BoxRec

What if Thomas "The Hitman" Hearns beaten the great Sugar Ray Leonard in their second meeting of June 7, 1989 that was tainted by a unjust draw?

Where in the top 100 pound per pound great boxers would Hearns be ranked if he had won the rematch?

I believe that Sugar Ray is above Tommy pound per pound and also in the welterweight rankings. But, how far you got one from the other at welterweight and pound per pound all time rankings?

Would Hearns have had a case to be above Leonard in the top 100 rankings? Here are some thoughts.

1. He beat Wilfred Benitez and Roberto Duran way better than Leonard did.

2. He had more KOs than Sugar Ray had fights.

3. He fought more often than Leonard. Sugar Ray fought only 7 times in the last 15 years of his career. By that time frame, Hearns had 28 fights!

4. Sugar Ray beat Donny Lalonde in a catchweight fight to win the Light-heavyweight title and super middleweight titles. Hearns beat Dennis Andries and Virgil Hill to become champion at 175lbs. Are both of these fighters better than Lalonde? Be true to yourselves.

5. Hearns challenged Marvelous at Marvelous heyday and prime. I can't say the same with Sugar Ray.

Like Hearns said, Leonard and I are in the same level. How much of that statement is true?

What would be the tie-breaker between the two?

Your opinions, please.

Not going to get into the crap about the decision being unjust.
Leanard beat Hagler after a huge layoff. Hearns got knocked out in three rounds against Hagler.
Not sure how in the world Hearns beat Benitez better than Leonard did.
Hearns also had the two losses to Iran Barkley. That hurts his case a lot.
Had Hearns won the 2nd fight, it would have been a little closer, but Leonard would still deserve to be rated higher.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑27 Aug 2024, 21:52 Not going to get into the crap about the decision being unjust.
Leanard beat Hagler after a huge layoff. Hearns got knocked out in three rounds against Hagler.
Not sure how in the world Hearns beat Benitez better than Leonard did.
Hearns also had the two losses to Iran Barkley. That hurts his case a lot.
Had Hearns won the 2nd fight, it would have been a little closer, but Leonard would still deserve to be rated higher.

Benitez couldn't cope with Hearns' left jab all night long. And he broke his right hand that night and still won comfortably. He dominated Benitez with the jab.

Not saying this is a fact but my impression is that in their second fight it was a super middleweight (Hearns) against a junior middleweight (Leonard). Still Leonard came back very well from the knockdowns and made it a very close fight. Even if Hearns would've gotten the decision, it wouldn't put him in the same level as Sugar Ray. Closer, but not the same level.

Anybody else wants to put an opinion about the topic?

I don't think it would make much difference because they were both well past their prime. Leonard still higher. The Barkley fight didn't help as alp mentioned.

I can’t say that Leonard -Hearns 2 was an after thought. Same with Leonard -Duran 3. But those fights were not nearly as indicative of what these guys had in their prime. Not nearly the interest and hype either. Leonard and Hearns 1 and Leonard and Duran 1 and 2 were like the Godfather 1 and 2. Them other fights were Godfather part 3

So a Thomas Hearns win over Sugar Ray Leonard would not change his status? Even though they were not primed boxers in 1989?

Then, what was the difference between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier fight #3? It seems that it counts to a lot of people. And both were not in their primes either.

What was or what is the difference?

I don't think it would've made much of a difference to Hearns' legacy. Probably would've been more of a hit to Leonard's than a boost to Tommy's really.

The thing it would've been best for was just Tommy's ego and inner peace, his legacy I think would've been about the same regardless.

sugar ray, the daddy of marv and tommy

Makes no difference. People accept Hearns deserved the decision in a great and close fight. All their fights would have been great and close.

Leonard's layoff before the Hagler bout offsets the fact that Hearns faced a peak Hagler and Ray didn't. Also, Duran was much better in 1980 than in 1984.
I would have loved to have seen SRL-Hearns at 160 in 1987.

Hagler was much closer to his prime than Leonard was to his prime when they fought. Leonard had one fight in the previous 5 years. This makes Leonard's win over Hagler all the more remarkable. This is nothing else in boxing history similar to this.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑11 Sep 2024, 08:39 Hagler was much closer to his prime than Leonard was to his prime when they fought. Leonard had one fight in the previous 5 years. This makes Leonard's win over Hagler all the more remarkable. This is nothing else in boxing history similar to this.

