BoxRec

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I take your point, Ray, but, as Alp correctly pointed out, it's difficult to give a set answer. Would you consider Ricardo Lopez a Jr. Welterweight if he jumped up to 140lbs & fought Tszyu in his first fight, years ago? Yes, that's dramatically different from Hearns fighting Hagler, but one thing they'd have in common is that it is/would be their first fight at that new weight, making it less likely they could be considered a genuine Jr Welter/Middleweight.

I take points from both sides on this issue, really. Duran had no business at Middle, though, he never was one.

Could Lopez still make his original weight class in your hypothetical?

Ray

It does not detract from the fight at all.

I am saying that Haglers greatest challengers were guys that moved up to face him.
Hearns, who was a good MW...well multi weighter.

Duran...looked not right at MW.

Leonard who fought for the first time in 2 yrs at Haglers weight.

Thats all I am saying.

Yet things were in leonards favour...yes but off course...gloves ring etc

Duran and Hearns had not really got used to the weight at the time that they fought Hagler.

If Hearns had fought a couple of more middleweights first before fighting Hagler, he would have been a tougher opponent for Hagler and the fight would have been more historically meaningful. Hearns may have learned that his power wasn't as effective against middleweights, how much harder they hit, and he would have fought more of a tactical fight against Hagler. (I still think Hagler would have won, but it would have been a longer, more difficult fight.)

Hagler didn't beat Duran or Hearns when they were very close their best. He deserves some credit for beating them, but not as much as it may look on paper.

Monzon was in a similar situation with Napoles. Beating Napoles isn't easy to do; but Monzon had a tremendous advantage fighting a guy who had never fought a middleweight before. In fact, Napoles was less of a middleweight than Duran or Hearns.

If a fighter adjusted to the higher weight is crucial. Beating a guy (who has moved up in weight) who has had time to adjust to the higher weight proven that he can fight at the higher weight is more impressive than beating a guy who is fighting at the heavier weight for the first time.

Moving up in weight usually means that you have more power but your opponents are harder to hurt. You are a little slower but so are your opponents on average. On average your opponents usually can hit harder. You have to make adjust. Usually it takes atleast a couple of fights to do this.
Usually it can be done. Of course if a fighter keeps moving up in weight over the years, eventually he will come to point where he really has reached his limit for his height and body type. At that point they won't be effective. However, most fighters (especially in the lower weight classes) can and do move up in weight class atleast a couple of times from their first fight of their career to their last.

Hearns was probably pretty close to his peak when he fought Hagler. While he was a JMW champ, he had fought a number of MW fights prior to Hagler and had been very comfortable at the weight. And a few of the MWs he beat were actually pretty decent guys, so while he had moved up he was naturally a pretty big guy and had fought a number of MW fights prior to Hagler.

Interesting thing about Hearns is that, three months after the Leonard fight, he moved up and fought Murray Sutherland at 157 (Sutherland weighed 160). I recall either seeing the fight or photos of the fights, and Hearns still looked ripped. I recall thinking then that perhaps Hearns had already outgrown the welterweight division, and making welterweight limit might have had something to do with him becoming so gassed against Leonard. That's, admittedly, pure speculation on my part, because I don't recall reading that Hearns or Stewart ever offered that as an excuse/reason for losing.

Of course, losing to a fine, fine fighter like Leonard is not a disgrace.

I think Hearns was comfortable at middleweight against Hagler. As John L points out, he had fought a few middleweights in non-title fights before Hagler, and moved pretty quickly up to higher weights without too much difficulty (except with Barkley - who seemed to have his number) after Hagler.

raylawpc wrote:I think Hearns was comfortable at middleweight against Hagler. As John L points out, he had fought a few middleweights in non-title fights before Hagler, and moved pretty quickly up to higher weights without too much difficulty (except with Barkley - who seemed to have his number) after Hagler.

And while they weren't top MWs, they were solid quality opponents. As someone else pointed out, Hagler fighting Hearns was nothing like Monzon fighting Napoles, who was actually a pretty small WW.

Of course I think Monzon was a much better fighter than Hagler.

I have heard some folks who know a lot more about Mexican boxing than me say that Napoles was actually in his prime at lightweight.

raylawpc wrote:I have heard some folks who know a lot more about Mexican boxing than me say that Napoles was actually in his prime at lightweight.

