Did Hagler face a peak Hearns?

[80s champs]

That did'nt seem like the same Hearns in the ring that night,it's like he was'nt a full fledged middleweight.. Even though Hagler pressured him and was clearly the better middleweight,but was he the better fighter? And yes I'm aware of Hears legs and Broken hand that night. A rematch a year later would have been awesome. Hearns would have put up a much better fight!!:happy

[Asterion]

Hagler probably wasn't in his peak too. Hearns wasn't in his peak simply because the best version of Hearns was at 147 (until 1980, after that his body had to change and he added mass as he grew up) and at 154 during most of the 80s.

[smokin joe]

both fighters where at there peak, that was the last of prime hagler he slipped in the mugabi fight

[Sonny's jab]

Hearns was at his peak and in awesome shape.
He broke his hand on Hagler's head so I dont see how that's relevant or ever used as an excuse.
Hearns put up one hell of a fight, IMO.

Hearns could never take it like he could dish it out, but Hagler could.

[JohnThomas1]

Hearns was at his peak timeline wise, but not his peak weight. He lost too many of his considerable advantages at 160. Still a GREAT Middleweight tho.

[Thread Stealer]

Not quite, as Hearns's best weight as probably 154, but it was pretty close. Hagler was a couple years past his peak.

Hagler was much more aggressive than usual and Hearns had to fight him off. When Tommy tried to box in the middle of the ring midway through round 1, he was having some success, but Hagler cut him off and by the end of the round, Tommy's legs weren't the same. Of course, Manny says they weren't the same since the dressing room.

[Thread Stealer]

What i always wonder was why do people seem to think this was the most action packed and exiting short fight in boxing history.After round one you know Hearns was going to lose.The fight didnt go back and foward and back and foward.Hearns gave it his all in the first round but you could see his punches could never knock out somebody like Hagler.

I'm sure it has something to do with the event as well. I've seen plenty of great short fights with better two-way action (rather than the relative one-sided nature of Hagler-Hearns), but bigger events between great fighters does add to the excitement when seeing it live.

[salsanchezfan]

I can't see how anyone could possibly say that was a peak Hagler. Not at all. In addition, the terms "Prime Hearns" and "middleweight" don't go together.

[Manassa]

Yes, Hagler was past his prime. I've watched his entire filmed career on tape very closely and I think he was slipping even in the Roldan fight. Infact, he looked a bit stiffer as early as the Sibson demolition, but of course he was so far ahead of Sibson in terms of ability that it didn't show. A peak Hagler was around '81-'82.

[Street Lethal]

Hearns was peak. Watch his destruction of Duran. Hearns was not at his best at welterweight. I don't know why people say this. He was underweight for his frame at 147 pounds. Hearns was best at middleweight. Outboxing Wilfredo Benitez and demolishing Duran and Shuler was Hearns at his best.

Hagler was slightly past his prime. He turned slugger in that fight, which was the perfect strategy, but it was the strategy used I believe because Hagler knew his tools were losing their edge. Hagler must have really hurt Hearns during the first round, because Hearns never seemed steady after that.

[Street Lethal]

Why are my posts being edited by other people? I don't notice any difference, but there is an little edit note in some of them. Does anybody know why this is?

[redrooster]

Yes of course he was.

The problem is younger fans don't realize Hearns pulled out twice with Hagler because he wasn't in his prime and realized he wouldn't reach his peak until years later when his frame filled out with muscle as it had with Duran and Schuler. That's why the fight didn't take place until 85.

The other thing people don't realize is Tommy was a growing boy when he fought leonard. He was really a middleweight in a welterweight's body. The fact is, Tommy had been in with middleweights since the Colbert fight and more regularly right after the leonard fight (Singletary)
same year.

The problem in the leonard fight was Tommy struggling to make weight. To make matters worse is Manny Steward brought him in two whole pounds below the 147 limit, one of the biggest managerial mistakes ever made in the history of the sport which cost him that fight. Because Leonard wasn't really doing nothing to win the fight while Marvin went to work right away.

Tommy was much stronger when he faced Marvin, faster, stronger, more experienced. In fact, every mandatory challenger I can think of faced Marvin during their peaks. It wasn't just Hearns.

[redrooster]

Why are my posts being edited by other people? I don't notice any difference, but there is an little edit note in some of them. Does anybody know why this is?

