Was Thomas Hearns the best pure boxer of the 80's?

Out of politeness I will respond even, though your tone was not polite.

Was Duran really a faded no hoper? Did he not win the Welterweight, Jr. Middleweight and after the loss to Hagler beat a very good Barkley for the Middleweight. I know that Duran started out his greatness as a LW but seriously...Duran was an extremely talented fighter at each weight he fought. BTW, he is the only man that went the distance with Hagler during his reign...but you already knew that...you just want to put down Hagler.

Leonard is Sugar Ray Leonard. Not just your average fighter. He was special and if anyone could come out of retirement and challenge the Middleweight emperor it was him. Hagler had been for 7 years trashing everything moving. Boxing on even terms with Leonard is no small feat. Leonard was crafty, mobile, faster, slicker, and hit hard as well. Hagler was able to stick and move and jab his way in and find Leonard a lot. If it went 15 Leonard would not have made the bell.

Leave it alone about Hagler and Hearns jab. It does not need to be messed with it you don't have any examples to challenge. Turning your nose up my oppinions without giving yours will never do anything for me.

Get some skin in the game then talk.

 

For me, the "pure boxer" quality comes from technical skill (with emphasis on footwork and jab) and ring generalship. I e, the fighter should rely as little as possible on physical advantages to keep the opponent at bay. So by this definition, Hearns doesn't really qualify, because if you take away his power and reach advantage he becomes quite mortal. Kalambay is therefore a much better shout, I think.

 

He was certainly faded and a very beatable fighter at that point, especially above welterweight. Benitez handled him with ease two years prior to that. Obviously he was still a very intelligent, skilled boxer, but that fight demonstrated Hagler's flaws as much as anything else.

I don't recall Hagler doing any sticking and moving against Leonard. I do recall him mindlessly following Leonard around the ring and getting picked off for half the fight before the latter slowed down and became stationary long enough for Hagler to get in some licks.


Can't think of too many champions in history that lost their belt to someone coming off of such a massive layoff. That takes a fair bit of incompetence on behalf of the champion to manage something so abnormal.

 

I don't agree with most of your choices here, but that's what these discussion boards are about, I guess.

Spinks was more of an awkward boxer-puncher, for example. He could box quite well when he needed to, but that wasn't what he reverted to. His performance against Qawi was certainly no better than Hearns' against Benitez or Leonard the first time. Bernard Taylor was no boxer. He was a runner.

 

When I am read target words like "mindlessly", "flawed", and "incompetence" used to discribe

This content is protected

I then understand immediately that this conversation does not have much room to grow. That you think all these negative things about Hagler is just something that I cannot fathom. Hagler is on the Mt. Rushmore (Monzon, Robinson, Greb) of middleweights in all of boxing history. If he is all these things then boxing itself might as well be discribed that way. You cannot find the excellence that is Hagler anywhere in sports.

All hail Hagler in my house.

 

I had a look to try and prove you wrong , but there is a good case for saying you are correct.
NB. To the poster that thinks Benitez was a superior boxer ,I would say watch their fight.And Hearns fought that with a damaged fist after hitting Wilfredo on the elbow. Benitez was superior defensively but his jab wasn't in Hearns 's class.imo

 

Howard Davis had talent but not the appetite for the game, he didn't commit to his shots because he was always more concerned with avoiding return fire. Otherwise he might have beat the less talanted, but more gutsy Jim Watt.

Hearns outboxed Leonard but Ray ultimately outfought him.

 

Hearns did have problems with balance at times , because he was built like a stork, but allow him to set himself and he was mightily impressive.

 

I'd actually consider a guy like Eddie Mustafa Muhammad to be more a pure boxer than someone like Bernard Taylor.

Just because a fighter runs around the ring a lot doesn't mean he's a boxer.

 

Nice post, and great call. Kalambay is very overlooked.

 

He was. But he needed that reach, speed and power to keep opponents at bay. He couldn't run rings around physically superior opponents using skill alone, like Kalambay vs Barkley or McCallum vs Watson.

 

Hearn was a "boxer-puncher or if you will, a puncher-boxer", NOT a "pure boxer"....again, Wilfred Benitez was a pure boxer.....Hearns was a very good boxer, but he never had "radar"...he wasn't a Benitez, Whitaker or a Locche.

 

I guess this is why we need to have some sort of definition of what a "pure boxer" is.........based on your examples, you seem to base it on defensive wizardry. That's like saying a person is a great baseball player because he can run fast. It's only one part of it.

 

that was true only in the first round. Hagler actually outboxed Tommy in the second round. Tommy couldnt land his jab while Hagler drove his in clean. Because of the cut in the third, Hagler had to step on the gas

 

he's a hater and you know how haters are. I already destroyed him on this topic months ago