Hagler Hearns rematch

Tommy hurt Hagler early in the 1st round with his right hand, this fight was all about inches and fractions.

 

Hearns hurt his right hand, he was strill fighting well with his lead hand though and might have kept Hagler off him if he didn`t damage the right hand, Hagler could not maintain that pace forever if he tired he would no longer be able to resist the power in Hearns shots and would be knocked out, it would just be a question of who went first, this bout was on a knifeedge, fans are being hindsight minded and not doing this epic justice at all, Tommy was a force at this stage even at middle.

 

Hagler was very durable. Hearns was not. Thus, Hagler difinitevly knocked him out. It wasn't like Hagler got him with a lucky punch.

If Hearns had moved and boxed, he would have lasted a lot longer. But, eventually Hagler would have gotten inside and then knocked dTommy out. It would have been a mid to late rounds tko for Hagler instead of an early rounds ko.

If they rematch, Hearns is stopped again. Probably a longer fight, though.

But, it doesn't matter because there was little demand for a rematch except by Hearns and his loyalists who felt Hearns fought the wrong fight and had the broken hand excuse.

Hearns was a great fighter, but did have several limiting factors that made him extremely vulnerable to someone with the right style and attributes to exploit these weaknesses.

 

We saw the fight. We saw Hagler walk through Hearns. We saw Hearns punish Iran Barkley for two plus rounds and then saw Barkley mow Hearns down in convincing fashion. If you could walk through Hearns best punches, get inside his reach, then unleashed your own power shots, he was toast, or as was the case in the Kinchen fight, almost toast. On the inside, he had little defense, which exposed his below average chin.

 

Hearns may have lobbied hard, but I really doubt Hagler cared much about a rematch. He may have taken it for the money. I am actually glad it didn't happen because Hearns didn't really deserve it after such a convincing beatdown.

Usually, when a champion destroys a challenger in definitive fashion, there is no rematch.

I'm glad Leonard got the shot, and we got a competitive and historic fight.

 

If that is so easy to do when he would have more than 4 guys who beat him in an almost 70 fight career and only 3 when he was a top fighter. Hagler was up in weight, and I still think Hearns had a good chance to beat him. Not by KO but by TKO. You can simplify Tommy's career, if you walk through his punches he was toast. He beat great fighters and lost to some greats but usually won.

 

The success of both Hearns and Hagler, in their Double-Header, in '86, meant that their re-match was the natural next step - promotionally. However, re-matching Hearns would have been solely about the money, for Hagler. He was verging on retirement.

Hearns was really only seeking to make big money by then, too - though, he was likely keen on the potential for a legacy-repairing opportunity, as well. Hearns was clearly more motivated than Hagler, at that time.

It's hard to gauge how a second fight between them might have worked out - other than Hagler probably would have won again, by KO. However, as I think about it right now, it's difficult to imagine it not being a different type of battle; tougher for Hagler to get to Hearns early on, but getting to him eventually, nonetheless, with Hearns waning then falling, in more or less the same way, as before.

Arum was trying to make it happen and felt sure, at the time, that Hagler would continue for the right price. In the end, however, Leonard piped up, within a couple of months after Hagler/Mugabi - knowing that it was then or never...

 

I know Hearn's hit him early but I have never seen where he seriously hurt Hagler at all .. there was no rematch because in reality it was a brief fight and very conclusive ending. On the biggest scale again Hearn's showed what kept him below the best of the best, a shaky chin and iffy stamina. That said one never knows and it could have been interesting.

 

There was no rematch because Ray came out of retirement in May of 1986 ending talk of that fight which already happen in favor of one which didn't. Hearns had the skills to beat Hagler, he fought a stupid fight and a slower pace fight helps him. Do I think he could have won? I don't know, but I think in this case it is different than others because of the way the fight was fought. Both guys fought unusually dumb, and the stronger man won. I just look at how easy it was for Hearns to hit Hagler in this fight. That is what makes me think Hagler would catch all the punches and it would be yes interesting.

 

I think it was a combination of that but also as I wrote it was a great few rounds but not that competitive a fight. Hagler flattened him in under three rounds and the image of Hearns being carries out of the ring in a handlers arms influenced a lot of folk. Both men then did not fight for a whole year. Months past Mugabi is when Leonard started discussing the fight as a possibility he'd consider so your taking fifteen months from the first fight. AS far as the fight , Hearn's just could not keep Hagler off him and could not take his power.

 

It is a totally different fight the rematch Hearns coming in at a slower pace with Hearns punching more pinpoint with no broken hand. Totally different better placed punches, Hagler face was swelling at the end of round one. He rocked Hagler and hurt him and I think it is a very interesting rematch. I don't think it is easy for Hagler and a different fight than the first. The first was a little flukish in how they fought.. I think the lefts to the body would be a big thing against Hagler, but I admit Hearns fought a stupid fight.

 

The Hearns of the Shuler fight, light on his feet, ripping hooks to the body, using the jab to control the distance, would have had a better chance of success if they had ever fought a rematch. If Tommy fights this fight, he'd have more success and I recall Alan Minter saying that if Hagler had a weakness, it was to the body. Bottom line is that Hearns had to fight a perfect fight for success whereas Hagler could make mistakes and still prevail.

 

Exactly
Hearns lands
Hagler steps back, then holds on a for a second
"And it's a good left by Hagler!"

 

It's not quite as bad as that. Hagler took the right, leg folded underneath him and then was bobbing on the ropes for 10-15 seconds.

He clearly was hurt for that small period.

 

his whole body was affected by that punch. And Hearns saw it and tried to load up again, but Hagler took the punch well and kept on punching. Had Hearns not broken his hand seconds later I think it would have been very interesting. The punch which hurt Hagler hit him on the side of the head. Which is what would have been needed to hurt Hagler, not the straight punch which would hurt Hearns hand.