Leonard-Hearns II at Light-Middleweight, 1982 / 1983, with all bases covered

Afternoon, lads. This is going to be a long one I'm afraid, but there's a fair bit to consider here from a couple of different angles, so stick with me if you can!

Having recently had a second read of Ray Leonard's autobiography (which I thought was absolutely fantastic, by the way, in case anyone here hasn't read it yet but is considering doing so in the future), and having also gone back and forth a wee bit myself with the captain on another thread about how meritorious Sugar's Light-Middleweight title-winning performance was / wasn't against Ayub Kalule, I've been wondering how a 1982 / 1983 rematch between Ray and the Hit Man, Tommy Hearns, might have gone at Light-Middleweight. Of course, general opinion of the rematch they did have in 1989 is that it came a few years too late and at far too fight a weight class (Super-Middleweight), and it's clear that neither man was at their magnificent best when it took place, in fairness.

However, despite all of that, I still think there are elements of that fight which should be considered when trying to decipher how an additional fight between the pair would have gone at Light-Middleweight six or seven years beforehand, which we'll get to later.

Their first fight, that outstanding Welterweight unification showdown from 1981 which Leonard rallied to win on a fourteenth round stoppage while behind on points, naturally carries more weight here from the outset. Leonard's 5-1-1 record against the other combatants of that 'Kings' era (I'll include Benitez here, as he's only denied inclusion on the basis that he never fought Hagler) is by far the best that any of the men involved managed and, with his ability to dig deep and pull off the seemingly impossible, combined with Hearns' famed lapses in concentration when in control, it's easy to argue, as many do, that their 147 lb fight is a blueprint of how any fight between them at or around their peaks would have gone; Hearns would have his moments and flirt with victory, but it would be inevitable that, eventually, Leonard would find a way to win - he basically always did, just as Hearns would inevitably contribute to his own downfall at some stage.

But after that fight, Hearns and Manny Steward made Light-Middleweight their next objective, and while half a stone doesn't seem like much, we've seen countless examples (Wilfredo Gomez, Bob Foster, even Ricky Hatton to an extent) of a fighter losing something from their arsenal once they move up just a few pounds.

No such trouble for Hearns, on the whole; for me, two of his three best career wins (the other being his wonderful and unexpected victory over Virgil Hill) came at Light-Middleweight, the division where he was arguably most at home, those being his demolition of Duran and his consumate and clinical points win over Benitez.

With Leonard, the waters are a little more murky. General opinion seems to be that Ray wasn't as sure-fire a bet for success above Welterweight as Tommy was. However, I'm not so sure I agree with that. His showing against Kalule wasn't his finest, but as I explained yesterday I'm more inclined to believe that this was more down to the fact that Leonard was so good he simply knew he could beat most of his foes any way he felt like doing so. For prolonged periods, he met Kalule head on and took a few more flush shots than he normally would have, for sure, but from a personal point of view I don't believe this was because the additional 7 lb took something from Leonard (ie, made him slower, reduced his punch power drastically etc), rather it was because he simply chose to have that kind of fight, or at least chose to fight that way for prolonged periods.

There were also rounds within that fight where Leonard boxed and went with his usual slick style, and in those rounds he looked a million dollars just as much as he had done at Welter, for me. One thing's for sure; Leonard still had that awesome finishing ability as a Light-Middleweight.

However, that's just me, and plently of scribes and fans, far more qualified to comment than myself, would disagree, believing that a switch from 147 to 154 would certainly reduce Ray's chances in a rematch while improving Tommy's. The largely unimpressive fight against Howard, fought somewhere between the two weight classes, can either be further proof that Leonard just wasn't the same fighter once he left the confines of Welterweight, or can on the other hand be explained away by his two-year lay off prior, along with the fact that, as Leonard himself has claimed, he simply couldn't get fully motivated for a fighter of Howard's calibre after dazzling against so many modern greats beforehand. It all depends on what side of this particular fence you fall on.

As well as Hearns' tendancy to get sloppy defensively now and again, it's probably only fair to also question if his conditioning let him down somewhat against Leonard, too. Tommy had been blowing virtually everyone's doors off up until facing Leonard, whereas Leonard, in the furnace of those tough fifteen rounders against operators as great as Benitez (a full fifteen rounds for all intents and purposes) and Duran, was far better placed by 1981 for a long, drawn out war of attrition than Hearns was, and it probably showed in the end.

