Tommy's best was at WW, SWW ... he wasn't even close to the same/great fighter at all at 160 .. Unless I'm missing something, comparing Hearns and Lewis win-loss record in the later stages of both their careers is apples and oranges to me
It still goes toward Hearns overall rating P4P and as a middleweight. Hearns was a fine fighter at 160. He beat the likes of Roldan and Schuler and also beat unbeaten Virgil Hill at 175 among others. He was heavily favored over Barkley and was considered a much better fighter, like Lewis and Rahman. The losses are comparable for sure, heavy favorites beaten by much lesser regarded fighters in sudden fashion.
Ya I know what he did. To me, Hearns was night and day different at 147 compared to 160 on up .. And you could say the same about Duran too if you want to start comparing fighters going up 3,4,5 weight classes to a fighter who doesnt.. Like Tommy, Duran was no where near the same either as he went on up in weight .. He was best at 135. It's a big difference in my book, all good mate
Yes. I do rank Holmes' quality of opposition as high (and perhaps slightly higher) than Lewis's. Comparable quality and depth and not as bad losses, in my opinion. You mention Mercer on Lewis's resume . That's funny, considering a flabby 42 year old Holmes beat Mercer better than a prime 30 year old Lewis could. A grandpa physiqued 45 year old Holmes even had a close fight with McCall, who was fresh off blasting a 29-year old Lewis into a jelly-legged mess with one punch. So those two names are no argument in favour of Lewis against Holmes. They're actually the reverse. Larry shouldn't even have been fighting then but he made those two look ordinary. Prime Lewis had them looking good. I don't think Morrison and Briggs were much good at all. And when you're being honest, and not contriving to boost Lewis's resume, I don't think you do either. I could list a dozen ordinary-to-good-(to-very-good names) on Larry Holmes's win sheet too. But you know who they are.
Yes, but doesn't just above everyone DOWN-RATE Hearns as a middleweight precisely or largely because he could be KO'd by someone like Barkley? If I was put Hearns even near the top 20 all-time at 160, I'd expect the issue of Barkley to feature heavily in the protests against such a rating.
Well Tommy didn't avenge the loss and prove he was far superior at his best. He also doesn't have a big W column at 160 and lacks longevity and solid reigns. Lewis at Heavyweight if far different of course. Incidentally Hearns is probably my favorite fighter so i get no joy downplaying him.
Certainly, Lewis and Hearns are far different. (Lewis never proved he was far superior head-to-head versus Rahman, that's just your favourable perception of a 1-1 situation. It's fair to say Lewis's resume proves he was superior in overall terms, in fact it would be crazy not to think so - and I think that would be the case clearly even if he was 0-1 with Rahman.) I think the Barkely losses hurt Hearns's standing to a fair degree. At 160, at 175 and overall/"pound for pound".
We'll agree to disagree per your Lewis - Rahman assessment. Yes the Barkley fights hurt Tommy resume (not as much H2H) wise. He is however the only no ATG he ever lost to. He was also struggling against strong brawlers once he started to decline, and he was in decline. Steward, even tho they'd broken up, correctly picked him to comfortably defeat Hill even as a heavy underdog based on the fact Hill was not a big strong brawler. He had long commented strong brawlers were no good for Tommy once he was past his best.
I doubt strong brawlers were ever suitable for Hearns. Wins over Andries and Roldan were good though.
Steward would disagree but it's possible. I think his firepower at 147 and 154 would have countered them well and Steward seems to imply he would have went better against such fighters earlier career. Tommy had his flaws, for sure. At the lower weights they were much much harder to grab hold of. At 160 against great chinned pressure fighters he would have struggled yes.
At 175 Tommy has a damn good win over Hill but i would not liked to have seen him against top names there. I think the 175 wins are a sizable credit on his P4P rating but even i would not get carried away when rating him (strictly) there.
Steward might say it all went downhill with a leg massage. Hearns fared best in divisions where he had the most pronounced height and reach advantages. Obviously the average strength of an opponent would be less down at 147 and 154 too. Strength AND power. He'd do better against smaller, lighter, less powerful "strong brawlers". Yes. Definitely. Stylistically though I doubt it suits him. Although obviously it depends on the opponents ability and durability as much as anything. His best wins at those weights are Cuevas, Benitez, Duran... It's arguable to what degree that trio represent the strong brawler type (we can safely eliminate Benitez first, methinks. Ha ha). Arguably Leonard discovered a more brawling approach was key to victory in their first classic fight too. This is all very tangential of Lennox's approval ratings though. A tangent of a tangent of a tangent quite possibly.
No harm in going off topic. I basically agree with all you posted. I do think tho that he would have the firepower at 147 and 154 to negate almost any brawler. On another point tho is that he was basically impossible to outbox at these lower weights so it's no great stretch brawlers would be more dangerous. Also if you sat back he could nail you at full extension and end your night.
Me either. Qawi is a machine. But guys like Saad who had a great chin and great power, Mustafa Muhammad who was as slippery as they come with enormous power, not good. A Marvin Johnson, huge heart, reasonable 175 durability and top power. I have to be a realist. Not completely impossible he could beat someone unexpected tho, more so a lesser chin or boxer type.
