i am now convinced Thomas Hearns was the greatest ever!

A truly great fighter though.
Just not as great as Hagler, Duran or Leonard.

 

Don't be mean. It's a sign of losing a debate when you get personal. For what it's worth, I enjoy Unforgiven's posts. He can back up his assertions with evidence and, even if you don't necessarily agree, you wouldn't dismiss his opinion as being unsubstantiated or lacking subjectivity.

Speaking of which .... have you checked out some of Hagler's fights and looked at the tale of the tape? I'm willing to bet that for his fights in 79, 80, 81 and 82 his age is listed as being from 27 to 30.

And have you checked the Hearns and Barkley fight yet to see if that 'picture perfect left hook' that Iran finished Tommy with was how you remember it? I can only assume you've been watching it in a mirror until now.

It would be awfully sweet of you, once you had, if you could come back and retract that statement that I was making false statements to support my argument.

 

To be fair, Frankel is almost certainly trolling and can't mean everything he writes about the superiority of Hearns, perhaps with a reasonable and well-meaning agenda to elevate Hearns a few notches in everyone's estimation.
But that tactic always backfires.

My 42,000 posts just means I've wasted (or spent) a lot of time on here. Not sure what else it could mean....

Anyway, I guess it is possible to rank Hearns the best of the "fab 4" but it would take a very special and unusual set of criteria to do so.

 

It depends on how much emphasis you put on weight jumping. Beating world classes fighters in five divisions isn't a mean feat and if you rate those kinds of achievements highly you will also rate Hearns highly.

Still hard to rate him above Duran, though, who did the same in four divisions while skipping one (so across five for him as well) and who also dominated one division for many years, something Hearns never did. But you could reasonably rank Hearns time at 154 higher than Duran's at 135. I wouldn't, but it isn't crazy.

I do have Hearns higher than Hagler, though. Duran, Leonard, Hearns and Hagler is my order of the fab 4.

 

I want to expand on this.

Ernie Singletary was extremely durable and was never stopped in his career excepting a ringside doctor stoppage against Fletcher due to an eye swollen shut. Also Hearns prior fight was the SRL loss and he was just popping up in weight, he weighed just 155. To cut it short he hadn't grown and matured into 160, it was a manufactured visit.

Murray Sutherland of course had come down from 175 and was fluttering around just above 160 prior to Hearns. Barring his second pro fight he'd been stopped by only Spinks, Saad and Davis, a pretty serious trio. Hearns had him in all sorts of trouble in the first round and again late from memory. Sutherland had beaten the huge punching JeanMarie Emebe the fight before and decisioned Ramos the fight after. He also beat Scypion the year after. I'd venture to say he was very durable (and an experienced fighter) at and around 160.

Dewitt soaked up some heavy hits but that can happen. He was knocked out next fight but he also took a lot of punishment from Hearns.

I'd be confident in putting Sutherland comfortably above Fletcher as a fighter. Fletcher never really beat anybody. He beat fringe contender Green but he was realistically a 154 pounder. It's a disgrace that The Ring could have Fletcher the top dog under Hagler around the time, it really is. They are normally so much better.

Fletcher was pounded by every solid contender he ever met. By contrast Sutherland beat the likes of Emebe, Ramos, Scypion (Fletcher conquer) and Singletary around 160-168. That's a higher level of wins than Frank.

Also being as good or better than a couple of those doesn't make necessarily make Frank as durable. Personally i don't think Frank has a hope in hell of going 10 with a Hearns with no hand injury concerns.

 

Good, fair post

I did say I thought Hearns would catch Fletcher coming in. I was implying that I think Hearns would stop him.
Fletcher could absorb punishment in his prime, though. He wasn't stopped until Roldan took him out. Sypion outmuscled him, but didn't really dent his chin. As bad as Fletcher's defense was, he wouldn't have gone that long without being stopped if he was weak chinned. But, you're right DeWitt was a sponge (except for the flukish Quinones loss).

I will say that Sutherland was getting killed by Emebe before turning the fight around - which does add credibility to your argument that he was very durable. Ramos would have won except for 3 points deducted for low blows. Finally, Sypion was pretty much shot by the time he fought Sutherland, and did have Sutherland down early in the fight.

 

I'd have Hagler clearly above Hearns because he dominated the middleweight division as undisputed champion, whereas Hearns failed to do anything close to that, getting batterd by Hagler, and then later on losing the WBC title in his first defense against Barkley.
It's all very well jumping weight divisions but sometimes it looks like fighters move up because they can't sustain success in their current division.
His win over Virgil Hill was good, but again he lost his belt in his first defense ..... and again, to Iran Barkley.

 

Hearns was a great fighter but even at his best his stamina and his chin were never invulnerable .. he was at welter till only 22 years of age and lost his biggest fight to Leonard. His stay at 154, likely his best weight, was shortened by the bout w Hagler where he was destroyed. After that 154 was over for him .. at 160 and uo he had some terrific moments but was always vulnerable ... as far as greatest of all time, I don't take the initial thread seriously ...

 

In Hearns case you can't really say he was being chased out of the LMW division. He went looking for bigger challenges, something that Hagler never did. So the question is how penalized he should be from a legacy standpoint for leaving his comfort zone ('cause he looked damn comfortable at 154).

