The case for FLOYD as the best ever!

[hurlock]

I think how mayweather is now at welter he could of beat most of the greats.
Thing is the best hearns wasn't at welter.its hard with these comparisons you need to see what age,stage of there career & they probably wouldn't match up.

[Deserter]

I think how mayweather is now at welter he could of beat most of the greats.
Thing is the best hearns wasn't at welter.its hard with these comparisons you need to see what age,stage of there career & they probably wouldn't match up.

Why do you think the best Hearns wasn't at Welter? He was an absolute destroyer there and smashed everyone until that classic with Leonard that he was winning until Leonard stopped him in the 14th.

[loaded_gloves]

Floyd Mayweather beats Tommy Hearns at welterweight?

I can only shake my head in disbelief.

[Tom Ford]

Floyd Mayweather beats Tommy Hearns at welterweight?

I can only shake my head in disbelief.

Shake away, the only true great ( Floyd is a great) that Hearns fought at Welter beat him.
Floyd would outsmart him.

[palooka]

I think how mayweather is now at welter he could of beat most of the greats.
Thing is the best hearns wasn't at welter.its hard with these comparisons you need to see what age,stage of there career & they probably wouldn't match up.

Why do you think the best Hearns wasn't at Welter? He was an absolute destroyer there and smashed everyone until that classic with Leonard that he was winning until Leonard stopped him in the 14th.

Hearns had the best physical advantages; including shocking power; at welter but was a very young man when champion and he learned to be a far more effective boxer later in his career.

[Deserter]

I think how mayweather is now at welter he could of beat most of the greats.
Thing is the best hearns wasn't at welter.its hard with these comparisons you need to see what age,stage of there career & they probably wouldn't match up.

Why do you think the best Hearns wasn't at Welter? He was an absolute destroyer there and smashed everyone until that classic with Leonard that he was winning until Leonard stopped him in the 14th.

Hearns had the best physical advantages; including shocking power; at welter but was a very young man when champion and he learned to be a far more effective boxer later in his career.

I'm not sure I buy that argument mate. Hearns boxed masterfully at times against Leonard. I'm struggling to think of later performances that genuinely highlighted a significant improvement in his boxing abilities.

[palooka]

Benitez, Duran, Shuler, Leonard 2, Olajide, Hill and Maynard - Hearns learned to pace himself, hold when needed and still showed he could set up and deliver crunching blows.

[Deserter]

Benitez, Duran, Shuler, Leonard 2, Olajide, Hill and Maynard - Hearns learned to pace himself, hold when needed and still showed he could set up and deliver crunching blows.

Benitez was the only one that sprung to mind but that just a year later. Duran and Shuler were just replicas of exactly what he was doing at Welter with devastating early KO's - hardly case studies of greatly improved boxing.
The latter examples were all against weaker opponents (including that version of Leonard) and Hill in particular 'froze' on the night.
If you're talking about all-round assets, I believe he was definitely strongest at Welter - whatever he'd learned in pacing etc was more than offset by the loss of the physical advantages he had at that weight, not to mention the mental aspect i.e. part of the reason for his pacing etc was his awareness of his vulnerabilities, which in some aspects made him more vulnerable.

[palooka]

Benitez, Duran, Shuler, Leonard 2, Olajide, Hill and Maynard - Hearns learned to pace himself, hold when needed and still showed he could set up and deliver crunching blows.

Benitez was the only one that sprung to mind but that just a year later. Duran and Shuler were just replicas of exactly what he was doing at Welter with devastating early KO's - hardly case studies of greatly improved boxing.
The latter examples were all against weaker opponents (including that version of Leonard) and Hill in particular 'froze' on the night.
If you're talking about all-round assets, I believe he was definitely strongest at Welter - whatever he'd learned in pacing etc was more than offset by the loss of the physical advantages he had at that weight, not to mention the mental aspect i.e. part of the reason for his pacing etc was his awareness of his vulnerabilities, which in some aspects made him more vulnerable.

Thanks for a considered response I take on board that much of Hearns' prowess was instinctive and based around superior physical characteristics; there is a real skill to boxing though and experience and reflection plays a big part. Though Tommy did blow away some later opponents they certainly knew what was coming - lots of his earlier blowouts didn't know what was coming and didn't have the skill to avoid it. Hearns did learn to box better and though his opponents at the heavier weights negated his physical advantages he did pretty good against some good men.

[Deserter]

Benitez, Duran, Shuler, Leonard 2, Olajide, Hill and Maynard - Hearns learned to pace himself, hold when needed and still showed he could set up and deliver crunching blows.

Benitez was the only one that sprung to mind but that just a year later. Duran and Shuler were just replicas of exactly what he was doing at Welter with devastating early KO's - hardly case studies of greatly improved boxing.
The latter examples were all against weaker opponents (including that version of Leonard) and Hill in particular 'froze' on the night.
If you're talking about all-round assets, I believe he was definitely strongest at Welter - whatever he'd learned in pacing etc was more than offset by the loss of the physical advantages he had at that weight, not to mention the mental aspect i.e. part of the reason for his pacing etc was his awareness of his vulnerabilities, which in some aspects made him more vulnerable.

Thanks for a considered response I take on board that much of Hearns' prowess was instinctive and based around superior physical characteristics; there is a real skill to boxing though and experience and reflection plays a big part. Though Tommy did blow away some later opponents they certainly knew what was coming - lots of his earlier blowouts didn't know what was coming and didn't have the skill to avoid it. Hearns did learn to box better and though his opponents at the heavier weights negated his physical advantages he did pretty good against some good men.

I completely understand where you're coming from mate, but ultimately, if you could only enter one version of Hearns in an ATG 'tournament', which version would you pick? I'm willing to bet it wasn't the super-middle or light-heavy version even if he boxed 'smarter' by that point

[hurlock]

Hearns was 23 when he fought srl in 81 his last at welter I believe at the same age mayweather was still super feather & facing Emmanuel burton.
Hearns prime was against benetez & Duran ok great names at welter piping cuevas etc. but he was a boy obviously he was more rounded with age expieriance etc.

I have stated that these greats don't match up together when you put them together with there ages hearns & Leonard were too big for floyd
Hearns did have a tremendous jab which knowbody has posted so far. I think with manny in his corner they would of won either points or stoppage

[NazNaci1]

Tommy hearns was not exactly elusive of sturdy.
Floyd would beat him.

Yeah, Floyd may beat him, say 1 out of 10. The rest, Tommy wins and wins in a variety of ways.

[Tom Ford]

Tommy hearns was not exactly elusive of sturdy.
Floyd would beat him.

Yeah, Floyd may beat him, say 1 out of 10. The rest, Tommy wins and wins in a variety of ways.

Tommy can only win one way, by ko. Floyd adjusts too well.

Mayweather 117-112

[NazNaci1]

Tommy hearns was not exactly elusive of sturdy.
Floyd would beat him.

Yeah, Floyd may beat him, say 1 out of 10. The rest, Tommy wins and wins in a variety of ways.

Tommy can only win one way, by ko.....

[Tom Ford]

Tommy can only win one way, by ko.....

[/quote]

[NazNaci1]

Tommy can only win one way, by ko.....

[/quote]
Care to explain why Tommy can win only one way? Considering he has reach, power, speed, combinations, a better jab than Mayweather.

How many Hearns fights have you watched, exactly?

[Tom Ford]

Tommy can only win one way, by ko.....

Care to explain why Tommy can win only one way? Considering he has reach, power, speed, combinations, a better jab than Mayweather.

How many Hearns fights have you watched, exactly?[/quote]

2 fights. Hagler and Barkley.

Floyd is too smart in the ring.

[NazNaci1]

If that's how you reached your opinion, then best we leave it there

[Tom Ford]

If that's how you reached your opinion, then best we leave it there

And Leonard 1.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Hearns was 23 when he fought srl in 81 his last at welter I believe at the same age mayweather was still super feather & facing Emmanuel burton.
Hearns prime was against benetez & Duran ok great names at welter piping cuevas etc. but he was a boy obviously he was more rounded with age expieriance etc.