Tom,

You're correct, that Napoles was in his prime as a lightweight, I see film of him as a LW.
and I seen him fight live as a WW. he was not the same fighter at WW. that he was at LW.

Frank, thanks for the confirmation. He was so good as a 30-something welterweight, he must have really been amazing as a 20-something lightweight.

On further review, I guess you could make a good case for Hearns being a " legitimate" middleweight by the time he fought Hagler. He had 4 fights by that time against middleweights; Singletary,McCracken,Sutherland, and Geraldo.
He bounced back and forth fighting middleweights and Jr Middleweights in the 8 fights that he had before fighting Hagler. (Though, he was only a Jr Middleweight himself when he fought Geraldo.)

I would still argue that Hearns was never a great middleweight and was harder to beat at welterweight and Jr Middleweight. Nevertheless, Hagler probably deserves more credit than he gets for the Hearns fight.

raylawpc wrote:Interesting thing about Hearns is that, three months after the Leonard fight, he moved up and fought Murray Sutherland at 157 (Sutherland weighed 160). I recall either seeing the fight or photos of the fights, and Hearns still looked ripped. I recall thinking then that perhaps Hearns had already outgrown the welterweight division, and making welterweight limit might have had something to do with him becoming so gassed against Leonard. That's, admittedly, pure speculation on my part, because I don't recall reading that Hearns or Stewart ever offered that as an excuse/reason for losing.

Of course, losing to a fine, fine fighter like Leonard is not a disgrace.

I think Hearns was comfortable at middleweight against Hagler. As John L points out, he had fought a few middleweights in non-title fights before Hagler, and moved pretty quickly up to higher weights without too much difficulty (except with Barkley - who seemed to have his number) after Hagler.

Please allow me to correct myself. Hearns fought Earnie Singletary at jr. midleweight after Leonard, instead of Sutherland. I apologize for my confusion. However, he did weigh 8 pounds over the welterweight limit for Singletary.

I originally posted this thread. I enjoyed everyone's comments. And, my conclusion based upon the information provided is that SRR (I really dislike him but have to give him credit) had set Hagler up and Hagler to his discredit, bought into SRRs manipulation. Thus, Hagler, was intent on trying to show he could box. And, while he will never admit he lost the fight (I was routing for Hagler and believe he lost a close fight), he gave the fight away by doing what SRR wanted - he initially tried to outbox him.

I still believe had Hagler fought SRR the way he fought Hearns, he would have won.

Hagler has no one to blame but himself. He lost a close fight that he should have won.

Ten pages of answers to end up talking about SRR vs Hagler... How old was SRR for that fight?

TigerMoth wrote:I originally posted this thread. I enjoyed everyone's comments. And, my conclusion based upon the information provided is that SRR (I really dislike him but have to give him credit) had set Hagler up and Hagler to his discredit, bought into SRRs manipulation. Thus, Hagler, was intent on trying to show he could box. And, while he will never admit he lost the fight (I was routing for Hagler and believe he lost a close fight), he gave the fight away by doing what SRR wanted - he initially tried to outbox him.

I still believe had Hagler fought SRR the way he fought Hearns, he would have won.

Hagler has no one to blame but himself. He lost a close fight that he should have won.

Totally wrong.....Hagler could have never beaten Sugar Ray Leonard, any place, any time......because he could not EVER box at a decent level.

Jaywheel wrote:Ten pages of answers to end up talking about SRR vs Hagler... How old was SRR for that fight?

Almost 31-years-old (celebrated his 31st birthday the following month).

Hagler was two years older.

By the way guys it is SRL=Sugar Ray Leonard......not SRR=Sugar Ray Robinson.

Jaywheel wrote:Ten pages of answers to end up talking about SRR vs Hagler... How old was SRR for that fight?

It is why i was laughing and asking SRR age, so TigerMoth would realize is acronym mistake.

