Does Thomas Hearns get a fair judgemant by Boxing fans & experts?

[handsofstone]

Who is the most "Tommy Hearns" type welterweight since the Hitman?

Tall,lean with skills and devastating power,obviously no one comes close but has there been anyone with all his attributes since?

Paul Williams was pretty tall for a WW but different style really

[jamesmcdonnell]

[/quote]

in terms of height, reach, physic and power prime hearns was an absolut monster, you cant tell me 9 boxers who would beat him p4p. and dont even start with robotic jack johnson or slow harry greb. i mean, nothing against old timers, but hearns was 10 times more athletic and powerful than those guys.[/quote]

Youre quite mad. Johnson would have destroyed hearns, he was a proper heavyweight.[/quote]


idiot....p4p hearns beats johnson any day[/quote]

So let's get this straight - couldn't beat Hagler, but he somehow beats Jack Johnson. How can you have a 'head to head P4P' it's just stupid. Hearns was at his peak between 147-160, Johnson was a career heavyweight. Beating someone 'PfP' is meaningless, are we saying then that Johnson is reduced in size, because if we are, then he is no Longer Jack Johnson is he fucknuts?

If you think those old timers were some sort of joke, you would do well to actually do some reading about how the fighters back then lived and fought. Go and educate yourself before you make such stupid statements. I'm a huge fan of Hearns, but let's not get carried away, he was not unbeatable, as evidenced by his losses to the likes of Barkley (who Duran beat the shit out of). Tommy was a great fighter, but he was vulnerable to punchers, and was very disorganised when hurt.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Who is the most "Tommy Hearns" type welterweight since the Hitman?

Tall,lean with skills and devastating power,obviously no one comes close but has there been anyone with all his attributes since?

Paul Williams was pretty tall for a WW but different style really

Williams didn't have anywhere near the skills or power Tommy possessed, few welterweights in history did.

Tommy would have troubled any WW in history, I think an all round fighter like Robinson would have been too good, but someone like Armstrong who fought face forward, might just have got bombed out quickly. You had to respect Tommy's power, even at middleweight.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I am a huge Hearns fan. I think the respect level he receives is pretty much in line with his considerable talent.

He was out on his feet against Leonard, while I believe it was based as much on complete exhaustion as it was on being hurt, he was definitely in massive trouble and I can't see how he could have made it 3+ minutes against someone as accurate as Ray Leonard. EVERYBODY I have ever heard address the subject thinks Hearns won the second Leonard fight, so he gets his rightful credit in my eyes there.

One other thing, Duran makes so many ATG lists because of his sensational record at LW and the perception that he was near invincible at that weight, fair or not, Leonard nor Hearns have that perception in the eyes of most boxing fans.

Having said all that, I think your point is a good one, but I see it more as SRL and Duran are a tad overrated compared to Hearns as opposed to the notion that Hearns is somehow overlooked or underrated....My experience is Most Boxing fans view Hearns as one of the most talented and dangerous fighters, ever, in any weight class. I think there was a poll here about Floyd fighting these guys and how would it have gone, and so many here thought Hearns would not only beat Floyd, but would spark him, that's high praise.

in terms of height, reach, physic and power prime hearns was an absolut monster, you cant tell me 9 boxers who would beat him p4p. and dont even start with robotic jack johnson or slow harry greb. i mean, nothing against old timers, but hearns was 10 times more athletic and powerful than those guys.

And what the hell is 'physic?'

If you mean Physique, then how is that relevant in any case. Just because someone looks like a great athlete doesn't make it so. Leonard was far more athletic than Hearns, and had better stamina (as proven in their first fight) but didn't look particularly ripped or muscular.

[Chepppaaa]

in terms of height, reach, physic and power prime hearns was an absolut monster, you cant tell me 9 boxers who would beat him p4p. and dont even start with robotic jack johnson or slow harry greb. i mean, nothing against old timers, but hearns was 10 times more athletic and powerful than those guys.[/quote]

Youre quite mad. Johnson would have destroyed hearns, he was a proper heavyweight.[/quote]


idiot....p4p hearns beats johnson any day[/quote]

So let's get this straight - couldn't beat Hagler, but he somehow beats Jack Johnson. How can you have a 'head to head P4P' it's just stupid. Hearns was at his peak between 147-160, Johnson was a career heavyweight. Beating someone 'PfP' is meaningless, are we saying then that Johnson is reduced in size, because if we are, then he is no Longer Jack Johnson is he fucknuts?

