Did Hagler face a peak Hearns?

Hagler probably wasn't in his peak too. Hearns wasn't in his peak simply because the best version of Hearns was at 147 (until 1980, after that his body had to change and he added mass as he grew up) and at 154 during most of the 80s.

 

both fighters where at there peak, that was the last of prime hagler he slipped in the mugabi fight

 

Hearns was at his peak and in awesome shape.
He broke his hand on Hagler's head so I dont see how that's relevant or ever used as an excuse.
Hearns put up one hell of a fight, IMO.

Hearns could never take it like he could dish it out, but Hagler could.

 

Hearns was at his peak timeline wise, but not his peak weight. He lost too many of his considerable advantages at 160. Still a GREAT Middleweight tho.

 

Not quite, as Hearns's best weight as probably 154, but it was pretty close. Hagler was a couple years past his peak.

Hagler was much more aggressive than usual and Hearns had to fight him off. When Tommy tried to box in the middle of the ring midway through round 1, he was having some success, but Hagler cut him off and by the end of the round, Tommy's legs weren't the same. Of course, Manny says they weren't the same since the dressing room.

 

I'm sure it has something to do with the event as well. I've seen plenty of great short fights with better two-way action (rather than the relative one-sided nature of Hagler-Hearns), but bigger events between great fighters does add to the excitement when seeing it live.

 

I can't see how anyone could possibly say that was a peak Hagler. Not at all. In addition, the terms "Prime Hearns" and "middleweight" don't go together.

 

Yes, Hagler was past his prime. I've watched his entire filmed career on tape very closely and I think he was slipping even in the Roldan fight. Infact, he looked a bit stiffer as early as the Sibson demolition, but of course he was so far ahead of Sibson in terms of ability that it didn't show. A peak Hagler was around '81-'82.

 

Hearns was peak. Watch his destruction of Duran. Hearns was not at his best at welterweight. I don't know why people say this. He was underweight for his frame at 147 pounds. Hearns was best at middleweight. Outboxing Wilfredo Benitez and demolishing Duran and Shuler was Hearns at his best.

Hagler was slightly past his prime. He turned slugger in that fight, which was the perfect strategy, but it was the strategy used I believe because Hagler knew his tools were losing their edge. Hagler must have really hurt Hearns during the first round, because Hearns never seemed steady after that.

 

Why are my posts being edited by other people? I don't notice any difference, but there is an little edit note in some of them. Does anybody know why this is?

 

Yes of course he was.

The problem is younger fans don't realize Hearns pulled out twice with Hagler because he wasn't in his prime and realized he wouldn't reach his peak until years later when his frame filled out with muscle as it had with Duran and Schuler. That's why the fight didn't take place until 85.

The other thing people don't realize is Tommy was a growing boy when he fought leonard. He was really a middleweight in a welterweight's body. The fact is, Tommy had been in with middleweights since the Colbert fight and more regularly right after the leonard fight (Singletary)
same year.

The problem in the leonard fight was Tommy struggling to make weight. To make matters worse is Manny Steward brought him in two whole pounds below the 147 limit, one of the biggest managerial mistakes ever made in the history of the sport which cost him that fight. Because Leonard wasn't really doing nothing to win the fight while Marvin went to work right away.

Tommy was much stronger when he faced Marvin, faster, stronger, more experienced. In fact, every mandatory challenger I can think of faced Marvin during their peaks. It wasn't just Hearns.

 

It's a glitch in the system

 

IMO, Hearns peaked at 154, when he demolished Duran.

I think Hearns was a bit disadvantaged at 160, considering he was mixing it up with Hagler. I just don't think Tommy could've ever beaten Hagler, given his naturally thinner build. Marv proved too powerful and relentless, as Hearns was practically chopped down like a tree.

 

Hearns won two titles at light heavyweight. I don't think he was disadvantaged at 160 pounds.