BoxRec

guys like leonard or duran are basicly always in a top 10, by boxing experts of fans, now mayweather is in the top 10.

but hearns seems always to be rated around 11-25, which is low to me.

lets look closer.

hearns went 32-0 against leonard. in a fight were hearns was winning on judges scorecards against a prime leonard, with only half a minute or so, before being tko'd, which in my eyes wasnt a tko. to me hearns won the fight and the ref took the tko to early, hearns was standing could still protect himself and would the ref had do nothing, maybe he would have been knocked down, but i am sure, he would have survived the 30 secondes to win the fight, being ahead on all scorecards. with the win over leonard I he would have had a 40-0 career, beating leonard, benitez, duran and than going into the fight with hagler, losing clearly. the second leonard fight, even leonard said, that he thought hearns won it fair. so, basicly to me prime hearns always won against prime leonard! 46-1 against barkley, in a division were he still wasnt at his best, what was welterweight-154.

all i am saying is, had they giving the first and the second fight to the deserving one, that is hearns, than hearns would be easily rated as an top 8 p4p ever, what i think is were he should stand. around welterweight and 154 i barely no any name who couldve beat him, maybe prime robinson at 154, young roy jones jr, who had 1-2 fights at 154, but other than robinson or jones (who are 1 and 2 in my best ever list) i dont know any guys who wouldve beat him, certainly not the way to small pacquiao or at welterweight feather fisted mayweather. hearns would have smashed them senseless.

it is obvious that with 2 wins, one over prime leonard and the other over past prime leonard and win over benitez and duran, plus an overall great career that top 5 would have been the spot for him.

I don;t have Leonard,Hearns or Floyd in my top 10.
Not that all 3 are not all time greats.It is just that the top 10 out of 1000's upon 1000's of
boxers is a hard place to crack.
Just being in the top 100 is such an awesome feat and a feat in which any pro should be proud of.

tiny_acres wrote:I don;t have Leonard,Hearns or Floyd in my top 10.
Not that all 3 are not all time greats.It is just that the top 10 out of 1000's upon 1000's of
boxers is a hard place to crack.
Just being in the top 100 is such an awesome feat and a feat in which any pro should be proud of.

if you have only old timers in your top 10, who have 134-23-4 type of records, with 85 % of opponents being sparring sessions against guys with 9-12-1 records, than i can see why you do not have floyd, hearns, leonard in your top 10, even so all 3 are 100 times more athletic and box better than 99 % of your old atg's...

Chepppaaa wrote:hearns went 32-0 against leonard. in a fight were hearns was winning on judges scorecards against a prime leonard, with only half a minute or so, before being tko'd, which in my eyes wasnt a tko. to me hearns won the fight and the ref took the tko to early, hearns was standing could still protect himself and would the ref had do nothing, maybe he would have been knocked down, but i am sure, he would have survived the 30 secondes to win the fight, being ahead on all scorecards. with the win over leonard I he would have had a 40-0 career, beating leonard, benitez, duran and than going into the fight with hagler, losing clearly. the second leonard fight, even leonard said, that he thought hearns won it fair. so, basicly to me prime hearns always won against prime leonard! 46-1 against barkley, in a division were he still wasnt at his best, what was welterweight-154.

all i am saying is, had they giving the first and the second fight to the deserving one, that is hearns, than hearns would be easily rated as an top 8 p4p ever, what i think is were he should stand. around welterweight and 154 i barely no any name who couldve beat him, maybe prime robinson at 154, young roy jones jr, who had 1-2 fights at 154, but other than robinson or jones (who are 1 and 2 in my best ever list) i dont know any guys who wouldve beat him, certainly not the way to small pacquiao or at welterweight feather fisted mayweather. hearns would have smashed them senseless.

it is obvious that with 2 wins, one over prime leonard and the other over past prime leonard and win over benitez and duran, plus an overall great career that top 5 would have been the spot for him.

You need to reevaluate your take on Hearns vs Leonard I. Hearns was stopped in the 14th round with one round left to go. He didn't have only 30 seconds to survive, he'd have to survive 30 plus the entire next round when it was obvious he had nothing left at all. The second fight Hearns clearly won and was robbed but neither fighter was in their prime as you said so it meant less anyway. Had he won both fights, his ranking would be on the fringe of top ten.

