BoxRec

Week 1 - 1981 Ring magazine fight of the year
Sugar Ray Leonard vs Thomas Hitman Hearns

https://youtu.be/5nuWHtWToXw

Enjoy ladies and gentlemen

The supplementaries chose themselves.

Main thread - http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... e#p4571725

Supplementary fights

The fight that need no introduction

https://youtu.be/LYt5Rz2XlAg

And the infamous No Mas fight

https://youtu.be/x7aChC6U3Ks

"Inter-continental"?

Wouldn't "World" make it seem more important?

Horse wrote:"Inter-continental"?

Wouldn't "World" make it seem more important?

Thought I'd make a bit of a boxing in-joke in my thread title.

Your threads been excellent but one thing it's missed has been a bit of humour

davie wrote:Thought I'd make a bit of a boxing in-joke in my thread title.

Your threads been excellent but one thing it's missed has been a bit of humour

This is serious business. There's no place for humour here.

Effing tremendous fight,up there with the best,2 champs freshly into their prime putting their belts on the line,thats what its all about,you've gotta feel for Hearns,over 2 fights he's won more rounds against Leonard and outboxed him for long spells but only has a draw to show for it,Leonard proving though what a champ he was and just seemed to switch on like a light in that 13th round and took all Hearns hard work away

Part of me thinks the ending was a tad premature though but maybe that's just me coz I never seem to hear anyone else mention it

Leonard vs Hearns

1. 9 - 10 Hearns. Leonard landed 1, Hearns got in with 2 or 3. Feeling out round with Leonard circling and Hearns struggling to find the range
2. 9 - 10 Hearns. Leonard struggling with the range, it must have been a nightmare facing those long levers of Hearns.
3. 10 - 9 Leonard. I though Leonard just about did enough to take that but he took a fair few too. best round by a distance
4. 10 - 10 Even. Slow start to the round but really got going in the second half with successful spells for both
5. 9 - 10 Hearns. Tommy's jab the story of the round. 1 Leonard right hand but pretty much controlled by Heanrs. Ray needs to time the counter to get in
6. 10 - 9 Leonard. Unlucky not to get a knockdown, had Hearns hurt. Leonard started it with a nice left hook in the enxchange.
7. 10 - 9 Leonard, big round for Sugar Ray, unloading and staying in range. He's got Hearns thinking twice about letting his hands go
8. 9 - 10 Hearns. something to like from both men. Leonard bombing away and stalking Hearns, in a role reversal. Hearns moving and boxing well, I liked Hearns jabbing and moving even though he still looks weary
9. 9 - 10 Hearns comfortably. Hearns peppering with the jab and Leonard not throwing the bombs he did last round. Commentary got it spot on
10. 9 - 10 Hearns jabbing away again with Leonard not doing enough
11. 9 - 10 Hearns another solid round landing a couple solid shots along with the lefts.
12. 9 - 10 Hearns closer round but still Tommy the better of the 2. (famous bit of corner work from Dundee here "you're blowing it son, you're blowing it)
13. 10 - 7 Leonard, just the response Dundee was looking for, Ray really goes after Tommy and hurts him in this round, the beginning of one of the most famous turn arounds in boxing history
14. TKO Leonard finishes the job. The stoppage was coming and the ref stepped in. Only Leonard would have hurt his man then raised his hands in celebration before going in for the kill

132-134 Hearns at the time of the stoppage.

So many talking points in this one, 2 of the greatest boxers in the history of the sport. An intriguing clash in styles.
The reversal of roles throughout the fight and some of the success either man had when he was carrying out the role you would have expected the other to perform.

The inexplicably lackadaisical 9th through 12th from Leonard, then one of the most famous pep talks in the corner by Dundee making Leonard come out like a man possessed in the 13th to snatch one of sports most famous comeback wins.

This was fight of the year in 81. Not because it was a war but because it was 2 of the best in the sport, in the biggest fight the sport at that time, throw in all the talking points above and that's why this is still one of the most discussed fights ever.