Marvelous looked like shit that night with Sugar Ray. It was probably his worst performance of his storied career.

Please. He looked better than he did against Antuofermo and Duran. He faded in the late rounds against Antuofermo, and started slow against Duran. He looked better against Leonard than he did against Geraldo and Briscoe fights as well. People weren't saying Hagler was way past it before the fight. Leonard is the one who was coming off the big layoff, not Hagler. Hagler had no legit excuse. Even though he was coming off the big layoff, Leonard was just better. That simple.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑13 Sep 2024, 13:52 Please. He looked better than he did against Antuofermo and Duran. He faded in the late rounds against Antuofermo, and started slow against Duran. He looked better against Leonard than he did against Geraldo and Briscoe fights as well. People weren't saying Hagler was way past it before the fight. Leonard is the one who was coming off the big layoff, not Hagler. Hagler had no legit excuse. Even though he was coming off the big layoff, Leonard was just better. That simple.

please! Even Thomas Hearns of the Juan Roldan fight or Roberto Duran of the Iran Barkley fight or any of the top ten middleweights of that time would have beaten Marvelous that night. It was a pissed performance from a past great fighter sleeping in silk pajamas and looking for that big payday.

It was Marvelous worst performance ever on film.

Hearns would have beaten Hagler? Wow.
Roberto Duran of the Iran Barkley fight would have beaten Hagler? Are you frikkin kidding? Iran Barkley was never that good and Duran barely beat him. He lost to Hagler when they actually did fight. Duran got embarrassed in his next fight after Barkley against Leonard. Yet he would have beat Hagler. That is beyond stupid.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑14 Sep 2024, 14:07 Hearns would have beaten Hagler? Wow.
Roberto Duran of the Iran Barkley fight would have beaten Hagler? Are you frikkin kidding? Iran Barkley was never that good and Duran barely beat him. He lost to Hagler when they actually did fight. Duran got embarrassed in his next fight after Barkley against Leonard. Yet he would have beat Hagler. That is beyond stupid.

Beyond stupid, my ass, boy! Marvelous of that night wasn't even near of the spectacular form that he put on against Tommy Hearns. Let's be realistic!

Marvelous was only fighting once a year since 1985. He was not fighting for the peanuts 70s decade money anymore. And who can blame him. He had the right to ask for the big paydays. And the BIG PAYDAY that he wanted was Sugar Ray Leonard, the cash cow.

How much money he received? $20 million dollars! He wasn't going to get it with Roberto Duran. He wasn't going to get it with Thomas Hearns. But, with Sugar Ray.

And it showed the worst performance of his career. Big time. No doubt about it. Any top 10 of those contenders would have beaten him. Hearns would have beaten him in a rematch. Duran of the Iran Barkley would have beaten him. Marvelous looked like thrash.

Iran The Blade Barkley wasn't that good? He was triple crown division world champion. What the fuuck you are talking about? Now that's beyond stupid.

Talk nice and you get nice talk. Thanks

Didn't mean to be rude. I just thought what you were saying was so over the top wrong.
Ultimately, the biggest problem I have with you elmer is that you really don't have a serious interest in rating fighters. If you like a guy, you overrate him. If you don't like a guy, you underrate him.
To a much lesser degree, almost everyone is like that. But you go much further than most people. How much you like a fighter is way too big of a factor in how you rate them.

Didn't say that Hagler was still as good as he was when he stopped Hearns in three rounds. I said that he would still beat Hearns, and of course Duran.

Take a look at Iran Barkley's record. Yes, he won some WBS titles. Take Hearns out of the equation and there isn't much. He lost several times to fighters that were not that good. Lost badly multiple times. Close calls against mediocre fighters. Was easy to hit; perfect opponent for Duran. The only reason you pump Barkley up is to make Duran's win look better than it was.
The only reason that you are trying to make excuses for Hagler is that it takes away from Leonard's historical achievement.

