Who faced the better version of Hearns

I agree. back then tommy was just a skinny kid, raw and green with no knowledge of how to clinch when hurt. Without trying to sound negative, what hurt him worse was those two pounds. Now look at Tommy how far he had progressed 3 years later. He out on quite a bit of muscle and really filled out. This was the time where he fullfilled his full physical potential. Who but Hagler could have stood up to him then?

 

I think The best version of Hearns faced Hagler.

Sadly he ran into a great on the greats last good day. End of story.

He had 8 more fights in 3 years before the Hagler fight, all against solid fighters who were over WW. And i don't recall Tommy being in trouble or tested in any of those fights. His only loss to that point was to Leonard.

 

In what way did he not recover? It was probably one of the punches, along with the two fisted barrage he took during the 6th as well, which made him move laterally behind the jab and start outboxing Leonard in the proceeding rounds. That actually suggests he recovered from the shot considering he started to move backwards, side to side, with a high punch output at the same time. Not the kind of activity from a fighter in any way, shape or form, that suggests he never recovered from a solid left hook downstairs prior to boxing and moving with ease for at least 4 or 5 rounds.

Nothing at all to suggest for anyone to think "Hearns never recovered from a left hook to the ribs in round 6"

 

Hearns was dominating Leonard until that moment in round 6 when Leonard landed a hybrid hook/uppercut followed a few seconds later by a left hook to the ribs that brought Hearns' elbow down in a flash. When you get hit with a shot like that on your ribs, you stay hit. It can be much worse than a shot to the head.

You believe that Hearns' change of strategy means that he recovered. I disagree.

Hearns lost rounds 6, 7, 8, because he did what Leonard was doing in rounds 1,2,3,4, and 5. He stayed out of range and tried to warily box the puncher. Why would Hearns suddenly start to box on a bicycle when he was sweeping rounds as a flatfooted puncher? Because he got hurt. When a smart fighter gets cracked and hurt, he moves and boxes. He stays away.

In rounds 9-11, Leonard was stalking -but he wasn't punching. Hearns came on because of that, but he was vulnerable. Even when he was moving, those legs looked unsteady. He was trying to recover and seemed to in round 11/12 when he returned to the aggressive stance, but what happened? Leonard's shots proved that looks can be decieving.

 

Agreed. Stay hurt you mean? I disagree with that. Depending on the power and punch resistance.

I should have been clearer. Obviously I never meant that Hearns took the barrage during the 6th and the punches never had any effect on him whatsoever. I did say that he changed strategy after getting tagged heavily, thus saying to himself "I better change things and stay away". He was hurt. And I agree it can take a while for a fighter to recover from a solid bodyshot. But IMO his change of strategy showed that he did recover as he was up on the balls of his feet and being busy with his hands. Not the manner of a fighter who never recovered for the rest of the fight from a mighty punch to the ribs.

In my last paragraph I should have covered it here. To go slightly go off topic. I wouldn't say Hearns was a flat-footed puncher when sweeping the early rounds. He was coming forward, but his jab was getting popped out more than his power punches. I'd say Hearns was 'boxing aggressively'. When a fighter gets cracked and hurt to the body the last thing he'd do if he never recovered from the shot for the rest of the fight would be to get on his bicycle and box. That takes up a lot of energy; constant movement and busy hands. Hearns got into a nice rhythm and he was hardly throwing 'arm' punches. IMO Hearns was temporarily hurt from the body punch Steward was referring to. And who knows, perhaps those two proceeding rounds in which he was still coming off second best were still signs he was feeling the effects of the punch. Leonard's offense gets complimented here at the same time.

 

--that phrase is a figure of speech over here on the east coast or at least in the U.S. ("when so-and-so hits you, you stay hit"). Tall, lanky guys with no meat on their bones are generally more susceptible to (a.) shots to those exposed ribs and (b.) long grueling fights. Long grueling fights burn energy and when you are operating on subsistence levels to begin with, there's a greater likelihood of problems down the stretch.

That's why fat guys lost at sea have a better chance of surviving longer.

