Hagler or Hearns? Who was the Bigger Man?

Id say hearns went on to achive more. But in terms of skill and toughness id say hagler has the edge

 

Hearns was over 6ft. Whereas Hagler was 5'9/10(?)

Hearns was the bigger man.

 

:hey

 

Both men were GIANTS!!!

 

A better question would be who whould you be more afraid of when he breaks in your house to give you a beating hagler or hearns!

 

Hagler.

 

Hearns knocks you out, Hagler brutalises you for 20 minutes 1st

 

Neither of the two would scare me. They need to go through speeding 9mm bullets and if these didn't stop them, a 20" jungle bolo definitely would.

 

Hagler `

 

Hagler would not have much success in this era. He would fare well against American-level middleweights such as Guerrero, Porter, Jacobs, Taylor, Spinks, Wright, Williams, and Kirkland, but lose to Euro-level professionals like Sylvester, Sturm, Zbik, and Bursak.

 

I agree that these guys would beat the current version of Hagler but a prime Hagler would hulk smash everyone listed...although matchups with Wright, pre-prison Kirkland and Sturm would be competitive.

 

A prime Hagler would lose a wide UD to Sebastian Sylveter, Sebastian Zbik, and Felix Sturm. He would be outboxed comprehensively. I have analyzed these match-ups in exhaustive detail, decisively making conclusions using the best available evidence. You cannot reasonably dispute my findings.

 

Well, there you have it then...I guess if you have analyzed the matchups then there's really no need for any further discussion:roll:.

 

At the time they fought, Hagler was considered the larger man. Hearns had a couple of fights at MW, but was considered more of a 154 lb fighter, and even defended his 154 lb. title a year after the Hagler fight. In one of The Ring's issues in 2005 (http://static.boxrec.com/wiki/0/0d/RING.2005.VolumeIV.jpg), they showed the articles around the time and the perception of some was that Hearns, despite his height and range, was the smaller man. Petronelli kept saying that one of the main reasons why Hagler would win is because he was a great middleweight, while Hearns was great at lower weights.

Hearns later proved though that he had the size and skills to succeed at MW and higher. Ask Virgil Hill.