Below MW there was only one guy who even troubled Hearns and that same guy would go on to beat Hagler too. So one way is to look at his legacy at WW and LMW first and foremost and then everything above that as a bonus. And let's not forget that Hagler lost to lesser MWs than Barkley.

I personally think a case can be made for both out of a p4p sense, but Duran and Leonard is clearly above.

 

** I'm not sure Hearns was the best 154 pounder in the world when he left that division. He went up and fought Andries at 175, Roldan at 160.
I think perhaps McCallum at 154 would have been a tougher challenge.

** Hagler went a 10-year stretch undefeated at middleweight and was never KO'd badly like Hearns was against Barkley.
I don't think Hagler lost that fight with Leonard either.

** I'd probably rate Duran the best of the four, with Hagler or Leonard debatable in second and third, Hearns come in fourth.

 

I agree, but it's not like he had any trouble at 154. McCallum is a great match-up in hindsight and I think Hearns and definitely Steward knew that he was a risky proposition, but at the time there was no real money in it. He went for the big achievements and the big bucks. I fully understand that,

Well, he never went up in weight either.

I think it's quite undebatable that Leonard is higher than Hagler. Let's say that Spinks stayed at LHW and Hagler went up and beat him in a close fight instead of losing to Leonard. How could he not be higher p4p?

Leonard beat Benitez, Duran, Hearns, Kalule and a handful of contenders below MW. He then went on to beat Hagler, albeit in a close and controversial one. I'd probably have him above Hagler even if he never had come out of retirement, but what he did after his comeback makes it an absolute lock for me.

 

Great post. Duran is King for me, SRL not a long way behind, then a more sizable gap to Hearns who i have just nicking Hagler.

Using the Ring's timeline of going back as far as 80 years in 2002 i'd have Duran easily top 10, maybe even 5 like they had him. SRL might be somewhere from the bottom of the Top 10 to around 15. Hearns and Hagler would be outside the Top 20 but inside the 50 without thinking too deeply.

 

You've actually jogged my memory on a couple of things. I'd forgotten Emebe was getting the better of it. Also now recall Ramos getting docked in a tight one which made the difference, for sure.

You might be able to put Fletcher ahead of Murray but i wouldn't want to live on the difference. Sutherland lost some fights, won some and did it over a substancial career. Franks career ledger was 18-6-1. Sutherland ended up with 48 wins overall.

Frank sure left us with a few action packed memories. I'll never forget the pictures of Bo Derek, aghast at ringside at Frank was bleeding everywhere and getting belted against Roldan.

 

Hagler is number one - on account of the most physically gifted, best stamina (along with Duran) best chin, left hander, and could finish a man whenever he wanted, no matter who

In short, MMH was the toughest AND the most veratile AND the most talented, AND the most proven

while Leonard I'm sad to say is last becuz let's face it, his is the record that's most bare

In addition, didnt do well, at all, against the quicker mobile types

In short, he failed the test, even when he was favored to win

and laying waste an Ayub Kalule does NOTHING. sorry boys

Hearns? He lost to Leonard but was hardly prime; only in hype but physically wouldnt hit it until years later he met with Hagler, Duran, Huchins, Shuler

But in 81, was just barely getting recognition and could be compared to a young Louis when he lost to Schmeling. Hardly anyone would say that Louis at 22 was in his prime so anyone anxious to accalim Leonard as best p4p is at best, being premature in their assessment

going on to Duran, Duran of course would be my second because he had the defenses, and like Hagler, the big wins

Hearns had his share of wins too but I can't find any big wins at 160 which is where the real talent has always been

Could he beat a 1982 Fletcher? Hardly

He might catch him, and even down him. But flattening Animal for the count is altogether something else, and wishful thinking if we are going to be realistic. Animal had the inside attack where he would keep it and the superior stamina

in other words, I must give Animal the edge since Tommy had his chance to compete in that division that year but instead wasted time facing the jeff McKrakens & Ernie singletarys of the world

 

I understand it too.
Previously you said "he went looking for bigger challenges, something Hagler never did".
Now it's "he went for the big achievements and the big bucks" ....

Well, of course we can both accept that Marvin Hagler stayed at middleweight for the big bucks too (with Duran, Hearns, Leonard moving up to challenge him).

So, really it comes down to whether you think moving around the divisions, picking up titles from Andries and Roldan is a BIGGER achievement than defending the undisputed middleweight championship 12 times.
I don't think so.

Not a good analogy. It conjues up a distorted picture. Spinks was much bigger than Hagler, for a start. At least 5 inches taller, perhaps more. Spinks held height and reach advantage over most, perhaps all, of the challengers he encountered in the 175 division, whereas Hagler was often shorter than his middleweight rivals.
The difference is size between Leonard and Hagler was not noticeable. In fact, Leonard was probably taller.

I agree that Leonard comes out of the fight with Hagler with the better bragging rights (depsite the fact I thought Hagler won by a point or two). Merely for surviving the fight and doing so well after the lay-off.
But that doesn't make him "higher p4p" on its own.

You can weigh it up against the fact that Hagler dominated the middleweight division for 7 years undefeated, whereas Leonard only stayed at the top at welterweight for 3 years and lost the position to Duran briefly in that time.
I think there's perhaps an assumption that Leonard could have done "in his own division" what Hagler did in his, or perhaps a complete disregard for what Hagler did.