In defence of Hearns

[granberry]

I am not a Leonard fan but this was a masterpiece in the Ali tradition. . .

Hilarious.

Yes definitely a 'masterpiece' in the 'Ali tradition.'

LOL

Like the "win" Ali was given over Jimmy Young.

DEFINITELY in the 'Ali tradition.'

Beautifully said.

[Ambling Alp]

Ali and Leonard get a pass 90% of the time? What is that supposed to mean? They both had great talent, gave great efforts, and used their ring smarts. They were without a doubt two of the greatest fighters of All-Time. Why should they be be on overrated lists?


pjonesy, you have not been on the Forum for long, so maybe you haven't noticed that they certainly get criticized a lot here. As in constantly. Just read old posts. Ali is easily the most criticized fighter on the Boxers of the Past Forum and Leonard is #2. Some of the most ridiculaus things you could think of have been said about them. Off of the top of my head, I will paraphrase some of the classics:

Ali lost every round of the Foreman fight.
Ali didn't deserve the decison in the 2nd Spinks fight.
Ali only really won 1 round in the 2nd Norton fight.
The 2nd Ali-Frazier fight should have judged a draw.
The Clay-Liston could have gone either way if Liston didn't have the "sore shoulder".
My favorite: Ali was lucky that Frazier's corner stopped the fight before the 15th round in their third fight:Ali couldn't have lasted another round.


Leonard wasn't very good above welterweight.
Leonard didn't give rematches.
Leonard always got the decision in title fights.
Leonard's win over Benitez is "tainted" because Benitez had a cut. (doesn't seem to matter that the cut was under complete control and didn't impact Benitez' vision at all.)
Leonard got a gift decision against Hagler.
Leoanrd wasn't a real fighter.

It goes on and on.

People don't start many threads with the intent of ripping Joe Louis, or Carlos Monzon, or Roberto Duran or Willie Pep or Henry Armstrong. There was a post with criticism of Robinson fairly recently which had to be a first. Just wait a little while. There will be a thread ripping Ali soon. It might start off with someone else, but if any of Ali's opponents are mentioned, the anti-Ali BS will begin.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Ali and Leonard get a pass 90% of the time? What is that supposed to mean? They both had great talent, gave great efforts, and used their ring smarts. They were without a doubt two of the greatest fighters of All-Time. Why should they be be on overrated lists?


pjonesy, you have not been on the Forum for long, so maybe you haven't noticed that they certainly get criticized a lot here. As in constantly. Just read old posts. Ali is easily the most criticized fighter on the Boxers of the Past Forum and Leonard is #2. Some of the most ridiculaus things you could think of have been said about them. Off of the top of my head, I will paraphrase some of the classics:

Ali lost every round of the Foreman fight.
Ali didn't deserve the decison in the 2nd Spinks fight.
Ali only really won 1 round in the 2nd Norton fight.
The 2nd Ali-Frazier fight should have judged a draw.
The Clay-Liston could have gone either way if Liston didn't have the "sore shoulder".
My favorite: Ali was lucky that Frazier's corner stopped the fight before the 15th round in their third fight:Ali couldn't have lasted another round.


Leonard wasn't very good above welterweight.
Leonard didn't give rematches.
Leonard always got the decision in title fights.
Leonard's win over Benitez is "tainted" because Benitez had a cut. (doesn't seem to matter that the cut was under complete control and didn't impact Benitez' vision at all.)
Leonard got a gift decision against Hagler.
Leoanrd wasn't a real fighter.

It goes on and on.

People don't start many threads with the intent of ripping Joe Louis, or Carlos Monzon, or Roberto Duran or Willie Pep or Henry Armstrong. There was a post with criticism of Robinson fairly recently which had to be a first. Just wait a little while. There will be a thread ripping Ali soon. It might start off with someone else, but if any of Ali's opponents are mentioned, the anti-Ali BS will begin.

