Did Hagler face a peak Hearns?

Tommy won more titles than just 147 and 154 but in fact all the way to 175 twice and in between, 160 & 168.

 

Hearns was no way peak at 160- his chin was fairly weak and his punch power, while still impressive, didn't have the same effect on opponents as it did at 147 and 154. Let's face it, a peak Tommy doesn't run out of gas in the 2nd round.

 

I think you meant 147 and 154, but great call. At 160 pounds Tommy's strengths were dulled a little and his weaknesses a little more exposed. Still a great fighter at 160, hellacious to fight and a great win for anybody, but not peak.

 

Following the Hagler fight, Hearns would continue to fight for another 20 years, and pick up an additonal 3 world titles, or something like that. What's more, 2 of those belts came at lightheavyweight. Some have already argued that the 160 range, was not Thomas's best, and this may be true. Neverthless, however Hearns, although not at his peak, was still pretty close to it in my opinion.

 

I would assert that the Hearns who walked into the ring against Hagler was peaking. He was 26 years old, very experienced, and in full possession of demon speed and physical maturity. Let's not forget that the man was 6'1. Let's not forget that his frame allowed him to carry 175 easily as he matured. Look at his back muscles.

However, he was a physical freak too. His chin couldn't quite absorb MW shots, and their chins were a bit structurally stronger.

Hearns was most deadly at 154, but he was peaking at 160 against Hagler...

 

This bit needs a little further explaining i think, it almost reads to the casual fan as if Hearn's had his career ahead of him. Hearn's fought at a world class level for about another 8 years, but was quite declined in the latter stage. 20 years takes us to 2005 when Hearn's had his first bout for 5 years at the age of 46 or 47. His cruiserweight efforts from 1994 on were woeful affairs. Duran fought for 20 years after the SRL fights (Far too long like Hearn's and millions of others) but that doesn't tell us he already had basically a full career behind him at 135.

Sorry to nitpick, just wanted to expand a little.

 

Very true. And I was well aware of the fact that Thomas was not much useful after his 1991 victory over Virgil Hill. Still however, he was in pretty top form in 1985. Weather or not he was at his best, is subject to opinion, and I would agree with authors who state that he wasn't 100%. I hold with my anitial claim that he was probably close though. The real question should be, was Hagler at his best? My answer to such a question would be that Marvin was probably further past his peak than Hearns was.

 

As i say, i reckon Hearn's was peak time but not peak weight, he could easily make 154 still and lost some advantages at 160 while also having a couple of slight weaknesses stand out more.

 

Hearns no doubt got stronger as he moved up to 154 and even 160, but in doing so he lost all the advantages that made him so formidable at 147: his height, reach and power in comparison to his opponents. Yes he got better at 154 and 160, but the gap between him and his opponents closed and he was no longer as good against his opponents at 154 and 160 as he was at 147. That's why I always consider 147 his peak.

I use the same argument for DLH. He got stronger at 147 than what he was 135 and 140, but is biggest advantages in power, strength and height were at 135 and 140. Those were his peak weights.

But I digress.... Hearns was not "peak" by my criteria against Hagler (peak being defined here as the optimum one fights at IN COMPARISON to his opponents).

 

Nice post, we've debated the merits of 147 vs 154 with Tommy, but at the end of the day there's not much splitting us

:good

 

True mate, we've said it all before. An argument can certainly be made that Hearns strengthening up at 154 made him most formidable there (even if his height and reach wasn't as much of a factor there as it was at 147), but there's not much doubt that argument becomes weaker when made in reference to fighting at 160.

 

Indeed. The best Hearns we ever seen was probably the Leonard version. The strongest Hearns was certainly the Hagler version.

I always said that the Hitman at welterweight could have been the best fighter ever seen (even better than Robison) if he had an iron chin.

 

Hearn's with a chin, goodness hahaha. Lookout world. SS and i had a decent discussion on Tommy at 154 vs 147, i lean toward 154 being his best due to his learning experience (Clinching, pacing at times etc) vs Leonard, a loss that i don't think adversely affected him at all while also giving him better self perspective. I am perfectly willing to recognise your and SS's side of the debate however. SS and i both agree 160 was not his best, but i still believe he could take out some of the top 10 ATG Middleweights.

 

I never desagreed with what you said.