If Hearns had never faught Haglar, Would his legacy be better or worse?

I think that win/lose that the fights that Hearns/Hagler/Leonard all had helped their legacy because it showed that they weren't just out to protect their record, they were out to fight the best.

 

Really?

Then how come Hagler threw his toys out the pram and ran away from boxing aged 33 when he lost to Leonard?

Never mind the legitemacy of the result, why didn't he try to reverse it?

 

He did try and reverse it by SRL refused to give him a rematch, (at least when Hagler wanted one, which was right after the loss)

 

Yeah right.

Leonard " officially retired " at the post fight press conference, but in 1990 said he would rematch Hagler, but Hagler refused.

Why? He was happy to take on Leonard when Leonard had been out for 3 years, but obviously didn't fancy those terms for himself.

Strip away the bull**** from the reality, and what you are left with is a very good Middleweight, but that is all.

Like I said before. Anyone who thinks that a 32 year old Duran would go 15 rounds with a 29 year old Robinson, or Monzon, ( much less be winning after 12 of them ) is either a Hagler dick rider, or a fool.

By the way, whoever it was that mentioned Hagler saying " Thats what I get for fighting in Las Vegas " is talking ****. Hagler had been quite happy to fight there previously.

 

Monzon would've killed Duran in a middleweight matchup, Hagler did drop the ball.