I FOUND THESE ARGUMENTS ON THE NET REGARDING THE TOPIC... TELL ME WHAT YOU GUYS THINK:

Hagler would have lost to the aged pumped up Duran in 1983 if the fight had been scheduled for 12 instead of 15 whereas Leonard embarrassed Duran in 8 rounds in their rematch at welterweight in 1980 lol

Hagler lost to Willie Monroe and drew with Vito Antuofermo the first time (two one - dimensional stiffs) before he beat Minter on a cut eye in 3 rounds lol

Hagler got his ears boxed off by rusty Ray who only had one fight in nearly 5 years and Leonard was even floored in that fight by Kevin Howard whereas Hagler never looked like flooring or beating a rustier Ray lol

Hearns destroyed Duran in 2 rounds at a weight Duran was comfortable with in light - middleweight when Duran was the WBA light - middleweight champion at the time whereas Hagler stuggled to a points decision against Duran at middleweight one year earlier lol

Hearns would have beaten Leonard in their first fight had it been scheduled for 12 as he was ahead on all three of the judges scorecards at the time of the stoppage in the 14th round

Hearns floored Leonard twice in their rematch while earning a draw in a fight everyone knows Hearns won

Hearns was a world champion at 5 different weights just like Leonard

Hearns outpointed the unbeaten Virgil Hill at light - heavyweight

Hearns destroyed Dennis Andries in 10 rounds when he won the WBC light - heavyweight title and could have did it in the 2nd round if the 3 - knockdown rule had been in effect as he had Andries down three times in that round

Hearns outpointed Wilfred Benitez at light - middleweight - with more or less the one hand - who also beat Duran easier than Hagler did

Hearns knocked out the unbeaten James Schuler in 70 seconds who tragically died in a motorcylcle crash the week after their fight. Tommy went to the funeral to pay his respects

Hearns busted up and nearly stopped Hagler inside the distance in three or four rounds due to the horrible cut on Hagler's forehead lol. Hearns subconsciously probably thought the fight was over due to the referee's and doctor's intervention in that 3rd round hence him losing his concentration and getting caught

Hearns got careless and dropped his hands and got caught with a desperate punch from Hagler in that third round lol

Hearns punched himself out as he fought Hagler was a bum who he would destroy easy lol. Hearns even predicted a third round knockout and it nearly became a reality. Tommy also injured his hand while teeing off on Hagler's shaven skull

If Hearns used his boxing ability then he would have beaten Hagler easy by points decision just like Leonard did, maybe even easier

I don't know what the people who say the Leonard vs Hagler fight was close were watching as Leonard made Hagler look like a complete fool at times lol

Hearns knocked out Juan Domingo Roldan in 4 rounds whereas Hagler got floored in the third round by the Argentinian and took 10 rounds to beat Roldan lol

Hearns knocked out the awesome Cuevas in 2 rounds to win his first championship being the WBA weterweight title

You decide who was better lol. I think that clears that up lol. They never had a rematch so you can't say Hagler was definitely or conclusively better than Hearns. If Leonard or Ali never got rematches against against Duran or Frazier you wouldn't say those fighters were better than Leonard or Ali lol. I am judging Hagler and Hearns' records and who they beat and I have come to the conclusion that Hearns' record and performances against world class opposition are better than Hagler's even though Hagler beat him. And as I said that victory of Hagler's over Hearns was fortunate as Tommy would have probably stopped Hagler in the next couple of rounds due to the cut on Hagler's forehead if he never got caught with that desperate right hand of Hagler's.


????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I agree with HEARNS career being greater.

But I don't agree with your reasoning about why Hearns lost to Hagler.

Very much agree with your point on Hearns standing ahead of Hagler..i believe Tommy was a better boxer, and he hurt Hagler very bad in their fight. But despite his boxing skill, I continue to believe he had a suspect chin.

I don't think it was a desperate punch, cuz hagler is a warrior and kept coming forward..but Tommy did get careless turning his back.

hearns said he had no legs and knew he had to get hagler out early.. if he had his legs he would boxed hagler and cut him up... but remember hearns was master boxer that liked to mix it up... he loved to go for the KO... but clearly in retrospect and these arguments on the career of hearns points to his dominance... taking nothing away from Ray and hagler I have rank him now higher than Ray Leonard and hagler All time...

Not saying Hearn's career isn't better. But that post and the reasoning was very bias towards Hearns, and was pretty shit. A lot of the arguments are based on "if's", and it's focused on negative parts of Hagler fights, but no mention of Hearns getting knocked out. List negatives for both fighters, not just one, otherwise it makes you bias.

The post is an argument made by someone else I pulled from the net. People tend to immortalize Hagler... even Hopkins broke the title defense record.. people downgraded Hops and said he couldn't touch Hagler.. which I feel Hopkins beats Hagler 10/10 times when and whenever they would have met... A guy like John the Beast Mugabi a 154 pounder gave Hagler hell and after the bout... Hagler looked lumped and swollen said that may be his last bout.. Of course Leonard took advantage of a slipping hagler as he was ringside to see him War with Mugabi...

I like this post... it seems bias yet it brings to light interesting comparisons that actually sheds the proper light on HOW GREAT HEARNS WAS AND REALLY TAKES NOTHING AWAY FROM HAGLER....

THE guys Hagler lost to Hearns sends them to the graveyard in my view-- This thread opened my eyes.. Hearns was the greater of the two fighters and his career accomplishments prove it... Hell as far as I am convinced Hearns may be in the top 20-25 greatest ever to enter a ring!!! His chin was questionable, yet I think it was his legs that betrayed him. If you watch is second bout with Barkley( A GREAT ACTION WAR) you will see that Hearns could take a great shot ... PEOPLE SAY A HE HAD A WEAK CHIN YET THAT NEVER stopped Hearns from going to war...

First of all, this dude is not just biased but he is repeatedly ridiculing to a great boxer.


What kind of argument is that? It was a 15 round fight. Hagler was a 15 round fighter. Hearns, given his vulnerable chin and weak legs, was better suited to 12 round fights.

Duran embarrassed himself in the 2nd Leonard fight. What happened in the first?


Monroe was earlier in his career. It was a learning experience at worst. Hearns lost late in his career to a nobody that I refuse to insult Tommy by mentioning. He also lost to Iran Barkley twice, by TKO 3 in 1988 and a SD in 1992. Iran Barkley is a recognizable name to most from that era but he ended his career 43-19-1. Should that be held against Hearns? Depends on your perspective. You could argue the losses to Barkley weigh positively on Tommy's career, I suppose.


I thought Hagler won by a point but I know he was not embarrassed by the effort. This guy makes the argument above that Duran would have won his fight with Hagler if it had gone 12. IMO, Hagler would have stopped SRL or won a UD if it had been 15, but it wasn't.

This dude also argues that Hagler should be downgraded for SRL's rustiness in the fight. Hagler had not been inactive. He had been through many wars, including his destruction of Hearns. The argument could be made that SRL had the physical advantage because he had not been through that many wars and was fresher physically.


Of course we are talking about the Roberto Duran that defeated the same Iran Barkley that beat Hearns.


Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

The crux of this clowns argument is that Hearns was victimized by the fact that championship fights were 15 rounds in those days.

This shit is weak, neo. It is insulting to Hearns as well as Hagler.

WELL BEARDO.. ONE MANS' SHIT may be another man's treasure... I agree with you on the weak 12-15 round fight arguments however!!! Yet and still.. I walk away with more reinforcement that Hearns was the greater fighter overall... It made me contemplate... ROID JONES GETS BIG TIME CREDIT for his victory over Virgill Hill, yet it was TOMMY HITman that UD an undefated (30-0) Virgill Hill at lightheavy.. a territory BALDY never thought of tresspassing on... hell yeah Hearns is the greater of the two fighters for sure...

In your opinion.

An good argument can be made both ways. Whoever that giggling fool was that wrote that rubbish leading off this thread failed pathetically.

Hearns won championships in 6 weight classes. Possibly more impressive was the fact that he bounced back and forth between Middleweight and Light Heavyweight. He had big wins throughout his legit career; Cuevas, Duran, Benitez, Hill and others. He certainly was robbed (not unlike Sweet Pea v JCC) in the second SRL fight.

He deserves his lofty place in boxing lore, but he lost the biggest fights of his career; SRL I, Hagler and Iran Barkley (twice). Hearns chin was vulnerable because his legs were weak at the elite level. They even failed him in his comeback at 41 v the 39 year old journeyman Uriah grant.

While I agree that Hearns defeated SRL in their second fight, the importance paled in comparison to Hearns v Leonard I when The Hitman's chin and legs failed him at the most important moment of his career.

The Hagler fight was one of the greatest of all time but Hearns lost, as decisively as it gets. What was the difference? Chin and legs, not heart.

Iran Barkley destroyed Hearns in the 1st fight, plain and simple. Then he chased The Hitman into the Lightheavies and defeated him again. Barkley was one tough hombre but not elite material, IMO.

An argument can be made that Hearns targeted vulnerable belts to feather his legacy. He did not unify.

Hagler unified the Middleweight division and held that unification for years. He owned a middleweight belt for six and a half years straight.

Hagler did not have the height or one punch power of Hearns. Hearns did not have the chin or legs of Hagler.

IMO, both rate above SRL in career accomplishments because of SRL's lack of activity (not unlike the criticism of FMJ today).

great points....

gotta disagree with u beardo, SRL is greater than both. activity has nothing to do with greatness, he beat them head to head in their respective primes. He beat a prime Duran, Hearns, Hagler, and Benitez.

Fair enough.

I get the reasoning. I just disagree. He wasn't active enough in his prime. I definitely rate him ahead of FMJ because of those wins though.