Carmen Basilio -vs- Tommy Hearns - 15 Rounds...

[Goodnight, Irene]

It's been a while since we had a mythical match-up, as Henry's thread has really cornered the market. Time for something a little more in-depth. This fight is at Welterweight, gents

Pick your poison...

[HomicideHenry]

Tommy Hearns, I'm sad to say, might just have been too big and too strong for Basilio...but god damn it, Carmen could take it and take some more, and come on back to give some too...I see this fight ending inside of five or six rounds, it could go either way, I can see this play out alot like Hagler-Hearns.

[My2Sense]

I think either Hearns dances and jabs his way to a decision, or Carmen is able to slow him down and stop him late. I wouldn't favor Hearns to knock him out.

It might well depend on whether it's a 10, 12, or 15 round fight, with the longer it goes being more favorable to Carmen.

[granberry]

A joke.

Hearns couldn't take Basilio's body punches--or his left hook.

Basilio, who was never a full middleweight,

fought the much taller Sugar Ray Robinson in two vicious 15 round title fights,

and after 30 rounds, there was little to choose between them.

Basilio would have eaten Ray Leonard alive.

[Borinken25]

my pick is Hearns by TKO. Most likely stop on cuts. Hearns speed, power, and size is too much for Basilio. And I also pick Leonard against Basilio by decision.

[elmersalsa]

First of all, many people see the great Carmen Basilio as a fighter that has:
Heart, will, strenght, brute force, determination, BUT, no boxing skills whatsoever

Many think of Thomas Hearns of just pure punching power and fine boxer, BUT, no chin.

The TRUTH is that Basilio had more skills than given credit for. I have seen plenty of his fights, and at times, he was very difficult to hit cleanly.

I see a very entertaining battle here. Lots of thrills between two of the most exciting fighters of all-time that were ALMOST NEVER in a bad fight. Two all-time greats that are on my book, between the top 50 greatest fighters, pound per pound, of all-time without a doubt.

I pick Basilio late. The late the fight wores on, THE BETTER for Carmen. He was much stronger mentally and physically at the end of the fight....What a fighter!!!

[elmersalsa]

Also to me, this fight DEPENDS at what weight class it would be:
At welterweight, I pick Basilio
At super welterweight, middleweight and BEYOND, I pick Hearns

[dr_devious]

Hearns on points, or Basilio by late TKO, coming from behind like Leonard did in his first fight with Hearns. If Basilio can hang with SRR for 30 rounds he can with Hearns imo

[elmersalsa]

There was a topic before about Hearns vs Gavilan and to me, this fight it would be the same outcome. Gavilan and Basilio, two damn tough fighters, mentally and physically, would beat Hearns at 147 lbs.

At 160 lbs, and beyond, I see Hearns winning by decision at least. All 3 were great fighters. All 3 (Hearns, Gavilan and Basilio), to me, top 50 greatest fighters, pound per pound, of all-time consideration.

[BoxBuzz]

granberry and BoxBuzz agree....
World ends: Details at 10:PM

I'll illustrate the other half of gran's argument. If Tommy can't get past the Blade at MW why would he have his way with Carmen?

I think that's worth chewin' on for those who call it for Tommy.

[Ambling Alp]

As usual I disagree with Elmer. I think that Basilio would have a better chance at middleweight.
At 147 (or 154 for that matter) Hearns would win for almost for sure.

I think a couple of things have to be pointed out. As good as Basilio was against Robinson, he was fighting a far past his best Robinson. Robinson was 36 when they fought the first time, and had fought well over 100 fights including many against tough competition by then.

Hearns would have huge height and reach advantages. Hearns would be able to hit Basilio pretty easily. At 147 or 154, Hearns had phenomenal power. Basilio had a very good chin. Would Basilio be able to take Hearns power for the whole fight? Maybe, maybe not. Even if he does, probably going to be either get stopped on cuts.

Hearns didn't have a great chin, but it's not as bad as some people think. He was really only in big trouble in one fight at 147 and never at 154. Basilio could punch, but he didn't have that much power. Basilio would try to crowd Hearns and wear him down, but probably wouldn't be successful.