There's a fair argument that Hearns, blessed with the height, reach and shoulders more befitting those of a Light-Heavyweight, campaigned at 147 in those early years at a cost to his body. Emmanuel Steward himself even speculated upon this but, as it often does, money talked, Hearns and his team deciding that, in the late seventies and early eighties, the Welterweight landscape with the explosive and exciting Cuevas, the emerging golden boy Leonard and the much-vaunted Benitez offered greater financial possibilities than Middleweight which, at the time, could only boast the likes of Vito Antuofermo, Hugo Corro and Alan Minter, three of the more serviceable 160 lb champions in history, and a then relatively little-known Hagler who, at any stage before his breakthrough fight against Duran in 1983, carried no real financial clout.

There's a direct quote from Leonard's autobiography, detailing the weigh in for his and Hearns' Welterweight unification showdown, which may carry some clout of its own here.

"When Tommy took off his robe and stepped on the scale at Caesers for the weigh in on the morning of the fight, I was stunned. He looked like a famine victim from Africa. Offically, he came in at 145, a full two pounds under the Welterweight limit. I'd felt the difference in Montreal against Duran, and I was convinced the lesser weight would make Tommy weaker as well. 'I am going to kick his ass', I thought. I glanced at Angelo and Janks. I could tell they felt the same way."

While Leonard obviously gave himself the best possible chance of turning defeat in to victory in the ensuing fight thanks to his own fantastic stamina, punching power and dogged determination, I think it's also fair to speculate that, perhaps, Tommy's stamina (a bit of an unknown quantity going in) and the problems he had with it had also contributed just as much to the outcome as did any of Leonard's own brilliance, and that this was caused by the strain of keeping that disproportionately huge frame down to Welterweight.

As a Light-Middle, Tommy certainly appeared healthier-looking in the body on the scales and, if his performane at 154 against Benitez is anything to go by, his stamina and engine were probably better as a result of stepping up in weight. Hearns was still working as hard in the fifteenth round as he was in the opening stages in that fight, and he looked fresh and strong come the final bell. On that form line, there appears to be a real possibility that, having not put his body through the ringer as much as he'd done when trimming down to Welterweight, Hearns would have been better-prepared for those gruelling championship rounds (if the fight got that far) at 154, giving Leonard another problem to contend with.

And then finally, on top of that, we need to reconcile ourselves with the possibility that Hearns may well have just had Leonard's number, pure and simple. It's here where their second fight at 168 lb, larely written off as irrelevant, comes in to play for me. Although Leonard was definitely past his peak by 1989, by rights he should really have had too much for Hearns at that stage, given that Tommy had taken more punishment over the course of his career and in light of the Hit Man's poor form going in to the fight; knocked out by Barkley, and then only just avoiding disaster against Kinchen in a fight where he really did look to be on his way out, in every sense.

And yet, Hearns still had the wood over Ray and, in the eyes of basically everyone but a couple of judges, was the better man on the night. Again, Leonard did put in a late rally and, again, Hearns did struggle a little in the final minutes of the fight, but this time he was able to survive the onslaught, albeit this was a twelve-rounder rather than fifteen.

So while we definitely saw enough to deduce that any fight at any weight between the pair would likely see Hearns winning more rounds and being in control early, and then almost definitely see Leonard coming on stronger towards the end, I don't think we quite saw enough to be totally confident that this late surge from Leonard would always turn the tide of the fight.

When you evaluate all of that, it's impossible to say that Leonard's win over Hearns in 1981 was a "fluke" or anything of the sort, but I believe there is reason to suspect that Leonard beating Hearns in general would perhaps be very much the exception, rather than the rule, and that their 1981 wonderfight just happened to be one of those occasions where an exception cropped up.

But what do you all think? Would a rematch at Light-Middleweight have swung things drastically in Hearns' favour? Are Leonard's abilities above Welterweight good enough for him to repeat his heroics from their first fight? And, most importantly, who would have come out on top had their pair, still in their primes, boxed a rematch at 154 lb in 1982 / 1983?

It'd be good to hear what you all think. Cheers.

