Who faced the better version of Hearns

[quintonjacksonfan]

Hagler or Leonard 1

[Jbuz]

Leonard.

[redrooster]

hagler for sure for all the obvious reasons.

First, he was more experienced. For leonard, tommy really hadn't fought anyone of class other than Cuevas. all others were too worn and badly beaten up ex contenders incapable of putting up a fight; not having the reflexes to defend against tommy's attack so they took shots flush-the perfect opponents for tommy.

and after cuevas it was more of the same weak competition: Primera who was unknown outside of his native Valenzuela, then impotent Shields-no threat at all and later stopped by Bumphus. Then Baez given an emergency top ten ranking to qualify for a title shot. read all about it in Ring magazine. Tommy showed he had a lot of maturing to do during the Baez match, dropping his hands but he got away with it in that fight.

His competition was weak and he was bowling over stiffs.

After leonard he at least faced durable although very modest competition - signletary-10 rds, geraldo, Mc Craken-8, 15 with Benitez, 10 with Sutherland, 12 hard rounds with Minchillo, duran and Hutchins and the 14 with leonard, a somewhat demanding fight but all badly needed rounds for Tommy.

Not to mention carrying his weight much better. Don't believe the liars-Tommy was not at a healthy weight for Leonard and had actually outgrown the welters. now look at him for the Hagler fight at a very strong 159 pounds. Weight problems were a thing of the past.

and it's just not realistic to think Tommy was at his prime at 22 and 145 pounds. he looked very skinny for that fight.

[Holmes' Jab]

Hagler.

[Denny Cruser]

hagler for sure for all the obvious reasons.

First, he was more experienced.
He was so much expirienced that coming to kill unkillable where he must box.
;)

[JohnThomas1]

Leonard. Benitez fought an even better version minus the broken hand, and Duran the peak version IMO. Marvin fought a peak Hearns but not at his peak weight. Still a killer version tho.

[JohnThomas1]

He was so much expirienced that coming to kill unkillable where he must box.
;)

;)

[achillesthegreat]

Leonard.

[Stonehands89]

Hearns was 26 years old against Hagler and was a powerful MW. He was experienced, having already faced greats like Leonard, Benitez, and Duran.

He was a 21 years old untested kid against Leonard and he was lanky and emaciated.

-The question is easy.

[Dostoevsky]

Hagler.

Against Leonard he was too skinny and not experienced enough,he didn't even clinch when hurt!
The Hearns that Hagler fought,was stronger,bigger,more experienced everything!

[Duodenum]

Hagler.

SRL opened against Hearns by boxing cautiously and alertly, mindful of Tommy's performance against Cuevas and Shields. (Hearns was far better against Shields than SRL was.) Hagler didn't take a backwards step against the fully matured destroyer who just blasted out Duran. SRL would have been killed, going immediately after Tommy like that.

Hearns had seasoning and confidence going in against Hagler that he didn't possess against SRL.

[PowerPuncher]

Hearns was 26 years old against Hagler and was a powerful MW. He was experienced, having already faced greats like Leonard, Benitez, and Duran.

He was a 21 years old untested kid against Leonard and he was lanky and emaciated.

-The question is easy.

Agreed, although HEarns hurt his hand early and didn't box clever against Hagler

[jyuza]

Hagler did.

Hearns was a true beast at middleweight. Much more powerful, he carryed his speed as well, looked unbeatable...
Leonard fought a young version of Hearns, I think he wasn't at his best (mentally) against SRL but he definitely was with Hagler.

[redrooster]

He was so much expirienced that coming to kill unkillable where he must box.
;)

Tommy liked to trade in all his fights including leonard when he was caught. Look at rds 3-6. most of what you see is tommy wanting to slug it out. Tommy always fought like he was in a hurry and had to be somewhere else

[Doppleganger]

Hagler did, minus the overtrained legs and broken right hand in round 1. The Hearns that Leonard faced was still maturing physically.

[Stonehands89]

Agreed, although HEarns hurt his hand early and didn't box clever against Hagler

... yes, he hurt his right hand on Hagler's head. Which goes to show you what happens when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object.

The question was which version of Hearns was better and although he did choose the wrong strategy, Hagler was forcing the issue. The point is that Hearns was more developed, physically and mentally, as a fighter in 1985.

I also think that post-Hagler, Hearns was never as confident again. His chin became more checkable after that. Which is understandable. That fight may have been Hearns' absolute peak fight.

[JohnThomas1]

... yes, he hurt his right hand on Hagler's head. Which goes to show you what happens when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object.

He broke it on Benitez's head too, hardly an immovable object, anything but actually. The whole Hagler's hard head broke Tommy's right hand thing gets blown right out. The fact is that Tommy had a susceptible right hand. Hearn's power, angles and where the punch actually hit is what did it.

[Stonehands89]

He broke it on Benitez's head too, hardly an immovable object, anything but actually. The whole Hagler's hard head broke Tommy's right hand thing gets blown right out. The fact is that Tommy had a susceptible right hand. Hearn's power, angles and where the punch actually hit is what did it.

