BoxRec

Lets say that both men signed the dotted line.

Who do you thin wins and how do you see it playing out?

Hearns would obviously have had to change his gameplan which I am sure he would have done. Boxing with more caution and keeping it a boxing match as opposed to a brawl I see Hearns doing better but I still favour Hagler. My guess would be Hagler by TKO around the 10th

I think Hagler wins again. Different fight from Hearns, but still Hagler by KO in maybe 9 or 10 rounds. Hearns by 1986 was not in his prime. The first fight with Hagler took his toll. He left it all out in 3 rounds that night.

The same argument could be applied to Marvin Hagler, he wasnt in his prime in 1986 either. He had
noticeably slowed in the Mugabi fight. Hearns would have changed his style and boxed Hagler at
range, a better strategy than trying to bomb the indestructible Hagler out. I believe he would have
built a decent points lead up, and struggled to hold on at the end, either Hagler catches up with him
or Hearns holds on for a points win

elmersalsa wrote:I think Hagler wins again. Different fight from Hearns, but still Hagler by KO in maybe 9 or 10 rounds. Hearns by 1986 was not in his prime. The first fight with Hagler took his toll. He left it all out in 3 rounds that night.

When do you think Hearns was in his prime, elmer? (Hearns would have been 28-year-old in 1986 and would have been fighting professionallu for almost nine years at that time, as well as having already won titles in two weight divisions.)

Are you stating that Hearns hadn't reached his prime yet or was already past his prime by 1986?

I think if there would have been a rematch then it would have been a longer fight than the first, bu ultimately, Hearns is the one who would have to make big changes in order to improve his chances. However, I think it comes down to Marvin being able to take it more than Hearns could.

At the time of their first encounter, who else apart from Hagler would have survivied the first round onslaught that Hearns dished out? There can't be too many, if any at all! Tommy threw everything at Marvin & at the end of the first round, Tommy must have wondered WTF is going on here because he's still here?

Even though Hagler was marked up, cut in the first, he got to Hearns as early as near the end of the first. Hearns would have tried to box more in a rematch (he would have to) but I think Hagler breaks him down for a TKO around the 6/7th.

In actual fact, I think I'm gonna go watch Hagler-Hearns now...

hhaehre wrote:Hearns would obviously have had to change his gameplan which I am sure he would have done. Boxing with more caution and keeping it a boxing match as opposed to a brawl I see Hearns doing better but I still favour Hagler. My guess would be Hagler by TKO around the 10th

Agreed. Hagler was slipping fast, & Hearns would've undoubtedly turned his gameplan around in a rematch, but I see his legs betraying him again, though not long before the final bell.

Hagler KO11.

Much as a love Hagler, has to be Hearns.

Hagler was a stumble bum.....had Hearns used his pea brain and boxed the firt time he would have beaten Hagler. Hagler won because of Hearn's stupidity, not Hagler's abilities. D

A rematch Hearns boxes Hagler's ears off, and stops him on cuts late.

raylawpc wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:I think Hagler wins again. Different fight from Hearns, but still Hagler by KO in maybe 9 or 10 rounds. Hearns by 1986 was not in his prime. The first fight with Hagler took his toll. He left it all out in 3 rounds that night.

When do you think Hearns was in his prime, elmer? (Hearns would have been 28-year-old in 1986 and would have been fighting professionallu for almost nine years at that time, as well as having already won titles in two weight divisions.)

Are you stating that Hearns hadn't reached his prime yet or was already past his prime by 1986?

Hearns PRIME in my opinion was from 1979 to 1985...He gave us six years of his very best. By 1986, he was not as good as those early years, and he did not look good at middleweight either.

elmersalsa wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:I think Hagler wins again. Different fight from Hearns, but still Hagler by KO in maybe 9 or 10 rounds. Hearns by 1986 was not in his prime. The first fight with Hagler took his toll. He left it all out in 3 rounds that night.

When do you think Hearns was in his prime, elmer? (Hearns would have been 28-year-old in 1986 and would have been fighting professionallu for almost nine years at that time, as well as having already won titles in two weight divisions.)

Are you stating that Hearns hadn't reached his prime yet or was already past his prime by 1986?

Hearns PRIME in my opinion was from 1979 to 1985...He gave us six years of his very best. By 1986, he was not as good as those early years, and he did not look good at middleweight either.

Thanks Elmer

ringsider wrote:Hagler was a stumble bum.....had Hearns used his pea brain and boxed the firt time he would have beaten Hagler. Hagler won because of Hearn's stupidity, not Hagler's abilities. D

A rematch Hearns boxes Hagler's ears off, and stops him on cuts late.

Hearns was asked why he didn't box more and he replied: "because he wouldn't let me". Hagler by TKO again

bollox wrote:

ringsider wrote:Hagler was a stumble bum.....had Hearns used his pea brain and boxed the firt time he would have beaten Hagler. Hagler won because of Hearn's stupidity, not Hagler's abilities. D

A rematch Hearns boxes Hagler's ears off, and stops him on cuts late.

Hearns was asked why he didn't box more and he replied: "because he wouldn't let me". Hagler by TKO again

That is BS.

It was Hearns who stood his ground and tried to take Hagler out fast and early.

ringsider wrote:

bollox wrote:

ringsider wrote:Hagler was a stumble bum.....had Hearns used his pea brain and boxed the firt time he would have beaten Hagler. Hagler won because of Hearn's stupidity, not Hagler's abilities. D

A rematch Hearns boxes Hagler's ears off, and stops him on cuts late.

