How did Iran Barkley manage to beat Thomas Hearns twice?

It's two different sets of circumstances. It can't really be looked at as simply as "two losses to the same guy." Both fighters were very different in 1992 than they were in 1988 when they first met.

In '88, Hearns was cruising to a stoppage victory on cuts and got caught. It happens. We've all seen it.

The second fight was very different in tenor. They were bigger, and Hearns had no legs anymore. All he could do was go to the ropes and try to counterpunch the younger, naturally bigger man. It didn't work, but it was all he had left by that time.

It was two completely different fights pitting two vastly changed fighters against each other. One should be careful about comparing them too closely.

 

I think it had to do with a combination of relentless pressure and having both the strength and chin to push the issue with Hearns. Hagler defeated him by getting physical as well and not by out smarting him. Leonard, Hill, Benitez and several other good boxer either struggled or lost to the hitman by trying to outbox and overcome his reach. The other factor is that Barkley was naturally the bigger and stronger man.. Couple that with the fact that Hearns was past his prime for both of those meetings ( definitely the second one ) and it all starts to make sense.

 

I like your explanation better than mine

 

Iran Barkley was too big, too rough.

 

This.

The first fight was not the flash out of the blue that people want to make out. Hearns was ahead and hurting Barkley, especially with lefts to the body, but Barkley's swings were in several cases whizzing just inches past Hearns's chin. It was a question of who'd hit the home run first. In this case it was Barkley who did, by capitalizing on a mistake by Hearns.

At LHW, the increased size favored Barkley since it made for a more static fight.

Hearns's less than stellar chin and flawed defense would always leave him vulnerable to a banger close to his own size, though. Especially someone like Barkley whose chin, strength and power made him happy to exchange blow for blow.

 

Agree withBokaj.

Hearns blend of masterboxing was pretty reliant on being the bigger, rangier fighter to truly get the most out of it.

he still had the great talent to make it work against natural middleweights, but his lack of truly developed defensive skills beyond footwork and reflexes made him much more vulnerable at the weight.Someone close to his own size can reach him with much greater ease with long straight punches and sweeping hooks than a five-eight\nine'ish Welter can.

barkley was tough enough to keep punching back even when getting battered to the body and outjabbed...note that he isn't actually pressuring Tommy that much, other than the odd bull-rush but trying to match one-twos with him...Barkley at this point was more of an unpredictable stand-up boxer-puncher than the unskilled charge forward fighter he became by the early 90s.Hearns always played it pretty devil may care with his upperbody work and some of those punches were close as Bokaj says.

If i remember rightly he tried a pivot at the waist to put himself out of range of Barkley's return fire and completey ****ed it up, putting himself right in the path of a massive punch.

Should have been stopped then and there, but the shady, inconsistent Steele gave him a chance to go on despite being totally out of it.

Defensive flaws and to a lesser extent, durability were the cause of the loss.Likely beats Barkley more often than not, but Tommy would always be vulnerable to this kind of loss against a six-foot middle with long reach that can hit hard and is willing\tough enough to fire back consistently.

2nd fight both were past it and Hearns had no legs anymore, Barkley by now has abandoned most of the serviceable skills he once had and just crowds him.As Sal says, very different set of circumstances and not that relatable to the first fight.

 

I know I've probably come out a detractor of Hearns as a MW, but at that weight and above I think it was all about styles for him. He could lose shootouts with a boxer/brawler like Barkley, but outbox a good boxer like Hill.

He beat a past prime but still good Leonard, and I think he'd be tough for Kalambay, Nunn, McCallum and Watson, who I'd except for Watson probably rank higher as MWs overall. But he'd have a hard time with a lesser fighter like Benn and in all probability lose to McClellan. Eubank and Toney would be fascinating fights, but I'd probably favor them as well.

 

I'm going full reverse Mag-of you could take Hearns punch and hit him back you could beat him. Number two was difficult, number one near impossible.

 

Hearns did not have an outstanding chin and in the first fight Barkley did connect with his very best monster shot , like Lewis losing to a McCall .. in the rematch Hearns who was both past his best and not at his best weight got flattened and almost stopped in the third or fourth and was forced to fight a bit more cautious the rest of the way .. still, you would have imagined Hearns would have blasted the slower starting , hittable Barkley out but he simply could not .

 

Barkley was a bit of a rhythm breaker and was a strong guy that was not afraid to get hit or trade...styles make fights and he went for Tommy s chin with a lack of fear

 

Barkley truly knew no fear ... I remember being in the Felt Forum when he fought Darren Van Horn .. Iran came into the ring so mean he truly had the whole arena scarred .. he was a hard man .

 

Barkley was tough.He ran the streets with Blood Green. And he could hit, most of those cats from the Boogie Down could.

 

Good post .. the only thing I add to it was that I was always surprised Barkley , who was extremely tough and game but did not have the greatest chin or defemse was able to survive the early rounds when Hearns was always so dangerous ..