Ambling Alp wrote:Obviously Duran fought many good fighters in his long career. My point is that he fought several "tomato cans" while he was in his "heyday". He seldom gets any flack for it.
If Leonard would have done the same thing, he would be ripped on this Forum on almost a daily basis for it.
As it is, Leonard gets ripped for who he fought (or didn't fight), even though he had more fights against big names than any one else in his era.
Btw, Leonard never fought one tomato can during his prime. In fact, he only fought two opponents with a losing record in his whole career. (Both were very early in Leonard's career.)

For example, from 1972-1978, Duran fought these opponents:
Juan Medina (KO7) 1-1
Jose Vasquez (KO 1) 1-1
Adalberto Vanegas (KO1)2-0-1
Andres Salgado (KO1) 0-2
Pedro Mendoza (KO1) 0-0
Aliro Acuna (KO3) 0-3
Bernard Diaz (KO1) 1-4
Esequil Obando KO2 (0-3)

Of course it's possible that these records are incomplete and these guys are a little better than these records indicate. However, they certainly weren't ranked contenders or anything close to that. It' sure is quite a coincidence that Duran would seldom score an early KO against better known fighters but he almost always did against the no names.

I really don't hold it against a fighter for easy wins against tomato cans. However, why is ok to rip Leonard fighting saying Larry Bonds or Donny Lalonde but somehow it's ok for Duran to fight these type of opponents?

All of this is part of my larger point about Leonard. Leonard has been called a fraud for his post Hagler career. Somehow fighting Lalonde,Hearns,Duran, and Norris makes you a fraud. If Leonard is a fraud for that, what is Duran for fighting so many tomato cans and for all of the other things he did in his career(Quitting in fights, not fighting Buchanan or Barkley again etc.)

Why is it ok for Leonard be criticized for anything but Duran always gets a free pass?

You put those guys in Duran's record as to say that Leonard fought better opponents in his prime?

Why then Sugar Ray Robinson does not get critized in his prime fighting SOME bums from 1943-51?

Why Joe Louis does not get critized for the "Bum of the Month" club, that a middleweight, only weighting 168 pounds almost took his title?

Duran NEVER fought someone PAST HIS PRIME while he was in his prime....Leonard did (Armando Muniz)

Was Lalonde a good fighter? Was he above average? Ohhhh my bad, Lalonde had to shed 7 pounds to face Ray.

Ray won "two titles" in one night? What a "great accomplishment"

I want to know the 8 great contenders that Alp be mentioning so often as if they were something "special"?

Leonard's best was 1979-82...Past 1982, he was not the same fighter...Hearns would have blast him if they would have fought a rematch in 1984 at super welterweight.

Hagler would have cruxified him in 1984 if he would have come back the way he did against Kevin Howard. He did not had it, so he retired.

NO ONE GETS A FREE PASS. NOT EVEN Muhammad Ali nor Roberto Duran.

All nonsense elmersalsa, Leonard was just a better fighter than the rest of them.

I think Leonards in-activity due to his forced retirements...eye problems. Gets way over looked.

Other men having lay off's like that makes them martyr's but for Leonard...it means he is ducking
the best.

Robinson wrote:I think Leonards in-activity due to his forced retirements...eye problems. Gets way over looked.

Other men having lay off's like that makes them martyr's but for Leonard...it means he is ducking
the best.

How to explain the fight with Kevin Howard, then?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Robinson wrote:I think Leonards in-activity due to his forced retirements...eye problems. Gets way over looked.

Other men having lay off's like that makes them martyr's but for Leonard...it means he is ducking
the best.

How to explain the fight with Kevin Howard, then?

What is to explain?....he had a really poor outing against Howard.

[b]SRR [/b]

I know, I know, I am a disgrace. I always write SRR when I am referring to SRL. Guess I should stop being lazy and write Leonard - especially since there was only one Sugar Ray!!

ringsider wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Robinson wrote:I think Leonards in-activity due to his forced retirements...eye problems. Gets way over looked.

Other men having lay off's like that makes them martyr's but for Leonard...it means he is ducking
the best.

How to explain the fight with Kevin Howard, then?

What is to explain?....he had a really poor outing against Howard.

Stop ducking the question. Explain how this was a forced retirement if he had an interime fight 3 yeras before the Hagler match. This was clearly a case of picking fight at the right time. Why do Leonard fans so loathe to admit the truth? The man was clearly a fraud.

Yeh...that is what he was, a fraud.