And most fans have Floyd more like in the top 25(in Hearns range) rather than the top 10(where only the Floyd diehards would have him). From an overall perspective, I think Hearns is better than Floyd due to the competition level and would easily beat Floyd H2H but Floyd's 0 is probably enough to give him a small edge in the eyes of most as far as overall ranking. Hearns is ranked fairly though in my view.

The 11-25 range seems about right, but that's not to say he wasn't a bloody legend. Sensational fight, shame about his durability.

HitBattousai wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:hearns went 32-0 against leonard. in a fight were hearns was winning on judges scorecards against a prime leonard, with only half a minute or so, before being tko'd, which in my eyes wasnt a tko. to me hearns won the fight and the ref took the tko to early, hearns was standing could still protect himself and would the ref had do nothing, maybe he would have been knocked down, but i am sure, he would have survived the 30 secondes to win the fight, being ahead on all scorecards. with the win over leonard I he would have had a 40-0 career, beating leonard, benitez, duran and than going into the fight with hagler, losing clearly. the second leonard fight, even leonard said, that he thought hearns won it fair. so, basicly to me prime hearns always won against prime leonard! 46-1 against barkley, in a division were he still wasnt at his best, what was welterweight-154.

all i am saying is, had they giving the first and the second fight to the deserving one, that is hearns, than hearns would be easily rated as an top 8 p4p ever, what i think is were he should stand. around welterweight and 154 i barely no any name who couldve beat him, maybe prime robinson at 154, young roy jones jr, who had 1-2 fights at 154, but other than robinson or jones (who are 1 and 2 in my best ever list) i dont know any guys who wouldve beat him, certainly not the way to small pacquiao or at welterweight feather fisted mayweather. hearns would have smashed them senseless.

it is obvious that with 2 wins, one over prime leonard and the other over past prime leonard and win over benitez and duran, plus an overall great career that top 5 would have been the spot for him.

You need to reevaluate your take on Hearns vs Leonard I. Hearns was stopped in the 14th round with one round left to go. He didn't have only 30 seconds to survive, he'd have to survive 30 plus the entire next round when it was obvious he had nothing left at all. The second fight Hearns clearly won and was robbed but neither fighter was in their prime as you said so it meant less anyway. Had he won both fights, his ranking would be on the fringe of top ten.

And most fans have Floyd more like in the top 25(in Hearns range) rather than the top 10(where only the Floyd diehards would have him). From an overall perspective, I think Hearns is better than Floyd due to the competition level and would easily beat Floyd H2H but Floyd's 0 is probably enough to give him a small edge in the eyes of most as far as overall ranking. Hearns is ranked fairly though in my view.

Floyd's 0 has little to nothing to do with why people favor him, it's all about his undeniable attributes:
Great defense, speed, chin, conditioning, timing, heart and ability to adjust.

I agree with Cheppaa regarding people who only have old time fighters in their top 10.

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.

KBB wrote:

HitBattousai wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:hearns went 32-0 against leonard. in a fight were hearns was winning on judges scorecards against a prime leonard, with only half a minute or so, before being tko'd, which in my eyes wasnt a tko. to me hearns won the fight and the ref took the tko to early, hearns was standing could still protect himself and would the ref had do nothing, maybe he would have been knocked down, but i am sure, he would have survived the 30 secondes to win the fight, being ahead on all scorecards. with the win over leonard I he would have had a 40-0 career, beating leonard, benitez, duran and than going into the fight with hagler, losing clearly. the second leonard fight, even leonard said, that he thought hearns won it fair. so, basicly to me prime hearns always won against prime leonard! 46-1 against barkley, in a division were he still wasnt at his best, what was welterweight-154.

all i am saying is, had they giving the first and the second fight to the deserving one, that is hearns, than hearns would be easily rated as an top 8 p4p ever, what i think is were he should stand. around welterweight and 154 i barely no any name who couldve beat him, maybe prime robinson at 154, young roy jones jr, who had 1-2 fights at 154, but other than robinson or jones (who are 1 and 2 in my best ever list) i dont know any guys who wouldve beat him, certainly not the way to small pacquiao or at welterweight feather fisted mayweather. hearns would have smashed them senseless.

it is obvious that with 2 wins, one over prime leonard and the other over past prime leonard and win over benitez and duran, plus an overall great career that top 5 would have been the spot for him.