Too bad that after the Barkley-Duran fight, the winner did not next fight the winner of the Leonard-Hagler fight. That would give us a pretty good idea of the level that Duran, Barkley, Hagler, and Leonard were fighting at the time. Too bad that didn't happen. Oh wait, it did.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑16 Sep 2024, 19:18 Ultimately, the biggest problem I have with you elmer is that you really don't have a serious interest in rating fighters. If you like a guy, you overrate him. If you don't like a guy, you underrate him.

Didn't say that Hagler was still as good as he was when he stopped Hearns in three rounds. I said that he would still beat Hearns, and of course Duran.

Take a look at Iran Barkley's record. Yes, he won some WBS titles. He lost several times to fighters that were not that good. Lost badly multiple times. Close calls against mediocre fighters. Was easy to hit. The only reason you pump him up is to make Duran's win look better than it was.
The only reason that you are trying to make excuses for Hagler is that it takes away from Leonard's historical achievement.

Too bad that after the Barkley-Duran fight, the winner did not next fight the winner of the Leonard-Hagler fight. That would give us a pretty good idea of the level these guys were fighting at. Too bad that didn't happen. Oh wait, it did.

Iran "The Blade" Barkley was a good fighter. He beat the great Thomas "The Hitman" Hearns twice didn't he? We all know that Hearns was not prime when he lost to Barkley. So, if Hearns wasn't prime against Barkley, then, why the Roberto Duran's loss against Hearns count?

Hearns was 29 when he lost to Barkley. Duran was 33 when he lost to Hearns. Yeah, moving the goal posts when it comes to Duran.

Marvelous performance against Sugar Ray was the worst of his career. The worst! Missing shots, slow, no fire and no fighting spirit. Fighting like that ain't going to beat Hearns. Hearns would have knocked him out. Duran of the Barkley fight would have beaten THAT Marvelous. Throw in Barkley, too. And also all the top ten middleweights contenders of the time would have taken Marvelous throne that night.

Marvelous was just fighting one fight a year after 1984. Was he slowing down? Yes. He could not be at high level all his life. That's why Sugar Ray calculated and asked for a match. Marvelous ain't gonna turn that fight? That's $20 million dollars! Who in the hell would turn down $20 million dollars? Are you kidding me?

Sugar Ray was not prime when he lost to Terry Norris. He was 34. But, Duran was 33 when he lost to Hearns. The Duran loss counts, but Sugar Ray's not? That's almost the same age. Wasn't it?

Duran's win over Barkley at 37 and being WASHED UP was more satisfying than Sugar Ray's win over Marvelous. I rate that Duran's win over that overrated win by Leonard against Hagler.

Now we're talking about the careers of Hearns and Leonard. If Hearns given the win in the rematch, would he be ranked better or the same? A lot of people are IGNORING the fact. Hearns and Leonard are almost on the same level.

Sugar Ray got so much leeway and privileges than any boxer in the history of boxing. Was he great? Yes. Did he got a lot of help from outside sources? Yes. More than any fighter? Yes.

Sugar Ray Leonard is THE ONLY FIGHTER to win the World Light-heavyweight crown without never ever competing at 175lbs. At least Hearns competed at 175lbs. And he won the Light-heavyweight crown twice, didn't he? That must be counting for consideration. Ain't it?

And with that, you rate Leonard top 10 pound per pound ever? That's crazy!

First of all, Iran Barkley was a good fighter. Never said he wasn't. My point is that he was nowhere near being a great fighter. nowhere near the Marvin Hagler who Leonard beat. Barkley did beat Thomas Hearns and that has to count for something. but what else? Who is the next best fighters that he beat? James Kinchen, Michael Olajide?
Barkley lost to everyone else that was really good. (though none were great.) He lost to Kalambay, Nunn, Benn. Judges gave him a decision he didn;t deserve against Sanderline Williams.

duran's win over Barkley was a nice win for a fighter past his prime. Leonard 's win was historically monumental.

Hagler wanted to fight Leonard badly. This wasn't just because of the money. (He already had a ton of money anyway.)
Hagler had not fought in a year, (which is common now days.) there is a huge difference from not fighting in a year to not fighting in 3 years.
In the previous 5 years, Leonard, had one fight. In that time, Hagler fought 9 times. That is a huge advantage for Hagler.

