Better fight: Leonard-Hearns 1 or 2?

Tommy in his 4th year is hardly one to be compared with the sleek, peak 154 pound version

did I not say Tommy would not have survived the 1989 rematch in a 15 rounder???

How does this suggest a bias against Ray Leonard?

 

Both awesome fights but I went with the first

 

Ray was only a few months ahead of him in pro experience. You seem to be rather heavily playing up Hearns' relative inexperience when frankly no such thing existed at that point.

Just friendly banter here, by the way, it's all good stuff.

 

Even more important than Hearns' experience is the way he filled out at 154, 160

comparing each man's experience by 1981 we see Leonard's competition was more demanding: Benitez, Duran twice, Kalule
Hearns: Only Cuevas

In 1984, Hearns now had Cuevas, Benitez and easy rubout of Duran under his belt. He was CRUISING to victory!

I do think Leonard waited too long for a rematch though and that he should have stayed active after the Howard fight

 

For the sheer talent and to young fighters at the height of their careers the first fight was incredible.
The second fight was incredible in an entertainment perspective in that you had too all-time greats passed their best but still giving everything in an attempt to win.

 

Easily the 2nd fight. More entertaining.

 

Leonard-Hearns II for me, and Hearns should have been given the Nod too.

 

Both was too awesome to choose one over the other,but I pick the first because of the style shifting thru the fights and that fight proved Leonard can brawl,and I'd even dare to say most of his best performances was when he got into this swarming style.

 

It’s like a play in five acts as they kept adjusting and then counter-adjusting. Absolute drama.

I think it’s the best welterweight championship fight in history, which says a lot.

The second was fun. The first was better as two ATG welters played chess with the chess pieces made of dynamite.

 

With context, It is a toss up. The Rematch was Tommys most important fight for him in his career, even more than the first fight.
Hearns definately wasnt as mentally mature as SRL in their first fight and it obviously showed. Did it matter in the long run? No SRL wins either way. Leonard simply was the stronger, more well rounded fighter. Period. Was Hearns " green " or get that excuse? no. But if the context leading up to the fight is taking into conideration, Tommy blew it , botched his weight. Was a cocky **** thinking he would KO Ray easily. Sort of like how Haglar thought he was going to easily outbox Ray, same exact thing. Both cocky.

Now, why was it Hearns' most important fight ever for him? Because Ray made him wait 8 years for it. Leonard cherry picked that fight hoping Tommy was shopworn when in fact Tommy was the warrior still extremely active taking big fights while Ray used his popularity to go in and out of retirement taking fights. . And it backfired on Ray, Tommy dropped him twice and Leonard lost the fight.
Ray was menatlly tougher than both Hearns and Haglar. The 81 fight is in the top 5 greatest fights in the sport imo. These 2 were great friends before the 81 fight as they both supported each others careers since the amatuers.

" Tommy Hearns made me and I made Tommy Hearns. And we didnt even know it then. " ... SRL

 

I like their first throw best.

I met Hearns many times.

Got to meet Leonard.

I doubt Hearns would remember me, Leonard might.

I fought on the Team Michigan vs Team Leonard amateur card at the Palace.

I don't know if Leonard was even at the show doe.

I had met him one time maybe a year or so earlier.

Jackie had worked out me meeting Leonard and a few other boxers out of our amateur gym.

Long Live Thomas Hearns!!!

Ray, you're great too, but you aint from Detroit.

 

Yeah, action wise it was better. But the first was a rare prime for prime affair for maximum stakes and had that dramatic ending, which gives it the edge imo.

 

"Only Cuevas"? Curry was a club fighter now? He gave Benitez all he could handle and Hearns demolished him.

I agree with Sal, you're quite one-sided when measuring the scales. Also only mention the mileage on Hearns's clock for the rematch, not on the 33-year old Leonard's. Hearns would after all go on to one-sidedly beat Hill two years later. The same year that Leonard had his ass handed to him by Norris.

 

The first one.
Part of a fight being good isn’t just how much overall action there is, but also massive comebacks when one guy has to get the knockout, that’s one of the most dramatic things that can happen in a fight.

A fight that has non stop action, but there’s no back and forths (one guy has success, then the other guy has success) or no one even gets rocked in the fight, I actually wouldn’t say that’s particularly entertaining, especially if neither guy has power because, no matter how much action there is, you know it’s not gonna lead to anything, this doesn’t apply to the Hearns Leonard rematch, just stating what I feel is necessary for a fight to be entertaining.

That’s why back and forth rounds or massive comebacks in fights are more important IMO for an entertaining fight.