Obviously I didn't mean that he was looking for a place to land after that hook to the ribcage. But it's clear to me that he was not the same from that point on and the momentum of the fight changed immediately. He was on the balls of his feet, sure, -but he gave away the next few rounds and soon after that he was all done.

Incidentally, I am pretty certain that Leonard, realizing that he wasn't going to end matters after round 8, took it easy to conserve energy for a late attack. He knew that Hearns was fading. It wasn't so much "Hearns recovering and boxing magnificently" as it was Leonard laying off for a while and a gathering strength while Hearns predictably wilted.

I disagree. First off, Leonard conceded for 5 rounds that Hearns WAS the puncher. Hearns was stalking and stunned Leonard often enough to prove it. Leonard was running -literally sometimes, and Hearns even mocked him at the end of round 5 with a feinting bolo of his own. Secondly, that shot to the body hurt Hearns as you recognized. You don't want to stand and wait for more of the same, what you do is move away and keep him at arm's length. That's what you do if you're built like Hearns and have that reach. It isn't easy because your legs are weaker, but the alternative invites doom. Leonard was aggressive for the next few rounds. Had Hearns stayed close after the barrage that hurt him both up and down he'd have had to either cover up and get cracked all over because Leonard would find -and make- openings or, Hearns would have to punch with him -and that would guarantee that Leonard would land hard ones.

....

As for Leonard's offense. I hold that Leonard was not only a good and fast puncher, he was the smoothest and most rythmic puncher of the last 40 years. Excellent execution. Even those looping rights (which are usually just awkward and violent) were beautiful to see.

 

Stonehands. If you watch Hearns over the first 5 rounds he's coming forward behind the jab and the right hand. While a fighter who moves laterally and plays the role of the 'matador' with the jab compliments the role of pure boxing more than any other, Hearns was coming forward but with lots of jabs. Yes, he was tracking Leonard down and looking to land power shots. But for the most part the jab was flowing as he was hunting. That in my book is boxing 'aggressively'. Not being an outright puncher. I'm in agreement with you on what Hearns was doing, but just a different description on how to define it.

Just to keep on the same tracks but going off the Leonard-Hearns fight for a moment. The punch in the sport that defines boxing more than any other punch is the jab, no matter if a fighter is coming forward, side to side, or on the backfoot while throwing it. Obviously someone who's slick and defensive behind the jab comes first when we think of 'boxing'. Ali, Pep, etc. If a fighter throws 10 jabs in a round and 30 power punches. I'd not term that boxing, purely anyway. It depends on the viewer to a certain extent and what a fighter is doing inside the ring with his hands and how the viewer absorbs whats happening during each round or over the course of a fight. Type of punches being thrown. Holmes was someone who came forward at times with the jab. Stalking, cutting the ring off, but the vast majority of punches are jabs to the body and head. Thats boxing IMO even though he's coming forward taking the fight to his opponent.

To cut a long story short, you can't box without the jab. Do you agree?

Yes, I agree. Hearns staying in there would have been disaster. Some fighters when cracked downstairs either go down or cover up with not much movement. IMO Hearns recovered from the shot after a few rounds as he was bouncing laterally, hooking, jabbing, and stepping in with the odd right cross. And his punches were effective. His balance was perhaps the reason his legs weren't quite there during the rounds he was on the move. His feet at times got caught up together. It happened in the Hagler fight when it was brief and not the effects of a punch or punches.

 

Leonard was not being effective by simply moving laterally. He was avoiding Hearns. One may argue that Leonard was trying to draw Hearns in reaching so that he could nail him, but it wasn't happening. Leonard showed us good legs for 5 rounds -but that alone isn't effective boxing as I'm sure you'd agree. It wasn't a try-out for the Rockettes.

I don't think that we disagree about Hearns' role. He was conceded as being the puncher and he was aggressive behind a range-finding jab. That's a fair view of the first part of the fight.

