Originally Posted by Robbi
You are presenting me with Hearns' showing a good chin in one fight, and he was actually KO'd inside 3 rounds. When comparing Hearns' chin with De La Hoya's look past one fight when coming forward with a case, and you will see De La Hoya without question had a better chin than Hearns.
De La Hoya started off at super-featherweight, and Hearns started off at welterweight. Both moved up through the divisions, and Hearns obviously fought more bigger guys. Hagler, Barkley, Andries, Hill, etc.
If De La Hoya started off at welterweight and moved up to light-heavyweight, then our comparison would be very accurate to say the least. But thats fantasy talk.
The bottom line here is, De La Hoya showed a better chin than Hearns throughout his career. Not just recorded knockdowns on both sides, but also the ability to withstand heavy blows and not show any effects from the punches.
On this forum, I'm usually defending Oscar against JackPresscott, Kayb and other 'haters', but I consider myself objective and a bit more realistic than some of those dudes. That being the case, and considering that Hearns beat Virgil Hill (who subsequently lost a close decision to the current best 200 pounder), I believe that Hearns is just too big and strong for Oscar, who was at his best at 140-147.
Hearns' chin was probably tested more by more big shots in the first two rounds against Hagler than Oscar's was in any fight he's had. At the start of rd 3, he was still unfazed. He was in with lots of other hardhitters as well.
I don't recall Oscar being tested to the same degree.