Hearns or Spinks- who was the better fighter?

I know this was directed at mag man, but if Barkley was not that great at middleweight why is Duran beating him very impressive? Duran was only 38, the same age as Mosley now. Duran was better inside and fought better guys and just a greater fighter completely. I agree with people who say this is a over rated a win. Now had Duran beaten Second to Nunn or Frank Tate then that would have been impressive. But Iran Barkley? Not really but it was an exciting fight. You give a guy his fight and he has a chance to win. Barkley was made for Duran.

 

great point. I like Duran also but Hearns is underrated. Duran gets overrated compared to his resume. The guys Hearns fought were incredible and head to head with Duran he destroyed him easily. How can that fight be dismissed? There is a word in psychology which is used when people do not want to face some issue which is painful. It is called Denial. Duran fans have a little denial.

 

That does not help Hearns but his resume of fighting the best and beating the best like Duran and Benitez and Cuevas and Hill sort of makes that fight a style fight. Hearns beat many guys 10 times better than Barkley.

 

Brilliant beating Barkley? I don't care if Pacman went up and beat Barkley, it still would not be brilliant. Barkley was a decent contender and had a great win against Hearns, but that is all. What more can you make out of his career? Iran lost most of his top fights against good fighters. Duran beating Barkley is the most overrated win in boxing today. And Duran's losses to the legends of the 1980's is the most underrated. Which is why I think he is overrated. Also beating Leonard by close decision in 1980 when he fought his fight, and then losing easily in the rematch is another factor. After that Duran lost to Leonard, Benitez,Hearns and Hagler. Didn't beat one of them after that first Leonard fight.

 

That is my fault. I mentioned Duran earlier. Duran is starting to look like the most overrated fighter in boxing history. He is a great fighter, but he lost to every great in the 1980's. Then he fights a fighter the caliber of Barkley and wins, and people act like he went up to heavyweight and beat Tyson in 1989. If people want to say he is great because of his lightweight career then fine, but to make the Barkley win brilliant or great then it is obvious that Duran is overrated and that win is overrated. If Duran was so great to beat Barkley in 1989, then how great is Hearns for knocking out Duran in 2 rounds in 84 ,and Benitez for outclassing him in 1982.

 

Spinks was the more complete fighter, Hearns the more spectacular ... you have to watch the way Spinks dominated a prime, exceptional Qwai to understand what an exceptional fighter he was ...

Even at welter , Tommy's chin and stamina were a question mark ...

 

And Spinks thoroughly dominated a very strong light heavyweight division, and established himself as one of it's greatest all time members, before moving up and winning boxing's biggest prize against an all time great. All this and he only suffered one single loss when past his prime, to a nearly invincible great champion.

 

I think Hearns accomplished more than enough in his career to show that the Barkley losses are outliers. He beat many, many other much better fighters, and they are clearly viewed as upsets. There's a difference between a loss and an upset.

 

yes but besides Barkley, Tommy's losses in his prime were only to Hagler and Leonard. Spinks did not have that caliber at lightheavyweight that Hearns did at welterweight to middleweight or he would have had more losses probably, but I loved his win over Holmes.

 

I'm going with Spinks, but not by much, probably a microhair.

 

I rank Spinks slightly higher. I like his resume more and I think he was a more complete fighter. Was Hearns's weight-jumping really a greater achievement than Spinks jumping from lhw to hw? Maybe so, but not by much. I don't think the gulf there in Hearns's favour is enough to offset resume and ability (yes, I'm well aware that to many saying Spinks was a better fighter in terms of ability than Hearns is blasphemy but I'm sorry, my issue with Hearns's chin will just never die. He had a glaring weakness whereas Spinks imo did not).

 

I've been pleasantly surprised by people's answers. I felt Hearns would be unanimous, always considered Spinks as one of the unheralded greats of the last 50 years. Michael's superior toughness and ability to take a punch is what qualifies him as the more complete fighter of the two in my judgment, and people are getting hit in this game. I agree with most of your post.

If you haven't already, check out some of my recent uploads on youtube. I'm shamelessly plugin' my channel but it's for your guys benefit.

 

Will do amigo, cheers for the tip :good

 

So getting your ass kicked twice by the same fighter and in two different weight classes, is just written off as "upsets"? Uh, okay..... And are we also supposed to just ignore these "two upsets", in an effort to rank Hearns higher than a man who won the gold medal, became linear champ in two weight classes, and was only beaten once by a virtually unstoppable all time great when he was past it???


Well, you know what they say about opinions...

 

Hearns beat 4 ATG fighters and Spinks beat one. I am one of those who is very high on Spinks, although the whole gold medal thing is great for marketing, but as for ATG explain to Howard Davis why he is not ATG. Although if you are going to nitpick Tommy for losing to Barkley, then it can also be said that an ATG who beat Holmes, should have been able to last more than a minute or so against the heavyweight champion. Anything can be nitpicked.