If you think those old timers were some sort of joke, you would do well to actually do some reading about how the fighters back then lived and fought. Go and educate yourself before you make such stupid statements. I'm a huge fan of Hearns, but let's not get carried away, he was not unbeatable, as evidenced by his losses to the likes of Barkley (who Duran beat the poo out of). Tommy was a great fighter, but he was vulnerable to punchers, and was very disorganised when hurt. [/quote]



god, you got so many posts but you sound like a newbie, you are realy weird

[jamesmcdonnell]

in terms of height, reach, physic and power prime hearns was an absolut monster, you cant tell me 9 boxers who would beat him p4p. and dont even start with robotic jack johnson or slow harry greb. i mean, nothing against old timers, but hearns was 10 times more athletic and powerful than those guys.

Youre quite mad. Johnson would have destroyed hearns, he was a proper heavyweight.[/quote]


idiot....p4p hearns beats johnson any day[/quote]

So let's get this straight - couldn't beat Hagler, but he somehow beats Jack Johnson. How can you have a 'head to head P4P' it's just stupid. Hearns was at his peak between 147-160, Johnson was a career heavyweight. Beating someone 'PfP' is meaningless, are we saying then that Johnson is reduced in size, because if we are, then he is no Longer Jack Johnson is he fucknuts?

If you think those old timers were some sort of joke, you would do well to actually do some reading about how the fighters back then lived and fought. Go and educate yourself before you make such stupid statements. I'm a huge fan of Hearns, but let's not get carried away, he was not unbeatable, as evidenced by his losses to the likes of Barkley (who Duran beat the poo out of). Tommy was a great fighter, but he was vulnerable to punchers, and was very disorganised when hurt. [/quote]



good you got so many posts but you sound like a newbie, you are realy weird[/quote]

Hilarious. Coming from a clown like you, I'll take it as a compliment.

[jamesmcdonnell]

in terms of height, reach, physic and power prime hearns was an absolut monster, you cant tell me 9 boxers who would beat him p4p. and dont even start with robotic jack johnson or slow harry greb. i mean, nothing against old timers, but hearns was 10 times more athletic and powerful than those guys.

Youre quite mad. Johnson would have destroyed hearns, he was a proper heavyweight.[/quote]


idiot....p4p hearns beats johnson any day[/quote]

So let's get this straight - couldn't beat Hagler, but he somehow beats Jack Johnson. How can you have a 'head to head P4P' it's just stupid. Hearns was at his peak between 147-160, Johnson was a career heavyweight. Beating someone 'PfP' is meaningless, are we saying then that Johnson is reduced in size, because if we are, then he is no Longer Jack Johnson is he fucknuts?

If you think those old timers were some sort of joke, you would do well to actually do some reading about how the fighters back then lived and fought. Go and educate yourself before you make such stupid statements. I'm a huge fan of Hearns, but let's not get carried away, he was not unbeatable, as evidenced by his losses to the likes of Barkley (who Duran beat the poo out of). Tommy was a great fighter, but he was vulnerable to punchers, and was very disorganised when hurt. [/quote]



god, you got so many posts but you sound like a newbie, you are realy weird[/quote]

This from a guy who thought that Hearns was stopped in the 15th round of his fight with Leonard, and 'would have survived the final 30 seconds' - despite the fact there was still another round to go....priceless.

[jamesmcdonnell]

The silence is most telling.

[Tanzio]

If it had been 12, The Hitman would have won the first fight with SRL. Hearns out boxed Leonard that night.

Versus Hagler he went all in for one of the greatest fights of all time. Very few MWs in the history of the sport would have survived the first round that night v The Hitman. I seriously doubt that the vaunted 3G would have survived. He lost but he took a significant piece of Hagler down with him that night.

Many dismiss the robbery perpetrated with the draw in SRL II. But, that was basically a faaar better version of FMJ v Pac, except we were all robbed of the prime event and humiliated with a dance exhibition in Floyd and Manny's case.

