Tommy Hearns not many can beat him at 147

[SuzieQ49]

Sugar Ray Leonard(already did it) and Sugar Ray Robinson are my only two answers.

Who else?

Armstrongs way too small, Napoles has a good chance but tommy will cut him up horribly, Joe Walcott will be giving up 1 foot in height hearns will wreck him at distance, i dont think griffith has enough tools to get the job done, Ross won't get away from Hearns Jab, Shane can't deal with tall right hand punchers, Oscar might make an interesting go but hearns has just too much tools and firepower, trinidad doesnt have the jaw to survive, mickey walker won't ever make his way inside, Kid Gavilan has a decent chance with speed and chin but gavilan won't be be able to outbox him on the cards, Duran well we know what will happen there, Benitez and Cuevas it already happened, Forrest will be outgunned, Basilio's eye might be torn apart afterward to the point where you wouldn't recognize him, Whitaker was not a natural welter and Hearns has the tools and accuracy to catch him, Curry would be outclassed, etc.



Theres a strong reason why I and others rate Tommy Hearns in the top 5 welterweights of all time. His freakish tools combined with his Talent, Speed, and Power made him damm near unbeatable at 147lb, whether or not some of you think he hadnt reached his best yet.

[teeto]

I've always thought more of Trinidad's chances than others to be honest. But i don't really want to get too deep into that one.

[Bing]

I could imagine Basillo wearing hearns down also Mickey walker. These two are really tough and i like there chances of outlasting Hearns.

[teeto]

I could imagine Basillo wearing hearns down also Mickey walker. These two are really tough and i like there chances of outlasting Hearns.
Post more.

[natonic]

I agree that Tommy is a brutal matchup for anyone at 147. I do give Napoles, Gavilan, and Griffith (pre-Paret tragedy) a live chance. I think highly of Luis Rodriguez and place him in the same class as the other 3 I've mentioned but I don't think he matches up great with Tommy. I actually give "Montreal" Duran a chance too. I think that version was far superior to the Duran that Tommy ko'd 4 years later.

[abraq]

Yes, Hearns would be a really, really difficult foe for any welterweight. But I do feel some of the guys mentioned - at their best -would have a fair chance against him.

Still, a top 5 AT ranking is entirely reasonable. In fact, I feel he deserves to be higher.

[McGrain]

I think he is overated at 147. He is special. But he would lose out to the true greats in my opinion. He is inexperienced and tight at the wieght.

[Dempsey1238]

Walker would be my man in outlasted Hearns imo. If Walker could take heavyweights, I think Micky would beat Hearns in a good fight.

[Beeston Brawler]

Hearns was a very underrated boxer.... people just consider him a straight up banger, especially at the lower weights.

You just have to look at his fight with Virgil Hill (albeit at 175) to see how he could box.

[the cobra]

Originally posted by McGrain
I think he is overated at 147. He is special. But he would lose out to the true greats in my opinion. He is inexperienced and tight at the wieght.
I agree.

[stevebhoy87]

Sugar Ray Leonard(already did it) and Sugar Ray Robinson are my only two answers.

Who else?

Armstrongs way too small, Napoles has a good chance but tommy will cut him up horribly, Joe Walcott will be giving up 1 foot in height hearns will wreck him at distance, i dont think griffith has enough tools to get the job done, Ross won't get away from Hearns Jab, Shane can't deal with tall right hand punchers, Oscar might make an interesting go but hearns has just too much tools and firepower, trinidad doesnt have the jaw to survive, mickey walker won't ever make his way inside, Kid Gavilan has a decent chance with speed and chin but gavilan won't be be able to outbox him on the cards, Duran well we know what will happen there, Benitez and Cuevas it already happened, Forrest will be outgunned, Basilio's eye might be torn apart afterward to the point where you wouldn't recognize him, Whitaker was not a natural welter and Hearns has the tools and accuracy to catch him, Curry would be outclassed, etc.



Theres a strong reason why I and others rate Tommy Hearns in the top 5 welterweights of all time. His freakish tools combined with his Talent, Speed, and Power made him damm near unbeatable at 147lb, whether or not some of you think he hadnt reached his best yet.

I'd pick burley to stop him, pretty confident with that pick, obviously the 2 sugars, outside that, no one would i'd rate at 50% or better to take tommy

[Sweet Pea]

I agree with SuzieQ and disagree with McGrain and Cobra. Just letting that known. I don't give a rat's ass if he supposedly lacked the intangibles that certain Welters had if he completely outmatches them physically and in terms of the tools he posseses. A guy like Barney Ross stands absolutely NO chance in 100 fights of ever threatening Hearns with anything.

[BITCH ASS]

I agree that Tommy Hearns would be a nightmare match up for probably any welterweight.

[McGrain]

I agree with SuzieQ and disagree with McGrain and Cobra. Just letting that known. I don't give a rat's ass if he supposedly lacked the intangibles that certain Welters had if he completely outmatches them physically and in terms of the tools he posseses. A guy like Barney Ross stands absolutely NO chance in 100 fights of ever threatening Hearns with anything.


Well forget Barney then; talk to me about how a veteran with MASSIVE skills, great physical tools and enormous amounts of experience, like, say Kid Gavlian, Charley Burley or Jose Napoles lose to a guy who is 1-1 at the highest level.

[AlFrancis]

I agree that Tommy Hearns would be a nightmare match up for probably any welterweight.


I agree, Tommy could outbox the boxers and bang out the bangers. A daunting proposition for any of the other greats.

[BITCH ASS]

I agree, Tommy could outbox the boxers and bang out the bangers. A daunting proposition for any of the other greats.

He could get down low with those uppercuts too.

[Sweet Pea]

Well forget Barney then; talk to me about how a veteran with MASSIVE skills, great physical tools and enormous amounts of experience, like, say Kid Gavlian, Charley Burley or Jose Napoles lose to a guy who is 1-1 at the highest level.

Talk to me about how a guy like Jose Napoles loses to a guy who was below world class and never beat another top fighter after his 4th round stoppage over him. Talk to me about how Gavilan lost to many fighters who fit lesser descriptions than your own, or how Burley was pretty much neck and neck with the other top Murderer's Row Welters of the day, all of whom only built up this wealth of experience through constantly fighting each other.

Hearns had all the tools, physically and technically, to hold his own with any Welter who ever lived, and stylistically is a nightmare for the vast majority of them. Yes, certain fighters hold the edge in intangibles, but that really doesn't mean they should be favored if there is simply no argument for them from a stylistic standpoint. Not saying that's the case with the fighters you mentioned, as all of them at least stand live chances due to the tools they possess, but I wouldn't outright favor them due to nothing more than experience. That logic is too flawed.

[Dempsey1238]

I agree with SuzieQ and disagree with McGrain and Cobra. Just letting that known. I don't give a rat's ass if he supposedly lacked the intangibles that certain Welters had if he completely outmatches them physically and in terms of the tools he posseses. A guy like Barney Ross stands absolutely NO chance in 100 fights of ever threatening Hearns with anything.

BS, Ross has a shot vs any one. Not saying he beat Hearns, but I think Ross would win at 1 bout at the lease.

Ross had speed, and defenses skills over Hearns, not to mention he was a tricky fighter in his own right, a lesser Willie Pep imo. Yes if tag, Ross would brawl it out. Hearns would be in a fight, He beat Canzi, McLarin, Petrolle, Battalion. These guys ant walk overs, but top fighters and beast imo.

And even than Ross had a atg chin, no one ko Ross, not even Armstrong. What seems to be forgoting is Ross was having his way with Armstrong until Ross stimia went. He been in to many wars imo, the McLarin, and Canzi fights, not to mention a busy fight year.
Ross would be a pretty tought fight for Hearns imo. Perhaps it will follow like the SRL fight.

[WhataRock]

Ross really wasnt a true welter..he was a part timer and the physical advantage Hearns holds over him would be significant.

Ross is one of the most all around skilled fighters I have seen but he rarely showed the kind of fight changing power that would be needed to overcome a guy like Tommy..not at welter anyway. I think Tommy's own skills arent all that inferior to Barney's, I dont think Barney hold enough advantages here to overcome the physical abilities of Tommy more times then not.
I really struggle to see how this would go the way of the SRL fight.

I dont think he has ever faced someone even remotely as big and athletically talented as Tommy....I think Tommy showed against SRL and Benitez that he had the tools to deal with top shelf skills of fighters that were far more suited to the weight then Barney was.

[Scorpion]

I think he is overated at 147. He is special. But he would lose out to the true greats in my opinion. He is inexperienced and tight at the wieght.

I disagree besides if the Leonard fight was 12 rounds like it is today he would've won.

[Scorpion]

I've always thought more of Trinidad's chances than others to be honest. But i don't really want to get too deep into that one.

Agreed to me it's like a welterweight version of Haye vs Wlad.

[markedwardscott]

Mickey Walker at 147 would have been tough for Tommy. He took Schmeling's right hands.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[MrMarvel]

People who pick Leonard over Hearns at welterweight look at "TKO 14" and draw a convenient conclusion. Hearns was a much better boxer than Leonard. Leonard was thoroughly confused by Hearns. Leonard can thank his lucky stars Hearns overtrained and was exhausted by the later rounds and that the referee was eager to award the fight to Leonard. Leonard was damn smart to avoid a rematch for so long. Hearns would have done to Leonard what he did to him when they finally met again. Of course, it's likely the judges would have found some way to prevent Hearns from receiving the credit due him.

[JohnThomas1]

People who pick Leonard over Hearns at welterweight look at "TKO 14" and draw a convenient conclusion.

Imagine that, people picking one fighter over another just because he beat him already. Talk about bias! How on earth could they come to such a conclusion :lol:

Having said that i really do think Hearns would have beaten Leonard at his 154 peak. Whether he could have beaten him in a 147 rematch is another matter. I don't doubt it possible but only a fool would approach the subject thinking Tommy was a sure thing. Leonard is the definite fave, and then one works from there.

[SuzieQ49]

John, do you now agree Mr. Marvel is revolver? Im glad people are seeing my point

[Dempsey1238]

Ross really wasnt a true welter..he was a part timer and the physical advantage Hearns holds over him would be significant.

Ross is one of the most all around skilled fighters I have seen but he rarely showed the kind of fight changing power that would be needed to overcome a guy like Tommy..not at welter anyway. I think Tommy's own skills arent all that inferior to Barney's, I dont think Barney hold enough advantages here to overcome the physical abilities of Tommy more times then not.
I really struggle to see how this would go the way of the SRL fight.

I dont think he has ever faced someone even remotely as big and athletically talented as Tommy....I think Tommy showed against SRL and Benitez that he had the tools to deal with top shelf skills of fighters that were far more suited to the weight then Barney was.


But if Ross and Hearns fought 100 times, I do not think Ross will lose all 100, he is bound to win vs Hearns in this regard.

Who has that computer download thing. Run 100 bouts with them vs each other and see the stats in that. Ross is not so bad to lose 100 in a row vs other great fighter. Ross also had underated power imo, other wise why didnt the brawlers just mow him down??

[WhataRock]

I dont think that would happen either, though 100 fights just isnt really a fair way to gauge it..Even over 10 is pushing it, I think Barney could get at least one there but its the more likely scenario they are having 3 or 4 fights in a series I dont think he has the tools the beat the much bigger and equally as good Hearns...I disagreed that there is a decent chance that this ends up like SRL-Hearns and I think the reasons it wouldnt are obvious.

