BoxRec

On June 15th, 1984, at Caesars Palace, Las Vegas, NV, the great Thomas "The Hitman" Hearns got his greatest victory of his illustrious career when he DECAPITATED the great Roberto Duran in only 2 rounds!

I am a Duran fan and I have to admit that it was a great win for Tommy, but, Duran was past his prime and in the wrong weight class. The weight class was too much for him. He was in his last hurrahs in the 80s. But, boy, what a knockout!

I wonder if any jr. middleweight in history would have withstand that barrage and power. I can't see a jr. middleweight beating Tommy that night. Just a few. Maybe the great Mike McCallum would have beaten him. Other fighter at that weight class? I don't think so. Tommy was at the perfect weight class. He looked stronger there. Put the great Sugar Ray Leonard that fought Kevin Howard in that night in Vegas and he would have also been crushed by the Hitman. Tommy at 154lbs was a monster. He looked like he could have stop a couple of good middleweights, too.

What you guys think of a Hearns vs Leonard rematch at 154 lbs? My heart would have been with Sugar Ray (he was one of my favorites fighters), but my money, goes with Tommy.

I would pick Hearns over anyone at 154.

That Hearns would have decapitated Mccallum too. Roberto was a defensive master and had only been on the floor twice in a 81 fight career when Tommy did that to him. Mccallum could be a slow trundler and Tommy was blisteringly fast and confident that night. Mccallum would have been put out like a light

I love Hearns but would back McCallum if it were 15 rounds. Too many times I’ve seen the iron jaw defeat the super human puncher. Totally open to being wrong though. I think Hearns would have beaten Leonard too. Not definitely of course but probably. Can’t think of anyone else at 154 I’d give a chance too… maybe Duran on the night he beat Moore…

Ezzard wrote:I love Hearns but would back McCallum if it were 15 rounds. Too many times I’ve seen the iron jaw defeat the super human puncher. Totally open to being wrong though. I think Hearns would have beaten Leonard too. Not definitely of course but probably. Can’t think of anyone else at 154 I’d give a chance too… maybe Duran on the night he beat Moore…

I'd take McCallum also.

In short fights, McCallum got tagged with big shots from Julian Jackson and Donald Curry, but recovered almost immediately. If McCallum could make it into the second half of a fight with Hearns, his chances would noticeable improve.

The Night That Tommy Destroyed Duran.......was a once in a lifetime fluke. Ok maybe just short of that, since this was not a prime for prime matchup. But I don't think he could have performed that miracle twice.

BoxBuzz wrote:The Night That Tommy Destroyed Duran.......was a once in a lifetime fluke. Ok maybe just short of that, since this was not a prime for prime matchup. But I don't think he could have performed that miracle twice.

i do think that tommy beats duran at 154lbs 99 out of 100 times

but you are right this massacre would never be repeated

There are credible stories that Duran barely trained for the Hearns fight. Anyone privy to the real story?

I think McCallum would be a very close fight and could go either way.

Julian Jackson would always have the potential to do to Hearns, what Barkley did.

I'd take Leonard to beat him again at 154, again by stoppage.

I think Winky Wright has the tools to pull of an upset.

And in 5 years time, I'll come back and post that Canelo would have beaten him.

Winky would have zero chance.

Benvenuti would be an interesting fight.

This is what I love about boxing, the uncertainty of it all. Duran beat Leonard, lost to Hearns in devestating fashion, lost a narrow decision to Hagler. Leonard lost to Duran, beat Hearns, and won a controversial decision over Hagler. Hagler kayos Hearns, narrowly beats Duran, loses a controversial decision to Leonard. Same deal with the 1970s and the heavyweight division: Frazier went 1-2 with Ali, Norton went 1-2 with Ali, Foreman kayos Frazier twice and kayos Norton and loses to Ali, Ali beats all three. Nothing is ever certain.

As for the junior middleweight question.... that's a tough one, but if I could pick one man it would have to of been someone like Ezzard Charles or Billy Conn, who were in that age where junior middleweight didnt exist but they fought as low as that; or someone like Mickey Walker.

HomicideHenry wrote:This is what I love about boxing, the uncertainty of it all. Duran beat Leonard, lost to Hearns in devestating fashion, lost a narrow decision to Hagler. Leonard lost to Duran, beat Hearns, and won a controversial decision over Hagler. Hagler kayos Hearns, narrowly beats Duran, loses a controversial decision to Leonard. Same deal with the 1970s and the heavyweight division: Frazier went 1-2 with Ali, Norton went 1-2 with Ali, Foreman kayos Frazier twice and kayos Norton and loses to Ali, Ali beats all three. Nothing is ever certain.

