Who do you rate higher p4p? Ross or Hearns?

I rate Ross much higher than Hearns

 

Didn't realise you were including Armstrong, he came on abit after, didnt he? I thought you were thinking of Ambers or some ****.

Anyway, they are not a fab 4 you sly dog, adding Armstrong into it.

But take any 3 of the fab four, compare them to the 'holy trinity', and they **** all over them. In resume and H2H. And yes, the fact they look a level above them on film is down to them fighting in a superior era of boxing, which should effect resume greatly. Of course people pick and choose when this applies.

 

1. But they didn't all fight each other :nono
2. Most people would pick Duran to beat the lot of them and rightly so
3. Well against Benitez against Ross and Armstrong would be close matches, he schools McLarnin though like Ross did
4. No they really wouldn't none were the top tier of great WWs. Think about Robinson carrying Armstrong, Leonard/Hearns are on a very similar level. McLarnin would be knocked out early. @ Ross 'schooling Hearns', I think if we made a thread you'd be alone in that view
5. :nut Hearns would knock out Mclarnin, has a far deeper resme, and proven in many more weight classes with much more longevity. But apart from that comparable indeed
6. I'd rate both over Mclarnin P4P personally :bart

 

Ross great though he is can take about as much credit for being in the same era as Armstrong as Michael Spinks can take for being in the same era as Tyson

 

I rank Ross higher. I have them closer than some of you have them. Both are top 10-15 All Time Greats in my opinion.

 

1. Sadly no, our Tony fell too fast.
2.I wouldn't necessarily say that, i'd think Canzi and Ross would give him what for.
3.Indeed. Although I think McLarnin would bang him up pretty bad. He wasn't a dumb boxer, just not equipped to deal with Ross.
4.Ross definitely is a top ten WW. No disputing that. The schooling Hearns thing was just to raise your blood pressure
5. Maybe. Or maybe what happened to Corbett would happen to Hearns. Hearns does not have a deeper resume, what former flyweights typically KTFO the WW champ in one punch? Or are competitive htere in the first place.
6. Well then you're selling the man short. a faded Leonard, Corbett, Ambers, Canzoneri, Kaplan, Taylor, Singer, Fields, Kaplan, Baker, Thompson, LaBarba... HUGE range of champs defeated at many weights. McLarnin even being the lineal WW champ is mind boggling as it is

Armstrong didn't beat a particularly superb Barney Ross.

 

How can you even say this? You can't get away with it, because we have footage of both of them. And its clear to see. We have footage of Ross in one of his greatest victories. His punching technique is fine, but his speed, power and accuracy are nothing compared to Hearns'. He's also very much there to be hit after everytime he throws. He's also giving up a massive size advantage. This is a ridiculous statement you've made.

 

it's because thomas hearns is too mainstream. huge stylistic disadvantage

 

If not for you, its true for half the people that voted Ross

 

Ross still has a better resume than Tommy though, no doubt.

EDIT: If Tommy hadn't been robbed against Leonard the second time around i might have to reconsider that.

 

1. Are you sure he didn't 'peak too early and lost his career along the way. to cocaine and to laziness'??

2. Both are very good, I can't get over seeing Armstrong-Ross, when thinking what Duran may do who was bigger, harder hitting and imo more skilled

3. Agreed no doubt McLarnin had skills but I think Benitez offers the same krytonite to him as Ross, that higher echelon of skill

4. Personally he doesn't make my top10 WWs, I consider him more of LW because I just don't see him getting down and dirty with the bigger WWs although ofcourse he achieved a great deal in his era

5. Yea and maybe Duran and Cuevas knock out Hearns, but they didn't and McLarnin wasn't as good as either imo If you're going to call McLarnin a former flyweight you may aswell call any boxer a former flyweight because by the time he was 20 he was a fully grown lightweight and welter suited him fine.

6. No doubt he has the resume, I just don't make too much of what I see on film of him tbh. I think there's a good case he fought a weight drained Corbett and an undersized Canzi/Ambers and Leonard was obviously shot to bits

7. I'm not sure I buy that I think he just didn't have the power or uppercut to gain Armstrong's respect

 

Ross all day every day.

Although I prefer Hearns.

 

1. No, i don't think Canzi was like that at all.
2. Duran and Armstrong aren't that equivalent though, Duran would have boxed a lot more in Ross' comfort zone in my opinion.
3. I think McLarnin could cope with what Benitez has to offer technically. Physically, I'm not sure(if we're talking prime Benitez).
4. The resume is there, size or not. Armstrong has the WW title defense record, he should be there too.
5.Cuevas couldn't shine McLarnin's boots. It doesn't really matter how he filled out.. It doesn't make his accomplishments any less ridiculous especially considering the lower weight guys he beat like Taylor and LaBarba.
6. He looks like a ****ing beast KOing Singer, if that isn't impressive then idk what you want.
7.True, Ross was the ultimate workman who had been through a lot of battles and despite the odds came out on top. Armstrong was a different level of talent, and his speed sealed the deal. Not that many people did have the ability to get that respect you're talking about.

 

Indeed. And McLarnin not in that class?

 

You know who you remind me of? It's just clicked. The monopoly guy from Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj1wcs7SZj0[/ame]