Ray Arcel on Hagler - Hearns.

Yeah just like that right hand of Haglers went straight over Hearns' head......

 

Who could also take a lot more punishment than Hearns could dream of.

 

I don't think so Hearns was never eager to face Barkley again, but Hagler he really wanted. I could tell. It is almost like he knew he could change the outcome. Whether he could or not. I am not sure... But in his mind he was so eager to fight Hagler again..Maybe it was because the Hagler loss meant more in everyone's mind. People sort of assumed Barkley had a style aspect to it since Barkley was not the Hearns quality fighter no matter what. And as for Hagler, I think Hagler was not eager. So whatever we take out of that, who knows. The fact is Hagler got the win and knew in a rematch he would have to go through Hearns right hand again and I think it is true he didn't want to. Whatever reason. and Hearns did not think Hagler was superior, that I know for a fact the way he wanted that rematch. He was clamoring for it always. Hagler was a fight where he seemed to have seen something and wanted that second chance.

 

The Hagler who fought Mugabi was not the Hagler who fought Hearns. No matter what. The Mugabi fight Hagler, didn't want to fight anymore and was not motivated and didn't fight in a year, something he never did. To compare the two Haglers is not really valid. Marvin felt he reached his peak in the first Hearns fight. He should of retired then. The way he was mentally made up and everything else, retirement at that point would have been good.

 

Arcel doesnt know what he's talking about

the fact that he would vent saying Hagler took more punishment than Hearns. how did he arrive at that?

because according to punchstat, the blows landed during the first was about even with Hearns getting in a few jabs in addition to the right crosses while Hagler threw no jabs

In the second, Hagler took over and dished out the majority of punishment

so Arcel is flat out wrong

He probably bet on HEARNS then lost it, and has tried to justify it since. he doesnt analyze the strengths and weaknesses of fighters correctly

 

That was a big difference, even before the fight Hagler looked different. And before SRL Hagler looked flat. For Hearns, he looked better than the other fights. Even Gil and Hearns at ringside said Hagler's left was not going straight it was looping, and Gil said it was because of the rust.

 

actually, Pernell is right. This was a greatly deteriorated hagler. Seems to me that Marvin had lost a great deal from the Hearns fight but arcel saying things like "Marvin wouldnt walk the same side of the street as Hearns" you know there's something wrong with him

He won, remember?

Arcel was a clown

 

Yeah, but he really wanted Hagler. I could tell there was something he thought he could change. The way he talked, he was eager and Hagler was not. It just told me something. That is what I made out of it. Arcel caught on to this also, but Hagler won the first fight and put his all into it mentally and physically. so why would he be too eager to have to do that again.. I think he saw what he went through and put that chapter behind him.. I don't blame him. He is a great guy. I like him a lot and he has a lot of integrity and just honestly. It was up to Hearns to beat him the first time and he didn't. So I don't feel sorry for Hearns really. The fight he fought was rather dumb to come out swinging like that without getting range and without having patience. It was obvious they didn't like each other and the opening round had a lot to do with that and not tactic as Marvin said. The rematch they would not have hated each other like that, so it would have been different. After that first fight the hate would be gone..

 

that's just what I noticed

I dont know why this goes unnoticed by so many. They seem to be very knowledgeable and astute, and even more passionate about the sport than myself

 

Yeah he won. He put his all out with Hearns and went to war and earned it. He got hit and cut and still came through and that is his big fight. I don't think he wanted to do it again. He already put his all out. He really put his all out for this one fight. This was his career on the line with Ray retired, and Hearns being the guy who would be his biggest fight. Sort of like if someone goes through something hard in life and made it through, we are not too eager to do it again.. Even if we know we could do it again, why would we want to.

 

Had Hagler been the Hagler of 1986? I think Hearns might have won. The opening part of the fight before Hearns hurt his hand shows me that Hearns could hurt Hagler and with a little room and slower pace, Hagler would get cut up and swollen. It is easy to see. Hearns would have to fight smart, and he did at times with Hill and Benitez and other guys. He would have to fight one of his smartest most disciplined fights because Marvin was strong and had a good chin, so Hearns would have had to have a decent gameplan. And i think Hearns would have possibly won. Yes. His punches and sharpness would have swelled Marvin and not necessarily hurt him, but stunned him and busted him up.. That I know. And I think Hagler knew it. Totally different fight. The fight we would have thought would have happened in 1985.. It would have been interesting seeing a slower pace and more jabbing and rounds go by.. I don't think Hearns would take the punches Mugabi did in a rematch since he wouldn't fight that kind of fight, and Hearns took many more punches from much tougher guys than Mugabi ever did. Duane Thomas or the way Mugabi fell in one with Norris. Hagler was not the right Hagler in the 1986 fight. I think the 1985 Hagler might have stopped Mugabi in a round or two. The difference in sharpness was clear.

 

Hagler was not fighting well in that fight. He fought much better in another fight he struggled a little Juan Roldan.

 

I cannot agree. Hearns hit too had and hurt Hagler too quickly for me to think he had no chance. And the way Hagler did not want the rematch and Hearns did told me Hagler knew something. I always thought this He knew he could not duplicate that kind of fight and he also knew maybe Hearns right would not break in the rematch. The ease to which Hearns hit Hagler with punches tells me saying he had no chance cannot be true.

 

I just think the 1985 Hagler was punching harder and sharper, yet his legs were not the Hagler of say 1982.. So he was setting down on his punches more as the Hamsho rematch showed. And his handspeed was good, so his tactics for Hearns were better since using his legs for Hearns would not have worked out well.

 

people want to believe what they want. Yet when it comes to Duran, they buy all the excuses when he lost, yet when he won he is the greatest fighter ever. Well if he is the greatest ever after beating Moore at 154, why would he be washed up and easy to beat with Hearns only a year later at the same weight? And then he fought another 17 years.