Thomas Hearns H2H at 147

It's a reference to a drunk post made by mcgrain.

I in no way want him to be ****ed up with dogs, nor do i have the funds to hire men to **** him up with said dogs.

 

Natonic's take on the stoppage below.

"He was put through the ropes once"

Factually correct.

"laying on the ropes taking a brutal body beating"

Thats what I seen as well. Hearns taking clean punches to the body and not defending himself well. I don't see anything wrong with it being termed a 'brutal body beating'.

 

I normally reserve adjectives like brutal for one sided steamrollings, not for a relatively even fight like leonard-hearns.

He also makes no mention of any of the work hearns did. It wasn't like leonard was in tip top shape.

 

Hearns is easily my favourite fighter of all time and it pains me to say it, but he would've never made the final bell against Leonard.
Also, it is impossible to place him as the #1 H2H at 147 because he was beaten at the weight and didn't avenge the defeat. People can argue that he would've won if he held or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that he was defeated and as such Leonard should be ranked both p4p and H2H ahead of him at welter.

 

He replied to to your "bull**** stoppage" post and gave his own opinion. He only needs to mention the stoppage. What work did Hearns do around the time of the being stopped apart from taking clean punches and looking in trouble? He wasn't coming back with anything. Natonic didn't need to give his assessment on Hearns' work before the stoppage.

So you would only use the word brutal for one sided steamrollings? What about if a fighter is winning every single round of a fight and gets taken out in the last round by a haymaker of a right hand by his opponent that has him out cold for 5 minutes. Could the punch not be termed as "brutal"?

You are clearly a fool and making a complete ass of yourself.

 

Because personal attacks really add so much to the discussion now don't they.

You simply assume that hearn's wasnt coming back.

What if leonard was beating up hearns and then was caught by a right hand bomb that killed him instantly?

You just threw down he wasn't coming back like was an absolute ****ing certainty while proposing a situation that could have easily happened in reality. Of course, we'll never know because the fight was stopped.

I'm just tyring to respond as best as i can and you have to start in with personal attacks. It's silly little pedantic **** like that keeps me lurking instead of posting.

inb4 another personal attack to keep me from posting, how witty.

Edit- In fact, **** it. i already know what's coming. I'm out, I'll try posting again in 3 years and see if the "post x, counter y, reach impasse, launch personal attacks" formula has changed.

 

It's a fact that up until the fight was stopped, Hearns wasn't coming back with anything. He wasn't defending himself well and was taking clean shots. I'm not assuming. I'll repeat again, it's a fact.

What you going to tell me next? I don't know, surprise me.

Why are you asking me stupid questions? Obviously I would term it brutal if Leonard got taken out with a flush punch after dominating a fight. It doesn't need to be against Hearns. You said you would only use the word brutal for "one sided steamrollings". Why? I just gave an example how the word 'brutal' could be described the ending of a fight wasn't one sided in favor of the winner. A one punch knockout, can't that be termed as brutal?

The fight was stopped because obviously the referee came to the conclusion that Hearns wasn't coming back with anything and the fight continuing would have been an unjust and poor decision. He was taking a beating. How serious that beating was is open to opinion. I've seen worse. He was taking punches to body, flush ones as well. The round before he was put through the ropes and was all over the place. For the best part of two rounds he had taken punches to the head and body and showed the effects of them.

You're opinions deserve the response of "You are clearly a fool and making a complete ass of yourself"

Yes, you're your own worst enemy. I can see why you don't post often. Probablly a lack of self confidence.

 

Except for the fact that neither Hearns, his corner, nor anyone around at the time questioned the stoppage and the rematch came years later at a higher weight when both fighters were past their primes. In other words, your post was useless, as we can now rest assured your opinion is.

 

Dodgson, despite Sweet Pea summing things up perfectly, I'll play along and explain myself. I normally wouldn't but some guys spoke on my behalf. In return, I'd appreciate you explaining how Hearns - Leonard II, at 168, 8 years later has any bearing on their Welterweight legacy?
Leonard - Hearns I is my all-time favorite fight. It took 2 to make a legendary fight. My respect for Tommy Hearns is limitless.
I don't change my avatar because I don't post as much as others and I believe it makes me more identifiable. You're partially correct in that the 2 men in my avatar were my favorite fighters AS A KID. Due to the wonders of Youtube I have many favorites. Right now, the guys I watch repeatedly are Sanchez, Monzon, and Hagler.Tommy Hearns is easily in my top 10 of all time fighters. There are prediction threads on here where I've picked Tommy over Leonard at 154. Salvador Sanchez remains my all-time favorite fighter, but I'm not convinced he'd have beaten Eusebio Pedroza. Biased??
As for Tommy H2H at welterweight. I like Ray Robinson, Leonard (he did), Burley to beat him for sure. I give Napoles, Gavilan and Griffith (pre Paret Tragedy) a very good chance to beat him.
Honestly, I think your statements exhibited more bias. A lot of things are debatable, but you reference to Leonard - Hearns II as some sort of determining factor in welterweight legacys strays farthest from logic.

 

I'm a huge fan of your work on this forum, but I think you're being a bit of an *******. :good

 

Hearns is the greatest H2H fighter at 154

 

Greater than Leonard, Ray Robonson, Burley, McCallum, etc etc etc. There are many foils for Hearns imo

 

Hearns is a fan-favorite because he is one of the greatest offensive juggernauts in the history of boxing. The trade-off is fragility and recklessnes, embodied by his warriors heart and fragile legs.

In the majority of Hearns' fights, his weaknesses are not on display and he appears to be completely flawless. Although reckless, he manages through a combination of distance management, reflexes and sheer gung-ho luck to not get hit all the while punishing his opponent brutally.

I feel Mike Tyson has the same thing going for him. In most of his fights, his vulnerabilities aren't on display and he seems invincible.

While if you have, say, below-average handspeed (Antonio Margarito, George Foreman, etc) that's always gonna be there in plain view.

 

Hearns came in too underweight in first SRL fight. If he had actually weighed 147 for that fight, he would have won IMO.

 

I'm a BIG Hearns fan but he's in no way No 1 H2H. How can he be when Leonard beat him? That's not to say that I don't think they are very close at welterweight. The 1981 Hearns was not mature in either physicality or technique so I think had there been a rematch at the weight Hearns would have had a good chance to win it.

No-one can dispute that Robinson and Leonard both can beat Hearns at the weight. What is in question is whether the some of the other great welterweights can. The usual suspects, Burley, Kid Gavilan, Napoles, Griffiths etc are in the mix but of those particular four I'd only give Burley and Griffiths a chance to win. But win they can and make no mistake. about it.

However, Hearns would give anyone, SRR included, a real tough night's work and his physical gifts, technique and power give him a shot against anyone within 7 pounds of the weight.