What if Sugar Ray Leonard and Thomas Hearns had swapped resumes.......

You just done changed the game.

 

First off, it's quite apparent that Hearns took the tougher fights from here on in.

Leonard should beat Duran and Benitez at 154. Probably loses to Hagler at MW and he'd have lost to Hill at LHW. I think he'd have beaten Barkley although that's a fight he actively avoided. I see him retiring after Hill beats him.

Hearns, well he comes back 5 years later and gets blitzed by Hagler before never boxing again.

 

**** knows why he avoided Barkley he'd have beaten him with ease.

 

I completely agree, Barkley lost to everyone bar Hearns.

Leonard was always about the risk-reward ratio so I'm guessing it didn't fit in for him in this instance.

 

I think Leonard beats everyone, Benitez - already done it, Duran - already done it, Hagler - did it albeit over 12, Hagler didn't really deteriate too much, Barkley - easy work.

Now maybe Hill is a bridge too far but I think a smallish technician who he can outspeed is maybe the ideal opponent for Leonard at LHW

 

Hill had a greatly timed Jab though, I'm not sure that version of Leonard could cope with such technical proficiency.

 

Then why didn't he?

 

I don't even think Leonard beat Hagler in their 1987 fight, but to say Hagler didn't deteriorate much between 85-87? Do you really believe that? He looked great in '85, terrible in '87. There aren't too many people who'd argue otherwise.

 

Do what fight Barkley or fight Hill? He beat Duran after Duran beat Barkley and Leonard was obviously semi-retired and done in '91, nearer his best without the innactivity maybe he beats Hill, he beat Lalonde

Looked terrible He had problems in '87 with Leonard's speed, defence and movement, prior to that he'd never fought anyone with that style or ability. He also had problems with Duran's defence and counter punching in '82

Nah Leonard beat a Hagler near his peak as far as I'm concerned, Leonard was the 1 coming off inactivity having not fought a title fight in 5-6years. A younger Leonard may have done much better himself

Hagler revisionists :-(

 

I feel ya pain here PP. Apparently it's worse for Hagler to knock out his number 1 contender (mugabi) then it is for Leonard to spend 5 years in retirement. This victory is quite underrated imo.

 

I agree in that a younger Leonard would have done better, and finished stronger.

However, the only revisionism going on here is you stating that Hagler was very much close to his best in '87, like I said, you're going to be hard pressed to find many who agree with you on that.

Duran's defence and style is very different to Leonard's. Duran actually stood in with Hagler, Leonard was on his bike the whole night, throwing flurries at Marvin's gloves and shoulders. I give full credit to Leonard for the win, as that's how the judges saw it and it was close, but in my personal opinion, Hagler won.

 

Again the arguments for saying Hagler wasn't at his best was because Leonard himself outboxed and outsped him. When was he ever going to be quicker than Leonard? Ofcourse not

The other argument was 'he lost a step against Mugabi' and took more punches in that fight. But it was a very dominant performance against a Mugabi who was very strong, quick with a high pressure style

On that basis you're comparing those 2 fights to a 9 miniute brawl in 1985 against a fighter without the greatest chin or strength to chasing down a speedy mover in 1987, ofcourse the fights are going to have no resemblance to 1 another

What other evidence is there? None other than Hagler was 32, but Leonard was 30 himself and again inactive. No doubt both fighters would have trained to get in peak condition for such a super fight

Duran is different to Hagler, but it's not a coincidence Hagler looked less impressive against the 2 most skilled opponents that he faced

The Hagler excuse train runs pretty thin, I'll repeat if anything a more active younger Leonard would be more improved than a 2year old younger Hagler if they fought