Ross wasnt a big puncher, not feather fisted but punching wasnt his thing. His durability, high level of technical ability and versatility for the time and athleticism kept him from getting mowed down by brawlers. He was just a very good fighter who happened to be an average puncher.
Im not sure what you are getting at there..his power was sufficient but there have been fighters in the past who have had even less pop and they still succeed because of other attributes.

[Dempsey1238]

Ross was no terror, but he was able to keep the equal Iron chin Tony Canzi at bay in the rematch.

Just taking notice here. I pretty sure Hearns would be in for a LONG night. Most welters were when they fought Ross.

Outside of the 1 and 3rd McLarin fights, I think the best Ross fight on film was eiher the Canzi fight or the Billy Petrolle fight, both Ross just looks amazing, and I have a hard time seeing Hearns just walk over THAT Ross imo. Or even the Ross from the 1 and 3rd McLarin fights.

[WhataRock]

Neither do I...but I see it even more unlikely that Ross stops Hearns let alone beats him.

[MAG1965]

I agree that Tommy is a brutal matchup for anyone at 147. I do give Napoles, Gavilan, and Griffith (pre-Paret tragedy) a live chance. I think highly of Luis Rodriguez and place him in the same class as the other 3 I've mentioned but I don't think he matches up great with Tommy. I actually give "Montreal" Duran a chance too. I think that version was far superior to the Duran that Tommy ko'd 4 years later.
I do not see Duran ever beating Hearns. Hearns was too fast, which is why he won in 1984 more than anything else.

[JohnThomas1]

John, do you now agree Mr. Marvel is revolver? Im glad people are seeing my point

I was told it was him within days of him appearing. It's not hard to work out :lol:

[sweet_scientist]

I've always thought more of Trinidad's chances than others to be honest. But i don't really want to get too deep into that one.

As one-dimensional as Tito was, I'd probably agree. Hearns likely blasts him out of there early, but if Trinidad can somehow survive the early onslaught, he is a big chance to take Hearns out imo.

Walker and Basilio are good shouts also. Griffith too if he can withstand Hearn's power.

The number is definitely small though.

If we're talking about who I FAVOUR to do it, I can't really say anyone.

[McGrain]

Talk to me about how a guy like Jose Napoles loses to a guy who was below world class and never beat another top fighter after his 4th round stoppage over him. Talk to me about how Gavilan lost to many fighters who fit lesser descriptions than your own, or how Burley was pretty much neck and neck with the other top Murderer's Row Welters of the day, all of whom only built up this wealth of experience through constantly fighting each other.

Well if your point is that all these men had off nights, you are indisputibly correct. But if you are saying these guys would lose to Hearns because they had off nights, I think that is unfair. Of course top fighters COULD lose to other top fighters if they do less than their best work. I think it's only fair to dig out these fighter's best performances and nights when comparing them.

Hearns had all the tools, physically and technically, to hold his own with any Welter who ever lived, and stylistically is a nightmare for the vast majority of them. Yes, certain fighters hold the edge in intangibles, but that really doesn't mean they should be favored if there is simply no argument for them from a stylistic standpoint. Not saying that's the case with the fighters you mentioned, as all of them at least stand live chances due to the tools they possess, but I wouldn't outright favor them due to nothing more than experience. That logic is too flawed.

I agree with you that favouring fighters entirely due to experience is silly, but my point is that it is hugely underated on the board.

Hearns mashed Cuevas, of course, and then got sparked by Leonard. I think that's his level. I think he'd beat fighters at the Cuevas type of level all day long, but I think the divisions true elites would beat him. I don't think he can make great adjustments, I don't think he is all the way comfortable at the weight, I don't think he would beat the best.

[AlFrancis]

Well if your point is that all these men had off nights, you are indisputibly correct. But if you are saying these guys would lose to Hearns because they had off nights, I think that is unfair. Of course top fighters COULD lose to other top fighters if they do less than their best work. I think it's only fair to dig out these fighter's best performances and nights when comparing them.



I agree with you that favouring fighters entirely due to experience is silly, but my point is that it is hugely underated on the board.

Hearns mashed Cuevas, of course, and then got sparked by Leonard. I think that's his level. I think he'd beat fighters at the Cuevas type of level all day long, but I think the divisions true elites would beat him. I don't think he can make great adjustments, I don't think he is all the way comfortable at the weight, I don't think he would beat the best.

Like I said earlier. I regard Hearns as a daunting prospect for anybody. I do however agree with your point about experience being underated. Some of those fighters from the past were hugely experienced due to the quality of their opposition on the way up. Youv'e only got to look at fighters like Duran and Hopkins to see what experience can do for you when your not even at your physical prime. These fellas had that experience when they were at their prime.

[McGrain]

Youv'e only got to look at fighters like Duran and Hopkins to see what experience can do for you when your not even at your physical prime. These fellas had that experience when they were at their prime.


Yeah, that's exactly it.

Sugar Ray Robinson last made 147 in 1950, I think. He was 109-1. He had beaten Kid Gavlian, Jake LaMotta as well as a host of top contenders. Imagine how many styles and tricks he is familiar with? Imagine how much experience he has in terms of what works and what doesn't against various styles? Imagine how good he has become at making angles and escaping traps? Imagine how sophisticated his own traps are? Imagine how good his timing has become? Imagine how good he has become at reading tells and hiding his own? 110 fights, many of these at the very highest level.

But people, because of Hearns's pyhsical attributes, want to make him a favourite over Sugar? I'm not talking about people in this thread right now, as I don't think anybody has claimed this, but there are some guys who appear to really know boxing who think this is a reasonable pick.

I make Sugar a BIG favourite. Styles takes a second place this equation to perfection of art. They say there is shit that you don't learn in books? Well there is shit you don't learn in sparring. Hell, there is shit that you just don't learn unless you are boxing at the very highest level. Hearns is a novice next to the best welterweight version of Sugar. He would get bombed out. And I think a lot of the other top men would beat him up because of similair reasoning. It takes more than bombing out one really good fighter and losing in a spirited fashion to the best welter you've faced to convince me to see it otherwise, regardless of style advantages.

[AlFrancis]

Yeah, that's exactly it.

Sugar Ray Robinson last made 147 in 1950, I think. He was 109-1. He had beaten Kid Gavlian, Jake LaMotta as well as a host of top contenders. Imagine how many styles and tricks he is familiar with? Imagine how much experience he has in terms of what works and what doesn't against various styles? Imagine how good he has become at making angles and escaping traps? Imagine how sophisticated his own traps are? Imagine how good his timing has become? Imagine how good he has become at reading tells and hiding his own? 110 fights, many of these at the very highest level.

But people, because of Hearns's pyhsical attributes, want to make him a favourite over Sugar? I'm not talking about people in this thread right now, as I don't think anybody has claimed this, but there are some guys who appear to really know boxing who think this is a reasonable pick.

I make Sugar a BIG favourite. Styles takes a second place this equation to perfection of art. They say there is shit that you don't learn in books? Well there is shit you don't learn in sparring. Hell, there is shit that you just don't learn unless you are boxing at the very highest level. Hearns is a novice next to the best welterweight version of Sugar. He would get bombed out. And I think a lot of the other top men would beat him up because of similair reasoning. It takes more than bombing out one really good fighter and losing in a spirited fashion to the best welter you've faced to convince me to see it otherwise, regardless of style advantages.

We're definitely on the same wavelength when it comes to the "experience" factor.

[teeto]

As one-dimensional as Tito was, I'd probably agree. Hearns likely blasts him out of there early, but if Trinidad can somehow survive the early onslaught, he is a big chance to take Hearns out imo.

Walker and Basilio are good shouts also. Griffith too if he can withstand Hearn's power.

The number is definitely small though.

If we're talking about who I FAVOUR to do it, I can't really say anyone.
Glad to see that you do somewhat see where i'm coming from with Tito.

[McGrain]

I think Trinidad would have a very good chance of beating Hearns.

[PernellSweetPea]

I think Trinidad would have a very good chance of beating Hearns.
Hearns would dismantle Tito. Hearns had a jab and right hand which were superior to Titos. Tito's chin was not great and what got him through was hand speed and a great left hook. But Hearns did it all better than Tito. I think he would stop Tito early and in stunning fashion.

[McGrain]

Hearns would dismantle Tito. Hearns had a jab and right hand which were superior to Titos. Tito's chin was not great and what got him through was hand speed and a great left hook. But Hearns did it all better than Tito. I think he would stop Tito early and in stunning fashion.


Two punchers, two questionable chins at the highest level, i think it's fair to say that the cash would be staying in the pocket for this one. It could definitely happen like you say, but it could sure as shit happen the other way too. Certainly Tito has the better record of coming off the canvas to win, which may matter.

[AlFrancis]

Hearns would dismantle Tito. Hearns had a jab and right hand which were superior to Titos. Tito's chin was not great and what got him through was hand speed and a great left hook. But Hearns did it all better than Tito. I think he would stop Tito early and in stunning fashion.

I do as well, Tito was a slow starter and could be caught and knocked down early in fights. I can see a James Schuler type of performance here. On the other hand, if he gets back up........haha. Am I sitting on the fence here?

[sweet_scientist]

A left field suggestion, but what do people think about Jose Luis Lopez? Cuevas all over again you say?

Maybe... But Jose had a ROCK chin and decent power to boot. He could get lucky.

I'm not sure he could last a repeated bombing (which he would undoubtedly take) but if he can land on Hearns within 3 or so rounds, he might just be able to take him out.

Bit of a dark horse for me.

[McGrain]

I tend to favour Hearns, although I see your point.

[teeto]

Tito was hardly ever hurt at 147, and once he was reasonably experienced he wasn't at all if i remember right. People who call him glass jawed only read stats and don't watch his fights. Hearns can definitely outbox him, and can stop him, but Tito can stop Hearns also. People forget that Hearns was primariliy a fighter, and when people come to fight with Trinidad it is a problem, a big problem, and not for Tito.

I'm not trying to pass Tito off as invincible in a slug-fest, but i won't have him passed off as glass jawed either. And there is no chance anyone's convincing me Tommy Hearns is a great defensive boxer who doesn't get caught by a murderous hitter and likely the best finisher in the division's history (possibly on par with Robinson).

Either man can win this by clean ko.

[PowerPuncher]

While Hearns may well be favourate over some of these fighters the following all stand a chance in 1 shape or form:

Napoles (fave)
Burley (fave)
Holman WIlliams (slight underdog)
Paul Williams (tough style but underdog)
Whitaker (slight underdog)
Mayweather (slight underdog)
Cerdan (50-50? haven't seen Cerdan at WW but he was there for 10years and may well drag HEarns deep and sink him)
WW Duran (not as big underdog as some may think)
Griffith (punchers chance)
Shane Mosley (punchers chance)
Don Curry (amazing talent)
Tito (punchers chance)
Lloyd Honeyghan (may drag him into deep waters, especially if HEarns is drained)
Delahoya (small chance but not in the same class)

I would expect him to lose half of those, just too many elite tough styles that are either tricky or physically imposing. Hearns was a great great fighter but WW is stacked DEEP

[PowerPuncher]

Tito was hardly ever hurt at 147, and once he was reasonably experienced he wasn't at all if i remember right. .

He also has met anyone who nearly hit as hard and accurate as Hearns, was near the boxer and as near as rangy as Hearns. A different class to what Tito feasted on WW

[McGrain]

Holman WIlliams (slight underdog)

This is interesting. Given how hard he seemed to be to catch clean, and given how well he did against Burley, another rangy power-puncher, why the underdog tag? I would tend to lean the other way, quite strongly. What's your thinking?


Hearns was a great great fighter but WW is stacked DEEP

I think the deepest, maybe.

