No he wasnt. Still an amazing fighter but he was not at his best and did not have the big power he would later have.
I think he was as good as he was going to be at Welterweight but not his very best. He couldn't hold the weight long enough to mature and gain additional experience while still remaining at Welterweight. He had awesome power. There's a difference between hitting welterweights and JM/Middleweights. If his power increased as he moved up, so did the durability of the men he was facing.
Not to ride the fence, but yes and no. Physically and in terms of quickness and reflexes, absolutely. That was as good or better than he would ever be. His problem then was he hadn't yet honed some of the finer arts of the game he'd learn later. I also disagree with the notion that his power increased as he aged and went up in weight. It was precisely the opposite.
He was either prime or just before his prime, Leonard was likely at his absolute peak in that fight tho... perhaps the 154 lb Hearns that beat Benitez & Duran was absolute peak.
Yep. Steward insists he overtrained, and I believe he came in at 145 which wasn't ideal considering his height and already lankiness. But I think he was still in his prime.
YES! Hearns was prime in 1981 to 1985............ Prior to his meeting with SRL in 1981, Hearns was just a **** hair shy of 23........ What hurt Hearns the most in 1981 was not so much SRL in that epic fight, but rather Hearns had over-trained and came in too light at 145 pounds.... Hearns appeared skeletal in "The Showdown." Christ, just three months later in the Bahamas, Hearns beat Ernie Singletary over 10 rds on the "Ali-Berbick" undercard weighing 159 pounds and looking a lot stronger....... MR.BILL
He was in his prime.Super fast with great skills.Welterweight in a middleweights body at that time Yes he came in light at 145 for the fight but no excuses he lost fair and square. Splitting hairs to claim he was not in his prime .