I think like all of his career the longevity was constructed. Not that he has to fight and brawl with guys to be great, yet that would have proved more to fight them at their best and he would have been worn out. Look how long Marvin lasted after he fought Hearns. There is a probably a connection. Then the Mugabi fight after he took a year off. Tough fights and getting hit clean change guys it seems.
No. There’s been some good posts here. You can’t just label people as being nostalgic and hateful just because they don’t agree with you.
Look, you either admit that you have exaggerated, or you lose any credibility which you had. Your statement is an absolute joke. It’s embarrassing. If you seriously think that a win over Austin Trout was better than a win over Henry Maske in Germany, then nobody is going to take you seriously and you’ll just end up being ridiculed. It’s absolutely pointless signing your posts off with ‘deal with it’ when you clearly possess zero knowledge of Hearns’ opposition.
The reason I rate Duran and the wins against him legit because he was champion when they fought him, or at least Hearns was. When Duran had a guy who fought him he did great and some of his greatest wins. Cuevas in the rematch was an exciting fight. Moore was decent. Barkley was a tough fighter who fought Duran within range. So if I talk about greats he fought and beat? Cuevas and Benitez and Duran and Hill, and you cannot get much better than that. I know you mean who was great or prime when he fought them? Well then Floyd fought no one. Hearns fought guys who had titles who were legit top greats. . Who knows how long Cuevas would have gone had Tommy not knocked out him. He is considered Hall of Fame and not great I know but that is because of the Hearns fight and then a quick demise, but he was a great dominant champion.That put an end to his career. I think Duran was still great, I think the guys he fought were great also like Benitez and Hearns and Leonard. Which is why I do not accept the excuses. We know Leonard and Hagler were great when he fought them, so you will say that is a loss. Well that solidified those guys, and why shouldn't it. But he put on a great fight and those fights are iconic. A loss in a great fight is not too bad. Sometimes a loss in a great fight is more than a win in another way. What fights will we watch of Floyd in 20 years? Guerrero? The greats fights are remembered which Hearns and Hagler and Duran and Leonard had. Because they are iconic. They are in the "fab four". Floyd could never be in a fab four. That means a great era. It speaks for itself. Hill was a great win. I mean if you nitpick we can say was Shane a great? He had great wins, but even though he beat Oscar, I would say Oscar ranks higher in someways. Manny was not great when Floyd beat him, and Manny winning today and beating Thurman does not mean he was prime then. The Virgil Hill win is very underrated for Tommy. And again, Tommy fights someone and almost ruins them mentally. I think Virgil would have been better after had he not fought Hearns. Hearns tended to speed up the demise of some fighters. He was very complete.
All you've done here is expose your double standards. Guys like Hernandez, Corrales, Castillo, Gatti, Judah, Baldomir, De La Hoya, Hatton, Marquez, Mosley, Ortiz, Pacquaio, Madiana, Cotto, Canelo... All of those has belt when Mayweather fought them. So you can't say it's OK for Hearns to fight people past their best as long as they have belts, but then not use the same standard for Floyd.
I did not say that. I said wins over Maske and Tiozzo is not a better line-up than Lara, Cotto, and peak Trout, which is the truth.
This is annoying because Mayweather is retired now and will not have any more fights and he is still not getting the credit, 50-0, 5 weight world champion, beat everyone there was to beat in all his natural weight divisions, but it didn't stop there, he won titles at 147 and 154 well outside his natural weight class, Hearns lost to Iran Barkley at age 30, in his prime because of his weaknesses, Mayweather didn't have weaknesses hence why he never lost a damn fight, it annoys me that people rank old time fighters over modern ones out of respect even though Mayweather accomplished more, for example, if Tyson Fury beats Joshua, he's beaten all the top guys of his era, but he still won't be ranked and the greatest heavyweight of all time, but for what reason?
Fury has only beaten two fighters in the top ten so far. He's not comparable to Ali at this point even if he beats Joshua. Maywether beat like 25 champions. Different story.
I'm on the Mayweather over Hearns side, but as for Fury, I think a fighter only has to beat the top dogs to be considered an atg, sure contenders add to the collection, but I don't think it's a requirement, why is it necessary to beat guys underneath who you've beat? And Fury obviously can't move up, or down in weight to beat that many champions, there aren't even 25 champions/former champions in the heavyweight division
I dont want to move the thread off topic. Fury would be an ATG heavy if he beat Joshua, probably already is an ATG, but he would have to clean out a lot of contenders to make a run at GOAT heavyweight.
Sometimes it's not what you did but how you did it. Hearns had iconic fights with ATGs, in losing he made SRL and Hagler ATG fighters, he was the Motor City Cobra, the Hitman, he had destructive power but could jab and dance like Ali. He brought excitement to most of the fights he was involved. He never ducked anyone, he took on an absolutely feared Mexican puncher in Cuevas with a wrecking ball of a left hook. He was shattering orbital bones and jaws left right and centre. I read somewhere that he broke a speedball of its moorings - the only other fighter I heard did that was George Foreman. And his chin was IRON before he met Hearns. Tommy ruined it, ruined Cuevas, who was never the same fighter again. Duran was battered by Hearns like no man has done before or since. The final knockdown lives long in the memory. What has Mayweather done to rival that? Ask Leonard what he thinks of Tommy as a fighter - his hardest fights. Hearns put him through hell in both fights and that was the thing with Tommy, win or lose, you never were the same fighter. Yes, a select few did beat him but they had to travel through the Garden of Hell in which to do so. Stepped up to fight Hagler who was feared and looked invincible at middleweight, which he nearly was. The first round of that fight gave us one of the best rounds in history and although he lost, no-one who saw that fight will ever forget it, The fight accelerated Hagler’s retirement - he fought Mugabi afterwards and had a tough 11 rounds against a fighter he would have finished off much quicker even a couple of years ago. Virgil Hill, 10 successful title defences, met a Hearns way past his best weight and prime and yet Tommy masterfully outpointed his man, clearly hurting him on several occasions. Hill was never the same fighter. It’s a fantastic achievement for FMJ to go undefeated for such a long time. But, at the absolute pinnacle of the sport, if you fight the best in or near their prime, if you fight the dangerous or feared fighters, you are eventually going to lose to someone. Look at the facts. Ali lost, Louis lost, Duran lost, SRR lost.. I firmly believe that fighters in any discipline, be it boxing, UFC, wrestling etc eventually have to lose. I’m suspicious of people who never lose, because that isn’t possible if they push themselves to the highest level. There’s no doubt in my mind that FMJ, like SRL before him, manipulated matters so that circumstances favoured him over his opponents. He became obsessed with not losing his O and although he hasn’t lost it, he never became involved in the memories that Hearns generated. Granted, much of it was being born in a less prestigious era, but a lot of it was Mayweather protecting that O. That’s why Hearns is greater to me. FMJ is an ATG no doubt, a great, great fighter. But what moments of his career will be eulogised in 30 years time?
Just threw up in mouth a little. And Hill’s best wins were after the Hearns fight. Sorry to break the narrative of your fedora and unlit cigar routine.
Just going by the examples you put out there. Cuevas was at his best as was Benitez. I acknowledge Duran wasn't prime but still very good. I understand your overall point. Maybe you need different examples. Or tell me which of those I listed need and asteriks? Cuevas Benitez Hagler Leonard