Hearn's power was too much for the bones in his hand. That's a fact. Hagler had a hard head. That's another fact!

[JohnThomas1]

Hearn's power was too much for the bones in his hand. That's a fact. Hagler had a hard head. That's another fact!

And one more fact, everybody has a hard head, even soft chinned Benitez.

[sweet_scientist]

IMO, the Hearns Leonard faced was the best Hearns there ever was.

Never did he box better, never was he sharper, never did he show better stamina, never did he hit harder in a p4p sense.

The Hearns that fought at 154 may have been "better", but not in a p4p sense. He was bigger and steadier at 154, but hey, so would most 154 pounders be in comparison to 147 pounders.

[sweet_scientist]

Why are 154 lbs men "steadier" than 147 lbs men?

As a generalisation, bigger guys take better shots and are harder to move than smaller guys, no?

[Doppleganger]

I also think that post-Hagler, Hearns was never as confident again. His chin became more checkable after that. Which is understandable. That fight may have been Hearns' absolute peak fight.
I think his peak fight performance-wise was the Shuler fight. He looked better balanced and he was throwing those wicked left hooks to the body.

[Denny Cruser]

Tommy liked to trade in all his fights including leonard when he was caught. Look at rds 3-6. most of what you see is tommy wanting to slug it out. Tommy always fought like he was in a hurry and had to be somewhere else
Yeah. This is obviously confirmed that Tommy doesnt learned on his faults. So the argument that Tommy versus Leonard was unexpirienced is meaningless because Tommy didnt use so called expirience. :hey

[JohnThomas1]

IMO, the Hearns Leonard faced was the best Hearns there ever was.

Never did he box better, never was he sharper, never did he show better stamina, never did he hit harder in a p4p sense.

The Hearns that fought at 154 may have been "better", but not in a p4p sense. He was bigger and steadier at 154, but hey, so would most 154 pounders be in comparison to 147 pounders.

An interesting third scenario. Allow me to expand on mine if i may.

I believe Hearns was at his peak at 154 for a collection of reasons.

1) Hearns, IMO, carried all of his power up to 154 including an improved body attack. Never mind Benitez, Sutherland and Minchillo, Hearns broke his hand during the Benitez chess match and stated he lacked a bit of confidence in the hand thru the Sutherland and Minchillo bouts. Sutherland also happened to be at 160. He stated just before the Duran bout he had full confidence in the hand again and boldly predicted Hearns KO2 Duran. This bout and subsequents vs Hutchings and Medal showed his devastating power at this weight. He also showed an improving left hook to the body, a vastly underrated punch in his arsenal. Hearns hammering of Duran at this weight is equal to any display of power ever IMO. It was at least equal to the Cuevas performance.

2) Hearns had finally, from the SRL loss, learnt to clinch and fight better when hurt. This might even be the biggest reason 154 was his peak weight, IMO. He showed zero ill affects from the Leonard loss, but also showed some very benificial positive ones. Better clinching post SRL at all weights added an extra dimension to his game. He quite possibly ly could have survived vs SRL if he'd only been as adept as he was later in this regard.

3) We never heard any instances or even whispers of Hearns being weight challenged at 154. I'm not about to proclaim he definitely was at 147, but at 154 he made the weight easily and was much stronger and more muscular. At 147 i thought him a little frail and at 160 i thought him a little harder matched physically as guys like Roldan and Barkley showed IMO. The physical jump and class of opponent at 160 was substancially bigger than at 154. Big strong middles were a dime a dozen.

Basically i think Hearns retained almost every advantage he had at 147 and picked up some added bonuses as well. A little, and i mean a little frail at 147 and a little outgunned physically at times at 160 by fighters he outclassed by miles.

[achillesthegreat]

As a generalisation, bigger guys take better shots and are harder to move than smaller guys, no?
Agreed. Whether the size is natural or manafactured I believe generally your statement holds true.

[jyuza]

An interesting third scenario. Allow me to expand on mine if i may.

Please go ahead.

I believe Hearns was at his peak at 154 for a collection of reasons.

1) Hearns, IMO, carried all of his power up to 154 including an improved body attack. Never mind Benitez, Sutherland and Minchillo, Hearns broke his hand during the Benitez chess match and stated he lacked a bit of confidence in the hand thru the Sutherland and Minchillo bouts. Sutherland also happened to be at 160. He stated just before the Duran bout he had full confidence in the hand again and boldly predicted Hearns KO2 Duran. This bout and subsequents vs Hutchings and Medal showed his devastating power at this weight. He also showed an improving left hook to the body, a vastly underrated punch in his arsenal. Hearns hammering of Duran at this weight is equal to any display of power ever IMO. It was at least equal to the Cuevas performance.

2) Hearns had finally, from the SRL loss, learnt to clinch and fight better when hurt. This might even be the biggest reason 154 was his peak weight, IMO. He showed zero ill affects from the Leonard loss, but also showed some very benificial positive ones. Better clinching post SRL at all weights added an extra dimension to his game. He quite possibly ly could have survived vs SRL if he'd only been as adept as he was later in this regard.