[teeto]

He also has met anyone who nearly hit as hard and accurate as Hearns, was near the boxer and as near as rangy as Hearns. A different class to what Tito feasted on WW
That's fine, the point i made was that on the evidence, calling him glass chinned is inaccurate.

I do believe my post was longer than what you quoted. Like i said, i won't have it that Hearns was a great defensive boxer.

[Chiefs]

trinidad is the man.

[Sweet Pea]

Hearns mashed Cuevas, of course, and then got sparked by Leonard. I think that's his level. I think he'd beat fighters at the Cuevas type of level all day long, but I think the divisions true elites would beat him. I don't think he can make great adjustments, I don't think he is all the way comfortable at the weight, I don't think he would beat the best.You have to take into consideration the way he lost to Leonard, arguably the second best WW of all time, though. He was winning that fight handily prior to the late stoppage. In a rematch he could've very conceivably won. He made Leonard look far more ordinary throughout most of that fight than any other Welter in history would've, period. It's possible the very top tier greats like Robinson, Burley, and possibly someone like Napoles could pull off similar things, but not many others.

[Bill Butcher]

Robinson is the only one that I would be reasonably confident of beating Hearns, Id badly worry about the other greats chances.

I think Hearns vs the Duran of montreal would be very interesting, Id love to see how that panned out.

[Bill Butcher]

People who pick Leonard over Hearns at welterweight look at "TKO 14" and draw a convenient conclusion. Hearns was a much better boxer than Leonard. Leonard was thoroughly confused by Hearns. Leonard can thank his lucky stars Hearns overtrained and was exhausted by the later rounds and that the referee was eager to award the fight to Leonard. Leonard was damn smart to avoid a rematch for so long. Hearns would have done to Leonard what he did to him when they finally met again. Of course, it's likely the judges would have found some way to prevent Hearns from receiving the credit due him.

Keep dreaming, no-one in history was a much better boxer than Leonard.

Hearns was finished, there was no protest whatsoever, the ref did the right thing, he was standing right next to them, we were not.

Leonard beat Hearns because he was grittier, just plain tougher & stronger willed.... that shit aint gonna just change overnight, nor will it change in a rematch, 3rd fight or 10th fight.

Leonard beats Hearns ass any time in their primes.

[Mantequilla]

I don't thnk Hearns ever looked better than the Leonard fight, at that point he was on par at least with his 154 form imo, with better power.

I'm not as enamoured with the Duran performance as many others are, despite it being a great achievement.Duran would have had a much tougher time with Moore had he not thumbed him out of the fight imo.The hearns win likely wouldn't have the same aura to it if roberto had fought a clean fight that night imo.

[MAG1965]

Two punchers, two questionable chins at the highest level, i think it's fair to say that the cash would be staying in the pocket for this one. It could definitely happen like you say, but it could sure as shit happen the other way too. Certainly Tito has the better record of coming off the canvas to win, which may matter.Hearns did not really go down that much. Tito did. Hearns is the more skilled fighter and a harder puncher than Tito ever fought. If Yori Boy could put Tito down than Hearns could then I think Tito would be beaten also. When Tito fought better fighters he sort of froze up. Hearns is just better.

[teeto]

You have to take into consideration the way he lost to Leonard, arguably the second best WW of all time, though. He was winning that fight handily prior to the late stoppage. In a rematch he could've very conceivably won. He made Leonard look far more ordinary throughout most of that fight than any other Welter in history would've, period. It's possible the very top tier greats like Robinson, Burley, and possibly someone like Napoles could pull off similar things, but not many others.
This is a good point, but a point that can be argued against and really cannot be cleared up, as it depends on the viewpoint you take. While the point you made is good, we could also say that greatness nearly always prevails, and while Hearns was winning the Leonard fight handily, it was ultimately academic and what McGrain is saying may stand- Hearns beats the lesser level of great welters (Cuevas etc), but doesn't the top tier (Leonard), even if he does give an outstanding account of himself in the bout.

Both viewpoints are just opinion, we can't say for sure as both are good arguments.

[MrMarvel]

I don't think it's a matter of opinion that Hearns was boxing Leonard's ears off in the first match, that he left Leonard's face badly swollen, that his legs started leaving him late in the fight, or that Leonard couldn't figure him out. The question is whether you will believe your eyes or not. I even have trouble believing the sincerity of the argument in defense of the referee that the stoppage was appropriate, but I realize I can't know what was in the referee's mind at the time to I cut people slack on that one. It does demonstrate poor judgment on the referee's part.

Leonard is not the arguably the second best welterweight. First, he lost to the former lightweight champion. Think about it. Duran is better than Leonard at welterweight head-to-head. Leonard can only be the second best welterweight if Duran is the first best welterweight, and I don't know anybody who believes that. Second, Leonard regaining the title depended on Duran quitting, not on Leonard proving his superiority over Duran. That's not really Leonard's fault, but you just can't go around making up stuff you can't know. Third, Leonard's victory over Hearns depended on Hearns falling apart, not on Leonard proving his superiority over Hearns. Leonard's only dominant performance over a world class welterweight was against Benitez (Duran dominated Palomino, and Benitez barely edged Palomino). This makes for an awfully thin resume for a fighter to be considered arguably the second best welterweight ever even if we go with legacy and no head-to-head.

[McGrain]

You have to take into consideration the way he lost to Leonard, arguably the second best WW of all time, though. He was winning that fight handily prior to the late stoppage.

Yes, because he failed to adapt, or match an adaption. Something a more experienced fighter would maybe have been able to do. Exactly the sort of thing I would expect to happen to a fighter who is inexperienced in relative terms.

In a rematch he could've very conceivably won.

Fair enough; but you know that this isn't going to carry very much weight.

[SuzieQ49]

Shut up Revolver

[Sweet Pea]

While the point you made is good, we could also say that greatness nearly always prevails, and while Hearns was winning the Leonard fight handily, it was ultimately academic and what McGrain is saying may stand- Hearns beats the lesser level of great welters (Cuevas etc), but doesn't the top tier (Leonard), even if he does give an outstanding account of himself in the bout.
Do you really think it's practical to assume that because of the Leonard fight, more often than not Hearns would ultimately lose to most of the higher echelon Welters after giving a tremendous account of himself though? It doesn't seem so to me. He may lose a few of those bouts under similar circumstances, but I'd wager in a series he'd more than likely hold his own, if not outright win against pretty much any Welter outside of Robinson and maybe Leonard. Burley is probably the most interesting among the other candidates IMO.

[Sweet Pea]

Yes, because he failed to adapt, or match an adaption. Something a more experienced fighter would maybe have been able to do. Exactly the sort of thing I would expect to happen to a fighter who is inexperienced in relative terms.
Do you really just chalk that up to inexperience, or the fact that he was fighting Sugar Ray Leonard?

[McGrain]

Do you really just chalk that up to inexperience, or the fact that he was fighting Sugar Ray Leonard?

The second one, naturally.

But I would expect a fighter with 100 fights, or even just 35 fights, but 9 or 10 of those being at the highest level, to recognise the change in pace sooner and make an adjustment. That's what I expect to see from the best.

I agree with Mantaquilla that Leonard is Hearns's best effort. In my opinion that doesn't qualify him for that type of level. It's his physical prowess that exhaults him to the highest echelon. He is not what I would call a good general, a clever fighter, not at all.

[Sweet Pea]

The second one, naturally.

But I would expect a fighter with 100 fights, or even just 35 fights, but 9 or 10 of those being at the highest level, to recognise the change in pace sooner and make an adjustment. That's what I expect to see from the best.
The best would also have to have to ability to carry out a gameplan necessary to thwart Hearns's style, and precious few have such ability. Gavilan lacks the power, which is why I see his chances as slimmer, while a guy like Burley might be a fair call. Not much more than that, in my honest opinion.


I agree with Mantaquilla that Leonard is Hearns's best effort. In my opinion that doesn't qualify him for that type of level. It's his physical prowess that exhaults him to the highest echelon. He is not what I would call a good general, a clever fighter, not at all.
Despite the fact that very few, if any Welterweights to have ever fought would be able to dictate the pace against him? They would be the ones needing desperately to make adjustments in any matchup with Hearns (without taking a pasting in the process). That would always be the case, and as such I think he qualifies as an excellent ring general.

[teeto]

Do you really think it's practical to assume that because of the Leonard fight, more often than not Hearns would ultimately lose to most of the higher echelon Welters after giving a tremendous account of himself though? It doesn't seem so to me. He may lose a few of those bouts under similar circumstances, but I'd wager in a series he'd more than likely hold his own, if not outright win against pretty much any Welter outside of Robinson and maybe Leonard. Burley is probably the most interesting among the other candidates IMO.
Yeah like i said it's a good point, but it can ultimately sum up to speculation depending on your viewpoint.

[McGrain]

The best would also have to have to ability to carry out a gameplan necessary to thwart Hearns's style, and precious few have such ability. Gavilan lacks the power, which is why I see his chances as slimmer, while a guy like Burley might be a fair call. Not much more than that, in my honest opinion.

Hearns's shortcomings were exposed at the highest level by power because of his inexperience, not the other way around. I don't say that Gavlan KO's him, of course, but I do say that a fighter THAT smart and THAT cagey, would have a very serious chance to drage Hearns into the wrong fight and out-land him for a decision. Hearns is stupid about strategy, so strategical genius's have a very good chance of beating him.

Despite the fact that very few, if any Welterweights to have ever fought would be able to dictate the pace against him? They would be the ones needing desperately to make adjustments in any matchup with Hearns (without taking a pasting in the process). That would always be the case, and as such I think he qualifies as an excellent ring general.

An EXCELLENT ring general? In spite of the total blow-out of his lead against Leonard and his embracing the opposite of the right plan against Hagler? I think he's a shit strategists and his performances bear this out. He lost the two biggest fights of his career due to poor generalship.

[Doppleganger]

Keep dreaming, no-one in history was a much better boxer than Leonard.

Hearns was finished, there was no protest whatsoever, the ref did the right thing, he was standing right next to them, we were not.

Leonard beat Hearns because he was grittier, just plain tougher & stronger willed.... that shit aint gonna just change overnight, nor will it change in a rematch, 3rd fight or 10th fight.

Leonard beats Hearns ass any time in their primes.
Your last line sounds like something that should be on the Gay Channel but that's probably my dirty mind. ;)

In terms of technical skill there isn't much between Hearns and Leonard. Hearns outboxed Leonard because Tommy utilized his physical gifts and made Ray fight on his terms for much of the fight. People say that Tommy wasn't a great ring general but when you make another ATG fight your fight that isn't all that bad. Where Tommy loses out is the man just cannot resist getting into a brawl.

Doing that against the best fighters ever in the welterweight division is asking for trouble but even then, Tommy's power may save him on most occasions.

Tommy btw was physically and experience-wise immature for the Leonard fight. He'd do better in any further fight and indeed he did do better 8 years later. If Leonard had not suffered the eye-retina damage (allegedly caused by Tommy's piston jab) then Tommy's got a good chance to beat Leonard, especially if the fight takes place at 154.

The bottom line for me is that if Tommy can resist getting dragged into a brawl he can beat just about anyone at 147.

But the question for me is - can Tommy Hearns ever resist getting into a brawl?

[sweet_scientist]

Hearns's shortcomings were exposed at the highest level by power because of his inexperience, not the other way around. I don't say that Gavlan KO's him, of course, but I do say that a fighter THAT smart and THAT cagey, would have a very serious chance to drage Hearns into the wrong fight and out-land him for a decision. Hearns is stupid about strategy, so strategical genius's have a very good chance of beating him.