Some gold, to be sure, but I can't go past Davey-Boy's 119-109 scorecard for Ali-Norton II

[Ezzard]

Yes, they started in the same weight class, but it was obviousl that Hearns was going to eventually be in higher weight classes than Leonard. He was younger than Leonard was when he became a pro, he became a Jr Middleweight before Leonard, he was taller and naturally bigger than Leonard.

When they fought the 2nd time, Super Middleweight was much more natural for Hearns than Leonard.
As much as you like to ignore it, winning the middleweight title against Hagler after such a long layoff is significant. No one else in the history of boxing has done anything comparable.

Leonard beat a fighter who had huge advantages. Hearns had a draw against a guy who was smaller than him. (cry all you want about the decision and the two knockdowns. There other examples where the guy who got knocked down won the decision.There are 10 other rounds to judge)

Yes Hearns did better than Hagler. Yes it's still a great achievement to get a draw against Leonard. Yes Hearns was a great fighter, underrated by some. No it's not as impressive as what Leonard did against Hagler.

I'm sorry but I think you're distorting everything I'm trying to argue.

Leonard and Hearns started off in the same weight class. Hearns was taller. He was also spindly. He also weighed less than leonard when they fought the first time. Maybe 168 suited Hearns better. By the same token maybe 147 suited Leonard better. Perhaps there was a small advantage to Hearns. I'm saying that the details are academic but the achievement is on a par.

I actually said it was significant. But on having won that title and beaten Hagler then Leonard becomes as significant as Hagler had been.

I’m not crying about the decision. I think it was the wrong decision but you’ll notice I purposely have not bashed any fighter in this thread. My focus is on how the fights are interpreted and why Hearns still gets labelled as the man who couldn’t win the big one when most people think he won that fight. I’m trying to say that in this instance Tommy doesn’t get the proper respect for this result/performance.

I think it is on a par in terms of being impressive.

[Ezzard]

Jonesy

I like your analysis of the fights. Back then the journos were always talking about Marvin’s adaptability but I think you’re right in saying he got opponents to fight his fight. I seem to remember Hagler cancelling his appearances in some of the locations for the pre-fight hype tour.

In fact I like your analysis all round. But hype aside I still believe Hearns’ draw with Leonard is not given it’s due significance. By beating Hagler Leonard was everything he had been (in terms of standing) and more. Hearns had lost to him once and was beginning to look like the draft from a door closing would wobble him.

Hearns may have not come back from a lay off instead he was coming back from a devastating loss and a close majority decision to a guy he would have shut out a couple of years earlier.

[Ambling Alp]

Yes, they started in the same weight class, but it was obviousl that Hearns was going to eventually be in higher weight classes than Leonard. He was younger than Leonard was when he became a pro, he became a Jr Middleweight before Leonard, he was taller and naturally bigger than Leonard.

When they fought the 2nd time, Super Middleweight was much more natural for Hearns than Leonard.
As much as you like to ignore it, winning the middleweight title against Hagler after such a long layoff is significant. No one else in the history of boxing has done anything comparable.

Leonard beat a fighter who had huge advantages. Hearns had a draw against a guy who was smaller than him. (cry all you want about the decision and the two knockdowns. There other examples where the guy who got knocked down won the decision.There are 10 other rounds to judge)

Yes Hearns did better than Hagler. Yes it's still a great achievement to get a draw against Leonard. Yes Hearns was a great fighter, underrated by some. No it's not as impressive as what Leonard did against Hagler.

I'm sorry but I think you're distorting everything I'm trying to argue.

Leonard and Hearns started off in the same weight class. Hearns was taller. He was also spindly. He also weighed less than leonard when they fought the first time. Maybe 168 suited Hearns better. By the same token maybe 147 suited Leonard better. Perhaps there was a small advantage to Hearns. I'm saying that the details are academic but the achievement is on a par.

I actually said it was significant. But on having won that title and beaten Hagler then Leonard becomes as significant as Hagler had been.

