Greater fighter? Thomas Hearns or Larry Holmes?

Holmes was 35 when he was beaten. 3 year difference is not much, considering Marciano's style. Holmes leaves a career of questions. Hearns does not. Hearns fought everyone. He could box and punch. All around more exciting guy who had better competition.. And Holmes had competition, I don't mean an old Ali. or Snipes.

 

I think that some guys probably grow up with different dietary habits than normal, and look sort of tall and anorexic with their ribs showing. A good healthy weight for them would be twenty or thirty pounds north of where they are, but in a sport with weight divisions they stay low to keep the unnatural advantage.

Take Miguel Cotto and Manny Pacquioa. Those guys are about the same size, but Cotto has never weighed less than 137 and Manny once weighed 106. I see both of those guys natural fighting weight as about 135-140. Manny just started lower because of several factors like age, culture, diet, and poverty.

I didn't say that I thought Holmes would be good at a lower weight. He was a good weight for his size. You say that Hearns had the better competition. Pound for pound that might be true. Duran, Leonard, and Hagler are better than anybody Holmes faced. But think about it this way, Carlos Monzon's wins over the welterweights Emile Griffith and Jose Napoles, how great exactly are those wins? Pound for pound those are great fighters, but aren't they somewhat diminished at the heavier weight and giving away several key advantages? Of course, Hearns is going to knock out Duran. Duran's a lightweight fighting a light heavyweight. Of course, Hearns was a great puncher, he was beating up guys way smaller than him. I think the fact that Hearns was able to cut so much weight distorts people's opinion of him, and should be his real legacy.

I look at Thomas Hearns much the way I do Guillermo Jones. "You're 6'4" what are you doing down at welterweight!" and "Of course, he was always going to end up in the heavier divisions like cruiserweight."

 

6 weeks shy of 36. So, if Marciano stuck around till 1960 he would have remained unbeaten? After that effort against ****ell? After getting KD'd and buzzed by a Moore that Patterson dispatched with little effort? Holmes also started taking punches for pay at

The difference is fortuitous career planning.

 

Not sure the weight division point holds any water. What did people expect Holmes to do? Go down weight divisions to prove he was great?

 

Holmes becuz Hearns was never a strong champion. defending a title is harder than winning one. ask Ray Robinson

 

Hearns had something like 9 title defenses in his career added up. And with the guys Holmes fought, he should have won. Hearns is more iconic. Greater fights and better competition. Hearns was a strong champion, he just moved up a lot between defenses. Look at Frazier or Foreman or Ali. They lost more because they fought better guys.

 

It isn't like Hearns is weighing more at those weights. A 145 pound 6-1 guy has a body which is susceptible, and stamina and all the rest. Why did I say 145. he weighed that at times at welterweight. You get the bad with the good, and he put it together better than most. Bob Foster was not as good either? Or any tall fighter? Arguello? He should have been welterweight or 154, so he cheated? I never that about weighing in because you are taller. Now at the same time, Floyd and Pacman fight catchweights which is real cheating and no one complains. Catchweights are cheating. Not a man weighing into a weight who is tall. I didn't know we had to have guys the same height and weight and body structure at the same weights.

 

and if we are going to mention title defenses. Well the guy Hearns beat rather easily Virgil Hill had 10 defenses in 1991 and Hearns beat him easily. Hill later ended up with something like 24 defenses, more than Holmes ever had. So is Hill better than Holmes? Hearns was moving up in weight all the time. Had he had the same competition as Holmes at 147 or 154 he could have had 10 defenses of each title.

 

:roll:

 

I gotta go with Hearns. Holmes had a great jab which no fighter could deal with followed by a right hand and speed. Hearns had a better jab than Holmes and power and more weapons and a stronger quality of opposition. The only flaw in Hearns is he liked to risk it all and brawl when his chin was not great. Just a greater fighter all around than Holmes. Proved it at many weightsmoving up. Holmes couldnt handle a little light heavyweight in Spinks.

 

So, natural heavyweights are by definition disqualified in pound for pound rankings because they can not "move up" in weight?

At the same age Holmes lost to Spinks, Hearns would never earn another shot at a major belt. At the age Holmes earned his title shot at a major belt, Hearns hadn't had a similar bout in 13 years.

Holmes was acknowledged as the greatest heavyweight for 7 straight years. Hearns was not acknowledged as anything for that duration.

 

Solid reasoning :good

 

Not even close for me, hearns by a mile.

 

Ali,Foreman,Frazier none of them were the greatest for 2 years in the 1970s because of competition which changes everything. You do know that the higher the weight the more you can fight when you are older. Fighting David Bey? Holmes could be 46 and still beat Bey. As for weight and age? Featherweights get old at 27 or 28. The slower pace and the heavyweights are lazy and fat guys also-compounding that are 1980s heavyweights who were lazier than most. Holmes competition and great fights pale in comparison to Hearns. Hearns fought great fighters when they were great. Title fights? Hearns and Holmes have near the same. Virgil HIll has something like 26. Hill is greater than Holmes? I always said he was underrated.
Hearns wins? . Cuevas was champion with 12 title defenses I think? Hill 10. Benitez at his best weight. Duran was champion at junior middleweight. Hearns was the first man to win a title at light heavyweight (2 times) who first won a title at welterweight. First man to win 4 and then 5 titles. The war with Hagler stands all time, as do the Leonard fights. The Duran knockout is one of the best ever for most people. Top 5 knockout of all time. Does Holmes match this? I don't think so. Hearns had 7 fights against HOF fighters. beating 4. What is Holmes record vs. HOF fighters? beat 2? both washed up? Holmes biggest superfight was Cooney. An overrated guy with a left hook. The argument you had about Holmes fighting at 35 when he was heavyweight is not great since at that weight guys can fight at 40 or older. Foreman and even Briggs now. Fighting at 35 below heavyweight? That is more challenging and making weight.

 

a heavyweight at 36? So what!!!! those fat guys can fight until they are 60. Hearns edges this in everything!!! He didn't have the title defenses because he had superfights and he was always moving around to fight everyone!!!!