Therein you will find the difference between SRL and Hearns v FMJ and Pac. The former fought the very best at their very best.

Pac and FMJ? Get outta here.

I rate The Hitman ahead of FMJ, Pac and SRL p4p. Obviously, he does NOT get his due, imo.

[Chepppaaa]

If it had been 12, The Hitman would have won the first fight with SRL. Hearns out boxed Leonard that night.

Versus Hagler he went all in for one of the greatest fights of all time. Very few MWs in the history of the sport would have survived the first round that night v The Hitman. I seriously doubt that the vaunted 3G would have survived. He lost but he took a significant piece of Hagler down with him that night.

Many dismiss the robbery perpetrated with the draw in SRL II. But, that was basically a faaar better version of FMJ v Pac, except we were all robbed of the prime event and humiliated with a dance exhibition in Floyd and Manny's case.

Therein you will find the difference between SRL and Hearns v FMJ and Pac. The former fought the very best at their very best.

Pac and FMJ? Get outta here.

I rate The Hitman ahead of FMJ, Pac and SRL p4p. Obviously, he does NOT get his due, imo.

the thing with thomas hearns is this.

taking all the bulls/(t away, the fights at light heavyweight or cruiserweight, the crap descision in the second leonard fight, were even leonard said, that he felt hearns won, when you take this away, than you got a guy with a 50-3 record, with 1 debatable loss, the to early stoppage against leonard I and 2 losses in a division where he didnt felt as good as in his favourite divisions 147 and 154. wounder what would have had happenend had hagler drained himself to go to 154 to fight hearns

and yes the first leonard fight was close, maybe leonard would have ko'd him clear in the 15 or end of 14 had the ref waited a bit longer, maybe hearns would have recovered and moved a lot and cruise to ud win, cause on cards he was easily ahead so he couldve moved and stay out of trouble and do nothing for 1 round, but the second fight hearns was the obvious winner.

all i know is he beat leonard (top 10 atg), duran (top 10) and benitez (top 60) and had a 50-3 run until 1991 and thats good enough for an atg top 10.

like i said, show me another guy who fought and beat 2 top 10 atg, who was so destructable and powerful at his peak? there wont be a lot of guys.

[caldo2025]

Leg rub or no leg rub, Hagler was always going to get to Tommy in the end.

I agree on both points. Manny is quoted as saying it was the most devastating defeat in his career and he never got over it so I think he just chose that excuse as a way to process it. Nothing was going to stop Hagler that night.

Imagine if Marvin fought that way against SRL? It would have been an early night.

[jamesmcdonnell]

If it had been 12, The Hitman would have won the first fight with SRL. Hearns out boxed Leonard that night.

Versus Hagler he went all in for one of the greatest fights of all time. Very few MWs in the history of the sport would have survived the first round that night v The Hitman. I seriously doubt that the vaunted 3G would have survived. He lost but he took a significant piece of Hagler down with him that night.

Many dismiss the robbery perpetrated with the draw in SRL II. But, that was basically a faaar better version of FMJ v Pac, except we were all robbed of the prime event and humiliated with a dance exhibition in Floyd and Manny's case.

Therein you will find the difference between SRL and Hearns v FMJ and Pac. The former fought the very best at their very best.

Pac and FMJ? Get outta here.

I rate The Hitman ahead of FMJ, Pac and SRL p4p. Obviously, he does NOT get his due, imo.

If the fight has been 12 rounds, it is possible that SRL would have found a way to win, certainly Dundee would have been telling him 3 rounds earlier to get his arse in gear. We will never know. What we do know is that at that time 15 rounds was the length of a world championship fight.

I would say I probably rate Leonard higher, but not by much.

I do think Hearns gets a little overlooked occasionally.

[jamesmcdonnell]

If it had been 12, The Hitman would have won the first fight with SRL. Hearns out boxed Leonard that night.

Versus Hagler he went all in for one of the greatest fights of all time. Very few MWs in the history of the sport would have survived the first round that night v The Hitman. I seriously doubt that the vaunted 3G would have survived. He lost but he took a significant piece of Hagler down with him that night.

