What if Hagler won the decision vs Ray Leonard

Sorry but that makes no sense.

Hearns had more hand speed, and certainly much more one punch power than either of them, and Hagler wasn't greatly troubled in that fight.

 

Had Hagler been given the decision, it is likely that Leonard would have gone into another temporary retirement, without much, if any, contemplation about a rematch.

Hagler, who was more or less retired, prior to the Leonard bout anyway, would most likely have followed suit - but with no intention of a future comeback.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Debatable, as far as speed is concerned,but even IF that's true he didn't have Leonard's foot speed or toughness, and ability to follow the fight plan.

 

Hearns had more hand speed than Leonard? Man, I gotta go back and watch some old film. Thats not how I remember it....

 

He probably would have lost to kalamby when they met .Hagler was fading and sumbu would win a decision in 88.

 

I don't see it as debatable at all. Tommy definitely had faster hands than Leonard, as evidenced in their first fight where the master boxer was outboxed until Hearns chin and stamina came into the equation.

In any event that is not relevant. Mendoza said Hagler always had trouble with faster fighters, and I contend the Hearns fight disputes that theory.

 

Faster jab, faster left hook, faster straight right. Unless of course you count Leonards pitty patty eye catching flurries.

Perhaps you should start by watching the fight this report is about.

In the 13th round, Leonard, behind on points on all 3 judges scorecards, needed a knockout to win. He came on strong and put Hearns through the ropes at the end of the round. Hearns was dazed, totally out of gas and received a count but was saved by the bell. Leonard, with his left eye shut and time running out, resumed his attack in the 14th. Hearns started the round boxing and moving, but after staggering Hearns with an overhand right, Leonard pinned Hearns against the ropes. After another combination to the body and head, referee Davey Pearl stopped the fight.

 

Possibly more controversy. I agree Hagler would have rematched, both due to pride and the money which he loved. I think SRL would have gone around again too fully believing he had won and could do it again.

 

Emanuel Steward said one of the resons SRL had so much trouble with Tommy was because Tommy was actually the faster fighter.

This is camouflaged a bit because SRL used to throw those sizzling/dazzling combinations and Hearns basically didn't.

 

This!

Hagler would have gladly rematched SRL assuming the $$$ was right.

 

Well, the WBA didn't sanction the Hagler-Leonard fight because it was scheduled for 12 rounds and not 15.

Had Hagler won, the WBA would've staged a vacant title fight. (After Leonard won, the WBA went with Sumbu Kalambay vs. Iran Barkley.)

I believe Hagler's WBC mandatory was Thomas Hearns, after Hearns won that eliminator against James Shuler on the Hagler-Mugabi undercard.

So, had Hagler defeated Leonard, he would've been required to fight Thomas Hearns next in defense of his WBC title.

Unless Hearns decided to go after the vacant WBA belt against Kalambay.

In answer to your question, we likely would've seen Hagler-Hearns II in 1987.