i am now convinced Thomas Hearns was the greatest ever!

prime tyson beats all them in a catch weight at 160

 

What on God's Green Earth are you even talking about here? SRL absolutely 100% Walked down Hearns and he could do nothing about it. If he could, they why didn't he? If he could simply survive (all he had to do) to win, why didn't he? I know why, he couldn't. If he could avoid being walked down in the Hagler fight, why didn't he? Your excuse are simply, nothing more than excuses for your favorite fighter losing, and losing badly. I never said Hearns wasn't ahead in the fight, he was, and yet he couldn't stop SRL from walking him down, even while having a big lead. If Hearns is the greatest fighter ever as you claim, I'd think he should've been able to, only he couldn't. Who cares what the announcer say, announcers say dumb stuff all the time. Shall I point to the numerous occasions where they say incorrect stuff? Or, let me guess, you have information that the announcers had special wiring hooking up to Hagler that night to read when he's read? If it's the later, please share the information. If not, I can't imagine why you're clinging on to what commentators say about something they have no actual way of knowing. It counts for nothing. Now explain to me how a fighter can be the best ever when he can't avoid being walked down in the biggest fights of his career?

 

Former lightweights have always ended up in middleweight rankings, as have future light-heavyweights and cruiserweights.
Hagler's era was no exception.

The middleweight crop that Hagler mixed in was way more prestigious and talent-filled as a division in the era, than junior middleweight and especially Hearns's opposition in the "junior middleweight" division.

Well, in his BEST DIVISION (where he didn't lose), his best wins by far are Duran ("former lightweight") and Benitez ("former light-welterweight"), and only one of them was a decent puncher.
He didn't face McCallum or Mugabi, both of whom might well have got to him.

Yes, the quote is self-explanatory.
Your interpretation of it unnecessary. And incorrect, btw.
Your talk of Toney and Rahman didn't contribute much either, just a pointless attempt to show some alleged contradiction I might have made on a thread some other time.

Never once did you offer your own honest opinion on whether Hagler's imaginary beating Spinks looks the same as Leonard's disputed split decision over Hagler.
I told you mine: I don't think Hagler could beat Spinks, nevermind 'nick' a decision on the retreat. It's a distorted picture, imo.
I'm sorry you don't understand.

 

Oh, this looks like it could be a long one, so why don't we just cut it stort and agree that I'm right.

 

I didn't know it was about being right. I actually respected you enough to spend time sharing/explaining my thoughts.
It's disappointing. But now I know. Not another word wasted.

 

We can all agree that the OP is dead wrong in his premise

 

Great great exciting fighter. Loved watching and came to admire his courage. However, did he ever gut out a close one down the stretch? His heart was always there, but his chin proved to be his Achilles.

 

Interesting talk about my favorite fighter.Ahh Tommy Hearns from my home state of Michigan. Saw him destroy Fred Hutchings live in three rounds in Saginaw just before the Hagler fight.Saw that war several times,in a way still rooting for Tommy,but Marvelous was spot of that evening..Smothered the boxer.Not sure if Hearns could ko Marvin even with a great right hand but he came close to stopping him on cuts.Hearns was just too spent to get out of the way of Marvin's assault in the third. It's too bad a rematch never happened.And being Leonard stepped in it really killed it. Kind of makes ya wonder though when the first time Hagler and Hearns were going to meet up and Hearns hurt his pinky and cancelled,how Marvin more or less quoted that "A person would cut that thing off for millions of dollars"..Marvelous would have made millions himself had he faced Hearns again. Their classic war was meant to be untouched..

 

So what contradiction you saw?. And did YOU see the 2nd fight? IF you saw the 2nd fight, you would've seen after the knockdown early in the 11th rd. Leanard won the rest of that rd. And completely dominated the 12th rd. A rd that could've easily been called a 10-8 rd. If the fight was a 15th rd fight Leonard more then likely stop him in the 13rd. Hearns was barely holding on again . And that fight was almost 10yrs aft their primes. (I wrote if fighters were at or close to their primes) Leonard or Hagler stop him earlier than the 1st fight. You wrote about Manny Stewart said "Their will never be a nother Hearns, but he also said" R Leonard was one of the best fighters he ever saw". And he had plenty of opportunities to see a young R.Leonard because Leonard trained at Kronk regularly before The 1st Hearns fight. If you want to believe Hearns was the greatest fighter in history well that is certainly your right to feel that way. But the actual fans who know the boxing game would disagree. (Most would). Hearns was one of the best fighters to ever lace them up, but he certainly isn't the greatest of all time.

 

Hearns will alway's be mentioned in the 80 's as a member of the big 4 and rightfully so. Hagler was like
Joe Louis that night when he fought Schmeling and was a eternal force who would not be beaten.
Herans deserves credit as i remember when he was asked why didn't he just box Hagler his reply
" Hagler kept running in and nobody disrespect 's me like this " Words spoken from a true warrior.

 

You could say he gutted it out against Kinchen and in SRL II.

 

The thread title is always going to attract heat amongst this very knowledgable and wise forum.

My personal humble opinion is that not the best ever but he should be in the top 15 ever (say 15) when routinely he is further down around 35-40 in polls.

I say this because by the time he lost to barkley twice he was already on the slide....the Barkley fight and that one punch into a concussion seemed to take a huge chunk of his swagger, speed and chin away....it is like for some reason something was robbed from his body and soul as he turned 30.......he than spent 3 very shaky years where he was a 0.60% fighter but learned to adapt and that fighter was still a formidable one....Manny Steward was sniping at his confidence...but Tommy went on a leg strengthening regime and by the time he beat Hill and fought Barkley he had tightened up his defence to adapt and boxed more.

My point is, Tommy was flamboyantly thrashing Barkley but got over confident and had his hands down..it was no lucky punch..but if he had focused for 5 more minutes , barkley would have bled to a stoppage loss and that would be a win

Equally the Barkley rematch he broke his hand early and if people rewatch that fight he barely threw a right hand after round 5.....yet even with one hand it was the closest fight I have ever seen...the knockdown sealed a one point loss......

Those 2 fights could so easily have been wins over Barkley.

The first SRL fight was close......4 minutes away. he avenged it in the rematch.

Which really leaves the Hagler annihilation as his one true loss if I can put it that way.

A shot Tommy during 88-90 was sparring with punchers like mclellan and toney and schooling them

Tommy may be the greatest talent of all time behind SRR and Ali........

In summary I think things would look much better in this assessment on paper if Tommy had got the official win on points over Barkley like many think he deserved. If he had got the official points win over SRL like many think he deserved.....and perhaps if he had fought and beat Mccallum in 1986 instead of pissing around with medal and dewitt.

Other than that the cruiser title he was sposed to fight czyz for, would have been a easy win.

If he had had that win over mccallum and czyz along with the points verdict over barkley and SRL than yes I would have considered him top 5.

He just matches up better than any fighter I know apart from SRR at 147-160

Lets not forget as a boxer.....no one .....no one ever outboxed tommy hearns.....hagler, srl and barkley all had to fight him.....

6ft 2, lightning speed, pulverising power, great boxing ability, in his 1977-1987 prime very good mobility and defence.....the chin was above average too...but constant exposure vs Hagler, Andries and Roldan eroded it away

 

Not fair.

Durability shows itself in many guises.

Amir Khan has one of the worst chins ive ever seen at world level but he has one of the greatest hearts ive seen at world level= durability.....he survived maidana,Diaz,Limond and others.......moving on to Tommy as is the point of this thread.

Tommys durability and ability to survive and win was shown in fights like kinchen, benitez, roldan, SRL 2, and Andries where he was felled...he had great heart.