Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?

[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

[El Kabong]

Most times when Hearns landed bombs clean it was like a howitzer shell hitting a tin can vs Haggler it was more like a .45 round hitting a tank. Maybe if Tommy boxes the entire fight and stays away he lasts longer, but Marvin had his number in my opinion.

[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

[Dark Lord Al]

As much as id like to think Tommy would beat Marvin , its just not a good fight for him , he cant hurt Marvin , so the pressure gets to him sooner or later.

[LobowolfXXX]

He couldn't keep Leonard off him at 147; he wasn't going to keep Hagler off him at 160.

[nikola_ganchev]

I don`t know for you guys, but in the first round the only person that is landing clear is Hagler. Every single time that hearns is trowing a shot is on the guard of Marvin. 90% of the time is lile Hagler geting hit above the temple and tommy get hit on the chin. Thats the difference in defensive skills. Emanuel Steward don´t have a fighter with some fundamental denfensive or movement skills. He is like Freddie, he can train only guys with certain talants...

[electivemed]

I don`t know for you guys, but in the first round the only person that is landing clear is Hagler. Every single time that hearns is trowing a shot is on the guard of Marvin. 90% of the time is lile Hagler geting hit above the temple and tommy get hit on the chin. Thats the difference in defensive skills. Emanuel Steward don´t have a fighter with some fundamental denfensive or movement skills. He is like Freddie, he can train only guys with certain talants...

I agree about Steward 100 percent. Bad bad fight plan for Hearns. Steward cost Tommy the first Leonard fight and the Hagler fight. Ask the experts-Marvin as a southpaw was taylor made for Hearns. Both of Marvins eyes would have beed swollen shut if he stays long range with Hearns.

Also Tommy was landing shots. But never thru boxing. He was punching going backwards. To much BS in the first fight to discuss. Hagler won a back alley fist fight not a boxing match. I give him and his trainers 100 percent credit. Great fight plan. However thats is the only way he had a chance to win. Most experts agree with this. A second fight would have been much different IMO.

[electivemed]

He couldn't keep Leonard off him at 147; he wasn't going to keep Hagler off him at 160.

Yeah and in the second fight in 89 Leonard could'nt keep Hearns off of him. Leonard forced Hearns to fight at a catch weight as well. Hagler couldnt knock Leonard down at 160 but Hearns knocked Leonard down twice and out boxed Leonard in both fights. If you don't believe me look at the scorecards from the first fight and ask Leonard himself about the second fight.

Hagler had his one moment and I give him credit. Smartest thing he ever did was to aviod Hearns after the first fight. Not to say he didnt have a chance of winning a second fight against Hearns. But doubtful. "the sun can't shine on the same dogs ass every day"

[LobowolfXXX]

He couldn't keep Leonard off him at 147; he wasn't going to keep Hagler off him at 160.

Yeah and in the second fight in 89 Leonard could'nt keep Hearns off of him. Leonard forced Hearns to fight at a catch weight as well. Hagler couldnt knock Leonard down at 160 but Hearns knocked Leonard down twice and out boxed Leonard in both fights. If you don't believe me look at the scorecards from the first fight and ask Leonard himself about the second fight.

Hagler had his one moment and I give him credit. Smartest thing he ever did was to aviod Hearns after the first fight. Not to say he didnt have a chance of winning a second fight against Hearns. But doubtful. "the sun can't shine on the same dogs ass every day"

Sorry; thought we were talking about in their primes. The 33-year-old Leonard who had had five fights in the last 8 years couldn't execute the fight plan well enough to beat Hearns (and I agree that Hearns was robbed on the cards), but the prime Leonard of '81 showed how it was done. As far as the sun shining...I like Hearns, but at 160, against a 30-year old Hagler, it would have taken a lot of days before daylight landed on his has. Hagler takes him 7 out of 8 times. It was Hearns who was lucky there wasn't a rematch. He should be glad he left the ring vertically the first time.

[electivemed]

He couldn't keep Leonard off him at 147; he wasn't going to keep Hagler off him at 160.

