Leonard-Hearns 1989 Supermiddles-vs-2014 Top Dogs. Fact.

For the first time in donkey's years, with a much more confident, booze ravaged mind, I just watched the 1989 WBC/WBO supermiddle fight between Hearns and Leonard. Back then the supermiddle division was "new," unpopular and the WBO wasn't even recognised as a "genuine" world title, and Hearns/Leonard were considered old fossils aged 30 and 33 (amazing) so the match had a stain on it.

1. This should be rated as one of the best ever supermiddle fights.

2. Hearns wasn't "robbed" (something I've always believed). Leonard turning him into a drunk three times was worse than the knockdowns. If anyone was getting knocked out it was Hearns. Leonard could have had two 10-8 rounds himself. I think a draw was fair.

The question - How do these guys match-up against Ward, FRoch, Kessler, Bika, Groves, Chavez jr etc

I see them doing very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

For the first time in donkey's years, with a much more confident, booze ravaged mind, I just watched the 1989 WBC/WBO supermiddle fight between Hearns and Leonard. Back then the supermiddle division was "new," unpopular and the WBO wasn't even recognised as a "genuine" world title, and Hearns/Leonard were considered old fossils aged 30 and 33 (amazing) so the match had a stain on it.

1. This should be rated as one of the best ever supermiddle fights.

2. Hearns wasn't "robbed" (something I've always believed). Leonard turning him into a drunk three times was worse than the knockdowns. If anyone was getting knocked out it was Hearns. Leonard could have had two 10-8 rounds himself. I think a draw was fair.

The question - How do these guys match-up against Ward, FRoch, Kessler, Bika, Groves, Chavez jr etc

I see them doing very well.

---

Good post:

SRL- Wins against all of them. UD's Ward, Froch and Kessler. Ko's Chavez, Bika and Groves.

Hearns- Loses against Ward and Froch, UD. KO's Kessler by 10, KO's Chavez, Bika and Groves early-before 4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

For the first time in donkey's years, with a much more confident, booze ravaged mind, I just watched the 1989 WBC/WBO supermiddle fight between Hearns and Leonard.

---

Good Stuff LOL

Fenster you are mad if you think it was a draw. Yes Hearns wobbled but he fought back in the rounds so 10 - 9 would be fair.

Both fighters were at the end of their careers so Ward would probably be at them and maybe the others.

Stick to the booze.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ykdadamaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

For the first time in donkey's years, with a much more confident, booze ravaged mind, I just watched the 1989 WBC/WBO supermiddle fight between Hearns and Leonard. Back then the supermiddle division was "new," unpopular and the WBO wasn't even recognised as a "genuine" world title, and Hearns/Leonard were considered old fossils aged 30 and 33 (amazing) so the match had a stain on it.

1. This should be rated as one of the best ever supermiddle fights.

2. Hearns wasn't "robbed" (something I've always believed). Leonard turning him into a drunk three times was worse than the knockdowns. If anyone was getting knocked out it was Hearns. Leonard could have had two 10-8 rounds himself. I think a draw was fair.

The question - How do these guys match-up against Ward, FRoch, Kessler, Bika, Groves, Chavez jr etc

I see them doing very well.

---

Good post:

SRL- Wins against all of them. UD's Ward, Froch and Kessler. Ko's Chavez, Bika and Groves.

Hearns- Loses against Ward and Froch, UD. KO's Kessler by 10, KO's Chavez, Bika and Groves early-before 4.

---

SRL - Beats them all
Hearns - Beats them all
Hagler - Beats them all

Different class!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ykdadamaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

For the first time in donkey's years, with a much more confident, booze ravaged mind, I just watched the 1989 WBC/WBO supermiddle fight between Hearns and Leonard. Back then the supermiddle division was "new," unpopular and the WBO wasn't even recognised as a "genuine" world title, and Hearns/Leonard were considered old fossils aged 30 and 33 (amazing) so the match had a stain on it.

1. This should be rated as one of the best ever supermiddle fights.

2. Hearns wasn't "robbed" (something I've always believed). Leonard turning him into a drunk three times was worse than the knockdowns. If anyone was getting knocked out it was Hearns. Leonard could have had two 10-8 rounds himself. I think a draw was fair.

