World boxing history challenge: Week 1 - Sugar Ray Leonard vs Tommy Hearns

[elmersalsa]

There's 2 camps on the Duran vs Leonard debate. One thinks that Duran was close to unbeatable the first fight, forced Leonard to fight his fight and would have done the same in the second had he been in the same form.
The other camp see's it as Leonard let himself get dragged into the wrong kind of fight in the first one and narrowly lost and in the second used all his natural advantages and never gave Duran a look in.

I don't think either is entirely true, there's probably a bit of both in there, bias will play it's part. But if I were to lean toward either opinion it would be the second.

Leonard did it all wrong in the first bout. No one wants to spend an entire fight running but ultimately he learned that against a fighter of Durans caliber and toughness that was the only way to win.
I think Leonard, fighting the way he did in No Mas, wins 9 times out of 10. It's unfortunate because it's a horrible way to win the fight but Duran had no answer to it.

Duran fought his best fight for De Jesus III. The 1st Leonard fight was among his top 5 efforts. The rematch was the worst effort of his prime years. It was reminiscent of his 1st De Jesus fight where his discipline faltered a little. Duran went up to about 200 pounds celebrating his Leonard victory and luxuriating in his newfound wealth and fame. It was a massive effort for him to get in presentable shape, kind of like Buster Douglas after his Tyson fight when he celebrated non-stop and soon weighed over 300. When you do things you know are wrong---such as pig out until you're fat as a swine---it injures your psyche, saps your enthusiasm, and steals your energy.

Duran was extremely consistent as a Lightweight -- but after he beat Leonard he had several fights where he was less than well prepared. For me, Duran handed this win to Leonard on a silver platter. I remember an account that went like "Roberto Duran retired from Boxing last night. But unlike most fighters he made that decision during the 8th round of a closely scored fight with Sugar Ray Leonard. For no apparent reason he waved his hand saying "no mas" and turned his back. He walked away from Sugar Ray. Leonard attacked him with a couple punches before grasping that Duran had indeed quit. "There had to be a good reason for him to quit" Leonard said. But Duran said he was tired of Boxing and just didn't want to do it anymore."

I don't agree much of your posts, but, some of them, like this one, I agree with you, 100%

[Ambling Alp II]

Leonard beat Hearns and Duran primarily because he was better than them.

[elmersalsa]

Leonard beat Hearns and Duran primarily because he was better than them.

And Hearns and Duran beat Sugar Ray too! How was he better than those two?

[Ambling Alp II]

He was 2-1 vs Duran and 1-0-1 against Hearns. (cue the crybaby excuses.)
He beat won the head to head series, beat better opponents, never lost to an inferior opponent like Duran and Hearns did, and did better against common opponents. In another words, all the criteria that should be used when comparing fighters. Leonard wins every phase.

This has been pointed out to you many times. All you do is come back with lame excuses. Boo hoo. Roberto was always a lightweight. Boo hoo, Roberto had a tummyache. Boo hoo, that wasn't the real Roberto who lost this fight or that one.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Duran's absolute peak was at welter. He was never better than against palomino and leonard. He obviously rates higher at Lightweight, but his defensive prowess was perfectly blended for Dejesus 3 to Leonard.

As for this fight, I've seen it a million times. Great technical fight between two of my top 20 greatest fighters to ever live. Top 5 performance by Leonard at a minimum, even without loading up Tommy's shots were walking through hellfire and Ray did it in style. My most hated fighter, but one tough SOB.

[elmersalsa]

He was 2-1 vs Duran and 1-0-1 against Hearns. (cue the crybaby excuses.)
He beat won the head to head series, beat better opponents, never lost to an inferior opponent like Duran and Hearns did, and did better against common opponents. In another words, all the criteria that should be used when comparing fighters. Leonard wins every phase.

This has been pointed out to you many times. All you do is come back with lame excuses. Boo hoo. Roberto was always a lightweight. Boo hoo, Roberto had a tummyache. Boo hoo, that wasn't the real Roberto who lost this fight or that one.

Yeah, in their best night between the two, the better man was Duran.

Lost to inferior opponents? Almost every fighter had that bad day at office. Ask Henry Armstrong. Ask Muhammad Ali. Ask Sugar Ray Robinson when he lost to Ralph Tiger Jones. Ask Lennox Lewis vs Oliver McCall. I don't see Leonard rated above Armstrong in no list. Why is that? He lost more fights than Leonard.

Leonard beats Duran in an OFF NIGHT. Everybody knows that. He beat Duran at welterweight. Not at lightweight. He had to jump 12 pounds to beat him. I can't imagine a super bantamweight or a featherweight that is only 8 pounds, which is alot, beating the Hands of Stone. Do you?

Leonard beats Hearns at welterweight. Above welterweight it would have been a massacre. Do you think the Leonard that fought Kevin Howard and Ayub Kalule beats the Tommy Hearns that destroyed Duran and Fred Hutchins? Do you?

Hearns kicked his ass. The judges were pussy holes.

[Ambling Alp II]

Scoreboard.

[elmersalsa]

Scoreboard.

