I just can't make any case at all here for SRL

Hearns won the rematch and we all know that, I've been noticing there's been a tendency when legends fight for judges to want to say it's a draw.

 

You're in good company.

SRL agrees.

This content is protected

Go to 1:21 and hear for yourself.

 

Leonard has admitted as much at least 3 times publicly, one time in front of hundreds.

 

I have it
Draw round one 10-10
Hearns round 2 20-19
Hearns round 3 10-8 30-27
Hearns round 4 40-36
Leonard round 5 49-46
Leoanrd round 6 58-56
Hearns round 7 68-65
Hearns round 8 78-74
Leonard round 9 87-84
Hearns round 10 97-93
Hearns round 11 10-8 107-101
Leonard round 12 116-111 Hearns

 

These guys were so evenly matched that the rounds are hard to score ,and they took turns winning rounds in 1989. In 1981 they wont more parts of the fight, but in 1989 they were switching off rounds. Very evenly matched fighters so it is hard to rate the rounds.

 

Think I had it 115-112, too. In terms of rounds, it was actually closer than their first fight had been after twelve, but those two knockdowns really should have put it beyond any doubt.

As a side note, does anyone else feel that Hearns-Leonard II is an underrated fight? Because the pair of them were past their best, and because of the dubious verdict, there's a perception that it was a sad spectacle, unworthy of such a great rivalry. Yet if you judge the fight on its own merit, it was actually very good and enjoyable.

 

And in his autobiography read by many thousands.

 

Hearns won the re-match.

 

No and Leonard himself admitted as much. The fight itself was pretty much a carbon copy of the fight in 81' minus the knock downs. And I submit if the 2nd fight was a 15 rd fight opposed to a 12rd . The same results would've occurred with Leonard winning by tko. Hearns's legs were completely gone in the 12rd.

 

I think the fight was watchable, albeit on the basis of it being a competitive bout between guys of this caliber, at a similar stage of their careers (or so it seemed). But, it was hard to take too seriously, when both of them referred to each other as "shot", at the contract-signing, with Leonard saying they had decided to get this fight on, before Father Time got the both of them.

In any event, Hearns was jobbed. I can't see how Leonard was gifted a draw but, at least it paved the way for his classic, "Uno Mas", with Duran.

 

I don't believe either of them were actually shot, and it was a very good, competitive contest. But, they were both past prime; especially, Leonard who, despite his relatively low number of fights, had not been particularly active and had been aging, nonetheless.

Hearns hadn't been looking his best at sub-168. He would never fight south of the Super Middleweight limit again, after Leonard (II). I don't know how true it is that Leonard wanted and imposed the catchweight of 164lbs, with significant penalties for coming in over that, but this might have taken its toll on Hearns.

Regardless - Hearns looked very sharp in the early going, with Leonard exhibiting a lack of timing and accuracy; unable to traverse, with any consistency, the distance Hearns was maintaining. Round-5 showed they were still evenly matched and, as they went into the second half, Hearns had slowed down quite noticeably, turning it into a battle of attrition.

That the fight was and remains an entertaining watch, is down to the inherent quality of both men. Though, I doubt they could have left the timing of the rematch much later, else it might well have become a different type of contest, altogether.

 

I thought it was very different. Tactically some of the same, but Hearns experience and fighting the whole decade showed. Ray was just another fighter in 1989 and Tommy was rocked, but he hung in there and handled it well and came back.