Why do people rate Manny Pacquaio over Tommy Hearns on their ATG list???

Maybe because these people are too young to know who Hearns is.

 

Probably because Pac has won 7 divisional titles and a political position as an active boxer.

 

A political position in a poor country means nothing.It's not like he's governor of New York and being a boxer at the same time

 

This. Especially Duran.

Tommy hearns was an exceptional fighter, but the Duran win is the only thing I dont think he needs credit for, considering Duran was way over his best weight class.

 

No credit for Duran?????

Who had just gone 12 Rounds with Hagler?!?!

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

15 actually.

I think Duran is a very good win for Hearns. Granted, Duran was never the same above 147 (actually above 135 but was still pretty awesome against Palomino and Leonard 1 at WW), but was still a champ at 154 and formidable fighter who was competitive at MW with Hagler (even if those judges were drunk to have it so close).

I think Benitez is Hearns's best win.

 

Styles make fights?

 

#67 Hearns -- Ring Magazine's 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years (2002)
#37 Hearns -- ESPN 50 Greatest Fighters of all Time (2007)

Many rank Pac somewhere between 20-40 and I don't think it's preposterous if some have him higher than Hearns.

 

That's the lamest excuse ever for discrediting the fact that Hearns beat a guy who had just gone 15 Rounds with one of the three best MW of all time.


Excuse me... he didn't beat him. He

This content is protected

him.

 

Hearns's best wins (Duran & Benitez at 154, Cuevas, Hill, etc) are marginally better than Pacquiao's best wins (Barrera at 126, Marquez at 130, Cotto at 145, Hatton, Clottey, Morales, etc), but for overall resume strength I'd say there's not much between them. Tommy's win res isn't particularly deep, despite fighting in a great era. Pac has an edge over Hearns in terms of weight-jumping, even though Hearns is also one of the greatest weight-jumpers in history. Again, not much between them though. In terms of ability, the light-middle Hearns is slightly better than the light/light-welter Pac (that's the weights where I think both guys were at their best), because even though Tommy had a weakness/vulnerability about him that Manny doesn't have, he still had a bit more to his game overall.

Thus, there really isn't much between these two at all. I could accept someone having Pac over Hearns, I could accept someone having it the other way around.

 

Agree

 

This is such bull****. A blowup supermiddle 1989 version of Ray Leonard was not a better win than a near-prime with over a featherweight p4p top 5 MAB.

Back to the thread. I rate Hearns pretty high. Somewhere around #35 all time. He does get underrated sometimes but what he does not have as many top level wins as Pacquiao. Cotto, Hatton, Morales twice, Marquez, and Barrera(first win was outstanding 2nd he was pretty shot) are a little bit better than a draw with Leonard, a win over Duran, Hill, Benitez, and Cuevas. People will rate Pacquiao higher when the dust settles and his carrer is over.

 

Cotto? are you serious?
Hatton? really?

Thsoe wins may have been electrifying, star-studded events, but in no way are they better than Duran, Cuavas, Benitez, Hill, and the Leonard draw.

 

Have opinions changed with ten years wins and losses on top of Pac's career here?