BoxRec

These are rematches, back in the day. I'm not talking about anyone coming out of retirement.

Only Hagler-Duran lacks appeal.

The rest are mouth-watering. I might be inclined to go with Leonard-Hearns...maybe.

I could watch Leonard and Hearns fight every day of the week.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:
The rest are mouth-watering. I might be inclined to go with Leonard-Hearns...maybe.

aye, for me too, and for a couple of reasons, one being that a rematch soon after the first would have had them both still at peak- actually, probably more so- and two being that the ending and overall drama of the first fight seems to me the most deserving (nay, demanding) of a rematch

whereas, say, a leonard - hagler rematch would only have produced an (even) older Hagler, and hagler - hearns doubtless just produced the same result.

plus in terms of aggregate in-ring skill, the first fight may well be one of the most skillfull fights I have ever seen.

I could watch Leonard and Hearns fight every day of the week.

ezz, i could probably watch the relatively boring first 4-5 rounds every day, just watching Leonard move.

Leonard and Hearns immediately following the first fight would be the most interesting match.

I think Hagler vs Leonard 2 would be extremely interesting also.

Hagler vs Hearns 2 would have Hearns trying to box a lot more therefore making it considerably less exciting than the 1st fight, I think Hagler would still knock out Hearns though, it would just take about 6 rounds instead of 3.

Tommy/Leonard by a landslide for me. BTW, Hearns by KO.

After losing to Duran, Kenny Buchanan remained a top lightweight contender for several years, but Duran never gave him a rematch. I'd like to have seen it.

Hagler-Leonard, I thought Hagler was robbed of his title under the premise that a challenger has to take the tittle from the champ and Leonard ran the whole fight and pitty pat his way out. Hagler landed the harder punches and in a rematch Hagler would not have been that dumb as to start as a righty. Greetings from Puerto Rico

I'm guess that we are saying they fought an immediate rematch, say 6 months or so after their previous fight. Really, any rematch of these would have been fairly predictable. They would have been a letdown.

Leonard/Hearns -Hearns could not hurt Leonard in their first fight and Leonard was able to hurt Hearns a few times. Leonard would have went after Hearns sooner and beat him up worse. Leonard would have stopped him in the middle rounds this time.

Hagler/Hearns - Hearns probably would have tried to play it safe and outbox Hagler. That may work for a while but eventually Hagler would get to him and stop him.

Duran/Hearns - Duran would only have a puncher's chance. Probably would have last longer than 2 rounds this time , but Hearns would have stopped him.

Leonard/Duran - Leonard learned his lesson fromn the first fight and would outbox duran again. Duran doesn't quit this time, but Leonard wins a clearcut decision.

Leonard/Hagler - Hagler does more than stand around looking mean in the first four rounds this time. However, this time Leonard is not as rusty, is more used to the extra weight and wins an even more clearcut decision.

Hagler/Duran-Again Hagler does not sleepwalk his way in the early rounds. He wins a much more lopsided decision this time.

No wonder leonard didn't bother with the rematches, they wouldn't have been competitive according to his #1 fan boy.

I've gone with Leonard -v- Hearns circa 1982.

I don't buy into this lark that Hearns would have KOd Leonard; I just cannot see that.

He might have won on points, but I doubt a KO would have been the result.

Hagler -v- Hearns 2 or Hagler -v- Leonard 2 would not have appealled to me because of the timeline.

They would have happened between late 1985 & early 1988 & Hagler would have been way too slow by then.

I think he would have still taken out a tiring Hearns late on in a rematch, but I don't think he'd have beaten Leonard circa 1988 as he have had virtually no speed left by then.

I've never considered a Hagler -v- Duran 2 TBH, but the result would probably have been similar to their first fight.

The KO prediction was tongue in cheek, though a TKO would not be impossible. Tommy didn't really sit down on his punches in the first fight and he still massacred Ray's face. It would be pretty much the same scenario with these guys whenever they fought. Hearns delivering a boxing lesson and Leonard trying to hunt him down late

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

No wonder leonard didn't bother with the rematches, they wouldn't have been competitive according to his #1 fan boy.

Too bad that Duran and Hearns didn't bother to remain welterweights since if they wanted a rematch with Leonard, the welterweight champion. Gee, it's almost like they didn't want to fight Leonard again.
Those darn facts keep getting in the way, don't they?

When Hearns wasn't giving Leonard a "boxing lesson" he was getting hurt in several rounds and was unable to hurt Leonard one time. Just maybe Hearns didn't want to get the crap beaten out of him again.

Your delusions aren't facts, I'd put you on ignore but the unintentional humor is just too good. And to be fair, you make some quality posts if it doesn't involve Leonard or Ali. You just love them too much to have a reasonable discussion.

A more likely scenario then Hearns stopping Leonard, was in the 6th round of the first fight. If Leonard would have slowed down and thrown some good bodyshots when Hearns was in trouble, he might have finished the Hitman then and there.

It's possible, he hurt him with a body shot. But if Ray is going to stop him, 9 times out of 10 it would happen late in the fight with Leonard behind on the cards. Well, he should be behind with legitimate scoring.

