Hearns-Roldan is a great fight. What does it say about Hearns?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by McGrain, Apr 9, 2010.


Page 1 of 3
  1. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,002
    48,094
    Mar 21, 2007
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2CR8wjai7k[/ame]

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJK_lLxgH2E[/ame]

    First you got to say that it was a great achievment by Hearns to scoop up a fourth belt. It also needs to be said that he wins this fight out of sight by knockout having decked Roldan many times and is well ahead on all cards at the time of the stoppage (29-25, 29-27, 29-26). But it's not Hearns's best performance.

    Roldan is as tough as they come but he's not a great boxer. However Hearns can't box him. For big stretches he totally forgets his jab and fails to remain mobile. Roldan has no problem sheparding him to the ropes or closing the distance on his man and for passages of the fight he is trapped there. You can hear the alarm in the commentary and in Tommy's corner where they are concerned both about his failure to keep Roldan on the end of his jab and the prospect of his gassing because Roldan has total and utter control of the pace. Roldan is not a great general but he dominates pace and distance, he's the boss in terms of generalship; Tommy is dragged into a war, into Roldan's fight. When this happened versus Hagler there was the infamous massage excuse.

    Hearns is hurt twice quite badly, he's hanging on in round one and his legs are rubber in round four. His power basically bails him here. What are your feelings about this? It seems to me that Hearns is a little overated as a boxer in that Hagler, Hearns and eventually Sugar were all able to force the issue and drag him into the wrong type of fight for his skillset and physicality.
     
    McGrain, Apr 9, 2010
    McGrain, Apr 9, 2010
    #1
  2. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    It says Hearns carried a lot of power at middleweight !

    Yes, Hearns wasn't hard to hit and wasn't capable at 160 of keeping the bigger stronger guys off him. Even fairly "ordinary" middles would beat him, I think.

    Even at lower weights I think Hearns gets overrated head-to-head. Not everyone at welterweight is going to succumb to his power or fail to get inside and pressure him, brawl him, find his weak spots. Hearns had his reach as his defence, and not much else. But he does always have that power.
     
    Unforgiven, Apr 9, 2010
    Unforgiven, Apr 9, 2010
    #2
  3. Briscoe

    Briscoe Active Member Full Member

    941
    6
    Sep 19, 2009
    It's great to see Tommy win, but Roldan was a really tough dude. I always thought Tommy was a guy that would abandon his best assets at the wrong moments to be a little more exciting. This fight proves it. Hearns could have tried to pace Roldan to gain ring generalship, but instead he chose an exciting route.
     
    Briscoe, Apr 9, 2010
    Briscoe, Apr 9, 2010
    #3
  4. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,002
    48,094
    Mar 21, 2007
    Hell Tommy had good power at LHW Unforgiven. You're right to point it out though, it's not like his power is something you could ignore, but it's interesting to me because it makes Hearns something of an anomaly. Normally pure punchers are an anthema to pressure swarmers, but with Hearns, it's a style he can look vulnerable against, especially, as you've said, higher up.
     
    McGrain, Apr 9, 2010
    McGrain, Apr 9, 2010
    #4
  5. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,002
    48,094
    Mar 21, 2007

    I think that route was chosen for him.
     
    McGrain, Apr 9, 2010
    McGrain, Apr 9, 2010
    #5
  6. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    Interestingly, there was a time when some were doubting Hearns' power at middleweight.
    Probably because Ernie Singletary and Murray Sutherland pushed him the full 10-round distance, but Ernie was a durable guy, and Sutherland was a big man, a light-heavy really.
     
    Unforgiven, Apr 9, 2010
    Unforgiven, Apr 9, 2010
    #6
  7. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,002
    48,094
    Mar 21, 2007

    Including Hearns himself. I think it was after the Sutherland fight that he remarked upon the difference. But he certainly came to.
     
    McGrain, Apr 9, 2010
    McGrain, Apr 9, 2010
    #7
  8. Doc McCoy

    Doc McCoy Member Full Member

    379
    3
    Dec 12, 2006
    I've been after an excellent quality copy of this one for ages. Seems like a hard one to find in great condition. Anyone help me out?
     
    Doc McCoy, Apr 9, 2010
    Doc McCoy, Apr 9, 2010
    #8
  9. lora

    lora Fighting Zapata Full Member

    10,305
    544
    Feb 17, 2010
    Hearns defence and to a lesser extent chin is a liability at this weight.

    Roldan was strong as a bull and had a lot of awkward momentum in his attacks, with those looping bombs, not my kind of fighter at all, but he was quite dangerous in the unsilled labouring pure puncher stakes.He was putting the hurt on an aging hagler early as well, until marv thumbed him.

    He didn't have much heart for a long tough fight though.Poor man's Tonna.
     
    lora, Apr 9, 2010
    lora, Apr 9, 2010
    #9
  10. itrymariti

    itrymariti Cañas! Full Member

    13,728
    47
    Sep 6, 2008
    "Unskilled labouring" is up there with "composite punching" as one of Classic's classic quasi-clichés.
     
    itrymariti, Apr 9, 2010
    itrymariti, Apr 9, 2010
    #10
  11. lora

    lora Fighting Zapata Full Member

    10,305
    544
    Feb 17, 2010
    and here i thought it was just one of my wind up stock phrases.Don't recall anyone else ever using it seriously at least, or even at all for that matter.
     
    lora, Apr 9, 2010
    lora, Apr 9, 2010
    #11
  12. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,002
    48,094
    Mar 21, 2007

    It takes a poster of a certain quality to create a - what was it now? - "quasi-cliche".
     
    McGrain, Apr 9, 2010
    McGrain, Apr 9, 2010
    #12
  13. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,002
    48,094
    Mar 21, 2007
    Barker said it was looking at this fight that made him believe he could beat Hearns, for what that is worth.
     
    McGrain, Apr 10, 2010
    McGrain, Apr 10, 2010
    #13
  14. MRBILL

    MRBILL Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,116
    110
    Oct 9, 2008
    Hearns was foolish to drop all that weight after being at 173 pounds for Denny Andries earlier in Feb. of '87.... I thought Hearns looked solid and filled out when he battered Andries for the WBC Light-Heavy belt....

    Come Oct. of '87, Hearns looked gaunt being back down to 160 to hammer and KO Juan Roldan on PPV. Of course Hearns out-classed Roldan, but not without having to endure a few rocky moments. Hearns KO 4 Roldan....

    Next up, Hearns fights Barkley in June of 1988 and gets clocked and stopped in wicked fashion by "The Blade" inside of 3 rds.....

    Hearns came back at 165 pounds and looked shot against a motivated Jim Kinchen on PPV. Hearns was lucky to get the decision there. That was political...

    Freaky, but in the summer of '89, Hearns looks good at 162 1/2 pounds against a flat 160 pound Ray Leonard... The draw was another political issue...

    MR.BILL:deal:hat
     
    MRBILL, Apr 10, 2010
    MRBILL, Apr 10, 2010
    #14
  15. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    52,840
    44,551
    Apr 27, 2005
    Roldan brought a lot of stylistic drama to the table for a past prime and by this time quite vulnerable at 160 Hearns. His bullying, size, clubbing power and strength all spelled trouble. Hearns showed some good heart and determination to prevail as well as fantastic power. Roldan had put up a good effort previously vs Hagler. It was enlightening just how easy Hearns could deck and hurt Roldan.
     
    JohnThomas1, Apr 10, 2010
    JohnThomas1, Apr 10, 2010
    #15
Page 1 of 3