Who fought the better version of Hearns

I believe he broke it on Hagler's head.

 

Moving up to lightheavy and back down may have affected him.
We also can't discount the damage that Hagler did to him.

 

Very True, I agree. Moving around a lot as he did in weight definitely affected him... what a bad a** he was tho . I just love when he first moves up to middle and takes on Sutherland I think, a HUGE middle and was LHW… What a brutal fight for Tommy as he will tell you himself, one of his toughest ever. He folded his right hand and has to finish the fight only with his left. Sutherland has him cut over both eyes and Tommy is digging to his body over and over again with his powerful left hook , same shot that drops SRL and Sutherland taking them like a champ, not even phased. Just shrugs them off... Anyway, Tommy outboxes him but that's the thing, Tommy fighting big strong middles was definitely different than him at 147 and 154

 

Been a Hearns fan since the first Sugar Ray Leonard fight and with everything being read on here,they are all very credible points.It's hard to say out of the middleweight and welterweight bouts with Hagler and Leonard,which one faced the best of Hearns because he had various strengths and short comings. But in my opinion,JR. Middleweight was his best. Not only was his power still so awesome ,but with a broken hand and great stamina,(always one of his possible weaknesses),he beat the great Wilfred Benitez..

 

About the same.

Duran fought a better version than either Leonard or Hagler.

Leonard and Hearns were both natural 147 pounders who each held a slice of the title, so it was a tough matchup for both.

at 154, Hearns was at the peak of his powers and Duran was no natural 154 lb. fighter, so it was a tough ask for Duran.

Hagler was a monster in terms of strength at 160 lbs and natural at that weight, so he had the natural strength advantage over Hearns. But Hearns, had massive height and reach advantages, plus had the power of a natural 160 pounder.

 

I agree 154 was probably Hearns best division. His legs appeared sturdy and he still held those advantages of height and reach. The reason I think that Hagler fought the better version is because Tommy was more experienced by 1985. He had been through some big fights, won some, lost one. He wasn't overwhelmed by the moment. I think in the Leonard fight he came in at 145lbs. Later on Manny said that was because he kept running even after he was told not to. So he may have taken away some of his size advantage by melting down to 145. In a nutshell Tommy Hearns was a little bit more green going into that fight with Leonard than some people realize.
They were both great wins. Top flight, elite wins. Splitting hairs here but got to say Hagler face the guy that was confident had just destroyed Duran was at the peak of his powers. And make no mistake about it that first right hand he hits Marvin Hagler with would have knocked out a Steer!!! I don't think I'm exaggerating this point. But that was a special fighter in Marvin Hagler. The Marvelous one had the mentality that "he could hit me with that ring post and I'm not going anywhere". That's what he said later

 

He did and it's fair to say Tommy was perfectly healthy at the start of the fight so, yes, in order for him to break his hand, Marvin had to endure the shot, which is a risky tactic!

So you can look at it two ways but I still think Marvin was fortunate that it happened. Breaking a hand is a combination of factors, not least of all the hardness of the Hagler 'bowling ball' head. But not exclusively that, either. And Tommy's hands were getting brittle long before the Hagler fight, a fact disguised by the ferocity with which he had blown Duran away.

So for my money, physically, Ray was up against a more fornidable welterweight than Marvin's middleweight. I liked an earlier post which asked how many welters would you have bet on against the Hearns of the Showdown. Not many outside the two Sugar Rays. How many middles beat the Hearns of The War? Hagler, Monzon, Toney, LaMotta, Greb, Walker, Charles are all names I can think of who I'd have had a cheeky punt on and there are probably a few more.

Outside of this thread, though, it's a moot point. Fact is, both SRL and MMH beat a freakish specimen, the likes of which neither's division had seen very often, if at all.

 

But Hearns was coming up in weight and really it wasn't the sort of fight where his height counted for much. I don't see how you can give Marvin more credit than Ray. Hearns had beaten Duran at light middle but at Welter he destroyed Cuevas in much the same fashion and Cuevas had been welterweight champion for 4 years.

 

Great points but a counter argument might point out that, though greener, 1981 Hearns showed the ability to adapt infight (if there's such a word), picking his punches, conserving his energy, changing his tactics when he was hurt and circling rather than stalking Ray.

1985Tommy fought the fight Hagler wanted him to fight and didn't adapt to Marvin's tactics by using his reach and his jab. He didn't get on his bike and box for a sustained period even though he needed to regroup. If he had extra seasoning and experience, he didn't use it.

 

Great points imo.

The thing is, I'm not sure even Thomas' incredible jab and movement would have beat Hagler, anyway. Hagler was a full-blooded middleweight with substantial punching power and faster hands than many would give him credit for.

That said, look what Leonard did. If Hearns could have done similarly...

naah, Hearns was a sensational fighter, but I just don't see him pulling it off. I also feel that Hearns was a bit chinnier than Leonard (I could be wrong).

Even with what was supposed to be Hearns' original plan, Hagler kayos him in 5 at the very latest. Marvelous Marvin was obviously, seriously up for that fight and it didn't appear to me Hearns was.

 

Yes. What's skewing this thread slightly is that the fighter that WW Hearns fought in 81 was not the utter beast he was getting in the ring with in 85. As great as Ray was in 81, he wasn't at that absolute zenith that Marvin reached that night.

Tommy may well have been stronger, more skilled, wiser, had a more experienced corner etc in 85 but, P4P, Hagler - on that particular night - was way ahead of Leonard in 81. Tommy was up against a much more focussed and nasty opponent. That's no sleight on Ray. He was great in 81 but Ive never seen a fighter so intense as Marvin that night.

There's also the style aspect. Tommy could look good against Ray as Ray didn't crowd him, at least not until he hurt him, in the same way Hagler did. Tommy may have been improved but being crowded from the off, in the manner it happened, was never going to alow him to showcase that.

In brief, 85 Hearns may or may not have been better. It didn't matter. He was up against too irresistible a force for it to matter.

 

Anyone who's saying Hagler is saying that Hearns would be a better MW than a WW. Which we can all agree is wrong

 

This gives me trouble, too. To me, the win Leonard had over Hearns was possibly the best and most defining win of his career...mostly because Hearns could have been (like Leonard) already considered an ATG at that time.

In my eyes it certainly was better than that stinky Duran II fight (which to me was essentially inconclusive).

As amazing as Ray's win over Lalonde was, the first Hearns fight was just a stunner of a performance, especially proving Ray's great championship heart.

Hearns was at his peak against Ray I, and already a very great welter imo.

 

exactly he was certainly a great welterweight but never a great middleweight, not really

 

Good post but I do not think Ray's win over Lalonde was not amazing at all. He weakened the champ at 175 to go to 168 and outclassed a guy who was not at his level. He set that up to win two more titles to make it 5 because his buddy Hearns won 5 3 days before.