What if Thomas Hearns Stayed At 175 in 1987?
-
keithmoonhangover
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 16749
- Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42
What if Thomas Hearns Stayed At 175 in 1987?
How would he have done against Bobby Czyz, and Donny Lalonde?
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15097
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
Re: What if Thomas Hearns Stayed At 175 in 1987?
Hard to say. He did look good against Dennis Andries. If he fights that well, he should have beat Czyz and Lalonde. However, at this stage, Hearns was not real consistent. If I had to bet though, I would have bet on Hearns.
Last edited by Ambling Alp II on 19 Apr 2026, 15:09, edited 1 time in total.
Re: What if Thomas Hearns Stayed At 175 in 1987?
Hearns with the reach advantage maybe could've outboxed Czyz, but he would've been tough to deal with because I don't see Tommy knocking him out.
Tommy could hurt Lalonde, but Lalonde could also hurt Tommy. That one has slugfest written all over it honestly, and I think it could go either way depending on who gets there first. More often than not you'd have to bank on Tommy's superior talent, but Lalonde being the natural Light Heavyweight probably has a bit of a natural strength advantage over Tommy.
Tommy could hurt Lalonde, but Lalonde could also hurt Tommy. That one has slugfest written all over it honestly, and I think it could go either way depending on who gets there first. More often than not you'd have to bank on Tommy's superior talent, but Lalonde being the natural Light Heavyweight probably has a bit of a natural strength advantage over Tommy.
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 15646
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
Re: What if Thomas Hearns Stayed At 175 in 1987?
Donny Lalonde ain't beating Tommy Hearns. Hearns was different class!
Re: What if Thomas Hearns Stayed At 175 in 1987?
Czyz and Lalonde would both have a good chance of beating Hearns and the reason for that is starting with the Roldan fight, Hearns was taking too many headshots by that time. On paper his win over Roldan looked like a blowout, the reality was Roldan nailed him with numerous big headshots and when he appeared on The Tonight Show days after his victory, for the first time in his life the Hitman had developed a slur when he spoke. He took too much punishment in his fights after that, Barkley KO'd him, Kinchen hurt him, Leonard hurt him.
Re: What if Thomas Hearns Stayed At 175 in 1987?
Yeah he got rocked in multiple fights through his career, and seeing as how Lalonde was able to drop Leonard it's perfectly reasonable to assume he could've dropped Hearns or worse as well. That being said Hearns did seem to adjust to the Light Heavyweight size better than Leonard did, he was built better for it.Seamus wrote: ↑19 Apr 2026, 17:50 Czyz and Lalonde would both have a good chance of beating Hearns and the reason for that is starting with the Roldan fight, Hearns was taking too many headshots by that time. On paper his win over Roldan looked like a blowout, the reality was Roldan nailed him with numerous big headshots and when he appeared on The Tonight Show days after his victory, for the first time in his life the Hitman had developed a slur when he spoke. He took too much punishment in his fights after that, Barkley KO'd him, Kinchen hurt him, Leonard hurt him.
Re: What if Thomas Hearns Stayed At 175 in 1987?
There's an argument to be made that going back down in weight had a considerable negative effect on Hearns' performances post-Andries. Look at what he did when he went back up and beat a favored Virgil Hill for his second light heavyweight belt in '91.
If Hearns stays at 175 in '87, he's going to run the show for years. Czyz and Lalonde were fine boxers who would've put up interesting fights, but Hearns was a level above. Same with Prince Charles Williams. Hearns would've cleaned up until Barkley got there.
The most interesting question is what happens with Sugar Ray Leonard. Would he actually move up to light heavy or do what he did with Lalonde and convince Hearns to fight at a 168 catchweight? If the former, we probably have a draw like they did when they met in real life. If it's an actual 175 match, I think Hearns wins.
If Hearns stays at 175 in '87, he's going to run the show for years. Czyz and Lalonde were fine boxers who would've put up interesting fights, but Hearns was a level above. Same with Prince Charles Williams. Hearns would've cleaned up until Barkley got there.
The most interesting question is what happens with Sugar Ray Leonard. Would he actually move up to light heavy or do what he did with Lalonde and convince Hearns to fight at a 168 catchweight? If the former, we probably have a draw like they did when they met in real life. If it's an actual 175 match, I think Hearns wins.
Re: What if Thomas Hearns Stayed At 175 in 1987?
Going back down 10 or more pounds is almost always gonna have a negative effect. It's the same reason why Benn thinking he's gonna go back down, and be successful as a Welterweight is a pipe dream as well. He'd be better off trying 154 or 160.bwu wrote: ↑21 Apr 2026, 14:32 There's an argument to be made that going back down in weight had a considerable negative effect on Hearns' performances post-Andries. Look at what he did when he went back up and beat a favored Virgil Hill for his second light heavyweight belt in '91.
If Hearns stays at 175 in '87, he's going to run the show for years. Czyz and Lalonde were fine boxers who would've put up interesting fights, but Hearns was a level above. Same with Prince Charles Williams. Hearns would've cleaned up until Barkley got there.
The most interesting question is what happens with Sugar Ray Leonard. Would he actually move up to light heavy or do what he did with Lalonde and convince Hearns to fight at a 168 catchweight? If the former, we probably have a draw like they did when they met in real life. If it's an actual 175 match, I think Hearns wins.