Tito or Hearns? Who had the bigger power...

I assume he meant for power

 

Right. 34-0, with 32 KO's. 15 title victories. Destroyed Blocker, Carr, Pendelton, Campas. Dominated a still very good Camacho and Whitaker. Chased De La Hoya all over the ring in a stinker that became a stinker all on Oscar. At 147 Tito had a much better proven record than Hearns ever did .. Hearn's mystique was 95% based on Cuevas at 147 .. you don't hear about how beatable he looked in his title defense against Shields or how sloppy against Baez prior to losing to Leonard ..

Then Tito moves to 154, crushes Reid, ruins Vargas and wins another title , moves up to 160 and crushes Joppy and wins a title at 160. Yes he lost to all time great Hopkins at 160 but he did far better than Hearn' did against all time great Hagler.

I am not saying Tito was better all time than Hearns but he had a better record and resume at 147 and deserves more credit than many here seem to realize.

160 some odd posts and this sort of statement .. hmmm ..

 

you listed a load of average fighters, a nothing special Camacho, a way past it Whitaker and De La Hoya who he barely beat and is overrated anyway. That is the extent of Trinidad's resume.
Hearns, Leonard, Robinson, Griffith, Napoles, Duran, Rodriguez, Benitez, Gavilan and others would beat him.
He'd be 50 - 50 against fighters like Palomino, Cuevas, Donald Curry, Ross and smaller welters like Armstrong and Garcia just because of his size.
He had good power and hooks but he was predictable and had limited boxing skills compared to all time great welterweights.
What difference does my amount of posts make? Loser
Trinidad top 4 welter, yeah sure.

 

Tito with the left, Hearns with the right. I think Tito’s right hand was harder than Hearns’ left though so they are about even IMO. Hearns having far more skill obviously meant he was the better fighter but if Tito caught you clean it was trouble.

 

The thread is about POWER bud nothing more.

 

Bingo and that's about how i would rate them too.

 

Uh-huh ...

Interesting to see how the alts behave here .. all the low post count guys that come and go out of no where making stupid posts and then getting aggressive. To much free time on some folks hands.

 

You ignored the boxers I mentioned, you still really think Trinidad was that good? Or do you need to brush up on your boxing history, mr historian?

 

Trinidad had elite power at Welterweight. A simple fact. Two handed power, nice punching technique. Quick Hands.

 

Hearns learned how to recover as he got older. Andries hurt him, Roldan did.. Kinchen and he survived-Leonard rematch. Barkley rematch, Delgado knocked him down. He learned how to hold and get time and survive. It was something he had to get with a lot of experience.

 

I do believe you are correct, but it sure did cost Hearns the big fights earlier in his career, when it counted the most. Good post. They say that experience is the best teacher.

 

As i always say this (big fights) is myth. Cuevas, Duran and Benitez were BIG fights. Cuevas was right in the mix with Duran and Leonard at 147 and some even thought he was the pick. Benitez was favored over Hearns and thought to have found his niche at 154. Many thought he could beat SRL in a rematch there and a surprising amount thought he might even be the man to beat Hagler down the track.

 

Yes I agree he had good power but this guy above is saying he's top 4 welterweight in general not just for power. Which is absurd.

 

No he specifically clarified that he was rating Trinidad top 4 for power not top 4 all time.

It's absurd that you're still claiming he said this when he never did and in fact clearly stated he was rating forTrinidad so highly for power alone. Stop spoiling for a fight and admit you misunderstood either his post or the thread itself.

 

I think he's bluing with he grant now.