Hagler Hearns rematch

Hearns likely would have done better and lasted longer in a rematch, because he’d presumably fight a much smarter fight. Still probably gets hurt and stopped eventually though. Hearns was fortunate, and had to hold on for dear life, to survive against Roldan and Kinchen (and we know how the Barkley fights went).

 

He started to struggle more at that time with Roldan and Barkley and Kinchen. I am not sure why. Maybe he declined at that point. It was after he moved up to light heavyweight, and we saw what happened to Jones after moving to heavyweight. Sometimes those big jumps up in weight and then moving down might not be great ideas. Even during the Roldan fight Hagler said, maybe that move back from light heavyweight weakened Tommy. Since he saw Tommy not fighting so well.

 

Going into the Hagler - Mugabi/Hearns - Schuler double header these four fighters were rated the top 4 middleweights in the world.

Hearns, coming straight off the Hagler loss destroyed Schuler in 73 seconds. Mugabi was beaten by Hagler. This put Hearns in a pretty solid position for a rematch and there really wasn't much behind these guys in the ratings at the time.

Hagler - Hearns has been bandied around by plenty as the greatest first round and single round in boxing history. Irregardless of whether one agree's or not it was immense. The fight was not a "convincing beatdown". Hagler may have taken over by the end of round 1 but that opening round was electrifying and no-one was thinking "beatdown".

There really wasn't anywhere else for Hagler to go than Hearns, Leonard or retirement.

Ray Arcel stated Hagler come off worse for wear tho he won the fight and would not be looking to go thru that again even in victory.

 

Hagler sleeps Hearns 10/10. No doubt or question bout it.
Hagler is the greatest Mexican boxer ever.

 

I don't see it. 10 out of 10 against Hearns? No, that right hand of Hearns would have stopped Hagler at some point... I think so. I am a big
Hearns fan, yet I do see his weaknesses. Which were his own doing. If he had a Roy Jones mentality of safety first, he would have been so troublesome for most guys. I actually think Barkley style is worst for Hearns than Haglers. Hearns could outbox anyone. I think 10 fights. Hearns wins 3 and Hagler 7. Hagler had the weight advantage and the chin and all that, but I do think this.. As time goes on Hearns starts to win the fights and Hagler starts to lose. Hearns gets better and better. Hagler would not like being hit with that right hand over and over. I don't care how good his chin was.. He lucked out Hearns breaking his hand no matter what. Hearns would have kept throwing big rights and it would have made it a little harder for Marvin. No wonder he was not too thrilled to get back in the ring, but why should he? He beat Hearns fair and square and knocked him out. Hearns came out fighting stupid and paid the price and his legacy was hurt somewhat by it. Great fight, but he still lost and Hagler won, and Hagler deserves credit. He gambled and won.. And it was not a big gamble. He was a natural middleweight with a great chin.

 

Mexicans adopted him as one of their own. Guerra.

 

Only a Hearns loyalist would think Hearns would ever KO Hagler.

I am a Saad Muhammad loyalist, but I don't think he would ever have KOd Dwight Braxton.

You have to have the objectivy to judge all match-ups, even when your favorite is involved. Wishful thinking is easily spotted by more objective posters.

 

He absolutely has a "chance" to KO Hagler. He has the power to do it and he broke his hand in the fight. He wobbled Hagler good. I do not think you have to be a loyalist to understand this.

 

It broke on impact with Hagler's hard head. It landed full force and little happened. The naturally much smaller Cuevas and Duran couldn't take it. The natural 160 lb but mediocre chinned Shuler couldn't take it. But the natural 160 lb. with solid chins Singletary, DeWitt, Sutherland, Barkley and especially Hagler, could take it.

You could maybe argue that Hearns would have a chance to stop Hagler on cuts.

But, Hagler showed in their actual fight, that when badly cut, he could turn on the pressure and get Hearns out of there.

I guess you're not a Hearns loyalist, just lacking logic.

 

Yes he did. And I didn't say otherwise. I do not think Hagler wins 10 out of 10 … How is that lacking logic? Not giving Hearns any chance 10 out of 10 is foolish

 

I am objective. Hagler has a great style to beat Hearns. He is strong, he comes forward and he warms up and comes on the attack more and more as he builds momentum. He can switch etc, and Hearns landing a right when Marvin is southpaw is tough since he would have to punch more straight down the middle and hurt his hand more since Marvin's head would move less if Hearns lands a straight punch down the middle than a punch more from the side if Marvin is righty, which is the problem. Hearns would have to jab and slow down the pace. Almost wait for Marvin to go righty and try and land his big rights after landing some body punches when Marvin is southpaw. I think Hearns jab and power are enough to hurt Marvin and break up his face. To say he has no chance, when Marvin's face was swelling in round one of their fight is not about a favorite. Hearns was an offensive guy who could bust up anyone's face regardless of hurting them.

 

you cannot say Cuevas and Duran could not take it. They took punches, and those were not one punch knockouts. Accumulative. Obviously it is different from Dewitt or Sutherland or Barkley, in that those guys fought more in a shell. Duran and Cuevas gave more opportunity for counter. And Barkley was a round from being stopped in 1988. He was folding over with body punches in round 3.. I can say this, Hagler is a great fighter and strong but Hearns hit him very easily. and if that fight goes 5 rounds for example, Marvin is swelled up.. It is not a fight you can say Hagler would win too easily. He had to change his whole style to get close to Hearns , and he got cut up and rocked.