Could Hearns have ever beaten Hagler?

[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.

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

Leonard proved it in his one fight above 160? Please. Hagler clearly had more power than Leonard, and it's reflected in their knockout percentages. Leonard knocked out 62.5% of his opponents, and Hagler knocked out 77% of his.

As for Hearns, rather than cherry-picking his decision wins (Singletary, DeWitt, Sutherland, Minchillo), just look at the numbers. Fortunately, he had about as many fights at or below 147 as he did above, so the comparison is simple: At 147 and below, Hearns had 33 fights and 30 knockouts. That's over 90%. Above 147, he had 34 fights and 18 knockouts. That's barely over 50%. And it started IMMEDIATELY after he went over 147. He scored knockouts in 2 of his first 4 fights over 147. Or 4 of his next 8. Or 6 of his next 12. Or 8 of his next 16. He went from knockout out almost everybody to knocking out about half of his opponents. It's silly to suggest that he had as much power at higher weight classes as he did at 147 and below. Like just about EVERY fighter who moves into higher weight classes, his punching power diminished.

Yeah and how many of those fights were above 160lbs for hearns. hearns fought at much higher weight classes than hagler EVER did. Also I selected fights of signifiance. If you want to discredit hearns for knocking out lightheavyweight champ go ahead. I dont think your "cheery picking" when you say he KO'd Roldan, Shuler, Andres, and knocked Leonard down twice (something Hagler couldnt do). Also Hagler fought smaller oppoenets he never "fought up" in weight class. A major black mark when comparing those 3 fighters.

If hagler fought the equal number of oppoents hearns did above 160 then haglers KO percentage drops like a rock. BAD COMPARISON. Both Hearns and Leonard "fought up" throughout their entire career. and one took almost 5 years off from the sport.

You're either missing the point of the "moving up" argument, or drifting far off course. It's simply a fact that Hearns had a lot more firepower at 147 than he did at 160. That's not "good" or "bad"; it's just a fact.

The point of that observation is that because Hearns couldn't keep Leonard off of him at 147, where Hearns had possibly the most dominant punch in the history of the division, then it's unlikely that he could have kept Hagler off of him at 160, where Hearns had markedly less power.

[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]

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

Leonard proved it in his one fight above 160? Please. Hagler clearly had more power than Leonard, and it's reflected in their knockout percentages. Leonard knocked out 62.5% of his opponents, and Hagler knocked out 77% of his.

As for Hearns, rather than cherry-picking his decision wins (Singletary, DeWitt, Sutherland, Minchillo), just look at the numbers. Fortunately, he had about as many fights at or below 147 as he did above, so the comparison is simple: At 147 and below, Hearns had 33 fights and 30 knockouts. That's over 90%. Above 147, he had 34 fights and 18 knockouts. That's barely over 50%. And it started IMMEDIATELY after he went over 147. He scored knockouts in 2 of his first 4 fights over 147. Or 4 of his next 8. Or 6 of his next 12. Or 8 of his next 16. He went from knockout out almost everybody to knocking out about half of his opponents. It's silly to suggest that he had as much power at higher weight classes as he did at 147 and below. Like just about EVERY fighter who moves into higher weight classes, his punching power diminished.

Yeah and how many of those fights were above 160lbs for hearns. hearns fought at much higher weight classes than hagler EVER did. Also I selected fights of signifiance. If you want to discredit hearns for knocking out lightheavyweight champ go ahead. I dont think your "cheery picking" when you say he KO'd Roldan, Shuler, Andres, and knocked Leonard down twice (something Hagler couldnt do). Also Hagler fought smaller oppoenets he never "fought up" in weight class. A major black mark when comparing those 3 fighters.

If hagler fought the equal number of oppoents hearns did above 160 then haglers KO percentage drops like a rock. BAD COMPARISON. Both Hearns and Leonard "fought up" throughout their entire career. and one took almost 5 years off from the sport.

You're either missing the point of the "moving up" argument, or drifting far off course. It's simply a fact that Hearns had a lot more firepower at 147 than he did at 160. That's not "good" or "bad"; it's just a fact.

The point of that observation is that because Hearns couldn't keep Leonard off of him at 147, where Hearns had possibly the most dominant punch in the history of the division, then it's unlikely that he could have kept Hagler off of him at 160, where Hearns had markedly less power.

