Could Hearns have ever beat Hagler?

Honestly, I don't think so....If the Hagler that showed up that night he fought Hearns, fought him 10 times he would win 10 times. He was aggressive leaving Hearns no breathing room and no room for error. Not to mention he ate his right hands like they were nothing in their bout.(except the one that stunned and cut him)

Hagler is all wrong for Hearns.

 

By 1987 Hagler could be taken by most anyone. He didnt even try to reclaim his title.

Even Antuofuermo admitted it in an ESPN interview before the Leonard fight that Hagler was ready to be taken by anyone except for Leonard.

 

You couldn't ****in' help yourself.

Personally, I don't see Hearns beating Hagler under any circumstances. Marvin was a great boxer, he had great reach, and would have been competitive in an outside fight almost as well as he was inside. He'd have hit Hearns at some point, and injured hand or not, Hearns cannot stand up to Hagler's power at 160lb. Nobody stops Marvin at 160lb, so Hearns would have had to outbox Marvin for 15 rounds, and he couldn't keep that up against the smaller Leonard.

 

He was coming off of top wins over heanrs and very dangerous mugabi. Did he suddenly age overnight? How does he drop off so much from 1985 to 1987 like you claim?

 

Because by doing so, it would reduce Leonard's seemingly unbelievable win to just a blip on Hagler's record. Agenda.

If a fighter has just brutally stopped two huge hitters in Mugabi, undefeated, and Hearns, a certified ATG, then one has to assume he's in pretty good nick.

 

the way Saad Muhammud dropped off between 1979 and 1981; Wars of attrition

I thought by now you would have caught on to this.

 

So you want to engage me but not directly. Isnt that what you're trying to do?

Now you kow you shouldn't speak up unless you actually have the skills and the nerve to converse with me.

 

Hagler was starting to slip in 83 I think, the Roldan fight showed it. or maybe it was just a bad matchup.

Anyway I think Marv would have always found a way to get to Tommy. And Hearns instinct to engage and bomb would always be his undoing in this matchup. So a perfect storm.

However if TH could get on his bike and move. maybe he could get a stoppage on a cut. Both showed questionable judgement and tactics at times.

 

Hagler always beats Hearns. IMO.

 

i cant say that hearns would beat hagler 5 times out of 10 but could he have ever beaten hagler?

oh yea i think so,

anyone could be anyone on different days especially world class fighters and especially especially great great fighters like hagler and hearns.

there where two factors that i was thinking that hearns had a decent chance in a rematch.

the back and fourth epic flow of the fight and hearn's brocken hand.

 

Probably not anywhere near their respective primes. I doubt that Hearns, even with his fabulous power, could take Hagler out, and Hagler would never let Tommy's somewhat dodgy stamina and chin have the time and space he'd need to get a decision.

Maybe 1 out of 10 Tommy finds a way to win, but I can't think of how.

 

I believe he would have outpointed Hagler had it been him in the ring instead of Leonard. Hagler would probably not have initiated a war and Hearns would have been content to stick and move. Hearns was a much better boxer than Leonard. Had Hagler initiated a war, I am concerned about his health given how slow he was by the time he fought Leonard. Leonard couldn't hurt Hagler. Hearns could.

But could Hearns have beaten a prime Hagler? No. Hagler was took good. He was the best of the bunch of that era, although I will concede Duran was the best boxer.

 

Sure he could have, which is why there was no rematch. I'd make Hagler favorite, but Hearns would have good chance, especilly a couple of years after their bout, because Hearns was more physically mature by then.