Hearns or Spinks- who was the better fighter?

Actually they sell them but not like they use to and there is not as many publications. And Ring sure got expensive but i still by them every now and then can only get them at Barnes &Nobles 7 eleven use to have them but dont see them any more there either. I use to love KO i thought they were better than Ring. Box illus, Box year??,Boxing scene, and some Magazine from the UK forgot what it was called but no longer see it over here. I used to get like 4 magazines a month for many years. Now every few months ill pick up a Ring. I think the Internet has taken alot of buisness away.

Reading boxing magazines was always my perfect leisure time as a kid id get a Soda and a Candy bar to relax and read them as a young adult id have my Beer and Joint:rasta When i get them know its not the same maybe the internet has taken a little of the spice off of it since i talk about boxing every day here. I bought a Ring Magazine about a month ago with Manny on the cover and still havent read a couple articeles. Before a ring Magazine would have been read top to the bottom by the end of the night.

 

Thats my kind of weather anarci...Addie could only dream of such paradise.

 

great post. Exactly. I liked KO the best also. Like you, I would read the magazines from cover to cover and then again later. Yeah usually with donuts and a pepsi in my car. Remember the results page or boxing results?. I remember in 1985 and 1986 seeing Julian Jackson's name on the results page and always ko 1 ko 2 ko 1. I took notice because I thought, who is this guy knocking everyone out in one or two rounds. It stuck in my mind. I still remember driving to the liquor store and hoping the magazine was in. Great memories.

 

:good Yey you know the first page i would always go to were the boxing results cause back then we only heard of the fights that were put out in the newspapers, or the ones we saw on TV.

More television coverage back then,but now we can find out about fights within the hour. I know you live in LA me you and Ricardo got to meet up with eachoter one of these days at the local fights:good

 

The fact that he wasn't a great MW takes away from Duran's accomplishment? He was still a very good fighter who seemed to have every advantage in the matchup. Duran was fighting 25 pounds above his best weight, 17 years after he'd won the Lightweight title. It's an astonishing achievement, and was a brilliant performance on Duran's part.

 

Hearns standing amongst boxing fans suffers purely because of Duran. He absolutely, completely destroyed Duran which garnered much hatred towards him. How people on here rate resumes is also to cater to a high P4P ranking for Duran. You stay at the one weight dominating 2nd raters for several years, is apparently much more impressive than moving up weights and challenging the best fighters in weight classes above you. 6 weight classes in the case of Hearns. 6 weight world champion. 22 world title fights against 21 world champions.

Its ****ing ridiculous

 

Every post you start slating Duran, I'm starting to think there's something seriously wrong with you. :huh

 

The thing is i come into a thread and Duran is all over every page. I came into this thread to discuss Thomas Hearns and Michael Spinks, and what do i see...some ****ing nutslobber preaching the magnifently awesome, impossible for anyone else, close points win over Barkley.

 

Well at least you make me laugh

Seriously though, there's only been on like 1 post about Duran this thread.

 

I feel the same way.


On topic, i think Spinks was a little bit better than Hearns. Not a lot to it, but i like the fact that Spinks dominated a very competitive LHW era and then moved up to win boxing's biggest crown against one of the greatest heavyweights ever. Hearns certainly had his share of success, but ultimately, he lost his important bouts with Leonard and Hagler. He did destroy Duran, but in the Duran-altar of worship that is called ESB, it is wide known that he only beat Duran because the latter was unmotivated, hadn't trained, didn't want to win, etc.

 

Two unavenged losses to Iran Barkley don't help his case much either.

 

It's difficult. I have tremendous respect for a fighter who emerges as the best of any era, never mind the best of a fine one in any particular division. Hearns is jsut a great fighter outright rather than being a dominant factor in any division. I have him either one or two at 154 but it's still not comparable dominance wise to say what Benny Leonard did at 135 or Spinks at 175.

Better fighter? Well Hearns boxes better for controlling range and going to the body. Spinks is somewhat of a general who moves around and has a deceptive jab because it's up close to his head then pops out. Both are unreal right hand hitters at their best weights, Hearns at any weight for that matter. It's close, i like Spinks as a better fighter for effectiveness personally. But i have to go with Hearns because of the proving of effectiveness over time.

For what it's worth i rate Spinks higher at any one weight, obviously.

So Hearns, reluctantyl

 

In terms of who was the better boxer, its Hearns, more skill, better jab, better puncher, faster, better footwork. Although Spinks probably has chin on him, Hearns is somewhat underrated in this department.

In terms of resume, I'd take

leonard (past prime we know its a win)
Duran
benitez
Cuevas
Espada
Virgil Hill
Andrias

Hearns obviously has more losses but he fought far more contenders and in tougher P4P weight classes, the likes of Prime Leonard and Prime Hagler are tougher P4P opponents than Qawi and Past Prime Holmes

Plus in his losses to Leonard 1 and Barkley 2 he was impressive for different reasons

 

Hitman P4P.

 

Overall I'd say Hearns, but not by a great deal.