Ana;yzing leonard-hearns 1

Tommy was a great fighter who could box and Ray couldn't reach him. As Ray said later when Hearns would get close then he could counter Hearns, but for him to walk in and get hit by the right hand it was not something he wanted. He had to wait for Tommy to get close and then counterpunch. Had Tommy boxed all night and not been close, Hearns would have won an easy decision. Tommy was great, but he could not just win decisions and be boring. He had to try and stop guys. It was in his nature to try to knock a guy out if he could. Had he been a guy like Roy Jones he would have won all his fights by boxing. He couldn't do it because of the prospect of being a boring fighter and the crowd not having been entertained. Tommy Hearns really believed in entertaining the crowds. If he was hitting a guy easily he would try and stop him, and he would get countered in the process. I think he figured it was worth it, rather than be boring.

 

Interesting analysis on hearns MAG.
Dont you think with a right hand like hearns' it was well worth him trying to bomb guys out? Not just for entertainment value but to win the fight early. I mean many of his great wins come by way of awesome bombage,and over great opposition as well..
I could see your point against leonard,but what could he have done with an out of character raging performance that was 85 hagler?

 

I don't recall Leonard going "flat".
I recall Hearns starting to be way more careful and to box in a very effective way.

I'ts like saying DLH stopped jabbing on purpose against Mayweather...
I don't get that.