I find that pretty hard to believe. Let's face it, without Leonard's power, Leonard was through. Inexperience, poor ring strategy notwithstanding. Hearns was outboxing him comfortably and without Leonard's power it would have been close to a shut out. Nothing suggests that a fighter like Gavilan could outpoint Hearns. I don't think he's a better boxer than Leonard, and even if you want to argue that he is a bit better, what does it matter? Hearns is a LOT better.

An EXCELLENT ring general? In spite of the total blow-out of his lead against Leonard and his embracing the opposite of the right plan against Hagler? I think he's a shit strategists and his performances bear this out. He lost the two biggest fights of his career due to poor generalship.I wouldn't call him an excellent ring general, but ring generalship or lack thereof had nothing to do with his loss to Hagler. He was always going to lose that fight, one way or the other.

[Shake]

Tommy Hearns is so good at 147, I don't even see how Sugar Ray Leonard could ever beat him. He can't win a decision against the taller boxer and doesn't possess the durability and grit needed to grind Tommy down. Least compatible out of all the greats imo.

Edit: Of course, I've seen the opposite happen. I just want to point out that some fights are more than the sum of their parts. On paper, Hearns is awful for Leonard. A complete nightmare.

[mcvey]

Sugar Ray Leonard(already did it) and Sugar Ray Robinson are my only two answers.

Who else?

Armstrongs way too small, Napoles has a good chance but tommy will cut him up horribly, Joe Walcott will be giving up 1 foot in height hearns will wreck him at distance, i dont think griffith has enough tools to get the job done, Ross won't get away from Hearns Jab, Shane can't deal with tall right hand punchers, Oscar might make an interesting go but hearns has just too much tools and firepower, trinidad doesnt have the jaw to survive, mickey walker won't ever make his way inside, Kid Gavilan has a decent chance with speed and chin but gavilan won't be be able to outbox him on the cards, Duran well we know what will happen there, Benitez and Cuevas it already happened, Forrest will be outgunned, Basilio's eye might be torn apart afterward to the point where you wouldn't recognize him, Whitaker was not a natural welter and Hearns has the tools and accuracy to catch him, Curry would be outclassed, etc.



Theres a strong reason why I and others rate Tommy Hearns in the top 5 welterweights of all time. His freakish tools combined with his Talent, Speed, and Power made him damm near unbeatable at 147lb, whether or not some of you think he hadnt reached his best yet.

Outside of the Sugar's.I would give Walker a shot.Griffith and Rodiguez outside chances.Mclarnin the same,and maybe a scrapping type of hustler like Ted Kid Lewis a longshot.
Trinidad is too susceptible to jabs, no head movement as Wright showed.
Napoles too vulnerable to cuts. Ross had no power.Walcott would be outsized,imo.Britton was a fine boxer but nothing that Hearns can't cope with.ODH a long shot.Curry the same.Gavilan has a decent chance imo,around 60/40.But Hearns is a tall order ,no pun intended for any Welter.

[McGrain]

I find that pretty hard to believe. Let's face it, without Leonard's power, Leonard was through. Inexperience, poor ring strategy notwithstanding. Hearns was outboxing him comfortably and without Leonard's power it would have been close to a shut out. Nothing suggests that a fighter like Gavilan could outpoint Hearns. I don't think he's a better boxer than Leonard, and even if you want to argue that he is a bit better, what does it matter? Hearns is a LOT better.

Two things about this.

1 - It amounts to "if Leonard hadn't won by knockout, he would have lost". That's weak, especially when we're discussing ring adaption in order to survive changes.

2 - You can outpoint an opposing fighter by outlanding him. Kid could outland Hearns, absolutley he could. Not a Hearns who was boxing smart, but all that does is lay out where the fight will be fought - Hearns has to stay mobile Kid has to drag him into something else. Why is it impossible for an aggressive, sly, tough, experienced, probably unknockoutable at the weight fighter to drag a much more inexperienced fighter into a fight he was not comfortable with? Is that not something we've seen before in boxing? Or even better, for Hearns to make another mistake? My pick in a prime for prime welterweight match up would be Gavilan on points.

I wouldn't call him an excellent ring general, but ring generalship or lack thereof had nothing to do with his loss to Hagler. He was always going to lose that fight, one way or the other.

In all honesty, I think that that is neither here nor there as far as the original point goes. It's an example of heinous strategy on Tommy's part.

[Mantequilla]

Griffith is one guy i don't thnk would match up well with Tommy.

He works everything off the jab a bit too much and doesn't hit hard enough to reliably hurt hearns often enough.

[JohnThomas1]

An EXCELLENT ring general? In spite of the total blow-out of his lead against Leonard and his embracing the opposite of the right plan against Hagler? I think he's a shit strategists and his performances bear this out. He lost the two biggest fights of his career due to poor generalship.

I thought Hearns fought a fantastic tactical fight vs Leonard. His normal gameplan didn't work and he had the ability to not only adapt vs a great opponent but to adapt and actually dictate the fight score wise against the odds.

It's a tribute to Leonard's greatness that he came back against a stiff and awkward tide and found a way to win. Hearns did the best he could on the night. His experience did come into play a bit, particularly his ineptness at that time to clinch when in big trouble. I thought the fight was a strategical delight.

As for Hagler, well hindsight hurts him greatly in this one. Going into the fight he had just TOTALLY blown away a guy that had just given Hagler a decent fight over 15 rounds and never looked like being stopped punishment wise vs such greats as SRL and Hagler. At that very time it wasn't thought inconceivable that he could take Hagler out too.

With hindsight it was a poor strategy but one could hardly blame Hearns, who indeed felt invincible at that time, from thinking he might be able to blow away Hagler after his mind boggling effort vs Duran.

And lets remember his strategical brilliance vs Benitez and Hill. I say vs Leonard too tho you obviously disagree, but i feel he just wasn't good enough or experienced (fighting when hurt) enough on the night. Realistically Leonard was a stage of development/career ahead of Hearns at the time.

[Flea Man]

I think Gavilan could last the distance, whether he could pressurise Hearns enough or hurt him with single shots to beat him I don't know, but personally I think if Gavilan hurts Tommy then the Motor City Cobra would just go back to boxing, where his height, reach, footwork and jab would see him through with a lot of ATG Welters, let alone if he wanted to fight, and put combinations together punctuated by THAT right hand.


Now, I often criticise Leonard for being a bit of a cherry picker, and taking fights at the right time, but even if he had retired after the Hearns fight he would get my full respect for beating that version of Tommy, who is a nightmare for most at 147.

Who thinks Tommy might've beaten Ray in a (Close to) immediate rematch at 147 or 154?

[Flea Man]

Griffith is one guy i don't thnk would match up well with Tommy.

He works everything off the jab a bit too much and doesn't hit hard enough to reliably hurt hearns often enough.

I agree.

I think Napoles would have a reasonably good chance, unless Tommy cuts him with the jab, which is completely feasible.

[turpinr]

[quote=fleaman;3878410]I think Gavilan could last the distance, whether he could pressurise Hearns enough or hurt him with single shots to beat him I don't know, but personally I think if Gavilan hurts Tommy then the Motor City Cobra would just go back to boxing, where his height, reach, footwork and jab would see him through with a lot of ATG Welters, let alone if he wanted to fight, and put combinations together punctuated by THAT right hand.:good:good



i agree with this.gavilan was rock hard and fought everybody and anybody.as to whether he could beat hearns ?? i doubt it,but i couldn't see hearns stopping the hawk

[stevebhoy87]

I think Gavilan could last the distance, whether he could pressurise Hearns enough or hurt him with single shots to beat him I don't know, but personally I think if Gavilan hurts Tommy then the Motor City Cobra would just go back to boxing, where his height, reach, footwork and jab would see him through with a lot of ATG Welters, let alone if he wanted to fight, and put combinations together punctuated by THAT right hand.


Now, I often criticise Leonard for being a bit of a cherry picker, and taking fights at the right time, but even if he had retired after the Hearns fight he would get my full respect for beating that version of Tommy, who is a nightmare for most at 147.

Who thinks Tommy might've beaten Ray in a (Close to) immediate rematch at 147 or 154?

I think i am in the minority that thinks he wouldn't, i'm pretty sure that leonard would have learnt from the 1st fight that he wasn't going to outbox hearns and therefore wouldn't try, leonard started pretty slowly in there 1st fight, he didn't get into it till about round 6.

I see leonard starting much faster and looking to take tommy out from the get go, and getting to him earlier around about the 12th

[sweet_scientist]

Two things about this.

1 - It amounts to "if Leonard hadn't won by knockout, he would have lost". That's weak, especially when we're discussing ring adaption in order to survive changes.

Well, we were actually discussing Kid Gavilan winning without knocking Hearns out. Leonard was losing to Hearns before knocking him out. I want to know what Gavilan has that Leonard lacks that is likely to help him outpoint Hearns. Leonard certainly wasn't outboxing him. So I take it Gavilan brings something else, something more, to the table.

2 - You can outpoint an opposing fighter by outlanding him. Kid could outland Hearns, absolutley he could. Not a Hearns who was boxing smart, but all that does is lay out where the fight will be fought - Hearns has to stay mobile Kid has to drag him into something else. Why is it impossible for an aggressive, sly, tough, experienced, probably unknockoutable at the weight fighter to drag a much more inexperienced fighter into a fight he was not comfortable with? Is that not something we've seen before in boxing? Or even better, for Hearns to make another mistake? My pick in a prime for prime welterweight match up would be Gavilan on points.

Here's the thing: we SAW Hearns in with an aggressive, sly, tough, experienced, probably unknockoutable at the weight fighter who was trying to drag Hearns into a fight that he was uncomfortable with, AND HE COULD NOT OUTPOINT HIM. HE WAS SAVED BY HIS POWER.

So I want to know, what does Kid possess that Leonard doesn't that is going to allow him to outbox Hearns?



In all honesty, I think that that is neither here nor there as far as the original point goes. It's an example of heinous strategy on Tommy's part.

I think Hearns had about as much chance of KO'ing Hagler as he did of outboxing him and winning a decision: none. He didn't lose because he chose the wrong strategy. He could however have survived a few more rounds if he ran.

[Flea Man]

Well, we were actually discussing Kid Gavilan winning without knocking Hearns out. Leonard was losing to Hearns before knocking him out. I want to know what Gavilan has that Leonard lacks that is likely to help him outpoint Hearns. Leonard certainly wasn't outboxing him. So I take it Gavilan brings something else, something more, to the table.



Here's the thing: we SAW Hearns in with an aggressive, sly, tough, experienced, probably unknockoutable at the weight fighter who was trying to drag Hearns into a fight that he was uncomfortable with, AND HE COULD NOT OUTPOINT HIM. HE WAS SAVED BY HIS POWER.

So I want to know, what does Kid possess that Leonard doesn't that is going to allow him to outbox Hearns?





I think Hearns had about as much chance of KO'ing Hagler as he did of outboxing him and winning a decision: none. He didn't lose because he chose the wrong strategy. He could however have survived a few more rounds if he ran.

:good:good:good Hagler-Hearns is just a bad matchup for Tommy. The writing was on the wall when all Hearns' famed right hand did to Hagler was break against his iron head :lol:

Seriously though, Hearns never beats Hagler in my book. Hagler would always catch up to him.

But that's at MW, so no shame there.

