Hagler didn’t stop Roldan under 5 rounds. He took 10 rounds. Hearns win was definitely more impressive and far more conclusive.
How seriously do fellow boxing fans on classic take Roldan's claim of being thumbed or some such in the bout with Hagler? Was he legitimately hard done by bad luck and or ill will from Hagler there?
Leonard sighted the Roldan fight as the point Hagler started to slow down and Hearns was all over the place against Roldan.
Hard to say.. Roldan sure gave both of them trouble with his wild style and awkward punches. I would say Hearns was more impressive because he stopped him in 4, but both fights were good fights just because Roldan was so strong.
it is a decent claim since his eye did almost close up quickly.. I don't think he could have beaten Hagler, but Roldan was so strong he was a guy who had he fought lesser guys than Hagler or Hearns he might have been champion. He was a hurricane. Just wild.
Hagler beat him four years earlier before Roldan had a long layoff. Roldan was at his absolute prime then. So, I would put more weight on Hagler's win.