3) We never heard any instances or even whispers of Hearns being weight challenged at 154. I'm not about to proclaim he definitely was at 147, but at 154 he made the weight easily and was much stronger and more muscular. At 147 i thought him a little frail and at 160 i thought him a little harder matched physically as guys like Roldan and Barkley showed IMO. The physical jump and class of opponent at 160 was substancially bigger than at 154. Big strong middles were a dime a dozen.

Basically i think Hearns retained almost every advantage he had at 147 and picked up some added bonuses as well. A little, and i mean a little frail at 147 and a little outgunned physically at times at 160 by fighters he outclassed by miles.

Agreed with everything you said.
At 147 he was a little faster (as Scientist said previously), at 154 he was, IMO, a monster. Knocking Duran out in 2 rounds was quite a schock at the time and, after that, he just destroyed in one round the guy who went the distance with Marvelous (can't recall his name).

Hearns was a true beast, he just failed to become the greatest fighter ever seen due to his shaky chin.

[sweet_scientist]

An interesting third scenario. Allow me to expand on mine if i may.

I believe Hearns was at his peak at 154 for a collection of reasons.

1) Hearns, IMO, carried all of his power up to 154 including an improved body attack. Never mind Benitez, Sutherland and Minchillo, Hearns broke his hand during the Benitez chess match and stated he lacked a bit of confidence in the hand thru the Sutherland and Minchillo bouts. Sutherland also happened to be at 160. He stated just before the Duran bout he had full confidence in the hand again and boldly predicted Hearns KO2 Duran. This bout and subsequents vs Hutchings and Medal showed his devastating power at this weight. He also showed an improving left hook to the body, a vastly underrated punch in his arsenal. Hearns hammering of Duran at this weight is equal to any display of power ever IMO. It was at least equal to the Cuevas performance.

2) Hearns had finally, from the SRL loss, learnt to clinch and fight better when hurt. This might even be the biggest reason 154 was his peak weight, IMO. He showed zero ill affects from the Leonard loss, but also showed some very benificial positive ones. Better clinching post SRL at all weights added an extra dimension to his game. He quite possibly ly could have survived vs SRL if he'd only been as adept as he was later in this regard.

3) We never heard any instances or even whispers of Hearns being weight challenged at 154. I'm not about to proclaim he definitely was at 147, but at 154 he made the weight easily and was much stronger and more muscular. At 147 i thought him a little frail and at 160 i thought him a little harder matched physically as guys like Roldan and Barkley showed IMO. The physical jump and class of opponent at 160 was substancially bigger than at 154. Big strong middles were a dime a dozen.

Basically i think Hearns retained almost every advantage he had at 147 and picked up some added bonuses as well. A little, and i mean a little frail at 147 and a little outgunned physically at times at 160 by fighters he outclassed by miles.
I'm not sure Hearns' had the same power disparity compared to 154 pound opposition that he had compared to 147 pound opposition. Perhaps. One can't deny his spectacular ko's at 154. The KO of Duran was as good a KO as you'd ever see. I think he may have knocked out natural welters easier than natural super welters, but perhaps that may have just been due to other factors like his reach which would have been more disparate against welters than super welters.

I thought Hearns always had a good body attack, even at welter. He hit Ray with some pretty good body shots. A lot more jabs to the body than hooks, but he still mixed it up well. He faced no one as good as Leonard at 154 and may have been able to go to the body more at that weight without fear of retaliation with the punches Leonard hit him with.

I agree with you that he learnt to clinch and fight smarter when hurt after the Leonard fight, though this wasn't really put to the test much at 154 from what I saw. He was never anywhere close to the trouble he was in against Leonard at 154 to see if he could hold some one off and recover in the depths of such trouble. But I suppose had he been, he would have employed tactics he didn't use before against Ray.

I've never really bought the weight drained excuse. He boxed on the move brilliantly against Ray, and never showed such movement again in all his career. His jaw also stood up to some great shots. Was he weaker at 145 than at 154? Sure, but again, in my view, not in a p4p sense. I think Tommy would take a better shot at welterweight than he would against a comparable fighter that is naturally 154 pounds.

[JohnThomas1]

I'm not sure Hearns' had the same power disparity compared to 154 pound opposition that he had compared to 147 pound opposition. Perhaps. One can't deny his spectacular ko's at 154. The KO of Duran was as good a KO as you'd ever see. I think he may have knocked out natural welters easier than natural super welters, but perhaps that may have just been due to other factors like his reach which would have been more disparate against welters than super welters.

I thought Hearns always had a good body attack, even at welter. He hit Ray with some pretty good body shots. A lot more jabs to the body than hooks, but he still mixed it up well. He faced no one as good as Leonard at 154 and may have been able to go to the body more at that weight without fear of retaliation with the punches Leonard hit him with.

I agree with you that he learnt to clinch and fight smarter when hurt after the Leonard fight, though this wasn't really put to the test much at 154 from what I saw. He was never anywhere close to the trouble he was in against Leonard at 154 to see if he could hold some one off and recover in the depths of such trouble. But I suppose had he been, he would have employed tactics he didn't use before against Ray.

