BoxRec

granberry wrote:Leonard "beat" Hagler by running for his life.

Leonard "beat" Hearns by getting knocked down twice.

Ali "beat" Jimmy Young by getting a boxing lesson to end all boxing lessons.

LOL

Counter-puncher wrote:my point is that as natural lightheavyweights being forced to drain down both men were at significant disadvantages to Leonard.

he made Hearns come down 13lbs how is he more 'natural' as a lightheavy having to make 162lbs?

also your point about the middleweight limit makes no sense as Hearns never fought Leonard at middleweight.

i know people tend to hate on Leonard sometimes unneccesarily. i personalyl am more of a leonard fan than a leonard hater

but some of the stuff Leonard pulled was simply risible.

Ezzard wrote:Leonard beating Hagler was a big deal and still is. Hearns beating Leonard (getting a draw but you know what I mean) should be just as big a deal. You can try and slice it however you like but there is really no argument.

Some people may prefer Leonard others Hearns. I think that’s fair enough. BUT the two performances/achievements HAVE TO be on a par with one another.

I don’t think it’s right that people should try and belittle fighters and what they achieved. I don’t see why people refuse to give Tommy his fair shake. Hearns’ “win” might not suit some but it should be rated as a great moment right up there with any of the Fab 4’s most famous victories/achievements.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Leonard beating Hagler was a big deal and still is. Hearns beating Leonard (getting a draw but you know what I mean) should be just as big a deal. You can try and slice it however you like but there is really no argument.

Some people may prefer Leonard others Hearns. I think that’s fair enough. BUT the two performances/achievements HAVE TO be on a par with one another.

I don’t think it’s right that people should try and belittle fighters and what they achieved. I don’t see why people refuse to give Tommy his fair shake. Hearns’ “win” might not suit some but it should be rated as a great moment right up there with any of the Fab 4’s most famous victories/achievements.

I just can't agree with your sentiment, here. They both had had their days as stars. This was two guys who were past-it, getting a late payday. I can't place the kind of emphasis on it I would a championship fight between one of the greatest Middleweight kings of all-time & a man of similar standing among the Welters.

Ezzard wrote:I often hear people say that Hearns-Leonard II was not a significant bout. That Hearns always lost the big ones.

And yet Leonard-Hagler is an important result.

In both fights the ages of the fighters were roughly the same.

So why is one a career defining fight and the other not?

pjonesy wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Jonesy, was Leonard any further past his prime than Hagler? Same age, slightly more active over the past 2 years...

You may have anticpated the Hagler fight with more relish but is the victory or draw of Hearns any less significant? I mean significance is 90% hype. Tommy missed out on a rematch at 154. He'd spent 7 years seething.

First let me say sorry, for stating the obvious in my description of the Hagler fight. I do agree that Hagler did not do enough to win, final comment. As far as the significance being 90% hype, i already stated that the media pushed this fight like it was the second coming. That was absolutely a big factor. The personal animosity, the fact that Hagler and Leonard had not fought and the Championship title implications make it a bigger, more significant fight than the Hearns fight. Also, lets look at the history. Leonard beats Hearns in a GREAT momentum shifting fight in 1981. Hagler beats Hearns in an exciting slugfest by KO in 1985. The anticipation for me was simply related to the fact that i wanted to see these guys fight. Moving on, i want you to understand that i loved watching Thomas Hearns. But Hearns fell into the trap of relying on his power too much and his boxing skills were eroding by 1989. The loss of hand speed and stamina affected Hearns and Leonard significantly. Hagler reinvented himself as a puncher who had boxing skills. He was able to compensate for the loss of hand speed and became a more complex, intimidating opponent. Personally, i think the version of Hearns that could box for twelve rounds, using his power sparingly was the best package as a fighter. That fighter disappeared before the Hagler-Hearns fight. What i enjoyed about the Hearns-Leonard II fight was the fact that Hearns put him down twice. Although the Hagler-Leonard decision was controversial, the Hearns-Leonard decision was criminal. That is what is memorable to me.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"Why doesn't the fact that he managed to roll back the years (just like Ray had done against Marvin) enhance his achievement too?" - Ezz

Because Leonard was also significantly past-it.