Hearns did a great job keeping Leonard off of him in both fights? Not sure what your talking about. My only guess is your refering to Hearns being overtrained in the first fight and out of gas?

[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.

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

Leonard proved it in his one fight above 160? Please. Hagler clearly had more power than Leonard, and it's reflected in their knockout percentages. Leonard knocked out 62.5% of his opponents, and Hagler knocked out 77% of his.

As for Hearns, rather than cherry-picking his decision wins (Singletary, DeWitt, Sutherland, Minchillo), just look at the numbers. Fortunately, he had about as many fights at or below 147 as he did above, so the comparison is simple: At 147 and below, Hearns had 33 fights and 30 knockouts. That's over 90%. Above 147, he had 34 fights and 18 knockouts. That's barely over 50%. And it started IMMEDIATELY after he went over 147. He scored knockouts in 2 of his first 4 fights over 147. Or 4 of his next 8. Or 6 of his next 12. Or 8 of his next 16. He went from knockout out almost everybody to knocking out about half of his opponents. It's silly to suggest that he had as much power at higher weight classes as he did at 147 and below. Like just about EVERY fighter who moves into higher weight classes, his punching power diminished.

Yeah and how many of those fights were above 160lbs for hearns. hearns fought at much higher weight classes than hagler EVER did. Also I selected fights of signifiance. If you want to discredit hearns for knocking out lightheavyweight champ go ahead. I dont think your "cheery picking" when you say he KO'd Roldan, Shuler, Andres, and knocked Leonard down twice (something Hagler couldnt do). Also Hagler fought smaller oppoenets he never "fought up" in weight class. A major black mark when comparing those 3 fighters.

If hagler fought the equal number of oppoents hearns did above 160 then haglers KO percentage drops like a rock. BAD COMPARISON. Both Hearns and Leonard "fought up" throughout their entire career. and one took almost 5 years off from the sport.

You're either missing the point of the "moving up" argument, or drifting far off course. It's simply a fact that Hearns had a lot more firepower at 147 than he did at 160. That's not "good" or "bad"; it's just a fact.

The point of that observation is that because Hearns couldn't keep Leonard off of him at 147, where Hearns had possibly the most dominant punch in the history of the division, then it's unlikely that he could have kept Hagler off of him at 160, where Hearns had markedly less power.

Hearns did a great job keeping Leonard off of him in both fights? Not sure what your talking about. My only guess is your refering to Hearns being overtrained in the first fight and out of gas?

Hearns was not "out of gas" in the 6th round in the first fight. He was just unable to handle Leonard's pressure.

[LobowolfXXX]

edit

[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.................

[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

Leonard proved it in his one fight above 160? Please. Hagler clearly had more power than Leonard, and it's reflected in their knockout percentages. Leonard knocked out 62.5% of his opponents, and Hagler knocked out 77% of his.

As for Hearns, rather than cherry-picking his decision wins (Singletary, DeWitt, Sutherland, Minchillo), just look at the numbers. Fortunately, he had about as many fights at or below 147 as he did above, so the comparison is simple: At 147 and below, Hearns had 33 fights and 30 knockouts. That's over 90%. Above 147, he had 34 fights and 18 knockouts. That's barely over 50%. And it started IMMEDIATELY after he went over 147. He scored knockouts in 2 of his first 4 fights over 147. Or 4 of his next 8. Or 6 of his next 12. Or 8 of his next 16. He went from knockout out almost everybody to knocking out about half of his opponents. It's silly to suggest that he had as much power at higher weight classes as he did at 147 and below. Like just about EVERY fighter who moves into higher weight classes, his punching power diminished.

Yeah and how many of those fights were above 160lbs for hearns. hearns fought at much higher weight classes than hagler EVER did. Also I selected fights of signifiance. If you want to discredit hearns for knocking out lightheavyweight champ go ahead. I dont think your "cheery picking" when you say he KO'd Roldan, Shuler, Andres, and knocked Leonard down twice (something Hagler couldnt do). Also Hagler fought smaller oppoenets he never "fought up" in weight class. A major black mark when comparing those 3 fighters.

If hagler fought the equal number of oppoents hearns did above 160 then haglers KO percentage drops like a rock. BAD COMPARISON. Both Hearns and Leonard "fought up" throughout their entire career. and one took almost 5 years off from the sport.

You're either missing the point of the "moving up" argument, or drifting far off course. It's simply a fact that Hearns had a lot more firepower at 147 than he did at 160. That's not "good" or "bad"; it's just a fact.

