Quote Originally Posted by electivemed View Post
Interesting thoughts but off base. How can you say Hearns didnt have a bad game plan? Who else would go 3 minutes against Hagler without attempting any defense against Hagler?? That was the worst fight plan OF ALL TIME!!!

You also said: "Hearns was bad with pressure fighters who could take a punch" Pressure fighters....... Hmmm....... how about Duran "Hands of Stone" there was not a better pressure fighter in the world and look what happened to him when he fought Hearns. And I dont recall Duran ever being counted out or in trouble before the Hearns fight. So dont think it wouldnt have happend to Hagler. Hearns was also 22 when he fought Leonard and had the fight won. Hearns and Leonard never lost to a 7 or 8 ranked guy on the way up. Hagler was good but couldnt stand a chance boxing against hearns or leonard. Why is that such an issue to accept. Hearns came in too far below the 147 mark for the first leonard fight (145 lbs thus overtrained by his manager). Why do you debate that. An overtrained fighter runs out of gas in later rounds. Hearns was spent that night. Also that was Hearns first Championship fight in Vegas. Leonard had fought out there multiple times.

If you dont think there is a possibility that Hearns wouldnt have KO'd Hagler in a rematch we have nothing more to discuss. Hagler was a punching bag with slow hands after the first fight. Even if they fought back in 83,84 Hearns would have clearly outboxed Hagler. In a rematch Hearns outboxes Hagler pure and simple. Hagler gets hurt by trying to engage Hearns. Hearns would not infight with Hagler. Hagler was great but very lucky that night the way Hearns fought him the way he did. You think Hagler is this "indestructable object" and Hearns would wilt under constant pressure. I guarantee you Hearns would be ready for that pressure, would tie up Hagler and be ready to hit him HARD on the way in and get out without long infighting. Hearns was very durable until 88 when Hagler retired and Leonard was ducking him after he beat Hagler.

Final facts: Hagler was offered a rematch with Hearns in 86-87-88-98-90 he turned them all down. Also Hagler never fought bigger fighters like Hearns did and Leonard did to some extent. That is a minus against him in my book.
Hearns weighed in at 146 against Leonard, which was more than he weighed in at in his previous fight. "Running out of gas in the later rounds" doesn't explain why Leonard had him all but out on his feet in rounds 6 and 7.

Duran was a great fight by Hearns. If you want a fight that might have gone differently another night, that's one to think about. We don't know what would have happened if Duran had gotten in some good shots on Hagler, because Hearns caught him and laid him out.

That's EXACTLY what Hearns was trying to do against Hagler. It's Monday morning quarterbacking to say that it was a "horrible" plan because it didn't work. Duran was a hard-hitting pressure fighter; rather then go on the defense, Hearns tried to take him out early, and he succeeded. Against Hagler, without the benefit of hindsight, it makes perfect sense that he adopted the plan that worked against Duran, and not the plan that failed against Leonard. His best chance for a defense was a good offense.

I think it's you who thinks that Hearns was an "indestructable object," but he got himself destructed not only by Hagler, but also by Leonard and Barkley. Hearns may not have lost to a 7 or 8 guy on the way up, but Hagler never got knocked out, let alone multiple times.

So, Leonard was overtraining, Hagler was a bad plan, what's the excuse for the Barkley fight?

None of which is to say that Hearns couldn't have beaten Hagler, but it's a tremendous act of faith to think that he would have. I'm sure if we could go back and replay the night over and over, they each would have won some of them. But IMO, Hagler would have won the clear majority of them.