I've never really bought the weight drained excuse. He boxed on the move brilliantly against Ray, and never showed such movement again in all his career. His jaw also stood up to some great shots. Was he weaker at 145 than at 154? Sure, but again, in my view, not in a p4p sense. I think Tommy would take a better shot at welterweight than he would against a comparable fighter that is naturally 154 pounds.

Fair post mate, at the end of the day we both agree he was stronger at 147 than 160

:good

[JohnThomas1]

Please go ahead.



Agreed with everything you said.
At 147 he was a little faster (as Scientist said previously), at 154 he was, IMO, a monster. Knocking Duran out in 2 rounds was quite a schock at the time and, after that, he just destroyed in one round the guy who went the distance with Marvelous (can't recall his name).

Hearns was a true beast, he just failed to become the greatest fighter ever seen due to his shaky chin.

Thanks mate. I actually think he was as fast at 154 as he was at 147 but might be wrong. Definitely blinding at both tho that's for sure.

[sweet_scientist]

Fair post mate, at the end of the day we both agree he was stronger at 147 than 160

:good
For sure. I would have liked to see Hearns at 154 against a real solid guy like McCallum or perhaps Julian Jackson, we might have been able to answer the question of where he was best with more authority. I'd probably take Hearns in both fights, but I'm not sure, especially against Mike.

[jyuza]

For sure. I would have liked to see Hearns at 154 against a real solid guy like McCallum or perhaps Julian Jackson, we might have been able to answer the question of where he was best with more authority. I'd probably take Hearns in both fights, but I'm not sure, especially against Mike.

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.

[JohnThomas1]

For sure. I would have liked to see Hearns at 154 against a real solid guy like McCallum or perhaps Julian Jackson, we might have been able to answer the question of where he was best with more authority. I'd probably take Hearns in both fights, but I'm not sure, especially against Mike.

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.

[sweet_scientist]

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.

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.

[sweet_scientist]

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.
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.

[Stonehands89]

And one more fact, everybody has a hard head, even soft chinned Benitez.

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.

[Stonehands89]

I think his peak fight performance-wise was the Shuler fight. He looked better balanced and he was throwing those wicked left hooks to the body.

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.

[JohnThomas1]

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.

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

[he grant]

Hagler

[Robbi]

Hagler did.

Hearns was a true beast at middleweight. Much more powerful, he carryed his speed as well, looked unbeatable...
Leonard fought a young version of Hearns, I think he wasn't at his best (mentally) against SRL but he definitely was with 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.

[Robbi]

3) We never heard any instances or even whispers of Hearns being weight challenged at 154. I'm not about to proclaim he definitely was at 147, but at 154 he made the weight easily and was much stronger and more muscular. At 147 i thought him a little frail and at 160 i thought him a little harder matched physically as guys like Roldan and Barkley showed IMO. The physical jump and class of opponent at 160 was substancially bigger than at 154. Big strong middles were a dime a dozen.

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.

[Michael Vick]

He was so much expirienced that coming to kill unkillable where he must box.
;) What a great point. His experience did him nothing in the Hagler bout, so the "experience" argument holds no weight.

[Robbi]

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.

[jyuza]

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.

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.

[enquirer]

Leonard slightly.

[McGrain]

Hagler, clearly. Against Leonard he was inexperienced at the highest level, and I also consider him tight at the weight.

Fighting Leonard should make Hearns a better fighter, shouldn't it? Or do you guys consider experience at the very highest level worthless?

[PowerPuncher]

Hagler, clearly. Against Leonard he was inexperienced at the highest level, and I also consider him tight at the weight.

Fighting Leonard should make Hearns a better fighter, shouldn't it? Or do you guys consider experience at the very highest level worthless?

Hearns was better at Middleweight but also gives up his size and power advantages some what against bigger men

[My dinner with Conteh]

Hearns was far more effective as a welter and was one of the best 147ers ever, the same cannot be said for his effectiveness at 160. His tenure as middleweight champ was always going to be short.

[Ezzard]

Interesting question. I can appreciate both sides of the argument here

[he grant]

I think Hearns was in his physical prime for Hagler, coming off his biggest string of victories at the weight he was most comfortable .... he was also more experienced than the 22 year old dried out welter string bean that fought Leonard ... the experience did not matter becausse Hagler was too tough, too good and exploited the weaknesses that Hearns had his whole career ... a questionable chin, questionable stamina and the inability to avoid a slugfest ...

I've always wondered if Hearns beats Hagler by boxing him and cutting him up but I'm not sure he could have held him off that way ... who knows ???

[salsanchezfan]

............Easy one; Leonard. Hearns wasn't really a middleweight after all. There wasn't a single time against a real middleweight where he was anything approaching what he was for the first Leonard firght.

[he grant]

What was he approaching the Leonard fight? He had one big victory, plenty of KO's against decent but not great opposition and a ton of hype. He had already been slightly exposed against Randy Shields as less than unbeatable ... Tommy was very young and not in his physical prime at the time ... after that fight he defeated a still terrific Benitez, blew out Hutchings, destroyed Duran and was at a weight where he was much more comfortable. Yes Hagler was his first big middleweight challange but at 6'1" Tommy had little trouble fitting the weight naturally ... he simply got beaten by an iron chinned, greater champion.

