Dick Tiger or Thomas Hearns Who Was Greater?

[cotto20]

Who was the greater fighter?

[MRBILL]

Originally Posted by BoxingGlove1

Who was the greater fighter?

Hearns by far was greater than Tiger.......... Tiger was great too, but Hearns has done much more in boxing than Tiger did............

In a time machine, Hearns beats Tiger by a decision or late round TKO pending on whether Hearns' right hand is healed and secure......... Hearns broke and popped a knuckle or two on the heads of Benitez and Hagler in 1982 and '85.... Plus, I'd make "Hearns-Tiger" for 168 pounds.....


MR.BILL

[Shake]

Originally Posted by MRBILL

Hearns by far was greater than Tiger.......... Tiger was great too, but Hearns has done much more in boxing than Tiger did............

In a time machine, Hearns beats Tiger by a decision or late round TKO pending on whether Hearns' right hand is healed and secure......... Hearns broke and popped a knuckle or two on the heads of Benitez and Hagler in 1982 and '85.... Plus, I'd make "Hearns-Tiger" for 168 pounds.....


MR.BILL

Someone hold back McGrain.

[Wu-Gambino]

Originally Posted by MRBILL

In a time machine, Hearns beats Tiger by a decision or late round TKO pending on whether Hearns' right hand is healed and secure......... Hearns broke and popped a knuckle or two on the heads of Benitez and Hagler in 1982 and '85.... Plus, I'd make "Hearns-Tiger" for 168 pounds.....


MR.BILL

I'm sorry, your opinion is incorrect. Thanks for trying.

[MRBILL]

Originally Posted by Wu-Gambino

I'm sorry, your opinion is incorrect. Thanks for trying.

Try? My ass... I did it........ Hearns either clocks and stops Tiger like he did other ruthless foe's like "Roldan & Andries," or he merely sticks and moves and uses speed and finess to out-score Tiger at long range like he did against Hill....... Yes, Ol' Tiger would have some fine moments, but he'd fall short....

No excuses, but Hearns was weak in 1981 at 145 lbs. for SRL, and Hearns was caught off guard when he was hammered by Hagler at 159 pounds in 1985......... The great Hagler immediately took Hearns away from his original game plan and made the fight a street fight....... As for the loss to Barkley in '88, Hearns really had no more bidness being 160 at that point.... By 1988, Hearns was better suited between 165 to 175 pounds, but economics dictated that Hearns fight as a middleweight.........

At any rate, Hearns' chin was indeed chinny, but it seemingly was better as he put some weight on his body and legs....... Hearns took some wicked ass and gave some wicked ass shots against Kinchen at 168 pounds in 1988 and Barkley at 175 pounds in 1992.........

MR.BILL

[red cobra]

Dick Tiger was the better fighter, but the only way Hearns won win is if he ran and jabbed all night. I still think Tiger's the better fighter though.

[Wu-Gambino]

Originally Posted by MRBILL

Try? My ass... I did it........ Hearns either clocks and stops Tiger like he did other ruthless foe's like "Roldan & Andries," or he merely sticks and moves and uses speed and finess to out-score Tiger at long range like he did against Hill....... Yes, Ol' Tiger would have some fine moments, but he'd fall short....

No excuses, but Hearns was weak in 1981 at 145 lbs. for SRL, and Hearns was caught off guard when he was hammered by Hagler at 159 pounds in 1985......... The great Hagler immediately took Hearns away from his original game plan and made the fight a street fight....... As for the loss to Barkley in '88, Hearns really had no more bidness being 160 at that point.... By 1988, Hearns was better suited between 165 to 175 pounds, but economics dictated that Hearns fight as a middleweight.........

At any rate, Hearns' chin was indeed chinny, but it seemingly was better as he put some weight on his body and legs....... Hearns took some wicked ass and gave some wicked ass shots against Kinchen at 168 pounds in 1988 and Barkley at 175 pounds in 1992.........

MR.BILL

Hearns was very vunerable at 160 and to compare Tiger to Roldan or Andries (which wasn't even at 160) is laughable. Tiger has faced and beaten both bigger punchers and better boxers at 160 as well. No doubt in my mind Tiger would overwhelm Hearns at middle. Too strong, too hard hitting, and too durable. Hearns doesn't have the gas or chin to run and jab against Tiger for 15.