The question - How do these guys match-up against Ward, FRoch, Kessler, Bika, Groves, Chavez jr etc

I see them doing very well.

---

Good post:

SRL- Wins against all of them. UD's Ward, Froch and Kessler. Ko's Chavez, Bika and Groves.

Hearns- Loses against Ward and Froch, UD. KO's Kessler by 10, KO's Chavez, Bika and Groves early-before 4.

---

SRL - Beats them all
Hearns - Beats them all
Hagler - Beats them all

Different class!

---

I think Hagler would have problems with Ward. But everyone else would be beaten to a crisp.

Fenster did not mention Hagler he only mentioned blown up welterweight legends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Fenster did not mention Hagler he only mentioned blown up welterweight legends.

---

Just thought I'd add him in for a sense of perspective. I deliberately didn't say Duran because he was a blown up LW, but he would've probably done all of them except Ward and maybe Kessler of 5 years ago.

You can't insult the greatest saddo prediction comp champ in history by calling him "mad." Booze-soaked complete and utter cunt but not mad. Respect the history makers.

Mathematically Hearns was the most probable winner but realistically he was fortunate it was a draw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ykdadamaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

For the first time in donkey's years, with a much more confident, booze ravaged mind, I just watched the 1989 WBC/WBO supermiddle fight between Hearns and Leonard. Back then the supermiddle division was "new," unpopular and the WBO wasn't even recognised as a "genuine" world title, and Hearns/Leonard were considered old fossils aged 30 and 33 (amazing) so the match had a stain on it.

1. This should be rated as one of the best ever supermiddle fights.

2. Hearns wasn't "robbed" (something I've always believed). Leonard turning him into a drunk three times was worse than the knockdowns. If anyone was getting knocked out it was Hearns. Leonard could have had two 10-8 rounds himself. I think a draw was fair.

The question - How do these guys match-up against Ward, FRoch, Kessler, Bika, Groves, Chavez jr etc

I see them doing very well.

---

Good post:

SRL- Wins against all of them. UD's Ward, Froch and Kessler. Ko's Chavez, Bika and Groves.

Hearns- Loses against Ward and Froch, UD. KO's Kessler by 10, KO's Chavez, Bika and Groves early-before 4.

---

:lolhaha: Loses to him at what? Checkers? Froch and his hands down style of fighting would of been made for Hearns. Of all the fighters listed I think Froch would of gone out the earliest against Hearns. The jab would be a nightmare for him to deal with.

I liked the fight, but I think they were both quite washed up already there

So SRL, Hearns of 1989 vs prime Ward, Froch, Chavez is not so clear.

I feel the draw was ok with the rematch i wish the fight was a 15 rounder because Leonard would of fucking knocked Hearns out. I fell both do fine against the current crop Hearns was pretty leget with win over Hill and others. But Leonard and Hearns were kinda past thier best days and above best weight which was ww but they had alot of skill. Ward would be the hardest test but i think Hearns and Leonard would cause him problems especially hearns he was hard to out box really fucking hard to out box need to go for the ko most of the time.

I was ok with the draw, never saw it a robbery either. Both were on the tail end. Hell I'm still not convinced Hearns really beat Kinchen :-X. I think Ward does better than the others and hypothetically could top those versions.

SRL wins all of them by UD

Hearns wins all of them, KO's most of them

Hagler wins all of them, KO's most of them

Monzon wins all of them and gets arrested for murder.... again !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE THIRD MAN

SRL wins all of them by UD

Hearns wins all of them, KO's most of them

Hagler wins all of them, KO's most of them

Monzon wins all of them and gets arrested for murder.... again !

---

Yes indeed.

Id struggle to see Leonard or Hearns beating these guys. Leonard fought twice at super middle and one at light heavy. At super middle he fought Duran and Hearns. Duran coming to the end of his career and should never have gone so high in weight and Hearns while probably bigger at the weight was still not a natural super middle. The super middles would be too big and too strong for Leonard in my opinion. Id say Froch stops him, Ward smothers him and stops him late or by UD. He may grind out points wins over the others but could also see them stopping him.

