Is Marvin Hagler vs Thomas Hearns Slightly Overrated ??

[Deanrw]

CC back to you

[SigmaMu]

I enjoyed that fight.
Both fighters threw caution to the wind and just came to get down.
Best 3 rounds is a deserving name.

[Mr140]

Well looking back at somthing always takes it away somthing from the fight because you already know the outcome to it so it takes the excitement out of it a bit that what sucks but o well it is a great fight anyhow so o well.

[cockey cockney]

i get what your saying pal. Good thoughts, however as already said it was mainly the fact that they was both such superstars in boxing and didnt mess about getting to grips with each others style just jumped straight into throwing bombs and trying to literally destroy the other man. Really was breathtaking.

[BIG H]

I know it was massive fight and etc, but i see a lot of people calling this one of the greatest fights of all time. But i want to know why people think this ?? yes 1st round was incredible but after the 1st round it was one sided fight, i just think people tend to overrate this fight and forget about other classics that are better fights like, Ramirez vs Rosario 2, Chacon vs Edwards 2, etc. But whats your opinions ??

It probably aint that great watching it 20 years later, but if you were caught up in the fab 4 era and experinced the whole erea as it happend it would be much more significant to you.

[Sugar_Shaw]

No, i don't think as a spectacle or a moment but it is slightly overrated as a fight.

[Taeth]

Personally it was a slug fest between two fighters that were so much more than that. Hearns was perhaps one of the best outside fighters we've ever seen, and Hagler was one of the best come through anything type fighters we've ever seen. I think this fight if it wasn't so frantic would have been better in some ways, but worse in pure excitement which in terms of that I don't think many fights match it because its so fast paced, such hard punches are landed and these two are as good as it gets I mean they were the two best at the time.

[SigmaMu]

No, i don't think as a spectacle or a moment but it is slightly overrated as a fight.

Just like BIG H said if you were not part of the era and you were not watching that fight the same day it happen, the fight might not be so great for you.

And I still can't believe you think this fight is slightly over ratted.

[ICB]

I know it was massive fight and etc, but i see a lot of people calling this one of the greatest fights of all time. But i want to know why people think this ?? yes 1st round was incredible but after the 1st round it was one sided fight, i just think people tend to overrate this fight and forget about other classics that are better fights like, Ramirez vs Rosario 2, Chacon vs Edwards 2, etc. But whats your opinions ??

It probably aint that great watching it 20 years later, but if you were caught up in the fab 4 era and experinced the whole erea as it happend it would be much more significant to you.

Not saying it isn't great mate, im just saying i think this fight does get a bit overrated and some other classics like the ones i mentioned tend to get forgotten and they were better fights IMO. But like others have said if i was older i probably would have appreciated it more.

[CutMeMick]

Personally it was a slug fest between two fighters that were so much more than that. Hearns was perhaps one of the best outside fighters we've ever seen, and Hagler was one of the best come through anything type fighters we've ever seen. I think this fight if it wasn't so frantic would have been better in some ways, but worse in pure excitement which in terms of that I don't think many fights match it because its so fast paced, such hard punches are landed and these two are as good as it gets I mean they were the two best at the time.

CC#243 on me Taeth.... I actually agree with you here.
Well said...

[THE THIRD MAN]

Personally it was a slug fest between two fighters that were so much more than that. Hearns was perhaps one of the best outside fighters we've ever seen, and Hagler was one of the best come through anything type fighters we've ever seen. I think this fight if it wasn't so frantic would have been better in some ways, but worse in pure excitement which in terms of that I don't think many fights match it because its so fast paced, such hard punches are landed and these two are as good as it gets I mean they were the two best at the time.

Good analysis, right on the money!

[Tysonbruno]

NO not at all

[Kirkland Laing]

The reason Hagler-Hearns is such a standout for the ages is that it had the build-up of a LH-Mayweather/Mayweather-Hatton in an age when boxing was on free TV and consequently recieved much more attention in the press/boxers were much more well-known etc., but then the fight lived up to the hype.

It wasn't a DLH-Mayweather kind of fight. It was the fight the public had been built up to see for months. It did exactly what it said on the tin.

[Greig]

Hagler/Hearns is the only superfight (a fight between pound for pound contenders in their prime) that has actually lived up to the hype - both guys went in there and did exactly what they said they were going to do.

The drama was breathtaking. Sure, it was no Corrales and Castillo in terms of ebb and flow but the guys saying that watching it live beats rewatching later is better are speaking the truth.

It's like me saying was the first Ali/Frazier fight over rated? I watched the fight already knowing the result so it wasn't as good for me as it would have been watching the drama unfold live, plus all the hype which is half of what makes boxing so exciting for me. (I don't think the fight is over rated - watching the first Ali/Frazier fight sends me into a fit of depression that I exist in an era of pitiful heavyweights)

On another note, I have a theory that these three rounds took a lot more out of Hagler than Tommy is given credit for. He only fought twice after the Hearns fight and was pedestrian in breaking down Mugabe and didn't look himself against Leonard (ALTHOUGH HE STILL WON THE FIGHT DAMMIT!!!!)

Just a thought.

[Violent Demise]

I know it was massive fight and etc, but i see a lot of people calling this one of the greatest fights of all time. But i want to know why people think this ?? yes 1st round was incredible but after the 1st round it was one sided fight, i just think people tend to overrate this fight and forget about other classics that are better fights like, Ramirez vs Rosario 2, Chacon vs Edwards 2, etc. But whats your opinions ??

The fight wasn't one-sided at all. The commentators (which included Ray Leonard punk ass) kind of made it seem that way. But it wasn't. The first was back and forth. But in the second Hearns boxed and moved pretty good. Hagler just landed the harder blows. But it was Hearns jabbing in the second that really opened up Haglers cut. And he was still throwing his right which by that time was already broken. The third was obviously the end. Hearns-Hagler to me will always be one of the greatest fight I ever saw