Many dismiss the robbery perpetrated with the draw in SRL II. But, that was basically a faaar better version of FMJ v Pac, except we were all robbed of the prime event and humiliated with a dance exhibition in Floyd and Manny's case.

Therein you will find the difference between SRL and Hearns v FMJ and Pac. The former fought the very best at their very best.

Pac and FMJ? Get outta here.

I rate The Hitman ahead of FMJ, Pac and SRL p4p. Obviously, he does NOT get his due, imo.

the thing with thomas hearns is this.

taking all the bulls/(t away, the fights at light heavyweight or cruiserweight, the crap descision in the second leonard fight, were even leonard said, that he felt hearns won, when you take this away, than you got a guy with a 50-3 record, with 1 debatable loss, the to early stoppage against leonard I and 2 losses in a division where he didnt felt as good as in his favourite divisions 147 and 154. wounder what would have had happenend had hagler drained himself to go to 154 to fight hearns

and yes the first leonard fight was close, maybe leonard would have ko'd him clear in the 15 or end of 14 had the ref waited a bit longer, maybe hearns would have recovered and moved a lot and cruise to ud win, cause on cards he was easily ahead so he couldve moved and stay out of trouble and do nothing for 1 round, but the second fight hearns was the obvious winner.

all i know is he beat leonard (top 10 atg), duran (top 10) and benitez (top 60) and had a 50-3 run until 1991 and thats good enough for an atg top 10.

like i said, show me another guy who fought and beat 2 top 10 atg, who was so destructable and powerful at his peak? there wont be a lot of guys.

I do not see how you think the stoppage was too early, Tommy was out on his feet reeling around like a drunk. He'd already had the crap kicked out of him in the 13th, and was taking a pretty brutal amount of shots.

Sure, he MIGHT have survived it, or he might have ended up in a coma - there's nothing controversial in that stoppage for me.

I think breaking into the top 10 is difficult, because there's a lot of former fighters out there, Robinson, Armstrong, Pep, Benny Leonard, to name but 4, who have to get the nod, we've not even go to the 1970's yet with those 4. Greb, Langford, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, all with strong cases for the top 10, Chavez Sr, Roberto Duran, Hagler, not to mention Ali, Louis, - there's just so many people.

It's all just conjecture in the end anyway.

BTW, Hearns was not so far ahead on the cards he would have won, he had two standing counts, one in 13th, and one in the 14th, those are effectively knockdowns, so those were both 10-8 rounds. Hearns would almost certainly gone down again in the 15th, even if he survived it. Leonard, despite the nice guy image, was a ruthless finisher, and he was kicking the crap out of Hearns for almost 2 full rounds before going into the 15th.

Being destructive doesn't give hurns an automatic nod over his rivals for greatness. Impressive as he was to watch, that doesn't mean he overtakes Robinson or Armstrong or Duran for that matter.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Leg rub or no leg rub, Hagler was always going to get to Tommy in the end.

I agree on both points. Manny is quoted as saying it was the most devastating defeat in his career and he never got over it so I think he just chose that excuse as a way to process it. Nothing was going to stop Hagler that night.

Imagine if Marvin fought that way against SRL? It would have been an early night.

Thing is, SRL was both tougher and smarter than Tommy, he'd never have got allowed Marvin to engage like that.

Marvin did indeed throw away 4 rounds against Leonard, trying to prove himself the superior boxer, before discovering too late, that he wasn't.

[Badhusker]

Hagler vs Leonard was very, very, controversial. SRL was smart about stealing rounds with flurries at the end. It was Hagler's 67th bout, and think he was already ready to retire. To this day I think he deserved the win, but it was close. By the way, the fight, much like Floyd vs Pac, was about 3 or 4 years too late.

Hearns easily beat Leonard in their rematch, putting him down twice during it, but got wobbled himself once or twice. He admitted Hearns deserved the win. By the way, Leonard was only 33 at the time. SRL pulled a "Cotto" too, demanding that no one could weight more than 164, even though he held a title at 168. Their first fight was at 147, and Hearn's last fight there. He must have really drained to get there. SRL was behind, but did what he had to for the win.

[Tanzio]

Leg rub or no leg rub, Hagler was always going to get to Tommy in the end.

