The article on the front page of ESB calls Hagler-Hearns the greatest middleweight fight of all time. Agree or disagree? If you disagree which would you have in its place? I personally don't agree. It was a great fight but for sustained, unbridled fury I think you could point to the firsts two Zale-Graziano fights. For prolonged action I think you could point to the Robinson-Basilio. For technical brilliance you could pick a number of Sugar Ray Robinson's fights.
Hagler-Hearns looked great visually. It was colourful, there was a sense of occasion but after the first minute or so it was a one-sided beatdown. Benn v McLellan, Eubank v Watson 2, Eubank v Benn 1 were all world title fights at middle (or supermiddle) that more than matched Hagler-Hearns for ebb and flow and drama of the actual fight itself. The participants lacked Hagler's and Hearns' lustre, and they took place in England rather than Vegas, which does take some of the drama away (and I'm a Brit) but I'd say they were better fights. But that's not the question being asked, is it?
I agree with everything you said sir except for the part about England lacking drama. I love those British fights from the 90s with the huge crowds and the chanting. They were terrific.
It's the familiarity of home soil, I think, Rocky. They just didn't feel as epic as a Vegas night with all the Hollywood a-listers. I forgot Benn - Watson. What a fight and what atmosphere. And a really cracking middleweight fight was Kaylor - Christie - especially the one in the ring.
For edge of the seat drama and back and forth action, I love Hearns-Roldan. Also, Tommy won. But he could have lost at any moment.