It's a glitch in the system

[laxpdx]

IMO, Hearns peaked at 154, when he demolished Duran.

I think Hearns was a bit disadvantaged at 160, considering he was mixing it up with Hagler. I just don't think Tommy could've ever beaten Hagler, given his naturally thinner build. Marv proved too powerful and relentless, as Hearns was practically chopped down like a tree.

[Street Lethal]

Hearns won two titles at light heavyweight. I don't think he was disadvantaged at 160 pounds.

[redrooster]

Tommy won more titles than just 147 and 154 but in fact all the way to 175 twice and in between, 160 & 168.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Hearns was no way peak at 160- his chin was fairly weak and his punch power, while still impressive, didn't have the same effect on opponents as it did at 147 and 154. Let's face it, a peak Tommy doesn't run out of gas in the 2nd round.

[JohnThomas1]

Hearns was no way peak at 160- his chin was fairly weak and his punch power, while still impressive, didn't have the same effect on opponents as it did at 147 and 160. Let's face it, a peak Tommy doesn't run out of gas in the 2nd round.

I think you meant 147 and 154, but great call. At 160 pounds Tommy's strengths were dulled a little and his weaknesses a little more exposed. Still a great fighter at 160, hellacious to fight and a great win for anybody, but not peak.

[mr. magoo]

Following the Hagler fight, Hearns would continue to fight for another 20 years, and pick up an additonal 3 world titles, or something like that. What's more, 2 of those belts came at lightheavyweight. Some have already argued that the 160 range, was not Thomas's best, and this may be true. Neverthless, however Hearns, although not at his peak, was still pretty close to it in my opinion.

[Stonehands89]

I would assert that the Hearns who walked into the ring against Hagler was peaking. He was 26 years old, very experienced, and in full possession of demon speed and physical maturity. Let's not forget that the man was 6'1. Let's not forget that his frame allowed him to carry 175 easily as he matured. Look at his back muscles.

However, he was a physical freak too. His chin couldn't quite absorb MW shots, and their chins were a bit structurally stronger.

Hearns was most deadly at 154, but he was peaking at 160 against Hagler...

[JohnThomas1]

Following the Hagler fight, Hearns would continue to fight for another 20 years, and pick up an additonal 3 world titles, or something like that.

This bit needs a little further explaining i think, it almost reads to the casual fan as if Hearn's had his career ahead of him. Hearn's fought at a world class level for about another 8 years, but was quite declined in the latter stage. 20 years takes us to 2005 when Hearn's had his first bout for 5 years at the age of 46 or 47. His cruiserweight efforts from 1994 on were woeful affairs. Duran fought for 20 years after the SRL fights (Far too long like Hearn's and millions of others) but that doesn't tell us he already had basically a full career behind him at 135.

Sorry to nitpick, just wanted to expand a little.

[mr. magoo]

This bit needs a little further explaining i think, it almost reads to the casual fan as if Hearn's had his career ahead of him. Hearn's fought at a world class level for about another 8 years, but was quite declined in the latter stage. 20 years takes us to 2005 when Hearn's had his first bout for 5 years at the age of 46 or 47. His cruiserweight efforts from 1994 on were woeful affairs. Duran fought for 20 years after the SRL fights (Far too long like Hearn's and millions of others) but that doesn't tell us he already had basically a full career behind him at 135.

Sorry to nitpick, just wanted to expand a little.

Very true. And I was well aware of the fact that Thomas was not much useful after his 1991 victory over Virgil Hill. Still however, he was in pretty top form in 1985. Weather or not he was at his best, is subject to opinion, and I would agree with authors who state that he wasn't 100%. I hold with my anitial claim that he was probably close though. The real question should be, was Hagler at his best? My answer to such a question would be that Marvin was probably further past his peak than Hearns was.

[80s champs]

When I mentioned PEAK HEARNS,I was hopeing someone would bring up the broken hand and the legs problem he had that night. Now if Hearn's legs were strong or at their best (that's debateable if they were that night) or a fully functioning right hand ( which was proven broken afterwards) Tommy would have fared better,especially the hand,that would have been peak hearns,an unfortunate accident,but that's the way it goes,so when Hagler koed Tommy,he obviously was'nt peak.,or maybe a better word is fully functional. .

