Why is Leonard considered greater than Hearns?

[Silencers]

Leonard was the better boxer technically.

Leonard beat Hearns when both of them were at or near their primes.

[-CANE-]

I say that it is close but because of their records in big fights I have to lean towards Leonard.

Hearns' problems was his stamina and his chin wasn't the best, saying that in their first fiight when Leonard stopped Hearns he came from behind and Hearns was ahead.

Hearns is the only boxer to actually outbox Ray and had the fight been over 12 rounds Hearns would have won, but it was over 15 and Leonard stepped up in the championship rounds. I can still hear Angelo Dundee now, "Your blowing son, your blowing it"

I think Ray still beat a very good Hagler, maybe Hagler wasn't at his best but he was still great and the reason he beat Hagler was he ****ed Haglers mind over. Hagler did things in that fight he had never done before and this cost Hagler victory.

I gave it to Ray and can still remember watching this live. In all my time in boxing I have never witnessed a fight generate so much excitement and to me is the biggest fight of all time.

I live in England and considering there was no English fighters involved and there was no internet or satelite tv back then, everyone talked about who was going to win. All the kids at school, boys,girls and teachers and most never knew anything about boxing or cared but everyone wanted to know who was going to win.

Hearns was at his best during his brief stint at Junior Middleweight, at welterweight he was fast but not physically strong enough especially over 15 rounds against a formiddable foe like Leonard. Middleweight and above was a bit too much for him with his chin not being the best, it also slowed his speed and because of the much heavier punches it was far more difficult to fight his pace over 12 rounds. There was no money or names at junior middle with the exception of the Duran fight and that was Hearns at his best and one of the best ko's in the history of the game.

So Ray gets my nod as the greater fighter but Hearns was still great himself and should not be remembered for just his 2 big losses. He was a warrior who never ducked anyone and unfortunately for him the biggest fights out there for him were at weights at which he wasn't at his best. Some fighters can take all their attributes with them as they move up the weight divisions and although Hearns won numerous titles at different weights he would have been better suited at jumping no higher than the junior middleweight division.

[Tuggers1986]

I take this point.

Having said that there is a bit more to it. Hearns clearly defeated Leonard in the rematch, it wasn't even close.

Also, Hearns fought and lost to a mean prime Marvin, whilst Hagler was nowhere near the same fighter when he lost the SD to Ray, in a fight many say Hagler actually won.

I am one of that many.

[Dan...]

I am one of that many.

Yeah look I have watched it a fair few times and I think it is close and could have gone to either guy.

But I firmly believe that Hagler was nowhere near his prime when he fought Ray. I have a lot of Marvin's fights on DVD and I think he would have killed Ray in his prime. Early stoppage IMO. For instance, Sugar Ray would have stood no chance against the Marvin that Tommy fought. He was just a total wrecking ball.

[j.razor]

he beat both Hearns and Hagler, Hearns lost both times.

but in reality he only beat Hearns once & lost 2 Hagler...

[jabsRstiff]

I say that it is close but because of their records in big fights I have to lean towards Leonard.

Hearns' problems was his stamina and his chin wasn't the best, saying that in their first fiight when Leonard stopped Hearns he came from behind and Hearns was ahead.

Hearns is the only boxer to actually outbox Ray and had the fight been over 12 rounds Hearns would have won, but it was over 15 and Leonard stepped up in the championship rounds. I can still hear Angelo Dundee now, "Your blowing son, your blowing it"

I think Ray still beat a very good Hagler, maybe Hagler wasn't at his best but he was still great and the reason he beat Hagler was he ****ed Haglers mind over. Hagler did things in that fight he had never done before and this cost Hagler victory.

I gave it to Ray and can still remember watching this live. In all my time in boxing I have never witnessed a fight generate so much excitement and to me is the biggest fight of all time.

I live in England and considering there was no English fighters involved and there was no internet or satelite tv back then, everyone talked about who was going to win. All the kids at school, boys,girls and teachers and most never knew anything about boxing or cared but everyone wanted to know who was going to win.

Hearns was at his best during his brief stint at Junior Middleweight, at welterweight he was fast but not physically strong enough especially over 15 rounds against a formiddable foe like Leonard. Middleweight and above was a bit too much for him with his chin not being the best, it also slowed his speed and because of the much heavier punches it was far more difficult to fight his pace over 12 rounds. There was no money or names at junior middle with the exception of the Duran fight and that was Hearns at his best and one of the best ko's in the history of the game.

So Ray gets my nod as the greater fighter but Hearns was still great himself and should not be remembered for just his 2 big losses. He was a warrior who never ducked anyone and unfortunately for him the biggest fights out there for him were at weights at which he wasn't at his best. Some fighters can take all their attributes with them as they move up the weight divisions and although Hearns won numerous titles at different weights he would have been better suited at jumping no higher than the junior middleweight division.

This, is a stellar post.

Sums up my feelings.

[bestboxingonly]

All the kids at school, boys,girls and teachers and most never knew anything about boxing or cared but everyone wanted to know who was going to win.

Yea, you're very correct and was one of those kids somewhere in remote asia . Back then I have to wait for tomorrows paper for the result and a couple of weeks to watch the video of the fight. Heck I wasn't even worried how good Hagler was but am sure was confident of Leonards win . I dunno but I was like thinking that Sugar Ray was as popular as odlh now for a casual fans imo.

