Hagler vs. Hearns: When Fighters Were Fighters

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 25 Apr 2008, 23:51

"In what way?

Have you noticed how people who normally NEVER have a bad word for anyone just can't stand the stench of granberry (formerly known as terap until he was banned and all his loony posts deleted)?

I don't think you need look any further than granberry (formerly known as terap etc) for the problem." - Collins

No doubt. None, whatsoever. That wasn't what I was referring to, however.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 26 Apr 2008, 00:29

I don't think my point will be lost on the person I was making it to. We shall see.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 27 Apr 2008, 16:59

Hagler/Hearns was a crap fight. Tommy Hearns fought stupidly and gave it to Hagler. If Hearns had done some boxing instead of trying to slug it out from the beginning, there more than likely would have been a different outcome. The fight was an example of Hearn's stupidity, not Hagler's greatness.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 27 Apr 2008, 17:58

ringsider wrote:Hagler/Hearns was a crap fight. Tommy Hearns fought stupidly and gave it to Hagler. If Hearns had done some boxing instead of trying to slug it out from the beginning, there more than likely would have been a different outcome. The fight was an example of Hearn's stupidity, not Hagler's greatness.

Yet everyone I know who saw it at the time thought it was a great fight, perhaps the bext 3 round fight ever.

But to you it was 'a crap fight'.

I think maybe you are concerned that terap and his lads are outshining you in the bizarre comments stakes and you want to get back in the game.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 28 Apr 2008, 07:26

In real time it appeared to be a raw masterpiece of pugilism at it's finest. To my memory it drew no criticism from anyone at the time.

Knucklez · Post by **Knucklez** » 28 Apr 2008, 09:20

I think what Granberry is trying to say, in his usual vile and classless way, is that Duran was already hurt before the final punch landed.

He'd been knocked down twice in the first round (once from body shots) and before the KO had been rocked by another right hand and was in some trouble on the ropes.

It is possible that a less powerful shot would have knocked him down or out but the punch that DID land ended the argument completely.

I would also add that Duran was all over the place that night and looked like he'd just walked in off the street.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 28 Apr 2008, 09:37

Terry D wrote:
granberry wrote:Emanuel Steward overtrained Hearns for this fight, just as he did for the first Leonard fight.

In this case Hearns could weight 160, but he still overtrained.

Most of the punches he threw in this fight were slaps rather than punches.

Hagler fought a poor fight, got all cut up.

If Hearns had been in better shape and lasted just a bit longer, the fight would have been stopped because of Hagler's cuts.
Hagler is not to blame for Hearns' training problems. What happened happened. Hearns came out blasting and he was hit in the head often enough to render him unconscious.

Simple as really; nothing to do with massaging Tommy's legs or overtraining IMO

Hearns adopted the wrong tactics against one of the hardest boxers in history.

You just don't go out & try to KO someone like Hagler, which is what Hearns stupidly did.

Poncey · Post by **Poncey** » 28 Apr 2008, 10:20

Knucklez wrote:I think what Granberry is trying to say, in his usual vile and classless way, is that Duran was already hurt before the final punch landed.

He'd been knocked down twice in the first round (once from body shots) and before the KO had been rocked by another right hand and was in some trouble on the ropes.

It is possible that a less powerful shot would have knocked him down or out but the punch that DID land ended the argument completely.

I would also add that Duran was all over the place that night and looked like he'd just walked in off the street.

For what it's worth, Duran insists he was extremely weight drained for the fight (around 20lbs to make weight, and some dodgy weight loss tonic from a doctor). That said, he does come out with some "interesting" comments sometimes.

It was comfirmed by Arcel, though.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 29 Apr 2008, 07:54

ringsider wrote:Hagler/Hearns was a crap fight. Tommy Hearns fought stupidly and gave it to Hagler. If Hearns had done some boxing instead of trying to slug it out from the beginning, there more than likely would have been a different outcome. The fight was an example of Hearn's stupidity, not Hagler's greatness.

Partly agree with you.

I think the outcome would have been very different if Hearns had hit & run; but I do believe that Tommy did not have the stamina to last in a high pressure fight & he probably would have got KO'd late on IMO.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 29 Apr 2008, 08:35

I loved the fight at the time. It was great for such a widely anticipated fight to be so exciting...

