Who faced the better version of Hearns

Yes, but Steward should have known that strong durable guys were going to pose problems for the structurally weaker Hearns. Particularly after Hagler. Roldan was roughly the same height as Duran but he was about three times as strong and those winging shots he liked to throw were dangerous to a guy like Hearns.

I am not so sure that Hearns came in less than well-prepared for these fights -his mentality may have been as you say it, but Hearns was devoted to preparation. His character in that respect rivalled Hagler's.

This is true and you framed the argument supporting the superiority of the WW version well. I suspect otherwise, though. Hearns was weaker as a WW. I look at his back when he was a JMW (where I'd argue all day that he was at his physical and career best) and a MW. It was wide. As a WW, Hearns looked nothing more than emaciated. He was devestating -knocking over all those guys in the first 3 rounds. At 6'1, he had obvious advantages, but I believe that Leonard (belatedely in the fight and more due to a bit of desperation than strategy) provided the blueprint to defeat Hearns forevermore. Whether he was a WW or a MW doesn't make that much of a difference to me because although he was fighting bigger, stronger guys, he was also healthier and more natural himself than he ever was at 147.

I'm part of that chorus that proclaims Tommy's leg problems -which seemed to me to be balance problems that he had career-long. Again, as a WW his legs were not a factor (pre-Leonard) because he wasn't going more than 3 rounds very often at all (something like 7 times in 32 fights).

 

I hate to disagree with a fellow Hearns lover, especially one such as you Dop who does him such justice.

However - Hearns was the absolute professional when it came to coming in shape and never disrespecting an opponent. If anything he had to be more cautious of overtraining, especially in big fights. Regardless he was the epitome of the consumate pro and i would never agree he took these guys lightly. Roldan was actually for a historical 4th world title and he HAD to beat Barkley to keep his almost obsessive compulsive desire for revenge on Hagler and SRL alive.

 

I think this covers it on my take on what someone has to be doing to be termed a 'boxer,' meaning style. Every professional in the sport is a boxer, but I mean a boxer. Below explains clearly what I was trying to say without making the comparison with swarmers or brawlers. And the jab is the 'bread and butter' punch for any boxer. IMO you can't be termed a boxer without the jab, not in a hardcore sense anyway.

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.

 

I think Steward was aware that as Hearns rose in weight his opponents would be naturally stronger and more durable; I don't think there was much Steward could do about that. And when I say Hearns came in unprepared I do mean in a mental sense. We all know Tommy was a consummate professional but I'm sure he expected to blast out both Barkley and Roldan with not too much difficulty. That's what I mean - he was prepared alright but inside he likely didn't really fear/respect the opponent as much (obviously) as a Leonard or Hagler. We've seen the same thing so many times before, someone or some team is expected to win comfortably and instead comes unstuck. It's very difficult to be totally mentally focused all the time. As the old adage goes, it's harder to defend a title than to win it in the first place.

Agreed and unfortunately in Hagler, Tommy came up against a stronger version of the fighter that had the tools to beat him, i.e. heart, a great chin and power of his own. Whilst there was nothing lucky about Barkley's monster left hook, I kinda see that fight as an aberration. It took two great fighters to expose Tommy and not too many fighters in history would have the prerequisites to beat a Hearns on top of his game.

I guess when you had a 78 inch reach at welterweight, coupled with a world class jab, you probably didn't have to develop your leg movement as much as other fighters without those physical talents. Tommy was always a little flat-footed and I guess the price he paid for his freakish height, reach and leverage were weakish legs.

 

What separates the barbarian from the boxer is the jab. And there's irony there --the weakest punch also happens to be the most important.

 

I remember being concerned for Hearns before he fought Roldan. Roldan was one of the few men that Hagler seemed downright outmuscled by in the ring. And Hagler was far stronger than Hearns. In fact, Hagler fought Hearns using the same assets of a Roldan -come blazing and bulling in, winging shots and relying on durability of body and chin. Hagler actually dumbed his game down because his "best game" -the ambidextrous boxer-puncher, would not have been right against the boxer-puncher par excellence that Hearns was.

Yes, although what do you believe Hearns' chances would have been had he played matador behind the jab for a while and ripping right hands now and then? See I think that Hearns' durability in terms of stamina and legs would have been better than it was against Leonard. Hagler had slowed down and Hagler knew, no -he KNEW- that his only chance against THAT version of Hearns was to make a brawl of it and hope that Hearns obliged. Hearns, with a swelled head due Duran, obliged....and ran into a wall.

"The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord."

A Hearns with the durability of a Hagler would have been a god of the ring. He might have ruled 147 through 200+. Imagine that.

 

Hagler fought a more mature, physically and skillwise, than Leonard did in their initial encounter.

 

Hagler .
Hearns was drained vs Leonard , not vs Hagler .

1 would have xpected a member 4 3 yrs (back then) 2 know how 2 post a poll , public poll .