Really? Hearns has some incredible performance, notably the duran and benitez fight (probably better than any Hagler performance). Not to mention that a ww winning a lhw title is extremely impressive. I think i lean slightly toward hearns for both
Hagler's reign of dominance over quality opposition puts him over in greatness. In quality, Hagler was just the more complete fighter with no major flaws, unlike Tommy. Their H2H counts for something too. I can't see a Hearns supporter using the excuse of Hearns losing due to size. Tommy was in reality a bigger man than Hagler.
Im not saying he lost due to size, more due to style. And Hearns fought as bad as a fight as he could (though it might be caused by Hagler coming at him like a total animal). For what it's worth (and i don't think it's worth much, Leonard said that Hearns would have beaten Hagler if he chose to box. Anyway, the h2h definitely count for something, but I'm not sure hagler would have beaten hill
Hearns had the frame to handle 175. Hagler's frame wouldn't have supported 175. That doesn't make Hearns better.
I disagree, success in multiple weight divisions has to count. Not the only criteria obviously, but it's an important one
It's not the best metric. If it was, we could call DLH greater and better than Monzon. When we all know, he was nowhere close.
Hagler was the better fighter. So well rounded and versatile...No glaring weaknesses. If you value weight jumping a lot then I could see the case for Hearns being greater, although I don’t really agree. I think this was the case. Hagler was usually a more patient and methodical boxer-puncher, but going against a guy like Hearns who had such a good outside game, Hagler had to take it to him. Hearns did try to box at range in the middle of the ring in the first round, but Hagler kept getting to him. Same thing in the 2nd when Hearns tried to box and move. Also, Hearns was most deadly with his right hand when he got some distance on it. Cuevas, Duran, and later Shuler, all right hands with more distance and leverage on it. It was hard for Hearns to get this range due to Hagler coming at him the way he did.
For me the most important criteria is quality of opposition. And Hearns best hagler rather clerly on that.one imo
It doest,.but a lot less. Leonard wasn't coming up in weight for the Hearns fight, nor was he semi retired
Not saying that. Just pointing out one of the strikes against Hagler that makes this a worthy debate.
Greater is very close, but I take Hagler. Hearns' weight jumping is impressive, but I prefer Hagler's wins and (lack of) losses. Tommy's lack of base contenders hurts him in a similar way to how it hurts Sanchez or Leonard, he just doesn't have the wins Leonard does which take him higher than Hagler. I'd take losing a controversial decision to Leonard over getting stopped by him, Barkley and Hagler himself. Hearns may have been more spectacular, and more talented, but Hagler was better technically, much tougher and less flawed IMO. And I doubt he was poorly suited to move up in weight, he just didn't do it. Why should he? He was a middleweight.
I disagree. This was the match Hagler was waiting for all his life. Had the chance to beat a smaller, media darling, who had it "easy" unlike him. He couldn't and shouldn't have lost that fight. As for their respective performance against Leonard, i think it's pretty much even. Sure Hearns got koed, but he was ahead and both were in their prime and at their optimal weight (I guess you could argue Hearns optimal weight was 154)
Minimizing Hearns' Superior FRAME is Like Minimizing Hagler's Superior PUNCH RESISTANCE... Height/Length was Very Much Part of WHO Tommy Hearns Was...And the Fact he Started @ a LOWER Weight Than Hagler, Yet Won a Title @ a HIGHER Weight Has to Count for SOMETHING???... It's Not Like Hearns Fought SLOUCHES or Cherry Picked as He Moved Up Either...Cuevas, Leonard @ '47...Benitez, Duran @ '54...Shuler, Hagler, Roldan, Barkley @ '60...Kinchen, Leonard @ '68...Hill, Andries @ '75... Fighters Have Been Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay More SELECTIVE Than Hearns Was, In Who They've Faced, Navigating Various Weight Classes... REED
In the TRUEST Head to Head Sense, Hearns Did BETTER Based on the Fact Leonard-Hagler was a 12 Rounder and Leonard-Hearns I was a 15... After 12 Rounds, Hearns Was BEATING a Prime Sugar Ray Leonard; Hagler LOST a 12 Round Decision to the Version of Leonard he Fought...Even in Leonard-Hearns II (Scheduled for 12), Tommy Had a STRONGER Case for Victory Than Hagler Had in His Bout w/Ray... REED
I think the old 'if he had chosen to box' thing is a bit silly, really, and gives Hagler no credit for how the fight turned out. 'If he had chosen to box' could be used as a reason for his first loss to Barkley too. The difference there though was Hearns was clearly shopworn but in 84/85 he was smack bang in the middle of his prime. Hagler made him fight his fight and Tommy wasn't able to do anything about it. Hagler has to be considered better. Greater is closer but I'd still give it to Hagler for the overall dominance of his performances during his middleweight reign and the fact that Hearns was never the undisputed no. 1 in any division he held a world title in (he came mighty close on a couple of occasions, though).
There is one notable, incredible performance that Hagler has against better opposition than even Duran and Benitez that elevates him to another level... Now... who was it against? I can't quite remember.
As is said, I'm not buying that excuse. It's Leonard that said so. Personally, i think that Hagler forced him into that brawl, and hearns was happy to engage hin. Hearns probably could have done a bit better if he tried to box, but it would have only delayed the ending for a few rounds
The "who was better" question was answered pretty clearly when Hagler smashed him in a fight that was competitive for about 90 seconds. The idea that Hearns could have boxed is a neat idea but doesn't hold up. Hagler could box some in his own right and he would certainly have hit Tommy in the body. It was an inevitable outcome that he would stop Hearns if Hearns tried to box because he would come to Hearns and get to him. The best chance for Hearns was to come out fast and nail Hagler. And that isn't likely is it? At any rate, Hagler recognized that and took it to Tommy, dared him to do it and beat him down.
So Hearns was “Better” Than Duran? Forrest was “Better” Than Mosley? Marquez was “Better” Than Pacquiao? Tarver was “Better” Than Roy? Your Point is SOLID, But Head to Head Superiority Doesn’t ALWAYS Equate to One Fighter Being “Better” Than Another, in REED’s Opinion. REED