Hearns was asked why he didn't box more and he replied: "because he wouldn't let me". Hagler by TKO again

That is BS.

It was Hearns who stood his ground and tried to take Hagler out fast and early.

So you think the quotes from Tommy himself about how he tried to box and how Hagler forced him to fight Hagler's fight are BS? How dare you accuse Hearns of being a BS artist :x

I wish God had made me a stumble-bum so that I, too, could have been middleweight champion of the world, successfully defended my title 12 times against the best in the world, and now be living like a prince in Europe . . .

Hagler wasn't fit to carry Hearns back to his corner after he KO'd him :x

Hagler was the most over rated MW in history, who made a name for himself by fighting B class MW who were called contenders and blown up welterweights. Then when he got a a guy who boxed him, he was beaten and exposed as stumbling off balance southpaw plodder he was. Thank you Ray Leonard.

I wish God had made me a stumbling off balance southpaw plodder so that I, too, could have been middleweight champion of the world, successfully defended my title 12 times against the best in the world, and now be living like a prince in Europe . . .

ringsider wrote:Hagler was the most over rated MW in history, who made a name for himself by fighting B class MW who were called contenders and blown up welterweights. Then when he got a a guy who boxed him, he was beaten and exposed as stumbling off balance southpaw plodder he was. Thank you Ray Leonard.

Ok you got me. Hagler fought B grade opposition (therefore the best middleweights of the late 70's to the mid 80's were so-so fighters, yes?)

p.s If we're going to play this game then...........I could have sworn that Leonard was beaten by a blown up lighweight in Duran. And a blown up featherweight in Camacho

bollox wrote:

ringsider wrote:Hagler was the most over rated MW in history, who
made a name for himself by fighting B class MW who were called
contenders and blown up welterweights. Then when he got a a guy who
boxed him, he was beaten and exposed as stumbling off balance southpaw
plodder he was. Thank you Ray Leonard.

Ok
you got me. Hagler fought B grade opposition (therefore the best
middleweights of the late 70's to the mid 80's were so-so fighters,
yes?)

p.s If we're going to play this game then...........I
could have sworn that Leonard was beaten by a blown up lighweight in
Duran. And a blown up featherweight in Camacho

No doubt, but don't forget Leonard moved up and beat naturally bigger men. Hagler being one of those men......who did Hagler ever fight who was bigger than MW?

Answer:Nobody.

Why?.....because Hagler would have got his ass handed to him........he wasn't that good, he was a bully.

ringsider wrote:

bollox wrote:

ringsider wrote:Hagler was the most over rated MW in history, who
made a name for himself by fighting B class MW who were called
contenders and blown up welterweights. Then when he got a a guy who
boxed him, he was beaten and exposed as stumbling off balance southpaw
plodder he was. Thank you Ray Leonard.

Ok
you got me. Hagler fought B grade opposition (therefore the best
middleweights of the late 70's to the mid 80's were so-so fighters,
yes?)

p.s If we're going to play this game then...........I
could have sworn that Leonard was beaten by a blown up lighweight in
Duran. And a blown up featherweight in Camacho

No doubt, but don't forget Leonard moved up and beat naturally bigger men. Hagler being one of those men......who did Hagler ever fight who was bigger than MW?

Answer:Nobody.

Why?.....because Hagler would have got his ass handed to him........he wasn't that good, he was a bully.

If only he had eaten himself out of his division and beaten greats such as Lalonde and Maynard.

If only he had eaten himself out of his division and beaten greats such as Lalonde and Maynard.

He might have........but his plodding stumbling style would have cause him great trouble against any naturally bigger man......Leonard could box, unlike Hagler.....which led to Leonard's victories over bigger men than him.

ringsider wrote:Hagler was a stumble bum.....had Hearns used his pea brain and boxed the firt time he would have beaten Hagler. Hagler won because of Hearn's stupidity, not Hagler's abilities. D

A rematch Hearns boxes Hagler's ears off, and stops him on cuts late.

what a rancid little turd ringsider is. I always get tired by this argument "if only hearns had boxed". Watch the fight again, it was Hagler who turned it initially into a street fight. and when round 2 started hearns tried to box but Hagler wouldnt let him , he forsaked his usual counter punching boxing style and mugged hearns viciously. hearns had no choice but to fight back. even when the ko eventually happened hearns was trying to box/run.

ringsider wrote:Hagler was the most over rated MW in history, who made a name for himself by fighting B class MW who were called contenders and blown up welterweights. Then when he got a a guy who boxed him, he was beaten and exposed as stumbling off balance southpaw plodder he was. Thank you Ray Leonard.

Actually Hearns and Duran nonwithstanding, Haglers pre title competition in Briscoe,Cyclone, Monroe, Finnegan and others was tougher than the people he defended against. Finnegan was a better fighter than Sibson. Yet it cant be said apart from Caveman Lee that Hagler fought easy guys.

Obelmejias,Hamsho,Mugabi, Sibson,Roldan were tough guys.

mugabi wrote:
Actually
Hearns and Duran nonwithstanding, Haglers pre title competition in
Briscoe,Cyclone, Monroe, Finnegan and others was tougher than the
people he defended against. Finnegan was a better fighter than Sibson.
....blah, blah, blah...

Well than that makes my point for me.........though I don't agree with you.