Great post Chris! I'll throw in my tuppence worth now, before what I expect will be a deluge of support for Hearns comes in. I always agreed with Hugh McIIlvanney opinion that Hearn's point lead in the first fight highlights the problem of the 10 point must system- Leonard won his rounds decisively landing powerful, hurt ful shots whilst Hearn's nicked his, but he nicked a few more. It would have been a travesty if Hearns had somehow survived and then won a decision, and I just don't buy the idea that Hearns had the fight won but lost it, more that Ray timed the fight well increased the pressure and pace at the right time and won a fight that was his, not Hearn's, to lose (not expecting many to agree with me on this, though Dundees 'you're blowing now son' speach would atleast suggest that he still thought that it was in his charges hands)-Champion long distance runners don't always lead a race from the front, and to me this was boxings equivalent.
In a rematch Leonard would realsie that Hearns stamina wolud likely be better, an would offset this with a faster pace, more pressure, and keeping the range shorter, more work to the body. I just feel that Ray had a touch more magic than Tommy about him- more adaptable, tougher, and just more of that X factor that meant somehow you find a way to overcome the insurrmountable. Result close UD, as Hearns just about hangs on this time.

Good post yourself, HH.

I have to admit, I'm a little surprised that you don't seem to think that Hearns was good value for that very decent points lead he had before being stopped. I don't really agree that he was simply pinching rounds, personally. True, he didn't have Leonard badly hurt that much (although I can distinctly remember Ray being clearly staggered by one of Tommy's trademark straight rights), but many of the rounds he banked were quite dominant in their own way. When Hearns had his pure boxing hat on he was extremely difficult to get to and could tattoo you with that jab over and over and over again, even if he wasn't on the verge of knocking you out. That's what I saw unfolding in many rounds, Leonard being jolted (and jolted at a considerable force) back by Hearns' blinding lead hand and being left to circle the outside, where he could avoid getting crushed but couldn't do any real damage to Tommy, save for the big left hook in the sixth which Hearns took a couple of rounds to recover from.

Leonard was such a clever and savvy bogger that I can see why some may think that his late rally was deliberate and pre-meditated, but I tend to believe that it was more an act of desperation. He'd already seen one fight slip away (Duran I) by allowing his opponent take the fight by the scruff of the neck early on and by leaving himself too much to do later, so I can't see any reason why he'd consciously look to try and move through the gears in the championship rounds only.

I agree that, all things considered, Leonard did have that little bit more to call on than Hearns when it came to digging himself out of a hole, but I do believe that the 1989 Super-Middleweight clash offers evidence to suggest that, on other occasions, Tommy just wouldn't have let him complete the escape.

But Leonard handing Hearns another defeat at 154, to me, is still a plausible conclusion and you've put forward a good argument for it.

I can't add anything much to the detail which you two have filled in so admirably.

I merely feel that Tommy was better as he went up the weight scale - a physical thing, no doubt. Ray found his peak at 147 and never bettered it, Hagler included. Tommy at 154 was at his absolute zenith, and I think he could have got the decision that he approached in 81.

it's not that I didn't think that Hearns was ahead- I do think he won his rounds, but the 10 point must system is a bit a blunt tool- you very rarely see a 10-8 round in which neither fighter has scored a knock down, even if the loser has had the living daylights beaten out of him, so you win rounds like Leonard did in the sixth, but only get the same reward as if you had inched out your opponent in a jabbing contest- No argument that Hearns won more rounds, but were those rounds are fair reflection of a who was winning the fight? (I know I'm not making my point crystal clear here but hopefully you get my drift).
I tend to not read too much into the rematch- I thought Ray looked a bit flat to be honest, and maybe more than a little complacent- Having seen Tommy starched by Barkely and in real trouble against Kinchen, I think he thought that would stop him with relative ease- shades of Ali-frazier 3, where the victor underestimates quite how their rivalry can lift the vanquished to heights that would normally been beyond them at that stage of their careers.

There's not much that I can add to the thread. Good post Chris.

All I can say is that if their fight had happened later when weigh-ins were moved to the day before the fight, Hearns might very well have won. Reg Gutteridge, who always seemed to be a big fan of Leonards, suggested in his book "The Big Punchers" that Hearns might have been tight at the weight.

I just realised something, throw in there the fact that if their fight was held a few years later it would have been a 12 rounder, then it definitely improves Hearns' chanches. Even in 1981 the year of their first fight, Leonard needed it to be a 15 rounder.

A few points. Tommy fought at lightweight as an amateur... I'm sure many of you have seen the Pryor fight. Sure he was just a kid then, but im not sure he picked welter over middle because of the opposition. I'd suggest he picked the lightest weight he could make with some degree of comfort... Like any fighter.