At WW, a weight-drained and very ill Marvin Hagler gets taken out in the first :lol:

[McGrain]

Well, we were actually discussing Kid Gavilan winning without knocking Hearns out. Leonard was losing to Hearns before knocking him out. I want to know what Gavilan has that Leonard lacks

About 30 fights in terms of experience, more if we stretch what we define as Kid's prime. The guy countered and trapped Sugar Ray Robinson to a a near standstill a couple of times in that time, and he boxed won more rounds at the highest level. This is compared to Leonard. The comparison to Tommy Hearns in terms of top line experience is embarrassing. And it's exactly the type that's needed - bring great fighters under control and finding ways to outpoint them, inspite of superior speed/technical ability/physicality. Exactly what Kid would have to do against a woefully inexperienced Tommy Hearns in order to be successful.



Here's the thing: we SAW Hearns in with an aggressive, sly, tough, experienced, probably unknockoutable at the weight fighter who was trying to drag Hearns into a fight that he was uncomfortable with, AND HE COULD NOT OUTPOINT HIM. HE WAS SAVED BY HIS POWER.

So I want to know, what does Kid possess that Leonard doesn't that is going to allow him to outbox Hearns?

I've mostly covered this above, I think. Just to add, Leonard wasn't the fighter that tricked/trapped and flurried Hagler to defeat. He, too, was learning. And he probably never reached the type of heights that Kid managed in this exact department anyway, though that is debateable, and I have no problem with the contrary view.

Leonard probably learned his most important lesson in Duran I, but Hearns, too, was a big learning fight for him I feel.





I think Hearns had about as much chance of KO'ing Hagler as he did of outboxing him and winning a decision: none. He didn't lose because he chose the wrong strategy. He could however have survived a few more rounds if he ran.

If you don't have a granite chin brawling with Hagler is stupid - it's a really stupid move. You may be right in what you say - I certainly have no problem with this point of view - but i'm sure Hearns went into the fight believing he has a chance. That he pinned those chances on war rather than boxing is kind of pitiful, in my opinion. That was never going to happen.

Good for us though. And he did have his moment with the cut.

[heehoo]

Barbados Demon Joe Walcott would demolish Hearns.

Yes, he was 5 foot 2, but he had heavyweight power in both hands and Hearns' height wouldn't be effective against him as Walcott would swarm him on the inside and KO Hearns with one shot from either hand. Hearns never had the greatest chin, while Walcott withstood beatings that would finish most men.

[BITCH ASS]

Barbados Demon Joe Walcott would demolish Hearns.

Yes, he was 5 foot 2, but he had heavyweight power in both hands and Hearns' height wouldn't be effective against him as Walcott would swarm him on the inside and KO Hearns with one shot from either hand. Hearns never had the greatest chin, while Walcott withstood beatings that would finish most men.

Depending on his style, being 5'2'' would be a huge advantage against Hearns, especially if he has a heavyweights punch.

[McGrain]

I thought Hearns fought a fantastic tactical fight vs Leonard. His normal gameplan didn't work and he had the ability to not only adapt vs a great opponent but to adapt and actually dictate the fight score wise against the odds.

It's a tribute to Leonard's greatness that he came back against a stiff and awkward tide and found a way to win. Hearns did the best he could on the night. His experience did come into play a bit, particularly his ineptness at that time to clinch when in big trouble. I thought the fight was a strategical delight.

Well i'm not suggesting he can't execute a game-plan. Just that he got knocked out when Leonard shifted gears on him.

With hindsight it was a poor strategy but one could hardly blame Hearns, who indeed felt invincible at that time, from thinking he might be able to blow away Hagler after his mind boggling effort vs Duran.

I dn't agree with this, I have to tell you man. Duran is a LW with a genuinely great chin. Hagler is a MW with a granite chin. I think you'd need Foster to blow him out and I'd argue that this was already pretty clear at this time, and if it wasn't, it should have been by the end of the second minute of the first round.

Realistically Leonard was a stage of development/career ahead of Hearns at the time.

That, basically, is my point.

[heehoo]

Depending on his style, being 5'2'' would be a huge advantage against Hearns, especially if he has a heavyweights punch.


Yes, I agree, his style was said to be that of a swarmer - think of Aaron Pryor only smaller and much, much more powerful - the guy beat the stuffing out Fred Russell, who was 6 foot 6 inches tall and weighed 260 pounds. He KO'd Joe Choyisnki and many other heavyweights.

Walcott KO 2 Hearns in my opinion.

[Flea Man]

Barbadoes Joe Walcott is a good shout; how do the more history-orientated classic posters (I know Sweet Pea for instance is big on BJW) think about Barbadoes' chances against Hearns. We all know he often faced much bigger guys and withstood all kind of punishment whilst being a Demon of a puncher; I guess if Hearns boxed from the outset he'd stand a better decision.

Did Walcott hit as hard as say, Sam Langford in a P4P sense? Did he hit as Hard as Hearns?

[McGrain]

Yeah, Sweet Pea really, really rates him and can defend that position. Barbados could knock Hearns out without hitting him clean, I think. But Hearns does have some silly physical advantages.

As a puncher, it's so hard because there is no footage, but his record probably says he was the hardest hitter of all time. Either that or he had the best chin of all time. Or both. Bit horrible.

[Flea Man]

Yeah, Sweet Pea really, really rates him and can defend that position. Barbados could knock Hearns out without hitting him clean, I think. But Hearns does have some silly physical advantages.

As a puncher, it's so hard because there is no footage, but his record probably says he was the hardest hitter of all time. Either that or he had the best chin of all time. Or both. Bit horrible.

I know that you mean. Another reason why I only usually do Post-War lists or hypothetical matchups is the lack of footage available, but Sweet Pea knows his stuff and really rates Barbadoes Joe Walcott, and from what I've read the guy was a machine.

[BITCH ASS]

Yes, I agree, his style was said to be that of a swarmer - think of Aaron Pryor only smaller and much, much more powerful - the guy beat the stuffing out Fred Russell, who was 6 foot 6 inches tall and weighed 260 pounds. He KO'd Joe Choyisnki and many other heavyweights.

Walcott KO 2 Hearns in my opinion.

That sounds reasonable. I'm assuming he doesn't fight like today's fighters who don't know how to box, and he had the right stance, which means that Hearns would have a hell of a time landing cleanly on Walcott, and at the expense of leaning in and putting his chin out there.

[McGrain]

Fleaman, Pea and Janitor are the two men to ask about him curretnly. Senya may have an inside line too.

[Flea Man]

Fleaman, Pea and Janitor are the two men to ask about him curretnly. Senya may have an inside line too.

Thanks, I'm sure Pea will find his way to this thread again soon, surprised he didn't think it was good to make Walcott a mooted hypothetical opponent for Hearns earlier.

I don't take what Pea says as gospel but you know he's always going to give you insightful and well-researched info :good

[sweet_scientist]

About 30 fights in terms of experience, more if we stretch what we define as Kid's prime. The guy countered and trapped Sugar Ray Robinson to a a near standstill a couple of times in that time, and he boxed won more rounds at the highest level. This is compared to Leonard. The comparison to Tommy Hearns in terms of top line experience is embarrassing. And it's exactly the type that's needed - bring great fighters under control and finding ways to outpoint them, inspite of superior speed/technical ability/physicality. Exactly what Kid would have to do against a woefully inexperienced Tommy Hearns in order to be successful.

Gavialn does have more experience than Leonard but I have a massively hard time seeing how that is going to make his boxing performance much better than Ray's, and it will have to be much better, because he wasn't really close to outpointing him. I'd like to know some specifics about the knowledge he'd have that Ray lacked that is going to help him out here. Saying that he all but held his own with Ray Robinson doesn't really strike me as a good omen for Kid, for Tommy was a better boxer than even Ray.

And I could of course mention all the guys that Gavilan struggled with, guys like Ike Williams for instance that had some similarities with Hearns, but I don't need to go there.


I've mostly covered this above, I think. Just to add, Leonard wasn't the fighter that tricked/trapped and flurried Hagler to defeat. He, too, was learning. And he probably never reached the type of heights that Kid managed in this exact department anyway, though that is debateable, and I have no problem with the contrary view.

Leonard probably learned his most important lesson in Duran I, but Hearns, too, was a big learning fight for him I feel.
What did he learn in the Hearns fight that aided him against Hagler? He was fighting two totally different fighters in Hagler and Hearns.



If you don't have a granite chin brawling with Hagler is stupid - it's a really stupid move. You may be right in what you say - I certainly have no problem with this point of view - but i'm sure Hearns went into the fight believing he has a chance. That he pinned those chances on war rather than boxing is kind of pitiful, in my opinion. That was never going to happen.

Good for us though. And he did have his moment with the cut.I've said my piece here. Sure it was stupid to brawl with Hagler, but imo it was stupid to even sign the fight, period.

[heehoo]

That sounds reasonable. I'm assuming he doesn't fight like today's fighters who don't know how to box, and he had the right stance, which means that Hearns would have a hell of a time landing cleanly on Walcott, and at the expense of leaning in and putting his chin out there.

Precisely.

[McGrain]

Gavialn does have more experience than Leonard but I have a massively hard time seeing how that is going to make his boxing performance much better than Ray's, and it will have to be much better, because he wasn't really close to outpointing him.

Kid would look to force Hearns to lead more, slip and take jabs to get bodywork done, make angles of the backfoot where possible, make angles of the frontfoot where possible, and do these things in more subtle and inscutable ways than Hearns had ever seen or ever would see, is a good strating place. Leonard's plan happened late, Kid's would have to be in gear from the start, no doubt.

But in making his "boxing performance much better than Ray's" none of these things are really king because they would lead, if Kid was to triumph, to a more heated affair generally. The difference I am driving at is an ability to impose a plan, and it's a thing that comes with great experience, as does changing the angle of that approach, in general.

I'd like to know some specifics about the knowledge he'd have that Ray lacked that is going to help him out here.

Breaking down that question would be a huge task, enormous, and not an easy one. But speaking generally, at what point do you think a boxer stops learning? I'd say never. I'd say that the difference in experience is the biggest difference, especially as it's already been proven that prime 147 Hearns can have it taken away from him. Yes by power. No, that wouldn't happen here. But there is more than one way to skin a rabbit.

Saying that he all but held his own with Ray Robinson doesn't really strike me as a good omen for Kid, for Tommy was a better boxer than even Ray.

I wouldn't expect that Leonard to take the fight away from prime 147 Robinson in those circumstances in 100 fights.



What did he learn in the Hearns fight that aided him against Hagler? He was fighting two totally different fighters in Hagler and Hearns.

He learned that a great boxer (which Hagler was) could be outboxed by a better one if he controlled the tempo. He learned that a great performance was meaningless if the other man could take it away at any given moment with the right gear change. He knew all these things going in, like I know them, but the difference between knowing them and feeling their rythyms is like the difference between my experience watching Frazier-Ali III and Frazier's experience of living it


I've said my piece here. Sure it was stupid to brawl with Hagler, but imo it was stupid to even sign the fight, period.

:lol:

Harsh but probably fair. I would just say that if you never try you never know.

[Sweet Pea]

I rate Barbados Joe Walcott extremely highly on my P4P lists, most of you know that and have expressed it. I believe he currently stands at 9th in my futile attempt at an ATG list. On an era by era basis, there may never have been a more impressive physical marvel. A midget for a Welterweight knocking out the best Heavyweights. Ponder that.

However, you guys have heard most of my stuff on different era head to head matchups, especially fighters we really have no film of. I rate them for their resumes and contemporary reports mainly. I also believe boxing to have only truly modernized from a technical standpoint around the 1940's, with quite a few pioneers paving the way beforehand.

Be that as it may, I wouldn't really rate a fighter of that era in head to head ability because of the primitive state of the sport in that time. The art of boxing just hadn't evolved technically to what it would become, not nearly. This is why I rate on an era by era basis, comparing fighters of different eras depending on their accomplishments and their dominance of the era while taking into account the strength of the era. You also have to take into account the progression of boxing throughout the eras. It's why Barbados Joe rates extremely highly for me. And you have to admit, his accomplishments are the definition of P4P.

