Is Hagler vs. Hearns Over Rated?

The fight was **** after the first round..........

It was all about the first round, infact i'm gonna watch the fight again.

 

This is the worst thread ever about any subject,you have Hagler winding down in his career,you have Hearns moving up in weight with no legs a broken righthand,and fighting the wrong fight,and its still 1 of the most classic fights ever,no matter what could have happened in a rematch or whatever,it was brutal combat at its best,i have nothing else to add to this dumb ass thread,you should be banned from all forums.

 

noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I agree with you.

That's not even an insult to Hagler-Hearns anyway, it's more of a tribute to the many other great fights in history that have taken place.

 

yes. great 1st round, VERY good 2nd round and 3rd was very exciting. not the best fight of all time. not the best fight of the decade. probably the best 3 round fight of the decade. 5th round of John LoCicero vs caveman lee was better, same with mancini-frias round 1 (the only round) and gatti-ward round 9 was WAY better than any round in the fight. it's a tremendous fight but yes, overrated

 

Its not overrated when the #1 and #2 pound for pound living legends fight a war like that, the problem with todays boxing their are no greats and the almost greats like Mayweather,and Pac never have the best fights for 1 thing they avoid fighting each other,and then were stuck with watching trilogies of Marqez and Vasquez and Ward and Gatti's,none of them great,just good fighters its a importance that boxing had back then to the general public,and the great fighters cared about that unlike these ***gots now,so yeah you damn right its a ATG fight.

 

Hearns and Hagler were both hurt in the first round. It was an intense fight between two of the greatest of all time. Where are the fights like this between two greats? And I think Hearns won that first round. If you do not like Hagler and Hearns I would guess you are a young person who is frustrated that the Mosley and Delahoya and Trinidad generation of fighters does not match Hagler and Hearns and Leonard and Duran, Well it never will match the earlier generation. Those guys really came to fight. And guys like Mayweather have a hard time getting in the ring with guys unless they are too old.

 

That first round was unheard of. Find another first round and don't tell me Mancini Frias was as good. Mancini and Frias didn't last a round and the knockdown took up much of the fight. Hearns and Hagler started great and ended great in round one. That round one is the greatest round of all time as far as intensity and sharpness. It was Hagler's last sharp fight and the fight which diminished him so he took a year off and fought Mugabi rusty.

 

Hearns was not second best. He beat greater guys than Marvin did. Hearns beat Cuevas for his first title.. Benitez for his second. Duran in a unification. Virgil Hill for lightheavyweight. Marvin beat Hearns and Duran moving up. I never thought Hagler was better. I think he won the fight in 1985 where he was the natural middleweight, but better? I don't think so. Had Hearns been a natural middleweight like he was a welterweight I think he would have stopped Hagler in the early rounds easily enough. The thinking has always been that since Hearns was 6-1 and Hagler 5-9 1/2, that Hearns was bigger than Marvin. With that logic, Hearns is bigger than Tyson also.

 

No insult on Oscar or Shane, but Delahoya and Mosley never had the guts to fight like Hagler and Hearns did in 1985. They wouldn't have taken the chance. This is what that fight shows. A sort warrior mentality which signifies that era, which is lacking in the following eras. Hearns had his decision wins and distance fights like Delahoya and Mosley and they were against Benitez and Leonard. The heart of Hagler and Hearns is what impresses me and everyone else. No two fighters of that caliber since have done what Hagler and Hearns have done, and there is really no way to diminish it in real terms. Even Hearns normal 12 round fights were more exciting than Delahoya or Mosleys fights.The only guy of the era I think who showed the Hagler and Hearns warrior mentality might be Trinidad, but he didn't have another guy to war with like Hagler and Hearns did.

 

I will address all of them since you are missing the point of why this fight is great. Commitment. These two guys committed to fighting with all they had and those fights rarely last even one round. Angelo Dundee said he was surprised the first round had no knockdowns and that it lasted the full round.
To argue your points.
I thought Hearns started fast and Hagler ended faster. I thought Hearns won the round.
Hearns legs were gone after the first round yeah. After the greatest round of all time which no other fighter you can mention opened up a fight like that. There is nothing to compare this fight to. Saying Mosley or Delahoya or all the other fighteres makes no sense, they were not near what this fight started as.
Hearns hurt his right but he was still landing it as well as his left hook to the body and jabs which were swelling Marvin's face. Look at Marvin's face at the end of the round. one punch caused all the swelling?
A punch did not split Marvin's forehead it was Tommy's mouthpiece at 1:21 of the round.
What does it matter when Marvin was in trouble. Marvin never was even wobbled in fights and Hearns wobbled him within 20 seconds of the opening bell. It seems like your thread is an anti-Hagler,Hearns,Leonard,Duran era thread because you are more the generation of Mosley and Delahoya, two guys who fought well but never ever had the guts to fight like Hagler and Hearns. There is no fight since which matches that first round, and that was 25 years ago. Overrated? No way.. Underrated in someways.

 

Hagler and Hearns revitalized boxing. It showed how the greatest two fighters in boxing could fight with all they had. Anyone who questions this fight is not a real boxing fan but just a subjective fool trying to hype the Delahoya and Mosley weak era. As for the fight and greatness. Look at the fight in the first section and the reaction of the panel of greats and the next one of who they voted as greatest round ever. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=703pQZPcMRw[/ame] and the vote of which was best
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnVNOjkHBvA[/ame]

 

Answering why MMH never `called` out the big boys. he was born at 160, fought his whole career there. He cleaned out and owned the middle`s during his championship run. He was a very proud middleweight champ,as his stellar record indicates. Plus he fought EVERYONE in his, even in their backyards. Who the hell does that ?

 

The 1st round was great, but there on after that. Tommy Hearns was gone..!

Holyfield vs Bowe round 10, is a better round of boxing in my opinion. And Holyfield vs Bowe I, is a better fight.

Nigel vs Eubank I, is maybe a better fight to.

The first round in Hagler vs Hearns is what made it great.