Ezzard wrote:And I'm saying Hagler was at least just as worn as Leonard was.

Ezzard wrote:Leonard versus Hearns in second fight.

granberry wrote:Leonard "beat" Hagler by running for his life.

Leonard "beat" Hearns by getting knocked down twice.

Ali "beat" Jimmy Young by getting a boxing lesson to end all boxing lessons.

LOL

Knucklez wrote:

granberry wrote:Leonard "beat" Hagler by running for his life.

Leonard "beat" Hearns by getting knocked down twice.

Ali "beat" Jimmy Young by getting a boxing lesson to end all boxing lessons.

LOL

Granberry, what did Hagler do to win the fight? How many clean punches did he land? How good was defense/ring generalship/effective aggression?

If you mean walking forwards should win you the fight, then Ricky Hatton was a mile ahead against Mayweather before getting KOd.

Ezzard wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"Why doesn't the fact that he managed to roll back the years (just like Ray had done against Marvin) enhance his achievement too?" - Ezz

Because Leonard was also significantly past-it.

I can't accept that. Leonard may have been more past-it by degrees (though I'm not sure he was) but not significantly more past-it.

Leonard beat a guy who had been an established MW for a long, long time. Whereas Hearns was fighting a guy who started in the same weight class as himself. But other than that there's nothing to choose.

pjonesy wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

Ezzard wrote: I can't accept that. Leonard may have been more past-it by degrees (though I'm not sure he was) but not significantly more past-it.

Leonard beat a guy who had been an established MW for a long, long time. Whereas Hearns was fighting a guy who started in the same weight class as himself. But other than that there's nothing to choose.

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.

Let's put this all into perspective. Leonard beating Hearns in 1981 was tremendous, arguably his greatest victory. They were both in their prime and Leonard showed toughness and was flexible in his ability to adjust to an incredibly dangerous, well rounded fighter(who had not lost). That fight showed that Leonard was growing as a fighter and the lessons learned fighting Duran were applied in this fight. The Hearns-Hagler fight proved a few things. First, Hagler had bullied and intimidated Hearns into exchanging punches. Early on it looked as if Hearns would win this war. However, it just made Hagler more determined to finish Hearns off early. Finally, it proved that Hearns could not fight Hagler's fight and win. This was devestating to him, and he was never as confident with his ring generalship. I have said before that Hearns in his prime, predominately boxing, exhibiting patience and using power when he had the opening, was the most complete package of his era at middleweight. I am not the biggest fan of SRL but his victory over Hagler was an unexpected and relatively clear victory. Leonard was not bullied into fighting Hagler's style of fight, and the frustration that was evident on Hagler's face proved that Leonard was disrupting him psychologically. My opinion is that Leonard ran, held and showcased his superior hand speed by throwing late round flurries to steal rounds. I felt that Hagler was so stubborn in his belief that Leonard needed to exchange with him that he was willing to lose the fight so he could say, "he did not fight me like a man." Hagler could have proven in that fight that he was not a one trick pony, but a fighter that can adapt and find a way to win when his gameplan was not working. He did not do that and Leonard fought the perfect fight to beat Hagler. He forced Hagler into an uncomfortable position where he was frustrated and angry. This was Leonard's shining moment. He was the driving force behind the hype for the "comeback" fight and portrayed himself as the underdog who might have one more trick in the bag. Leonard won psychologically, was a better ring general, showcased his strengths, exploited Hagler's shortcomings and stuck to his gameplan. Hagler did not quit like Duran but the fact that he was not hungrier late in the fight proved that he was beaten. I am not a Leonard fan but this was a masterpiece in the Ali tradition. Psychological warfare with superior boxing strategy will win a few close fights. I fully agree with you that Hearns-Leonard II was nowhere near the moral victory for Hearns that it was for Leonard against Hagler.