Be that as it may, Hearns KO1.

edit: About the progression of eras comment, as I said, I believe boxing to have modernized around the 1940's and therefore only compare fighters I've seen on film in head to head matchups from that point forward. And head to head/overall ability comparisons in that part are a very strong part of my rankings, moreso now than it used to be, likely.

[sweet_scientist]

Kid would look to force Hearns to lead more, slip and take jabs to get bodywork done, make angles of the backfoot where possible, make angles of the frontfoot where possible, and do these things in more subtle and inscutable ways than Hearns had ever seen or ever would see, is a good strating place. Leonard's plan happened late, Kid's would have to be in gear from the start, no doubt.

Sounds good in theory :lol:

But in making his "boxing performance much better than Ray's" none of these things are really king because they would lead, if Kid was to triumph, to a more heated affair generally. The difference I am driving at is an ability to impose a plan, and it's a thing that comes with great experience, as does changing the angle of that approach, in general.Strategy, tactics, experience all notwithstanding, I simply don't think Gavilan is a better boxer than Hearns. I suppose for me it's that simple. I simply don't see Gavilan a better boxer than Leonard either. I think there's more chance of Gavilan knocking Hearns out than there is of him outboxing him. 'Spose this is the agree to disagree part.


Breaking down that question would be a huge task, enormous, and not an easy one. But speaking generally, at what point do you think a boxer stops learning? I'd say never. I'd say that the difference in experience is the biggest difference, especially as it's already been proven that prime 147 Hearns can have it taken away from him. Yes by power. No, that wouldn't happen here. But there is more than one way to skin a rabbit.I agree that a fighter never stops learning. And the more experienced you are the more likely it is to help you. Simply I feel Hearns has advantages here that override Kid's wealth of experience together with his other talents.


I wouldn't expect that Leonard to take the fight away from prime 147 Robinson in those circumstances in 100 fights. Exaggeratig as you are, you are still either overrating Robinson or underrating Leonard. Robinson faced no one as good as Ray his whole career bar a depleted Armstorng, which hardly counts.


He learned that a great boxer (which Hagler was) could be outboxed by a better one if he controlled the tempo. He learned that a great performance was meaningless if the other man could take it away at any given moment with the right gear change. He knew all these things going in, like I know them, but the difference between knowing them and feeling their rythyms is like the difference between my experience watching Frazier-Ali III and Frazier's experience of living itI think a bout like Hearns-Leonard I is a performance where you can say Ray Leonard showed a lot of character, showed a lot of belief and a lot of heart. I think all those things were innate to Leonard. He didn't have to learn them.

I don't see how the Hearns bout taught him about controlling the tempo - other than perhaps making him focus upon it, since he definitely didn't control it in the Hearns fight.

He learnt that hard work could be undone by someone getting ko'ed like Tommy was, and that maybe made him more precautious against Hagler. But I doubt he would have went there under any circumstances not being weary of Hagler's power.




:lol:

Harsh but probably fair. I would just say that if you never try you never know.Full credit to him for trying. Not taking anything away from him at all - other than the prayer he had of winning that fight.

[janitor]

Barbadoes Joe Walcott is a good shout; how do the more history-orientated classic posters (I know Sweet Pea for instance is big on BJW) think about Barbadoes' chances against Hearns. We all know he often faced much bigger guys and withstood all kind of punishment whilst being a Demon of a puncher; I guess if Hearns boxed from the outset he'd stand a better decision.

Did Walcott hit as hard as say, Sam Langford in a P4P sense? Did he hit as Hard as Hearns?

The two most efective 147 lb punchers of all time might just be:

Tommy Hearns 6' 1''

and

Joe Walcott 5' 1''

Jack Johnson said that Walcott was one of the hardest punchers he ever shared a ring with. At this point he had fought McVea, Jeffries, Willard.

Walcott tended to do horible things to guys who tried to fight him on the outside.

The guys who beat him generaly did it at mid range.

[janitor]

[quote=Sweet Pea;3881458]
Be that as it may, I wouldn't really rate a fighter of that era in head to head ability because of the primitive state of the sport in that time. The art of boxing just hadn't evolved technically to what it would become, not nearly.


Is it possible that the style that boxers of this era fought in was simply optimum for the rule set?

This is why I rate on an era by era basis, comparing fighters of different eras depending on their accomplishments and their dominance of the era while taking into account the strength of the era.

a sound policy.


You also have to take into account the progression of boxing throughout the eras. It's why Barbados Joe rates extremely highly for me. And you have to admit, his accomplishments are the definition of P4P.

Be that as it may, Hearns KO1.


Hearns KO1?

This guy was a scientific offensive fighter who knew how to slip punches amd use his physical assets.

Three top light heavyweights of the erathat he beat up are available on film.

[heehoo]

The two most efective 147 lb punchers of all time might just be:

Tommy Hearns 6' 1''

and

Joe Walcott 5' 1''

Jack Johnson said that Walcott was one of the hardest punchers he ever shared a ring with. At this point he had fought McVea, Jeffries, Willard.

Walcott tended to do horible things to guys who tried to fight him on the outside.

The guys who beat him generaly did it at mid range.

I believe Sam Langford also said that he was one of the hardest hitters he ever faced.

The guy was a marvel, and as much as I love Tommy Hearns, I don't ever think Hearns would beat him.

It'd be more like Walcott KO2.

[Longhhorn71]

I agree.

I don't think we ever saw the best of Hearns at 147...he moved on up to 154 real soon.

In the old days, you settled in at a weight ...like Monzon & Hagler did and defended your title for awhile.

Too bad Hearns & SRL didn't have a trilogy at 147/154.

[McGrain]

Sounds good in theory :lol:

Right on!

Strategy, tactics, experience all notwithstanding, I simply don't think Gavilan is a better boxer than Hearns. I suppose for me it's that simple. I simply don't see Gavilan a better boxer than Leonard either. I think there's more chance of Gavilan knocking Hearns out than there is of him outboxing him. 'Spose this is the agree to disagree part.

Yeah, agreeing to disagree is fine, but let me just say that if the best boxer always won on points we wouldn't have results like LaMotta WPTS Williams. You can beat a superior boxer - if that description fits here, which i'm not convinced it does, at all - on points, by outlanding him. So you can be right - Hearns can be the better boxer, and still lose, and lose big.


Exaggeratig as you are, you are still either overrating Robinson or underrating Leonard. Robinson faced no one as good as Ray his whole career bar a depleted Armstorng, which hardly counts.

I disagree with you.

Head to head at welterweight, I consider Kid very much in the same class as Leonard.

I'm quite satisfied that LaMotta is a superior middleweight to Leonard.

Peak Leonard moving up to 160 versus peak LaMotta? Close. I think LaMotta would shadow it, personally.

And I stand by what I say. Leonard TKO14 Robinson is not happening.


I don't see how the Hearns bout taught him about controlling the tempo - other than perhaps making him focus upon it, since he definitely didn't control it in the Hearns fight.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean, and in addition that it could be taken away from him (in the Hearns role) against Hagler at any point. But it's the feel for these things that is most important. You can't talk that out. It's the difference between sparring and fighting and fighting and fighting someone much better than you. You can't "hear" this stuff.

[McGrain]

I been sticking it to Tommy good in this thread. I just want to add that the title of the thread is fair. Mortal fighters really aren't going to beat him. But i believe many of the great ones would.

I rate him all time pound for pound, and I like to watch his fights, I just think he is overated head to head at 147.

[birddog]

My Hat's off to Mcgrain and Sweet, and all the others also.

Great exchange of ideas, thoughts and arguments, as to why and how for either side of the debate. And the education I always get.

Why I love this forum.

Thanks to all

[JohnThomas1]

I've said my piece here. Sure it was stupid to brawl with Hagler, but imo it was stupid to even sign the fight, period.

You don't find greatness running away from opportunities tho SS. Hearns wanted to be the best ever and gave himself the fights to get there, had he won them all.

I totally disagree fighting Hagler was anything but stupid. Again i think hindsight has come to the fore. A few points..

Hagler was a slim 7-5 fave and Hearns had just as many backers among the experts.

In recent fights Hagler struggled somewhat vs Duran whilst Hearns totally crucified him. I know just because fighter A beats fighter B better than fighter C it's not the be all and end all, but it certainly shows us getting the pair together wouldn't be altogether stupid for fighter A. Hearns had not that long prior put in a career performance against a great that was on a good streak again.

The great trainer and great scribe Eddie Futch and Ed Schuyler were just two of many who chose Hearns.

There are still some very respected people who think Hearns may have prevailed if he boxed. I know you are in the totally opposite camp but such quality opinions point away from the fight being stupid.

I believe a fight with Michael Spinks would have been "stupid" as such. Now THAT is stupid i think lol. Tommy was talking about it for ages.

Agree with your opinion of Hearns vs Gavilan and enjoying the debate with Macca.

[JohnThomas1]

Well i'm not suggesting he can't execute a game-plan. Just that he got knocked out when Leonard shifted gears on him.


Hearns actually adapted when Leonard shifted gears on him, much earlier in the fight. This fight was fought on multiple platforms. Later on Leonard keep waiting for his moment and when he got it again Hearns was both too tired and inexperienced to ride it out for a second time.

I dn't agree with this, I have to tell you man. Duran is a LW with a genuinely great chin. Hagler is a MW with a granite chin. I think you'd need Foster to blow him out and I'd argue that this was already pretty clear at this time, and if it wasn't, it should have been by the end of the second minute of the first round.


Duran had just gone 15 with Marvin Hagler. Nobody except Tommy himself was picking a stoppage, let alone an anniliation.

It was clear at the time Hagler had a great chin, but this very fight was the one that put Hagler's chin into the stratosphere. Lets not forget Hearns almost got lucky with a cut. Almost can be debated but it did threaten to be a factor. Tho it was thought to be very difficult even at the time there were some thinking Hearns could stop Hagler. The legend that is Hagler's chin was signed sealed and delivered in this bout.

[McGrain]

Tho it was thought to be very difficult even at the time there were some thinking Hearns could stop Hagler. The legend that is Hagler's chin was signed sealed and delivered in this bout.

Perhaps in terms of the myth and legend, but I would expect that most fighting men knew what they were looking at.

Maybe not though.

[JohnThomas1]

Perhaps in terms of the myth and legend, but I would expect that most fighting men knew what they were looking at.

Maybe not though.


The Hearns and Mugabi fights (Both in his last 3 career fights) did great things for a chin already considered superb. When you see people commenting on Hagler's great chin you see them talking/raving about the Hearns and Mugabi bouts. Post Hearns bout. As i said a couple of weeks ago, Hamshpo used to take out the chin award and be rated the best at 160 above Hagler, believe it or not.

[McGrain]

Jesus, above LaMotta also? What a crock that is.

[JohnThomas1]

Jesus, above LaMotta also? What a crock that is.


Sorry mate, meant of present fighters. Hagler's chin, tho very respected, sailed under the radar for years. He needed a great challenger with feared power to show it for what it was worth, and that was Hearns. Ironically Hamsho's chin made much of it's repution in the first Hagler fight and if not for this IMO would not have been holding him out :lol:

[McGrain]

Ah, got you.

What order would you put these in - Hagler, Tiger, LaMotta, Toney?

[JohnThomas1]

Ah, got you.

What order would you put these in - Hagler, LaMotta, Toney?

Jeez, that's headache material! Let me think about it and answer tonight. This would actually be a GREAT thread.

