Hearns vs Benitez

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 28 Feb 2008, 12:42

I saw this fight on the youtube.com website...It was a CLEAR WIN for Hearns. He used that quick and lightning jab against Benitez BEAUTIFULLY AND ALSO FOUGHT VERY SMART against a deadly counter puncher like master Benitez.

I imagine if Leonard was on the other corner that night...Would he beat Benitez and Hearns at 154 that night?

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 29 Feb 2008, 04:50

Good question. Leonard would probably have found a way to win (again), although he would never have beaten a prime Hagler.
Incidentally, Benitez put a lot of effort into the Hearns fight and was never the same again. His decline was as rapid as it was shocking.

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 29 Feb 2008, 09:48

I think Leonard could repeat a win over Wilfred but not Hearns. Incidentally, they have a poll going on at Eastside Leonard-Hearns @ 154. The consensus is that Hearns avenges his loss to Leonard at this weight. I am inclined to agree.

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 29 Feb 2008, 09:53

bennie wrote:Good question. Leonard would probably have found a way to win (again), although he would never have beaten a prime Hagler.
Incidentally, Benitez put a lot of effort into the Hearns fight and was never the same again. His decline was as rapid as it was shocking.

The fight didnt seem to be very strenuous but offhand I'd say you are probably right. Wilfred appeared very flat in his next two outings, particularly the Hamsho fight. Then there was that disaster with Davey Moore where he broke his ankle in the second round. He was surely a steppingstone by the time he faced Hilton.

How do you think Wilfred in his prime would have fared against Matthew?

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 01 Mar 2008, 10:38

Benitez would have probably knocked him out. Hilton was strong, brave and aggressive, but the version of Wilfred he fought and the version who licked Mo Hope bear no comparison. Benitez was simply shot to pieces.

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 01 Mar 2008, 11:08

I dont know about shot but he looked very flat in subsequent outings. He didnt take much punishment in the Hearns fight; he made Tommy miss often but just looked as though he couldnt get past Tommy's jab.

I think what happened is that his poor training habits caught up with him. Wilfred seemed to be living in a fantasy world, believing everything he read in the press (if in fact he can read) and believed himself incapable of losing to Hamsho or Moore and he paid the price. By the time he faced Hilton I think it was evident he was a shot fighter

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 01 Mar 2008, 11:11

Elton John wrote:I dont know about shot but he looked very flat in subsequent outings. He didnt take much punishment in the Hearns fight; he made Tommy miss often but just looked as though he couldnt get past Tommy's jab.

I think what happened is that his poor training habits caught up with him. Wilfred seemed to be living in a fantasy world, believing everything he read in the press (if in fact he can read) and believed himself incapable of losing to Hamsho or Moore and he paid the price. By the time he faced Hilton I think it was evident he was a shot fighter

You can watch it on youtube. Benitez is terrible - chin in the air, no muscle tone, no weight on his shots and lacking balance.
It's horrible to watch, actually.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 01 Mar 2008, 13:26

I think its the Hamsho fight that ruined Benitez rather than the Hearns bout... I think he went in against Hamsho thinking he would outbox the crude Mustapha and instaed he took a bad beating and after that was really a shot fighter... add that onto the fact that he'd been in with grown men and had a lot of tough wars even with his defensive skills and its not ahd to see how he burnt out.... I read that his father used to have him fighting grown men from the age of 8... hardly surprising that he's in the sad state that he is today....

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 01 Mar 2008, 13:27

I think its the Hamsho fight that ruined Benitez rather than the Hearns bout... I think he went in against Hamsho thinking he would outbox the crude Mustapha and instaed he took a bad beating and after that was really a shot fighter... add that onto the fact that he'd been in with grown men and had a lot of tough wars even with his defensive skills and its not ahd to see how he burnt out.... I read that his father used to have him fighting grown men from the age of 8... hardly surprising that he's in the sad state that he is today....

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 01 Mar 2008, 13:33

Prior to Hamsho (and in his first fight after Hearns), Benitez fought LA's Tony Cerda and looked awful on the way to a 10-round decision in Las Vegas.
I really think the Hearns 15-rounder was one 15-rounder too many.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 01 Mar 2008, 13:44

HOW DO YOU THINK Benitez would do against Bruce Curry ?

