Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?

[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.

[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.

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.

The boxing ability doesn't help if you don't make it to the final bell. Leonard hadn't been off for 5 years; he'd been off for just under three. Leonard did better against Hagler than Hearns did because Leonard had a better chin than Hearns.

When Leonard was outslugging Hearns, Hearns adopted the style that some people think he should have used against Hagler - he used his reach, jabbed, and sought limited exchanges from long range. It didn't work. It wasn't enough to keep Leonard off of him, and it wouldn't have been enough to keep Hagler off of him. That's why he slugged it out with Hagler; not because he and Emanuel Steward were stupid, but because they knew that boxing Hagler wouldn't work for 12 rounds. It's like gambling with the odds against you, say, at roulette. Your best bet is to put it all on the line in one big shot; if you try to grind it out slowly with a disadvantage, you'll get eaten alive.

If the Leonard (vs. Hearns) fight hadn't happened, it would be one thing to say that Hearns could have beaten Hagler with a different strategy. But it did. Hearns adopted that strategy when he had a points lead and just had to survive, because he already had a points lead. And he couldn't do it. The fact that he beat Leonard years later, when Leonard wasn't anywhere near the fighter he was in '81, is irrelevant. It didn't work against a prime Leonard.

Hearns was a great fighter, but if you could stand up to his power shots and throw a good punch yourself, he was vulnerable. (See also: Iran Barkley).

[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.

The boxing ability doesn't help if you don't make it to the final bell. Leonard hadn't been off for 5 years; he'd been off for just under three. Leonard did better against Hagler than Hearns did because Leonard had a better chin than Hearns.

When Leonard was outslugging Hearns, Hearns adopted the style that some people think he should have used against Hagler - he used his reach, jabbed, and sought limited exchanges from long range. It didn't work. It wasn't enough to keep Leonard off of him, and it wouldn't have been enough to keep Hagler off of him. That's why he slugged it out with Hagler; not because he and Emanuel Steward were stupid, but because they knew that boxing Hagler wouldn't work for 12 rounds. It's like gambling with the odds against you, say, at roulette. Your best bet is to put it all on the line in one big shot; if you try to grind it out slowly with a disadvantage, you'll get eaten alive.

If the Leonard (vs. Hearns) fight hadn't happened, it would be one thing to say that Hearns could have beaten Hagler with a different strategy. But it did. Hearns adopted that strategy when he had a points lead and just had to survive, because he already had a points lead. And he couldn't do it. The fact that he beat Leonard years later, when Leonard wasn't anywhere near the fighter he was in '81, is irrelevant. It didn't work against a prime Leonard.

Hearns was a great fighter, but if you could stand up to his power shots and throw a good punch yourself, he was vulnerable. (See also: Iran Barkley).

Hearns weak chin is based on his fights after Hagler retired and there was no motivation. Using your logic leonard had a week chin because he got knock down by kevin howard, donny lalonde, hearns, norris, commacho?? Hearns chin was perfect until the hagler fight. In fact he just wore out in that fight.

Your logic doesnt add up. Duran almost outboxed hagler, leonard clearly outboxed hagler, and hearns clearly outboxed everyone he fought in his prime. Steward was clearly out managed in the first leonard fight and in the Hagler fight. Over training in the leonard fight hurt Herans. Not paying attention to his fighter and poor game plan caused him to loose the hagler fight. hearns stood up to multiple powershots in both leonard fights and the hagler fight.

Hagler is a bad ass but beatable. A rusty leonard beat him, Duran lost the last round to lose the decision, and Hagler lost to unknowns eariler in his career. His draws were highway robbery he won those draws. People judge hagler on a 2 and a half round street fight with hearns then turn around and dont give hearns the respect he deserves. Hearns could have very easily gone into a second fight with hagler and KO'd hagler in one round. Not likely but your talking tommy hearns. hearns could easily box 12 rounds with hagler. No problem going the distance if its a boxing match. this constant pressure issue you keep bringing up dosent apply. You keep comming in on hearns and your gonna get major damage. All Hearns had to do in the second fight is tie hagler up and have short exchanges. hearns jab would have rally effected hagler. hagler, goody, and pat knew they stood no chance in a late round fight with hearns. Look at all of hearns fights when he knew he could outbox you. He was masterful and crusied to victories while inflicting major damage.