Hearns, in my opinion, didnt fight anyone of note at the higher weights. Again I think the stronger guys nowadays would stop him at super middle or light heavy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silkeyjoe

Id struggle to see Leonard or Hearns beating these guys. Leonard fought twice at super middle and one at light heavy. At super middle he fought Duran and Hearns. Duran coming to the end of his career and should never have gone so high in weight and Hearns while probably bigger at the weight was still not a natural super middle. The super middles would be too big and too strong for Leonard in my opinion. Id say Froch stops him, Ward smothers him and stops him late or by UD. He may grind out points wins over the others but could also see them stopping him.

Hearns, in my opinion, didnt fight anyone of note at the higher weights. Again I think the stronger guys nowadays would stop him at super middle or light heavy.

---

He fought and outpointed an unbeaten Virgil Hill at LHW .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silkeyjoe

Id struggle to see Leonard or Hearns beating these guys. Leonard fought twice at super middle and one at light heavy. At super middle he fought Duran and Hearns. Duran coming to the end of his career and should never have gone so high in weight and Hearns while probably bigger at the weight was still not a natural super middle. The super middles would be too big and too strong for Leonard in my opinion. Id say Froch stops him, Ward smothers him and stops him late or by UD. He may grind out points wins over the others but could also see them stopping him.

Hearns, in my opinion, didnt fight anyone of note at the higher weights. Again I think the stronger guys nowadays would stop him at super middle or light heavy.

---

He fought and outpointed an unbeaten Virgil Hill at LHW .

---

Im not sure Virgil Hill was that good and he also wasnt that big a puncher. It was a big win for Hearns but i wasnt overly impressed by him in it and then he went and lost in his next fight. I also believe Stewart left him after the Hill fight and thought he should retire.

Im not argueing who the better P4P fighters were I just dont think the guys could cope with the size and power of todays super middleweights. For example Hill weighed in at 173 for his fight v Hearns so I dont imagine he was more then 180 in the ring. Light heavies like Stevenson are probably close to 200 in the ring.

although I appreciate the glamour of the fab 4 and the historical relevance of the period - they will always be rated a lot more highly than they probably actually should be


id like to see them all fight each other, new and old, id like to see some of the SMWs from periods in between join in too


seems leonard and hearns and co are always considered the best but im not so sure, the 90s and early 00s supermiddleweights might have something to say about that too

I need to watch this fight again. Not seen fr 20 years or so. Till I read Four Kings a few years back I had always assumed they were in their late 30s when they fought such was made at the time about them being past it. In today's terms it was nothing !

I will watch later this week and come back

At the time I was a Leonard fan but in later years have come to appreciate how Marvelous Marvin did it all the hard way. He's my favourite now. But Hearns was the most exciting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

although I appreciate the glamour of the fab 4 and the historical relevance of the period - they will always be rated a lot more highly than they probably actually should be


id like to see them all fight each other, new and old, id like to see some of the SMWs from periods in between join in too


seems leonard and hearns and co are always considered the best but im not so sure, the 90s and early 00s supermiddleweights might have something to say about that too

---

But it wasn't just about SMW for these guys. Before they even got to that weight, every single one of them had achieved more in their careers than ANY of the modern day guys that were mentioned. They went up to those weights because there was nothing else to achieve lower down. SMW was probably the least significant part of all their careers. It's like they were ATG's twice over and had 2 careers each!

Leonard should not be considered a real super and light heavyweight. He was very selective who he chose as @Silkeyjoe said but Hearns was more natural at the higher weights. The new super middleweights may have won particularly Ward and a young Kessler but they were not greater than them p4p.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

although I appreciate the glamour of the fab 4 and the historical relevance of the period - they will always be rated a lot more highly than they probably actually should be


id like to see them all fight each other, new and old, id like to see some of the SMWs from periods in between join in too


seems leonard and hearns and co are always considered the best but im not so sure, the 90s and early 00s supermiddleweights might have something to say about that too

---

But it wasn't just about SMW for these guys. Before they even got to that weight, every single one of them had achieved more in their careers than ANY of the modern day guys that were mentioned. They went up to those weights because there was nothing else to achieve lower down. SMW was probably the least significant part of all their careers. It's like they were ATG's twice over and had 2 careers each!