[JohnThomas1]

Very true. And I was well aware of the fact that Thomas was not much useful after his 1991 victory over Virgil Hill. Still however, he was in pretty top form in 1985. Weather or not he was at his best, is subject to opinion, and I would agree with authors who state that he wasn't 100%. I hold with my anitial claim that he was probably close though. The real question should be, was Hagler at his best? My answer to such a question would be that Marvin was probably further past his peak than Hearns was.

As i say, i reckon Hearn's was peak time but not peak weight, he could easily make 154 still and lost some advantages at 160 while also having a couple of slight weaknesses stand out more.

[sweet_scientist]

Hearns no doubt got stronger as he moved up to 154 and even 160, but in doing so he lost all the advantages that made him so formidable at 147: his height, reach and power in comparison to his opponents. Yes he got better at 154 and 160, but the gap between him and his opponents closed and he was no longer as good against his opponents at 154 and 160 as he was at 147. That's why I always consider 147 his peak.

I use the same argument for DLH. He got stronger at 147 than what he was 135 and 140, but is biggest advantages in power, strength and height were at 135 and 140. Those were his peak weights.

But I digress.... Hearns was not "peak" by my criteria against Hagler (peak being defined here as the optimum one fights at IN COMPARISON to his opponents).

[JohnThomas1]

Hearns no doubt got stronger as he moved up to 154 and even 160, but in doing so he lost all the advantages that made him so formidable at 147: his height, reach and power in comparison to his opponents. Yes he got better at 154 and 160, but the gap between him and his opponents closed and he was no longer as good against his opponents at 154 and 160 as he was at 147. That's why I always consider 147 his peak.

I use the same argument for DLH. He got stronger at 147 than what he was 135 and 140, but is biggest advantages in power, strength and height were at 135 and 140. Those were his peak weights.

But I digress.... Hearns was not "peak" by my criteria against Hagler (peak being defined here as the optimum one fights at IN COMPARISON to his opponents).

Nice post, we've debated the merits of 147 vs 154 with Tommy, but at the end of the day there's not much splitting us

:good

[sweet_scientist]

Nice post, we've debated the merits of 147 vs 154 with Tommy, but at the end of the day there's not much splitting us

:good

True mate, we've said it all before. An argument can certainly be made that Hearns strengthening up at 154 made him most formidable there (even if his height and reach wasn't as much of a factor there as it was at 147), but there's not much doubt that argument becomes weaker when made in reference to fighting at 160.

[jyuza]

Nice post, we've debated the merits of 147 vs 154 with Tommy, but at the end of the day there's not much splitting us

:good

Indeed. The best Hearns we ever seen was probably the Leonard version. The strongest Hearns was certainly the Hagler version.

I always said that the Hitman at welterweight could have been the best fighter ever seen (even better than Robison) if he had an iron chin.

[JohnThomas1]

Indeed. The best Hearns we ever seen was probably the Leonard version. The strongest Hearns was certainly the Hagler version.

I always said that the Hitman at welterweight could have been the best fighter ever seen (even better than Robison) if he had an iron chin.

Hearn's with a chin, goodness hahaha. Lookout world. SS and i had a decent discussion on Tommy at 154 vs 147, i lean toward 154 being his best due to his learning experience (Clinching, pacing at times etc) vs Leonard, a loss that i don't think adversely affected him at all while also giving him better self perspective. I am perfectly willing to recognise your and SS's side of the debate however. SS and i both agree 160 was not his best, but i still believe he could take out some of the top 10 ATG Middleweights.

[jyuza]

Hearn's with a chin, goodness hahaha. Lookout world. SS and i had a decent discussion on Tommy at 154 vs 147, i lean toward 154 being his best due to his learning experience (Clinching, pacing at times etc) vs Leonard, a loss that i don't think adversely affected him at all while also giving him better self perspective. I am perfectly willing to recognise your and SS's side of the debate however. SS and i both agree 160 was not his best, but i still believe he could take out some of the top 10 ATG Middleweights.

I never desagreed with what you said.

[JohnThomas1]

I never desagreed with what you said.