LOL

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 01 Mar 2008, 13:57

bennie wrote:Good question. Leonard would probably have found a way to win (again), although he would never have beaten a prime Hagler.
Incidentally, Benitez put a lot of effort into the Hearns fight and was never the same again. His decline was as rapid as it was shocking.

More delusions.....Leonard would have beaten Hagler any day any time.....Hagler could never box with Sugar Ray. Hagler was a plodder, and Leonard exposed him......of course anyone who knew anything about boxing picked Leonard to beat him. Stumbling over rated MW queen southpaw.....

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 01 Mar 2008, 14:08

ringsider wrote:
bennie wrote:Good question. Leonard would probably have found a way to win (again), although he would never have beaten a prime Hagler.
Incidentally, Benitez put a lot of effort into the Hearns fight and was never the same again. His decline was as rapid as it was shocking.
More delusions.....Leonard would have beaten Hagler any day any time.....Hagler could never box with Sugar Ray. Hagler was a plodder, and Leonard exposed him......of course anyone who knew anything about boxing picked Leonard to beat him. Stumbling over rated MW queen southpaw.....

Hagler certainly is overrated.

But Leonard did not beat him.

Running for your life and grabbing and holding on the rest of the time does not win a title,

unless of course you are Leonard.

Leonard was given over thirty warnings for holding by "referee" Richard STEAL, without a SINGLE point taken away.

Leonard punched after the bell in 5 out of the 12 rounds,
throwing 6 or 7 punches after the bell ending the 11th round.

The rules did not apply to media boy Ray, did they?

.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 01 Mar 2008, 14:50

granberry wrote:
ringsider wrote:
bennie wrote:Good question. Leonard would probably have found a way to win (again), although he would never have beaten a prime Hagler.
Incidentally, Benitez put a lot of effort into the Hearns fight and was never the same again. His decline was as rapid as it was shocking.
More delusions.....Leonard would have beaten Hagler any day any time.....Hagler could never box with Sugar Ray. Hagler was a plodder, and Leonard exposed him......of course anyone who knew anything about boxing picked Leonard to beat him. Stumbling over rated MW queen southpaw.....
Hagler certainly is overrated.

But Leonard did not beat him.

Running for your life and grabbing and holding on the rest of the time does not win a title,

unless of course you are Leonard.

Leonard was given over thirty warnings for holding by "referee" Richard STEAL, without a SINGLE point taken away.

Leonard punched after the bell in 5 out of the 12 rounds,
throwing 6 or 7 punches after the bell ending the 11th round.

The rules did not apply to media boy Ray, did they?

.

You two must have been seperated at birth!.....

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 01 Mar 2008, 14:53

ringsider wrote:
bennie wrote:Good question. Leonard would probably have found a way to win (again), although he would never have beaten a prime Hagler.
Incidentally, Benitez put a lot of effort into the Hearns fight and was never the same again. His decline was as rapid as it was shocking.
More delusions.....Leonard would have beaten Hagler any day any time.....Hagler could never box with Sugar Ray. Hagler was a plodder, and Leonard exposed him......of course anyone who knew anything about boxing picked Leonard to beat him. Stumbling over rated MW queen southpaw.....

Marvin must have bitchwhipped you real bad to make you dislike him so much!. If you cant see the difference between the Hagler that leonard finally agreed to fight and the prime Hagler, then you know nothing about boxing....

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 01 Mar 2008, 15:32

Fact of the matter is Hagler's dumbass tried to fight orthodox for the first 4 rounds, and he gave them away by doing so. Hagler thought in his little plodding pea brain that he was actually a boxer and could box with Leonard. Well we saw what happened there. You know you Hagler "nuthuggers" keep saying he was past his prime and blah, blah, blah......Leonard was way past his best too. But in their primes Sugar Ray would have given Hagler a lesson in the sweet science. Hagler got beat.....learn to live with it.

He was MW queen at a time that there were no real MW.