The commentary from Tim Ryan and particularly Gil Clancy was spot on.

handsofstone wrote:Effing tremendous fight,up there with the best,2 champs freshly into their prime putting their belts on the line,thats what its all about,you've gotta feel for Hearns,over 2 fights he's won more rounds against Leonard and outboxed him for long spells but only has a draw to show for it,Leonard proving though what a champ he was and just seemed to switch on like a light in that 13th round and took all Hearns hard work away

Part of me thinks the ending was a tad premature though but maybe that's just me coz I never seem to hear anyone else mention it

The ref could have let it go on but I think Hearns was on his way down just shortly.

There is always the consideration that Hearns can stop you at any time as long as he's on his feet but you can't let someone stand and get slaughtered just because they can bang.

Nothing better than sticking Hagler/Hearns on when your bored,WAR

Leonard/Duran 2 was a bit anti climatic.who knows what really went on in Duran's head when he quit , I personally think he made a spur of the moment decision out of frustration, because Leonard wouldn't trade with him and just danced and boxed his ears off unlike the 1st fight, I don't buy the whole stomach cramps after eating steaks or whatever it was,Roberto just got pissed because Leonard had learned his lesson

I felt the Leonard v Duran fights were weird. The first, Duran was too close. It's what he had to do and was very good, but a maul nonetheless. Angelo Dundee had a point, to an extent, saying it was more of a wrestling match. In the second Leonard was too far out of range, even for his own shots to be genuine. But caused Duran to really disengage. Each got his own stubborn way, Duran in fight one and Leonard in fight two. Damn shame none of their fights proved the welter equivalents of the Duran-Dejesus classics.

Autobarn wrote:I felt the Leonard v Duran fights were weird. The first, Duran was too close. It's what he had to do and was very good, but a maul nonetheless. Angelo Dundee had a point, to an extent, saying it was more of a wrestling match. In the second Leonard was too far out of range, even for his own shots to be genuine. But caused Duran to really disengage. Each got his own stubborn way, Duran in fight one and Leonard in fight two. Damn shame none of their fights proved the welter equivalents of the Duran-Dejesus classics.

The 3rd fight was the dullest as both guys were on the slide but Leonard was a lot better than Duran that night

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.

handsofstone wrote:Nothing better than sticking Hagler/Hearns on when your bored,WAR

Always enjoyable. The first round is insane but I agreed with someone the other day that it is often over-hyped as the best fight ever.

It is without question a great fight but not the best.
But at that level, both in terms of the ability and standing of both fighter and the level of media and spectator attention, there has never been a greater all out war

davie wrote: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.

I don't think I agree although like you say there has tonne at least a bit of both, Leonard doesn't start off flat footed Duran sortod snake charms him and before you know it he's four rounds in and Duran has beat the legs out of him with the body assault IMO

davie wrote: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.

Also according to the biography Duran killed himself to make weight the second time as he went off the rails a bit after the 1st. Well he had become p4p no 1 after all.

His post weight I'm meal was apparently ridiculous and left people stunned in the hotel. He ate so much he caused stomach damage because it shrunk so much to make weight.

Were there day before weigh ins when this fight happened ? I just can't see how it would have been possible for Hearns to make 147 if so. His size is mental.

I think I'd read ages ago that day before weigh ins started because a big Michael Spinks fight fell through ??

Naandrew wrote:Were there day before weigh ins when this fight happened ? I just can't see how it would have been possible for Hearns to make 147 if so. His size is mental.

I think I'd read ages ago that day before weigh ins started because a big Michael Spinks fight fell through ??

No it was on the day

Manny Steward reckons a mate of hearns took care of his diet for this fight and fvcked it up, he would normally weigh in at a shade under 147 and go in the ring at 152ish, he weighed in at 145 and Manny reckons he hardly put anything back on.

If you compare the muscle in his back and shoulders to the Cuevas fight I reckon there is something to it, Hearns looks much skinnier IMO

Regarding Leonard v Hearns 1. Leonard is not a great fighter coming forward. Hearns did look very gaunt.

Great fight nonetheless, lots of drama.