I'll try find the Hamsho chin award summary tnoight too like i promised a fellow Aussie a week or two back. Just so people can get a feel for that time.

[McGrain]

Jeez, that's headache material! Let me think about it and answer tonight. This would actually be a GREAT thread.

I'll try find the Hamsho chin award summary tnoight too like i promised a fellow Aussie a week or two back. Just so people can get a feel for that time.

Yeah I would be interested in reading that.

I think I will start a thread, see what everyone has to say.

[sweet_scientist]

You don't find greatness running away from opportunities tho SS. Hearns wanted to be the best ever and gave himself the fights to get there, had he won them all.

I totally disagree fighting Hagler was anything but stupid. Again i think hindsight has come to the fore. A few points..

Hagler was a slim 7-5 fave and Hearns had just as many backers among the experts.

In recent fights Hagler struggled somewhat vs Duran whilst Hearns totally crucified him. I know just because fighter A beats fighter B better than fighter C it's not the be all and end all, but it certainly shows us getting the pair together wouldn't be altogether stupid for fighter A. Hearns had not that long prior put in a career performance against a great that was on a good streak again.

The great trainer and great scribe Eddie Futch and Ed Schuyler were just two of many who chose Hearns.

There are still some very respected people who think Hearns may have prevailed if he boxed. I know you are in the totally opposite camp but such quality opinions point away from the fight being stupid.

I believe a fight with Michael Spinks would have been "stupid" as such. Now THAT is stupid i think lol. Tommy was talking about it for ages.

Agree with your opinion of Hearns vs Gavilan and enjoying the debate with Macca.


Like I said, take nothing away from him for taking the fight. He left no question marks as to how great he was, and that's the mark of a guy that got everything out of himself. I don't blame him at all for taking the Hagler fight, in fact, had I followed the sport at the time I would have been critical of him if he DIDN'T take the fight.

Just saying though, I don't think he had a chance of winning it. Both had power but Hagler had a rock chin whilst Hearns had a vunerable chin. The equation was that simple. Hearns looked great blasting Duran out of there, but Roberto was not in the shape he was against Hagler when he fought Hearns (not that it would have mattered much, but he certainly wouldn't have looked as dominant against the Duran Hagler fought), and Duran survived the Hagler fight because of his shifty defensive ability - something Hearns never had.

Not sure what to say of those that think Hearns wins it if he boxes. Simply disagree I suppose.

[sweet_scientist]

Right on!



Yeah, agreeing to disagree is fine, but let me just say that if the best boxer always won on points we wouldn't have results like LaMotta WPTS Williams. You can beat a superior boxer - if that description fits here, which i'm not convinced it does, at all - on points, by outlanding him. So you can be right - Hearns can be the better boxer, and still lose, and lose big.

Rarely does a better boxer get outboxed by a boxer who is not as good a boxer. It's usually because of things like grinding out a points win, like Lamotta did there. I don't think Gavilan is going to be grinding out a victory from Hearns, he will have to more or less outbox him, a tall order for mine, very tall.




I disagree with you.

Head to head at welterweight, I consider Kid very much in the same class as Leonard.

I'm quite satisfied that LaMotta is a superior middleweight to Leonard.

Peak Leonard moving up to 160 versus peak LaMotta? Close. I think LaMotta would shadow it, personally.

And I stand by what I say. Leonard TKO14 Robinson is not happening.

I think Leonard is a little better, but not by much. Power is probably their distinguishing feature for me when all is said and done. I don't think Leonard even beat Hagler, so it's not like I rate him higher than Gavilan because of quality wins at heigher weights.


Yes, that's exactly what I mean, and in addition that it could be taken away from him (in the Hearns role) against Hagler at any point. But it's the feel for these things that is most important. You can't talk that out. It's the difference between sparring and fighting and fighting and fighting someone much better than you. You can't "hear" this stuff.

I get ya.

[sweet_scientist]

My Hat's off to Mcgrain and Sweet, and all the others also.

Great exchange of ideas, thoughts and arguments, as to why and how for either side of the debate. And the education I always get.

Why I love this forum.

Thanks to all

Cheers, enjoy birdy :good

[Sweet Pea]

Is it possible that the style that boxers of this era fought in was simply optimum for the rule set?
It's more than likely the exact reason rather than a mere possibility. What's impossible, IMO, is that a fighter from a completely different era and ruleset, brought up with an entirely different and less advanced style, would be able to hang with a far more technically advanced fighter under said fighter's era and ruleset. Especially one with such overwhelming physical advantages.

Obviously, overcoming tremendous advantages was one of Walcott's prime strengths, due to his own physical gifts, but while he was capable of pulling them off against fighters of his own era, I don't see him being able to do the same with a fully modernized fighter holding the same advantages.


Hearns KO1?

This guy was a scientific offensive fighter who knew how to slip punches amd use his physical assets.

Three top light heavyweights of the era that he beat up are available on film.
I've explained the bit about Hearns. As for the fighters Walcott fought on film, which of them appears modernized to you, or on the level of a Tommy Hearns from a technical and overall standpoint?

[Flea Man]

I have to say I'm surprised Sweet Pea has taken this stance; it's something I say but I usually get shot down.

I feel people picking Sam Langford over Prime Tyson or George Foreman doesn't make sense to me.

Although I think a mans toughness must be brought into question, fighting bigger guys and often at regular intervals.

But thanks for the input guys, I was looking to find out a bit more about Walcott and I have :good

[Minotauro]

I'd make Napoles and possibly Gavilan 50/50 and think Burley would beat him.

[heehoo]

I agree with Minotauro, Charlie Burley wasn't the most avoided fighter in history for no reason.

He would give Hearns a boxing lesson, maybe knock him down a few times.

[McGrain]

Pea knows boxing and knows the Barbados Demon, but KO1 is a ludicrous pick. If Hearns is pursing an aggressive, knockout plan, he'd get stopped in the first round for me. Hearns might totally outbox and embarress Walcott to something like an 8 round stoppage - I don't think so - because of boxing's advancement, but KO1 isn't a serious pick in my view.


I agree that Burley beats Hearns, to nobodies surprise.

[Flea Man]

I think Burley might beat Hearns as well. From what I've seen of Burley he was very much a 'modern fighter'. Plus, you look at his resume, and see who apparently ducked him and you get an idea of how good he was.

Not a certainty though, there isn't enough available. Wasn't Burley a formidable MW as well? Which was his 'Prime' weight?

[McGrain]

Like Hearns, Burley's best weight would probably have been 154. He was a fierce MW who came unstuck against the best bigger men (160 plus) men he fought, but was capable of beating a big HW in JD Tuner.

[teeto]

Like Hearns, Burley's best weight would probably have been 154. He was a fierce MW who came unstuck against the best bigger men (160 plus) men he fought, but was capable of beating a big HW in JD Tuner.
I agree that 154 was his prime weight potentially. From the available division's to him, 147 was the best for him imo, ironic that he ended up being a greater middleweight (on acievements and resume) if maybe not quite as brilliant h2h than what he was at 147. Just my take.

[JohnThomas1]

He would give Hearns a boxing lesson, maybe knock him down a few times.

Win, lose or draw i highly doubt this.

[heehoo]

Win, lose or draw i highly doubt this.

How so?

Burley was the complete package. He could box, he could punch, he had excellent defensive skills, and he was quick. He also possessed an iron chin, as he was never knocked out in his career. The late great Eddie Futch compared him to Roy Jones, Jr. style-wise.

He knocked down the great Archie Moore 4 times when they met, I am sure he'd to that to Hearns, who's chin was shaky.

[McGrain]

Burley beats Hearns because he closes the distance so quickly, unexpectedly, and he comes with power. It's a fast snapping motion with real shine on the shoe. It's a knockout in my opinion. There isn't even that much between them in terms of reach, and what there is would just be torque waiting to happen.

If I was picking one guy to get this job done it would be Burley. And I agree with heehoo that it would look pretty one-sided.

[Sweet Pea]

Burley is one of few with a chance of pulling off the victory over Hearns, but at the end of the day Hearns still holds most of the advantages.

[My2Sense]

Hearns was an absolute monster at 147. That's where he showed his best form and consistently gave his best performances. At 154 he didn't show quite the same fire and intensity, and at 160 and upwards his legs and reflexes were slowed by the added weight and he was much too hittable. Robinson and Leonard are the only two welters I think I would back with certainty to beat him. Most others would have some terrible size and/or stylistic disadvantages to overcome.

[My2Sense]

Well forget Barney then; talk to me about how a veteran with MASSIVE skills, great physical tools and enormous amounts of experience, like, say Kid Gavlian, Charley Burley or Jose Napoles lose to a guy who is 1-1 at the highest level.

Burley in real life has lost to guys who had little or no experience at the highest level - ie: Jimmy Bivins, Ezzard Charles(twice). Bivins in fact only had about 10 or so fights when he whupped Burley.

[My2Sense]

Well if your point is that all these men had off nights, you are indisputibly correct. But if you are saying these guys would lose to Hearns because they had off nights, I think that is unfair. Of course top fighters COULD lose to other top fighters if they do less than their best work. I think it's only fair to dig out these fighter's best performances and nights when comparing them.


Which of their losses do you think were "off nights," and how do you come by determining that?

Could Hearns' losses to Leonard or Hagler be put down to "off nights" as well?

[JohnThomas1]

How so?

Burley was the complete package. He could box, he could punch, he had excellent defensive skills, and he was quick. He also possessed an iron chin, as he was never knocked out in his career. The late great Eddie Futch compared him to Roy Jones, Jr. style-wise.

He knocked down the great Archie Moore 4 times when they met, I am sure he'd to that to Hearns, who's chin was shaky.

Burley may or may not stop Hearns, but i can't see ANYONE outboxing him onesidedly.

[JohnThomas1]

Burley beats Hearns because he closes the distance so quickly, unexpectedly, and he comes with power. It's a fast snapping motion with real shine on the shoe. It's a knockout in my opinion. There isn't even that much between them in terms of reach, and what there is would just be torque waiting to happen.

If I was picking one guy to get this job done it would be Burley. And I agree with heehoo that it would look pretty one-sided.

What exactly exists of Burley on film? I've seen one bout i think.

[McGrain]

Which of their losses do you think were "off nights," and how do you come by determining that?

Could Hearns' losses to Leonard or Hagler be put down to "off nights" as well?

You think Hearns had an "off night" against Leonard? I think it was the best he ever looked at 147.

[McGrain]

What exactly exists of Burley on film? I've seen one bout i think.

You've seen it all then bud. Not a happy ending.

[JohnThomas1]

You think Hearns had an "off night" against Leonard? I think it was the best he ever looked at 147.


Redrooster sure says he did

:lol:

[McGrain]

Where is Redrooster, anyway?

[JohnThomas1]

Where is Redrooster, anyway?

I think he posted very recently in the 5 titles thread, yeah the SRL one :lol:

[McGrain]

Christ.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Imagine that, people picking one fighter over another just because he beat him already. Talk about bias! How on earth could they come to such a conclusion :lol:.

Yeah, it's fucking very odd that isn't it? :lol:


I think Hearns vs virtually every all-time great welter looks very much like the Leonard fight after the first 8 rounds or so. I think even Robinson would be prompted with a "you're blowing it now son". He was that good.

[heehoo]

Burley may or may not stop Hearns, but i can't see ANYONE outboxing him onesidedly.


Just as I can see Walcott flattening Hearns in the first round on ONE punch, I can see Burley boxing circles around Hearns. Granted, Hearns has the power, but his chin would let him down. Burley would embarrass a lot of fighters today, Hearns being no exception.