You need to reevaluate your take on Hearns vs Leonard I. Hearns was stopped in the 14th round with one round left to go. He didn't have only 30 seconds to survive, he'd have to survive 30 plus the entire next round when it was obvious he had nothing left at all. The second fight Hearns clearly won and was robbed but neither fighter was in their prime as you said so it meant less anyway. Had he won both fights, his ranking would be on the fringe of top ten.

And most fans have Floyd more like in the top 25(in Hearns range) rather than the top 10(where only the Floyd diehards would have him). From an overall perspective, I think Hearns is better than Floyd due to the competition level and would easily beat Floyd H2H but Floyd's 0 is probably enough to give him a small edge in the eyes of most as far as overall ranking. Hearns is ranked fairly though in my view.

Floyd's 0 has little to nothing to do with why people favor him, it's all about his undeniable attributes:
Great defense, speed, chin, conditioning, timing, heart and ability to adjust.

I agree with Cheppaa regarding people who only have old time fighters in their top 10.

good point kbb....i have also floyd in the top 10 simply based on him being the best defensive boxer ever, theres no doubt. also in every other area is high

jas80s wrote: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.

Chepppaaa wrote:

jas80s wrote: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.

Jack Johnson get real.. Best win after 160 was Virgil Hill. Thomas Hearns was dominant at 147, 154

At 160 or above Hearns was known more for his shaky chin and weak legs. The Hagler fight took a lot out of him.

Saying Hearns was better than a dominant heavyweight in his era Jack Johnson that's a stretch of the imagination.

I don't give a shite about mythical rankings & D&D style points systems for guys who would never have been able to fight each other:

The Hitman fvcking ruled, & was my favourite fighter ever.

Whilst this response might preclude me from sitting back with my arms folded having scored intellectual boxing nerd points, I don't care. He wasn't that kinda fighter. He was fvcking awesome & it was a privilege to have caught the tail-end of his greatness (drawing with Leonard, beating Hill & gaining a degree of moral satisfaction by going close with Barkley in the rematch), even though I was a kid.

Tommy was/is my fave too. Never saw him out-boxed. Not even by Ray.

The most entertaining fighter I've ever seen. And one of the greatest too. I don't think there's been a welterweight since who could have beaten him. Not DLH, not Trinidad, not Mayweather...

I think that it's a fair question from the OP even though some of his facts supporting his case is a bit off. First off, most knowledgeable fans growing up in that era don't need to look at the statistics to know how great The Hit Man was. He was one scary dude coming up. The thing that hurts Tommy Hearns legacy is that when someone mentions his name, the first thing that comes to mind is Hagler knocking him out. Then you think of Sugar Ray Leonard knocking him silly on the ropes. Two huge defeats in his two biggest fights are the first things that pop to mind.

Tommy Hearns belongs in the HOF and should be considered a top 7 Welterweight of all time. Case Closed.

It is all just opinion.
I don't think anyone here does not think Tommy was awesome.
But where he lies on the all time list is so subjective.It is nothing but
personal preference of a fighters style and how we view things.
I don't have a problem if someone listed him 6th or 25th it is just a freaking opinion.
And none of us will agree on it

Chepppaaa wrote:
good point kbb....i have also floyd in the top 10 simply based on him being the best defensive boxer ever, theres no doubt. also in every other area is high

Hearns definitely fought and beat the better competition. Hearns beating Duran in the manner he did is better than anything on Floyd's resume including his victory over Pacquiao. Never been outboxed. Only lost in his prime to legends Floyd wouldn't have beaten at his best.