I agree on both points. Manny is quoted as saying it was the most devastating defeat in his career and he never got over it so I think he just chose that excuse as a way to process it. Nothing was going to stop Hagler that night.

Imagine if Marvin fought that way against SRL? It would have been an early night.

SRL did not face the same Hagler as The Hitman did. Hearns is responsible for that.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Hagler vs Leonard was very, very, controversial. SRL was smart about stealing rounds with flurries at the end. It was Hagler's 67th bout, and think he was already ready to retire. To this day I think he deserved the win, but it was close. By the way, the fight, much like Floyd vs Pac, was about 3 or 4 years too late.

Hearns easily beat Leonard in their rematch, putting him down twice during it, but got wobbled himself once or twice. He admitted Hearns deserved the win. By the way, Leonard was only 33 at the time. SRL pulled a "Cotto" too, demanding that no one could weight more than 164, even though he held a title at 168. Their first fight was at 147, and Hearn's last fight there. He must have really drained to get there. SRL was behind, but did what he had to for the win.

For me, I think it was a clear win for Leonard. There were some close rounds, but also some very clear rounds for Leonard. I've rewatched it several times in recent years, and always had Leonard winning.

For what it's worth, I absolutely HATED it when Hagler lost, he was my favourite fighter, and I thought in the heat of the moment it was a travesty, but watching it dispassionately, and without Bias, I had to agree Leonard won.

Leonard was only 33 at the time, but that was considered old back then - I'm not sure why fighters are able to go on so much longer now, whether it is PED's or advances in recovery from training, leading to avoiding injury, but let's not also forget Leonard's detatched retina, which took away what should have been some of the best years of his career.

[Tanzio]

If it had been 12, The Hitman would have won the first fight with SRL. Hearns out boxed Leonard that night.

Versus Hagler he went all in for one of the greatest fights of all time. Very few MWs in the history of the sport would have survived the first round that night v The Hitman. I seriously doubt that the vaunted 3G would have survived. He lost but he took a significant piece of Hagler down with him that night.

Many dismiss the robbery perpetrated with the draw in SRL II. But, that was basically a faaar better version of FMJ v Pac, except we were all robbed of the prime event and humiliated with a dance exhibition in Floyd and Manny's case.

Therein you will find the difference between SRL and Hearns v FMJ and Pac. The former fought the very best at their very best.

Pac and FMJ? Get outta here.

I rate The Hitman ahead of FMJ, Pac and SRL p4p. Obviously, he does NOT get his due, imo.

the thing with thomas hearns is this.

taking all the bulls/(t away, the fights at light heavyweight or cruiserweight, the crap descision in the second leonard fight, were even leonard said, that he felt hearns won, when you take this away, than you got a guy with a 50-3 record, with 1 debatable loss, the to early stoppage against leonard I and 2 losses in a division where he didnt felt as good as in his favourite divisions 147 and 154. wounder what would have had happenend had hagler drained himself to go to 154 to fight hearns

and yes the first leonard fight was close, maybe leonard would have ko'd him clear in the 15 or end of 14 had the ref waited a bit longer, maybe hearns would have recovered and moved a lot and cruise to ud win, cause on cards he was easily ahead so he couldve moved and stay out of trouble and do nothing for 1 round, but the second fight hearns was the obvious winner.

all i know is he beat leonard (top 10 atg), duran (top 10) and benitez (top 60) and had a 50-3 run until 1991 and thats good enough for an atg top 10.

like i said, show me another guy who fought and beat 2 top 10 atg, who was so destructable and powerful at his peak? there wont be a lot of guys.

I do not see how you think the stoppage was too early, Tommy was out on his feet reeling around like a drunk. He'd already had the crap kicked out of him in the 13th, and was taking a pretty brutal amount of shots.

Sure, he MIGHT have survived it, or he might have ended up in a coma - there's nothing controversial in that stoppage for me.

I think breaking into the top 10 is difficult, because there's a lot of former fighters out there, Robinson, Armstrong, Pep, Benny Leonard, to name but 4, who have to get the nod, we've not even go to the 1970's yet with those 4. Greb, Langford, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, all with strong cases for the top 10, Chavez Sr, Roberto Duran, Hagler, not to mention Ali, Louis, - there's just so many people.