The point of that observation is that because Hearns couldn't keep Leonard off of him at 147, where Hearns had possibly the most dominant punch in the history of the division, then it's unlikely that he could have kept Hagler off of him at 160, where Hearns had markedly less power.

Hearns did a great job keeping Leonard off of him in both fights? Not sure what your talking about. My only guess is your refering to Hearns being overtrained in the first fight and out of gas?

Hearns was not "out of gas" in the 6th round in the first fight. He was just unable to handle Leonard's pressure.

I guess that is why Hearns won rounds 9,10.11,12 he couldnt keep Leonard off.....right........ watch the tapes son and report back....................

[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."

[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.

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

Leonard proved it in his one fight above 160? Please. Hagler clearly had more power than Leonard, and it's reflected in their knockout percentages. Leonard knocked out 62.5% of his opponents, and Hagler knocked out 77% of his.

As for Hearns, rather than cherry-picking his decision wins (Singletary, DeWitt, Sutherland, Minchillo), just look at the numbers. Fortunately, he had about as many fights at or below 147 as he did above, so the comparison is simple: At 147 and below, Hearns had 33 fights and 30 knockouts. That's over 90%. Above 147, he had 34 fights and 18 knockouts. That's barely over 50%. And it started IMMEDIATELY after he went over 147. He scored knockouts in 2 of his first 4 fights over 147. Or 4 of his next 8. Or 6 of his next 12. Or 8 of his next 16. He went from knockout out almost everybody to knocking out about half of his opponents. It's silly to suggest that he had as much power at higher weight classes as he did at 147 and below. Like just about EVERY fighter who moves into higher weight classes, his punching power diminished.

Yeah and how many of those fights were above 160lbs for hearns. hearns fought at much higher weight classes than hagler EVER did. Also I selected fights of signifiance. If you want to discredit hearns for knocking out lightheavyweight champ go ahead. I dont think your "cheery picking" when you say he KO'd Roldan, Shuler, Andres, and knocked Leonard down twice (something Hagler couldnt do). Also Hagler fought smaller oppoenets he never "fought up" in weight class. A major black mark when comparing those 3 fighters.

If hagler fought the equal number of oppoents hearns did above 160 then haglers KO percentage drops like a rock. BAD COMPARISON. Both Hearns and Leonard "fought up" throughout their entire career. and one took almost 5 years off from the sport.

You're either missing the point of the "moving up" argument, or drifting far off course. It's simply a fact that Hearns had a lot more firepower at 147 than he did at 160. That's not "good" or "bad"; it's just a fact.

The point of that observation is that because Hearns couldn't keep Leonard off of him at 147, where Hearns had possibly the most dominant punch in the history of the division, then it's unlikely that he could have kept Hagler off of him at 160, where Hearns had markedly less power.

Hearns did a great job keeping Leonard off of him in both fights? Not sure what your talking about. My only guess is your refering to Hearns being overtrained in the first fight and out of gas?

Hearns was not "out of gas" in the 6th round in the first fight. He was just unable to handle Leonard's pressure.

I guess that is why Hearns won rounds 9,10.11,12 he couldnt keep Leonard off.....right........ watch the tapes son and report back....................

I saw it at the time and many times since then, "son." In case your recollection is rusty, Leonard is the one standing at the end, and Hearns is the one getting rescued by Davey Pearl, looking like Nick Nolte after a bar closes.

I didn't mean that Hearns couldn't keep Leonard off of him at all; I meant that he couldn't do it until the final bell. He looked great in the first two rounds against Barkley, too; up 20-18 on all cards. Didn't get him the W.

[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

Leonard proved it in his one fight above 160? Please. Hagler clearly had more power than Leonard, and it's reflected in their knockout percentages. Leonard knocked out 62.5% of his opponents, and Hagler knocked out 77% of his.

As for Hearns, rather than cherry-picking his decision wins (Singletary, DeWitt, Sutherland, Minchillo), just look at the numbers. Fortunately, he had about as many fights at or below 147 as he did above, so the comparison is simple: At 147 and below, Hearns had 33 fights and 30 knockouts. That's over 90%. Above 147, he had 34 fights and 18 knockouts. That's barely over 50%. And it started IMMEDIATELY after he went over 147. He scored knockouts in 2 of his first 4 fights over 147. Or 4 of his next 8. Or 6 of his next 12. Or 8 of his next 16. He went from knockout out almost everybody to knocking out about half of his opponents. It's silly to suggest that he had as much power at higher weight classes as he did at 147 and below. Like just about EVERY fighter who moves into higher weight classes, his punching power diminished.

