First off there`s a lot of shoulda coulda woulda going on here and the bottom line is HAGLER didnt just beat HEARNS he CRUSHED hearns and it wasnt by some lucky one punch KO , it was a systematic beat down like chopping down a tree. Hearns was facing one of the all time best middleweights in history and while Hagler was on the downside of his prime he was still too much for a blown up welterweight like Hearns. Second point that bothers me is the whole broken hand excuse...gimmi a break(no pun intended) , how many fighters have broken a hand during a fight and either went the distance or won the fight with one good hand...now if hearns was such a great ''boxer '' than surely he could have jabbed and moved around and boxed hagler and at least lasted longer than he did, but he couldnt because Hagler was hell bent on destroying Hearns and no matter what Hearns did that night Hagler would not be denied...period. Styles make fights and Haglers style is perfect to beat guys like Hearns, tall rangy guys like Fulgencio Obelmejias cant stand up to Haglers relentless pressure.Hearns didnt box Hagler because Hagler imposed his will on Hearns and he would do that if they fought 10 times in a row...and for what its worth hagler had one of the greatest jaws in boxing and i dont think a heavyweight could have knocked Hagler out cold but we all know Hearns can be knocked out dont we?? lets deal with facts not hypotheticals. Hagler made a tactical error when he fought Leonard, he fought orthodox at the start of the fight giving away crucial rounds AND he tried to out box leonard , had he fought leonard the way he fought hearns my guess he would have knocked leonard out, but thats just a guess. Thirdly What would Hagler gain by giving a fighter that he beat so decisively a rematch, he knew he was at the end of his career and only had a few fights left in him, why waste them on Hearns...it was a no win situation ...if the fight was even remotely close or controversial than ya, he would have given hearns a rematch im sure.