I disagree that you "can't box without the jab." You can. You can feint jabs and slip the other guys and slide inside. Duran wasn't big on the jab often -usually preferring to slip or counter and get inside. For him, the other guy's jab was usually opening a door to his home invasion. Don't misunderstand this -upwards of 80% of the shots I throw are jabs and I'm a downright fanatic in jab emphasis when I train. But you can box without a jab.

Balance is affected by fatigue, and fatigue is accelerated by crunching hooks to the ribs.

 

Pipino CUEVAS, DURAN,SHULER, srl

 

We were talking about Hearns' role in the early rounds, not Leonard's. I wasn't referring to Leonard with this "While a fighter who moves laterally and plays the role of the 'matador' with the jab compliments the role of pure boxing more than any other, Hearns was coming forward but with lots of jabs"

It was just a comparison of what a fighter can do in the ring compared to what Hearns was doing. Nonetheless, I agree with your reply.

Hearns IMO wasn't an outright flat-footed puncher over the first 5 rounds. Although he was more a puncher than the moving Leonard who was seldom letting anything go with his fists. I'll stick with 'aggressive boxing" as he was coming forward behind the jab with some heavy weaponry behind it. But I can see where you and others are coming from as Hearns was trying to track Leonard down, with ocassional success, and was forcing the fight. But all the time Hearns was coming forward he was boxing behind his left hand while looking to get into opportunities to be the 'puncher'.

Interesting how you see that. When a fighter gets on his toes and throws the jab exclusively for most of a round, thats boxing, purely anyway. Obviously the odd combination during a round varies things up and doesn't effect my stance on 'boxing'. But IMO a fighter can't be coming forward throwing heavy power punches 90% of the time and be termed a 'boxer'. I think the jab defines a boxer more than any other punch. Again, none of us are wrong. Just different views on the matter.

Sometimes, other times it can be just a balance problem that needs corrected technically. But no question about it, fatigue can be effected by lack of stamina as well as crunching hooks to the ribs. Just for the record, I thought Hearns evaporation during the 13/14th rounds was caused by Leonard's shots rather than simply being tired due to his own activity. Probably a bit of both obviously. As everything takes it's toll.

 

Tommy, rightly, did not really see fighters like Barkley and Roldan as on the same level as him. Thus IMO he did not really come in fully prepared for a hard fight. This was probably exacerbated by the fact that he dominated Barkley (especially in the 3rd round before the KO) and dropped Roldan with the first right hand he landed.

The other matter too is that, although Hearns was a more seasoned and experienced fighter in 1985, the rise in weight had conspired to partly negate his fantastic, god-given, physical advantages. Specifically his height, his reach and his power. He was fighting bigger men, taller men whom he could not dominate in the same manner he had at welter and junior middle. Barkley for example was about the same height, although was lacking in reach compared to Tommy.

I think, as others had said, that it was really Tommy's legs that let him down in some fights. For some reason, rising in weight really did take away the spring he had in those legs at the lower weights. Tommy's legs were the key to his dominating performances; take them away and he wasn't nearly the same fighter.

 

Hagler. Hearns may have been at his peak at that point with Hagler giving him a Zen Lesson by forcing Hearns to fight.

 

Hard to say because Hearns best weight was probably LMWT which was in between both weights - WWT vs SRL & MWT vs MMH.

I think Tommy was a bit stronger & more experienced by the Hagler fight but its usually harder to beat an undefeated fighter than one thats lost before as they tend to have a more solid belief & mindest.

I`ll say - both versions were in the prime yrs of Tommy but the better version was beaten by MMH despite him actually boxing smarter vs SRL, Hagler faced more of a physical threat IMO.

 

When you wrote something akin to "one can't box without a jab", you didn't seem to making a distinguishing between "pure boxers" and "swarmers" or whatever. I read it as "boxers (as opposed to street fighters) can't box unless they jab" -which isn't true but as a style, yes, you would expect the "boxer" to operate behind the jab.

 

SH89,im intrigued by your comment that leonard was the smoothest and most rhythmic puncher of the past 40 years. Could you expand on this,and is it Ali that overtakes leonard on that score? Cheers...