How does Leonard and Hagler do against Prime Hearns?

I'm talking about the Hearns that fought Cuevas,Duran,and Shuler? Weights set aside if need be...

 

How was the Hearns that dought Shuler and Duran not the same Hearns that Hagler stopped?

Broken hand? OKay, but I don't think anyone believes Hearns would have won that fight had it not been for the hand. He was getting hit too much.

 

Manny Steward has always maintained Hearns' legs were gone before the Hagler fight even started. Same type of "talk" you heard that Hearns came in too light against SRL in the WW Title fight.

 

Same results different day esp if the fights are between 1980 and 1987

 

Odd question.
If Hearns wasn't prime & up for Hagler i don't know what to tell you.

 

Amazing that a trainer would admit to two such glaring errors in preparation before his charge's two biggest fights.

In answer to the question, it's not up for conjecture, imo. Both fought prime Hearns. Both beat prime Hearns,

 

Because supposedly right before the fight a Hearns hangeroner was actually massaging his legs in the dressing room .. seems absurd that Hearns himself would not know the ramifications of something so dumb as a longtime professional.

 

I've always thought Hearns would beat Ray at 154, particuarly over 12. I think if they fought 10 times there they'd be about 6-4. As seen by both bouts there was nothing between them and Hearns would always be outpointing Ray. It's all a matter of whether Ray can catch him before the final gong tho it's not totally out of the question that Hearns could potentially stop him at 154, even if unlikely.

 

The Hearns that Hagler and Leonard fought was pretty good. Hearns came out and swung punches and broke his hand, that is his fault regardless of the excuse of his legs feeling weak. Hearns tactic against Hagler was the same as Hagler against Hearns. Sort of reckless. Made for one of the best fights in history, but he took a chance.. We will never know how a boxing Hearns who fights with his jab and slows the pace would do with Hagler. Hagler really took a chance but showed how great he was. With Ray? A prime Hearns in 1984 outboxes him and probably stops him late at 154.

 

I reckon Leonard would stop him in the 14th and Hagler would knock him out in 3. But who knows?

 

I never felt sorry for Hearns. I think he had some of the best wins ever and still could have beaten Ray and Marvin, but he blew it a few times and then he had regrets. Well too bad. Cuevas,Benitez,Duran,Hill and all those superfights and titles. A great career, but the way he fought Hagler. I mean a great fight and it helped boxing and the fight is still talked about, but he seems to have wanted a rematch. He really should have boxed if he wanted the win. Ray in the first fight. He was still a little green and never went 15.. but Ray prevailed.

 

I'm not saying that prime Hearns would always lose. But I'd guess prime Hearns would lose about 80% of the time against prime Hagler. And about 80% of the time against prime Leonard. (Incidentally, I think he'd also beat Duran about 80% of the time, too. Although it would be unlikely for him to meet prime Duran (LW)). Essentially, I just love throwing around the digits '80%' today.

 

I Don't believe the weight would be the difference but the length of the fight would be . Hearns could out point anyone over the twelve rd distance. But like Leonard proved in the 1st fight, and would've proved if the 2nd fight had been a 15 rounder , an aggressive well schooled fighter would most likely stop him past 12 rds. Hearn's legs always became a problem when his fight got into the later rds.

 

Leonard wins by KO in 14, Hagler wins by KO in 3

 

What is this nonsense about Hearns not being in his prime when he fought Marvin and Ray ??
He was in his prime and lost because of his weak chin and stamina, an amazing fighter and a true ATG but he had some serious flaws.