Yeah and how many of those fights were above 160lbs for hearns. hearns fought at much higher weight classes than hagler EVER did. Also I selected fights of signifiance. If you want to discredit hearns for knocking out lightheavyweight champ go ahead. I dont think your "cheery picking" when you say he KO'd Roldan, Shuler, Andres, and knocked Leonard down twice (something Hagler couldnt do). Also Hagler fought smaller oppoenets he never "fought up" in weight class. A major black mark when comparing those 3 fighters.

If hagler fought the equal number of oppoents hearns did above 160 then haglers KO percentage drops like a rock. BAD COMPARISON. Both Hearns and Leonard "fought up" throughout their entire career. and one took almost 5 years off from the sport.

You're either missing the point of the "moving up" argument, or drifting far off course. It's simply a fact that Hearns had a lot more firepower at 147 than he did at 160. That's not "good" or "bad"; it's just a fact.

The point of that observation is that because Hearns couldn't keep Leonard off of him at 147, where Hearns had possibly the most dominant punch in the history of the division, then it's unlikely that he could have kept Hagler off of him at 160, where Hearns had markedly less power.

Hearns did a great job keeping Leonard off of him in both fights? Not sure what your talking about. My only guess is your refering to Hearns being overtrained in the first fight and out of gas?

Hearns was not "out of gas" in the 6th round in the first fight. He was just unable to handle Leonard's pressure.

I guess that is why Hearns won rounds 9,10.11,12 he couldnt keep Leonard off.....right........ watch the tapes son and report back....................

I saw it at the time and many times since then, "son." In case your recollection is rusty, Leonard is the one standing at the end, and Hearns is the one getting rescued by Davey Pearl, looking like Nick Nolte after a bar closes.

I didn't mean that Hearns couldn't keep Leonard off of him at all; I meant that he couldn't do it until the final bell. He looked great in the first two rounds against Barkley, too; up 20-18 on all cards. Didn't get him the W.

Keep using Barkley as the example and i will use Haglers 2 losses to nonames in the late 70's early 80's and Leonards bad chin against norris, hearns, commacho, howard............ apples to apples in my book. Go back and do your history son........it was not the gameplan to go toe to toe with hagler.....and it had nothing to do with haglers pressure either........i'm tired of doing your homework for you son.......if you dont like what hearns camp said thats your issue......i'm telling you he had poor strategy and poor advice for that fight......Pure and simple if he sets up on hagler- hearns wins.....and thats exactly what would have happened in the rematch. in fact anytime he chose to fight hagler from 82 forward hearns wins with the right fight plan..........

[Violent Demise]

I think Hearns had an excellent chance of beating Hagler if they were to rematch. I think he breaking his hand contributed to him not winning the fight. But it wasn't the reason why he lost. Nor was it bad strategy. Hearns going to war with Hagler was not a mistake. Cuz that what he was all about. He was always more Hitman than Cobra. Hearns was a personal favorite and an ATG. But he an achilles heel. A weak chin. He had trouble taking a big punch. It's the reason why he lost to Hagler and Barkley. And that's not even debatable. Hearns had amazing firepower. And managed to carry a lot of it up in weight. That firepower and his seriously underrated boxing skills is why he can never be counted out in a rematch. Even against Hagler. But that chin was always a handicap. And was is downfall more than once

[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.

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

Leonard proved it in his one fight above 160? Please. Hagler clearly had more power than Leonard, and it's reflected in their knockout percentages. Leonard knocked out 62.5% of his opponents, and Hagler knocked out 77% of his.

As for Hearns, rather than cherry-picking his decision wins (Singletary, DeWitt, Sutherland, Minchillo), just look at the numbers. Fortunately, he had about as many fights at or below 147 as he did above, so the comparison is simple: At 147 and below, Hearns had 33 fights and 30 knockouts. That's over 90%. Above 147, he had 34 fights and 18 knockouts. That's barely over 50%. And it started IMMEDIATELY after he went over 147. He scored knockouts in 2 of his first 4 fights over 147. Or 4 of his next 8. Or 6 of his next 12. Or 8 of his next 16. He went from knockout out almost everybody to knocking out about half of his opponents. It's silly to suggest that he had as much power at higher weight classes as he did at 147 and below. Like just about EVERY fighter who moves into higher weight classes, his punching power diminished.

