Who ranks higher...Floyd Mayweather or Thomas Hearns?

Hearns is both the better and more proven fighter. Mayweather is still a class below.

 

People who say Mayweather is better are fans of Mayweather. Hearns had HOF competition and Mayweather didn't. That speaks for itself. Hearns win over Hill who was undefeated and had 10 title defenses at light heavyweight is better than any win Mayweather has had.

 

Hearns won 3 of his belts vs. HOF great fighters. If you are going to put Corrales and Castillo and Hatton in there, Hearns beat Randy Shields, Harold Weston, James Shuler, Dennis Andries,etc etc. Hearns is my favorite fighter so I shouldn't really rate him here, but in this case Tommy fought the best and beat some of the best. Floyd has not beaten the best or fought the best, and the only reason he is fighting Pacman is because he feels he is bigger than Manny. Tommy left it all on the table in his boxing career and he is like Manny-they fought them all. Floyd has not.

 

Hearns and Floyd are just in two tottaly different eras

Less belts

Less divisions

MORE TALENT!!!

Of course Hearns ATG wise will rank higher boxing was better anyway back then.

 

Im guessing your speaking about lately and just forgetting his entire career.

 

I say, talent be damned, Hearns is far and away the greater fighter. Not the most naturally talented of the two, as Floyd really is exceptional technically, but on ATG lists, I'd scoff at anyone with Floyd over Tommy. Then again, Floyd's not done yet but eh.

 

hearns by a country mile H2H and resume, and im a floyd fan.

 

He beat guys who were ok but past their prime or not HOF. Corrales and Castillo and Hatton are not HOF. Hatton did beat Tsyzu, but he is not HOF in my mind. Floyd's whole career is lacking. It does not compare to Thomas Hearns or any other great who fought everyone and put it all on the line. He is lacking of a resume to compare to great fighters.

 

Who?

Koki Kameda, that's who!!!!!!!!!!

 

Floyd would need to beat Pac, beat Paul Williams, get in and win the Super 6 tournament, and then maybe it might be worth discussing.

 

Pure offense Hearns was a killer but often left his chin exposed for counters and we all know what happened when that happened, so skill wise mayweather had the advantage but I cant bring myself to say PBF would win, Hearns was vicious when he got into his swing, I really dont think any of the present day welters could handle Hearns. He was a big man for his weight class.

 

When you say the best, who are you refferring to..???

 

Floyd could've had the resume which would equal his skill, had he fought the likes of Mosley, Tszyu, unbeaten Cotto, Margo, P.Williams, even if he had a couple losses (they no doubt would've been close). But he never sought those fights, or never seriously.

Hearns by far. He destroyed P.Cuevas' ending his long reign, outboxed Benitez, smashed Duran and he arguably, actually not arguably, he beat Sugar Ray in the rematch. Those four wins are better than all of Mayweather put together.

 

This is the problem when people do not know much about boxing history ,but only know the recent fighters. Hearns beat more HOF fighters then most guys did, yet he lost his two biggests fights. It happens. But he fought Leonard and Hagler when most guys couldn't beat them and didn't. Yeah he beat Duran but he also won his welt title from Pipino Cueves who had 10 title defenses. Won his 154 pound title from another HOF fighter Wilfred Benitez. Won the Light heavyweight title in 1991 from Virgil Hill who was undefeated. He beat 4 HOF fighters. Mayweather has not fought anyone. How can you say he beat the best when he has not fought the best? As far as resume, Floyd does not compare at all. Not even close. That is why this comparison is kind of a joke.

 

And the Virgil Hill win. Hearns was the first man to win the Welt title and then win a light heavyweight title, which he won two times.