Who do you rate higher p4p? Ross or Hearns?

The question is a good one, It shows how hard it is to compare fighters separated by 40 years.

 

Hearns career achievements easily rival Ross'. I'd also say that Hearns faced far higher quality opponents. What's more Ross doesn't have any wins to equal something like Hearns KO of Duran.

If they ever fought Ross lacked the power to trouble Hearns. Hearns was a bigger, better boxer; probably faster and certainly more powerful. Ross' granite chin would be well tested and with Hearns' power you can't rule out the KO. Stamina could be an issue for Hearns if it was over 15, but I see him winning a comfortable decison.

 

Ross is top 10/12 in my opinion.....Hearns is top 15/20.....
Two great fighters anyway....

 

WTF? No, simply no. Ross beat Canzoneri who was in that class and McLarnin who was nearly in the same class.

If they would fight, I think it would be a tough one. I think Tommy´s size and reach would make the difference. Ross fought in a better era but it was also an era of small welterweights. I don´t think he would have done as well at welterweight in the 80s.

 

Hearns is a great fighter offensively and in every way and he fought the best in a great era for over a decade. outpunching Duran and outboxing Benitez and Hill 10 years apart alone is incredible and he did much much more. Cuevas,Leonard,Hagler-near 20 title fights. Saying ross was better simply because he fought earlier doesn't mean you are a boxing expert. It just means by saying that you want to show you know that era just as well as Hearns era of 30 years ago. Hearns was greater and fought greater guys in an incredible head to head era.

 

Tommy Hearns was one of those guys who got people interested in boxing!!! He wasnt just any guy like barkley who came to fight because

tommy was special and I know many of my friends who say they loved boxing and got into it because of hearns and his style and that he always came to fight and made boxing exciting again as well as Roberto Duran and Sugar and Marvin.

I am not sure ross did that what hearns did that for many people years ago. regardless of hearns wins or losses you cannot say he hurt the sport of boxing. he came to fight everytime out and boxing was so much better with him. you have to give him his props. the 80s revived boxing and without hearns the 80s would not have been great. boxing owes a guy like hearns big time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

good postings

 

Based on accomplishments and resume its a no brainer.....Ross.

 

Ross was the ****ing best of his generation of fighters until the 4th best ever dethroned him. You bet your ass he was all that.

 

yeah, that's all well and good...

but barney ross killed more than twenty japanese soldiers all by himself in one night, and then he carried a heavyweight on his shoulders to safety.

ross > hearns for extracurricular activities too.

 

...I think the more important issue to address here when evaluating them "p4p" is **** size. What information do we have there? I need to know before I start chiseling my list into stone tablets.

 

I rate Ross highly BUT was he the best of his generation though if he was only and dominated by a WW at the age of 28? Wouldn't that make Armstrong the best of his generation and not Ross? Plus Cocoa Kid/Holman Williams were WWs of his era he didn't face who manydispute who was the best WW

Saying Armstrong is '4th best ever' imo gives Ross a pass for a 1 sided loss against a much smaller man when Ambers performed far better against the same man. Armstrong was also only a champion for 3years and I don't buy as many do he was shot when he lost against Zivic

So maybe Hearns wasn't the best of his era but neither was Ross

 

I think Ross beat better opponents and would rank him higher, but I think Tommy murders him in a head to head.