Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?

[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.

[electivemed]

I'm telling you strategy that many experts also agree with. Hearns could have boxed circles around Hagler. This whole Hearns couldnt keep Leonard or Hagler off of him is way off base. Hearns fought Hagler with poor judgement and poor strategy. The Leonard fights Hearns held Leonard at bay until he ran out of gas in fight 1 then in fight 2 he beat Leonard up pretty bad. Vegas jobed Hearns in fight 2. I dont know where you going with this "couldnt keep them off of him" routine??

If Hearns boxes Hagler and also has a chance to set up on him he wins.............. also if Hagler wanted to bull rush again Hearns wouldnt infight with him. The science is called "tying up your man" But you believe only Hagler had this mystic ability to learn from mistakes (like the fight where Duran made Haglers face look like pancake batter after 15 rounds)

I like hagler but he got what he deserved in the long run......... He cried like a "lil bitch" after the Leonard fight........also turn around is fair play....... Leonard never gave him a rematch-just like Hagler never gave Hearns a rematch.........The difference is Hearns and Leonard went on to win several more world championships and Hagler became an actor and quit boxing. If hagler had any balls he would have rematched Hearns after the Leonard fight.......the winner would have gotten Leonard.

Instead Hagler showed his true character after he made some money and quit.

History will show it was Hearns and Leonard as the cream of the crop of that era. hagler will be an enigma.........and he brought that on himself.................

[LobowolfXXX]

I'm telling you strategy that many experts also agree with. Hearns could have boxed circles around Hagler. This whole Hearns couldnt keep Leonard or Hagler off of him is way off base. Hearns fought Hagler with poor judgement and poor strategy. The Leonard fights Hearns held Leonard at bay until he ran out of gas in fight 1 then in fight 2 he beat Leonard up pretty bad. Vegas jobed Hearns in fight 2. I dont know where you going with this "couldnt keep them off of him" routine??

If Hearns boxes Hagler and also has a chance to set up on him he wins.............. also if Hagler wanted to bull rush again Hearns wouldnt infight with him. The science is called "tying up your man" But you believe only Hagler had this mystic ability to learn from mistakes (like the fight where Duran made Haglers face look like pancake batter after 15 rounds)

I like hagler but he got what he deserved in the long run......... He cried like a "lil bitch" after the Leonard fight........also turn around is fair play....... Leonard never gave him a rematch-just like Hagler never gave Hearns a rematch.........The difference is Hearns and Leonard went on to win several more world championships and Hagler became an actor and quit boxing. If hagler had any balls he would have rematched Hearns after the Leonard fight.......the winner would have gotten Leonard.

Instead Hagler showed his true character after he made some money and quit.

History will show it was Hearns and Leonard as the cream of the crop of that era. hagler will be an enigma.........and he brought that on himself.................

History shows Leonard and Hagler as the cream of the crop of that era, since they're the ones with winning records in the Hearns/Leonard/Duran/Hagler big-4. Hearns should have gotten the decision against Leonard in the second fight, but that would still leave him at 2-2; Hagler was 2-1 and Leonard would have been 3-2 even had the second Hearns fight gone against him. And, of course, Hagler and Leonard didn't get knocked out by the likes of Iran Barkley.

The "couldn't keep him them off of him" routine is pretty self-explanatory. On three separate occasions in his relative prime (from just before his 23rd birthday to age 29) Hearns fought pressure fighters who could take a punch and bang back, and he got knocked out by three of them. So it's a bit counterintuitive to expect that he would have won, and the guy who NEVER got knocked out, would have been knocked out in a second fight. You can say he would have "boxed circles around" Leonard in '81 or Barkley in '88, too. And in Leonard's case, he did for quite a few rounds. But he didn't make it to the final bell in any of those fights. In fact, in two of them, he didn't make it to the 4th round.

Criticizing his strategy after the fact is just Monday morning quarterbacking, no matter how many "experts" do it. It's like calling a fake punt bold and genius if it works, or stupid if it doesn't. You can always say it was wrong after it doesn't work. He had three superfights before Hagler - he slugged it out with Duran and Cuevas and won in spectacular fashion; he tried to box Leonard, and he got knocked out. So when he took on Hagler, he adopted the strategy that he had the most success with in the past - the best defense is a good offense. It worked against Duran; it didn't work against Hagler. If he had adopted your suggested strategy and lost in the late rounds, you'd be on the board saying, "That was a stupid fight plan. He should have slugged it out like he did against Duran."

[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]

Haglers weak mind was exposed by Leonard. He is the true dumbass and you’re a close second son…………… As for the rest of your mindless banter it speaks for itself. I think you need to start riding the little yellow short bus…………………….

And yeah I'm talking to you dim Slim......................