Ana;yzing leonard-hearns 1

Thats was knowwhere near the same Leonard,and that was a 12 round fight not a 15 rounder,and if your comparing Norris to Hearns your smoking something good.:-(

 

No, I don't feel you're wrong, and I think you're certainly a lot more on the ball than the thread starter. (Of course Red Rooster is both a Leonard hater and huge Norris fan, so objectivity from him on the matter is unlikely at best).

In short, Hearns should have been a stylistic and physical kryptonite for Leonard. His speed was comparable if not equal to Leonard's, he was bigger and taller than Leonard, (with the added extra reach, which when combined with the speed meant that Leonard couldn't try to control the distance or box and move the way he had in Duran II) he had far more power than Leonard, (even though Leonard could crack at welterweight) he was quite well schooled with good technique and had the skill to box as well as slug.

Really, the only advantages Leonard had going into this fight were his chin and, to a lesser degree, his stamina. He couldn't rely on his usual tactics or tricks, because the physical gifts and style of Hearns made them all useless. But Leonard soldiered on and pulled out the win by force of will and by pursuing and pressuring Tommy.

Make no mistake, I am emphatically not a fan of Ray Leonard. But he pulled out a fight that, on paper, he really should have lost, he did it despite the fact that (if I'm remembering right) he got his retina detached in this fight, and did it by pressuring and going after a fighter who was a much bigger puncher than he was. Whatever you think of Leonard, you have to be a truly blind hater to not give him credit for beating Hearns.

 

Rooster, Hearns v Norris at '54, who you got?

 

I think in the HBO Boxing Documentary on this fight, Leonard said after he caught Hearns and had him in trouble, he gassed. So once Tommy started moving and boxing so effectively, Leonard had difficulty keeping up and continuing his offense.

Hearns coming in weight drained at 145 makes me wonder how the fight would have went at 154. I don't see Hearns losing steam the same way. Leonard was great in this fight, no doubt about it though. It certainly ranks higher than No Mas and his fight with Hagler for me, personally.

 

Leonard was in against a head to head monster in Tommy Hearns (and an ATG himself). And seriously rooster, Tommy Hearns sparks Norris out with one of those wicked jabs within 3 rounds ;-)

 

How washed up was Leonard when he fought Norris?

 

I agree with the righteous Red Rooster..

Leonard sucks.......

Norris rules....

Thread closed.......


Good night and sleep tight everybody...

 

Somewhere between rounds 11-15 Hearns and Leonard are equal... Hearns would win more than he lost over 10. Leonard would win more than he lost over 15.

 

Hearns would have starched Leonard at 154 and Norris,judging what Norris done with Leonard at 154 is a bad guage to judge him on how he would do against Hearns,Leonard was a great politician he new he had small window to catch Hearns at the right time,even a weight drained Hearns punished him badlly but he gets full credit for the win from me it was the best comback i've seen in boxing.

 

Even at 154 i think leonard hearns plays out very similarily,with the caveat that hearns 'may' pull out a points win. See leonard hearns 2 for details...

 

sr leonard lost rounds,but remember he was fighting an ATG welterweight.what truly great fighters do is somehow find a way to win,thats what sugar did under real pressure

 

the inactivity court up with him by the time TNT got him,in his prime ray ko,s TNT who never had a good chin