Oops

:oops:

[jyuza]

Oops

:oops:

:lol:
It is true that most of the time I tend to share the same opinion as Scientist, but the rare times we are disagreeing you and me, you always make good points and good counterarguments.
That's the purpose of a good forum like the classic section :good

[enquirer]

Never mind a hagler type chin,tommy just needed the durability of leonard combined with rays intelligence when he got hit, and tommy would have been the greatest of all times hands down up,even up to lt heavy.....
As it is he fares as arguably the greatest at welter/lt middle,and at middle head to head could beat anybody...
He werent too shabby at supermiddle/lt heavy either...
Also tommys chin was pretty good,who was taking marvins and sugar rays best for round upon round?

[Bummy Davis]

Give or take, yea it could have turned out to be a different fight had Hearns chosed to box but to Tommy credit he went right to Hagler and gave the fans 1 of the best 2-3 round fights I have every seen

[enquirer]

I really wonder how a hearns hagler immediate rematch would have gone,or if tommy would have boxed him in the early rounds....
It could have greatly added to hearns and even haglers' legacy....

[JohnThomas1]

:lol:
It is true that most of the time I tend to share the same opinion as Scientist, but the rare times we are disagreeing you and me, you always make good points and good counterarguments.
That's the purpose of a good forum like the classic section :good

:good

[redrooster]

Never mind a hagler type chin,tommy just needed the durability of leonard combined with rays intelligence when he got hit, and tommy would have been the greatest of all times hands down up,even up to lt heavy.....
As it is he fares as arguably the greatest at welter/lt middle,and at middle head to head could beat anybody...
He werent too shabby at supermiddle/lt heavy either...
Also tommys chin was pretty good,who was taking marvins and sugar rays best for round upon round?

I've seen everything now. :lol: What a ridiculous statement!

"Tommy just needed the durability of leonard"
For what, so he can hit the deck in more of his fights?

[enquirer]

Hey red chicken,most of the sane folks on the forum will know what i am saying....To make you understand better i will say give tommy the chin and survival skills of duran then....I know leonard makes you very nervous and irrational..... :admin

[JohnThomas1]

I've seen everything now. :lol: What a ridiculous statement!

"Tommy just needed the durability of leonard"
For what, so he can hit the deck in more of his fights?

If Tommy's chin was half of what your hate for Leonards is we might have seen the second coming

:lol:

[JohnThomas1]

Hey red chicken,most of the sane folks on the forum will know what i am saying....To make you understand better i will say give tommy the chin and survival skills of duran then....I know leonard makes you very nervous and irrational..... :admin

Don't bend for Rooster, Leonard was a perfect example.

[enquirer]

Yes,leonard is the perfect example for my point JT,i was just trying to make rooster understand my general point in another way....whenever leonard is mentioned he goes all weird.....

[Doppleganger]

I think a case can be made for the peak Hearns being the one that fought James Shuler. Tommy's legs and overall balance looked far better in this fight than they did against Hagler. Hagler started unusually fast in their fight and Tommy was forced to trade so I'm not sure that the Shuler version of Tommy would have had more success. I think though that Tommy could have kept out of the way more and excuted a stick and move plan to outbox Hagler. Hagler for his part had to turn it into a phonebooth war as that was his best chance for success. Hearns was a always a fighter that used his height and reach advantages to maximum effective.

Hagler won because he initiated very successfully a gameplan for beating Hearns. That is, constant pressure, heart, good power and a very stout chin. The latter is the most important IMO. No fighter with a less than stout chin ever beat Hearns, bizarre injury loss to Uriah Grant aside.

[JohnThomas1]

I think a case can be made for the peak Hearns being the one that fought James Shuler. Tommy's legs and overall balance looked far better in this fight than they did against Hagler.

While i don't quite share your view i'll give your's a boost by saying Steward has publically agreed with you. He names the Hearn's of the Shuler fight as absolute peak Hearn's.

[Doppleganger]

While i don't quite share your view i'll give your's a boost by saying Steward has publically agreed with you. He names the Hearn's of the Shuler fight as absolute peak Hearn's.
When do you reckon his peak was JT? Duran?

[JohnThomas1]

When do you reckon his peak was JT? Duran?