[My dinner with Conteh]

What was he approaching the Leonard fight?.

Many felt he was the best pound-for-pound fighter in boxing for a start. He punch resistance at 160 was weak, that was obvious to anyone who saw him fight there. He got by on power and his great boxing ability. But a Barkleyesque upset would have happened sooner or later.

[he grant]

But that was on hype and speculation. Up to that time he blew out one name fighter, Cuevas, that's it ... I don't know how many viewed him s a pound for pound great at the time ... he was more viewed as a super exciting commodity ...

[My dinner with Conteh]

...and all's he did at 160 was blow out Schuler, who wasn't on Cuevas' level.

[he grant]

I do not know how Hearns can be called one of the greatest welters ever when he never defeated a great fighter at welter and left the division at such an early age ...

[Michael Vick]

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. Give me a specific example where his experience helped him in the Hagler bout, or he showed greater experience than the bout vs Leonard. Give me one specific example. I'll be waiting.

[Hatesrats]

Hagler version.

[salsanchezfan]

I do not know how Hearns can be called one of the greatest welters ever when he never defeated a great fighter at welter and left the division at such an early age ...


.................Who'd he beat at middleweight?

[kickbxn5]

Hagler no doubt

[SuperSouthpaw]

Hearns was far more effective as a welter and was one of the best 147ers ever, the same cannot be said for his effectiveness at 160. His tenure as middleweight champ was always going to be short.



:good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good
:good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good
:good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good
:good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good :good

[SuzieQ49]

Hearns was defintley better at 147

[heehoo]

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.

[My2Sense]

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.

[Robbi]

Give me a specific example where his experience helped him in the Hagler bout, or he showed greater experience than the bout vs Leonard. Give me one specific example. I'll be waiting.

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.

[Robbi]

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

Anyone agree with this nonsense?

[My dinner with Conteh]

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.

[My dinner with Conteh]

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.


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

[Robbi]

He was far more effective at 147, that's as clear as the deep blue sea. :p 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.

[Robbi]

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.

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

[Robbi]

Michael Vick

Where are you :lol:

[enquirer]

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....

[My dinner with Conteh]

...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.

[Stonehands89]

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).

[Sweet Pea]

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.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?

[Robbi]

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.(which was 154).

Exactly what I have been 'preaching'.

[Robbi]

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?

Because he had a high KO percentage at WW doesn't mean that was his best division. When it comes to raw power and dispatching his opponents in clincial fashion, then yes. I think his boxing ability was better at 154lbs where he was extended the full distance in his first two fights at that weight. I think the LMW version of Hearns was reasonably patient against Benitez. IMO if he faced Bentiez at WW he would probably have not as been as patient and economical with his shots. Hearns was regarded as the puncher going into the Leonard fight, yet he boxed as well as he ever done at WW throughout most of the fight. I think he was a bit more well rounded at LMW.

Yes, he obviously did have more experience at 175, but he wasn't as effective overall. He had slowed down, his power wasn't the same, and he was in with bigger fighters. I think against Hill he boxed as well as he ever done. No way would a 21 year old Hearns' have boxed with that manner and disclipine. Again, back to power. His power at WW probably prevents him from sitting back like he did against Hill. Only when Hearns was hurt against Leonard did he switch tactics and go laterally on the backfoot.

[JohnThomas1]

Do you mean prior to facing Hagler? Because that was his first fight at the weight.

Actually it was his third or fourth, depending how pedantically we look at it.

[Sweet Pea]

I think if Hearns got a sense of what he was up against, which he would've by feeling his opponent out, he would've been just as effective against a fighter of Benitez's caliber as he showed at 154 and above. It's not as if he was wild at the weight or anything, always very controlled, even in his attack.

[JohnThomas1]

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?

I think you've totally misread his post. He says "above 154" and i think you took it as "at 154". Your reply certainly indicates this.

As for Hearns .500 KO % at 154 (i'd like to see the breakdown, actually), we need to rise above plain stats and boxrec figures and envelope the entire scenario.

Hearns had hand problems early at the weight, breaking his right hand on Benitez' head slightly after the mid rounds i think it was and stated after going the distance with the durable Minchillo that he now had 100% confidence back in the hand. He then nominated the 2nd round for Duran's demise and backed it right up. This is as chilling a KO as just about anything in history and entirely negates any .500 ratio pointing to a lack of power there. He then axed two good fighters, one who had never been stopped before and left the weight.

[Sweet Pea]

But what advantages does he have at the weight? He didn't seem to have the nimble legs he did at 147, and his chin was never really tested as he didn't fight nearly as long.

[Robbi]

Actually it was his third or fourth, depending how pedantically we look at it.

I know what you mean. Actually his first fight after the Leonard defeat was technically a middleweight fight when he came in at 155 for Singletary. Most people tend to think of that fight as a JMW bout. For McCracken and Sutherland he was very much a middleweight.

