Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?

[Tam Seddon]

I have been thinking about this fight and what If...

The fight had taken place when it was originally suppose to, not with so many cancellations and so many fights in between.

If Hearns didn't have such a dodgy hand, how much would this have effected him if he didn't have one? It was definatly a factor in the war.

Would Hagler have been so aggressive if he hadn't been cut so early on? Would Hagler have fought at such a high pace?

Or was Hagler just too strong for Hearns at middleweight and even with Hearns being fully fit for the fight would he have eventually stopped him?

Hearns should definatly boxed a lot more in this fight and I'm thinking if Hearns offered a more of a disaplined fight would he have beaten Hagler?

It was such a memorable contest though, I've been doing a lot of research on Hearns recentley and I do feel he had the tools to beat Hagler that night IMO.

[AdamGB]

As soon as I saw the title I was gonna post - if he doesn't cut Hagler he does better! lol, you don't cut Hagler if you don't want him to shift up to his top gears!

There was also a story about a member of hearns' enterouge giving him a deep tissue massage before the fight and fucking his legs up. Don't know if it's true but in theory it could have been a factor depending on the method of massage.

What ever happened I think it worked out perfectly... for the fans anyway!

[Tam Seddon]

Apparently Hagler told Hearns not to cut him or it would end up in a real fight which it did.

Yes I read that about the massage too, it seems like speculation by Steward though when answering why it went wrong.

Hearns defiantly got the tactics wrong though, but it was never in his nature to step down if someone wanted to fight him. This defiantly was the reason why he lost the fight though. If he had more discipline to his game plan and the factors I mentioned before would he have been able to have beaten Hagler?

[marbleheadmaui]

Not in a hundred fights. Why?

When you land your big punch perfectly, and your hand breaks in three places?

You sir are forever outgunned.

[Violent Demise]

Not in a hundred fights. Why?

When you land your big punch perfectly, and your hand breaks in three places?

You sir are forever outgunned.

That's cuz the punch landed on top of Hagler's hard head. Might of been a different story if it landed on the chin. Would Hagler (who was rushing in) been able to take that shot? Would Hearns have broken his hand?

[JazMerkin]

I think Hagler is all wrong for Hearns. He learned on his very tough road to the top how to deal with rangy clever boxers. I think smaller guys who were too quick & elusive for him would provide more of a challenge. I mean you never know, but I'd favour Hagler over Hearns 4 out of every 5 they fought.

[greynotsoold]

Hagler started the fight fast, he came out of the corner that way and that was his plan going in. Being cut had nothing to do with it.
He would beat Hearns every time because Tommy couldn't knock him out and he couldn't keep Hagler off of him and he wasn't durable enough to last. Tommy couldn't fight much inside and he couldn't keep Hagler away.

[Jody Lane]

Apparently Hagler told Hearns not to cut him or it would end up in a real fight which it did.

Yes I read that about the massage too, it seems like speculation by Steward though when answering why it went wrong.

Hearns defiantly got the tactics wrong though, but it was never in his nature to step down if someone wanted to fight him. This defiantly was the reason why he lost the fight though. If he had more discipline to his game plan and the factors I mentioned before would he have been able to have beaten Hagler?

I don't think it was deep massage that had anything to do with it. It's not like Hagler was hitting him in the leg. I think it all had to do with Hagler hitting him in the head.

As for the fight happening earlier, say 1983,I think Hearns would have been wiped out just as quick and his career would have suffered more from it.

[Slim the BoxingManiac]

Apparently Hagler told Hearns not to cut him or it would end up in a real fight which it did.

Yes I read that about the massage too, it seems like speculation by Steward though when answering why it went wrong.

Hearns defiantly got the tactics wrong though, but it was never in his nature to step down if someone wanted to fight him. This defiantly was the reason why he lost the fight though. If he had more discipline to his game plan and the factors I mentioned before would he have been able to have beaten Hagler?

