just watched Haglar vs Hearns for the first time. FTW!!!!

Hearns had fought at or around the Middleweight limit before, and was reigning WBC champ at Lt. Middle for the past 2 1/2 years (contrary to your claims that this was his first fight above Welter). The jump to Middleweight was an obvious one and a fight with Hagler on everyone's radar. It's not like Hearns was at a significant size disadvantage, either.

Also, it must be taken into account how much success Hearns was able to have even post-Hagler all the way up to Lt. Heavy (and even Cruiser if you want to go there) for years to come.

 

Sick stuff, right here. :deal

 

Mr. Bujia is correct; Hearns had had several appearances at 160, though not terribly impressive outings. His punches didn;t seem to have the sting on them they'd had before, but he regained a lot of that pop in later years at higher weights. I think that power outage for a while was due to hand injuries and his lack of confidence in NOT breaking it again, so he held back with it a bit.

 

Nonito smoak tried to save his baby floyds cum filled ass but it back fired :rofl

 

That's one of boxings greatest, but you can't miss other classics such as:

1. Chacon-Limon 4
2. Harris-Jefferson
3. Foreman-Lyle
4. Robinson-Basilio
5. Mercer-Morrison
6. Hamed-Kelly
7. Page-Lopez
8. Delahoya-Quartey
9. Trinidad-Vargas
10. Gatti- Ward trilogy, Barrera-Morales trilogy, Vasquez-Marquez trilogy, Marquez-Pacquiao trilogy Pacquiao-Morales trilogy
11. Corrales-Castillo
12. Sanchez-Nelson

These are just acouple of must haves for any fight fan.

 

because Hagler was so much bigger and stronger than Hearns right? atsch

This content is protected

 

I think Hearns was favored to dethrone Hagler and I think it was supposed to be a passing of the torch of smaller, old school middleweights vs the new wave of more modern middleweights like Tommy. Problem was Hagler wasn't done yet. I think with Haglers huge bloody.gash and Tommys hurt hand it should of evened out. Those hands Hagler was taking would of stopped other mortal men not Hagler who was in his **** you mode.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKAI2awNgr4&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKAI2awNgr4&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]

 

Tommy wasn't bigger or stronger. Just taller.

 

Fair call. I think most other middleweights wouldn't have been around to hear the first bell the way Hagler came out that night.

 

Hearns held a huge advantage in punching power.

In my opinion their upper bodies were of comparable strenghth.

Hearns legs were skinny and unsteady at any weight he ever fought in.

The key was Hagler's iron chin. Hearns' was below par at any weight class he ever fought.
With Hearns it was probably his weak base which allowed for his legs to turn jelly like every time he got hit on the chin square.

Hearns body imo looked best as a middleweight. His frame looked to be built to be a middleweight, he looked alot more fragile below 160 lbs.


Btw, welcome to the General side of this forum Sal.

 

Are you trying to tell me that ALL fights featuring everyone were exciting back then?

Fact is, people ***** regardless. If you go through comments back then you'll see that Leonard received an almost similar treatment as Mayweather does today. Comments like "Chicken" and so forth regarding Hagler before AND after the fight. You shouldn't be surprised if back then they considered that Leonard era terrible/sad compared to Muhammad Ali's era.

 

You watched it for the first time just recently?

 

I believe the BIG difference between that fight and those fighters compared to todays fights and fighters is this: Hagler/Hearns represented arguably the two best fighters in the world at that time fighting each other with disregard to caution. The fans who place that fight on a pedistal appreciate the fact that most true SUPER fights do not follow the reckless abandonment flow that this one had. The title of the fight was called 'WAR" if I remember correctly and war is exactly what we got. I cant think of any fight beginning with the word SUPER that started off with all of us at the edge of our seats screaming like that one did. If I am forgetting one, please let me know. Keep in mind that none of the fight mentioned earlier on this post as better fights were classified as SUPERfights going in. A superfight transends the sport by having most non-boxing AND non-sports fans intrigued about the fight. That is why so many people talk about this one so much, We got far more that what we expected.

With respect to the fighters back then and fights back then. Of coarse not all fights were superfights and not all fighters were super fighters but the difference lies in the mental atitude of fighters back then. Fighters then, even if they weren't the best, fought for glory and recognition. They WANTED to be considered the best and went out of their way to earn that recognition. Hagler and Hearns were not just talk, the walked the walk also. I read that of hagler's twelve title defenses ALL of them except one were against the number 1 contender or a former champion (caveman Lee). How many fighters today could make that claim? I remember looking at a ring magazine that had ratings from the 70's and I noticed the hw champion-Ali beat every fighter listen iin the top ten at one point of his career. How many could even claim 2 or 3 much less all ten? The mentality is different in what they are willing to rish in order to get the glory. That risk includes with what tenacity and will that the older fighters fought with.

My favorite boxing quote came from Ali when he said "True champions are risk takers, you must dare to be great". Not many of today's champions are willing to daree to be great while a large percentage of the fighers of yeaster year, whether they were champions or not, were willing to take that risk. Hagler would probably have been willing to die that night so long as we all remembered that he won.

 

Phenomenal Post. Killed It.

It's a pity half of these stupid ****s on here won't bother to read it and don't get it.

:cheers