Eddy Futch once said 'Had Tommy backed out and boxed Marvin after that wonderful first 15 second exchange, the fight was over" "He had Marvin out of his defensive shell after the first 30 seconds of the fight". He would have knocked hagler out if he ever set up on Marvin. Cheers to Marvin for not letting that happen.

[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.

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.

The boxing ability doesn't help if you don't make it to the final bell. Leonard hadn't been off for 5 years; he'd been off for just under three. Leonard did better against Hagler than Hearns did because Leonard had a better chin than Hearns.

When Leonard was outslugging Hearns, Hearns adopted the style that some people think he should have used against Hagler - he used his reach, jabbed, and sought limited exchanges from long range. It didn't work. It wasn't enough to keep Leonard off of him, and it wouldn't have been enough to keep Hagler off of him. That's why he slugged it out with Hagler; not because he and Emanuel Steward were stupid, but because they knew that boxing Hagler wouldn't work for 12 rounds. It's like gambling with the odds against you, say, at roulette. Your best bet is to put it all on the line in one big shot; if you try to grind it out slowly with a disadvantage, you'll get eaten alive.

If the Leonard (vs. Hearns) fight hadn't happened, it would be one thing to say that Hearns could have beaten Hagler with a different strategy. But it did. Hearns adopted that strategy when he had a points lead and just had to survive, because he already had a points lead. And he couldn't do it. The fact that he beat Leonard years later, when Leonard wasn't anywhere near the fighter he was in '81, is irrelevant. It didn't work against a prime Leonard.

Hearns was a great fighter, but if you could stand up to his power shots and throw a good punch yourself, he was vulnerable. (See also: Iran Barkley).

Hearns weak chin is based on his fights after Hagler retired and there was no motivation. Using your logic leonard had a week chin because he got knock down by kevin howard, donny lalonde, hearns, norris, commacho?? Hearns chin was perfect until the hagler fight. In fact he just wore out in that fight.

Your logic doesnt add up. Duran almost outboxed hagler, leonard clearly outboxed hagler, and hearns clearly outboxed everyone he fought in his prime. Steward was clearly out managed in the first leonard fight and in the Hagler fight. Over training in the leonard fight hurt Herans. Not paying attention to his fighter and poor game plan caused him to loose the hagler fight. hearns stood up to multiple powershots in both leonard fights and the hagler fight.

Hagler is a bad ass but beatable. A rusty leonard beat him, Duran lost the last round to lose the decision, and Hagler lost to unknowns eariler in his career. His draws were highway robbery he won those draws. People judge hagler on a 2 and a half round street fight with hearns then turn around and dont give hearns the respect he deserves. Hearns could have very easily gone into a second fight with hagler and KO'd hagler in one round. Not likely but your talking tommy hearns. hearns could easily box 12 rounds with hagler. No problem going the distance if its a boxing match. this constant pressure issue you keep bringing up dosent apply. You keep comming in on hearns and your gonna get major damage. All Hearns had to do in the second fight is tie hagler up and have short exchanges. hearns jab would have rally effected hagler. hagler, goody, and pat knew they stood no chance in a late round fight with hearns. Look at all of hearns fights when he knew he could outbox you. He was masterful and crusied to victories while inflicting major damage.

Eddy Futch once said 'Had Tommy backed out and boxed Marvin after that wonderful first 15 second exchange, the fight was over" "He had Marvin out of his defensive shell after the first 30 seconds of the fight". He would have knocked hagler out if he ever set up on Marvin. Cheers to Marvin for not letting that happen.