I don't think it was deep massage that had anything to do with it. It's not like Hagler was hitting him in the leg. I think it all had to do with Hagler hitting him in the head.

As for the fight happening earlier, say 1983,I think Hearns would have been wiped out just as quick and his career would have suffered more from it.

I agree, Jody. It seems like people are a lot more accepting of excuses these days. When it comes to being working class people who have to make money doing hard work, we can't really afford to have excuses for why we couldn't get the job done. Instead, for the better, we do everything in our power to get it done right.

I don't think it's too much to hold fighters to this standard, too. Their entire career is boxing, but they don't treat it that way. Excuses will always come up instead of the truth. The truth usually being that they didn't have what it took to win, or they didn't try hard enough. In Hearns case it would have been that he tried hard, had a good game plan, and did his best in the ring. He lost because he couldn't stand up to the Hagler hurricane.

Excuses simply don't cut it.

[Dia bando]

Let's face fact's Hagler is a Ring Great this guy is one of the best Middle Weight's in boxing history
Tommy hit him cut him, and Marvin still beat Tommy what a fight.

[PUGWARRIOR]

This whole''if hagler gave hearns a rematch '' crap drives me crazy...they both had the same amount of time to train and develope a fight plan and then they fought...best man wins...and hagler was the best man in that fight...period. In my opinion the only reasons a rematch should be in order between fighters is if there was a controversial stoppage( head butt ) ...the scoring was waaay off and something smelled bad or the fight was so exciting and competative the fans wanted more(gatti vs ward for example)...while the fight was awesome for as long as it lasted haglers stoppage of hearns was so decisive with hearns litterally being carried`like a child by his handlers i saw no reason for a rematch without hearns doing something in his next few fights to earn a rematch....by then it was too late because hagler pretty much blew his last real load on mugabi...he was 75 % of what he was at his best vs leonard and he never looked back...so just deal with the fact that while hearns was a machine of distruction in most of his fights he just didnt have it vs hagler...case closed.

[electivemed]

Apparently Hagler told Hearns not to cut him or it would end up in a real fight which it did.

Yes I read that about the massage too, it seems like speculation by Steward though when answering why it went wrong.

Hearns defiantly got the tactics wrong though, but it was never in his nature to step down if someone wanted to fight him. This defiantly was the reason why he lost the fight though. If he had more discipline to his game plan and the factors I mentioned before would he have been able to have beaten Hagler?

I don't think it was deep massage that had anything to do with it. It's not like Hagler was hitting him in the leg. I think it all had to do with Hagler hitting him in the head.

As for the fight happening earlier, say 1983,I think Hearns would have been wiped out just as quick and his career would have suffered more from it.

I agree, Jody. It seems like people are a lot more accepting of excuses these days. When it comes to being working class people who have to make money doing hard work, we can't really afford to have excuses for why we couldn't get the job done. Instead, for the better, we do everything in our power to get it done right.

I don't think it's too much to hold fighters to this standard, too. Their entire career is boxing, but they don't treat it that way. Excuses will always come up instead of the truth. The truth usually being that they didn't have what it took to win, or they didn't try hard enough. In Hearns case it would have been that he tried hard, had a good game plan, and did his best in the ring. He lost because he couldn't stand up to the Hagler hurricane.

Excuses simply don't cut it.

And the exact same thing happened to Hagler in the Leonard fight as well. Hagler had his ears boxed off. The age excuse and other excuses you bring up only support his mental weaknesses and inferior boxing skills against Leonard and Hearns............. Hagler fought Leonard hard, tried hard, and lost big

Excuses simply dont cut it...................

[Slim the BoxingManiac]

the only knock out is going to be me knocking you out.
The final facts are this:
Hagler cried and ran like a little girl after he was soundly beat by leonard. He should have fought hearns and the winner got leonard.
After the hearns fight hagler was never the same. He would have been destroyed by hearns in a return fight.
Haglers weak mind was exposed by leonard.

okay dumbass. Let's debate your final facts.

