View Single Post
Old 06-29-2007, 07:11 PM   #10
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 12,082
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why was Hearns so inconsistent after the Hagler fight

Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
Roldan, Kinchen and Barkley are under-rated.
Tough awkward mofos all three of 'em, but not too crude as to negate their advantages completely.

Hearns was a bit shaky in the chin and legs all his career.
Big middleweights would get to him. The Hearns of 1980 or 1984 was fighting no big strong middles/super-middles.

Hearns took a lot of tough fights, you got to credit him that.
Andries was far too crude at the time, but still a risk. Hill was highly-regarded but proved inferior as a boxer, and had no other way.
Schuler was iced, pure and simple.

Maybe Hearns was on the slide from 1988 on, people were saying so. But that doesn't give his opponents quite enough credit, or him enough for tackling them. He fought some rough ones.
That's a bloody good post. Those 3 are definitely awkward for most anyone. Hearns fought all three when they were quite close to their best.
JohnThomas1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote