Hagler's gamble!

I watch "the war" more then any other fight I think, it never gets old to me. 1 of the greatest fights ever and a fight I always recommend but what strikes me as odd is the tactics used by Haglar. Now I dont know if Marvin's corner sent him out there with the instruction to take the fight to the streets or if Marvin just wanted to personally tear it up with Hearns? I do know for a fact that everybody expected Tommy to box behind his jab but as we know he was forced into a brawl. Either way the fact remains that Haglar's tactics were crazy. He did not fight that way he was more methodical so why did he decide to war it out with a man with the ko power, ram rod jab, height, and super reach of Tommy Hearns?

Whatever the reason the gamble nearly backfired as Haglar was caught and hurt early on and Hearns opened up a cut on Marvin. We all knew Hearns right hand was the 1 punch Hagalr had to aviod but it was obvious in the final round that he could shake it off as Hearns landed many flush right hands all night. I am not surprised there was no rematch as I think 9 times out of 10 Tommy would have beaten Marvin. Marvin just took his chance.

I'm not sure Hearns could have kept him on the outside for 12 had he wanted to.

I don't believe that Hagler's tactics were any surprise at all.

Hearns was expected to box and Hagler was expected to pressure and brawl. The only surprise was that Tommy obliged him by going toe to toe. Hagler, the naturally stronger man and with a practically impregnable chin, had far less to lose in a slugfest than did Hearns, whose whiskers were never the most reliable.

It was Hearns who gambled, in my opinion, and Hearns who came unstuck. Hagler's only problem was the cut.

Let's not try and take it off topic before anyone has even had a say.

Onetwo, the way he fought was surprising when you look back at it, but was actually quite a shrewd idea, given that Tommy had one weakness, his chin. Awesome, awesome fight, and it will not be easy to better that.

I personally dont think Haglar and his team believed he could win any other way against Hearns. Had Tommy survived the 3rd round then he would have won that fight. I dont see Haglar's tactics as shrewd at all.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:I dont see Haglar's tactics as shrewd at all.

Hagler KO3 Hearns.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:I personally dont think Haglar and his team believed he could win any other way against Hearns. Had Tommy survived the 3rd round then he would have won that fight. I dont see Haglar's tactics as shrewd at all.

Who was the favourite going in ?

Scottrf wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:I dont see Haglar's tactics as shrewd at all.

Hagler KO3 Hearns.

There is a difference between shrewdness and desperation.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:I dont see Haglar's tactics as shrewd at all.

Hagler KO3 Hearns.

There is a difference between shrewdness and desperation.

It didn't look like desperation to me. Desperation would be if his tactics weren't working. He dominated most of a 3 round fight.

Hearns was a great, great boxer.....best jab or one of them in history...height, reach advantages.....

Gamble for Hagler to fight "ANY" other way..

His tactics weren't working scottrf he was tagged early on and was visibly hurt. He could not avoid Herans right hand and was cut.

I can see where ONETWO is coming from, If Hearns wouldnt have broke his right hand, would the fight have been any different?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hearns was a great, great boxer.....best jab or one of them in history...height, reach advantages.....

Gamble for Hagler to fight "ANY" other way..

Exactly.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hearns was a great, great boxer.....best jab or one of them in history...height, reach advantages.....

Gamble for Hagler to fight "ANY" other way..

Thats my point TRUSS it was a gamble that by the slimmest of margins paid off for him. Haglar Hearns 2 would have seen Tommy picking Hagar off with his jab and koing him before the 5th yep.

I don't know if it was ever Hearns' intention to try to outbox Hagler. On the HBO series 'Lengendary Nights", Goody Petronelli was credited with predicting that Hearns would come out bombing, Hearns was fully into his "Hitman" persona then.

Considering that Hearns could never beat Barkley, I don't see why it's a given that he would have beaten Hagler in a rematch.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Thats my point TRUSS it was a gamble that by the slimmest of margins paid off for him. Haglar Hearns 2 would have seen Tommy picking Hagar off with his jab and koing him before the 5th yep.

Any way of fighting is a gamble.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hearns was a great, great boxer.....best jab or one of them in history...height, reach advantages.....

Gamble for Hagler to fight "ANY" other way..

Thats my point TRUSS it was a gamble that by the slimmest of margins paid off for him. Haglar Hearns 2 would have seen Tommy picking Hagar off with his jab and koing him before the 5th yep.

How is that your point ?

Truss is saying precisely the same as most of us, and precisely the opposite of what you are saying.

I don't get the gamble bit....

Think in an ideal Steward rematch Hearns would've tied Marvin up more till the steam left his work and hid behing the jab until such time as it was safe to unload the big right but Hearns is very much like Holyfield....and it's a compliment in a way because his natural instincts when hurt or under pressure is to punch back and FIGHT.....

Think Hagler wins unless he's stopped on cuts as Hearns would engage at some point of the fight as it comes natural..

Hagler was no more hurt in the exchangs than Hearns was and in truth the longet those tactics went on the more it would favour the much more durable Hagler.

Its Hearns who adopted the poorer tactics in my view especially as even when he opened the cut and injured his hand did he at no point attempt to sit back and box in a more controlled fashion.

To say Hearns would have won 9/10 is highly misleading in my view because the only thing we saw in the fight was that Hagler was better equipped for a brawl and we have no indication how successful Hearns would have been had he attempted to box rather than brawl. Its pure speculation. As it stood, I think the fight prooved that a brawl favoured Hagler who was able to take Hearns best shots and continue when the same cant be said for Hearns.

So people say it was not a gamble? Are you forgetting that Hearns blew Duran away in 2 rounds while Haglar laboured to a decision. Also after steele inspected the cut on Haglar Haglar NEEDED a ko to avoid a technical knockout at the hands of Hearns. It was a fight that Hearns got through with the cleaner shots Haglar threw caution to the wind in that fight and almost paid for it.

Not taking anything away from Haglar's performance.

As has already been stated, I don't think it was Hagler who gambled at all. If anything, it was Hearns. Hagler's strong points were his aggression, superb upper body strength and clubbing power - and he set his stall out to use them. On the other hand, it was Hearns who could fight going backwards, Hearns who could win a fight by sticking and moving, Hearns who would have been best advised to avoid a brawl due to his less than reliable powers of recovery once he'd been hurt. For him to walk in to Hagler's wheelhouse like that was, quite frankly, not that much short of lunacy.

Hagler fought exactly how he should have done. Hearns gambled as far as I'm concerned, and it didn't work for him.

Are you saying Hagler should've kept it long range and tried to outbox Hearns even though Leonard failed..

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:So people say it was not a gamble? Are you forgetting that Hearns blew Duran away in 2 rounds while Haglar laboured to a decision. Also after steele inspected the cut on Haglar Haglar NEEDED a ko to avoid a technical knockout at the hands of Hearns. It was a fight that Hearns got through with the cleaner shots Haglar threw caution to the wind in that fight and almost paid for it.

Not taking anything away from Haglar's performance.

That has nothing to do with anything. Duran was a lightweight who had moved up to lightmiddle. Hagler was a bona fide middle who had a chin which would probably have absorbed shots at lightheavy. Hagler's tactics against Duran were a gamble - far too cautious and circumspect - but against Hearns there was no gamble whatsoever.

The whole world knew, going in, that Hearns was a brilliant boxer with a mighty wallop but suspect whiskers and that Hagler probably had the chin to neutralise Hearns' power and enough of a dig himself to eventually stop Hearns if he could land often enough. Hagler isn't the one who departed from the plot, but rather Hearns. Having failed to get Hagler out of there early, Hearns paid what most would have regarded as the inevitable price for brawling it out with a stronger and more resilient man.

Hearns got the tactics wrong, not Hagler.

All tactics in the ring involve an element of gamble in respect of winning a fight so Im not sure what makes this one additionally special. If you fight that way you can expect to take punishment, but it was proved that Hagler was the more durable of the two, stood up better to the punishment and this was a theme across both fighters entire careers. So I see it as Hearns being the one who gambled and lost for more (he lost the fight afterall) whereas Hagler gambled less so and won the fight as a consequence of being better suited to the style of fight that played out.

After the first couple of round Hearns tactics bordered on foolhardy. He saw Hagler had cut, he saw Hagler had taken some of his best shots and he himself had been hurt by Hagler so that was time to emply some sensible boxing and work on the cut behind the jab and try to force the stoppage. You can say Hagler gambled but I think it was Hearns who clearly took the bigger gamble trying to take Hagler out early.

Colonial Lion wrote:All tactics in the ring involve an element of gamble in respect of winning a fight so Im not sure what makes this one additionally special.

Exactly the point. An almost even money fight that you're acting like he didn't need to risk it one way or another to win.

Disagree to a certain extent...Hearns was finished after the 1st round his legs had gone....Thing in the third colonel he did all he could with what he had left.

Did he ever attempt to box at all though? Did he ever really try to employ a methodical approach? For me his sole tactic was to to get Hagler out of there early which was disastrous in retrospect and even when it ecame apparent that he should switch tactics he never tried to do so. It made for great entertainment but certainly cant help but question the wisdom behind Hearns approach.

Hagler was staggered ever so slightly by Hearns right hand but he hardly looked like he was going to drop nor did he look in too much trouble either, the cut was unfortunate but if you watch the 3rd round Hagler is very methodical in the way he goes about getting rid of Hearns. Once Hagler took the best that Hearns had to offer the fight was effectively over, as good as his jab was think it's safe to say that Hagler tries to steamroll through him and succeeds in any subsequent bout. Unlike the slightly less skillful Leonard his durability was never going to be good enough against Hagler.

Still think by the time he realised his mistake he didn't have the legs to stay on the outside...although he did possibly try at the start of the 2nd..

I'm not sure there was anything else Hearns could've done to be fair, theres rumours that he had a leg massage right before the fight which took away his legs coupled with the fact he broke his hand with pretty much his first flurry of punches, in my opinion he had to brawl and hope for the best, there's no way he could of outboxed Hagler with one hand and no power punch from his right hand to discourage Haglers attack

Would love to of seen a rematch though

There is no rumor...it's true he had a leg massage.....

But so what......garbage excuse..

The leg massage excuse is pretty valid i've had them before and then tried to play football and i could hardly run, it felt like i'd been in the gym doing 100's of squats, i think it was more of a poor decision to have on in the first place

I was referring more to the tatics Hearns used and the reasons he used them, i think he had to brawl to stand any chance of winning

I know what a massage can do but as Hagler jumped on him it hardly was an issue as the fight was over after 3 mins and hearns movement wasn't a factor in his tactics..

I think that a man with fierce desire, a cast-iron chin and heavy artillery of his own was always going to be Hearns' worst nightmare. In retrospect, I can't ever imagine him beating Hagler, however he chose to play it tactically. You needed to be able to outwit Hagler to beat him or embarrass him. Leonard was a highly cerebral fighter, Duran an extremely crafty one. Hearns, for all his manifold boxing gifts, was never the sharpest tool in the box. He rarely needed to employ ring intelligence, since he was usually so much better than the opposition. On the occasions that he had to think on his feet, I thought he looked lost.

I'd always pick Hagler to win but I can see Hearns winning...

Think if the right that rocked Hagler had hit his chin instead it might have been a different fight.....

If Tommy could devastate Andries at 175 I think he could deck Hagler....

However I'd always pick marvin..

Such were the tactics that Hearns employed, it becomes very difficult to say what the outcome would be under different circumstances. We know that Hagler wins a brawl. We dont know for certain he wins a chess match or a different fight with different tactics.

I would be tempted to think if Hearns employed his moe conventional tactics that the fight might go similar to the first Leonard one where he finds himself ahead on the cards mid way but Haglers durability and power overwhelms him late on as the pressure mounts.

Don't see this as a "gamble" for Hagler. Quite simply he knew the best way to beat Hearns was via a tearup and given that Hagler's head was about as solid as a ten-pin bowling ball then he could probably afford to eat a few big rights in the process. In a slugfest with a chinny boxer and physically smaller man he was always likely to come out on top.

lol hagler absolutely destroyed hearns i think he got his tactics spot on and knocked him out. I reckon he would knock him out in a rematch too he was a beast.

Pity he neglected to give him a rematch then wasn't it....

154er Mugabi and out for four years Leonard were deemed more worthy than the guy who banged out the no1 WBC and WBA contender.....and a guy who participated in the fight of the decade..

lol lucky for hearns there was no rematch he would have been sent to the hospital again

Not the point..he earned one..

If you look at each man's next fight after "The War" I see an improved Hearns icing the undefeated #1 contender to Hagler's belt in a round and a slipping Hagler labouring to beat Mugabi.

A rematch would've been very interesting. Tommy looked bigger and stronger at the weight but was just as quick and dangerous, Hagler looking to have less of that killer edge.

Hagler'ss tactics were perfect for the fight, taking it to the street was the onyl way he could beat Hearns, he was never going to outbox him.

Waingro, is there any matchup in your eyes where the loser isn't "destroyed"?

Trussman, you're arguing against a guy who claims that Jose Napoles shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, and who claims that nobody from his boxing gym has even heard of him. Don't go too far out of your way to crush this particular foe!

Don't think Hagler fancied more of Tommy after that fight...Not saying it was cowardice or anything..just think that he thought..

a. He couldn't improve on the performance..

b. He figured the next fight would be against a smarter Tommy..

c. Thought people wouldn't mind him taking good money options elsewhere in Mugabi and Leonard....

He did avoid him though in my opinion..as he had other options!!

There are lots of fights that would be close but imo hagler would destroy hearns in a rematch he was too strong and tough for hearns and i reckon hearns would not want to fight him again after getting badly knocked out. Just my opinion. I reckon Hagler and Leonard in a rematch would be close.

TRUSS, did you once write an article suggesting it was Hearns who sparked the war with Hagler by teeing off first. I'm sure I've read something to that effect either on here or the old 606

DAVE667 wrote:TRUSS, did you once write an article suggesting it was Hearns who sparked the war with Hagler by teeing off first. I'm sure I've read something to that effect either on here or the old 606

Once? Unlikely.

Waingro wrote:There are lots of fights that would be close but imo hagler would destroy hearns in a rematch he was too strong and tough for hearns and i reckon hearns would not want to fight him again after getting badly knocked out. Just my opinion. I reckon Hagler and Leonard in a rematch would be close.

Hearns did want the Hagler rematch, make no mistake. Tommy wasn't easily discouraged; he told everyone who'd listen after beating Shuler that he wanted 'Marvelous' again. Hagler, rightly or wrongly, didn't go down that route - personally I don't blame him. His win against Hearns was more than convincing enough for him to move on from that particular chapter.

And saying that Hagler-Leonard II would have been close...You mean as opposed to their first fight, which wasn't close at all?

88Chris05 wrote:Trussman, you're arguing against a guy who claims that Jose Napoles shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, and who claims that nobody from his boxing gym has even heard of him. Don't go too far out of your way to crush this particular foe!

Not sure what you are on about mate. I said Naploes wasnt famous and not many people have heard of him. If you ask anyone on the street if they know who he is chances are they will not have a clue. Can he say he is more famous than Ali or Tyson or Lewis or Hagler I dont think he can. The Hall of Fame is full of people that hardly anyone has heard supposed to be a hall of fame so should be full of boxers that most people would have heard of not guys that people dont know.

I think what did for Hearns was hurting Hagler early....It gave him un-deserved confidence and played into Hagler's hands..

Sure Steward wasn't preparing for that kind of fight..

Like I said earlier Hearns and Holyfield are like brothers in arms and get into "fights" when under pressure!!