[Sweet Pea]

Just as I can see Walcott flattening Hearns in the first round on ONE punch, I can see Burley boxing circles around Hearns. Granted, Hearns has the power, but his chin would let him down. Burley would embarrass a lot of fighters today, Hearns being no exception.

What does his chin have to do with him having rings boxed around him? Your arguments make no sense.

[heehoo]

What does his chin have to do with him having rings boxed around him? Your arguments make no sense.

My whole point is that Hearns has a weak chin. Walcott and Burley would knock him out.

What really makes no sense is Hearns KO1 Walcott. That is laughable that you of all people would even think that would happen. In fact, I'll say it right now, that's the silliest thing I've ever read on here. You're a lot smarter than this. Walcott was a swarmer along the lines of Aaron Pryor. He would rush in on Hearns and drop him with a single shot, it didn't matter what hand he used.

[Sweet Pea]

My whole point is that Hearns has a weak chin. Walcott and Burley would knock him out.

What really makes no sense is Hearns KO1 Walcott. That is laughable that you of all people would even think that would happen. In fact, I'll say it right now, that's the silliest thing I've ever read on here. You're a lot smarter than this. Walcott was a swarmer along the lines of Aaron Pryor. He would rush in on Hearns and drop him with a single shot, it didn't matter what hand he used.

You're right. I just hadn't seen all that footage of Walcott to suggest so. Obviously you're more learned in his style than myself in order to compare him directly to another fighter. Can you tell me what footage of Walcott has impressed you the most?

Also, can you tell me, in your honest to God opinion, how the footage of the other top fighters of that general era compares to the footage of the fighters of the more modern era? Random clips

Walcott's general era:

2CCU3pnlEOM

zcq-Sy05C-8

Modern era:

Yjk5znRQn-U

lyzw0548wEQ



Now, what say you? Are you going to blatantly lie to me and tell me that the fighters of Walcott's era were of a similar quality skill-wise (and throw all logic out the window in the process) or are you going to come to your own conclusions and not what you feel will lead to lesser criticism on a Classic Forum? This is coming from a poster who believes boxing to have declined in recent years in comparison to its heyday from the 40's to the 80's, but if anyone is trying to tell me that the sport has never evolved since its inception, or that a 5'1 fighter from a primitive era is going to KO a 6'1 fighter with every advantage from the modern era, then I'm calling bullshit.

Calling me out for a supposedly ridiculous pick when you've picked the exact opposite extreme scenario.:lol:

[Sweet Pea]

And just to reiterate. Hearns KO1 Walcott.:good

[heehoo]

You're right. I just hadn't seen all that footage of Walcott to suggest so. Obviously you're more learned in his style than myself in order to compare him directly to another fighter. Can you tell me what footage of Walcott has impressed you the most?

Also, can you tell me, in your honest to God opinion, how the footage of the other top fighters of that general era compares to the footage of the fighters of the more modern era? Random clips

Walcott's general era:

2CCU3pnlEOM

zcq-Sy05C-8

Modern era:

Yjk5znRQn-U

lyzw0548wEQ



Now, what say you? Are you going to blatantly lie to me and tell me that the fighters of Walcott's era were of a similar quality skill-wise (and throw all logic out the window in the process) or are you going to come to your own conclusions and not what you feel will lead to lesser criticism on a Classic Forum? This is coming from a poster who believes boxing to have declined in recent years in comparison to its heyday from the 40's to the 80's, but if anyone is trying to tell me that the sport has never evolved since its inception, or that a 5'1 fighter from a primitive era is going to KO a 6'1 fighter with every advantage from the modern era, then I'm calling bullshit.

Calling me out for a supposedly ridiculous pick when you've picked the exact opposite extreme scenario.:lol:

LMAO Of course the styles were much different in Walcott's day than in Hearns's day. I don't need to be re-educated on that.

Here's what I've read regarding his styleA:

Walcott's style was, in reality, no style at all. He fought every fight with but one thought in mind: to destroy the man in front of him. And he went about his pursuit by swarming all over his opponent, jumping up at him if necessary, and throwing punches from every angle imaginable. And some not. Several historians who saw both Henry Armstrong and Walcott likened Armstrong's swarming windmill style to Walcott's, a trait made all the more comparable by Armstrong's similar disregard for personal safety.


"5'1 fighter from a primitive era is going to KO a 6'1 fighter with every advantage from the modern era, then I'm calling bullshit."

I see what you're saying, it makes perfect sense, but I feel that Walcott's height would be a disadvantage for Hearns in that all Walcott would have to do is get in on Hearns and land one hard shot on his chin. That's my view. I will forever agree to disagree with you or anyone else that shares that view.

And by the way, Walcott KO1:good

[Sweet Pea]

The rulesets were obviously much different. If that's so easy to accept, how can you claim that fighters of that era would be just as effective under a modern ruleset with their completely primitive skills by comparison? That should be just as obviously foolish to suggest.

[heehoo]

The rulesets were obviously much different. If that's so easy to accept, how can you claim that fighters of that era would be just as effective under a modern ruleset with their completely primitive skills by comparison? That should be just as obviously foolish to suggest.

I never said all fighters from that era would be successful. That's simply not true.

I simply said Walcott would be successful.

If Henry Armstrong was likened to Walcott style-wise, this tells me that Walcott would be successful today, especially since Aaron Pryor was always likened to Armstrong. All three had a similar style - basically reckless abandon - though Walcott hit the hardest of them all.

[Sweet Pea]

I never said all fighters from that era would be successful. That's simply not true.

I simply said Walcott would be successful.

If Henry Armstrong was likened to Walcott style-wise, this tells me that Walcott would be successful today, especially since Aaron Pryor was always likened to Armstrong. All three had a similar style - basically reckless abandon - though Walcott hit the hardest of them all.There were distinct differences to Armstrong and Pryor's style, and both are more or less modern era fighters with advanced skill-sets to the fighters of Walcott's day. The fact that 3 fighters are considered swarmers doesn't make them all equally effective on a grand scale, or even similar. Swarming is probably the best example of a style for all eras, but don't be fooled, there are still a good many changes to have developed in not just the style, but also the sport over time.

Were Walcott born in the modern era it's difficult to say how well he'd fare. Someone that size in a sport like this, at the weight he fought at, just doesn't seem to click. Could be wrong, but I really doubt it when taking the changes in the techniques between eras into consideration.

[JohnThomas1]

Just as I can see Walcott flattening Hearns in the first round on ONE punch,

You and Janitor will make great allies, he picked your boy Walcott over Hearns, McCallum, even with Hagler, definite win over Foster and Tex Cobb as well :roll:

Hell, one of those 4 feet high leaping left hooks would probably register a one punch KO of Cobb! Hell, why stop at that, Walcott vs Tyson anyone? The 147 Walcott at that in case anyone is mixed up.

[McGrain]

You and Janitor will make great allies, he picked your boy Walcott over Hearns, McCallum, even with Hagler, definite win over Foster and Tex Cobb as well :roll:

Hell, one of those 4 feet high leaping left hooks would probably register a one punch KO of Cobb! Hell, why stop at that, Walcott vs Tyson anyone? The 147 Walcott at that in case anyone is mixed up.

To be fair, there's a world of difference between a devastating puncher beating Hearns at 147 and beating Foster, isn't there? It hink you are being a bit hard on heehoo.

Sweet Pea - Hearns KO1 Walcott is a silly pick. You once said to me that you thought Greb's style would translate well into the modern era. I agree. Why do you think a granite-chinned power-puncher would be knocked out in the first round because of some rule changes? Do you not think that his ability to take a punch as well as his power, discouraging slugging, would make him very difficult for anyone at 147 to KO in a single round? Surley Hearns brings a boxing plan?

[Flea Man]

I think a lot of old fighters toughness would get them through difficult patches, but they would be stopped as you can see a lot of old fighters go ages without throwing back and take almost unbelievable punishment.

Nowadays, they would be stopped.

I fail to see how Langford could beat the likes of Prime Tyson, Foreman, Lewis, Holmes, Ali etc etc

Can't see Walcott beating Hagler!!!!

[JohnThomas1]

To be fair, there's a world of difference between a devastating puncher beating Hearns at 147 and beating Foster, isn't there?

Beating was just the start of it.

Just as I can see Walcott flattening Hearns in the first round on ONE punch

Tell me again when Hearns was ko'ed in the 1st round by but "ONE" punch? Ludicrous assessment. I'd like to see Walcott beat Marlon Starling, let alone Hearns, let alone a one punch KO1.

:roll:

[heehoo]

Beating was just the start of it.



Tell me again when Hearns was ko'ed in the 1st round by but "ONE" punch? Ludicrous assessment. I'd like to see Walcott beat Marlon Starling, let alone Hearns, let alone a one punch KO1.

:roll:


Hearns would be KO'd in the first round on one punch. The man had the punch of a full-fledged heavyweight in both hands and had a freakishly long reach to boot. He toyed with a 6 foot 6, 260 pounder, KO'd Joe Choynski and many other fighter who were bigger than him.

I can see Hearns flattening Walcott.. er, no I can't, nor can I ever, all because of his chin. Walcott withstood beatings that would finish most men. Hearns would be lucky to land a shot on Walcott once Walcott swarms in on him and flattens him.

Again, Walcott KO1 Hearns:good

[heehoo]

You and Janitor will make great allies, he picked your boy Walcott over Hearns, McCallum, even with Hagler, definite win over Foster and Tex Cobb as well :roll:

Hell, one of those 4 feet high leaping left hooks would probably register a one punch KO of Cobb! Hell, why stop at that, Walcott vs Tyson anyone? The 147 Walcott at that in case anyone is mixed up.

And I agree with janitor, much to your disappointment. :lol:

The man was a freak, he was proof that size meant nothing.

[Flea Man]

Hearns would be KO'd in the first round on one punch. The man had the punch of a full-fledged heavyweight in both hands and had a freakishly long reach to boot. He toyed with a 6 foot 6, 260 pounder, KO'd Joe Choynski and many other fighter who were bigger than him.

I can see Hearns flattening Walcott.. er, no I can't, nor can I ever, all because of his chin. Walcott withstood beatings that would finish most men. Hearns would be lucky to land a shot on Walcott once Walcott swarms in on him and flattens him.

Again, Walcott KO1 Hearns:good

Yeah, and in Hearns' era, referee's wisely stopped fights when those sort of beatings took place :good

[JohnThomas1]

Hearns would be KO'd in the first round on one punch. The man had the punch of a full-fledged heavyweight in both hands and had a freakishly long reach to boot. He toyed with a 6 foot 6, 260 pounder, KO'd Joe Choynski and many other fighter who were bigger than him.

I can see Hearns flattening Walcott.. er, no I can't, nor can I ever, all because of his chin. Walcott withstood beatings that would finish most men. Hearns would be lucky to land a shot on Walcott once Walcott swarms in on him and flattens him.

Again, Walcott KO1 Hearns:good

Phew, for a while there earlier i thought you were serious :lol:


I must admit, you had me hook, line and sinker as they say

:good

[heehoo]

Phew, for a while there earlier i thought you were serious :lol:


I must admit, you had me hook, line and sinker as they say

:good

LMFAO I am serious! :lol:

No one will ever convince me otherwise!

[JohnThomas1]

To be fair, there's a world of difference between a devastating puncher beating Hearns at 147 and beating Foster, isn't there? It hink you are being a bit hard on heehoo.


Well Heehoo has since made it plain he too picks Walcott over Foster (and Cobb, McCallum, etc). I dare say he takes him over Burley by brutal KO too ;)

Maybe i wasn't so harsh after all

:D