You got me on that one. Thinking to fast. I did get you earlier on you saying "We never heard any instances or even whispers of Hearns being weight challenged at 154"

[JohnThomas1]

I know what you mean. Actually his first fight after the Leonard defeat was technically a middleweight fight when he came in at 155 for Singletary. Most people tend to think of that fight as a JMW bout. For McCracken and Sutherland he was very much a middleweight.

Singletary was a fully fledged middleweight. Geraldo too came in at 159.5, regardless of Hearns 153 1/4 etc.

Robbi, for all your posts and debates in this thread i cannot for the life of me find where you have answered the actual thread question yourself. You seem to be hopping around on both sides and mainly worrying about one single point, that of experience. Obviously Hearns had gained experience and Vicks point was mainly that he didn't really use it. But enough of that one.

Who do you think in plain black and white faced the best version of Monsieur Hearns?

[JohnThomas1]

You got me on that one. Thinking to fast. I did get you earlier on you saying "We never heard any instances or even whispers of Hearns being weight challenged at 154"

Ok, you've gone back and added this on after i quoted your post.

I did actually address it yesty but the site froze when i posted it.

Yes i don't doubt your account at all, it's understandable when we see Hearns had been campaigning at 160 for all but two years and had basically left the division behind.

At his best there tho the weight was totally natural and he would never have any problems making it. It was definately his niche IMO.

[Robbi]

Singletary was a fully fledged middleweight. Geraldo too came in at 159.5, regardless of Hearns 153 1/4 etc.

Robbi, for all your posts and debates in this thread i cannot for the life of me find where you have answered the actual thread question yourself. You seem to be hopping around on both sides and mainly worrying about one single point, that of experience. Obviously Hearns had gained experience and Vicks point was mainly that he didn't really use it. But enough of that one.

Who do you think in plain black and white faced the best version of Monsieur Hearns?

JT. Let me tell you a little story. Now listen to this carefully. I know fine well what the thread question asks. But I picked upon something within posts on the thread and decided to reply on that. All my posts have been dedicated to Thomas Hearns. It's not as if I have suddenly started to talk about Salvador Sanchez out of absolutley nothing within the thread. Im keeping on the subject of Hearns yet drifting away from the main question which started things. Fully aware of that my friend. What is it that exactly bothers you about it? I never thought you would go to trouble on dedicating a post regarding it. If you notice every thread, sometimes others slightly drift away from whats been discussed. Maybe someone shall pick upon a sentence within a post. It happens all the time in threads, yes, all the time.

And regarding Vicks' post, I'm picking him up like this.....He said the experience did Hearns no good against Hagler. Ok, agreed. But the "experience holds no weight" I interpret that as if he's saying that Hearns' wasn't more experienced for Hagler than Leonard. Which he clearly was IMO even though he got blown out earlier. My previous posts make sense on it. Going into the each fight, he was more experienced and seasoned for Hagler.

And to awnser your question. I might soon. Maybe tommorow, maybe next week if this thread is still going then. :good

[Robbi]

Ok, you've gone back and added this on after i quoted your post.

Nope. I actually added that in before you quoted my post because I checked if you had replied after I had added that and you hadn't. Looks like we were doing two things at the same time. You were replying as I was adding.

[JohnThomas1]

Nope. I actually added that in before you quoted my post because I checked if you had replied after I had added that and you hadn't. Looks like we were doing two things at the same time. You were replying as I was adding.

You posted what you did THEN went back and edited. In that time i was answering your original post. I can hardly have quoted what hadn't been posted :lol:

By the time i'd replied your adjustment had been added. If we haven't refreshed or changed pages the edit tag doesn't show.

[JohnThomas1]

JT. Let me tell you a little story. Now listen to this carefully. I know fine well what the thread question asks. But I picked upon something within posts on the thread and decided to reply on that. All my posts have been dedicated to Thomas Hearns. It's not as if I have suddenly started to talk about Salvador Sanchez out of absolutley nothing within the thread. Im keeping on the subject of Hearns yet drifting away from the main question which started things. Fully aware of that my friend. What is it that exactly bothers you about it? I never thought you would go to trouble on dedicating a post regarding it. If you notice every thread, sometimes others slightly drift away from whats been discussed. Maybe someone shall pick upon a sentence within a post. It happens all the time in threads, yes, all the time.


I've heard of stating the obvious, but Jeeeeezus!

It's really simple i thought, where do you sit in this discussion?

And to awnser your question. I might soon. Maybe tommorow, maybe next week if this thread is still going then. :good

Trust me, i won't be around hanging on it

:good

[Robbi]

You posted what you did THEN went back and edited. In that time i was answering your original post. I can hardly have quoted what hadn't been posted :lol:

By the time i'd replied your adjustment had been added. If we haven't refreshed or changed pages the edit tag doesn't show.

Huh? I posted, then edited, came back, and you hadn't replied. Then I seen you had replied, but not to my modified post. You drunk? Because I mentioned all this in my last message. I must have been adding the bit in as you were still replying to the original post. Makes sense.

[JohnThomas1]

Huh? I posted, then edited, came back, and you hadn't replied. Then I seen you had replied, but not the one modified post. You drunk? Because I mentioned all this in my last message. I was adding the bit in as you were still replying to the original post. Makes sense.