[red cobra]

Originally Posted by Wu-Gambino

Hearns was very vunerable at 160 and to compare Tiger to Roldan or Andries (which wasn't even at 160) is laughable. Tiger has faced and beaten both bigger punchers and better boxers at 160 as well. No doubt in my mind Tiger would overwhelm Hearns at middle. Too strong, too hard hitting, and too durable. Hearns doesn't have the gas or chin to run and jab against Tiger for 15.

I agree with that actually, I just think Tiger was a brute at 160, and a guy who got hurt as much as Hearns did would be hurt by the man from Nigeria.

[MRBILL]

Originally Posted by Wu-Gambino

Hearns was very vunerable at 160 and to compare Tiger to Roldan or Andries (which wasn't even at 160) is laughable. Tiger has faced and beaten both bigger punchers and better boxers at 160 as well. No doubt in my mind Tiger would overwhelm Hearns at middle. Too strong, too hard hitting, and too durable. Hearns doesn't have the gas or chin to run and jab against Tiger for 15.

Horseshit......... The Roldan fight was at 160 for the WBC title in Oct. '87...... The kicker is, Hearns was at 173 pounds for Andries earlier in Feb. of '87........ Instead of moving up in sequence, Hearns dropped over a dozen pounds.... I don't like that tactic on a aging fighter.......

Tiger was champ at 160 and 175........... So checkin' in with Hearns based on his fights and struggles with "Andries, Roldan, Barkley, Kinchen, Leonard, Olajide & Hill" from 1987 thru 1992 is reasonable........ The hell are you talkin' bout???


MR.BILL

[Xplosive]

Hearns

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by MRBILL

No excuses, but Hearns was weak in 1981 at 145 lbs. for SRL, and Hearns was caught off guard when he was hammered by Hagler at 159 pounds in 1985......... The great Hagler immediately took Hearns away from his original game plan and made the fight a street fight....... As for the loss to Barkley in '88, Hearns really had no more bidness being 160 at that point.... By 1988, Hearns was better suited between 165 to 175 pounds, but economics dictated that Hearns fight as a middleweight.........

Come on, if those aren't excises, then what are they?

[Wu-Gambino]

Originally Posted by MRBILL

Horseshit......... The Roldan fight was at 160 for the WBC title in Oct. '87...... The kicker is, Hearns was at 173 pounds for Andries earlier in Feb. of '87........ Instead of moving up in sequence, Hearns dropped over a dozen pounds.... I don't like that tactic on a aging fighter.......

Tiger was champ at 160 and 175........... So checkin' in with Hearns based on his fights and struggles with "Andries, Roldan, Barkley, Kinchen, Leonard, Olajide & Hill" from 1987 thru 1992 is reasonable........ The hell are you talkin' bout???


MR.BILL

I meant that ideally this fight would be at 160, unless for some reason you'd prefer to match them up at 175 where they were worse off.
And I repeat, comparing Tiger to ANY of Hearns's comp at 160 (and 175 if you insist) is laughable bar Hagler.

Feel free to explain why Hearns would knock Tiger out () while I'm off to see Mayweather-Marquez.

[MRBILL]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

Come on, if those aren't excises, then what are they?

Well, excuses or not, I do believe along with many fans and onlookers that team Hearns fucked up in '81 by weighing in at 145 pounds from Tommy..... Christ, Hearns was skeletal at a striped 147 pounds in 1981..... At least cut me some slack there, folks.........

Yes... I too, think Hearns was more so scared and nervous come fight time when he saw Hagler looking pissed and ready to kill in 1985....... Being scared and threatened can and will drain your energy very early on in a fight....... Hagler IS my man at 160.... Hagler was not prepared to lose to Hearns in 1985 at 160 pounds.... I popped a big time boner when Hearns hit the deck in 1985..........

BUT! I do believe that Hearns was once again drained in '88 at 160 against Barkley....... After kayoing Andries in early 1987 at 173 pounds, Hearns was a fool to drop back down to 160......... Aging fighters don't do that...

MR.BILL

[TBooze]

Originally Posted by red cobra

I agree with that actually, I just think Tiger was a brute at 160, and a guy who got hurt as much as Hearns did would be hurt by the man from Nigeria.

Tiger would be insulted, he helped the war to try and gain Biafra independence from Nigeria.

[Sweet Pea]

@ Hearns ever once stopping Tiger in 100 attempts.