-hagler wasn't beaten soundly. It's hotly contested to this day whether or not leonard won that fight.
-he retired because he was out of it. That's why he lost to leonard. Could hearns have beaten him? Sure. But that's not the point. Hagler knew he was done.
-you're right about hagler not being the same after hearns.
-hagler's weak mind? That's the stupidest thing i have ever heard in my entire life. Slap your parents for ever producing such a retarded offspring.

Refute! ;d

as in: Short bus dim slim do you need a picture?

I'm sorry, do you have any points to make?

Apparently Hagler told Hearns not to cut him or it would end up in a real fight which it did.

Yes I read that about the massage too, it seems like speculation by Steward though when answering why it went wrong.

Hearns defiantly got the tactics wrong though, but it was never in his nature to step down if someone wanted to fight him. This defiantly was the reason why he lost the fight though. If he had more discipline to his game plan and the factors I mentioned before would he have been able to have beaten Hagler?

I don't think it was deep massage that had anything to do with it. It's not like Hagler was hitting him in the leg. I think it all had to do with Hagler hitting him in the head.

As for the fight happening earlier, say 1983,I think Hearns would have been wiped out just as quick and his career would have suffered more from it.

I agree, Jody. It seems like people are a lot more accepting of excuses these days. When it comes to being working class people who have to make money doing hard work, we can't really afford to have excuses for why we couldn't get the job done. Instead, for the better, we do everything in our power to get it done right.

I don't think it's too much to hold fighters to this standard, too. Their entire career is boxing, but they don't treat it that way. Excuses will always come up instead of the truth. The truth usually being that they didn't have what it took to win, or they didn't try hard enough. In Hearns case it would have been that he tried hard, had a good game plan, and did his best in the ring. He lost because he couldn't stand up to the Hagler hurricane.

Excuses simply don't cut it.

And the exact same thing happened to Hagler in the Leonard fight as well. Hagler had his ears boxed off. The age excuse and other excuses you bring up only support his mental weaknesses and inferior boxing skills against Leonard and Hearns............. Hagler fought Leonard hard, tried hard, and lost big

Excuses simply dont cut it...................

I already refuted all of these points in my other post where you didn't have a reply. Please try to show me some logic.

[denilson200]

I have been thinking about this fight and what If...

The fight had taken place when it was originally suppose to, not with so many cancellations and so many fights in between.

If Hearns didn't have such a dodgy hand, how much would this have effected him if he didn't have one? It was definatly a factor in the war.

Would Hagler have been so aggressive if he hadn't been cut so early on? Would Hagler have fought at such a high pace?

Or was Hagler just too strong for Hearns at middleweight and even with Hearns being fully fit for the fight would he have eventually stopped him?

Hearns should definatly boxed a lot more in this fight and I'm thinking if Hearns offered a more of a disaplined fight would he have beaten Hagler?

It was such a memorable contest though, I've been doing a lot of research on Hearns recentley and I do feel he had the tools to beat Hagler that night IMO.

People say Hearns should have boxed more but I'm not sure even if Hearns would have boxed behind his jab. I don't think that would have been enough. I think Hagler would have just walked right through him. I don't think Hearns is a good enough boxer to walk away with a UD aganist Hagler. Remember one of the greatest boxers of all time (Sugar Ray Leonard) just about beat Hagler to a split decision and that was against and a way over confident and under-trained hagler.

Hearns was facing a highly motivated Hagler who was ready for war. Who didn't under-estimate Hearns as he did with SRL. There is no way Hearns could have jab and moved for 12 rounds. Hagler would have caught up with him and chopped him down. Maybe I'm under-estimating Hearns boxing skills but that's how I see it.

[johnsebastianmiran]

No! hagler was a naural middleweight who fought every tough S.O.B. on the east coast and was conditioned by wars with tally lanky sluggers with a punch. The key word is that Marvin was a natural middleweight and Tommy spent too much time as a welter and should have moved up years before he did.