between Hagler-Hearns after both fighters took 11 months off? Why risk taking on two undefeated fighters? I know the plan was to have them fight again if SRL never came back Kinda bummed we never got to see the rematch
There really wasn't any demand for it at the time. Odd as that sounds, it's true. The result of their fight was so emphatic that Arum himself was quoted as saying something along the lines of "People have no reason to believe Hearns has any chance. No one would buy the fight."
there was interest. Hagler didn't want it. I think he put his all mentally and physically into that fight, and I don't think he could have duplicated his performance. I don't blame him at all. Hearns beat Shuler which if I recall made him number one challenger. So Hagler would have had to fight Hearns. There was interest, but in reality Hearns fought a reckless fight as did Hagler. I still think Hearns would have beaten Marvin in the rematch.
Not sure what to say except I disagree. It was almost a palpable "well, if no one else is around to challenge him, Hearns could give it a go again." I'm not THAT old, my memory isn't that badly faded. If you thought Hearns could turn the trick the next time out against Hagler, you were the only one.
As a i remeber it, James shuler and john mugabi were being lined up and rated higher by the sanctioning bodies. Hearns was actually supposed to fight mugabi with his 154 title at stake from 1983 or 1984 onwards but mugabi's management got tired of being left waiting by hearns and paid to step aside so it was agreed that mugabi take on Hagler, and hearns and shuler fight each other Hagler-Mugabi was supposed to happen in november 1985, with hearns and shuler on the bill. But Hagler broke his nose. it happend in march 1986 instead. and yes Hearns wasnt considered any more of a threat to hagler than mugabi or shuler. why should he have been? hagler had destroyed him inside 3 rounds
