Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?

[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.