I do, i believe everything came together right then. He had been struggling with confidence in his recovered broken right hand and stated pre Duran that he finally felt the hand was good again and predicted Duran in 2 rounds, chillingly followed up. He then cruised thru the highly promising Hutchings. Never faster, sharper, and surely never much more powerful. For Marvin he was right at his peak in every way except weight wise as we've been discussing. I have two problems with agreeing with Steward, 1. I don't think 160 was his best weight. 2. He was coming off a debilitating KO to Hagler and losses like these are surely (IMO) likely to have taken a little out of you somewhere, either physically or mentally. I think there would have been subtle changes. Having said all this it was the first time he looked like he was carrying the weight perfectly looks wise. He looked like a big natural 160.

[redrooster]

Yes,leonard is the perfect example for my point JT,i was just trying to make rooster understand my general point in another way....whenever leonard is mentioned he goes all weird.....

There you go again changing your tune, convicted by the same in your words.

Leonard's chin or Hearns' chin? :lol: It's like being asked if you'd rather be shot or hanged.

[Senya13]

He looked better and more fearsome below 160lb only because he was fighting smaller men mostly. As he got closer to his natural weight (which should be 160-168lb) he began to struggle, as he could no longer just overpower his opponents. No longer a fearsome KO-artist, more fragile, etc, etc. Same as Bob Foster was before him, whenever he met men of his natural weight (cruiserweight) he struggled or got KTFO-d.

[JohnThomas1]

He looked better and more fearsome below 160lb only because he was fighting smaller men mostly.
Well golly gee :lol:

As he got closer to his natural weight (which should be 160-168lb) he began to struggle, as he could no longer just overpower his opponents. No longer a fearsome KO-artist, more fragile, etc, etc. Same as Bob Foster was before him, whenever he met men of his natural weight (cruiserweight) he struggled or got KTFO-d.
Your views on his natural size are obviously opinion based only. Hearn's could have easily fought 154 for his whole career but went looking for greater challenges and rewards. Foster made 175 for his whole career whenever he wanted. I find your natural weight claims rubbish to be honest. Hearn's and Foster were both great fighters 147/154 and 175 and had unbelievable power at these weights, they would not have had such power, success and greatness if emaciated or drained. What was Jeff Chandler, a natural welter? Breland a natural 160? Tall and thin doesn't = not your natural weight.

[NickHudson]

What on earth are you waffling about?

Closer to his natural weight?? He was fantastic below 160lb, could have stayed there, and elected not too. Its pure conjecture to say that his natural weight is 160-168...

He looked better and more fearsome below 160lb only because he was fighting smaller men mostly. As he got closer to his natural weight (which should be 160-168lb) he began to struggle, as he could no longer just overpower his opponents. No longer a fearsome KO-artist, more fragile, etc, etc. Same as Bob Foster was before him, whenever he met men of his natural weight (cruiserweight) he struggled or got KTFO-d.

[Doppleganger]

Closer to his natural weight?? He was fantastic below 160lb, could have stayed there, and elected not too. Its pure conjecture to say that his natural weight is 160-168... Exactly. Tommy could have stayed at 154lb and never met Hagler or Barkley and may only have had the one loss on his record. He could have reigned for years at light middleweight with the only true test being Mike McCallum. He could have chosen the safety first route but Tommy didn't. Like the true warrior he was he sought out new challenges and sought to face the best men at higher weights. That Hearns sought out Hagler and dared to face the undisputed middleweight champion of the world, arguably the most dominant champion in the world, speaks volumes of the man.

The truth is though that Tommy's natural fighting weight did rise as he got older, as happens to all men. However, IMO Tommy could have stayed at 154lb for as long as he wanted. He was never really a proper light heavyweight or super middleweight and you can see that he was softish in his midsection at those weights. At the end of his 'proper' career 160lbs is probably where he sat most comfortably but 154lb would have been easily doable with some discipline.

[Vantage_West]

the one ting that always got to hearns was overtraining he overtrained for the leonard fight,the 2nd barkley fight....and hagler.

his legs were not there.and when haglercame foreward like a steamtrain,hearns couldnt run fast enough. and not just that he broke his right hand in the first.

so you got a welterwieght who is tired already, got a broken hand and fighting one of the greatest middlewieghts of all time

[Senya13]

Bernard Hopkins was fighting below 160lb for over a decade. This doesn't mean he's a natural middleweight. Same with hearns. Just because he managed to diet and dehydrate himself to 147 or 154, doesn't mean he was a natural welter or light middle by the time he met Hagler or any time after. It is usually a good thing to look at fighter's weight in non-title tune-up fights where he doesn't have to make certain limit, what weight he comes in is the one he feels suits him better.