HitBattousai wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:hearns went 32-0 against leonard. in a fight were hearns was winning on judges scorecards against a prime leonard, with only half a minute or so, before being tko'd, which in my eyes wasnt a tko. to me hearns won the fight and the ref took the tko to early, hearns was standing could still protect himself and would the ref had do nothing, maybe he would have been knocked down, but i am sure, he would have survived the 30 secondes to win the fight, being ahead on all scorecards. with the win over leonard I he would have had a 40-0 career, beating leonard, benitez, duran and than going into the fight with hagler, losing clearly. the second leonard fight, even leonard said, that he thought hearns won it fair. so, basicly to me prime hearns always won against prime leonard! 46-1 against barkley, in a division were he still wasnt at his best, what was welterweight-154.

all i am saying is, had they giving the first and the second fight to the deserving one, that is hearns, than hearns would be easily rated as an top 8 p4p ever, what i think is were he should stand. around welterweight and 154 i barely no any name who couldve beat him, maybe prime robinson at 154, young roy jones jr, who had 1-2 fights at 154, but other than robinson or jones (who are 1 and 2 in my best ever list) i dont know any guys who wouldve beat him, certainly not the way to small pacquiao or at welterweight feather fisted mayweather. hearns would have smashed them senseless.

it is obvious that with 2 wins, one over prime leonard and the other over past prime leonard and win over benitez and duran, plus an overall great career that top 5 would have been the spot for him.

You need to reevaluate your take on Hearns vs Leonard I. Hearns was stopped in the 14th round with one round left to go. He didn't have only 30 seconds to survive, he'd have to survive 30 plus the entire next round when it was obvious he had nothing left at all. The second fight Hearns clearly won and was robbed but neither fighter was in their prime as you said so it meant less anyway. Had he won both fights, his ranking would be on the fringe of top ten.

And most fans have Floyd more like in the top 25(in Hearns range) rather than the top 10(where only the Floyd diehards would have him). From an overall perspective, I think Hearns is better than Floyd due to the competition level and would easily beat Floyd H2H but Floyd's 0 is probably enough to give him a small edge in the eyes of most as far as overall ranking. Hearns is ranked fairly though in my view.

Excellent post. Hearns is my all-time favourite boxer and SRL beat him fair and square in their first encounter. Hearns was undoubtedly robbed in the rematch, although seeing as both were past-prime, it should have less weight in rating them. Hearns is underrated by some - ESPN puts him at #37 of all-time, which is very harsh. I've never accused anyone of overrating Hearns, although if you're putting him in the all-time top 10, I think you are. I'd have him somewhere in the 15-20 range, which I think is fair.

caldo2025 wrote:I think that it's a fair question from the OP even though some of his facts supporting his case is a bit off. First off, most knowledgeable fans growing up in that era don't need to look at the statistics to know how great The Hit Man was. He was one scary dude coming up. The thing that hurts Tommy Hearns legacy is that when someone mentions his name, the first thing that comes to mind is Hagler knocking him out. Then you think of Sugar Ray Leonard knocking him silly on the ropes. Two huge defeats in his two biggest fights are the first things that pop to mind.

Tommy Hearns belongs in the HOF and should be considered a top 7 Welterweight of all time. Case Closed.

I agree. Your post is pretty much spot on how I saw it. Tommy Hearns is one of my top 5 all time favorite fighters ever. Followed his career and saw just about every Hearns fight on T.V back in the day. Loved watching him fight great memories. Even though Tommy lost to Hagler. I can remember where I was on that day and who was there watching the fight. The first and second Leonard fights. The fight against Shuler. The fight against Hutching's, The Barkley fights. Tommy always seemed to bounce back. Tommy plays a big part in my Boxing Pastime.

And being a little objective about Hearns career in general.

Hind sight is 20\20, like they say. If Hearns vs SRL 1 was 12 rounds, Hearns would have won, and doubt is SRL would have gotten the Hagler fight.
The 2nd fight was clearly won by Hearns, and SRL admits that.

Marciano would have lost to Walcott if 12 rounds too. Hind sight can go on and on.

Personally I rank Hearns equal or above SRL.

Chepppaaa wrote:

jas80s wrote: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.

Youre quite mad. Johnson would have destroyed hearns, he was a proper heavyweight.

Ezzard wrote:Tommy was/is my fave too. Never saw him out-boxed. Not even by Ray.

The most entertaining fighter I've ever seen. And one of the greatest too. I don't think there's been a welterweight since who could have beaten him. Not DLH, not Trinidad, not Mayweather...