Yeah and in the second fight in 89 Leonard could'nt keep Hearns off of him. Leonard forced Hearns to fight at a catch weight as well. Hagler couldnt knock Leonard down at 160 but Hearns knocked Leonard down twice and out boxed Leonard in both fights. If you don't believe me look at the scorecards from the first fight and ask Leonard himself about the second fight.

Hagler had his one moment and I give him credit. Smartest thing he ever did was to aviod Hearns after the first fight. Not to say he didnt have a chance of winning a second fight against Hearns. But doubtful. "the sun can't shine on the same dogs ass every day"

Sorry; thought we were talking about in their primes. The 33-year-old Leonard who had had five fights in the last 8 years couldn't execute the fight plan well enough to beat Hearns (and I agree that Hearns was robbed on the cards), but the prime Leonard of '81 showed how it was done. As far as the sun shining...I like Hearns, but at 160, against a 30-year old Hagler, it would have taken a lot of days before daylight landed on his has. Hagler takes him 7 out of 8 times. It was Hearns who was lucky there wasn't a rematch. He should be glad he left the ring vertically the first time.

If Hearns was so easy to beat why then did Leonard not fight him right after the Hagler fight? If leonard goes back in the ring with Hearns between 82-87 Hearns ends Leonards career and eyesight. Hagler won a 3 minute shootout. It was over after round one. If Hearns had the chance to exchange with Hagler 5-10 times over 7-8 rounds with each exchange lasting 5-10 seconds Hagler looses those exchanges and the fight. He just didnt have the hand speed or boxing ability Hearns had. After the Hagler-Duran fight Haglers trainers knew Marvin couldnt box with the elites of the division and changed his style to a brawler. Hearns management team was dumb enought to let it happen.

If they fought again before 1988 Hagler is a bloody mess and gets stopped. All other elite fighters Hagler ever fought he went into the late rounds with Hagler (Duran Leonard Mugabi Roldan). Best move Hagler made was to not fight Hearns again.

As to being in their prime Leonard layed off 5 years was past 30 with no warm up fights and beat Hagler. He went on to have 1-2 more tune up fights and challanged a ring worn Hearns and Hearns soundly beat him. Hagler won but Heans management team was dumb enough to lose it for Hearns.

[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.

[LobowolfXXX]

People judge Hagler off that one fight.

I thought they judged him on the ten years that he went without losing a fight. Hearns popped Hagler with his best shot, and Hagler's knees buckled; Hagler popped Hearns with his best shot, and the fight was effectively over. Hagler was a great pressure fighter, and he took a better punch than Hearns did. Hearns was an all-time great, but he could be beaten. Leonard showed how to do it, and Hagler did it to perfection.

[electivemed]

People judge Hagler off that one fight.

I thought they judged him on the ten years that he went without losing a fight. Hearns popped Hagler with his best shot, and Hagler's knees buckled; Hagler popped Hearns with his best shot, and the fight was effectively over. Hagler was a great pressure fighter, and he took a better punch than Hearns did. Hearns was an all-time great, but he could be beaten. Leonard showed how to do it, and Hagler did it to perfection.

Another issue Hagler had with Hearns is that Hagler didn't hate Hearns anymore after the fight. He respected Hearns for coming after him. The motivation just wouldn't have been there for Hagler. That was Hearns big downfall as well. After Leonard retired in 82 Hearns had no redemption opportunity. He was the king of the ring from 82-85 with no challenges. He underestimated Hagler and paid for it. Hagler would have had the same issue in a rematch. Once Hagler got his glory after the Hearns match along with the abuse he took in the fight he was never the same. I'm also glad he didn't fight Leonard agian. Hagler would have lost by more. Hagler was a punching bag his last two fights. Had he fought Hearns in either of those fights it wouldn't have been good for Hagler. Facts are Marvin wasn't the same fighter after the Hearns fight and Hearns became a true middleweight and up. Marvin was a great brawler - however duran didnt fall for it, leonard didnt fall for it, hearns did. Any other style but all out war Hagler loses by alot against Hearns.