Who faced the better version of Hearns

Mike is so under rated. The guy was avoided by many (including the fab four), being a high risk/low reward type of boxer.
I don't know either about this fantasy match up but against Julian, the fight would not go to the distance, that is for sure.

 

Great fights. I look at the Curry and McCrory fights and think Hearns takes McCallum, but he's not to be underestimated. He gets a little too much milage nowadays but was none the less a great. I would have liked to see the Mike vs Marvin. It would have been a high class and enthralling fight IMO. Marvin didn't fight many top shelf technicians and it would have been interesting what tactics and angles he would have used. Marvin probably would have had a bit too much firepower but an interesting match style wise.

 

Yeah Mike could well have beaten the likes of Hearns, Leonard and Duran at 154. I'd probably only favour him against Duran, but who knows, he may have beat all three.

Hearns-Jackson would definitely be fun whilst it lasted. :yep

As would Hearns-Norris. I'd take Tommy there as well via a nice stoppage.

 

Mike vs Marvin would have been an awesome fight, one I haven't thought much about actually. I can probably see it being fairly even over the first twelve, with Hagler switching gears in the last couple of rounds and fighting rough and tough to win. He probably wouldn't outbox Mike and would have to impose himself physically to get over the line. He'd probably hurt Mike late in the fight, but not stop him.

I can see Tommy outboxing and stopping McCallum. I think one of those scenarios is a little more likely than Mike stopping Tommy, which he'd pretty much have to do if he's to win the fight.

 

You are taking it to literally.

-Hearns broke his hand on Hagler's head and laughed about it afterwards. He commented on how hard Hagler's head really was. Does this mean that some skulls are made out of plastic? Of course not. It is a comment on the obvious fact that Hearns wasn't going to knock out Hagler by hitting him anywhere from the chin up.

 

You may be right... but it was too brief to tell. I suspect that Hagler took something out of him -Hearns never thought that he could be stopped in 3. In fact he predicted the opposite. That kind of loss has an effect between the ears for most guys.

 

Great insights. Can't debate anytthing there at all.

 

Hagler

 

Do you mean prior to facing Hagler? Because that was his first fight at the weight. If we are looking back at his career and middleweight he was very good, but never looked unbeatable. He lost to Hagler for starters, looked vulnerable against Roldan, and was KO'd by Barkley.

And he wasn't more powerful than he was at welterweight.

 

Hearns struggled badly against Medal when making 154. And that was probably the only time he struggled with the scales at that weight. He had been away from the division for just under two years with his last fight being in late 1984 against Hutchings. His bouts prior to Medal were Hagler and Schuler.

Even Clancy commented during the Schuler fight "look at those back muscles on Tommy Hearns, he looks like a light-heavyweight" Perhaps slight exaggeration from Clancy with such a statement. He was just giving an overblown opinion how physically strong Hearns looked at 160.

The Schuler fight was in March 86, with the Medal fight in June the same year. 3 months gap.

I can't mind where I read he struggled with the scales against Medal. I think it was in one of the Hearns programs I have. And it was from himself or Steward.

 

What a great point. His experience did him nothing in the Hagler bout, so the "experience" argument holds no weight.

 

Because he was beaten you see things the way you do. Hagler's fists had a lot to do with Hearns being drawn into warfare and ending up knocked out. So just because he was beaten inside 3 rounds and never lasted 14 rounds like he did with Leonard 4 years earlier the experience arguement holds "no weight"?

Hearns had matured as fighter going into the Hagler bout. He was unbeaten since the Leonard fight and had performed well, taking the scalps of Bentiez and Duran along the way.

The result of the fight is irrelevant. It's as clear as day that he gained experience between the Leonard and Hagler defeats.

 

Well, that was my opinion back then (last year already). It would be different today.

You can't blame Hearns to losing against the, arguably, best middleweight ever. Plus, I don't think Hearns struggled that much against Roldan (I remember he KO'd him pretty quickly). As for the Barkley fight, you are right that was the fight he should have won but that is the way it works in boxing, you never know what happens in a fight :good

About Tommy's power at welterweight, I do now agree that he was probably stronger at 147 than he was at 160 or 154. In the meantime I rewatched his fights at 147 and ha was simply amazing.

 

Leonard slightly.