdowns. Imagine a kid some 20 years from now watching PBF vs. Hatton without the build up? They'll just say 'Oh! it was a really good KO win by PBF' the fight was ugly too much holding in the begining and not a lot of drama'
That would be because they didn't see the 24/7 they didn't the countdowns the weigh in....
I have a really good copy of Hagler vs. Hearns with pre-fight int. build up with interviews, highlights of previous fights and all.

For me that was without a doubt one of the best fights ever.The fact of the matter was every single punch hurt one another.If you can catch my drift.I know punches hurt (duh) but what I am saying is the recooperating powers where just amazing.

Im giving everyone on this thread a CC for well thought out posts, well done fellas give yourself a pat on the back.

CC back to you 8)

I enjoyed that fight.
Both fighters threw caution to the wind and just came to get down.
Best 3 rounds is a deserving name.

Well looking back at somthing always takes it away somthing from the fight because you already know the outcome to it so it takes the excitement out of it a bit that what sucks but o well it is a great fight anyhow so o well.

i get what your saying pal. Good thoughts, however as already said it was mainly the fact that they was both such superstars in boxing and didnt mess about getting to grips with each others style just jumped straight into throwing bombs and trying to literally destroy the other man. Really was breathtaking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricardo "Finito" Lopez

I know it was massive fight and etc, but i see a lot of people calling this one of the greatest fights of all time. But i want to know why people think this ?? yes 1st round was incredible but after the 1st round it was one sided fight, i just think people tend to overrate this fight and forget about other classics that are better fights like, Ramirez vs Rosario 2, Chacon vs Edwards 2, etc. But whats your opinions ??

---

It probably aint that great watching it 20 years later, but if you were caught up in the fab 4 era and experinced the whole erea as it happend it would be much more significant to you.

No, i don't think as a spectacle or a moment but it is slightly overrated as a fight.

Personally it was a slug fest between two fighters that were so much more than that. Hearns was perhaps one of the best outside fighters we've ever seen, and Hagler was one of the best come through anything type fighters we've ever seen. I think this fight if it wasn't so frantic would have been better in some ways, but worse in pure excitement which in terms of that I don't think many fights match it because its so fast paced, such hard punches are landed and these two are as good as it gets I mean they were the two best at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sugar_shaw

No, i don't think as a spectacle or a moment but it is slightly overrated as a fight.

---

Just like BIG H said if you were not part of the era and you were not watching that fight the same day it happen, the fight might not be so great for you.

And I still can't believe you think this fight is slightly over ratted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricardo "Finito" Lopez

I know it was massive fight and etc, but i see a lot of people calling this one of the greatest fights of all time. But i want to know why people think this ?? yes 1st round was incredible but after the 1st round it was one sided fight, i just think people tend to overrate this fight and forget about other classics that are better fights like, Ramirez vs Rosario 2, Chacon vs Edwards 2, etc. But whats your opinions ??

---

It probably aint that great watching it 20 years later, but if you were caught up in the fab 4 era and experinced the whole erea as it happend it would be much more significant to you.

---

Not saying it isn't great mate, im just saying i think this fight does get a bit overrated and some other classics like the ones i mentioned tend to get forgotten and they were better fights IMO. But like others have said if i was older i probably would have appreciated it more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

Personally it was a slug fest between two fighters that were so much more than that. Hearns was perhaps one of the best outside fighters we've ever seen, and Hagler was one of the best come through anything type fighters we've ever seen. I think this fight if it wasn't so frantic would have been better in some ways, but worse in pure excitement which in terms of that I don't think many fights match it because its so fast paced, such hard punches are landed and these two are as good as it gets I mean they were the two best at the time.

---

CC#243 on me Taeth.... I actually agree with you here.
Well said... :appl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

Personally it was a slug fest between two fighters that were so much more than that. Hearns was perhaps one of the best outside fighters we've ever seen, and Hagler was one of the best come through anything type fighters we've ever seen. I think this fight if it wasn't so frantic would have been better in some ways, but worse in pure excitement which in terms of that I don't think many fights match it because its so fast paced, such hard punches are landed and these two are as good as it gets I mean they were the two best at the time.

---

Good analysis, right on the money!

NO not at all

The reason Hagler-Hearns is such a standout for the ages is that it had the build-up of a LH-Mayweather/Mayweather-Hatton in an age when boxing was on free TV and consequently recieved much more attention in the press/boxers were much more well-known etc., but then the fight lived up to the hype.

It wasn't a DLH-Mayweather kind of fight. It was the fight the public had been built up to see for months. It did exactly what it said on the tin.

Hagler/Hearns is the only superfight (a fight between pound for pound contenders in their prime) that has actually lived up to the hype - both guys went in there and did exactly what they said they were going to do.

