Ray Arcel on Hagler - Hearns.

There are other factors. Hearns punch and Hagler was hit with everything Hearns had. Without a broken hand, I am not sure Hagler does so great with a slower pace. he had a great chin, but he was hurt by the second right hand Hearns landed. Hearns would have devised a better plan to punch more from the side and not straight on with marvin fighting southpaw since punching his straight on and not the side means more pressue on his hand. ,but a slower pace means Hearns gets more leverage, and the fact he hurt Hagler is something positive for him in a rematch. I don't think a cut would happen like the first fight. That cut was caused by Hearns mouthpiece in the first fight. It would have been hard to have the same fight as the first. That was very very unique... Much of that first round was made by both guys not liking each other after press conferences and years of one cancelled fight and similar opponents and talking.

 

The Hagler fight was a career shortner at best and a career ender at worst, they both took bombs off one another for rounds on end. Hearns hurting Hagler is being massively overstated, he wasn't even that badly stunned even if it all. The right hand moved him but he was never wobbled or looked groggy.

 

He was rocked. look at Hagler's right leg and he dips and backsup and has to regroup and shake his legs out. Then he sort of swipes at the area Hearns hit him, as thought it was numb there. Then he regroups and starts to come back. He recuperated well. but he was hurt. Had Hearns not broken his hand and kept landing that right, I think he keeps hurting Hagler. For sure.

 

Excuse

 

This is a perfect post. Thank you for your honesty and intelligence.

 

That could be true, although he was punching wildly more than most times, so that contributed. Hearns and Emanuel always talked about tightening the first and locking the elbow and shifting the weight as he landed the right, so there was a big production on how to land it if there was room or thought. Wild punching went against a well leveraged punch.

 

facts are not excuses. When a scientific study is done if it is done well we cannot say excuses. or do you look at the evidence which they have deciphered? That sounds like the Trump way of saying fake news. If you say it then it means it. I have studied the Kennedy assassination for years, and I judge that by the evidence not by excuses. Which is how I figured Hagler got his cut. I actually figured that out watching the fight a few times.

 

But, I do think the successes in the fight show somethings about the second fight, and they would be in Hearns favor rather than Hagler. So not having a rematch behooves Hagler.

 

This.

 

He was waiting to unleash his punch and he saw the opening and he was angry also. The way the press conferences went affected the fight. .. I think I know the punch which broke his hand. Both guys fought rather foolishly.

 

No, I think Hagler answered that for us. He had to fight that pace to win the fight.. At a slower pace Hearns gets his punches off and lands his combinations and can use his jab. I think Hagler fighting that way shows us how he had to fight Hearns, but could he do it again?