I'd have given Trinidad a chance, Tommy could be hurt, and Trinidad sure could punch. I'd have made Tommy a big favourite though.

DLH and Floyd, zero chance. Floyd would have been kept negative all night and would never have gotten near Tommy, and DLH would have been absolutely smashed to pieces, Oscar relied on his chin a lot in the biggest fights, nobody, but nobody could afford to do that against Tommy. It would have been a brutal beatdown and eventual stoppage.

MachoTime wrote: I agree. Your post is pretty much spot on how I saw it. Tommy Hearns is one of my top 5 all time favorite fighters ever. Followed his career and saw just about every Hearns fight on T.V back in the day. Loved watching him fight great memories. Even though Tommy lost to Hagler. I can remember where I was on that day and who was there watching the fight. The first and second Leonard fights. The fight against Shuler. The fight against Hutching's, The Barkley fights. Tommy always seemed to bounce back. Tommy plays a big part in my Boxing Pastime.

And being a little objective about Hearns career in general.

As a fan, I'm sure that you watched that Legendary Nights special on the Hagler/Hearns fight. Manny Stewart refers to Tommy's prefight entourage in the dressing room rubbing down his legs and he almost lost his mind because I guess that's not the best thing to do to a boxer. Manny has used that excuse in several interviews as the reason why Tommy's legs went to jelly in the fight. I don't exactly buy it but I'll never question Manny's knowledge. I just can't see how anyone could withstand that pace those two put on from the first second of that fight. The first big right that Tommy landed on Hagler in the first 30 seconds of the fight was the first time that I've ever seen Hagler hurt and dazed off balance. How he stood up after that is beyond me. What a fight. I do hate to see Tommy's speech slurred as a result of the damage he took in that ring. It's pretty sad to see happen to a guy that was well spoken and such a tremendous boxer.

caldo2025 wrote:

MachoTime wrote: I agree. Your post is pretty much spot on how I saw it. Tommy Hearns is one of my top 5 all time favorite fighters ever. Followed his career and saw just about every Hearns fight on T.V back in the day. Loved watching him fight great memories. Even though Tommy lost to Hagler. I can remember where I was on that day and who was there watching the fight. The first and second Leonard fights. The fight against Shuler. The fight against Hutching's, The Barkley fights. Tommy always seemed to bounce back. Tommy plays a big part in my Boxing Pastime.

And being a little objective about Hearns career in general.

As a fan, I'm sure that you watched that Legendary Nights special on the Hagler/Hearns fight. Manny Stewart refers to Tommy's prefight entourage in the dressing room rubbing down his legs and he almost lost his mind because I guess that's not the best thing to do to a boxer. Manny has used that excuse in several interviews as the reason why Tommy's legs went to jelly in the fight. I don't exactly buy it but I'll never question Manny's knowledge. I just can't see how anyone could withstand that pace those two put on from the first second of that fight. The first big right that Tommy landed on Hagler in the first 30 seconds of the fight was the first time that I've ever seen Hagler hurt and dazed off balance. How he stood up after that is beyond me. What a fight. I do hate to see Tommy's speech slurred as a result of the damage he took in that ring. It's pretty sad to see happen to a guy that was well spoken and such a tremendous boxer.

Tommy's problem, was that after that intial big shot, he was simply unable to hurt Hagler again, he landed several other monster right hands, but Hagler just eat them up like candy, and kept on storming forward.

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

I love Hearns too,i cant see there being many boxing fans who dont,he has 1 of the most fan friendly styles of all time,partly due to the fact he can be hurt but what power,he's a one off it seems at WW,tall and lean and arguably the biggest punching welter ever,1 punch and its curtains,TBH i have only seen the big fights of his as he was before my time although ive never seen the Barkley fights or the Hill fight but both Leonard fights,Hagler,Duran and Cuevas were brutal

Is it true has wasnt a puncher in the ams?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

jas80s wrote: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.

Youre quite mad. Johnson would have destroyed hearns, he was a proper heavyweight.

idiot....p4p hearns beats johnson any day

Calm down junior. Drink your milk and go have a little nap.