As in the controversial rematch it takes Leonard a very long time to get near but when he does he really outmuscles and batters Hearns in the close range exchanges.

Manny reckons the left hook to the body in round 6 after hearns got wobbled was the one that really stayed with Hearns

Yeah there is one left hook with huge leverage that really seems to double up Hearns.

Props to Leonard for coming out of his comfort zone, taking the fight forward, getting gritty and unleashing those hooks.

One fight where dancing on the periphery was not an option.

davie wrote: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.

I believe 10 out of 10 times Duran of Montreal beats any version of Leonard. Duran would have lost in New Orleans in that second fight even if Leonard would have slugged it out. He was faster and stronger in New Orleans. That wasn't the Montreal Duran at all. He even at times looked very weak in No Mas. No speed. No head movements. He just trained to lose the weight. He didn't had enough time to prepare mentally like he did in Montreal.

Gil Clancy, I respect his commentaries a lot. He knew the boxing game inside and out.

He was right and accurate when he said he didn't like The Hitman coming into the fight at 145lbs with the heat and lights on top of the ring would drained him more in a tough fight. I believe that Tommy got drained. He wasn't accustomed to fight for a long period of time. He was inexperienced in that aspect. I also never liked him at 147lbs. He looked too frailed at that weight class. Guys like Sugar Ray and Duran, at their very best, beat the Hitman at 147lbs more often than not. They had stronger legs for the later rounds, and much more pace. A pace that Tommy could not handle. I knew that Sugar Ray was going to win the fight because in my view, he was the better fighter and was much more experienced in later championship rounds.

But, at 154lbs, a rematch in '83 or '84, would favor the Hitman. He was much more stronger, more experienced and had STURDIER LEGS at that weight class. They could've fight 10 times at 154lbs, Tommy wins everytime. But, at 147lbs, it's all Sugar Ray Leonard everytime!

elmersalsa wrote:

davie wrote: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.

I believe 10 out of 10 times Duran of Montreal beats any version of Leonard. Duran would have lost in New Orleans in that second fight even if Leonard would have slugged it out. He was faster and stronger in New Orleans. That wasn't the Montreal Duran at all. He even at times looked very weak in No Mas. No speed. No head movements. He just trained to lose the weight. He didn't had enough time to prepare mentally like he did in Montreal.

When I talked about people being in two different camps... the first group I spoke of was basically a direct reference to you.

A few years back I had watched the two fights and came on to the history forum to discuss my thoughts on it and I think we had this exact discussion then.
I'm sure it was you anyway.
If it was, we agreed to disagree back then.
But rest assured, you did have an impact, back then I was sure No Mas Leonard beats Duran 10 out of 10, so I'm closer to the middle ground now after taking your views in to account

davie wrote: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."

davie wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

davie wrote: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.

I believe 10 out of 10 times Duran of Montreal beats any version of Leonard. Duran would have lost in New Orleans in that second fight even if Leonard would have slugged it out. He was faster and stronger in New Orleans. That wasn't the Montreal Duran at all. He even at times looked very weak in No Mas. No speed. No head movements. He just trained to lose the weight. He didn't had enough time to prepare mentally like he did in Montreal.

When I talked about people being in two different camps... the first group I spoke of was basically a direct reference to you.

A few years back I had watched the two fights and came on to the history forum to discuss my thoughts on it and I think we had this exact discussion then.
I'm sure it was you anyway.
If it was, we agreed to disagree back then.
But rest assured, you did have an impact, back then I was sure No Mas Leonard beats Duran 10 out of 10, so I'm closer to the middle ground now after taking your views in to account

You probably believed or still believe that Sugar Ray was the better boxer. I see it differently. Duran in Montreal lose to a good middleweight instead of any version of Leonard. He showed completely that he was better.

In the second fight, Leonard caught Duran in an OFF NIGHT. If Leonard would have gone toe to toe with Duran in the No Mas, he would have won anyway. You can't beat Leonard being 90% or 80%. You gotta be 100% or better. Obviously, Duran wasn't 100%.