Ray Arcel on Hagler - Hearns.

Zzzzzzzzzexcuses

 

What? Youre not sure Hearns was suited for middleweight (even though he won both a lightheavy and cruiser strap- what does that say for Hill as well as the cruiser division that Tommy fought in?) but Duran was suited for 154? Do you not see what a hypocrite you are? The problem with Tommy is that he couldnt deal with men more rugged than he is that were at least his size- Leonard, Hagler and Barkley- even though Tommy had significant physical advantages. As far as Hill is concerned, he got outboxed by the same Tommy that Iran beat, got the **** beat out of him by Darius and was stopped in 4 by a Jones bodyshot. He is vastly overrated and would have been just a top 10 rated contender had he fought in the Spinks, Saad, Qawi era.

 

You know that right, lol? Youre certain of that, lol? Especially considering how many time Hagler was actually knocked out, lol. Youre ridiculous and your bias is glaring.

 

Overrated how? at 147 and 154? No one is saying he was great at 160 and up? well at least not me

 

Hearns didnt beat better fighters than Hagler. that's crazy!!

I think the others are correct in saying that Hagler was generally better in every are than Tommy; defense, chin, WAY better endurance

In fact, it was Tommy who was saying how tired he was after the first round saying "it felt like I went ten whole rounds"

then saying he was exhausted near the end of the second

Hagler set the pace for a furious fight and forced Tommy out of his rhythm could he repeat this in a rematch?

not at age 31. not in my opinion

but at or near his prime, obviously - KO in 3

 

Cuevas for his first title. Hall of fame 11 title defenses. Benitez, hall of fame great, at probably Benitez best weight. won his second title. Virgil Hill hall of fame 20some title defenses at 2 weights. undefeated and 10 title defenses and 5 years younger. Roberto Duran. Hall of fame and we know who he is.. That beats Hagler. And Hearns moved up and beat guys. Hagler was not better . defense and chin when he never moved up himself is not really valid. I think Hearns was the greater fighter on his resume and moving around in weight. Yeah he was tired. He put his all out.. That does not make Hagler a greater fight. Yes he beat better fighters. And you know it. I just said who he beat. Hagler didn't beat that level.

 

Yes I am certain of that . He would not have to punch straight on with the southpaw stance. I would not be shocked if Hearns landed a Shuler type punch on Marvin if Marvin was righty and knocked him down. No way. Yes. this was Hearns.. I give Marvin credit for coming in the way he did, but to say Hearns had no chance at a slower pace? Sure he had a chance. A decent one. To knock Marvin out. I am not sure.. but to win.. yes.

 

I did not say that, but Hagler never moved up and was sure at the weight in everyway, but that is Hearns fault for moving up and down too much. Too much. Look at Hill. Beat Czyz, Stewart, Tate, Maske, Tiozzo , Mormeck. 24 title defenses. You can knock a guy, but 24? Something like that.. That is extraordinary no matter what. He is underrated and Duran overrated. This is the prime example of styles creating this. Duran was ok at 154. Look at the Benitez fight. No, I know Hagler was solid at 160 and it is not an excuse.. But that is an advantage that he never moved around .Duran and Hearns moved around the same way in the same years they fought. That is not the truth. And did Hagler not fight at 160 his whole career? Did Hearns fight at 154 the same way Hagler did at 160? you know the answer.

 

You know what I am saying is valid because I use facts and you can excuses, but you know what I am saying. You guys know boxing also and know what I am saying are good facts. You know it.. You might counter it, but I am not saying well Hearns lost because he ate a steak and had two gallons of water. I said I never accepted the leg massage thing.

