I think had Hearns had a few more rounds of gas he could have really had Hagler tired and swelling. Hagler was tiring in round 3. But Tommy was more tired. They were just totally punched out.
I think a lot of people have a different conception of what Fight of the Year (by Ring Magazine) has been over the years — it wasn’t conceived as ‘the best action bell to bell of the year.’ It was the biggest, most important fight that also had good action or some drama. I guarantee you that if you saw every fight in the world every year and were choosing just on ‘action-packed, ebb and flow, slugfest where the fighters trade bombs from bell to bell’ you’d end up with a lot of 4-, 6- and 8-rounders from the Silver Slipper or Olympic Auditorium or some bingo hall in NYC or tin-roofed, dirt-floored building in Mexico or South America. It’s easy in the age of televised fights (much less YouTube) to say ‘well this other fight was better,’ but even then some non-televised fight was probably better than that. The annual awards of a magazine are going to be geared toward fight fans who might buy magazines. To pick an obscure eight-rounder in Johannesburg over a highly-anticipated showdown doesn’t make sense through that lens. Take Leonard-Hagler for instance. It was a literal fantasy fight between two ATGs that we seemed destined never to see. Given Leonard’s layoff and Hagler’s dominant run and being the natural middleweight, most people expected Marvin to wear Ray down and eventually stop him. Instead we got an electric event that had the crowd (live and closed circuit around the world) riveted from start to finish … whatever you think of the decision. It was a contrast in styles with drama and shifts in momentum. It was not, of course, a war — but I’m 100% not of the mind that only toe-to-toe slugfests are great fights. In short, it overdelivered. And it’s the one fight in the entire world that year that every boxing fan on every continent was interested in. (And as for anyone listing Leonard-Hearns I as overrated … geez, what exactly do you want in a fight? Does skill not count for something? Willpower to seize and change momentum? Game-plan adjustments at the highest level? To me it’s the greatest welterweight championship fight of all time, and I’d like to know what someone considers better.) Hey, everyone’s opinion matters and this is not me telling anyone they’re wrong, but there are reasons we’re still talking about a lot of these ‘overrated’ fights so long after they took place … and it’s not because they’re dull.
I loved The Brawl in Montreal when I saw it live. Talk about electricity. The established quality of the fighters, the reputations at stake, the pre fight malice and real time atmosphere overall provided for some seriously pumping adrenalin even before opening bell sounded. Usually, such anticipation will only set you up for some measure of let down. Not this fight. It delivered….and then some. The irony of The Brawl for me is:- I revisited the fight a little while back, first full viewing since watching it live - recollecting that it did unpack as a brawl, a back alley street fight - so I figured it wouldn’t look as good as it seemed at the time - with the real time context and drama removed. I was happily wrong, at least IMO. Ignoring the names of the players and context, it still held up as a GREAT fight in its own right.. A slugfest yes - but a highly skilled one at that. It certainly got rough - but I didn’t think there was too much clinching or holding - IMO, those tactics were employed in perfect balance and as properly intended - brief in duration and as a means to the main end of getting in there to punch the sh*t out of each other. Certainly, I didn’t see clinching and holding just for its own sake or employed as a spoiling, pre med strategy. There was very little in the way of lulls in the action. The hands from both ends always moving. Action filled, round after round, even the commentary noted that they surely couldn’t keep up the frenetic action - YET, round after round, they did keep up the pace and kept delivering - over the old school 15 rounds no less. The rematch was good but relatively boring. Smart on Ray’s part and well executed but still comparatively boring. Though Ray lost the first fight, give me Leonard’s insane, gutsy fighting off the ropes in Montreal every day of the week. After soaking brutal punishment head and body, Leonard periodically pulled the trigger to launch lightning fast, power laden combos, punching through Duran’s heavy duress and rattling Roberto on more than a few occasions. Leonard’s salvos were similar to Ali periodically coming alive in Manila after taking a protracted pummelling on the ropes from Smok’n’ Joe. We can determine that Leonard was ill strategised the first time around but, at the same time, we can be highly thankful that he was - otherwise we wouldn’t have seen the great fight that we did. An interesting thing to muse on would be to consider fights that actually looked better on subsequent viewings - as opposed to your original, real time impressions. For one example, for me, upon repeat viewings Ali vs Shavers was a better quality fight overall than I remembered, particularly given the desperate fighting over the Championship rounds.
I have more: Floyd Patterson vs Ingemar Johansonn 3: This fight is disgustingly overrated. I don't understand the greatness of the fight. It was sloppy with no actual dramatic moments and not much trading punches. Literally every fight from Doug Jones are WAY more entertaining, such as against Folley, Machen, Foster and Ali. Every other Patterson fight is also better than that one, his bout with Quarry, Chuvalo and Ali (2nd) are more entertaining. Lennox Lewis vs Vitali Klitschko: This fight was ugly and very sloppy. Other than those dramatic uppercuts that Lewis landed on Vitali's head, I remember the fight was filled with lots of wrestling and mauling. Literally every fight from the 2000s are way more entertaining than Lewis-Vitali such as Brewster-Liakhovich and Sanders-Vitali.
Dynamicpuncher, I feel that the Leonard-Hagler fight was a pretty good one. And I agree with you that the Hagler-Hearns fight wasn’t great after round 1. I believe that the first Pryor-Arguello fight was the best bout I’ve ever seen, better than Hagler-Hearns or Ali-Frazier III.
Foreman vs Lyle- pitiful conditioning, crude slugging, porous defense….and then gets discussed as if it was a classic. Never been more disappointed in a fight than this one.
I don’t think anyone has argued that it’s a tribute to the Sweet Science at its sweetest. It’s just a good old-fashioned donnybrook with two big sluggers bludgeoning each other til one of them can no longer go on. No quarter asked nor given. It’s sort of like Citizen Kane is considered by classicists as the greatest movie of all time, but it’s boring as all get-out. Foreman-Lyle is more Fast and Furious … it’s just fun.
Magnificent post. As i started to read this thread i had similar idea's running through my head and then i come to this.
Love this post, truly. But that doesn't take away how terrible some of the picks they award for the fight of the year. Like, it still blows my mind how they could pick Ali-Spinks instead of Holmes-Norton in 1978. Today, many are complaining the fact that last year's pick was awful and Gonzalez-Estrada 2 should've deserve the title Tho your thoughts about Leonard-Hearns 1 are excellent, but I still don't care. That fight sucks
