Hagler v Hearns is one of the most overrated fights ever.

Nothing to bring on. I agree. Great first round but thereafter, it was like watching another Hagler execution, with added bloodshed.

 

2012 called, they want their overdone discussion back.

 

it's very exciting on first view. casuals love to bring it up because they've never watche a full fight so they talk about Tyson executions and this fight. UFC fans bring it up alot when they get stuck in a boxing discussion because Joe Rogan talked it up. but yes, loses some of the excitement when you've seen more and more fights but i also think boxing tends to desensitize you to it's own drama. which is why many of us like to put a little bet on it occasionally haha.

i also didn't watch it live, so i can't really know how that must have felt, not knowing the outcome beforehand and not having it hyped as the greatest 3 rounder ever.

 

I think reason why people say it, is mostly from the people who saw it live.

And the fact it was two of the top boxers at that time aswell. Like for example it would of been comparable to Pacquiao/Mayweather going hell for leather.

Can you imagine how hyped you would of been, seeing Mayweather/Pacquaio fighting like that ?

So with hindsight yes maybe it is a tad overrated, but at that time seeing two of the best boxers going at it like that ? No it's not overrated.

 

The hype before the fight played a huge role. Context is everything.

 

It is overrated but in terms of excitement and action it deserves a top 30 spot in my opinion. You have to give both guys props for facing each other at their best and leaving it all in the ring. When was the last time that happened lol? You'll have guys arguing on twitter for years nowadays and sometimes the fight never happens.

 

You may feel differently if you watched it live at the time.
I agree in a lot of ways, but watching the action unfold and not knowing who was going to win was high drama.

And don't forget the cut... that added a LOT to the drama as well.

 

Agreed. The fight was decent. Hearns threw everything he had at Hagler. Hagler took it. After a few minutes you realize Hagler was going to win and the fight became slower until Hagler knocked him out.

The most exciting fight between two top level guys where you didn't know who was going to win was George Foreman vs Ron Lyle but that fight doesn't get nearly the love as Hearns vs Hagler does.

 

I remember the day that it happened very clearly. Hurrying after work to get to my friend's house just as the introductions ended. That first round was electric and thrilling but, even then, it was clear that Hearns was done. It became a matter of time after the first 2 minutes.

 

Very fair points indeed and like Manny-Mayweather only with each being prime rather than each being past their best.

And after the damp squib superfights we have had since - yes, de la Hoya v Trinidad, I mean you - it had the two protagonists throwing everything at each other from the get go. And unlike the superfights we are served up now, they were boxers not MMA stars or youtube vloggers. Jesus wept. That last sentence isn't an exaggeration.

So, after the event, the fight as a whole doesn't quite stack up, for me, in terms of shifting momentum. But to see two men vying for the mythical lb for lb crown, both ATGs, both prime and both not liking the other and the initial furious pace, I think you, @HolDat @Glass City Cobra and @fists of fury make great points that put it in its rightful context. Happy to stand corrected.

 

Oh, I don't think so.

 

This is one of those things where you know what happened and you’ve watched it time and again (which should tell you something — why are people who’ve seen it still watching it again if it wasn’t a great fight?) and you become a bit desensitized to it.

You watch a guy get gunned down by a hail of bullets and you’re shocked. You see it replayed over and over and over again and you don’t feel the impact as much.

First off, I don’t know who says it’s the greatest fight of all time. But boxing fans are pretty much in agreement that the first is the greatest ROUND of all time. If not, it’s clearly one of them.

A couple of things from the OP — mentioning Hearns’ right hand getting broken/hurt. You had no idea of that watching it at the time. You know it later. So you know he’s handicapped after that round.

You also know having watched it that he’s going to fade … but you wouldn’t know that watching because people on unsteady legs come back and get their feet under them or recover and get a second win all the time.

The cut — I thought Marvin was cut in the first? — is another X factor. You know he wasn’t stopped on it so it doesn’t concern you watching it for the 111th time.

You have two fierce warriors who decided to go toe to toe and unload everything they had from the start. Stand or die. No feeling out. No this guy lands big/lull/other guy lands big/lull … just non-stop action. And the skill level matches the intensity. Put anyone else in front of either of those guys and it’s doubtful a handful of men in history make it through that first round.

Yes, it’s everything it’s cracked up to be. Greatest FIGHT ever? No, but who says it was?

But as everyone here seems to concede, go show a friend who’s never seen it and doesn’t know how it turns out .. and watch their reactions as they take it in for the first time. That’s genuine. That’s how it should be judged and remembered — the ferociousness and intensity are almost unmatched.

 

It is possible for a fight that is in fact great to still be overrated.

Perhaps one way to determine if a fight is overrated is to read ALL about it before actually seeing it - not necessarily preferable but such was the unavoidable case for me before full vision of the many fights I had read about became accessible.

So, for Marv v Tommy, I would say the vision didn’t quite match the superlatives afforded in the literature.

I can say the same for the Thrilla In Manila, that fight not necessarily scratching up to the many glowing accolades bestowed upon it.

On the flip side however, I would say fights like the FOTC and Holmes v Norton were at the least as great as they were described and rated.

If real time drama, context etc. comprises a great fight, then so be it but on the other hand, watching a fight for the first time years after the fact, divorced of those attributes, lends more to an objective analysis of the action contained therein.

I was super pumped and wired for and throughout Hagler v Leonard - real time, great drama and surprises but in hindsight, while a good to very good fight it was not a great fight and one that I don’t return to unless to redress and refresh on my any specific points in the bout.

 

What @HolDat says is completely accurate. Context is important.

Hagler-Hearns was a fight everyone wanted to see between two fighters who were already thought of as all-time greats. Boxing was more mainstream then and the matchup was talked about on talk shows and was the cover story of magazines for months before the fight. The interest was huge. Think Alvarez-Golovkin 1 and quadruple the interest.

Three buddies and I drove ninety miles to watch the fight on a huge screen at the Memorial Auditorium in Sacramento, California. The place was packed and it was the only time I've ever actually felt the concept of "there was electricity in the air". Thousands of people were there for one reason. It was pretty fantastic.

The fight starts and within a minute and a half everyone was screaming their lungs out and there were at least 200 people standing up throwing lefts and rights at imaginary opponents. The noise slowed a bit and then became a roar when Hagler put the Hit Man on the canvas. It was a short fight but no one felt like they didn't get their money's worth

When I watch it now, knowing ahead of time what happened, it does lose a bit of luster. Also, the rest of the fight, while still quite good, does not measure up to round one. Given this, I can understand why people watching the bout decades later don't see the fight the same way.

That being said, context and importance do matter. Wilder-Fury 3 was the 2021 Ring Magazine Fight of the Year. The reality is that the fight was a sloppy mess between two awkward fighters who had a high swing and miss ratio. However, because it was the third fight of a trilogy between championship-caliber heavyweights with big personalities and great records the fight becomes a much better experience. Hagler-Hearns is like that but better.