Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?

[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.

[LobowolfXXX]

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

What tells the story is that Hagler ended the fight with his belt, and Hearns ended it looking he had died standing up.

My bad on Hearns's weight in the first fight; I was indeed incorrect by one pound. That still doesn't explain away Leonard's hurting him badly as early as the 6th round, and it's nowhere near the factual error of calling two top-10 middleweights "unknowns."

[electivemed]

[QUOTE=LobowolfXXX;1035982]

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

Thus back to my original observation: Hagler won because it was a streetfight. Good for Hagler. Who else fought him like that ?? Nobody.... Why...bad strategy...blame Steward......

Hagler knew he would never would get that style fight out of Herans again........thus he ducked Hearns in 86,87,88,89,90...................................

Finally, coming in at 145 was a major mistake for hearns and bad management by his camp. It absoultly cost him in that fight.

[LobowolfXXX]

[QUOTE=electivemed;1036130]

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

Thus back to my original observation: Hagler won because it was a streetfight. Good for Hagler. Who else fought him like that ?? Nobody.... Why...bad strategy...blame Steward......

Hagler knew he would never would get that style fight out of Herans again........thus he ducked Hearns in 86,87,88,89,90...................................

Finally, coming in at 145 was a major mistake for hearns and bad management by his camp. It absoultly cost him in that fight.

You're Monday morning quarterbacking when you say it was a bad strategy. Pure 20-20 hindsight. If Hearns had tried to box, and lost, you'd be calling THAT a horrible strategy, and saying things like, "Oh, if he'd just slugged it out, he would have stopped him early, like he did with Duran. Why did he try to box him, like he did with Leonard and lost? He should have gone toe to toe."

Hearns and Steward knew that he couldn't keep Hagler off of him with a more defensive strategy, because they'd tried that strategy against Leonard and lost, and Hagler hit harder than Leonard. So they threw caution to the wind and tried to blitz him early. This was also not a bad shot because Hagler was a notoriously slow starter. It wasn't a bad strategy; it just didn't work.

[Slim the BoxingManiac]

Yes, Hearns had the tools and skills to stay away from Hagler and possibly win on points. He did injure his hand in the fight and his legs were weak as well. So he could do it and he always wanted a return as he felt he could beat Hagler. He did unofficially beat Leonard.

Nobody had the tools to stay away from Hagler. Nobody. The guy was too focused, and too aggressive. Especially the version of Hagler that fought Hearns.

Let's put it this way. Was there any man who could have ever stayed away from a prime Hagler, Marciano, or Frazier?

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

This guy right here is a moron. I'll tell you why. I even had to stop reading after a few pages because of how strong this guys Hearns nuthuggery is. I love Hearns. But I've never seen anybody hug his nuts quite that hard.

1. Marvin did not have slow hands. You're an idiot for even saying that.
2. Neck in the flexed position? Are you retarded? If that's the case, than Marvin never fought without his neck in the flexed position, so you're an idiot.
3. Hagler has magnificent fucking footwork. Try and disprove me, dude.

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

4. Hearns would never in his wildest dreams "settle" Hagler down. How the fuck do you even imagine that as something that could be done?
5. Ray Leonard caught Hagler on his way out. Hagler lost his fire. He didn't want to box anymore, and he was going to retire. He was tipping off of the boxing page, and Mugabi pushed him over. Leonard merely caught him at the right time.
6. How in the fuck was Hagler tied for third best with Duran? He beat Duran by UD. He beat Hearns as well! That would put him as number two, Einstein.

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.

7. Hagler is known for being able to adjust to his opponents.
8. Hagler was shot when he fought Leonard and Mugabi.
9. After the Hearns fight, he was on the downfall. He didn't want to box so much anymore. He was beginning to lose his fire. He became civilized. He had the money, the belts, he'd just knocked out Tommy Hearns. He was ready to settle down and relax. The guys mentality completely changed. That's the only reason that Thomas Hearns would have beaten Hagler. But Tommy Hearns would have never beaten a PRIME Hagler.

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.

Hagler DID NOT HIT HARDER THAN LEONARD.................... Maybe equal. Ray had knock out power in both hands and proved it above 160. Hearns floored Leonard above 147, Duran above 147, Andres above 147 (WBC Light Heavy title), Roldan above 147 (WBC middle weight title) Get you facts straight

10. Hagler did hit harder than Leonard. Hagler also had knockout power in both hands, and proved it. You haven't disproved any of the guys points.
11. The guy said that Hearns had more KO power at 147 than at other weights. So you name off his accomplishments at 147 and tell him to get his facts straight? That makes no sense.

Never.. Ive heard people saying Hearns could have won had he not got into a brawl but I think Hagler would have beaten him either way.. Hearns could have boxed more in spots but at some point in the fight, he would have got into a tear up and knocked out late..

Hagler's style was all wrong for him..

Hearns handed him the fight on a silver platter. Hagler couldnt exchange with Hearns in sharp quick exchanges. Only bar room tatics with no defense.

:facepalm:

12. Those 'bar room tactics' were enough for Hagler to knock Hearns the fuck out. Boxing is all about tactics and skills. I've never once seen an untrained brawler beat an experienced boxer. Because it doesn't fucking happen, buddy.


Reply to each of these points specifically, and number them, as well. Prove to me you're not as stupid as you look.

[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.

[FinitoElDinamita]

Never.. Ive heard people saying Hearns could have won had he not got into a brawl but I think Hagler would have beaten him either way.. Hearns could have boxed more in spots but at some point in the fight, he would have got into a tear up and knocked out late..

Hagler's style was all wrong for him..

[electivemed]

Never.. Ive heard people saying Hearns could have won had he not got into a brawl but I think Hagler would have beaten him either way.. Hearns could have boxed more in spots but at some point in the fight, he would have got into a tear up and knocked out late..

Hagler's style was all wrong for him..

Hearns handed him the fight on a silver platter. Hagler couldnt exchange with Hearns in sharp quick exchanges. Only bar room tatics with no defense.

[LobowolfXXX]

Never.. Ive heard people saying Hearns could have won had he not got into a brawl but I think Hagler would have beaten him either way.. Hearns could have boxed more in spots but at some point in the fight, he would have got into a tear up and knocked out late..

Hagler's style was all wrong for him..

Yes. Hearns was absolutely an all-time great, but Hagler was easily the worst matchup there was for him.

[electivemed]

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.

Hagler DID NOT HIT HARDER THAN LEONARD.................... Maybe equal. Ray had knock out power in both hands and proved it above 160. Hearns floored Leonard above 147, Duran above 147, Andres above 147 (WBC Light Heavy title), Roldan above 147 (WBC middle weight title) Get you facts straight