Tommy's record at welter was pretty impressive, I'm not sure he was disadvantaged in the first fight. I would agree that he looked devastating at light middle, but he always fought on the front foot and looked to take people out early. However, The bigger he got, the less mobile he got and the more vulnerable he became.

Re their first fight... No doubt tommy deserved his lead, and I don't believe Leonard was deliberately biding his time. However, it was a 15 round fight, had it been a 12 rounder he'd have upped the Ante earlier. Doesn't mean he'd have won, but its all conjecture.

When it mattered he found a way. Personally, I think Leonard didn't look his best above welter, but kalule apart, how much of that was lay off and white powder related is hard to say. He was certainly less mobile, so I think at light middle the balance tips to tommy. It's a Pickem for me. Hearns has the paper advantage but prime Leonard could take hearns shots better than hearns could take his, and had that ability to adapt and find away.

Fantastic article 88.

Chris I'm going to criticise you for this, when you cover all bases you leave nothing for us to add or debate !! Cracking stuff mate.

To answer your question, Hearns frame certainly enabled him to be more effective moving through the weights, I'd still probably sway to Ray at 154 as Milky alluded Leonard had a way of getting to Hearns he even showed that in the 12th round of the billed rematch WAR, Leonard to eke a close one in 81 again.

Out of interest how many posters scored the 2nd fight and how did you have it, I remember the 10 point must system made it relatively close on mine even though Tommy was certainly in ascendency for large parts, I had something like 113-112 around that mark.

Cheers Rodders

Even if Leonard hadn't reired and had granted Hearns a rematch, I doubt it would have been at 154lbs where Hearns might have an easier time making weight. I'm guessing that Leonard's team would have pushed for the return fight to be at 147lbs just to weaken Hearns that little bit.

The only time SRL got weight stips was against LaLonde. I doubt he would do that against Hearns.

Thanks for the replies, fellas. Some great stuff being written.

Captain, as you can probably tell from the tone of my article, I am leaning more towards a points win for Tommy, albeit with no great conviction. Even though, as you know, I'm slightly more impressed with Leonard north of 147 than you are, a fight between him and Hearns at the higher weight a year or two after their first just seems to have one too many aspects in Hearns' favour.

Oddly enough, Rodders, I agree with you that, in terms of how many rounds he was able to take off of Hearns, Leonard's performance in the rematch was actually an improvement on their first outing. In terms of rounds, I had it pretty close; 6-5-1 for Hearns (though I can't remember exactly what rounds I gave to whom right now). But the two knockdowns, which made it 115-112 on my card, really should have blown out all of Ray's candles.

azania wrote:The only time SRL got weight stips was against LaLonde. I doubt he would do that against Hearns.

It wouldn't have had to be a weight stip though Az, Leonard was the welterweight champ. I'm saying that I doubt he would have given Hearns a rematch at 154lbs when he could simply have just decided to defend his welterweight title at 147lbs.

One more thing, I think Leonard has used weight stips against Hearns, in their second fight. The fight was held at supermiddle but Hearns weighed 162lbs

Fantastic article and also just out of curiosity when did 15 rounds change to 12?.

Atila wrote:

azania wrote:The only time SRL got weight stips was against LaLonde. I doubt he would do that against Hearns.

It wouldn't have had to be a weight stip though Az, Leonard was the welterweight champ. I'm saying that I doubt he would have given Hearns a rematch at 154lbs when he could simply have just decided to defend his welterweight title at 147lbs.

One more thing, I think Leonard has used weight stips against Hearns, in their second fight. The fight was held at supermiddle but Hearns weighed 162lbs

I doubt he wanted any part of Hearns after their first fight. Hearns could have been the ATG 1 if he had a chin to match his huge talents. Which boxer would want a rematch with Hearns?

PPVxHOTTY wrote:Fantastic article and also just out of curiosity when did 15 rounds change to 12?.

Must have been around 1985 or 86 without looking it up. Seem to recall Bruno v Witherspoon was over 15, but by the time Tyson was champ it was 12.

...Iran Barkley? Oh sorry, was it a rhetorical question?

The thing is, it was Tommy's freak build, along with his great talent, that gave him so many advantages. The downside of that build, is that it doesn't pre-dispose you to good punch resistance.

Yeah I agree Chris, Leonard did better than many give him credit for, I'm not saying he deserved the draw as Tommy was certainly the victor for me that night.

Just looked like Ray bulked himself up hoping to catch Tommy clean in 89, obviously anything north of 147 the scales certainly tip in favour of Hearns.