I have stated that these greats don't match up together when you put them together with there ages hearns & Leonard were too big for floyd
Hearns did have a tremendous jab which knowbody has posted so far. I think with manny in his corner they would of won either points or stoppage

Find it hard to envisage how Floyd wins this - Hearns outboxed leonard with his range and jab for much of the fight, and he was quick as hell - Leonard had to turn into the brawler to win, but Mayweather has never had the kind of killer instinct Leonard had, or certainly not at Welterweight.

The last destruction job Mayweather did was on Hatton - but Hatton was an also-ran at 147, respectively speaking - not even close to the level Hearns, Duran and Leonard operated at.

Hearns could have beaten Mayweather on points, no doubt, he could have moved and stuck and right handed him, chances are though, he'd have uncoiled that long right hand and left hook and beaten him down - if SRL hadn't been around, hard to see anyone who could have beaten Tommy at 147, outside of SRR. He was an absolute monster.

[loaded_gloves]

Tommy hearns was not exactly elusive of sturdy.
Floyd would beat him.

Yeah, Floyd may beat him, say 1 out of 10. The rest, Tommy wins and wins in a variety of ways.

Tommy can only win one way, by ko. Floyd adjusts too well.

Mayweather 117-112

Tom, boxing genius, what was the score after the first 12 rounds of Tommy Hearns vs the all-time great Sugar Ray Leonard?

Leonard of Benitez, Duran, Hagler, and, yes, Hearns immortality.

Now remind me of those boxing immortals, those true greats at the peak of their powers, that Floyd Mayweather has defeated?

Please name them, and expand upon why these victims were great.

[hurlock]

Corralles cut the weight poorly again fm made sure the chips where in his favour.
Most felt Castillo won the first encounter
Hair line decision v dlh. Who was inactive for 3 years prior prob in rehab

Demarcus Corley was a safe bet at l. Welter possibly weakest champ & he hurt fm.

Alvarez when you look at him his age amount of fights etc. he is manufactured wasnt long ago he was going full hog with Matthew hatton!! & an old Ryan fhodes who was once a visable challenger. But hatton should be getting spanked by elite fighters he aint no Dave boy green or tony sibson

[loaded_gloves]

Corralles cut the weight poorly again fm made sure the chips where in his favour.
Most felt Castillo won the first encounter
Hair line decision v dlh. Who was inactive for 3 years prior prob in rehab

Demarcus Corley was a safe bet at l. Welter possibly weakest champ & he hurt fm.

Alvarez when you look at him his age amount of fights etc. he is manufactured wasnt long ago he was going full hog with Matthew hatton!! & an old Ryan fhodes who was once a visable challenger. But hatton should be getting spanked by elite fighters he aint no Dave boy green or tony sibson

All the above are reasons why Floyd fights so sparingly against such carefully considered & handicapped opponents - while screaming about how great he is. Meanwhile Gods like Leonard, Hearns, Duran, and Hagler had already demonstrated Greatness beyond all doubt in the ring.

Please people, do not subordinate your tastes to the unanimous judgement of the simple minded Twitter & Youtube hashtag generation. Mentally these men are 4 and a half billion years behind, in the single cell floating-in-ooze phase.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Jesus, can you imagine if SRL had hand picked his opponents to the degree Mayweather did - he wouldn't have lost until he fought Norris. He'd have avoided Duran until he was older and fought the version he beat in fight two, he'd probably never have faced Hearns at all, and would he have faced Hagler after a four year layoff - no way!

[jessi]

Jesus, can you imagine if SRL had hand picked his opponents to the degree Mayweather did - he wouldn't have lost until he fought Norris. He'd have avoided Duran until he was older and fought the version he beat in fight two, he'd probably never have faced Hearns at all, and would he have faced Hagler after a four year layoff - no way!

Apart from pacman (who wouldn't take a drug test) who else in your opinion should have Floyd fought ?