It's all just conjecture in the end anyway.

BTW, Hearns was not so far ahead on the cards he would have won, he had two standing counts, one in 13th, and one in the 14th, those are effectively knockdowns, so those were both 10-8 rounds. Hearns would almost certainly gone down again in the 15th, even if he survived it. Leonard, despite the nice guy image, was a ruthless finisher, and he was kicking the crap out of Hearns for almost 2 full rounds before going into the 15th.

Being destructive doesn't give hurns an automatic nod over his rivals for greatness. Impressive as he was to watch, that doesn't mean he overtakes Robinson or Armstrong or Duran for that matter.

The Hitman did more p4p than Duran and he destroyed him head to head. It is hard to argue v SRR on any level, but your suggestion that Hearns rating is based mainly on his destructiveness is at the core of the misconception of the boxer.

The Hitman was one of the most skilled boxers in the history of the sport. He proved it repeatedly against other ATGs. He outboxed SRL twice. He defeated bigger framed men long after SRL was history by out boxing them. He boxed evenly and won on punch effectiveness against Benitez, one of the top handful of defensive fighters in the history of the sport.

Hearns can never be criticized for avoiding the best in his prime as Pac and FMJ will be for eternity. Hearns can never be criticized for having a boring style that was not fan friendly. The Hitman can never be accused of quitting in any fight of magnitude. Tommy can never be accused of cherry picking his opponents when they were green or beyond ripe.

Tommy The Hitman Hearns would have fought both Pac and FMJ in their primes. Then he would have fought The prime version of GingerHead and then he would have fought 3G.

He would have put Pac to sleep, done a Benitez on FMJ, stopped GingerHead in the first half and gone to nuclear war with 3G, at the end of which there would be NO doubt what actual level Gennady deserves to be considered at.

Problem is Pac is not Duran, FMJ is not Benitez, GingerHead is not Hagler. They would ALL have avoided The Hitman for more than just his destructiveness.

Hearns is superior to all of them.

[jamesmcdonnell]

1) Hearns was not ahead easily on the cards. He was trying to stay out of Leonards way in the 14th, but Leonard was kicking his butt. That was another 10 -8 round for Leonard. Had the fight gone into the 15th round, the scores would have been as follows after 14.
133-132 Hearns
133-131 Hearns
133-133 Hearns

So hearns could not have just tried to run for the final round, if Leonard won the round 10-9 the scores would have been a Majority Draw.

142-142 Even
142-141 -Hearns
142-142 Leonard

so that's a majority draw - however Hearns couldn't have known this going in to the 15th, and in any case, he would have had more pressing concerns, like Leonard taking his head off - even if he survived that last round, he more than likely either takes a standing 8 or gets knocked down at least once, personally, I just don't see him surviving the last round, hell, I don't see him surviving the 14th.

2) I never cited Hearns' destructiveness as a reason for his greatness, chepaaa did - read the posts. I am well aware of Hearns's fantastic boxing skills, how many guys outboxed Leonard for any length of time, or dominated Virgil Hill in a chess match?

3) Duran was arguably the greatest lightweight of all time, and in pretty much every single persons top 5, anything he did over and above this is gravy, yet he went on to beat Leonard at WW, and win titles at 154 and 160. A single loss to Hearns doesn't diminish that.

[koolkc107]

I think Hearns gets his proper due as one of the greatest ever, and certainly a top 10 welter. No one who knows boxing would say any different. Truth is, Tommy at 147 is a tough match for ANYONE who ever fought at welter.

[Tanzio]

1) Hearns was not ahead easily on the cards. He was trying to stay out of Leonards way in the 14th, but Leonard was kicking his butt. That was another 10 -8 round for Leonard. Had the fight gone into the 15th round, the scores would have been as follows after 14.
133-132 Hearns
133-131 Hearns
133-133 Hearns

So hearns could not have just tried to run for the final round, if Leonard won the round 10-9 the scores would have been a Majority Draw.

