Is it a underrated performance by Tommy? I see Norris getting a good amount of credit for his performance against Leonard at times on these boards. Knocking him down twice and in general getting the best of him. Hearn's did the same thing, years earlier. He simply didn't get the official W, which is a shame. Unlike Leonard's comeback against Hagler, Ray had had a warm up fight where he also picked up a belt against LaLonde. As opposed to being inactive for a few years as he was prior to the Hagler fight. He was only a half year removed from that fight with a LaLonde when he fought Hearn's for a second time. So, thoughts?
....................I loved the fight. It's become fashionable since then to deride Leonard and bash the judges for the "robbery" but I just like watching the great ebb and flow. There was a lot of ebb and flow, too; anyone saying Hearns dominated is either related to him or simply hasn't seen the fight. Ray had plenty of good moments. It could be argued that in terms of pure action, it was better than the first. The skills had eroded some, but there was more clean punching, more shifts of control, and frankly more drama.
The pace of this fight was very slow. at times nobody did anything. it was kind of embarrassing. I thought leonard did enough late to erase the knockdowns. it was very close. On the negative side, Hearns looked very soft and tubby. his chin was now non existent and extremely fragile and his once great reflexes and hand speed all but gone. I couldnt believe it went to a draw. two years earlier, Tommy would have gotten the decision for sure
The Hearns II fight was much closer & way more competitive than the Norris fight, there is no comparison.
Great fight. Close but should have been a Hearns win. I think Hearns doesn't get enough credit for this one.
I thought this was an exciting fight considering the time it happened in both fighters' careers and the expectations going into the fight. Nobody expected greatness from either man but it was a memorable contest. Hearns was robbed and won this fight by a minimum of three points. I don't think Leonard did near enough to earn a draw.
It was better than the first, for action. The first fight wasn't a good action fight. It had amazing skills and shifts in momentum, but the action level was only good in spots. Most of the fight was tactical.
Hell, no..... The rematch between Leonard and Hearns is a great fight to reflect on.... The only blemish is the decision that was rendered... I have NO problem with the DRAW! But the 'Hearns' fans will cry to a river forms.... At any rate, it was a great PPV fight.... In reality, the draw was NOT a bad choice to call it........ To argue a point, SRL had TWO BIG rds himself in the 5th and 12th rds........ Leonard finished strong, while Hearns looked spent at the conclusion...... Peace....:rasta MR.BILL
Hell of a fight, one of my favourites from the 80's actually. They weren't the same guys from years before, but there was plenty of drama and the competitive fires in both men were still burning strongly. I remember Marvin being so biased doing the commentary - "C'mon Tommy!" He was literally willing Hearns to win and didn't care about hiding it either. The action was ebb and flow...Hearns dropping Leonard in the third, on the verge of getting knocked out during that exciting 5th round but somehow hanging on, and dropping Leonard in the 11th again. Tommy wanted this one SO badly. It was a close fight throughout, but the majority rightly had Hearns winning, including the commentary team of Ryan, Clancy and Hagler. (Although Ray would have needed to knock Tommy out to get a draw in Marvin's book.) Tim Ryan immediately tackled Leonard about the decision afterward, one of the first words out of his mouth during the post-fight interview was "We thought Hearns won." Ray looked a bit taken aback but recovered quickly and handled the interview with class. Then Tommy says to Ray "I want a rematch." to which Ray says "Well, let's go home first." Great fight, great night.
