Tommy Hearns not many can beat him at 147

He could get down low with those uppercuts too.

 

Talk to me about how a guy like Jose Napoles loses to a guy who was below world class and never beat another top fighter after his 4th round stoppage over him. Talk to me about how Gavilan lost to many fighters who fit lesser descriptions than your own, or how Burley was pretty much neck and neck with the other top Murderer's Row Welters of the day, all of whom only built up this wealth of experience through constantly fighting each other.

Hearns had all the tools, physically and technically, to hold his own with any Welter who ever lived, and stylistically is a nightmare for the vast majority of them. Yes, certain fighters hold the edge in intangibles, but that really doesn't mean they should be favored if there is simply no argument for them from a stylistic standpoint. Not saying that's the case with the fighters you mentioned, as all of them at least stand live chances due to the tools they possess, but I wouldn't outright favor them due to nothing more than experience. That logic is too flawed.

 

BS, Ross has a shot vs any one. Not saying he beat Hearns, but I think Ross would win at 1 bout at the lease.

Ross had speed, and defenses skills over Hearns, not to mention he was a tricky fighter in his own right, a lesser Willie Pep imo. Yes if tag, Ross would brawl it out. Hearns would be in a fight, He beat Canzi, McLarin, Petrolle, Battalion. These guys ant walk overs, but top fighters and beast imo.

And even than Ross had a atg chin, no one ko Ross, not even Armstrong. What seems to be forgoting is Ross was having his way with Armstrong until Ross stimia went. He been in to many wars imo, the McLarin, and Canzi fights, not to mention a busy fight year.
Ross would be a pretty tought fight for Hearns imo. Perhaps it will follow like the SRL fight.

 

Ross really wasnt a true welter..he was a part timer and the physical advantage Hearns holds over him would be significant.

Ross is one of the most all around skilled fighters I have seen but he rarely showed the kind of fight changing power that would be needed to overcome a guy like Tommy..not at welter anyway. I think Tommy's own skills arent all that inferior to Barney's, I dont think Barney hold enough advantages here to overcome the physical abilities of Tommy more times then not.
I really struggle to see how this would go the way of the SRL fight.

I dont think he has ever faced someone even remotely as big and athletically talented as Tommy....I think Tommy showed against SRL and Benitez that he had the tools to deal with top shelf skills of fighters that were far more suited to the weight then Barney was.

 

I disagree besides if the Leonard fight was 12 rounds like it is today he would've won.

 

Agreed to me it's like a welterweight version of Haye vs Wlad.

 

Mickey Walker at 147 would have been tough for Tommy. He took Schmeling's right hands.

http://www.amazon.com/Joe-Gans-Biography-American-Champion/dp/0786439947/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

 

People who pick Leonard over Hearns at welterweight look at "TKO 14" and draw a convenient conclusion. Hearns was a much better boxer than Leonard. Leonard was thoroughly confused by Hearns. Leonard can thank his lucky stars Hearns overtrained and was exhausted by the later rounds and that the referee was eager to award the fight to Leonard. Leonard was damn smart to avoid a rematch for so long. Hearns would have done to Leonard what he did to him when they finally met again. Of course, it's likely the judges would have found some way to prevent Hearns from receiving the credit due him.

 

Imagine that, people picking one fighter over another just because he beat him already. Talk about bias! How on earth could they come to such a conclusion

Having said that i really do think Hearns would have beaten Leonard at his 154 peak. Whether he could have beaten him in a 147 rematch is another matter. I don't doubt it possible but only a fool would approach the subject thinking Tommy was a sure thing. Leonard is the definite fave, and then one works from there.

 

But if Ross and Hearns fought 100 times, I do not think Ross will lose all 100, he is bound to win vs Hearns in this regard.

Who has that computer download thing. Run 100 bouts with them vs each other and see the stats in that. Ross is not so bad to lose 100 in a row vs other great fighter. Ross also had underated power imo, other wise why didnt the brawlers just mow him down??

 

I dont think that would happen either, though 100 fights just isnt really a fair way to gauge it..Even over 10 is pushing it, I think Barney could get at least one there but its the more likely scenario they are having 3 or 4 fights in a series I dont think he has the tools the beat the much bigger and equally as good Hearns...I disagreed that there is a decent chance that this ends up like SRL-Hearns and I think the reasons it wouldnt are obvious.

Ross wasnt a big puncher, not feather fisted but punching wasnt his thing. His durability, high level of technical ability and versatility for the time and athleticism kept him from getting mowed down by brawlers. He was just a very good fighter who happened to be an average puncher.
Im not sure what you are getting at there..his power was sufficient but there have been fighters in the past who have had even less pop and they still succeed because of other attributes.

 

Ross was no terror, but he was able to keep the equal Iron chin Tony Canzi at bay in the rematch.

Just taking notice here. I pretty sure Hearns would be in for a LONG night. Most welters were when they fought Ross.

Outside of the 1 and 3rd McLarin fights, I think the best Ross fight on film was eiher the Canzi fight or the Billy Petrolle fight, both Ross just looks amazing, and I have a hard time seeing Hearns just walk over THAT Ross imo. Or even the Ross from the 1 and 3rd McLarin fights.

 

Neither do I...but I see it even more unlikely that Ross stops Hearns let alone beats him.

 

I do not see Duran ever beating Hearns. Hearns was too fast, which is why he won in 1984 more than anything else.