142-142 Even
142-141 -Hearns
142-142 Leonard

so that's a majority draw - however Hearns couldn't have known this going in to the 15th, and in any case, he would have had more pressing concerns, like Leonard taking his head off - even if he survived that last round, he more than likely either takes a standing 8 or gets knocked down at least once, personally, I just don't see him surviving the last round, hell, I don't see him surviving the 14th.

2) I never cited Hearns' destructiveness as a reason for his greatness, chepaaa did - read the posts. I am well aware of Hearns's fantastic boxing skills, how many guys outboxed Leonard for any length of time, or dominated Virgil Hill in a chess match?

3) Duran was arguably the greatest lightweight of all time, and in pretty much every single persons top 5, anything he did over and above this is gravy, yet he went on to beat Leonard at WW, and win titles at 154 and 160. A single loss to Hearns doesn't diminish that.

A single loss to Hearns? Please.

Duran ascendancy to the lightweight title is tainted as is his entire career by his questionable tactics, quitting on the largest of stages and staying way, waaaay past his spoilage date.

All that said, he is an ATG.

But, are you forgetting something? The Hitman won titles at welter, super welter, light heavy AND then dropped back down and a middle weight crown (both in 87), super middle weight, took another light heavy weight crown v the undefeated Virgil Hill and capped his long career off with two separate cruiser weight titles.

You are entitled to your opinion as we all are. IMO The Hitman is superior to Duran, SRL, Pac, FMJ, and Hagler, two of which he lost to.

One of the many points of my view is that Hearns fought the best at there best and kept on going, win, lose or draw. He never quit. He seldom fouled. He very seldom held. He was always fan friendly. He always respected the sport and the fans.

If the talk is p4p in the history of boxing, The Hitman must be considered in the conversation.

He is not given his due.

[koolkc107]

I think some of the problem in comparison is what one chooses to give weight to. Whenever possible, I tend to give more weight to fights fought between 2 boxers, especially if fought in their primes (and less to those fought outside one or both's prime but still useful for comparison).

Fact is, Leonard and Hearns met in their primes. And it was Sugar Ray that scored a clear and decisive victory. Hence, much as I am a Hitman fan, no way I can rank him above Leonard.

[Chepppaaa]

The Hitman was one of the most skilled boxers in the history of the sport. He proved it repeatedly against other ATGs. He outboxed SRL twice. He defeated bigger framed men long after SRL was history by out boxing them. He boxed evenly and won on punch effectiveness against Benitez, one of the top handful of defensive fighters in the history of the sport.

Hearns can never be criticized for avoiding the best in his prime as Pac and FMJ will be for eternity. Hearns can never be criticized for having a boring style that was not fan friendly. The Hitman can never be accused of quitting in any fight of magnitude. Tommy can never be accused of cherry picking his opponents when they were green or beyond ripe.

Tommy The Hitman Hearns would have fought both Pac and FMJ in their primes. Then he would have fought The prime version of GingerHead and then he would have fought 3G.

He would have put Pac to sleep, done a Benitez on FMJ, stopped GingerHead in the first half and gone to nuclear war with 3G, at the end of which there would be NO doubt what actual level Gennady deserves to be considered at.

Problem is Pac is not Duran, FMJ is not Benitez, GingerHead is not Hagler. They would ALL have avoided The Hitman for more than just his destructiveness.

Hearns is superior to all of them.[/quote]


_____________________________________________________________________________


finaly someone makes sense

[littlepug]

I can't imagine a more frightening prospect than seeing a welterweight hearns in the opposite corner, can't think of another welter who'd have the same effect

[koolkc107]

You could make the argument that Hearns outboxed Leonard twice. You can even say Hitman deserved the nod in the second fight- Ray Leonard himself considers the rematch an L and will be the first to tell you he is 1-1 vs Hearns, official records be damned.

But what no one can say is that Hitman beat Sugar Ray when they met in both their primes. Yes, Sugar was being outboxed. Yes, he was behind on the cards. But, Ray scored a clear, decisive, undisputed stoppage victory. He did exactly what ATGs do in great fights. And he did it vs a fellow ATG at the very top of his game. That's why I will always rank SRL a little higher.

In case y'all forgot how it went down...


https://youtu.be/zsEiC_A3A4A


Not one word of protest from Hearns or his corner at the time of the stoppage.