Cheers Rodders

milkyboy wrote:...Iran Barkley? Oh sorry, was it a rhetorical question?

The thing is, it was Tommy's freak build, along with his great talent, that gave him so many advantages. The downside of that build, is that it doesn't pre-dispose you to good punch resistance.

I don't know. Erik Morales was freakishly tall for his weight yet has a sturdy chin.

horizontalhero wrote:

PPVxHOTTY wrote:Fantastic article and also just out of curiosity when did 15 rounds change to 12?.

Must have been around 1985 or 86 without looking it up. Seem to recall Bruno v Witherspoon was over 15, but by the time Tyson was champ it was 12.

The change from 15 to 12 took a few years due to the different sanctioning bodies. It started in 1982 and the last major sanctioning body the IBF, didn't change to 12 rounders until 1988.

azania wrote:

milkyboy wrote:...Iran Barkley? Oh sorry, was it a rhetorical question?

The thing is, it was Tommy's freak build, along with his great talent, that gave him so many advantages. The downside of that build, is that it doesn't pre-dispose you to good punch resistance.

I don't know. Erik Morales was freakishly tall for his weight yet has a sturdy chin.

I don't see why Hearns' build should necessarily affect his chin. Sugar Ray Robinson was only 2 inches shorter than Hearns and had an excellent chin.

Predispose Atila... Not guaranteed. There are plenty of tall slim fighters with decent chins... but not many, morales, included we're quite in the hearns league of lankiness.

Great article Chris about a great fight between two of my favourite boxers. If it had gone the distance I think Hearns would have got a well deservd win.Now about a rematch at 154 I'm not so sure who I would fancy for that,if I had to pick a winner I would probably go for Leonard. Saying that though I definitely think Hearns won the rematch years later which was declared a draw.

Thanks, rapidringsroad. Glad you enjoyed it and good to see you back again.

Marvin Hagler, Roberto Duran, Thomas Hearns, Wilfred Benitez, Donny Lalonde, Ayub Kalule, Pete Ranzany, Davey Green, Larry Bonds and Floyd Mayweather Sr and his losses Roberto Duran, Terry Norris (while at age 34) and Hector Camacho (age 40). one hell of a resume. !!!

I read his autobiography 'the big fight' and im certain he said Hearns should have won their fight. He also believed he beat Hagler.

He summed up today's match making perfectly 'That’s because a manager or promoter – their guy is 25-0 or 21-0 – they think that means something. It doesn’t mean anything. It’s okay to have two or three losses. It’s what kind of fighter you are that people respect. I have a few losses on my record, but that doesn’t justify who I am. Hearns had losses. Duran had losses. Hagler had losses. That made us better fighters. After my first fight with Duran, which took me to the brink physically, I came back and fought five months later. These days, that second fight may never happen.”

Awesome article, Chris. I would love to see that fight, I have to say.

azania wrote:

milkyboy wrote:The thing is, it was Tommy's freak build, along with his great talent, that gave him so many advantages. The downside of that build, is that it doesn't pre-dispose you to good punch resistance.

I don't know. Erik Morales was freakishly tall for his weight yet has a sturdy chin.

Do you guys mind elaborating on this slightly? How did the build give an advantage? More power, or...?

Silver... Hearns was 6'1 with 6'6 reach. Not sure what the average height for a welter is, but its probably 5'7/5'8 ish... and most people have a similar reach to their height. He could have up to a foot of reach advantage... A combination of his long arms and broad shoulders.

There have been many debates about what physical attributes gives punching power, and there's no definitive answer as far as I can see... However a lot of big hitters have similarly broad shoulders and long arms. Hearns, McClellan, Liston, shavers. Essentially they have leverage.

Hearns was blessed with very fast hands to go with his build, he could tattoo great fighters in his early weight classes, with his jab without ever being in range for them, and hit like a mule with the right. Of course if you get into a slugfest, like the hagler fight, it renders your advantages meaningless.

The cost to hearns of this build, was skinny legs/neck etc. The physical attributes of punch resistance are equally hard to pin down. We've all seen guys built like tanks go down like a ton of bricks, and skinny guys take some great shots. However, strong neck muscles are considered an advantage, and if your legs are wobbled, its easier to balance short stocky ones than long skinny ones

Hearns beats every fighter in history from 147-154 unless he gets tagged.........

Which is why it's hard to predict what would happen...........

Only later in his career did he learn to hang on when hurt..........

Hearns by shutout till the bomb lands..