Better fight: Leonard-Hearns 1 or 2?

I pick 1 and the main reason is because of the dramatic end.

 

Leonard v Hearns 1 was a good fight with a dramatic come from behind stoppage, but it's overrated for me. Too many rounds with not much happening apart from Hearns jabbing Leonards head off. I always thought the rematch was more entertaining.

 

I have to say the first one was more important but I think the second was more entertaining.

 

I like this. The second one was a case of two veterans past their prime pullling it all out one more time.

 

Quite plausible TWE!

 

Even though I prefer 1 mainly because of the ending, you all make great points!

 

Somewhat similar to comparing FOTC to Manila I guess.

As Ali viewed Frazier in Manila, so too did Ray, in respect of Tommy, thinking he’d clean up on apparently shot Hearns. And like Frazier, Hearns lifted in the face of his chief nemesis, refusing to yield, giving Ray the fight of his life.

I probably prefer the first fight because it was absolute prime Leonard and Hearns, at their best and fastest. Compelling to see the roles reversed, Tommy turning boxer and Ray slugger and seeing Ray trying to work out, rd after rd, how the hell to get inside Hearns’ reach and wreak havoc.

However, the rematch def. had more see saw moments and drama. I was personally pleased to see Hearns resolve what appeared to be an issue he held in not finishing the first fight.

Hell, he really won the rematch but Tommy was okay with the draw, more chuffed with proving his mettle, knowing what to do when hurt and ultimately surviving Ray’s later rds onslaught.

 

Same here, Clinton. I love the classic comeback from Leonard too, behind on the cards and eye closing fast.
Saying that, i also love the second fight. By then, they'd both being thru a long journey and at times it looked like they were never going to meet again.
But they did, and Tommy was seen as the more battered and had lost more of himself.
So it was great to see him fight Ray like that and almost get the verdict.
In some ways of course he did, he had the majority of the audience thinking he'd deserved the win.
Two great fights anyway.

 

the first fight was good, not great but Leonard at his prime while Hearns was in development and still a few years away from his.

I thought the matchup was great

The rematch came way too late and Tommy looked very broken down, with poor, poor stamina, a damaged chin, and more defeats; both of by tko

I felt that Tommy was okay after the loss to Hagler but after the loss to Barkley, he was damaged goods with two more close calls

In addition, it was only a 12 rounder with no legitimate title at stake

I consider the rematch more of a highly publicized exhibition

Had it been scheduled for 15, I dont think Tommy would have made it

The first match was definitely better

 

Inaccurate description of where Hearns was in his development. He was a dominant welter. To suggest otherwise is just an attempt to cheapen Leonard's victory.

Which may have been your point, I dunno.

 

Still the first fight for me, but I agree that the second is quite underated due to the fact that both were past their best and the unsatisfactory nature of the verdict. The way some people describe it, you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a stinker. It was actually a really good in its own right. Just not at the same level as the first in terms of quality, drama and historical significance.

 

Fight one was the better fight.


Fight two was more fun.