Yeah and how many of those fights were above 160lbs for hearns. hearns fought at much higher weight classes than hagler EVER did. Also I selected fights of signifiance. If you want to discredit hearns for knocking out lightheavyweight champ go ahead. I dont think your "cheery picking" when you say he KO'd Roldan, Shuler, Andres, and knocked Leonard down twice (something Hagler couldnt do). Also Hagler fought smaller oppoenets he never "fought up" in weight class. A major black mark when comparing those 3 fighters.

If hagler fought the equal number of oppoents hearns did above 160 then haglers KO percentage drops like a rock. BAD COMPARISON. Both Hearns and Leonard "fought up" throughout their entire career. and one took almost 5 years off from the sport.

You're either missing the point of the "moving up" argument, or drifting far off course. It's simply a fact that Hearns had a lot more firepower at 147 than he did at 160. That's not "good" or "bad"; it's just a fact.

The point of that observation is that because Hearns couldn't keep Leonard off of him at 147, where Hearns had possibly the most dominant punch in the history of the division, then it's unlikely that he could have kept Hagler off of him at 160, where Hearns had markedly less power.

Hearns did a great job keeping Leonard off of him in both fights? Not sure what your talking about. My only guess is your refering to Hearns being overtrained in the first fight and out of gas?

Hearns was not "out of gas" in the 6th round in the first fight. He was just unable to handle Leonard's pressure.

I guess that is why Hearns won rounds 9,10.11,12 he couldnt keep Leonard off.....right........ watch the tapes son and report back....................

I saw it at the time and many times since then, "son." In case your recollection is rusty, Leonard is the one standing at the end, and Hearns is the one getting rescued by Davey Pearl, looking like Nick Nolte after a bar closes.

I didn't mean that Hearns couldn't keep Leonard off of him at all; I meant that he couldn't do it until the final bell. He looked great in the first two rounds against Barkley, too; up 20-18 on all cards. Didn't get him the W.

Keep using Barkley as the example and i will use Haglers 2 losses to nonames in the late 70's early 80's and Leonards bad chin against norris, hearns, commacho, howard............ apples to apples in my book. Go back and do your history son........it was not the gameplan to go toe to toe with hagler.....and it had nothing to do with haglers pressure either........i'm tired of doing your homework for you son.......if you dont like what hearns camp said thats your issue......i'm telling you he had poor strategy and poor advice for that fight......Pure and simple if he sets up on hagler- hearns wins.....and thats exactly what would have happened in the rematch. in fact anytime he chose to fight hagler from 82 forward hearns wins with the right fight plan..........

First, calling Bobby Watts and Willie Monroe "nonames" does nothing but demonstrate your ignorance of the middleweight division in the 70s.

Second, there's a difference between losing a close decision to a top-ten contender and not surviving the third round.

You're entitled to your speculation, but it's largely unfounded. There's no reason to think that Hagler would have been knocked out by Hearns, because Hagler was never knocked out by ANYONE. Moreover, there's no particular reason to think that Hearns would have survived another fight against Hagler, because he didn't survive the first one. Had he not also been knocked out by Leonard and Barkley, this might be written off as an aberration, but instead, we have a pattern - guys who could take a punch and had some power of their own gave Hearns trouble. There was NO worse matchup for Hearns in the 80's than Hagler.

The after-the-fact game plan comments are like watching someone stand on 17 in blackjack and lose. You can say later that he should have hit, but everyone's a genius the next day. He was guided by some of the best minds in boxing at the time - the same strategists the guided Hearns to his greatest successes. They saw what worked against Duran and Cuevas, and they reasonably thought it was the best chance against Hagler.

[PUGWARRIOR]

ROBOWOLFXXX WINS THIS DEBATE BY A CRUSHING KO OVER ELECTIVEMED

[PUGWARRIOR]

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.

[Dark Lord Al]

Tommy Hearns is my favorite fighter of all time , but It is my opinion that Marvin was just a bad style for Tommy , yes breaking his hand was a huge handicap when you are trying for a quick KO against one of the strongest chins in history.
But i think Marvin would get to Tommy at some point and stop him, thats my view and im a Tommy Hearns fan.