hearns and manny's execuses

Leonard was always gonna catch him again. Every time he landed clean, Hearns would react negatively and the pounding would start.

Ray was really bothered by his eye, and around the 9th round, started to fight negatively, and Tommy adapted beautifully and took advantage. Once Dundee woke Ray up, though, and his legendary win at all costs mentality was opened up, Tommy was always gonna get knocked out. 10 of 10 times. He didn't have enough left going into the 13th(A bit overtrained, possibly, and been hit with some massive body shots) to make it to the 15th bell.

 

The whole weight drained thing with Hearns is comical. He was fighting excellently in that fight, and it was a result of limitations he'd never ever iron out which is what ultimately cost him the fight. Not the greatest capacity to take a punch, and didn't know how to survive when hurt. No excuses at all.

Again, Hearns went toe to toe with an iron chined, hard hitting Middleweight. He was never going to come out on the winning end on that one.

 

Exactly. there was not one second in that fight where I felt that Hearns was going to win.

 

After the 6th, I'd agree.

Leonard had only had one good round in the first 5(3rd or 4th, forget of the top) and was being pretty soundly outboxed. Watching Leonards comeback in the 6th, 7th and 8th, though, it became clear to me the whenever he opened up and got hands on Tommy, he was just gonna be the better man. Hearns looked hurt by 80% of what he got hit with in that fight.

 

I do think Ray will go down better than Tommy, but not by much, but Hagler no. Tommy fought better opposition than Marvin did and beat more greats.

 

I do believe the Hearns who fought Benitez would have outboxed Ray in a similar way. That Hearns was much more experienced and mature than the one a year and 3 months before.. The Hearns who fought Hagler thought because he knocked out Duran he could knock out anyone and they both went for it. Great fight.

 

I think Hagler was greater than both of them.
No one had a chance to be a "great" at middleweight while Hagler was there.

 

Hagler didn't fight the guys Hearns and Leonard did with the wins. Hearns-Cuevas,Duran,Benitez,Hill and all the titles moving up and down weights fighting top guys. And Leonard beating Marvin and Duran and Hearns and Benitez. Marvin was great, but he never proved he could move up and use other skills to win fights like Hearns and Ray did.

 

Hagler was great, but I think Hearns and Leonard had a better resume. Had Hagler had to move up like Hearns or Leonard or Duran he would have lost more fights and not been as effective as those guys were.

 

Thats about how I feel.

I think Hearns chances of beating Leonard go dramatically higher every weight class they go up, to respond to your other point, MAG. I think he was WAY more at home at 154 and 160 than Leonard was.

I think Ray owned 147, and he kind of fought a poor fight against Hearns. I think the cut to 147 was always gonna drain Tommy, and in a rematch, Angelo and Ray would have determined their strategy from the start and gone to the body much harder and more often.

Hearns can survive Leonard when his gas tank is up to snuff, as the rematch demonstrated, but I think the skinnier he is, the harder time he has with that. And his durability was beneath Leonards prowess as a puncher and finisher, so he's gonna get hurt badly at some point in the fight. In two fights, you don't get staggered badly about 8 times without it pointing to some difficulty dealing with the punch of the other fighter.

I'd pick Tommy at 154 though. At 160 too, but only if he tried it differently then he tried to go at Hagler. I don't think he could stop Leonard, and he'd eventually get clipped with a big flurry.

 

On the flip side, if Tommy had learned how to clinch effectively (or at all) when hurt it may have been a different story.

 

You probably say it right when you say, "Had Hagler had to move up"
But Hagler did NOT have to move up.

Hearns moved up from welterweight when he was proven NOT to be the number 1 welter. He lost, then moved up.
Hearns moved up to light-heavy at times when there were middleweights around who could beat him. I don't think Hearns ever proved himself number 1 in ANY division, except perhaps 154, and if he did he didn't hang around anywhere for long to defend his position. Iran Barkley knocked him off at 160 (while Kalambay and Nunn were probably 1 and 2 anyway), and Barkley beat him at 175 too.


Duran moved up from welterweight after he disgraced himself against Leonard and because he lacked the discipline to stay at the weight.
I give him full credit for moving up from lightweight and beating Leonard, but he'd already proven himself number 1 at lightweight and defended it for years - just as Hagler did at middleweight !

Leonard moved around later on looking for the big fights and "gimmick" fights like Lalonde, Hearns 2, Duran 3.
I give him credit for his performance against Hagler, but he never proved himself number 1 at middleweight. He didn't rematch Hagler, and he didn't defend the title.
He has a good record at welterweight, but a brief reign. I wonder if he could have dominated the division in the 80s like Hagler did at middleweight or Duran did at welterweight ?

"Weight class jumping" is over-rated, especially when you jump around not ever really proving yourself as number 1 at any one weight.
I don't know how that kind of career has become the standard of "greatness".
Look at the fighters now doing it, it's become a farce.

Hagler wasn't a particularly big middleweight, he was about 5'9. And people expect him to have jumped up to fight Michael Spinks when he had all the titles and lucrative matches at 160? Crazy.

I'd rate the "fab four" :

1. Duran
2. Hagler

3. Leonard

4. Hearns

 

I have seen that Duran being rated 1st by others and it is not warranted by his resume-far from it, he should be rated 3rd or 4th. Duran only beat Ray as the only great he ever beat, and then he lost easily to him in the rematch as well as to Benitez and Hearns-easily. and Duran fought at 154 in 1978 before Hearns,Leonard and Benitez ever fought there.

And about weight jumping. Hearns could have stayed at 154 and defended that title for years. He already had wins over Benitez and Duran, two guys who held the title when they fought Hearns. Spinks did not have to move up and fight Holmes but he did for the challenge. I don't think weight jumping is overrated when a fighter like Hagler calls out the smaller guys to fight him. It would have proven Hagler's skill fighting stronger guys and having to use his jab, which he had. It would have been interesting.

And about Hearns. Hearns beat the number one 175 pound titlist in 1991 Virgil Hill. He beat Cuevas in 1980 and Benitez in 1982. 3 of the top guys at 147,154 and 175-when he won their titles. Hearns is underrated. I am not sure why. Maybe because he lost to Ray and Marvin in his biggest fights, but if you look at his resume and his wins, he might have the best resume of the fab 4..

 

That they were. It is hard to find more formidable champions than Cuevas in 1980 with 11 title defenses, Benitez in 1982 fighting some of his best bouts, and Virgil Hill in 1991 who was undefeated and had 10 title defenses. And that was Tommy second title at 175. Had Duran beaten a guy like Virgil Hill most guys on this board would still be talking about it all the time as the greatest win ever.