[jyuza]

Bernard Hopkins was fighting below 160lb for over a decade. This doesn't mean he's a natural middleweight. Same with hearns. Just because he managed to diet and dehydrate himself to 147 or 154, doesn't mean he was a natural welter or light middle by the time he met Hagler or any time after. It is usually a good thing to look at fighter's weight in non-title tune-up fights where he doesn't have to make certain limit, what weight he comes in is the one he feels suits him better.

Well, Hopkins was originally a lightheavyweight.

[Senya13]

And Hearns often fought as a light middleweight even before he won the welterweight title, and as a middleweight before he won the light middleweight title.

[JohnThomas1]

Bernard Hopkins was fighting below 160lb for over a decade. This doesn't mean he's a natural middleweight. Same with hearns. Just because he managed to diet and dehydrate himself to 147 or 154, doesn't mean he was a natural welter or light middle by the time he met Hagler or any time after. It is usually a good thing to look at fighter's weight in non-title tune-up fights where he doesn't have to make certain limit, what weight he comes in is the one he feels suits him better.

Considering what Hopkins did at 160 i'd say it was his best fighting weight, which is close enough to the term "natural" for me. Natural for you seems to be what they walk around at untrained. Most of the fights you mention aren't trained for as efficiently as bigger events.

[Senya13]

Natural for a boxer is the weight he can get down to without too much struggle, with usual training course, and where he doesn't feel weakened/fatigued at the weigh-in.

[JohnThomas1]

Natural for a boxer is the weight he can get down to without too much struggle, with usual training course, and where he doesn't feel weakened/fatigued at the weigh-in.

154 for Tommy.

The End.


:D

[Senya13]

154 for Tommy.
Source? Interview or anything?

[jyuza]

154 for Tommy.

The End.


:D

According to Senia's standards, I will go with 154 as well.

[p.Townend]

Hagler himself was on the way down. He beat the best middleweight Tommy Hearns that could have been.Tommy was not a middle he beat lesser fighters at that weight or inexperienced ones.The only good win he had at middle was Roldan.

[My2Sense]

A rematch a year later would have been awesome. Hearns would have put up a much better fight!!:happy

Hearns' reflexes were slowed down, and his legs slower and stiffer when he moved from 154 to 160. He was always much more hittable above 154, as his fights with Roldan, Barkley, and others showed. He would've always been a standing target for Hagler's looping punches, no matter when they fought.

[MAG1965]

both fighters where at there peak, that was the last of prime hagler he slipped in the mugabi fight
I agree with this. Both Hagler and Hearns were sharp and active during this time and came to fight. The only thing which was not perfect was that Hearns was not a full 160 pounds, but prime for prime, they were both sharp and active. That is why they unloaded so quick. Had they been rusty they would not have unloaded like that.

[Fedor Em]

I think Hagler started slipping towards the end of 83 but in this fight with Hearns he turned back the clock kinda like Mosley did with Margarito and Hagler's reflexes were like they were in the late 70's for this fight. It was amazing how he moved, cut the ring off, and was throwing combinations.

Hearns was at his absolute peak as well. Not his peak weight but age and overall ability. He was as complete as he ever got.

[he grant]

Hearns was absolutely at his peak when he fought Hagler. The jump from 154 to 160 was minor based on his huge frame ... he simply fought one fighter who matched up very tough for him. Hagler had an all time great chin and needed it as even he was slightly rocked in round 1. Hagler is often slightly underated as a puncher. Hagler was a murderous slugger and Herans could not take that power and volume from so skiller a fighter ...

Manny Steward told a story that if it was true has serious interest ... he said before the fight in the locker room he walked in to see one of Hearn's "friends" giving Tommy's legs a rubdown to loosen him up. Steward says he then knew the fight was lost as you never rubdown before a fight as it loosens up and tires out the muscles ... this might explain how Hearn's seemed to loose his legs early but I ask how in the world did Hearn's not know what a stupid move it was ? If Tommy had more leg speed he avoids the terribly bleeding Hagler another round or so and wins by a stopage ...

