BoxRec

theone wrote:

I feel Griffith would stop Hearns.

Griffith wasnt close to being a powerful puncher. Griffith never stopped any top level fighter except Paret who was probably already damaged from his fight with Fullmer. What makes you think he could stop a prime Hearns?

what about the first fight where griffith knocked out paret with 1 punch? that was BEFORE the fullmer fight.


griffith wasnt a powerful puncher? tell that to gaspar ortega who griffith stopped in 12 rounds. gaspar had over 150 fights in his career, and the ONLY TIME he was ever stopped in the ring was by emile griffith. even huge punching florentino fernandez could not stop ortega.



griffith could wack. he wasnt a great puncher, but certainly a good one.

Griffith never stopped any top level fighter except Paret

thats not true














I do think hearns would beat griffith but griffith defntley had enough power to knockout a shaky chin guy like hearns

I could possibly see Hearns stopping Napoles on cuts, but stopping Griffith and Ross in they're prime...I just cannot see it happening!

Griffith was only viciously knocked out once, by Rubin Carter, on a punch he did not see. However, Griffith stood up well against the likes of such hard hitting KO artists like Florentino Fernandez, who hit just as hard if not harder than Hearns, and Jorge Jose Fernandez. After a very successful career at 147, Griffith then moved up to 160 and did not miss a beat. He took the best from bombers like Tony Mundine and Bennie Briscoe and was still very durable at the end of a very active career. In his prime I think Griffith would do Hearns like LaMotta would have done Graziano had they ever fought. I really like Hearns and he was without a doubt one of the hardest hitting fighters ever, but a fighter like Griffith would take it right to Hearns for 15 rounds, which is something Hearns could not do…stay very durable for 15 rounds, especially against a fighter that would be bombard him with as many punches round after round as Griffith would.

Barney Ross…again, Hearns might be able to win a decision, but I doubt it! Ross not only had a steel chin, but he was just as good a boxer as Hearns, but the telling characteristic would be the durability of the fighters. Could Hearns hold up in the last two or three rounds after 12 rounds of hard fighting? Maybe! I think Hearns would have a better chance of beating Ross than Griffith, but personally I think he loses to both and I certainly do not see Hearns knocking out either man even with his best punch, unless it was a punch that the fighters did not see.

barry wrote:I could possibly see Hearns stopping Napoles on cuts, but stopping Griffith and Ross in they're prime...I just cannot see it happening!

Griffith was only viciously knocked out once, by Rubin Carter, on a punch he did not see. However, Griffith stood up well against the likes of such hard hitting KO artists like Florentino Fernandez, who hit just as hard if not harder than Hearns, and Jorge Jose Fernandez. After a very successful career at 147, Griffith then moved up to 160 and did not miss a beat. He took the best from bombers like Tony Mundine and Bennie Briscoe and was still very durable at the end of a very active career. In his prime I think Griffith would do Hearns like LaMotta would have done Graziano had they ever fought. I really like Hearns and he was without a doubt one of the hardest hitting fighters ever, but a fighter like Griffith would take it right to Hearns for 15 rounds, which is something Hearns could not do…stay very durable for 15 rounds, especially against a fighter that would be bombard him with as many punches round after round as Griffith would.

Barney Ross…again, Hearns might be able to win a decision, but I doubt it! Ross not only had a steel chin, but he was just as good a boxer as Hearns, but the telling characteristic would be the durability of the fighters. Could Hearns hold up in the last two or three rounds after 12 rounds of hard fighting? Maybe! I think Hearns would have a better chance of beating Ross than Griffith, but personally I think he loses to both and I certainly do not see Hearns knocking out either man even with his best punch, unless it was a punch that the fighters did not see.

Hearns is one of my all time faves nd he was almost impossible to outpoint. A great boxer and puncher. I think he's capable of beating anyone in history but I think Griffith beats him more times than not. I totally agree with Barry...

Napoles was a come forward guy and I think his style might be good for Hearns and I make Tommy a slight favourite in this one. It's easy to imagine a Napoles KO victory though.

Unfortunately everythign I know about Ross I've read. I haven't seen him fight but he was obviously one of the greatest ever welters.

