Who fought the better version of Hearns

Duran fought Hearns at his absolute peak. He was at his peak weight and peak time.

Leonard fought a Hearns who was a bit green on the big stage as Ken pointed out so well. He also had not yet learnt how to fight hurt as he'd never really been there. He was however as TR points out one SCARY proposition at 147. He had amazing physical advantages, was the best puncher there ever imo and was oh so fast. If anyone ever had a better blend of speed and power than Hearns did at 147 i'd hate to meet them.

Hagler fought Hearns at his fighting peak for sure but not in his peak division if this makes sense. Hearns was simply better at 154 tho he was certainly one helluva fighter at 160 at that exact point as well imo.

So basically you have to choose between a less rounded and slightly inexperienced Tommy at 147 and the more mature peak period Tommy a division above his best.

I'm inclined to say Leonard fought the better Tommy. I'd have no trouble with anyone putting SRL H2H #2 at 147 and Hearns gave him hell despite being pre peak. Not many welters would have beaten Hearns this night. At 160 i think it's safe to say there would be more people able to get by him that at 147. Guys like Monzon, Hopkins, Marshall, Charles and many others are oh so tough match ups. It's far easier to find guys at 160 than 147.

 

But was the middleweight Hearns a better middleweight than the welterweight Hearns was a welterweight?

 

Yeah i'd agree mate.

 

This is a difficult thing to explain. I would say the Hearns at welterweight when Ray fought him was a tougher challenge. I do think the Hearns at 154 who fought Benitez would have possible won a UD against Ray or even stopped him late.

As for Ray and Tommy in 1981. Both guys were young and boxer/punchers and solid at the weight with Tommy being undefeated and Ray having avenged his only loss by decision in good fashion. Ray was not going to brawl him and he did not. so Tommy had to work his way in and try to land a good punch which left him open to counters, and then he was hurt and started to box with Ray stalking him.

With Hagler they were both equal in stature and it was more personal it seemed. The fight strategy although favoring Marvin materialized from the attitude of both guys. Both Marvin and Tommy fought a dumb strategy but a great fight as it turned out. I think the Hearns of 1985 was more experience but his mindset was too arrogant after knocking out Duran and Hutchings, and then he was moving up in weight to fight one of the most solid chinned guys at middleweight. It would have been better had he struggled to win decisions against Duran and Hutchings. Then his mindset would have been more logical against Marvin.

 

I agree. Hearns was beating him, folks.

Both Leonard and Hearns were like boxing miracles in their first fight imo. To me it was akin to the heavyweight division of the 70s. That Leonard beat him then redeemed him in my eyes from the solid loss to Duran and the bizarre second Duran (I'm still not convinced Leonard would have beat Duran that second time, either).

It was at that point Leonard became an undeniable ATG. Tommy had to wait and accumulate more wins before I saw him that way (imo most notably the Duran kayo).

 

In order for that to happen, Hagler would have to lose a lot of weight to make welter, and considering that he didn't have an ounce of fat on his body, he would lose a lot of muscle so he would not be as strong.

Alternatively if the Hearns of 1980 who only weighed 145 elected to fight Hagler at 160, it would be suicide.

 

The welterweight weight and the undefeated made Tommy tougher for Leonard. In 1985 he was between weights and arrogant having knocked out Duran. So his mind was not in a place where it should be for fighting Hagler. It was a great fight, but he fought the wrong fight to win.

 

Hearns as had been said was at his best at light middleweight.
In terms of answering this question it depends how you look at it.
Hearns was better at Welter than middleweight in general terms but he came in light to the Leonard fight and also as has been said he was still relatively inexperienced, he just didn't know how to deal with getting in trouble, with both factors combined he was always going to have problems with Leonard.
He was also only 22, Leonard was 25, which does make a difference, he just wasn't as physically developed as Ray at that point.
Someone said Hearns had all the advantages in that fight, I disagree with that for those reasons.

I still feel Ray deserves more credit for beating Hearns at Welterweight, as Hearns was better at that weight and harder to beat.

 

That's a well-made point I haven't seen argued often enough.

 

Hagler beat the better, more seasoned version of Hearns.

 

Possibly but Ray beat a man with two functioning hands. Surely counts for something.

 

My opinion is that Hagler fought the better Hearns. At 154, Tommy outboxed Benitez and destroyed Duran and Hutchings. But all that is to take nothing away from Leonard, who I believe is the best fighter I've seen in my time.

 

I picked Leonard before but I changed my mind. Hearns' performance against Benitez was incredible so I gotta say Hearns was a better fighter going into the Hagler fight. BUT, who's win is greater? I'd pick Leonard. Because Hearns is an ATG welterweight. He's also an ATG junior middleweight but that was his limit. Beyond that, he was too inconsistent and vulnerable to be regarded highly.

 

Easily Leonard for me. …. Hearns just wasn't a great Middle IMO, his worst weight for me … Hearns gassed against Leonard and didn't know how to hold, clinch, or close out a fight with the lead … And that had everything to do with the Excellence of SRL which I think he wins the fight anyway even if Tommy knew these things… So the "green" Tommy excuse doesn't jive with me at all.. Now with Marvin, wrong game plan to slug it out at 160 .. he should have tried and stayed outside and box … but I really don't think that would have mattered as Marvin was coming for him .. so the fight goes longer if Hearn's boxes but the result of Marvin KO ing him is inevitable .. the Motor City Cobra was better at 147 then the Hitman at 160

 

Right on the Money here ,, nice post .. People forget that Hearns was fighting bigger, stronger men at 160, Barkley, Marvin, Sutherland .. it mattered. And it didn't seem that Hearns had his legs all together at 160 as well ... it just wasn't his best weight