Who faced the better version of Hearns

Hearns was defintley better at 147

 

I'd say Marvelous. Hearns had already lost, and gained more valuble experience. But needless to say, breaking your hand and having your hangers-on give your legs a massage tend to mess things up a bit.

 

Hearns was something special as a welterweight. He was one of the most physically gifted welters I've ever seen, as much or more than Ray Robinson. Just look at what he did to Cuevas.

Above 154, Hearns legs were too stiff. His lost his real movement and boxing ability, and became much more hittable. That was evident not only against Hagler, but also guys like Barkley and Roldan. Down at 147, Barkley/Roldan type fighters could barely even get to him.

 

The experience obviously never helped him to a certain degree as he lost the fight. But he did show better recovery powers against Hagler even though the fight was shorter. Anytime Leonard stepped inside against him with left hooks he was all over the place. Against Hagler his chin held up better when exchanging punches for lengthy periods. You said the the experience arguement "holds no weight". What was he gaining between the first Leonard fight and up until he shared a ring with Hagler? He was fighting regularly, getting rounds in the bank, knocking opponents out, facing good comp, and maturing physically as fighter.

The result of the fight is irrelevant. Hearns had performed at arguably his prime weight, 154, between the Leonard and Hagler fights. It takes two to tango. And Hagler had a lot to with the the result of the fight.

Hearns was a more experienced fighter for Hagler than he was for the first Leonard fight. It's as clear as a bright blue sky.

 

Anyone agree with this nonsense?

 

I can see where he's coming from yes. He's basically telling you that would good was his experience if he never used it. Ok, Marv forced the shoot-out but Tommy went with it, foolishly. And that's no 'hindsight' thing. I seldom think the great punch will beat the great chin. Hearns had no chance of beating a near prime-Hagler at 160. No chance. We can't say the same about the version that lost to Leonard.

 

He was far more effective at 147, that's as clear as the deep blue sea. A freakishly-built welterweight transformed into a chinny middleweight.

 

Agreed. I did previously mention on this thread he was a very good 160 fighter, not an unbeatable one as someone else mentioned. And I said he was more powerful at 147 as well.

 

Other people earlier in the thread said that Hagler faced a more experienced version than Leonard did, thats what he disagrees with.

I have clearly stated why he was more experienced. He tends to think that because Hearns was beaten by Hagler, quicker than Leonard beat him, experience is thrown out the window altogether.

What did Hearns gain between the first Leonard and Hagler fight? I know he never won, previously mentioned, but that doesn't suggest to me he never gained any experience between those fights even though he lost Hagler, who also had a say in the outcome of the fight.

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

:huh

 

Michael Vick

Where are you

 

Yes tommy was more experienced obviously,but he didnt really use his experience in this bout effectively. Remember v leonard when hurt he actually boxed his way out of trouble,also he didnt really clinch hagler when hurt....

 

...and Tommy was knackered after just three minutes. I don't care how ferocious those 180 seconds were, a fighter competing in on of the biggest bouts of all-time should have had a lot more left in the tank.

 

Hearns at 26 was more formidable a fighter -a more complete fighter, than he was at 21. The strategic mistake he made against Hagler does not necessarily cast doubt on this assertion. The fact that his foes were larger and more durable doesn't either. Hearns was 6'1 and was going to be competitive against light heavyweights. His frame allowed the extra weight. The experience factor shouldn't be discounted either: By 1985, Hearns had faced not only Cuevas and Leonard, he had also outboxed Benitez with one hand and laid Duran to waste.

The retort is a good one at first glance-- but I think that Leonard's defeat of Hearns brought Hearns crashing down -not only literally but figuratively. Leonard showed every fighter that if you could survive the early onslaught, and penetrate that reach, you could get to Hearns, especially if Hearns had his war-hat on. This is what Hagler did, only at an accelerted pace. Barkley did it as well. Had Hearns stayed at 147, I think that others would have tried the same. It was a psychological transition -but not for Hearns so much as his prospective opponents. They no longer hoped that they could get to Hearns and hurt him... they knew it. In any event, Hearns didn't stay stick around at 147 to prove this thesis. He got bigger and moved up.

Hagler pounded on that chin and Hearns got stopped. Barkley tagged him good, and Hearns got stopped. Roldan wobbled him. Hagler was nailing Hearns often in round 1 and Hearns took the shots. And let's be honest here -had Barkley landed that hellacious right on almost anyone, they're going. All this is true but does it necessarily mean that Hearns was less of a fighter at 26 years old and 160 than he was at 21 at 147? I don't think so. Hearns problem, Steward and others claimed, wasn't so much his chin as his legs.

The Hearns that Hagler faced was a monster -he was stronger than he ever was at 147, he was more experienced, he had just overcome 2 all-time greats on their own terms, and he was in his physical prime. It was his rough luck to be faced with the greatest chin of the previous 50 years. It was his rough luck to have broken his vaunted right on that Hagler head. And it was his rough luck to be facing an all-time great and seriously inspired Hagler.

Had Hearns met and destroyed a typical MW champion, this question wouldn't be asked. Ask yourself whether the best MW version of Leonard would have survived 1985 Hearns. I honestly doubt that Leonard would have been vertical after 12 or 15. I honestly doubt that Leonard would have dared to face that MW Hearns who warred with Hagler and who destroyed Schuler. He was too much... a perfect fighting machine? No -he always had balance problems and durability issues... but at 160, he was close to his hellish best (which was 154).

 

I tend to agree with this, always have. I don't understand how people rate the 154 Hearns higher than the 147 version. He was more experienced sure, but as you say, he wasn't the pure boxer he was at 147 because he didn't have the spring in his legs needed to keep the pressure fighters at bay. Also, his KO ratio at 154 was .500, compared with 30 KO's in 32 fights at WW. I don't see any edge he had at JMW in comparison to WW, aside from experience. In that case he had the experience edge at 175 as well, does that make him a better fighter there than at 147?

 

Exactly what I have been 'preaching'.