A lot of Tommys merit at welterweight is based on his fight with Ray Leonard and for good reason. There are not many fighters like him in history and Hearns showed that he belonged to be in that ring with him. While at welterweight he showed domination of his opponents and when faced with in my opinion a top 3 Welterweight of all time in Leonard and did as well as he did, you can infer a lot about how great they are, and Hearns proved it wasn't just a stylistic advantage with one guy, he stopped Duran as clearly as you could and proved through his career he was great and there was reason he did so well early on at welterweight, he was an ATG talent. So in a fantasy head to head Hearns is quite proven against an extreme talent and dominated the other welterweights he faced. It's no secret why he did so well either without seeing him fight you see his unique advantages that were very rare for that weight class, and in the ring we can see he was a true puncher but could box as well. For me it is no stretch to think he does well against other welterweights from history regardless of if his welter run is judged as you seem to do by saying he didnt beat anyone at Welter and the only notable positive of his welter career was Cuevas, to me it is strange to not acknowledge the Leonard fight at all and use it to only infer that Hearns lost in it and nothing else, a loss of context to me is what it seems like. This thread is about who else beats him at 147. He only lost to Ray Leonard at Welterweight after winning and doing very well vs him, outboxing him, the huge punching Hearns that is stopping everybody, outboxing the quick footed showman Ray Leonard. He was a diverse fighter. Also where do you rank Ray Leonard at Welterweight?
You've obviously never heard of Pipino Cuevas, Wilfredo Benitez or Roberto Duran. Hearns losing all his big fights is a myth.
They were good wins, but the critical ones were Leonard and Hagler. Had he won those two, then HE would have went down as the big "superstar" instead of Leonard. That matchup in 81' was the biggie. He wins that, he's the man. He was ahead against Ray, but he blew it... He had Hagler cut, and they were almost going to stop it, but he blew it....
When your facing multiple ATG competition when that competition is in their primes , your going to take a loss or two.... And Hearns is remembered as a "Super star" in that era.
Hearns to me is a tad over rated at welter compared to the greats, his only chance at beating some of the fighters mentioned here is to get get them early. If it goes more than 5 or 6 rounds Hearns is getting ko'ed. Tommy was not a strong welterweight, my list is long of the guys who'd beat him: Walker Griffith Duran 147 Gavilan Armstrong Zivic Napoles, a few more probably Tommy peaked at 154, and I'd favor him to beat some of these guys at that weight 2 or 3 years after he was a welter, the fighter who put it into reverse against Leonard in their first fight would get ground down however.
If you're thinking those losses don't demote him, you are kidding yourself. Only a die hard Hearns fan would talk like that. That's like saying the KO losses Roy Jones suffered didn't change his status in history. Had he retired after the Ruiz fight, he would have been undefeated, (the DQ being the only blemish), and many could make a legit claim of him being a top 5 (or even #1) of all time... now there will always be doubt about his chin when comparing him to the greats of the past...
No I'm not kidding myself. More like your being unrealistic or a Mayweather fan who thinks a undefeated record is the end of the conversation. If Hearns fought the competition Mayweather Jr faced, and most importantly WHEN he faced them Hearns would go 50-0 , And much more impressively.... Look through the history of boxing. When a great fighter is facing very good/great competition multiple times they take a loss somewhere. Could be because a off night( Robinson vs Lamotta) Could be because of style class (Hearns vs Duran/ Frazier vs Foreman) Could be just underestimating the opponent (Louis vs Schmeling) Does it subtract from their greatness because they loss? Hearns destroyed (02) ATG's when they were relevant, out boxed another one that was noted for his great boxing skill. Knocked out cold a lot of fighters considered very good and prime. Won the Lt.Heavyweight championship from a very good champion while past his prime.... His two losses in his prime was to two prime ATG's who are listed at the least top 3-4 in there divisions.... What else does he need to prove to you?
I just see Zivic as staying in the fight till later and taking Hearns out, could Tommy nail him? sure, but once the fight gets the midway point.....
Napoles has a case. Jose was able to land some good ones on Monzon. Tommy was not as sturdy as the Argentinean. Now I'd favour Hearn's combination of speed, range of power to get the job done, but Mantequilla was a great counter puncher, hard to read, and explosive. He had the kind of talent to upset the apple cart. It'd be interesting while it lasted.
Honestly, I would say Crawford and Spence would stop him. Spence has the chin and the relentless work rate of Marvin Hagler to break Hearns down in an absolute war. Crawford was a much better boxer than Hearns and was much more effective at imposing his will compared to Leonard. I see Crawford pulling an Indongo on Hearns tbh.
