How does Leonard and Hagler do against Prime Hearns?

No doubt Hearns prime was at 154 going into the Hagler fight , from Benitez to Duran .. at 154 he would have had the best shot against Leonard. If he beats him, who knows .. I'd always favor Leonard as he was the more complete fighter. In both bouts Hearns was spent. He was hanging on for his life at the end of the 12th of the rematch ..

Hearn's really should have defeated Hagler but as stated his legs gave out for whatever reason and that was that, a classic , devastating KO by Marvin, his defining fight.

 

Hearns was a freak arc 147...how was he not in his prime against Leonard?

 

Whether Hearns can beat Hagler or not is mostly out of his hands. Hagler as we saw him was far too aggressive for Hearns' iffy chin and I tend to believe that that version would always beat any version of Hearns. On the other hand if Hagler was tentative as he'd been in other fights Hearns had every chance to win a UD over him.

 

Hearns was prime or near it for his first fights with Hagler and Leonard. We saw the results.

The only thing is that Hearn's would beat Leonard most of the time. In my opinion he was better than Ray. I reason that in their fights, Hearn's won far more rounds, he just got caught at the end. So following logical conclusions he would win most of the time.

 

I think Steward said that, and made up the story about the pre fight leg massage, for his fighter. A lot better than saying he got beat by two guys that were just flat out better fighters, especially since Hearns was still fighting when he said that.

 

Manny Steward was full of ****. Well spoken, and seemed like a nice guy. But, often full of **** in his analysis. Especially once he got the gig on HBO. And, like Freddy Roach, his CV is wildly elevated with the names of a number of formerly great fighters with whom he did nothing to help. (Chavez, Hamed, DeLaHoya, Holyfield, etc)

As to the question at hand, Hearns WAS in his prime when fought Leonard and Hagler. Although arguably Tommy was the better boxer, he simply lost to the better men. And, quite frankly, I don't really remember Hearns himself ever disputing he lost those fights fair and square.

Tommy's numerous good performances after Hagler prove that he was far from finished as a championship caliber fighter.

 

He was prime for sure. I'm in the boat his absolute peak was at 154 and with Ray being a perfectly natural 147 Hearns would have that little bit of size advantage irrespective of physical measurements.

 

he was def too light in the first leonard fight. if anything, he shouldve been at least a pound more, sort of like Terry Norris' 149 for Taylor (only Terry could still pull off a win coming under his true weight)

for the Hagler fight, Hearns has been making excuses since he pulled out of the fight in 82. he's another Fully Obel (injured pinky, massaged calves, etc)

 

A lot of the punches Ray was landing on Tommy were punches on the breaks in the second fight. I cannot excuse his fight again Hagler. Bad tactic for Tommy and great win for Marvin. And I love Tommy, but I see at the Hall of Fame a few days ago in 2018 he jokes ( I think) telling Hagler to fight him again.. Part of him looks serious. I mean he cannot be serious I don't think. Marvin said " Tommy, you are too old to be talking like that and too old to fight again". I admire Tommy, but somehow I think this is something to let go of. He is 60 years old in October and to me it is not that funny anymore. I don't know why I mentioned this. I mean I thought it was funny 10 years ago a little. But now?

 

I think Ray beat Hearns fair and square in 1981, although I think Ray vs. Hearns in late 1982 to 1986 is not something Ray wanted to do.. For good reason. Hearns would have landed his right hand and Ray would have had his chin tested.. By the time he fought Hearns again, Tommy was still sort of recovering from the Barkley and Kinchen fights,which were exhausting for him.

 

Very simple, money. He has none.

 

He wasted all that money he earned on all those fights an now he wants to fight his old buddy when they are in their 60s? To me that is not close to logical and I am not sure why he is even mentioning it. it is sad to be honest. No one wants to see Marvin Hagler v. Thomas Hearns in 2018 and the fight would not be sanctioned. I love both of them and that would be a joke. It wouldn't even look like them fighting. I just don't understand it. I don't fault him for losing all his money, sence I am not in a great money situation here, but the boxing career is over. I never won millions fighting the likes of Cuevas,Duran,Benitez,Leonard and Hagler either. I mean he could also challenge Duran and Leonard again, but what does it prove at all? They can make money I suppose. I have been hearing him challenge Hagler for years now, an I wonder is he serious.

 

Forgotten about "the pinky" comnent. Hagler said something like: "For $5 million fight, I would have cut my pinky off".

 

I see Marvin's point, but he is saying for 5 million Hearns should take any chance, yet Marvin did not do anything for money to fight Spinks. Spinks could have said the same thing. Marvin never moved up to see how he could handle moving up and fighting a great like Hearns or Leonard or Duran did a few times.

 

Yep - and that's the reason Marvin gave the answer he did: Hagler was smart with his earnings, and never has to worry about fighting or anything else for as long as he lives. There are some high earners who blew it all on hookers and drugs - from all I gather, Hearns wasn't one of them, so I feel a degree of compassion for him. Still, it's not like someone swindled his identity and took out huge loans or wrote a lot of bounced checks. He made bad choices.