I do remember in the UK Henry Cooper saying similar things to ringsider and syntax in the sunday sports section about how Hearns' tactics (or lack of) ruined the fight...

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 29 Apr 2008, 08:35

ringsider wrote:Hagler/Hearns was a crap fight. Tommy Hearns fought stupidly and gave it to Hagler. If Hearns had done some boxing instead of trying to slug it out from the beginning, there more than likely would have been a different outcome. The fight was an example of Hearn's stupidity, not Hagler's greatness.

Yes a different fight plan would have allowed Hearns to last a few more rounds before he was carried to his stool.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 29 Apr 2008, 09:56

Terry D wrote:
The Great John L wrote:
ringsider wrote:Hagler/Hearns was a crap fight. Tommy Hearns fought stupidly and gave it to Hagler. If Hearns had done some boxing instead of trying to slug it out from the beginning, there more than likely would have been a different outcome. The fight was an example of Hearn's stupidity, not Hagler's greatness.
Yes a different fight plan would have allowed Hearns to last a few more rounds before he was carried to his stool.
I've just realised, if I had a fanny I'd be a woman right now! Can you believe that?

I haven't, so I'm not.

Unless you have lost the male appendage, adding a fanny to your collection would, strictly speaking, make you a hermaphrodite...that's got to be worth thinking about!

actjac · Post by **actjac** » 04 May 2008, 17:25

Whatever the reasons or excuses for Hearns' loss. I saw the fight in person and it was one of the greatest sports spectacles that I have ever witnessed. The enegry and atmosphere of the crowd built and continued through the fight.
What a great fight! The only damper on the evening was when Hearns was picked up like a baby and carried to his corner. However that put the exclamation mark on Hagler's victory.

By the way: Hagler-Leonard II should have occured. I believe that Hagler would have made adjustments in a rematch.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 04 May 2008, 21:12

..actjac.....leonard thought the same thing...

BO Selecta · Post by **BO Selecta** » 05 May 2008, 01:51

actjac wrote:Whatever the reasons or excuses for Hearns' loss. I saw the fight in person and it was one of the greatest sports spectacles that I have ever witnessed. The enegry and atmosphere of the crowd built and continued through the fight.
What a great fight! The only damper on the evening was when Hearns was picked up like a baby and carried to his corner. However that put the exclamation mark on Hagler's victory.

By the way: Hagler-Leonard II should have occured. I believe that Hagler would have made adjustments in a rematch.

What adjustments could Hagler have realistically made?

Spent less time calling Leonard names & more time fighting maybe?

He lost the fight because of his own stupidity.

He spent the 1st 4 rounds cursing Leonard & switiching to orthodox stance etc, rather than trying to put some hurt on the ring rusty weltwerweight before him.

There would have been little need for a rematch; Hagler was slower than Frank Bruno in a tar bath & he would have been even slower by the time of a possible rematch.

A more confident Leonard would have just eeked out another fairly dull points win IMO.

actjac · Post by **actjac** » 05 May 2008, 09:49

BO Selecta wrote:
actjac wrote:Whatever the reasons or excuses for Hearns' loss. I saw the fight in person and it was one of the greatest sports spectacles that I have ever witnessed. The enegry and atmosphere of the crowd built and continued through the fight.
What a great fight! The only damper on the evening was when Hearns was picked up like a baby and carried to his corner. However that put the exclamation mark on Hagler's victory.

By the way: Hagler-Leonard II should have occured. I believe that Hagler would have made adjustments in a rematch.
What adjustments could Hagler have realistically made?

Spent less time calling Leonard names & more time fighting maybe?

He lost the fight because of his own stupidity.

He spent the 1st 4 rounds cursing Leonard & switiching to orthodox stance etc, rather than trying to put some hurt on the ring rusty weltwerweight before him.

There would have been little need for a rematch; Hagler was slower than Frank Bruno in a tar bath & he would have been even slower by the time of a possible rematch.

A more confident Leonard would have just eeked out another fairly dull points win IMO.

You made my point. If he had fought southpaw from the start and also fought the last 10 seconds of each round like Leonard he could have won the fight.