61(48KO)-5-1 pro record 155-8 amateur record 8 time world champion First ever 4th, then 5th, then 6th weight world champion (welterweight-cruiserweight) fought 21 current, past or future world champions in 22 world title fights Outclassed Benitez. Destroyed Cuevas. Anniahlated Duran. Contraversial stoppage loss to SRL, and a contraversial draw. Lost against Hagler, participating in what is considered by some the most exciting fight ever. Way past his prime, 5 weights above his original weight, defeated an undeafeted HOFer, Virgil Hill at LHW. Perfectly marketable style and perhaps P4P greatest puncher of all time. Incredible record. Incredibly tough H2H. My questions, 1. why is he the least celebrated of the Fab Four? 2. All time P4P where do you have him? 3. How do you justify ranking Duran above him P4P?
Here's my theory on number 1, at least: Leonard: beat the other 3, controversial or not. Gold medal, flashy fighter. Makes sense why he's the top snot. Duran: His other accomplishments at other weights factor in. Being a ridiculously dominant lightweight and beating Leonard does a lot. Despite some of his lesser performances (Robbie Sims, for example) he has the win over Iran Barkley, fought for 5 decades, and fought his last fight at age 50. Career record: 103(70)-16(4)-0. That's damn remarkable. This may answer #3, but I don't have a P4P rank. Hagler: Stopped Hearns, beat Duran, and has the controversial SD to SRL. Avenged his two early losses. Never stopped. 62 wins, 52 by KO's. I'm not sure I've made a good case for Hagler, to be honest. Just playing Devil's Advocate with the whole topic. 2. Not sure. I don't have a P4P list, but he would be up there, certainly. 3. See above.
1st, I have to point out that the SRL stoppage was perfectly legit, no-one from Hearns team complained, neither did Hearns. Now for your questions.... 1. Im not sure because many would argue that he was both the most exciting & best `boxer` of the lot (or at least the `hardest to outbox`) 2. Since I only rate fighters that Ive seen decent footage of, I rank Hearns anywhere from 10-15 all time. 3. Duran established himself as arguably the greatest ever 135 lber before even thinking of stepping up & facing these amazing 3 greats, greats that were all naturally bigger than he was, he also had better longevity, fighting into the 2000s after having his pro debut in 1967. Ps. Recently I have been regarding Hearns higher than Hagler due to his weight jumping feats, its always gonna be debateable when comparing 4 truly amazing fighters like SRL, Duran, Hearns & MMH, a lot of the time there is no right answer, just split opinions. :good
I have Hagler's career set and tend to like him more each fight I watch. He is my fav of the 4 but I gotta admit that Hearns isn't as celebrated as he should be but to be on the bright side, The Fab 4 are more than HOF worthy! Brought to you by IceVeins, [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZdLJAYzV9M[/ame]
At Cruiserweight the titles he picked up were the IBO and WBU titles. They're usually not considered due to so many titles with light regard. I guess you can make a good case for the IBO now because it's unfortunately got a lot of legitimacy (at least compared to these other wretched organizations) but usually it's just "linear", WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO for that time period. Minor quibble.
I think a lot of it has to do with styles. Yet as much as I love the Hit Man,he seems like he's been more motivated about some fights than others. Sure wish a Hagler rematch would have happened. The Hearns that faced Shuler a year later,with Hagler slipping a bit I think would have been a better result,even if Tommy did'nt win,I'm sure the fight would have been longer and more conservative on his part. Ya never know how Hearns would have done with a fully functional right hand and more spring in his legs. Look how he did against Leonard in the rematch.That revenge factor. I think he was pretty passed his prime in the Barkley rematch,though Barkley was extremely tough..
1. I think that depends on who you talk to. He did not have the charisma nor claim to beating the rest of the 4 the way that Leonard did, and nor did he remain a dominant champ in any one weight class for any extended period of time.. In fact, unless I'm wrong, I don't think he ever even established himself as being a lineal claimant in any class, outside of holding fragmented belts for short periods.. 2. In order to this, one would have to seriously sit down and disect literally dozens of fighters and every aspect of their careers, along with the individual circumstances of each era that they were active in.. Therefore, I can't give any sort of accurate rating myself. I do know that some people have had him as low as #70-75, and frankly I think thats harsh. Without giving it much thought, I think he's a top 40 p4p great. 3. Well, for whatever its worth, Roberto Duran is sometimes accredited as being the greatest lightweight of all time, or certainly one of the top 3 by most people's standards. I don't think Hearns even makes top 10 in any one class, simply due to his limited stay in those divisions. In addition, Ray leonard, Estaban Dejesus and several other greats, probably eclipses any of Hearns best wins, including Tommy's win over Roberto himself..
I'm not going to answer the three questions but I agree that he does have a great resume. I'm sure he must have been lineal titleholder at Light Middle and Light Heavy. Cuevas, Benitez, Duran, Leonard (second fight was an absolute robbery i felt) and Hill are all great wins. With other victories over Andries, Roldan etc giving his resume depth; Duran is generally regarded as the best of the four and Leonard has victories over the other three ( despite the fact he lost to the best version of Duran, Hagler and Hearns in the second fight IMO ) Basically Tommy was in two mega fights and was stopped both times, putting up a tremendou battle but ultimately falling short when he fought upon the biggest stage.
My answers... I'm not sure if that's true. I'd estimate that half the people on this forum would rank him higher than Hagler. It's close between them p4p IMO, and even though I prefer Hagler as a fighter, I'd probably give Tommy a very very slight edge because of his weight-jumping achievements. Around 30-40. I think I am a little bit of a Hearns sceptic, compared to most. It is completely and utterly unjustifiable to even contemplate having Hearns anywhere near Duran p4p.
The way he was crushed by Hagler and Barkley. That Duran has an argument for being #1 all time at a particular weight class, and did much better against common opponents Barkley and Hagler.
I love Hearns and am biased... 1) IMO Leonard's charisma is the main reason. Hearns had the right to a Hagler rematch but was denied by Leonard. He also never gets the plaudits for the second figth with Leonard. I tell you, I considered Tommy a shell going in - as did Ray or else he'd never have given him a rematch. I believe that Hearns and Leonard are much closer than most people rank them. If Hearns had got to Hagler in 87 it may well have been different. 2) No idea...would take too long to work out. 3) Duran has to rank as the best of the fab 4 because of his longevity and because he achieved more.
Interesting question about Duran and Hearns since they did fight when both were champions in 1984. I think Hearns has just as good a resume as Duran and beat more ATG fighters than Duran ever did. Look at record. He beat Cueves (as champ) Benitez for his title (Duran lost to Benitez that same year). He knocked out Duran. Tommy beat Virgil Hill 30 pounds over his first title weight and Virgil was undefeated and had 10 title defenses. 21 title fights and first man who won a title at welt and then went up to win a title at superwelterweight and lightheavyweight and cruiserweight. Duran never beat a prime ATG. Hearns was in the best round ever and two of the best fights ever. I think Hearns legacy is underrated and Duran's is overrated. Look at the resumes and top wins.
