Hagler or Hearns? Who was the Bigger Man?

I don't think Hearns had a bigger frame. Hearns had a smaller lighter looking frame, but he was 6-1 1/2 so he forced himself to gain weight to win titles and use his height and reach. It was just a matter of doing something unique, which Hagler didn't push himself to do. Hearns was willing to test himself more than Hagler in higher weights and put himself at a disadvantage. Hagler always wanted the advantage of being stronger.

When Hearns won the 175 pound title he had to eat all the time and even late at night just to make 173. I always thought Hagler was the bigger guy at 160, but with Hearns height he could go higher even though he was not that natural at 175 or 190, he could go higher than Hagler above 160, yet Hagler was stronger at 160. It is hard to explain. Hagler was bigger at 160, but Hearns could fight better at 175 and 190 than Hagler because of his superior speed jab and power. Odd explanation but true. At 160 Hagler made it a war and took those things away from Hearns in a way Virgil Hill and others above 160 could not. So I give him credit, but Hearns would have won the rematch against Hagler, which is why Hagler never fought him again.
Another reason I admire Hearns so much is because I think he could have been even greater than he ended up being. His warrior mentality and need to score knockouts made him vulnerable to being hit or countered.

 

Hagler was the bigger man.

 

Hagler for sure.