FACT: Hearns over trained for the 1st Leonard fight. He was paying more attention to his friends and not listening to Manny Stewart. I am a gigantic Hearns fan., but even I can see that a rematch would have been very tough to call. The old addage about rematches having the same result as the first fight, but more conclusive may come into play. I'm really unsure as to the result.

At 147 I think one of two things would happen.

1. Leonard learned a lot from the first fight, fights a different fight and wins easier.
2. Hearns doesn't leave the closing rounds in the gym and beats Leonard fair and square.

Nothing factual about him being over trained. That's what some of us call an excuse. Just like the leg rubdown in the Hagler fight. Manny is an excuse machine.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Nothing factual about him being over trained. That's what some of us call an excuse. Just like the leg rubdown in the Hagler fight. Manny is an excuse machine.

So you know more than Hearns and Stewart just by watching TV. RUBBISH! Look at the weights for the fight you plonker.

I know more than you do, Mugabi. Steward makes excuses for being wrong about predictions. His ego is off the charts.

You should look at the fights more than the weight. he was strong and winning after 12. Leonard sucked it up and got him out of there. i'd love to make excuses for my favorite fighter, but they are as you would say...nothing more than Tosh.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I know more than you do, Mugabi. Steward makes excuses for being wrong about predictions. His ego is off the charts.

You should look at the fights more than the weight. he was strong and winning after 12. Leonard sucked it up and got him out of there. i'd love to make excuses for my favorite fighter, but they are as you would say...nothing more than Tosh.

It's funny. You've accused me of being a Leonard fanboy in the past and now Hearns is my favourite fighter. MAKE YOUR MIND UP SAAD. Which one am I?

Hearns hadn't weighed that little in TWELVE fights. You saying it makes no difference is just plain wrong.

You said on a previous thread, that sometime even you are wrong. This is one of those times.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I know more than you do, Mugabi. Steward makes excuses for being wrong about predictions. His ego is off the charts.

You should look at the fights more than the weight. he was strong and winning after 12. Leonard sucked it up and got him out of there. i'd love to make excuses for my favorite fighter, but they are as you would say...nothing more than Tosh.

It's funny. You've accused me of being a Leonard fanboy in the past and now Hearns is my favourite fighter. MAKE YOUR MIND UP SAAD. Which one am I?

Hearns hadn't weighed that little in TWELVE fights. You saying it makes no difference is just plain wrong.

You said on a previous thread, that sometime even you are wrong. This is one of those times.

I see changing your user name hasn't helped your comprehension any. Hearns is my favorite fighter dimwit. Sorry to throw you off with big, complicated words like my.

Edit: And I was definitely wrong for bothering to read one of your posts. I wont make that mistake again.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I know more than you do, Mugabi. Steward makes excuses for being wrong about predictions. His ego is off the charts.

You should look at the fights more than the weight. he was strong and winning after 12. Leonard sucked it up and got him out of there. i'd love to make excuses for my favorite fighter, but they are as you would say...nothing more than Tosh.

It's funny. You've accused me of being a Leonard fanboy in the past and now Hearns is my favourite fighter. MAKE YOUR MIND UP SAAD. Which one am I?

Hearns hadn't weighed that little in TWELVE fights. You saying it makes no difference is just plain wrong.

You said on a previous thread, that sometime even you are wrong. This is one of those times.

I see changing your user name hasn't helped your comprehension any. Hearns is my favorite fighter dimwit. Sorry to throw you off with big, complicated words like my.

Edit: And I was definitely wrong for bothering to read one of your posts. I wont make that mistake again.

I haven't changed my username you fool.

Just answer me this...., why do youy think Hearns weigh his lightest for twelve fights?

keithmoonhangover wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: It's funny. You've accused me of being a Leonard fanboy in the past and now Hearns is my favourite fighter. MAKE YOUR MIND UP SAAD. Which one am I?

Hearns hadn't weighed that little in TWELVE fights. You saying it makes no difference is just plain wrong.

You said on a previous thread, that sometime even you are wrong. This is one of those times.

I see changing your user name hasn't helped your comprehension any. Hearns is my favorite fighter dimwit. Sorry to throw you off with big, complicated words like my.

Edit: And I was definitely wrong for bothering to read one of your posts. I wont make that mistake again.

I haven't changed my username you fool.

Just answer me this...., why do youy think Hearns weigh his lightest for twelve fights?

My guess is he wanted it to one day inspire a conversation just like this one, enticing the opinions of someone much like yourself, so he could have a good chuckle about it all...

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: I see changing your user name hasn't helped your comprehension any. Hearns is my favorite fighter dimwit. Sorry to throw you off with big, complicated words like my.

Edit: And I was definitely wrong for bothering to read one of your posts. I wont make that mistake again.

I haven't changed my username you fool.

Just answer me this...., why do youy think Hearns weigh his lightest for twelve fights?

My guess is he wanted it to one day inspire a conversation just like this one, enticing the opinions of someone much like yourself, so he could have a good chuckle about it all...

So you're not actually serious about discussing this subject. YOU ARE WRONG, sir. Admit it.