 

Yes, Hagler WAS clearly better, and his competition was also more demanding outside of Leonard, and Cuevas

Cuevas was just physically overmatched because of the height & reach

But everyone else?

hagler was better in nearly every category I can think of; smaller at 5 - 8 1/4 to Tommy's 6 - 1

and still punched him apart. going to the ribs & head simultaneously, out jabbing him, corning him, and attacking without letup as Tommy was trying to catch a breather (late round two)

and then UPPING the pace and ending the fight in a 3 round blow out instead of Tommy stopping Marvin on cuts (thus leaving the wrong impression that he was the better man)

 

Hagler won the fight, but he was not the better fighter in my mind. I never thought so and never will. Not if you look at Hearns wins over hall of fame fighters at different weights and styles. Something Hagler did not do, as well as the amateur career of Hearns 155-8. Cuevas was the champ for 11 title defenses and had a taller guy whom he had to work to beat-he beat Shields who was taller, why couldn't he beat Hearns? Something about speed and greatness. They weighed the same weight. If it is so easy to win titles at welterweight because of height, where are all the 6-1 inch guys who have done it? As though Hearns didn't have to work to make the weight and study and use his arms as well as Tyson having that style to fight and get inside. You make great what you have.. and fight, and still at 175 he was the same height and one inch more reach than Hill and he outboxed him. He outjabbed the jabber. That is modifying a style to prove greatness, not waiting at a weight for the smaller guys to move up.. And a smaller guy beat Hagler. Sugar Ray Leonard. So much for your argument Hagler was greater. I don't think Hearns would have lost to a smaller guy moving up like Hagler did. That does hurt Hagler's legacy, and I respect Hagler, but he struggled at times in fights he shouldn't have. Hagler had everyone move up and fight him at his weight which was a huge advantage. He was not struggling to find weight nor did he have to find different ways to beat a bigger fighter he usually had the reach advantage and the strength advantage and speed. He never moved up and fought Spinks or Qawi, which would have proved he could do what the other guys did. And I don't know if he could have done it. Hearns beat Cuevas,Benitez,,Duran and Hill dominantly... to name just the Hall of famers. And saying Hagler was 5-8 is not accurate. Also I don't mind discussion, but if you are going to discuss Hearns and Hagler, have the numbers correct. Hagler was 5-9 1/2. Not 5-8. Why are you changing that? And he had a 75 inch reach and he was southpaw. He did not outjab Hearns at all, Hearns in round 3 cut him up and was swelling him and blood started to flow, which is why Steele had a time out. Do you know how many jabs Hagler threw in round one? Zero. If you are going to discuss things have the facts straight otherwise why do it.

 

well I'm sorry but that's just the way it is. when you blow out a guy with a five inch height advantage in 3, that's conclusive evidence that you are the better man

and, can you READ? I said clearly ROUND TWO, that he outjabbed the hitman. WHen challenged from long range, Marvin still proved superior, stepping inside the hitman's left while driving his own in full force

continued i round three, snapping the hitman's head back, and nearly tearing his head off at the neck with a right hand over his extended left trying in vain to keep Hagler off

fact is, Hagler forgot more about fighting than hitman EVER learned

I seriously cant believe you're bringing up a grade B fighter like Hill

but he was better than Lalonde

 

I don't think he outjabbed him in round two. So he was not challenged in rounds one or two? He was coming forward and Hearns was backing up trying to land the hook off the jab and he pinned Tommy on the ropes at the end. 5 inch height advantage? More like 3 1/2. You like to exaggerate. That is fine, but have the facts straight. Hill was a B fighter with 24 title defenses, something like twice as many as Hagler. Hagler forgot more than Hearns learned? Hearns had a better amateur career and they retired at both 67 fights.. Hagler 62-3-2 and Hearns 61-5-1.. Hearns had 380 total rounds and Hagler something like 398. Very comparable professional rank. Hagler had 15 title fights 13-1-1 Hearns had 19 title fights at 14-5-1 - 22 title fights if you count the IBO and WBU titles, but I didn't for Hearns at cruiserweight. When Hagler and Hearns fought Hearns had 10 title fights and Hagler 12.

 

Hill was underrated. He was not exciting that is for sure. Everything was about his left jab and hook.. But he was fast and had great legs to move and position himself. Underrated fighter. B fighter? Come on.

 

He was challenged rounds two and three, only less and less while being pummeled more and more

and wasnt that Tommy's head being snapped by the jab?

Yes, Halger definitely outjabbed him, positioning himself inside the Hearns jab (the intricacies and finer points yours truly ALONE possesses!)

and why are you bringing up amateur careers?

are you looking to stretch Tommy's accomplishments?