---

yeah I appreciate that, and something that all adds to the fairy tail


it was a fantastic time for boxing with 4 fighters making a massive contribution


all this makes people look back with rose tinted glasses tho and any conversation about who would win, them 4 or any other fighter from any other era and the answers from many is always the same

Right now the 147, 154 and 160 are so weak i do not think the glasses are ross tinted. I mean for fuck sake Cotto mw champion right now thats not a strong division Cotto good but please. Pac had close fights with Bradley and got leveled by career fw and lw in jmm who was also 40 years old. Mayweather in his last fight won but went tooth and nail with a man who not going into the books i do not think we have improved much from the 80's really. Only reason hw's can win now is the size difference kinda changes the game but at these weight classes i do not feel the craft has gone way up at all really just the pay for some fighters. Hearns was pretty good at lhw and smw but this era pretty good right now at 168 not the best but pretty strong and Leonard had ok wins at the weight but he really was nothing after mw just doing money fights.

Just watched the whole fight again . Wow I never remembered the fight being this good.

I remember thinking way back Hearns was robbed but , though I had him maybe 1 up (2 max) I can see how it was a draw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark TKO

Just watched the whole fight again . Wow I never remembered the fight being this good.

I remember thinking way back Hearns was robbed but , though I had him maybe 1 up (2 max) I can see how it was a draw.

---

You are an idiot.

you know where I am

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark TKO

you know where I am

---

Yes in idiotville.

I don't think they match up particularly well. And before people say "BUT ITS RAY LEONARD AND HEARNS", yeah, but by '89 they were both years out of their prime and quite honestly both guys weren't even true SMW's. SRL weighed in at 160 and Hearns at 162.

The SMW guys today are just too big for them to be as effective as they were IMO, and they were too far out of their primes when they were at SMW.

Andre Ward would have eaten '89 SRL alive.

No supermiddle in history would have "eaten SRL alive"

He was clearly not a supermiddle but watch that 89 fight and picture him against todays crop. He's wiping the floor with all but a few of the current top 10.

Just like modern great fighters like Floyd can give weight away so could have Leonard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

No supermiddle in history would have "eaten SRL alive"

He was clearly not a supermiddle but watch that 89 fight and picture him against todays crop. He's wiping the floor with all but a few of the current top 10.

Just like modern great fighters like Floyd can give weight away so could have Leonard.

---

Leonard was very selective who he fought during this comeback. He only chose Hearns because Tommy was wobbling against opponents and thought he was there for the taking. Leonard was still knocked down against Hearns, lalonde, busted up by Duran and battered at light middle by Terry so he was far from invincible. Numpty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

No supermiddle in history would have "eaten SRL alive"

He was clearly not a supermiddle but watch that 89 fight and picture him against todays crop. He's wiping the floor with all but a few of the current top 10.

Just like modern great fighters like Floyd can give weight away so could have Leonard.

---

Leonard was very selective who he fought during this comeback. He only chose Hearns because Tommy was wobbling against opponents and thought he was there for the taking. Leonard was still knocked down against Hearns, lalonde, busted up by Duran and battered at light middle by Terry so he was far from invincible. Numpty.

---

Unlike you I actually watch boxing.

If you actually watched the fight maybe you would have concluded, as many of my fellow Saddo pals did, that the skill/speed/power/pace/ring generalship on display was bloody impressive, even for apparently two washed up fossils.

That is all.

Tommy is one of my faves but neither he or Leonard were supermiddle weights. Both guys grew out of divisions because of age and entropy not because they were starving to make weight. Leonard pulled off one of the biggest farces in history even getting a 168 trinket. In fact the title was essentially invented for him in the Lalonde fight. He then challenged Lalonde for his 175 strap but made him strip to 168. Lalonde would have probably removed a limb to get that payday. Still a scam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Tommy is one of my faves but neither he or Leonard were supermiddle weights. Both guys grew out of divisions because of age and entropy not because they were starving to make weight. Leonard pulled off one of the biggest farces in history even getting a 168 trinket. In fact the title was essentially invented for him in the Lalonde fight. He then challenged Lalonde for his 175 strap but made him strip to 168. Lalonde would have probably removed a limb to get that payday. Still a scam.

---

Yet Fenster would still have us beleive that Leonard could beat Andre Ward. :)