Was Hagler at his absolute best for the Leonard fight? No. but he was a lot closer than Leonard was to his best.
In over 120 years of boxing, I can't come up with one example of a fighter being out of boxing for that long of a time and beat a great fighter. (Not counting tune-ups after a layoff to get ready for a great fighter.) I challenge you to name one.

I have never said that Duran was in his prime against Hearns. f you notice, I don't mention that when rating Duran.

As for Hearns and Leonard- If Hearns would he deserve to be rated as high as Leonard.? No. It would be closer, but no. They would be 1-1 head-to-head. Leonard beat Hagler. Hearns got stopped in 3 rounds. Yes, Hagler was 32 against Leonard and 30 against Hearns. But come on. A win is a lot more impressive than being stopped in 3 rounds.
Leonard never had any embarrassing loses. Hearns lost to Barkley.
We can't give credit to Hearns for beating Duran, because Duran was past it.

"Sugar Ray got so much leeway and privileges than any boxer in the history of boxing." That is absurd. Who cares about the light heavyweight fight against Donny Lalonde? The only reason that it was a title fight was to make more money. You don't want to count Leonard as a champion at 175? Fine. Could not care less.

What other leeway and privileges did Leonard supposedly get?
This is a guy who defeated 9 Top 10 contenders before getting a title shot? Has anyone else done that in the last 50 years?
Duran, Hagler and Hearns did not do that. They didn't have 9 combined.
Leonard did not get "special "privileges". That is total BS.

Why should Leonard be in the top 10 all time? He beat 4 different fighters who are Top 50. How many fighters have done that? Less than 10. The only thing Leonard lacks is 20 wins over tomato cans to pad his record. That's it.

Sugar Ray Leonard. A great fighter? Yes
Did he got leeway and privileges from outside sources? Yes he did! No fighter in boxing history has ever had more help than Leonard had. No fighter. Name me one.

Does he belong in the top 10 all time pound per pound great boxers? Not at all. There are too many great boxers that deserve to be in the top 10 in my book but they aren't: Archie Moore, Bob Fitzsimmons, Carlos Monzon, Jack Johnson, Tony Canzoneri, Joe Gans. They deserve to be top 10 more than Leonard. More longevity. More fights. More durability.

What saved Leonard was that he beat 4 guys in the top 100. That's impressive. He is not the only one that beat top 100 pound per pound great boxers.
Jimmy McLarnin did it.
So did Muhammad Ali.
So did Sugar Ray Robinson.
So did Ezzard Charles.
So did Tony Canzoneri......They beat at least 4 guys in the top 100 in my book.
Why McLarnin is not top 10? Why not Canzoneri?

From 1977 to 1982, Leonard's career was amazing. But only fought 7 times in the last 15 years meanwhile Thomas Hearns fought 28 times in that time frame? That's to take into consideration.

Leonard won "5 titles". One of those titles were won when he never competed at that weight class of 175lbs. He is the ONLY FIGHTER to win a world title while never competed in that class. There we go--- leeway. Hearns? He won the Light-heavyweight title twice. Big difference. That's also to take into consideration.

Leonard beat Hearns when both were at their very best.
Hearns got a unjust draw in a competitive fight while both were in the end of their careers. What if Hearns would have been given the nod? Would he be right there with Sugar Ray?

To me, Roberto Duran's win over Iran "The Blade" Barkley was much more impressive than Sugar Ray's win over Marvelous. Duran beat a guy much bigger, stronger, taller, and younger boxer than he was. Duran was considered WASHED UP. And at age 37 there was no way in hell the experts picked him to win over a prime Barkley. Duran won in a war!

That Marvelous of that Sugar Ray fight would have got blasted by Tommy Hearns that night. I'm sorry. I called it like I see it. It was Marvelous worst performance and some people believe he won. Duran of the Barkley fight would have also beaten Marvelous that night. So would have any of the top 10 middleweight contenders. He simply looked FLAT! TOTALLY FLAT!

