ATG: Who Ranks Higher? Pacman or Hitman?

Pac. He got 4 lineal titles, only lost 1 of his big fights, and has more time to do better.

 

No one looks at that 112 part in a strong way and says ok he moved up from there so he is great. He had to have better names on his record to match Hearns moving up. At least Pacman's move to superbantamweight. After that at 126 Barrera again comes up and his inconsistency when Pacman fought him-also considering Junior Jones. People look at his quality of opposition which is very good, but Floyd's was not terrible either. Not at Pacman's level but close-but still decent. It is about who he fought and how dominant he was and Floyd beat decent guys at 130 and 135 and not as good at 140 and old good guys at 147. If he ends his career with Mosley and then beats Pacman, Floyd ends with a decent legacy yet people will say Mosley was old and Pacman really a smaller guy. If Pacman beats Mosley and Floyd he ends a similar way, although beating Mayweather who is fast would be a great win for Pacman. I just do not think it is as easy as people are saying. Floyd is not Hatton or Diaz. He is fast and if he gets sharp again and comes with his speed he might outbox Pacman and might even have the power to hurt him.. Although if he wants 50/50 he is setting up no fight with Pacman. Which would be a shame.

 

I do also. Coming up in weight like Pacman did was impressive, but the quality of opposition that Hearns moved up and fought was better. Incidentally, this is June 3, 2009. 18 years ago tonight on the evening of June 3, 1991, Thomas Hearns won a unanimous decision over Virgil Hill to win his 6th title in 5 weight classes. Virgil was undefeated and had 10 title defenses.

 

I love both these guys so much!!!

Hearns was absolutely ferocious and I think has become a little underrated in some sectors because of his losses (I'm still pondering over what might have been had he not broken his hand in the Hagler fight)!!! I think it was a list from the ring's website (not certain) that haf Hearns at 68 all time - Whilst having Duran and Leonard top 10 and Hagler top 20. I thought that was really unfair!!!

Back to the topic, I'll say Hearns right now but I make a point of not rating current fighters as I think I can be a little unfair on them. I think when he's been out of the game a few years most people will have Pac ahead of Hearns.

 

Hagler beat Hearns, but in my mind Hearns was better. Hagler got all the guys moving up to fight him and he is lucky he could sit back and do that, yet he never moved up to fight Spinks. Hearns had greater wins than Hagler. Hearns beat Cueves,Benitez,Duran,Hill etc. And Hagler beat Hearns and Duran. As far as HOF.

 

Hearns might have had greater wins but Hagler still beat him. I see your point, but still bottom line is Hagler beat Hearns when both were prime.

 

Hearns beat Duran but it doesn't make him a greater fighter - of course Duran wasn't prime but the point remains.

Personally I rank Tommy above Marvin but I've no problem if people have it the other way.

I think Hagler should of fought Spinks and he made no real effort to move up in weight. His 2 best wins are over a 147 lber and 135 lber.

 

I think so also. Hagler had all the legends move up and fight him but he never moved up to fight bigger guys. Amazing how he still acted like the smaller guys were ducking him when he never thought about going to light heavyweight. I think Hearns was greater than Hagler. His wins were greater, and his welterweight win against Cueves was incredible a 2nd round knockout. He won it his first try and Hagler got a draw. Hearns beat Benitez by decision to win his next title and beat Hill to win the light heavyweight title. In the meanwhile Hearns won the vacant middleweight and super middleweight titles and beat Andries for the WBC Light Heavyweight title. If anyone rates Hagler above Hearns it cannot be by too much, and if Hagler never beat Hearns then Hearns would be rated higher.

 

I am just saying you cannot rate Hearns far below Hagler. He fought better guys and won his two titles 11 years apart, compared to Hagler who won only 6 years apart in title fights. Hagler had 15 title fights and Hearns had 19. I think the opposition and the quality he fought to win his titles surpasses Hagler. I am not sure Hagler could have moved up a weight class and beaten a champion like Benitez at 168.. Then challenged Spinks.

 

He still didn't beat Hagler! Yeah he moved up more than Marvin and beat better guys but fact is he did not beat Marvin, so it is hard to rate him over him.

 

In that case can you rate Hopkins over Taylor - or Pac over Morales???

Ranking fighters on their head to head match ups is part of the reason some of todays fighters are scared of losing their 0!!!

No doubt Hagler is a supreme MW to Hearns, but P4P i move towards Tommy!!!

 

Under that assumption you'd have to rank Floyd above Hearns wouldn't you!?!?! And, once you become P4P it seems as though you keep it until you lose....Hagler not moving up in weight made this unlikely. Let's not forget his 2 greatest wins are against smaller opponents.

I don't have a problem with people placing Hagler above Hearns, but doing so on the basis of their fight is unfair to me!!!

 

I agree, I was saying that because Hagler was P4P longer than Hearns doesn't make him a better fighter.....in no way was I saying I rank PBF above Hearns. Quite the opposite!!!