Tweet
I was watching Hearns-Leonard I, where Hearns outboxes (of all things) Sugar Ray Leonard for the first 5 rounds, then gets hurt and the bout shifts to Leonard for a few rounds, then Hearns regains control but not without more unsteady waters. Hearns is winning and ahead by a lot it seems when Leonard hurts Hearns again in the 14th round. The ref stops the fight with Hearns ahead. The bout appeared to be stopped prematurely. The announcers were really blown away that it was stopped. Hearns was hurt but could have continued in my eyes.
In the rematch Hearns beats Leonard, according to Leonard HIMSELF, but is only given a draw. With these things in mind, why is Hearns less highly regarded in historic terms than Leonard? In fact, one could argue Hearns was better than Ray. However, is it possible people do not give enough credit to Hearns because they feel p4p he was bigger than Ray and had they been the same size Hearns would have lost more convincingly? Or does it have nore to do with Hearns not holding an official "W" over Ray even though he should have at least one.
Maybe it has to do with Ray's defeat of Hagler and Hearns' loss to the same man? Thoughts?
In the rematch Hearns beats Leonard, according to Leonard HIMSELF, but is only given a draw. With these things in mind, why is Hearns less highly regarded in historic terms than Leonard? In fact, one could argue Hearns was better than Ray. However, is it possible people do not give enough credit to Hearns because they feel p4p he was bigger than Ray and had they been the same size Hearns would have lost more convincingly? Or does it have nore to do with Hearns not holding an official "W" over Ray even though he should have at least one.
Maybe it has to do with Ray's defeat of Hagler and Hearns' loss to the same man? Thoughts?
, just shocking, Leonard should've gave Hearns a rematch earlier at 147-154, Hearns would've destroyed him...
Comment