IF SRL HAD LOST THE FIRST FIGHT WITH HEARNS WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED NEXT?

Hearns takes an easy tuneup, then takes on Duran or Benitez in a mega-fight. SRL fights Pipino Cuevas.

 

Hearns was almost dead at the weight at that time. He would have vacated and moves up to Jr middleweight where he meets and beats Benitez a bit earlier than he did for real. Leonard just like he did who he won against Hearns has another low key fight but retires after finding out he has a detached retina so really apart from Hearns winning the Jr middleweight title a few months earlier nothing has changed.

Hearns would likely end up been held by fans and history as the greater fighter.

 

More than likely.

 

Assuming SRL no detached retina then SRL would not have fought Cuevas as
he lost in a upset late 81 to Roger Stafford. SRL would have faced Stafford fo
for the vacate title. Then title defenses against one of these top contenders Curry , Jones,Starling , McCrory.
Hearns couldn't make WW anymore and would move up to JMW and defeat
Benitez.The rematch would be fought at JMW Leonard would win rematch and this would setup a trilogy with the victor then attempt to win 3rd World aginst Hagler at MW.

 

Both Tommy and Ray move up, no true motivation for Leonard to stay at 147. Most likely, a rematch would be held, and Ray would edge it, if his mind still on the prize.

 

in someways I think Hearns might be greater with that loss than had he won in 1981. Reason being, he might have taken for granted the win and not had the motivation to fight all the fights and win all the titles he did later. He really fought a lot of guys and won a lot of titles in those years. He is the only member of the fab 4 to fight every year of the 1980s. The fact he lost to Ray gave him that motivation to fight Ray or stay active to outdo Ray in other ways like titles and fighting and beating Benitez and Duran and fighting Hagler. He was always trying to prove something that he could fight on, and then the Hagler fight he did the same. He never went away and had he beaten Ray he might have been satisfied in ways he was not with the loss, and that could have affected his whole history. Iconically. I think Hearns had just as significant a career as Ray and maybe more. The Hagler vs. Hearns fight is mentioned more than most of the fights Ray had. So I think for Hearns had he beaten Ray, he would have gone on and fight Benitez, but maybe be more reckless against Benitez since he wouldn't have had the loss to RAy to make him more careful.. And that might give Benitez more of a chance to counter like he did with Maurice Hope. So what is better? Hearns beating Ray but then losing to Benitez and then maybe beating Duran by decision earlier than the 1984 fight after the Benitez fight. And had Ray lost? Ray would have probably wanted the Hearns rematch, and Hearns would have given him that for May of 1982.. And in that case, who knows if Ray could win. He had a great ability to improve on the first fights. Eitehr way, with a loss in 1981.. Ray might have fought on more to prove something about the Hearns loss, the sameway Hearns had motivation to fight and win titles after the loss to Ray. I think had Ray lost to Hearns, he might have rushed up to fight Hagler earlier, and that might have been a mistake and Marvin might have won. So I am saying, maybe it is best what really did happen. If you take how the fab 4 is seen. Hearns is known for a longer career with titles and the Duran knocked and the Hagler war... and titles and legends, And Ray is seen as being the only one to beat all in the fab 4 and Benitez, yet Ray had a shorter career. Without beating all of them, his short career might not look as great.

 

That fact is that it never happened and leonard stopped him peak vs peak and it is why leonard was better.end of history

 

Except Hearns wasn't yet peak nor was he at his optimum weight. Not quite end of (hi)story.

 

Hearns was not peak in 1981.. He fought Ray then, but to say Hearns was peak? How can that be. He didn't really know how to hold at that point. Hearns was peak more when he fought Duran 3 years later.

 

Lol pathetic excuse.hearns was in his perfect prime when he lost before of the limit vs Leonard

 

he was not prime. What excuse, it is an opinion.. Hearns was not the same guy he was at 154 when he fought Duran, he was not experienced and he did not hold or know how to hold. and as proof with Roldan and Kinchen and others, he learned how to hold. He lost the fight in 1981. but he was not experienced. Later he was. Same as I have always said Ray was not experienced when he lost to Duran in 1980..

 

Leonard would not have retired because of his eye before getting a rematch. Tommy would have probably rematched him at `54 if necessary.