the scorecard i made for S.R. Leonard vs Hearns II (1989)

Post a card?

 

For what it's worth, here is my card and what I wrote when I scored it this past summer:

Tommy Hearns v Sugar Ray Leonard II

Round 1: 10-10 Even
Round 2: 10-9 Hearns
Round 3: 10-8 Hearns (scores a knockdown)
Round 4: 10-9 Leonard
Round 5: 10-8 Leonard (very dominant round IMO)
Round 6: 10-9 Hearns
Round 7: 10-9 Hearns
Round 8: 10-9 Hearns
Round 9: 10-10 Even
Round 10: 10-9 Leonard
Round 11: 10-8 Hearns (scores a knockdown)
Round 12: 10-9 Leonard

Total: 115-112 Hearns (actual scores: 113-112 Hearns, 113-112 Leonard and a 112-112 Even for a Draw. Also, Harold Lederman scored it 115-111 for Hearns)

Damn good fight. Two rounds that were really up to the beholder - I felt - was rounds 5 and 9. I rewatched round 5 after question-marking it and felt it should be a 2 point round for SRL for a very dominant round. However, round 9 I did not just give that to Leonard for stunning Tommy, because I felt Tommy was having a good round until then. Scoring that round Even felt accurate to me. Anyways, again, good fight.

 

Brewster vs Liakhovich

 

Another good one is Frank Fletcher v Clint Jackson.

 

Scar, I thought round 7 was another eye of the beholder round and was the only round I scored differently from the first time I scored it. First time I had it for Tommy, second time I had it even. Hearns had Leonard in trouble early before Ray worked his way back into the round steadily over the next couple of minutes. You and I both had round 1 even which I think is right but that feeling out round could have a big impact on the result if you score it for one or other of the fighters. I went back and forth on round 5 - I can see a good argument for a 10-8 and have no issue with that althiugh I scored it 10-9. Round 12 was a 10-9 though, even if Leonard was a clear winner.

The more I look at the judges scores the more I think it was a fair outcome. There was only point between the two cards and then the even one as well - that really reflects how close it was. If I wasn't sitting down to score it though I'm sure I'd have the impression that Hearns won clearer - hard to ignore those knockdowns.

I was also pondering something. Is this fight better than their first one? It's certainly not bigger in terms of the magnitude of the event and both fighters are past their primes so it's a little like comparing Ali-Frazier 1 and 3. As an event and historic moment, the first fight is obviously more significant but for in-ring action, Leonard-Hearns 2 has all the momentum shifts that the first fight had in the space of 12 and not 14 rounds, plus the knockdowns and some terrific back-and-forth rounds like 7 and 9. Interested to hear your thoughts on that.

 

Jel, I totally see what you mean. An event - which is exactly what Leonard-Hearns I was - can overshadow the actual fight. I recall doing a sweat before their first encounter, it was so hyped up. Not so much the second time. But a great question of which one was more exciting. There were many rounds in the first fight where Hearns was simply controlling the fight with his jab, whereas - as you say - the second time around there were explosive rounds happening. There was nothing cerebral about it. I'd have to sit down on both of them again and rewatch to determine this, while separating event from actual combat. Great subject.