When i said i quoted, i didn't mean quoted and posted, i meant quoted as in quoted and was doing my reply - not posted.

Here weeeee go again, us two

:lol:

[Robbi]

It's really simple i thought, where do you sit in this discussion?

I'm not sitting anywhere right now apart from a chair designed for desktop PC's. :good

[JohnThomas1]

I'm not sitting anywhere right now apart from a chair designed for desktop PC's. :good

Careful it don't topple off that fence, underneath

;)

[Robbi]

When i said i quoted, i didn't mean quoted and posted, i meant quoted as in quoted and was doing my reply - not posted.

Here weeeee go again, us two

:lol:

Got you now. We are lucky we know how to 'take' each other. Me thinks if it was a couple of others things wouldn't be so friendly. Your like me, it takes a hell of a lot to get wound up and ferocious on a boxing forum. You're a good lad, one of ESB's finest technicians.

[JohnThomas1]

Got you now. We are lucky we know how to 'take' each other. Me thinks if it was a couple of others things wouldn't be so friendly. Your like me, it takes a hell of a lot to get wound up and ferocious on a boxing forum. You're a good lad, one of ESB's finest technicians.

Yeah no worries mate, i almost had a wild one with Magoo ages back but we both saw sense really quick and edited and apologised sincerely and all the rest of it. Got on great prior and even better after.

My overall thing is that it's fine to nitpick others small points, as i do often myself, but i try to answer the thread as well at some point.

I wasn't trying to go one up on you or making it a contest with the Hearns fights at 160, just am a stickler for having the facts correct and am happy to learn Hearns struggled to make the weight vs Medal. Knowledge = power.

[Robbi]

I wasn't trying to go one up on you or making it a contest with the Hearns fights at 160, just am a stickler for having the facts correct and am happy to learn Hearns struggled to make the weight vs Medal. Knowledge = power.

I never thought you were. Cheers for letting me know anyway. It's good for people to let you know 'where they are coming from'.

Speaking of that, I know where you're coming from, down under. :good

[Stonehands89]

IAs for Hearns .500 KO % at 154 (i'd like to see the breakdown, actually), we need to rise above plain stats and boxrec figures and envelope the entire scenario.

Hearns had hand problems early at the weight, breaking his right hand on Benitez' head slightly after the mid rounds i think it was and stated after going the distance with the durable Minchillo that he now had 100% confidence back in the hand. He then nominated the 2nd round for Duran's demise and backed it right up. This is as chilling a KO as just about anything in history and entirely negates any .500 ratio pointing to a lack of power there. He then axed two good fighters, one who had never been stopped before and left the weight.
Precisely.

Hearns' was nursing that right hand since Benitez in '82, and was actually self-conscious about it. Hearns defined himself based on that right cross and if I remember right, he went with calling himself the Motor City Cobra until the Hitman was reborn after Duran.

[Shareef]

It is hard to say who faced the better Hearns its really subjective. But I will say that both faced a equal version of Hearns. Against Leonard Hearns was weight drained from what I have read/know about the situation. However, against Hagler he broke his right hand and supposedly the massage he received weakened his legs. The best version of Hearns was at 154lbs but the welterweight and middleweight version was damn good too.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Imagine Hearns' career without his tenure at 147 and then another example where you discount his career at 160. Which would be rated higher? It's clearly the latter. Barkley was no 'fluke', it was always going to happen sooner or later if Tommy mixed it with quality bigger men. Hearns had a weak chin at middleweight. He was wobbled every time he took a clean shot.

[Bad_Intentions]

Ray Leonard.

[Stonehands89]

Imagine Hearns' career without his tenure at 147 and then another example where you discount his career at 160. Which would be rated higher? It's clearly the latter. Barkley was no 'fluke', it was always going to happen sooner or later if Tommy mixed it with quality bigger men. Hearns had a weak chin at middleweight. He was wobbled every time he took a clean shot.
The first chapter of Hearns' career was probably more distinguished, in that he was undefeated, had clear physical advantages, and was feared. But this thread is about versions, not chapters.

As a WW, Hearns was still developing as a fighter. He had yet to be tried by fire, and when he was (SRL), his Achilles' chin was noted.... then he moved on up. He was a skinny kid with a hellish punch... but he didn't know how to clinch, his balance left much to be desired, and he was not tested. Against Leonard I, he came in at 145 and had a sunken face to match his sunken chest. His ribs were exposed and he had reeds for legs. That body wasn't designed for wars. Sure, he could have eaten up most WWs, but he never would have beaten Leonard at 147 -and probably would have had more problems with other ATGs at 147 than this forum acknowledges. He was operating with bare physical essentials -at the skeletal level.

You say that quality bigger men wobbled him every time they hit him. That isn't completely true. He ate monstrous shots from Hagler at short range in round 1. However, it's more true than not true. I am simply not sure that he wouldn't have been shook up by WWs post-Leonard too... had he stayed in that division. He was stronger at JMW and MW, and as he entered his prime years (mid-20s) I think that he would have been more, not less, susceptible to getting hurt with that skeletal structure.