Don't forget that had a point been taken away from Leonard for holding as some wanted, he still would have won the split decision. That is just the way it is. Sugar Ray dominated the plodding MW king and exposed him for the poorly skilled boxer he was.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 01 Mar 2008, 15:37

Running for your life and grabbing and holding on is no way to 'beat' anyone.

It is a desperate attempt to survive, nothing more.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 01 Mar 2008, 15:41

granberry wrote:Running for your life and grabbing and holding on is no way to 'beat' anyone.

It is a desperate attempt to survive, nothing more.

In order to win a fight, you have to be standing at the end. Too bad in all of Hagler's vast ring experience nobody ever taught him how to cut the ring off. A basic amateur skill. Had he learned it, he could have won, sadly he was a plodding southpaw who was never taught how to cut the ring off. It is that simple if you watch the fight.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 01 Mar 2008, 15:46

ringsider wrote:
Don't forget that had a point been taken away from Leonard for holding as some wanted, he still would have won the split decision. That is just the way it is.

Sorry.

Anyone with the slighest experience with the subject

would know that if the ref took away a point for an infraction---

that would cure the fighter of doing that again.

If he did try that again, he would lose MORE points.

"Referee" Tony Perez warned Ali 119 times for pulling Frazier's head down in the 2nd Frazier-Ali fight

WITHOUT TAKING AWAY A SINGLE POINT.

That enabled Ali to stall and rest through the whole fight.

With a competent unbiased referee, Leonard would have collapsed before the end of the Hagler fight.

'Referees' enabled media boys Ali and Leonard to stall so they could survive to the end to collect their automatic "decision".

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 01 Mar 2008, 16:12

spinberry wrote:
ringsider wrote:
Don't forget that had a point been taken away from Leonard for holding as some wanted, he still would have won the split decision. That is just the way it is.
Sorry.

Anyone with the slighest experience with the subject

would know that if the ref took away a point for an infraction---

that would cure the fighter of doing that again.

If he did try that again, he would lose MORE points.

"Referee" Tony Perez warned Ali 119 times for pulling Frazier's head down in the 2nd Frazier-Ali fight

WITHOUT TAKING AWAY A SINGLE POINT.

That enabled Ali to stall and rest through the whole fight.

With a competent unbiased referee, Leonard would have collapsed before the end of the Hagler fight.

'Referees' enabled media boys Ali and Leonard to stall so they could survive to the end to collect their automatic "decision".

Gotta love ol' spinberry......spinnin' spinnin' always spinnin'.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 01 Mar 2008, 16:38

BoxBuzz wrote:
spinberry wrote:
ringsider wrote:
Don't forget that had a point been taken away from Leonard for holding as some wanted, he still would have won the split decision. That is just the way it is.
Sorry.

Anyone with the slighest experience with the subject

would know that if the ref took away a point for an infraction---

that would cure the fighter of doing that again.

If he did try that again, he would lose MORE points.

"Referee" Tony Perez warned Ali 119 times for pulling Frazier's head down in the 2nd Frazier-Ali fight

WITHOUT TAKING AWAY A SINGLE POINT.

That enabled Ali to stall and rest through the whole fight.

With a competent unbiased referee, Leonard would have collapsed before the end of the Hagler fight.

'Referees' enabled media boys Ali and Leonard to stall so they could survive to the end to collect their automatic "decision".

Gotta love ol' spinberry......spinnin' spinnin' always spinnin'.

Buzz is eager to demonstrate he does not know the most basic rules of boxing.

Of course that is a fundamental requirement for being a member of The Religion of Ali as buzz is.
.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 01 Mar 2008, 16:38

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 01 Mar 2008, 17:13

So what are you doing Granpaberry? Are you trying to compare the fluid and gracefulness of Ali with the plodding tripping stumbling off balance Hagler?

You need to get a new doctor and new meds.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 01 Mar 2008, 17:19

Talking of plodding, both you guys need to get new acts!... at the moment your great cures for insomina!... 8)

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 01 Mar 2008, 17:47

NO NEW MEDS FOR SPINBERRY.....I'm going to save money on entertainment as is. I never need to go to comedy clubs these days. I just fire up the old faithful IBM and click up BoxRec and read his contritbutions.

Guaranteed laugh riot. No Cover Charge!