Could Hearns have ever beat Hagler?

Mag1965

"Mugabi hit Marvin with an uppercut in round 5 or 6 which was good, but Mugabi was already arm weary by that point."

Of course he was, the fight went longer then 3 rounds and both fighters threw lots of leather. Hearns never had the chance to get arm weary because he was stopped earlier.

Hearns had more snap, but mugabi looked stronger than Hearns when he fought Hagler, Mugabi made Hagler stand off at times, he landed more shots on Hagler than Hearns and vice versa.

Hearns legs looked rubbery in round 3, while Mugabi in round six took the same barrage of punches and remained on his feet. Mugabi had stronger legs.

Hearns could never KO marvin, but we KNOW Marvin can KO Hearns.

 

Hagler was a much better and more focused fighter when he fought Hearns. Comparing Hagler who fought Hearns to Mugabi is not really accurate. He had his nose broken in sparring training for the fight which would have happened in November of 1985 and the fight was postponed and he was inactive for a year, which was unheard of for Marvin. Most people thought he would stop John in 2 rounds, so he was overrating him I am sure. Mugabi was a guy he didn't know much about and fought him very cautiiously until it started to open up a little in mid rounds. But Mugabi did not hit Marvin that clean. You cannot compare how many rounds someone went with someone. Roldan went 10 rounds with Marvin. And Tommy knocked him out also in 4. He almost stopped Roldan in one.
Mugabi was not a great fighter. He lost to Duane Thomas by a thumbing but then lost to Norris and then McClellen. A sharp Hagler stops Mugabi in one or 2 rounds the same way Norris did.
Hearns could have knocked out Marvin. He rocked him when no one else could and he broke his hand. I never saw anyone else hurt Marvin except Hearns. I absolutely think Tommy could have stopped Marvin and I mean hit Marvin and wobbled him and follow up and Marvin is on the canvas. I absolutely could see this. Tommy would have been more natural at the weight and stronger and fought at a slower pace to get all the leverage behind his punch. A slower pace means Tommy could have moved to his right and go the right cross in from the side, which would have worked much better than punching straight and hitting Marvin flush since Marvin had a strong neck and could take the straight punches better than one from the side. If Tommy could have gotten the punch from the side like he hit Shuler with I think Marvin goes down. I am a believer in this. Marvin had a good style but in a rematch it would have been totally different. That fight was just unheard of. No way they fight that kind of fight in the rematch. No way.

 

I don't agree with those who say Hagler always beats Hearns, 10 out of 10 times. Tommy broke his hand in the first round and got an ill-advised massage the night before, which Steward said contributed to the weakness in his legs. Hearns didn't move and box like he normally did using his jab to set up the right hands. At the same time, Hagler deserves all the credit for not giving Hearns the room to box, keeping the fight at close quarters.

Who knows what happens if Hearns avoids the massage therapy and is able to use his right hand more in the fight. I wouldn't say he beats Hagler but he's certainly capable of out-boxing Hagler and possibly winning a late decision.

 

I tend to take what Steward says with a grain of salt.

Hearns did try to box midway through the first round, and had some success in the middle of the ring, but Hagler cut off the ring and got him on the ropes.

With the game plan Hagler had in that fight and how sharp he was, it's hard for me to picture Hearns winning.

I mean if Hagler fought like he normally does and boxed from the outside more patiently, then yeah, I can see Hearns winning a decision as Hearns was so difficult to outbox and outpoint. But Hagler and the Petronellis were no dummies and knew it was better to go to war up close.

I won't say Hagler beats Hearns 10 out of 10 either though. If you have 10 fights of guys on these caliber, one is bound to have an off night or 2, or the other is bound to have a really "on" night or 2.

 

Can't see it any other way...everybody knows Hagler was crook on Leonard for delaying so long their one and only meeting...and just as crook on him for not offering a re-match.

If you can believe what you read - the book 'The Four Kings' for example - the loss to Leonard took an awfull lot away from Hagler and he may take the disappointment all the way to the grave.

 

The one thing that Hearns never did to Hagler in their fight was go to the body. Perhaps doesn't sound so significant but look at many of Tommy's best performances, certainly later in his career, and he goes to the body often, with great success. Not just as a punishing attack but also to bring the opponent's hands down. If I look at 3 classic Hitman blast outs it's very clear to me that attacks to the body played a big part in forcing the stoppage.

1. Duran - Tommy went to the body quite a bit in this fight - indeed he even floored Roberto with hooks to the body. I think these body attacks softened Duran up and distracted him big time. If you watch the final few seconds of the fight you'll see Tommy jab the midsection of Duran before bringing over the big right; although at that time Duran was basically out on his feet body attacks played their part.
2. Shuler - Tommy went for the body right from the start and hurt his man with ripping left and right hooks to the body. Again for the final KO punch Tommy jabs to the body to bring down the hands and boom, over comes the right and it's goodnight Vienna.
3. Roldan - Life and death struggle for Tommy at times but again body attacks are featured and for the final right hand Tommy went to the body first before flooring Roldan for the full 10 count.

What does this mean for Hearns being able to beat Hagler? Well I feel Tommy would have had more success had he gone to the body, both as a weapon (Hagler was rumoured to be relatively 'weak' around the centre of his stomach) and to distract Marvin and bring down his hands. Could he have stopped Hagler? Well I'm really not sure about that but his odds would have increased for sure.

If Hearns has success with body attacks he might be able to have greater luck against Marvin, to slow him down in the main but also to distract and keep him off balance. After all, it's the punches you don't see coming that really hurt you.

 

a slower pace would have helped Hearns. He could have placed his punches better.

 

Why do some guys claim Hearns would have KO'd Hagler?

Hagler was stunned for a couple of seconds in the first round so what. It was a 15 round fight that went 3.

Hearns sometimes had trouble with stronger, more aggressive fighters who could force him back, i love Tommy, but he did not have a great chin. Hagler did, so Hagler should be given the benefit of the doubt about who would KO who (even if Hearns hand was ok or not).

Hearns had a good hand against Leonard (1981) and got stopped late when Leonard jumped on him like HAGLER later did. Look at rounds 6, 7, 13 and 14 (big rounds for Leonard).

Hearns had a good hand against Barkley but got caught by a sucker punch.

Hagler has never been stopped or anything close to it, he was stunned for a two seconds v Hearns and that's it.

Hagler has better stamina than Hearns and is more durable, i like Hearns to death but these are the FACTS. Even Juan Roldan rocked Hearns several times at Middleweight when Hearns had a good hand.
When Leonard was not able to outbox him, he turned fighter and won. Hagler turned fighter and won.

 

Totally agree.

 

The significant thing is that Hagler was hurt by Hearns when he rarely is. So that alone means that Hearns could have hurt him again had the right hand been intact.

 

I fact that Hearns hurt Hagler in the first round shows had he landed hard right hands he could have stopped Hagler early.

 

Didn't Hearns get stunned in round one? Or was it just Hagler?

 

hearns no way is stopping Hagler early

he stunned hagler for afew seconds then hagler was fine i just dont see a KO for hearns

 

Thank you GPater11093.

 

its obviuos in my mind