Sugar Ray Leonard was a great fighter. He was better than the great Thomas Hearns at welterweight and pound per pound. He beat Tommy when both were in their absolute primes. Both were in prime age.

I believe that at welterweight, Leonard beats Tommy probably 8 out of 10. It would be reversed if they fight at 154lbs and beyond. I don't see Sugar Ray beating the Hitman at no time at all. Ten out of ten for the Hitman at 154lbs. That would be an accurate scoreboard.

[Kalan]

For me, Leonard was a better fighter than Hearns -- but I know Hearns could have beaten Leonard had he trained right.. Ray got lucky cuz that didn't happen.

Hearns woke up the day of the weigh-in feeling horrible.. He'd never had so much difficulty making the weight. He stepped on a scale and weighed 141.. He didn't believe it and called Steward.. They discovered belatedly that the scale Hearns had been weighing on was 5 pounds too heavy. For a fight of this magnitude that’s beyond belief. Hearns slowly added 4 pounds of liquids so he wouldn't scare people to death at the weigh-in. He came in at 145, but Leonard took a good look at Hearns and loved what he saw. He thought he might get Tommy out early.

I never fully believed that story, but I never saw Hearns look that skinny. Why would a huge Welterweight like Hearns weigh-in at 145?? ..Hearns was so thin he looked like a starved Ethiopian -- like a light breeze would blow him away.. How Tommy fought until the late rounds I don’t understand.. I felt certain Leonard would stop him by the 10th but Ray stopped fighting.. Tommy was winning it.. By round 12 I thought he might somehow go the distance cuz Leonard wasn’t doing a damned thing. Hearns took a good lead in the fight.. Then abruptly Tommy’s gas tank emptied.. Like a crinkled up leaf he was helpless.

[Counter-puncher]

Hearns was that skinny because allegedly one of his 'boys' took care of his diet for that fight, and screwed it up like the amateur he was

[elmersalsa]

Now seeing The Hitman again in highlight reels at 147lbs, he was great, but, I don't trust his legs at that weight class. He looked frailed and too skinny there. Anybody that is strong and with endurance and pressure beats him. And that's what happened in that fight. IT WAS THE ONLY WAY Sugar Ray could have win that fight. He ain't gonna outbox Tommy. No way.

At 154lbs, OMG! Hearns was a God in golden Kronk trunks. I have never seen a fighter so perfectly fit into a weight class. At that weight class and beyond, the Wilfred Benitez, the Roberto Durans nor the Sugar Ray Leonards of any kind nor in their wildest dreams would beat him there. His legs were stronger at 154lbs, and hit harder. What a fighter!



















B

[Ambling Alp II]

Your guy always does so well in the "would have" and "could have" situations. The guys that you don't like do so much worse.

[Seamus]

I remember a whole lotta guys saying Leonard would never be around for the final bell vs Marvin Hagler, but how'd that turn out

[elmersalsa]

I remember a whole lotta guys saying Leonard would never be around for the final bell vs Marvin Hagler, but how'd that turn out

It wasn't 1982 or '83 Seamus.

[Seamus]

No, it was later, when Leonard was older and out of boxing almost 5 years.

[elmersalsa]

No, it was later, when Leonard was older and out of boxing almost 5 years.

Yes, against a fading Marvelous. I have never seen Marvelous so off target in a fight.

[Kalan]

Leonard looked strong for Hagler.. Especially compared to his previous fight with Kevin Howard where he lacked strength, firepower, and sharpness. Leonard was the first good Middleweight boxer Hagler agreed to fight.. He actually looked like a real Middleweight.. I don't give Hagler as many props for beating Hearns or Duran who looked thinner and weaker -- or any of the less than great Middleweights Marv fought... Hearns and Duran didn't have the strength or power to deal with Hagler, but SRL did. He must have hired good strength trainers because he was 100% -- and I expected him to win because Hagler hadn't faced anyone similar.

Had Hagler faced a Monzon, Jones, Hopkins, Golovkin, McCallum, or Toney caliber Middleweight, I don't see him winning.

[Ambling Alp II]

No, it was later, when Leonard was older and out of boxing almost 5 years.

Yes, against a fading Marvelous. I have never seen Marvelous so off target in a fight.

Typical. He looks at Hagler as faded and does the "would have/ could have act" again. He then ignores that it was Leonard who had 1 fight in the previous 5 years. No sane person would argue otherwise. And Leonard still won.

[elmersalsa]

No, it was later, when Leonard was older and out of boxing almost 5 years.

Yes, against a fading Marvelous. I have never seen Marvelous so off target in a fight.

Typical. He looks at Hagler as faded and does the "would have/ could have act" again. He then ignores that it was Leonard who had 1 fight in the previous 5 years. No sane person would argue otherwise. And Leonard still won.

You think Marvelous was at his very best? I have never seen him missed so many punches in a fight. Some shots were way off the mark.

[Seamus]

Hagler only became over the hill after Leonard beat him.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Hagler only became over the hill after Leonard beat him.

Leonard thought he was over the hill beforehand. That didn't stop most everyone from picking hagler by destruction. I made a tidy profit that night.