The drama was breathtaking. Sure, it was no Corrales and Castillo in terms of ebb and flow but the guys saying that watching it live beats rewatching later is better are speaking the truth.

It's like me saying was the first Ali/Frazier fight over rated? I watched the fight already knowing the result so it wasn't as good for me as it would have been watching the drama unfold live, plus all the hype which is half of what makes boxing so exciting for me. (I don't think the fight is over rated - watching the first Ali/Frazier fight sends me into a fit of depression that I exist in an era of pitiful heavyweights)

On another note, I have a theory that these three rounds took a lot more out of Hagler than Tommy is given credit for. He only fought twice after the Hearns fight and was pedestrian in breaking down Mugabe and didn't look himself against Leonard (ALTHOUGH HE STILL WON THE FIGHT DAMMIT!!!!)

Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricardo "Finito" Lopez

I know it was massive fight and etc, but i see a lot of people calling this one of the greatest fights of all time. But i want to know why people think this ?? yes 1st round was incredible but after the 1st round it was one sided fight, i just think people tend to overrate this fight and forget about other classics that are better fights like, Ramirez vs Rosario 2, Chacon vs Edwards 2, etc. But whats your opinions ??

---

The fight wasn't one-sided at all. The commentators (which included Ray Leonard punk ass) kind of made it seem that way. But it wasn't. The first was back and forth. But in the second Hearns boxed and moved pretty good. Hagler just landed the harder blows. But it was Hearns jabbing in the second that really opened up Haglers cut. And he was still throwing his right which by that time was already broken. The third was obviously the end. Hearns-Hagler to me will always be one of the greatest fight I ever saw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricardo "Finito" Lopez

I know it was massive fight and etc, but i see a lot of people calling this one of the greatest fights of all time. But i want to know why people think this ?? yes 1st round was incredible but after the 1st round it was one sided fight, i just think people tend to overrate this fight and forget about other classics that are better fights like, Ramirez vs Rosario 2, Chacon vs Edwards 2, etc. But whats your opinions ??

---

I actually dont like this fight. Ive said it here before. Hearns gets clocked and smiles like a goof and then gets put to sleep. Just all seems a bit premeture. I wouldnt call it a dramatic finish, more like an anti-climax if im honest :-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricardo "Finito" Lopez

I know it was massive fight and etc, but i see a lot of people calling this one of the greatest fights of all time. But i want to know why people think this ?? yes 1st round was incredible but after the 1st round it was one sided fight, i just think people tend to overrate this fight and forget about other classics that are better fights like, Ramirez vs Rosario 2, Chacon vs Edwards 2, etc. But whats your opinions ??

---

The fight wasn't one-sided at all. The commentators (which included Ray Leonard punk a**) kind of made it seem that way. But it wasn't. The first was back and forth. But in the second Hearns boxed and moved pretty good. Hagler just landed the harder blows. But it was Hearns jabbing in the second that really opened up Haglers cut. And he was still throwing his right which by that time was already broken. The third was obviously the end. Hearns-Hagler to me will always be one of the greatest fight I ever saw

---

Hearns legs wern't there after 1st round, Hagler won 2nd round comfortably even though Hearns had his moment's. I think that cut helped Hagler in a way because he went out there knowing he had only 1 or 2 more rounds otherwise the fight would be stopped and he just demolished Hearns.

thats a very good question. the first round alone was probably the single greatest 3 minutes of action Ive ever seen. I think what makes the fight great though was the hype surrounding it and that hearns was coming off his 2 round destruction of duran. I agree though there have been better fights. I read recently that hearns had actually broken his hand but didnt want to use it as an excuse against Hagler

It is definately one of the best ever high profile fights. A classic War that I saw Live on TV and it got me hooked on Boxing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob

It is definately one of the best ever high profile fights. A classic War that I saw Live on TV and it got me hooked on Boxing.

---

I guess that tells you how great it was. For me personally,as I didn't see it live,I think it was an amazing fight but not the greatest,maybe because,as has been mentioned, I was not around for all the hype etc. Similarly,in 30 years time,people may wonder about the fights,we,as in this generation,consider great in the same way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Gamo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob

It is definately one of the best ever high profile fights. A classic War that I saw Live on TV and it got me hooked on Boxing.

---

I guess that tells you how great it was. For me personally,as I didn't see it live,I think it was an amazing fight but not the greatest,maybe because,as has been mentioned, I was not around for all the hype etc. Similarly,in 30 years time,people may wonder about the fights,we,as in this generation,consider great in the same way.