Basilio lost to several welterweights that weren't as good as Thomas Hearns.

At 160, Hearns simply wasn't as good as he was at 147 or 154. As mentioned, he couldn't beat Iran Barkley. (Though I suppose you could argue where that was just one case where Barkley just happened to have his number.)
At 160, Hearns didn't have the power that he had at the lower weights. Nor did he seem quite as aggressive.
On the other hand, in the fights that Basilio had at 160, he seemed to be as good as he was at 147. He would have a better chance. He probably would have been able to handle Hearns punches better. This would be a tough fight to call. If Hearns was smart and was content to outbox Basilio, he should be able to win a decision. However, there is a good chance that he wouldn't do that and that he would mix it up too much. Basilio could then outwork him.

[elmersalsa]

granberry and BoxBuzz agree....
World ends: Details at 10:PM

I'll illustrate the other half of gran's argument. If Tommy can't get past the Blade at MW why would he have his way with Carmen?

I think that's worth chewin' on for those who call it for Tommy.

But Iran Barkley was stronger than Hearns and Basilio combined at 160lbs, though. Hearns was not even in his prime when Iran beat him twice.

Hearns from 154lbs and up, especially at 154lbs, was a MONSTER. He seemed stronger, faster and mentally better. At 147lbs, he looked frailish for a fight over 12 rounds...I do not think that Basilio nor Gavilan were as good at middleweight, they were too slow for that weight class.

Ambling Alp, my other friend from this forum, mentioned that Basilio lost to guys that were not as good as Thomas Hearns. Many boxers have lost to people that not were as good as Tommy. It could be because of various factors (maybe motivation, a fighter is learning the trade, or he is really fighting tough competition coming up in the ranks, etc.)
Hearns was probably more schooled technically than Basilio at the beginning of their careers because of his great amateur background. I do not think that Basilio had a great amateur background like Tommy. But once Basilio started to be a better boxer, and learned more, plus his desire, he was a FANTASTIC AND EXCITING FIGHTER TO WATCH.

THE KEY OF BOXING or any sport IS SPEED...Once you speed is gone, it gives more chance to win for your competition. Basilio at middleweight would be too slow for Hearns. But at welterweight, the longer the fight goes, it is better for Basilio.

When did Basilio ever lost by cuts Alp?...but anyway.

I like talking about boxing with you, same with the other posters here like borinken and the one, Ezzard, ringsider, I Feel Fine, Brocktonblockbuster, Seamus, Dr. Devious, Collins2000, Elton John, Good Night Irene, Silkov and most of all, kikibalt and granberry...Where are the other posters like the old guy from Cincinnati? It is been a long time that I do not see his posts? You guys know who I am talking about? the one that knew the great Ezzard Charles?

Nuff respect to all posters that also forgot their names and right now I cannot remember them...I have learned A LOT from this forum and I am still learning

[BoxBuzz]

granberry and BoxBuzz agree....
World ends: Details at 10:PM

I'll illustrate the other half of gran's argument. If Tommy can't get past the Blade at MW why would he have his way with Carmen?

I think that's worth chewin' on for those who call it for Tommy.

But Iran Barkley was stronger than Hearns and Basilio combined at 160lbs, though. Hearns was not even in his prime when Iran beat him twice.

Hearns from 154lbs and up, especially at 154lbs, was a MONSTER. He seemed stronger, faster and mentally better. At 147lbs, he looked frailish for a fight over 12 rounds...I do not think that Basilio nor Gavilan were as good at middleweight, they were too slow for that weight class.

Ambling Alp, my other friend from this forum, mentioned that Basilio lost to guys that were not as good as Thomas Hearns. Many boxers have lost to people that not were as good as Tommy. It could be because of various factors (maybe motivation, a fighter is learning the trade, or he is really fighting tough competition coming up in the ranks, etc.)
Hearns was probably more schooled technically than Basilio at the beginning of their careers because of his great amateur background. I do not think that Basilio had a great amateur background like Tommy. But once Basilio started to be a better boxer, and learned more, plus his desire, he was a FANTASTIC AND EXCITING FIGHTER TO WATCH.

THE KEY OF BOXING or any sport IS SPEED...Once you speed is gone, it gives more chance to win for your competition. Basilio at middleweight would be too slow for Hearns. But at welterweight, the longer the fight goes, it is better for Basilio.

When did Basilio ever lost by cuts Alp?...but anyway.

I like talking about boxing with you, same with the other posters here like borinken and the one, Ezzard, ringsider, I Feel Fine, Brocktonblockbuster, Seamus, Dr. Devious, Collins2000, Elton John, Good Night Irene, Silkov and most of all, kikibalt and granberry...Where are the other posters like the old guy from Cincinnati? It is been a long time that I do not see his posts? You guys know who I am talking about? the one that knew the great Ezzard Charles?

Nuff respect to all posters that also forgot their names and right now I cannot remember them...I have learned A LOT from this forum and I am still learning

Good points but I'd still bet on Carmen and take my chances....with one caveat.....that the fight take place in Carmen's time period where the ref won't stop it no matter how beat up his head gets. Cause it's going to take a thumpin'.

[Seamus]

Tommy Hearns is very underrated as a boxer. He consistently outboxed SRL in two fights, and forced him to take shots to get inside. If Hearns wanted to he could probably shut Basilio out by 15-0, but this is a guy who tried to knockout Marvin Hagler in the 1st round.

I believe there would be some similarities with Leonard v Hearns I, but also some big differences. Basilio would be much easier to hit than Leonard was and subsequently would be quite a bit further behind on the cards in the late rounds. I could see Basilio landing a few big shots and hurting Hearns late, but in this scenario Carmen wouldn't be able to close the deal and the Hitman would stick and move for the last couple rounds.

1950's referee. Hearns by a wide decision

1980's referee. Hearns by TKO around the 11th

[Ambling Alp]

It's true that referees (on average anyway) stopped fights sooner many years ago. I agree if they fought in the 1950's it would be a little less likely to be stopped by the referee.
However, even back then they stopped fights if it reached a certain point and it's quite possible that would happn here.

To, me the weight class is very important here.
Hearns was a much better fighter at 147 and 154 than he was at 160.
At 147, he only lost once, and that was in a great fight against Leonard. He also had the devastating ko against Cuevas.
At 154, scored the devastating KO against Duran and also beat Benitez. He never lost at that weight.
He simply wasn't nearly as good at 160. He never really did anything special at this weight, and as mentioned he lost to Barkley, a below average title holder.
He wasn't quite as quick, quite as aggressive, was hurt easier, and most of all his power seemed to have much less effect on his opponents at 160.

On the other hand, Basilio didn't seem to lose very little much when he moved up. He had the two great fights with Robinson at 160. Even though Robinson was past his prime, he was still a great fighter. He lost both times to Fullmer, but Fullmer was a great middleweight and those fights were great wars as well.

At 160 this is a hard fight to call.

At 147 or 154, (of course the 154 division didn't even exist during Basilio's career) Hearns would have almost every physical advantage. He was much taller, had a huge reach advantage, which of course he would have at 160. However, he was also faster, had much more power.
Basilio's only real chance would be try to wear down Hearns, but that would be unlikely. Hearns lasted until the 14th round agianst Leonard. Leonard was a harder puncher than Basilio, and Basilio wouldn't hit Hearns nearly as much as Leonard did. Hearns was never in danger of being stopped in any other fight at 147 or 154. Hearns should be able to go the distance.

Basilio did have a great chin, but he never fought a welterweight with anywhere near Hearns' power. It's hard to imagine Basilio get knocked out, then again look at what Hearns did against Duran. He would be getting hit a lot, even more than he did in his fights with DeMarco. Even if Basilio somehow was able to take Hearns shots for 15 rounds, there is a good chance that he would get busted up and stopped. His face was prone to getting busted up and would be even more likely to happen against Hearns. Even if those two things don't happen, Basilio is going to lose a lopsided decision.