As already mentioned there are certainly a lot good welterweights and many are very close.
A few guys that I don't believe anyone mentioned are Billy Graham and Marty Servo. Servo gave Robinson a very close fight and Graham who was arguably a top 20 all time welterweight.

A couple of other guys that people haven't talked much about are Luis Rodriquez (who had 4 close fights with Griffith), Ike Quartey, and Wilfred Benitez.

what about the first fight where griffith knocked out paret with 1 punch? that was BEFORE the fullmer fight.

An occasional one punch ko does not mean someone is a powerful puncher. Whitaker for instance ko'd Juan Nazaro with one punch in the first round. The only other ko loss Nazaro had suffered up until that time was to the trulyy powerful Edwin Rosairo in 8 rounds. In contrast Griffith ko'd Paret after 12 fast and furious rounds.

griffith wasnt a powerful puncher? tell that to gaspar ortega who griffith stopped in 12 rounds. gaspar had over 150 fights in his career, and the ONLY TIME he was ever stopped in the ring was by emile griffith. even huge punching florentino fernandez could not stop ortega.

Gasper was a busy fighter not a good one. A fighter as good as Griffth being able to wear him down and ko him in 12 rounds isnt saying much.

Griffith stood up well against the likes of such hard hitting KO artists like Florentino Fernandez, who hit just as hard if not harder than Hearns, and Jorge Jose Fernandez

The Fernandez's may have been powerful punchers but that was all they had in common with Hearns. The hit man was a much better boxer than either of them. It was this combination of boxing skill and bone crunching power that made Hearns great.

Griffth and Hearns were well matched in boxing skill. Hearns possess the advantage in power, height, reach and moved better around the ring. Hearns comfortably out boxed Benitez who who was just as fast, but had a much better defense than Griffith. Griffth was troubled by boxers like Luis Rodriguez and Nino Benvenuti; Hearns was an even better boxer than them and had alot more power.

Most of what I know about Griffith comes from a few of his fights they show on classic ESPN, from what I have seen I don't think it would be unrealistic for Hearns to win a clear cut decsision or maybe even a knockout. Like I said I am limited when it comes to Griffith and may not have seen him at his best. On the other hand Hearns was devestating in almost all of his welterweight fights. Top five for sure.

I remember Hearns being roundly criticised for his opposition at Welter leading up to the Leonard bout. Other than Cuevas, who was made to order for him, Tommy's opposition didn't compare to SRL's.

I've never thought that he was at his best at Welter. He was much more devastating at 154-160 and his opposition was better. Leonard was wise to wait until Tommy was past his peak before giving him a rematch. Hearns would have been the Sandly Saddler to Leonard's Willie Pep.

In terms of pure accomplishment Jack Britton should be right up there...

I think these are all in the argument...

Robinson
Leonard
Armstrong
Napoles
Britton
Gavilan
Griffith
Walker
McLarnin
Ross
Lewis
Walcott

1. Robinson
2. Leonard
3. Armstrong
4. Ross
5. Gavilan
6. Naploes
7. Griffith
8. Hearns
9. McLarnin
10. Britton

Walker isn't anywhere close to the top 10. His best win was over a 37 year old Jack Britton. He lost the title to Pete Latzo. He was much better when he moved up in weight.

Ezzard wrote:I think these are all in the argument...

Robinson
Leonard
Armstrong
Napoles
Britton
Gavilan
Griffith
Walker
McLarnin
Ross
Lewis
Walcott

Disagree about Walker.

My top ten welters
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Emile Griffith
4. Kid Gavilan
5. Sugar Ray Leonard....the only reason he is not higher ar this weight is because not enough longevity in his prime. Very short prime. Otherwise, extraordinary as they come
6. Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles
7. Barbados Joe Walcott
8. Carmen Basilio
9. Ted "Kid" Lewis
10. Luis Manuel Rodriguez

I do not know if the great Thomas "The Hitman" Hearns belongs in the top ten welterweights. All he did was knocking out Pipino Cuevas.

Rodriguez was better than Griffith.

elmersalsa wrote:I do not know if the great Thomas "The Hitman" Hearns belongs in the top ten welterweights. All he did was knocking out Pipino Cuevas.

He did a bit more than that, Shields and Weston were solid wins and the loss to Leonard is a positive. Sadly, I agree his resume doesn't warrant inclusion.