You have mentioned that Leonard beat 9 top 10 contenders? They were not world beaters. Compared to Marvelous road to the title, Marvelous beat much better opponents. You can't match Pete Ranzany, Andy Price and Randy Shields at welterweight against the Bennie Briscoes, Bobby Watts, Willie Monroes, Eugene Harts and Sugar Ray Seals of the world at middleweight. Those classification rankings were deceiving.

Marvelous took the fight because it was $20 million dollars. He was just fighting one fight a year. His skills were eroding and it showed during the fight. Was it a great win for Sugar Ray? Yes. He won his third title. But, Hearns and Duran challenged Marvelous at Marvelous' peak. Sugar Ray didn't. And he had the opportunity to do so in 1982. He didn't want none of Marvelous in '82.

If Leonard had the same amount of fights like Hearns, at least, then he could have been into the consideration of maybe top 5 or top 10 all-time pound per pound with the resume that he got.

But only 7 fights in the last 15 years of his career? That would not cut it. That's not top 10 standards.

Leonard did not get any special privileges. The only thing is you can come up with is the Lalonde fight being called a title fight. Who cares. Don't count it. Leonard doesn't need that.

I would agree that Ali, Robinson and Charles beat 4 top 50 fighters. (I said top 50, not top 100). They should be in the top 10. McLarnin and Ross did not quite do it. I have them a little outside the top 10. They also had many losses.

The Hearns fight was not an unjust decision. Leonard landed many more punches than Hearns in that fight. He hurt Hearns many more times than Hearns hurt him. the first knockdown was an obvious rabbit punch that should not have counted. Had the ref called it, Leonard may have got the decision.

I wil take Walcotts win at 37 over Marciano as more impressive than Duran beating Barkley. Foreman winning the title at 46 as well. I will take Archie Moore's wins over Harold Johnson and Joey Maxim when he older than Duran as bigger deals. I will take Larry Holmes win over Ray Mercer as a bigger deal. I will take Ray robinson's wins over Ralph dupas and Terry Downs' over Duran's win. These are just o name a few.

How many fights can you come with in the history of boxing where a guy beat an ATG without having any fights in the previous 3 years? Can you name any?


Yes,,I can compare Pete Ranzany, Andy Price and Randy Shields at welterweight against the Bennie Briscoes, Bobby Watts, Willie Monroes, Eugene Harts and Sugar Ray Seals, with the exception of Brisco. They were all, but not great fighters.
Who did Duran beat before getting a title fight?
Who did Hearns beat before getting one?

You can't say Leonard got all the breaks when he had to fight so many good fighters before he got a title shot. Then he had to beat a great fighter (Benitez) to win it . He fought Benitez, Duran 2x, and Hearns in a period of less than two years. How is that getting special privileges.

7 fights in last 15 years? Obviously that ids deceiving. He was off 6 years before the last one. Take that out and it's 6 in the last 9. We all know that he would have fought more if it was not for the eye problems.
Look at what he did before the eye problems. 33 fights in 5 years. 15 wins over guys in the top 10. Wins over three other great fighters. Duran, Hearns, and Hagler didn't do all that.

He still had 40 fights. That is is more than Joe Frazier, and nobody criticizes Frazier for that. more than Jeffries, Corbett. He only had one less fight than Vicente Saldivar. Nobody ever criticizes Salidvar for that.

the bottom line is that you rate the guys that you like higher than those that you don't if is even remotely close. Sometimes the guy that you like isn't as good. Deal with it.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑13 Sep 2024, 17:46 It was Marvelous worst performance ever on film.

That's because Sugar Ray Leonard was in the opposite corner.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑18 Sep 2024, 14:34
Leonard did not get any special privileges. The only thing is you can come up with is the Lalonde fight being called a title fight. Who cares. Don't count it. Leonard doesn't need that.

Yes, he had privileges a ton. He was the first fighter ever that I can recall to get $40,000 dollars in a pro debut. Enlarged the ring against Roberto Duran in second fight. Had the outside sources to lure Duran's management team with $8 million dollars for the rematch. What other fighter had that kind of leeway? Not even Muhammad Ali had that. Also, fighting with thumbless gloves in Kevin Howard and Marvelous fights won't help your argument either. Plus, with Marvelous he dictated 12 rounds instead of 15.....And the Donny Lalonde fight??? Sugar Ray became the only man in boxing history to win a title without competing in the weight class.... Amazing!