[JohnThomas1]

Sure, he could have eaten up most WWs, but he never would have beaten Leonard at 147

I'm not so certain here. It would have had to happen in a short window due to Hearns potentially growing, but i think after a quick tuneup or two and loads of work in the gym per clinching etc (which they did) and i think Hearns stands a decent chance. He could have paced himself better behind his point scoring jab and been both ahead and fresher in a rematch. Ray would be the favourite but i don't think it's mission impossible.

[enquirer]

If hearns boxed the entire fight against ray at welter he may have won on points. (like he did v benitez) Remember,he may have expended a lot of energy in the first six rounds stalking ray and going for the big punch...

[Stonehands89]

I'm not so certain here. It would have had to happen in a short window due to Hearns potentially growing, but i think after a quick tuneup or two and loads of work in the gym per clinching etc (which they did) and i think Hearns stands a decent chance. He could have paced himself better behind his point scoring jab and been both ahead and fresher in a rematch. Ray would be the favourite but i don't think it's mission impossible.
That's a possible scenerio. I'll elaborate though, I don't see Leonard getting by Hearns between 82 and 88, when his frame filled out with muscle mass and he entered his physical prime. As a WW, Leonard would always come on strong at the end... and over 15 rounds, I'm not sure that a welterweight Hearns could take that -especially after he already didn't.

[Mantequilla]

Hearns was fine against Leonard at Welter, in fact he never looked better imo.It was the punches crashing into his face that did the damage and it wouldn't have been any different as far as punch resistance goes at any other weight.

Hearns at middle did not control distance nearly as well, nor could he get away with his lack of defence\standing in range with hands by his stomach anywhere near as easily.

[PATRICKBOXING]

hagler
he was skinny against leonard and only 21 leonard was the first really good fighter besides a worn torn cuevas and against hagler he was 26 fully grown and in his prime having more expierence behind him
easy question

[Stonehands89]

Hearns was fine against Leonard at Welter, in fact he never looked better imo.It was the punches crashing into his face that did the damage and it wouldn't have been any different as far as punch resistance goes at any other weight.
Steward believes and the film suggests, that Hearns never recovered from a left hook to the ribs in round 6 against Leonard. Leonard was beating on his body through round 7 mostly with those hooks and that was what forced Tommy to drop his hands.

Body punches like that to a body that lean are going to be twice as bad.
Hearns at middle did not control distance nearly as well, nor could he get away with his lack of defence\standing in range with hands by his stomach anywhere near as easily.
I don't agree with the distance comment. Watch the Dewitt fight. He's strong and bouncing in rounds 11 and 12 like they were 1 and 2. He was operating like a surgeon on Schuler for as long as it lasted and controlled everything in that fight. He controlled distance very well against Geraldo, McCracken and I'd assume Sutherland as well (didn't see that one).

He didn't control distance well against Hagler, Barkley or Roldan, -although the Roldan fight was an expression of Hearns' love of war. He made it harder than he had to by going toe to toe with a powerful juggernaut in Roldan -and still stopped him in 4. Barkley made him pay for that strategy like Roldan almost did. All three of these fights could have been very different had Hearns been able to tame his own aggression and use his physical advantages behind that jab. I see the Hagler and Barkley fights as strategic errors -not proof that he was physically less of a fighter at 160.

[redrooster]

hagler
he was skinny against leonard and only 21 leonard was the first really good fighter besides a worn torn cuevas and against hagler he was 26 fully grown and in his prime having more expierence behind him
easy question

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?

[birddog]

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.

[Robbi]

Steward believes and the film suggests, that Hearns never recovered from a left hook to the ribs in round 6 against Leonard. Leonard was beating on his body through round 7 mostly with those hooks and that was what forced Tommy to drop his hands.

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"

[Stonehands89]

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.

[Robbi]

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.

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


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


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.

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 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.

[Stonehands89]

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

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.
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.

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.
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.

[Robbi]

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.

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?


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.


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.

[Stonehands89]

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?
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.

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

[Bummy Davis]

Pipino CUEVAS, DURAN,SHULER, srl

[Robbi]

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.

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.


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.


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'.





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.


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.


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


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.

[Doppleganger]

He didn't control distance well against Hagler, Barkley or Roldan, -although the Roldan fight was an expression of Hearns' love of war. He made it harder than he had to by going toe to toe with a powerful juggernaut in Roldan -and still stopped him in 4. Barkley made him pay for that strategy like Roldan almost did. All three of these fights could have been very different had Hearns been able to tame his own aggression and use his physical advantages behind that jab. I see the Hagler and Barkley fights as strategic errors -not proof that he was physically less of a fighter at 160. 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.

[Rubber Warrior]

Hagler or Leonard 1

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

[Bill Butcher]

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.

[Stonehands89]

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.

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.

[enquirer]

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...

[Stonehands89]

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.
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.

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.
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 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.
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).

[JohnThomas1]

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.


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.

[Robbi]

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.

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.

[Doppleganger]

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.
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.


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.
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'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 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.

[Stonehands89]

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.
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.

[Stonehands89]

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
"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.

[ThinBlack]

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

[frankenfrank]

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 .