Are Hagler's title challengers underrated?

But his first result against Munroe was overturned in their second encounter and this win significantly improved upon in their rubber match.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I agree, but Hagler breached Hearns' defence most completely and most immediately. And it is no easy task.

I disagree. Toney was in his prime against a past prime Barkley coming down in weight (possibly drained). Toney was at his best, Barkley was beginning a real decline.

Hearns was way past his prime in the second Barkely fight and actually he didn't exactly get hit much against a prime Barkley in the first fight. He just didn't have the chin to take much.

Toney "slickness" against Mike McCallum, Dave Tiberi, Merqui Sosa, Sanderline Williams and Reggie Johnson to a large extent was very inconsistent.

 

He was KO'd by a brutal clean punch because he made a bad defensive mistake. One can throw all the "prime", "past prime", "drained" etc around as much as one wants - at the end of the day the difference in defensive skills in terms of head movement, footwork etc is just impossible to miss IMO.

No, Toney's conditioning was very inconsistent. That's a different thing.

His stamina against Tiberi was perhaps the worst I've seen in a professional fight. He's knackered already in the second round. And when you're that tired it doesn't matter much how skilled you are.

 

I'm not saying that he didn't get the better of Monroe. He did. I'm just saying that Monroe troubled him more than other more highly ranked/rated fighters that probably were better overall but not as good pure boxers. That's a bit of a guess, though, since I haven't watched Monroe - only heard he was a good boxer.

 

Yeah, no comparison whatsoever. This is the first I've ever heard anyone call Hearns "slick."

 

Tommy was very technically skilled offensively. He threw beautiful combos and had one of the best look hooks to the liver I've seen. Also perhaps the only one to feint Duran into knots.

But defensively skilled he was not. His reach and his firepower was his main defensive.

 

Excellent post and you hit the nail on the head - Hearns felt invincible.

 

It's all good in hindsight but quite a few thought Hearns could knock out Hagler after his annihilation of Duran, especially comparative to Haglers effort. Hearns himself felt invincible.

Hagler's durability turned legendary via the Hearns bout. Not many thought it impossible that Hearns could stop him prior to their bout.

Steward wanted him to box for sure but it was always going to be a tough task regardless.

 

That wasn't the mags words, it was a Hearns quote that the mag headlined.

Stewards plan was to box, absolutely.

We have to remember Hearns wasn't miles off having a chance of a cuts stoppage.

 

So you are saying Hearns was slicker than Toney on the inside!?!?!? Come on LOL. Toney was extremely comfortable in the pocket.

 

No, I'm not saying Hearns was at all slick on the inside.
But his movement and jab and boxing skill made him slick overall.

Toney is being overrated. He has what I would call "highlight reel" defensive skills, not consistent defensive skill.
He pulls out a few cute elusive flashy moves now and then and people suddenly forget all the stupid punches he got hit with, or are quick to make excuses.

 

For me, it comes down to how often they get hit.

No, you can't have it both ways. If "prime", "past prime" and "drained" aren't useful in assessing defensive ability (even when comparing in fights concerning the same fighter at different career stages), you can't then turn around and make "conditioning" your excuse for Toney.

A fighter either avoids getting hit or he doesn't.

 

Slick simply means difficult to hit. Hearns long arms, great jab and decent movement made him difficult to hit.

 

The idea that Hearns didn't go in trying to box against Hagler simply doesn't square with the film, that I'm sure we've all seen a million times.

 

Color me confused because i said

You replied

:huh

We'll call it a misunderstanding.