I would agree that Ali, Robinson and Charles beat 4 top 50 fighters. (I said top 50, not top 100). They should be in the top 10. McLarnin and Ross did not quite do it. I have them a little outside the top 10. They also had many losses.

Next I checked, Jimmy McLarnin, Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Robinson has beaten 5 all-time pound per pound great boxers. Ezzard Charles has beaten 4. Rocky Marciano has 4 wins also. And guess who else? Battling Battalino. He has four. Leonard is not the only one.

The Hearns fight was not an unjust decision. Leonard landed many more punches than Hearns in that fight. He hurt Hearns many more times than Hearns hurt him. the first knockdown was an obvious rabbit punch that should not have counted. Had the ref called it, Leonard may have got the decision.

Thomas "The Hitman" Hearns won outright. He put Sugar Ray twice on the floor. End of story.

I wil take Walcotts win at 37 over Marciano as more impressive than Duran beating Barkley. Foreman winning the title at 46 as well. I will take Archie Moore's wins over Harold Johnson and Joey Maxim when he older than Duran as bigger deals. I will take Larry Holmes win over Ray Mercer as a bigger deal. I will take Ray robinson's wins over Ralph dupas and Terry Downs' over Duran's win. These are just o name a few.

At least Jersey Joe Walcott and George Foreman were top contenders. But, were they washed up like Duran at 37 years of age fighting someone bigger, taller, stronger and younger? Duran was AN AFTERTHOUGHT. A has been after the No Mas.

How many fights can you come with in the history of boxing where a guy beat an ATG without having any fights in the previous 3 years? Can you name any?

Vicente Saldivar and Jeff Fenech did it.

Yes,,I can compare Pete Ranzany, Andy Price and Randy Shields at welterweight against the Bennie Briscoes, Bobby Watts, Willie Monroes, Eugene Harts and Sugar Ray Seals, with the exception of Brisco. They were all, but not great fighters.
Who did Duran beat before getting a title fight?
Who did Hearns beat before getting one? [/quote]

Pound per pound, Marvelous' opponent to the top were much better than the Randy Shields, Pete Ranzanys and Andy Prices of the world. Bennie Briscoe was better than the three of them.

Duran beats both of them coming up before getting a title shot. He beat Ernesto Marcel and Hiroshi Kobayashi.
Hearns coming up wasn't any different than Sugar Ray's opposition before winning the title either. I think that they were in the same level. So, the edge goes to Duran.

You can't say Leonard got all the breaks when he had to fight so many good fighters before he got a title shot. Then he had to beat a great fighter (Benitez) to win it . He fought Benitez, Duran 2x, and Hearns in a period of less than two years. How is that getting special privileges.

He had the leeway of getting $1 million dollars against Benitez. Made the negotiations behind Duran's back by giving Duran's management team $8 million dollars. For that, you need outside sources. Powerful sources. Well, there it is. Do you know someone by the name of Don King? Bob Arum? ABC Sports? Howard Cossell? They all made it for Sugar Ray possible to take the title back. Plus, the enlargement of the ring? There you go----leeway again.

7 fights in last 15 years? Obviously that ids deceiving. He was off 6 years before the last one. Take that out and it's 6 in the last 9. We all know that he would have fought more if it was not for the eye problems.
Look at what he did before the eye problems. 33 fights in 5 years. 15 wins over guys in the top 10. Wins over three other great fighters. Duran, Hearns, and Hagler didn't do all that.

He still had 40 fights. That is is more than Joe Frazier, and nobody criticizes Frazier for that. more than Jeffries, Corbett. He only had one less fight than Vicente Saldivar. Nobody ever criticizes Salidvar for that.

the bottom line is that you rate the guys that you like higher than those that you don't if is even remotely close. Sometimes the guy that you like isn't as good. Deal with it.

Thomas Hearns fought 28 times in that time frame. Nobody is saying that Smokin' Joe Frazier is a top ten pound per pound guy. He is a top ten guy at heavyweight. Same for Vicente Saldivar. He is a top ten featherweight. Not top 10 pound per pound.