who finds Hagler-Hearns incredibly overrated. Turn off Bernstien and Michaels caterwauling like schoolgirls and it's a pretty pedestrian beatdown of one, stronger fighter over another flimsy,out-gunned foe... after a scant few seconds of drama in the early going. And I really don't even think Marvin was much hurt by Tommy. Did Hearns ever have his legs in this fight? He was off balance almost the entire 2+ rounds. Nothing much to see here.
it was great before it got over-rated by everyone it got tabbed as the best 9 minutes in boxing and it got over rated from there. Hearns hit Hagler with some powerful shots and Hagler ate them like a machine :bbb
Yes, very overrated fight. Very lacking in action. Hagler-Mugabi was terrible, too. Come to think of it, I don't think that there were any decent fights until at least 1995, especially at heavyweight.
That wasn't a "pedestrian beatdown". Hagler was a great fighter, fighting with extreme intensity. That's not some routine, mediocre or pedestrian performance by any stretch. He also suffered a serious cut that made matters quite urgent. I thought the entire fight, certainly the entire first round, was quite lively. Not just "a few scant seconds".
But yeah, probably overrated. All "legendary" fights are overrated compared to their less "legendary" counterparts. I've little doubt that Marquez-Segura is every bit as good as Hagler-Hearns, for example.
It's a great couple of rounds,I prefer more ebb and flow fights,some of Corralles,Pintor v Gomez etc ,but a terrific set to ,that probably does get hyped a bit too much. Hearns looks like a stork whose been on the home made juice.
It was certainly a great fight of the short but sweet variety. After the first round it was obvious,imo,that Hagler was going to win it,though.