Hearns was old and had no legs at 25-30 pounds over his best weight in 1992 for the rematch. Barkley was comparatively fresh and was naturally bigger. in 1988 at middleweight, Tommy just got caught with a big shot. **** happens. He was winning handily to that point, but it's not over till it's over.
Wasn't Barkley a converted southpaw ? In the first match, Tommy seemed only worried about the left, and got caught by a nothing looking right.
Barkley was just all wrong for him. Firstly he was a big tall guy, Hearns wasn't used to facing someone as tall as him, he was used to being taller with a much bigger reach advantage, with Barkley he had an opponent who could reach him regularly. Combined with his good durability and toughness and a rough style he simply was all wrong for Hearns.
I disagree completely. It's not at all a styles thing. If it were a styles issue for Hearns, he would have lost both times in more or less the same way. He was winning the first fight and maybe a round or two from stopping Barkley on cuts and simply caught a big punch. That's got nothing to do with "styles." The rematch four years later featured a completely different version of Hearns who was just too far gone to get off the ropes for any extended period and had to take a shellacking. All that speaks to is his shop-worn condition. It was two completely different fights.
Barkley was landing bombs as soon as the first rd ( first fight). I believe Hearns was one of these guys who felt in love with their power, and was happy to exchange if he thought he would get to land his missiles. The problem is Iran had a great chin and showed the same do-or-die mentality as Hearns. In the end, the bigger man with the better chin won.