Before delving further into opinion, you're simply factually wrong when you state that Hagler lost to "unknowns" early in his career, and this casts some doubt on your opinion regarding Hagler, as anyone who would consider Bobby Watts and Willie Monroe "unknowns" has some gaps in his knowledge of the middleweight division of the 70s. Both Watts and Monroe were high ranking middleweights when Hagler lost to them. Anyone who followed boxing in the mid-70s knew very well who they were, and how good they were. In the Ring Magazine 1975 year-end ratings (decided the month of the Monroe fight and 2 months after the Watts fight), they were ranked 7 and 6, respectively, and anyone who knew boxing in the 70s knew them. Hagler was an up-and-coming 21 year old, nowhere near his prime, and took consecutive fights against top-10 contenders less than 2 months apart.

Next, "using my logic" doesn't mean Leonard had a bad chin because he suffered knockdowns. I didn't say Hearns had a bad chin because he was knocked down. The difference is, when Hearns got hurt - by Leonard, by Hagler, and by Barkley, the fight was over. Hearns's chin wasn't "perfect" before the Hagler fight; against Leonard, he was hurt in the middle rounds, and again in the late rounds, and he couldn't finish the fight.

Overtraining is a poor excuse for what happened to Hearns in the first Leonard fight. He was doing fine, piling up points, then Leonard realized that he wasn't going to get a decision with Hearns jabbing and using the reach effectively, so Leonard adjusted from boxer to slugger, and Hearns couldn't handle the pressure. Hearns was hurt badly as early as the 6th and 7th rounds. It had nothing to do with "overtraining"; he was just unable to keep Leonard off of him.

He didn't have a bad game plan in the Hagler fight; Hagler just made it look that way. Having been unable to keep Leonard off of him, Hearns knew, as did Steward, that he wouldn't be able to keep Hagler off of him, so he threw caution to the wind and rolled the dice early. It didn't work, but that doesn't mean anything else would have, either. Hagler was a HORRIBLE matchup for Hearns - he could take a punch, and he was a pressure fighter who had a big punch of his own. Hearns did better against fighters who either couldn't take a punch (in which case one right hand was often enough), or who couldn't hurt him (e.g. Benitez), in which case he could use that long reach and cruise to easy points wins.

When you say "Look at all of Hearns fight when he knew he could outbox you." He knew he could outbox Leonard. And he was winning on points. He was also winning on points against Barkley, for two rounds. Hagler fought the best of the best for most of his 14 years, and never got knocked out. He lost three close decisions. Yet you say that Hearns could have "easily" knocked him out in the first round, and I'm being illogical? As opposed to Hearns, who was stopped by Leonard and Barkley, as well as Hagler. Hearns ending the Hagler fight on his back was a perfectly predictable result, and it would have been duplicated. If he changed plans, he would have lasted longer, but he wouldn't have won.

[electivemed]

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.

[LobowolfXXX]

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.

[electivemed]

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

Leonard gave Hearns a rematch at a catch weight Hearns had to honor into the ring at 162. Also he only gave Hearns a rematch after Hearns had trouble with Barkley and Kitchen. Hearns was ring worn and burned out from his Kronk Gym training by 1988. That said Hearns out pointed, knocked down and, almost knock out Leonard in the return fight.. Something Hagler couldnt sniff.

Hagler was lucky.........He knew it.........Thats whay he never gave Hearns the rematch. In that rematch Hearns wins an easy decision or TKO stoppage due to Haglers face cuts.

It it would have been so easy for Hagler to beat Hearns in a rematch and make another 10-15 million then why didnt he do that? Hearns was game ? as to any fight after 1988 of Hearns was past his prime. He lived at Kronk gym and took to much damage. He constantly trained against bigger fighters at Kronk. He sparing sessions are legendary.

[electivemed]

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.

ALSO LEONARD WEIGHED 146 HEARNS 145. Your misguided facts are what cause me to disagree with you. Our opinions are another matter!!

[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.

[LobowolfXXX]

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.