Tommy Hearns not many can beat him at 147

Yeah, it's ****ing very odd that isn't it?


I think Hearns vs virtually every all-time great welter looks very much like the Leonard fight after the first 8 rounds or so. I think even Robinson would be prompted with a "you're blowing it now son". He was that good.

 

Just as I can see Walcott flattening Hearns in the first round on ONE punch, I can see Burley boxing circles around Hearns. Granted, Hearns has the power, but his chin would let him down. Burley would embarrass a lot of fighters today, Hearns being no exception.

 

What does his chin have to do with him having rings boxed around him? Your arguments make no sense.

 

My whole point is that Hearns has a weak chin. Walcott and Burley would knock him out.

What really makes no sense is Hearns KO1 Walcott. That is laughable that you of all people would even think that would happen. In fact, I'll say it right now, that's the silliest thing I've ever read on here. You're a lot smarter than this. Walcott was a swarmer along the lines of Aaron Pryor. He would rush in on Hearns and drop him with a single shot, it didn't matter what hand he used.

 

You're right. I just hadn't seen all that footage of Walcott to suggest so. Obviously you're more learned in his style than myself in order to compare him directly to another fighter. Can you tell me what footage of Walcott has impressed you the most?

Also, can you tell me, in your honest to God opinion, how the footage of the other top fighters of that general era compares to the footage of the fighters of the more modern era? Random clips

Walcott's general era:

[YT]2CCU3pnlEOM[/YT]

[YT]zcq-Sy05C-8[/YT]

Modern era:

[YT]Yjk5znRQn-U[/YT]

[YT]lyzw0548wEQ[/YT]



Now, what say you? Are you going to blatantly lie to me and tell me that the fighters of Walcott's era were of a similar quality skill-wise (and throw all logic out the window in the process) or are you going to come to your own conclusions and not what you feel will lead to lesser criticism on a Classic Forum? This is coming from a poster who believes boxing to have declined in recent years in comparison to its heyday from the 40's to the 80's, but if anyone is trying to tell me that the sport has never evolved since its inception, or that a 5'1 fighter from a primitive era is going to KO a 6'1 fighter with every advantage from the modern era, then I'm calling bull****.

Calling me out for a supposedly ridiculous pick when you've picked the exact opposite extreme scenario.

 

And just to reiterate. Hearns KO1 Walcott.:good

 

LMAO Of course the styles were much different in Walcott's day than in Hearns's day. I don't need to be re-educated on that.

Here's what I've read regarding his styleA:

Walcott's style was, in reality, no style at all. He fought every fight with but one thought in mind: to destroy the man in front of him. And he went about his pursuit by swarming all over his opponent, jumping up at him if necessary, and throwing punches from every angle imaginable. And some not. Several historians who saw both Henry Armstrong and Walcott likened Armstrong's swarming windmill style to Walcott's, a trait made all the more comparable by Armstrong's similar disregard for personal safety.


"5'1 fighter from a primitive era is going to KO a 6'1 fighter with every advantage from the modern era, then I'm calling bull****."

I see what you're saying, it makes perfect sense, but I feel that Walcott's height would be a disadvantage for Hearns in that all Walcott would have to do is get in on Hearns and land one hard shot on his chin. That's my view. I will forever agree to disagree with you or anyone else that shares that view.

And by the way, Walcott KO1:good

 

The rulesets were obviously much different. If that's so easy to accept, how can you claim that fighters of that era would be just as effective under a modern ruleset with their completely primitive skills by comparison? That should be just as obviously foolish to suggest.

 

I never said all fighters from that era would be successful. That's simply not true.

I simply said Walcott would be successful.

If Henry Armstrong was likened to Walcott style-wise, this tells me that Walcott would be successful today, especially since Aaron Pryor was always likened to Armstrong. All three had a similar style - basically reckless abandon - though Walcott hit the hardest of them all.

 

There were distinct differences to Armstrong and Pryor's style, and both are more or less modern era fighters with advanced skill-sets to the fighters of Walcott's day. The fact that 3 fighters are considered swarmers doesn't make them all equally effective on a grand scale, or even similar. Swarming is probably the best example of a style for all eras, but don't be fooled, there are still a good many changes to have developed in not just the style, but also the sport over time.

Were Walcott born in the modern era it's difficult to say how well he'd fare. Someone that size in a sport like this, at the weight he fought at, just doesn't seem to click. Could be wrong, but I really doubt it when taking the changes in the techniques between eras into consideration.

 

You and Janitor will make great allies, he picked your boy Walcott over Hearns, McCallum, even with Hagler, definite win over Foster and Tex Cobb as well :roll:

Hell, one of those 4 feet high leaping left hooks would probably register a one punch KO of Cobb! Hell, why stop at that, Walcott vs Tyson anyone? The 147 Walcott at that in case anyone is mixed up.

 

I think a lot of old fighters toughness would get them through difficult patches, but they would be stopped as you can see a lot of old fighters go ages without throwing back and take almost unbelievable punishment.

Nowadays, they would be stopped.

I fail to see how Langford could beat the likes of Prime Tyson, Foreman, Lewis, Holmes, Ali etc etc

Can't see Walcott beating Hagler!!!!

 

Beating was just the start of it.

Tell me again when Hearns was ko'ed in the 1st round by but "ONE" punch? Ludicrous assessment. I'd like to see Walcott beat Marlon Starling, let alone Hearns, let alone a one punch KO1.

:roll:

 

Hearns would be KO'd in the first round on one punch. The man had the punch of a full-fledged heavyweight in both hands and had a freakishly long reach to boot. He toyed with a 6 foot 6, 260 pounder, KO'd Joe Choynski and many other fighter who were bigger than him.

I can see Hearns flattening Walcott.. er, no I can't, nor can I ever, all because of his chin. Walcott withstood beatings that would finish most men. Hearns would be lucky to land a shot on Walcott once Walcott swarms in on him and flattens him.

Again, Walcott KO1 Hearns:good