As for the junior middleweight question.... that's a tough one, but if I could pick one man it would have to of been someone like Ezzard Charles or Billy Conn, who were in that age where junior middleweight didnt exist but they fought as low as that; or someone like Mickey Walker.

and your point is?
breathe slow and count to ten


1, 2 , 3 ,6, 4, 5 , 7

oops

thats the problem my friend

Duran beat Leonard, THEN lost him in a pretty famous schooling
One man Ezzard (jr MW!!!!!!! - really) or Conn my pick Walker

c'mon HH, I hope you are better than this?

because that is either "I've had a few pints" "bollx" or both

All I am saying was Duran was such an awesome talent it was almost incredible that Tommy knocked him out. Duran proved his worth against Buchanan, Leonard and Hagler, and others but this was still amazing. The fact that Hearns beat Duran by knockout, almost toppled Hagler in one of the greatest fights of all time, and was robbed against Leonard in their rematch is a highly ridiculous success rate. That's all I was pointing out; with guys that great you never do know what the results will end up being.

As for Charles, Conn and Walker; I don't understand what you're pissing and moaning about? If you're meaning a 'Junior Middleweight Champion', then no, nobody is out there that I can name to of ever beaten Tommy Hearns. BUT, that wasn't what was asked. What was asked was is there anyone in and around 154 to of ever beaten Hearns; those are my picks.

Conn would have been like 17 or 18 years old. I don't like his chances.

HomicideHenry wrote: As for the junior middleweight question.... that's a tough one, but if I could pick one man it would have to of been someone like Ezzard Charles or Billy Conn, who were in that age where junior middleweight didnt exist but they fought as low as that; or someone like Mickey Walker.

this is what you typed
and it is nonsense

i don't challenge your passion
but don't ignore what you wrote

just a "MY bad" would suffice

Ezzard Charles at LMW

Mind you Charles was a middleweight for a long time, often fighting as low as 154 against guys like Moore and Burley. Conn on the other hand, was also a middleweight for a long time, and even when he fought as a heavyweight he was super middleweight-small light heavyweight in size. Walker on the other hand was welterweight and middleweight champion (s), and a contender at 175 and heavyweight. I'd have to re-look at the weights, but I am sure Conn was a capable middleweight even when he was that low in weight.

Middleweight and Jr Middleweight are different divisions.

yes but very early in his career
then after 1942
poundage went on and a future HOF was born

si7dog7 wrote:yes but very early in his career
then after 1942
poundage went on and a future HOF was born

Yeah, a teenage Conn isn't beating Tommy Hearns. Not to mention it's a bad fight for him stylistically. Nobody ever came close to out-boxing Tommy.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Middleweight and Jr Middleweight are different divisions.

I know this, but it wasn't until the last 30 years or so the division was even around. In Conn's time a middleweight was someone who was 148-160 and light heavyweight was 161-175. Those divisions didnt exist yet, so in that case, I think he's buyable in this hypothetical scenario if you put Tommy in Conn's time.

I don't have an issue with using fighters from a time without the divisions, but, without looking at his record, I think Billy was closer to 160 for his best results at Middleweight. If you want to place him there hypothetically that's fine, it's just a bit much to have him cutting more weight. Too young and inexperienced to deal with Tommy and the style sucks for him anyway.

Conn at his debut was 136 pounds (1934) as the records show; he fought in and around 154 until 1936, from 1934-1936 he had a record of 24 wins-6 losses-1 draw. Not long after his last appearance at 154 pounds, (two fights later) he beat Fitzie Zivic and Babe Risko by decision. Not really the stuff that staggers the imagination, but he was clearly slick enough and tough enough to fight (in today's terms) through 5 weight classes in two years time from '34-36. HOWEVER, mind you, in his day there were but 8 weight divisions, and Conn is among RING magazine's top 20 middleweights of all time list based on his work from 1935-1939 (when he left the middlweight division for good). I can imagine today he had the capability to of fought and become a world champion at 154, 160, 168, and 175. Also, in Conn's day guys fought on same-day weigh-in's, today guys rehydrate. That would also make a difference in a Conn/Hearns fight because I believe when Hearns fought Duran, they were doing the dehydration-rehydration process.

Roy Jones turned pro at 154.

Would many people pick Jones to beat Hearns in their respective(relative) primes, at MW?

But...

Would anyone pick Jones over Hearns at 154, Jones being at the beginning of his career and Hearns being at that part(the night he KO'd Duran)?

I think the answers to those questions are mainly the fault people are finding with your scenario.

HomicideHenry wrote:Conn at his debut was 136 pounds (1934) as the records show; he fought in and around 154 until 1936, from 1934-1936 he had a record of 24 wins-6 losses-1 draw. Not long after his last appearance at 154 pounds, (two fights later) he beat Fitzie Zivic and Babe Risko by decision. Not really the stuff that staggers the imagination, but he was clearly slick enough and tough enough to fight (in today's terms) through 5 weight classes in two years time from '34-36. HOWEVER, mind you, in his day there were but 8 weight divisions, and Conn is among RING magazine's top 20 middleweights of all time list based on his work from 1935-1939 (when he left the middlweight division for good). I can imagine today he had the capability to of fought and become a world champion at 154, 160, 168, and 175. Also, in Conn's day guys fought on same-day weigh-in's, today guys rehydrate. That would also make a difference in a Conn/Hearns fight because I believe when Hearns fought Duran, they were doing the dehydration-rehydration process.

You just outlined my point, he wasn't yet the fighter he would become. Hearns would have waxed him.