the Caveman is an awesome fight. It is just hard to compare the fights. Each was great in its own way. Hagler/Hearns was great for the fact two great fighters and to come out like that with both having in mind to stop the other one was great. No other opening round compares and both were hurt. Mancini/Frias was similar. Mancini had it in his mind to do what Hagler did, and Frias countered and engaged. Very close mindset, but Hagler and Hearns were equal more than Frias was with Mancini. The Caveman Lee fight was great. I thought LoCicero was out and then he came back only to be stopped. It is too bad that with fights were the guys put their all that someone has to lose. But we always remember both guys when we think back I suppose. The difference between a fight like Caveman Lee and LoCicero and Hagler and Hearns is Hagler and Hearns came out right off and Caveman Lee and John worked into that when one got hurt then hurt the other and a war started. Different types of fights. Both fight types are still huge hearts with all guys involved.
Hagler's performance in this fight is one of the greatest displays of a fighter changing from his usual style and doing it well.
Is it just me or has every recent enough casual fan who knows jack**** about Hagler just assumed that's his regular style because the fight is so damn famous and they haven't really bothered watching anymore Hagler fights?
It is not just you. Look at any Hagler mythical matchup thread and there's always people going "oh, Hagler's pressure and ferocity is too much, he'll knock out so and so inside 4 rounds". I just read some guy on another board picking Hagler to stop Hopkins in 2 rounds. The "Hagler was a brawler" myth has long been one of my boxing pet peeves. It's like people watching Mayweather against Judah/Mosley and then thinking Mayweather always walked opponents down behind a high guard.