---

I think that might be what ICB is getting at though. Obviously being around for the hype and all makes a fight that much more intriuging... But do you really think in 30 yrs people are going to be questioning whether Corrales Castillo was an all time great fight?? As far as I'm concerned the build up to that fight played no role whatsoever... I can't even remember there being much hype over it.. It's simply the in ring action itself that makes that fight what it is.. I know I'm not clearing anything up here, just saying that it's easy to get caught up in thinking , oh Hagler Hearns was the best fight ever.. But really much of it is just due to the signifigance it had in the sport at that time. It would be like Mayweather moving up to MW and fighting Pavlik, with both of them just trading bombs for 3 rounds with a dramatic KO.. Obviously not in regards to the styles or anything, just to see two p4p guys clash and throw all caution to the wind.. Basically there's no right answer to whether the fight was overrated other than to say the action itself probably didn't equate to one of the greatest fights ever. I don't see anything wrong with analyzing fights strictly by what happened in the ring. I didn't even see Corrales Castillo live, and hardly even thought anything of the matchup beforehand.. It doesn't make it any less exciting to watch though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Gamo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob

It is definately one of the best ever high profile fights. A classic War that I saw Live on TV and it got me hooked on Boxing.

---

I guess that tells you how great it was. For me personally,as I didn't see it live,I think it was an amazing fight but not the greatest,maybe because,as has been mentioned, I was not around for all the hype etc. Similarly,in 30 years time,people may wonder about the fights,we,as in this generation,consider great in the same way.

---

I think that might be what ICB is getting at though. Obviously being around for the hype and all makes a fight that much more intriuging... But do you really think in 30 yrs people are going to be questioning whether Corrales Castillo was an all time great fight?? As far as I'm concerned the build up to that fight played no role whatsoever... I can't even remember there being much hype over it.. It's simply the in ring action itself that makes that fight what it is.. I know I'm not clearing anything up here, just saying that it's easy to get caught up in thinking , oh Hagler Hearns was the best fight ever.. But really much of it is just due to the signifigance it had in the sport at that time. It would be like Mayweather moving up to MW and fighting Pavlik, with both of them just trading bombs for 3 rounds with a dramatic KO.. Obviously not in regards to the styles or anything, just to see two p4p guys clash and throw all caution to the wind.. Basically there's no right answer to whether the fight was overrated other than to say the action itself probably didn't equate to one of the greatest fights ever. I don't see anything wrong with analyzing fights strictly by what happened in the ring. I didn't even see Corrales Castillo live, and hardly even thought anything of the matchup beforehand.. It doesn't make it any less exciting to watch though.

---

Thats the best response so far CC P4P im glad you understand what im trying to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Gamo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob

It is definately one of the best ever high profile fights. A classic War that I saw Live on TV and it got me hooked on Boxing.

---

I guess that tells you how great it was. For me personally,as I didn't see it live,I think it was an amazing fight but not the greatest,maybe because,as has been mentioned, I was not around for all the hype etc. Similarly,in 30 years time,people may wonder about the fights,we,as in this generation,consider great in the same way.

---

I think that might be what ICB is getting at though. Obviously being around for the hype and all makes a fight that much more intriuging... But do you really think in 30 yrs people are going to be questioning whether Corrales Castillo was an all time great fight?? As far as I'm concerned the build up to that fight played no role whatsoever... I can't even remember there being much hype over it.. It's simply the in ring action itself that makes that fight what it is.. I know I'm not clearing anything up here, just saying that it's easy to get caught up in thinking , oh Hagler Hearns was the best fight ever.. But really much of it is just due to the signifigance it had in the sport at that time. It would be like Mayweather moving up to MW and fighting Pavlik, with both of them just trading bombs for 3 rounds with a dramatic KO.. Obviously not in regards to the styles or anything, just to see two p4p guys clash and throw all caution to the wind.. Basically there's no right answer to whether the fight was overrated other than to say the action itself probably didn't equate to one of the greatest fights ever. I don't see anything wrong with analyzing fights strictly by what happened in the ring. I didn't even see Corrales Castillo live, and hardly even thought anything of the matchup beforehand.. It doesn't make it any less exciting to watch though.

---

CC on me my man,classy response.

Just want to continue what P4P was saying, just forgetting the hype for a minute. I was basically saying is the fight overrated when people say this is one of the great fights of all time ?? yes 1st round was amazing but there have been plenty of amazing 1st rounds, like Bert Cooper vs Michael Moorer, which was better 1st round than Hearns vs Hagler IMO. Plus the fight was more competitive and it added more drama with the knockdowns.

Action wise there have been many better fights and i don't think it should matter if there big names or not. If the fight is a amazing fight even if there big names or not, it should still get credit for being amazing fight.

Also, ive got it on DVD somewhere... This fight wasn't as hyped (at the time) as some might think.
Referring to the pre-fight hype, the narrator says something like ''Suprisingly, this fight failed to capture the imagination of many'' or something like that.



So i guess it was only regarded a superfight in hindsight ??? I dont know how much truth is int that. Is there any posters here who are old enough to know for sure ???