I’m not crying about the decision. I think it was the wrong decision but you’ll notice I purposely have not bashed any fighter in this thread. My focus is on how the fights are interpreted and why Hearns still gets labelled as the man who couldn’t win the big one when most people think he won that fight. I’m trying to say that in this instance Tommy doesn’t get the proper respect for this result/performance.

I think it is on a par in terms of being impressive.

Well, I have said why I think it wasn't as significant and stick to it.
Hearns had fought his whole career at welterweight when he fought Leonard. That was certainly his best weight class at the time. I agree that it makes no sense for someone who really thinks Hearns should have got the decision to then rip Hearns for not winning big fights. Anyone who thinks Hearns could not win big fights should look at his blowout wins over Cuevas and Duran, and his decision over Benitez.

No, this time you didn't bash Leonard. Enough has been said. Let the usual supects rip Leonard.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Nobody on earth hates Leonard more than I do. It seems to be a message board cool thing to do now. I'm not talking about anyone here, but other boards I frequent. It's difficult to digest that a 20yr old hates Sugar ray Leonard that much. But that's neither here nor there.

He showed as much guts in the initial fight as any fighter ever has. Not only was he blind in one eye, but for probably the first time in his life he was the inferior boxer in the ring. I can't imagine what that must be like for someone of Leonard's obvious and vast talents.

Then he bitched out of a rematch until he thought Tommy was finished and made him suck weight. It was still another great fight and both guys exhibited the heart that made them legends. Hearns took that reaming with the utmost class and dignity, that should be a lesson for the malignaggi's out there that scream bloody murder because a tight fight didn't go there way.

I will always believe that Tommy would take a series from leonard in their primes. It didn't happen, so oh well. Ray rates higher than Hearns and he deserves to. That doesn't mean he was better and it doesn't make it a landslide. One thing that was indisputable is that Leonard was infinitely smarter than Tommy and that counts for something. He used his brains to beat Hagler and that's on Marvin that he let him dictate everything, including the pace of the fight. I can't blame Ray for any of that as much as I would like to. Fair and square victory and the icing on that jerks all time legend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZdLJAYzV9M

[Counter-puncher]

Nobody on earth hates Leonard more than I do. It seems to be a message board cool thing to do now. I'm not talking about anyone here, but other boards I frequent. It's difficult to digest that a 20yr old hates Sugar ray Leonard that much. But that's neither here nor there.

He showed as much guts in the initial fight as any fighter ever has. Not only was he blind in one eye, but for probably the first time in his life he was the inferior boxer in the ring. I can't imagine what that must be like for someone of Leonard's obvious and vast talents.

Then he bitched out of a rematch until he thought Tommy was finished and made him suck weight. It was still another great fight and both guys exhibited the heart that made them legends. Hearns took that reaming with the utmost class and dignity, that should be a lesson for the malignaggi's out there that scream bloody murder because a tight fight didn't go there way.

I will always believe that Tommy would take a series from leonard in their primes. It didn't happen, so oh well. Ray rates higher than Hearns and he deserves to. That doesn't mean he was better and it doesn't make it a landslide. One thing that was indisputable is that Leonard was infinitely smarter than Tommy and that counts for something. He used his brains to beat Hagler and that's on Marvin that he let him dictate everything, including the pace of the fight. I can't blame Ray for any of that as much as I would like to. Fair and square victory and the icing on that jerks all time legend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZdLJAYzV9M

excellent post i fully concur

[BO Selecta]

Leonard -v- Hearns 2 was quite an entertaining fight.

Whilst I thought that Hearns was the victor, I don't think the draw is the out & out robbery that some perceive it to be.

Leonard was coming on strong at the end (as in 1981) & I get the feeling that had it been 15 rounds, Tommy's stamina might have let him down again.

Saying that, Hearns finally showed the ring generalship that was required when facing a tough opponent & didn't exhaust himself by stupidly trying to blast his man out early, as in the Hagler fight.