[80s champs]

Hearns was absolutely at his peak when he fought Hagler. The jump from 154 to 160 was minor based on his huge frame ... he simply fought one fighter who matched up very tough for him. Hagler had an all time great chin and needed it as even he was slightly rocked in round 1. Hagler is often slightly underated as a puncher. Hagler was a murderous slugger and Herans could not take that power and volume from so skiller a fighter ...

Manny Steward told a story that if it was true has serious interest ... he said before the fight in the locker room he walked in to see one of Hearn's "friends" giving Tommy's legs a rubdown to loosen him up. Steward says he then knew the fight was lost as you never rubdown before a fight as it loosens up and tires out the muscles ... this might explain how Hearn's seemed to loose his legs early but I ask how in the world did Hearn's not know what a stupid move it was ? If Tommy had more leg speed he avoids the terribly bleeding Hagler another round or so and wins by a stopage ... I keep forgetting that Hagler was running out of time with that bleeding cut,and a fresher more boxing Hearns could have made a difference,even though he showed a lot of heart... While we're at it,minus the broken hand as well,it was just Haglers night as to why he looked to dominant..One of the best Middleweights ever.

[HomicideHenry]

To me it doesnt make much a difference. Hagler's era was a weak one, as far as middleweights go. The only names were Leonard, Duran, and Hearns practically, and they all moved up from either Lightweight or Welterweight to challenge him. Outside of those, maybe Alan Minter and John Mugabi as well as Vito Antuofermo were the only real solid men in his career, all the others were either too shop worn and older or were as stated before, from other weight classes to begin with.

Sure Hearns made the mistake of fighting Hagler when just six-eight months prior he was 'defending' the so-called Light Middleweight title. For practically four years he was in limbo after losing his welterweight title to Leonard, being a blown up Welterweight with no real place to go.

But in truth, I never thought Hearns or Duran or really Leonard were that great as middleweights, so maybe I am just biased.

[he grant]

I feel Hagler fough and defeated a very tough group of middleweights through out his career .. the Phili middlleweights he defeated before winning the title were an extremely brutal group ... any one of those guys on any given night spelled murder ... Vito was very tough, Minter was very tough, the same with Hamsho, Sibson, Roldan, Mugabi and Obel ... Hearn's was a middle, no question and an all time great fighter ... Duran was not but was an all time great fighter. Watching their bout it really was not that close and Duran never had Marvin remotely in trouble. He was lucky Hagler showed him too much respect as it was his first Superfight of sorts ... Hagler is underated by some because he was out hustled by Leonard at the end of his career but those who have watched and studied Hagler know Marvin was an exceptional fight and an all time middleweight top five without question ...

[Unforgiven]

Thomas Hearns was at his peak in the Hagler fight without a doubt.
He was coming off that crushing win over Roberto Duran.

People say Hearns was best at 154, and with wins over Benitez (clear points masterclass) and Duran (crushing early KO) and with no losses at that weight, it is arguable. But then again, he never faced the best light-middle rival of that period (1982-'86/'87) : Mike McCallum.

Hearns was a danger at every weight he fought at.

[Unforgiven]

To me it doesnt make much a difference. Hagler's era was a weak one, as far as middleweights go. The only names were Leonard, Duran, and Hearns practically, and they all moved up from either Lightweight or Welterweight to challenge him. Outside of those, maybe Alan Minter and John Mugabi as well as Vito Antuofermo were the only real solid men in his career, all the others were either too shop worn and older or were as stated before, from other weight classes to begin with.

I think the middleweights of the 1980s were a tougher crowd than any group that has inhabited the 160 division at any time since.
The reason being, many of the guys who would nowadays settle at super-middle would have chosen 160 rather than 168 to compete at.
Also, with Hagler owning the UNDISPUTED title, a lot of the contenders he beat never had the chance to shine with "title-holder" status that just about every half-decent fighter gets in the years since. Men like Mustafa Hamsho, Tony Sibson, Fulgencio Obelmejias and Juan Roldan would definitely be in the mix to hold titles in the 1990s, alongside William Joppy, Reggie Johnson, Keith Holmes, John David Jackson and Jorge Fernando Castro.
And if you put some of Hagler's opponents back in the 1960s, a golden era of middleweights, some of them would be sure to give a good account of themselves.