Hearns vs Barkley 2

IMO Hearns chin was fine, it was his twig like legs that were shot, hence the improvement as he moved up in weight.

Hearns was my second favourite fighter of the 80s (behind Duran) but the Leonard rematch was close because 10 point must made it so. Remember each round has to be scored on its merits not on what has happened previously. Thus you can win a round by outpunching your opponent 2 to 1 and the next round, your opponent could win the round by landing one more jab and the two rounds would both be scored 10-9.

Thus at best I think you can score it 113/112 Hearns, so a draw is a fair result.

 

hearns looked kind of unmotivated in that fight, it happens when you get older, dont sleep on barkley though he is a tough guy who will fight hard for 3 min of every round

 

Even in leonard's best years, Ray performed very poorly when he had to force the action. That's why Terry Norris beats him every time. 10/10 But people are very slow to recognize this.

 

His chin wasn't fine he couldn't take a hard left hook. He had a average chin at best.

 

AS i recall Tommy only looked off colour when Iran Kept coming and coming, i think it soon dawned on Tommy that he was in for a long night, I will have to re-watch to freshen my opinion.

 

Barkley had him pinned against the ropes for a lot of the fight. Hearns landed more punches but both men took a beating.

 

Yeah, a lot of people forget how brutal this fight was to both fighters. Props to Tommy for hanging in there and slugging it out with a big, strong guy like Barkley for 12 rounds. Definately one of the best light heavyweight fights of all time.

 

An average chin would be a fair descripition. With his abilities, his chin was not issue, it was his legs that let him down.

 

Ive mentioned Tommy and his legs on another thread.You are bang on.The legs never suited the higher weight divisions.Tommy could bulk up on top but never on the legs.
Barkley was a tough fighter and a nightmare for anyone.I think Think Tommy took him lightly first time out and was shot shy the second time.

 

Barkley was just too strong and bullish for Hearns at 175 in 1992...... Earlier in 1988, Barkley got lucky..... Barkley had Hearns' number at 175.....

MR.BILL

 

One of the problems for Tommy was that he was fighting another big guy. Hearns looks a lot better when he has that size and reach advantage in there and he certainly knew how to use it. The problem with those Barkley matchups was that a big guy like Barkley could always reach Hearns with his punches & that's a problem when Hearns poses > punching. And nobody ever had to remind Barkley to throw punches and he threw 2 handed salvos in there. Barkley always got hit in fights and long before the initial Hearns matchup he'd learned to fight in dangerous waters and with cuts. That type of experience is important against a Hearns & Barkley could turn those fights into a who absorbs better style fight.

 

Hearns was definitely shot in that fight. When Tommy opened up with the occasional flurry he was light years ahead in class. The problem is he could only really fight for 30-60 seconds of each round. The tactics that Barkley used were also smart as it's the only real way to beat Tommy - smother and pressure him.

 

:good

Hearns was suddenly looking quite shot. He no longer even had the class to keep Barkley off at all. Hearns from the Andires fight would have looked infiniately better, win, lose or draw.

 

I think Barkley's fight plan in the rematch is being underrated here. Yes, Hearns was well past his best, but we knew that going into the Hill fight - which is what made that such a big upset. Instead of trying to box from the outside like he did in the first fight, Barkley and trainer Eddie Mustafa Muhammad worked on bobbing, weaving and getting on the inside and staying there. By this time Barkley was past his prime too, so Hearns' prime really isn't much of an excuse here.

Incidentally, did anyone else think Hearns was lucky to lose only by a split decision? Personally I thought Barkley won the fight by a mile.