[Ryn0]

Talent wize Hearns is right there but what seperates them is stepping up and winning the big fights. For Hearns his 2 biggest fights were against Ray Leonard in 1981 and Hagler in 1985 and he lost both fights. He also made a poor decision in strategy against Hagler fighting him toe to toe like that.

Leonard won his big fights and when he and Tommy fought the 1st time he ****** it up and finished Hearns off in the 14th round.

Ray has advantages when it comes to things like chin, stamina which is important in a tough long fight.

What he said.

[slicksouthpaw16]

Leonard was the better boxer technically.

Leonard beat Hearns when both of them were at or near their primes.

The only advantages that Leonard had over Hearns was inside fighting, stamina and chin. Hearns is clearly superior in every over category, and what shows us this was the fact that he was giving Leonard a boxing clinic for more than half of the fight before his stamina issues caught up with him. Hearns was the better boxer, was at least as fast, hit a lot harder, was more accurate and had better outside game.

[wpink1]

Slicksouth paw...you have got to be joking. Leonard is a much better boxer than hearns was. Just like Roy is a better boxer than Tarve was, and Mosly is vs Forrest, and finally Mayweather is than the 36 year old DLH. The reason Hearns beats leonard in head to head boxing, simply is he has reach on Leonard and Height, and Ray has to appreciate his power. IF YOU BOX...I am not saying you didnt. HOWEVER..IF YOU BOX. You know that a pure boxer like a leonard, Roy most times (sometimes he will defy all basics) mayweather, they have to change their strategy vs a man with the physical advantages that hearns had. Have you ever heard of of the quote you box a fighter, you fight a boxer, if you have the skills and this man has certain advantages on you.

If leoanrd boxed Hearns 100 times he would use the same style and at their peak he would probably stop him 80 times....It was not heat and Tommy legs that beat him. Leoanrd had Tommy damm near ready to go in rounds 6 and 7. It was leoanrd that simply stopped punching. Tommy did some great boxing after that, but a well rested leonard could have put much more pressure on Tommy in rounds 8 when Tommy had no legs and with 1 minute left he was hit was light righ hand and his legs buckled then too.

Tommy simpy was a freak of nature at Welter.. 6'1 78 inch reach,and power. You do not box him, you chop him down body then to the head. Any trainer will tell you this. Why do you think Mayweather is not fighint Williams...He will not be able to outbox Williams with a 80 inch reachk, but do we assume Wlliams is a better boxer than Mayweather, or Tarver than Roy.

Hearns was no where near as fast..That is plain a joke. Tommy had a fast jab..His right was simply powerful, No combinations...Where is his fast combination punching. Where is the foot speed. Forrest summed it up brlliantly after he beat Mosly the first time. Reach and height neutralized speed if you have a jab. Tommy had a great jab, however he was not as fast as leoanrd. Wow.

It is obvious you dont like Ray, but you got to come stronger than that.

J Razor. in Reality...Leonard is 1-0 vs Hagler and 1-1 vs Hearns. Regardless of your opinion, or mine as i think Hearns won also. However we cant go on opinions regarding ones record now can we, or there would be no need for recorded records, as I would have Chavez losing to Whtacker, Jimmy young beating Ali, hagler beating antefermo, quartey beating dlh, and thus you would think differently and hmmmm we would have no basis..So your opinion is respected...however in reality...Leoanrd is 1-0 vs Hagler and 1-1 vs Hearns..Get over it.!


Danc 1984.....Hmmmm have you ever asked yourself why ther fighters such as Antefermo, geraldo, Duran etc..where not knocked out when they fought hagler earlier on...Hmmmmmm Maybe, just maybe it has to do with Styles, and certain things that great fighters who never where even knocked down before they retired..such as defense and chin, along with mobility that we do know causes Hagler issues.

Hagler IMO was very close to peak in 87, just many fight fans dont know boxing. They see a fight in 1980 and see him destroy a fighter, then in 1987 he goes the distance and appears slower, the assume hmmm this fighter is slipping. Maybe just maybe the opponent neutralized a lot their offensive arsenal by movng a certain way, like away from their straight left down the pipe. Maybe he and Dundee saw way back in 83 ( are you suggesting he had slipped by then too) that when Duran made hagler step and then he either tied him up, or gave a little movement because Hagler steps then punches, Maybe just Maybe this minimized hagler punch output, and hmmm because ray was mobile and fast enought to be moving away from most punches not sitting there for hagler counters to land flush or with full impact...maybe just maybe hagler instead of KOing ray, would have to outpoint him, and them maybe just maybe because he gave away the 1st 4 rounds, he dug himself into a hole that he could not get out of.

Just offering some possible thoughts..you know.

I encourage you fight fans...to really look at the fight. Look at the styles...Look at the fighter of choice lets Say Hmmm Dlh why he goes right after one fighter, but another he uses movment. Or lets say why did Sonny Liston have the entire world scared of him and destory fightters,,but when he fought a loudmouth fighter he could barely get a punch on him...Study the fights..look at certain things like movement, footwork, who is taking a backwards step, does the fighter go straight back (like cotto did) or does the fighter spin out or move back at an angle to prevent himself from getting hit.

I think if you study the fight(s) plural, not just one...but several, you will become much more educated on here and not say such crazy stuff like Hearns was faster than Leonard. Wow!