Did Hagler face a peak Hearns?

Hearns' reflexes were slowed down, and his legs slower and stiffer when he moved from 154 to 160. He was always much more hittable above 154, as his fights with Roldan, Barkley, and others showed. He would've always been a standing target for Hagler's looping punches, no matter when they fought.

 

I agree with this. Both Hagler and Hearns were sharp and active during this time and came to fight. The only thing which was not perfect was that Hearns was not a full 160 pounds, but prime for prime, they were both sharp and active. That is why they unloaded so quick. Had they been rusty they would not have unloaded like that.

 

I think Hagler started slipping towards the end of 83 but in this fight with Hearns he turned back the clock kinda like Mosley did with Margarito and Hagler's reflexes were like they were in the late 70's for this fight. It was amazing how he moved, cut the ring off, and was throwing combinations.

Hearns was at his absolute peak as well. Not his peak weight but age and overall ability. He was as complete as he ever got.

 

Hearns was absolutely at his peak when he fought Hagler. The jump from 154 to 160 was minor based on his huge frame ... he simply fought one fighter who matched up very tough for him. Hagler had an all time great chin and needed it as even he was slightly rocked in round 1. Hagler is often slightly underated as a puncher. Hagler was a murderous slugger and Herans could not take that power and volume from so skiller a fighter ...

Manny Steward told a story that if it was true has serious interest ... he said before the fight in the locker room he walked in to see one of Hearn's "friends" giving Tommy's legs a rubdown to loosen him up. Steward says he then knew the fight was lost as you never rubdown before a fight as it loosens up and tires out the muscles ... this might explain how Hearn's seemed to loose his legs early but I ask how in the world did Hearn's not know what a stupid move it was ? If Tommy had more leg speed he avoids the terribly bleeding Hagler another round or so and wins by a stopage ...

 

To me it doesnt make much a difference. Hagler's era was a weak one, as far as middleweights go. The only names were Leonard, Duran, and Hearns practically, and they all moved up from either Lightweight or Welterweight to challenge him. Outside of those, maybe Alan Minter and John Mugabi as well as Vito Antuofermo were the only real solid men in his career, all the others were either too shop worn and older or were as stated before, from other weight classes to begin with.

Sure Hearns made the mistake of fighting Hagler when just six-eight months prior he was 'defending' the so-called Light Middleweight title. For practically four years he was in limbo after losing his welterweight title to Leonard, being a blown up Welterweight with no real place to go.

But in truth, I never thought Hearns or Duran or really Leonard were that great as middleweights, so maybe I am just biased.

 

I feel Hagler fough and defeated a very tough group of middleweights through out his career .. the Phili middlleweights he defeated before winning the title were an extremely brutal group ... any one of those guys on any given night spelled murder ... Vito was very tough, Minter was very tough, the same with Hamsho, Sibson, Roldan, Mugabi and Obel ... Hearn's was a middle, no question and an all time great fighter ... Duran was not but was an all time great fighter. Watching their bout it really was not that close and Duran never had Marvin remotely in trouble. He was lucky Hagler showed him too much respect as it was his first Superfight of sorts ... Hagler is underated by some because he was out hustled by Leonard at the end of his career but those who have watched and studied Hagler know Marvin was an exceptional fight and an all time middleweight top five without question ...

 

Thomas Hearns was at his peak in the Hagler fight without a doubt.
He was coming off that crushing win over Roberto Duran.

People say Hearns was best at 154, and with wins over Benitez (clear points masterclass) and Duran (crushing early KO) and with no losses at that weight, it is arguable. But then again, he never faced the best light-middle rival of that period (1982-'86/'87) : Mike McCallum.

Hearns was a danger at every weight he fought at.

 

I think the middleweights of the 1980s were a tougher crowd than any group that has inhabited the 160 division at any time since.
The reason being, many of the guys who would nowadays settle at super-middle would have chosen 160 rather than 168 to compete at.
Also, with Hagler owning the UNDISPUTED title, a lot of the contenders he beat never had the chance to shine with "title-holder" status that just about every half-decent fighter gets in the years since. Men like Mustafa Hamsho, Tony Sibson, Fulgencio Obelmejias and Juan Roldan would definitely be in the mix to hold titles in the 1990s, alongside William Joppy, Reggie Johnson, Keith Holmes, John David Jackson and Jorge Fernando Castro.
And if you put some of Hagler's opponents back in the 1960s, a golden era of middleweights, some of them would be sure to give a good account of themselves.