[granberry]

Basilio did have a great chin, but he never fought a welterweight with anywhere near Hearns' power.

I guess Tony DeMarco never existed.

[granberry]

Basilio did have a great chin, but he never fought a welterweight with anywhere near Hearns' power.

I guess Tony DeMarco never existed.

I believe he was last seen being shot in the back at the end of 'Scarface'.

As I said,

for the deep-thinking boxing "experts" here,

Tony DeMarco never existed.

How pathetic.

[Counter-puncher]

as pathetic as someone who comes on internet forums with no recognisable reason other than to disparage the views of other people?

[granberry]

As I said,

for the deep-thinking boxing "experts" here,

Tony DeMarco never existed.

How pathetic.

You never did tell Robinson what a 'switch' is. I've now told you so no excuses. Chop chop, or is that 'expert' code for a upwards jab and overhand right.

How did the to the mods go?

collin's bitter and potty-mouthed stooge TerryD is at sea now that his mentor has disappeared.

TerryD is proud that he doesn't know who Tony DeMarco is.

[The Great John L]

I know who he is. I just have no desire to answer you seriously as you are not to be taken seriously. Why have a giddy fit over fights that were re-issued on DVD (extensive highlights) less than a year ago and sit in my fight collection already anyway, I can make you a copy if you ask politely. Did you answer Robinson's question?

It's your option, but in general it's best to simply ignore the troll.

[granberry]

None a single member of collins' group of stooges knows who Tony DeMarco is.

They are lost without their mentor, but they still make an attempt to offer the bitter hate he instructed them in.

Poor lost sheep.

[BoxBuzz]

None a single member of collins' group of stooges knows who Tony DeMarco is.

They are lost without their mentor, but they still make an attempt to offer the bitter hate he instructed them in.

Poor lost sheep.

granberry....I think they do know. However they are not going to give you the benefit of their education on the subject just to have you go to other boards and "show off" your newly acquired knowledge. You and I do agree on this theoretical and DeMarco figures in my calculations as well. In fact I think you were in my class some years ago when I did my dissertation on DeMarco. You've learned well granhopper.

I have a different theory here. The space between you and I and other Carmen supporter's here vs the Hearns backers is not base on ignorance, foolishness, or the want to pick Tommy as a "joke" in order to have a laugh. But rather on taking a look at the data, simmering it around in their noggins and then coming up with what is known is the civilized world as "an opinion". It may be a surprise to you, but good people with good information and solid assessment skills can come up with different theories as to the outcomes of the same hypothetical.

AND in many countries including the best of societies there is no penalty for having diverse opinions. Turns out the Spanish Inquisition was a model of learning and evolving of the species and has led to something we call "tolerance" of different views.

It's quite the rage in all the finest circles.

[raylawpc]

I know who he is. I just have no desire to answer you seriously as you are not to be taken seriously. Why have a giddy fit over fights that were re-issued on DVD (extensive highlights) less than a year ago and sit in my fight collection already anyway, I can make you a copy if you ask politely. Did you answer Robinson's question?

It's your option, but in general it's best to simply ignore the troll.

Yeah, I get that impression. I'm sat here with the fight on in the background. I've seen his type of poster on the Other Sports section. Will stick him on the trusty ignore list along with the other non-boxing fans we somehow pick up on this site. I'll put Granbama' in my sinbin.

Ironically I've got the fights here on my harddrive and am so soft I'd have given him a copy. But why waste the 3.78GBs?

Terry, the new revamped site has an "ignore" function under friends and foes in your personal preferences.

[BoxBuzz]

I hope my eternal optimism, good humor, and never ending willingness to engage with others toward "rehab" doesn't get on anyones nerves. I just don't have the ability to "ignore" those from the "hood" the "bad" or the "cranky".

[BoxBuzz]

..........Sometimes when it comes to the cranks around here I feel like another Clint Eastwood character Dirty Harry. Go Ahead Make my day.