Is Thomas Hearns a top 10 ATG in any division ?

Easily a top ten welter. The best junior middle ever.

Who's better than Hearns at 154?

 

I suppose McCallum's got the best argument.

Kalule, Jackson, McRory, Graham, Curry etc aren't bad.

 

I say Hearns was peaked and the best ever at 154 as well.... Hearns from Dec. 1982 to June 1986 was virtually unbeatable at 154 pounds.....

Yeah, Mike McCallum is the "Runner Up" man for sure....


"Jackson, Norris, DLH and Trinidad" can argue with each other from here 'til doomsday...

MR.BILLhat

 

Yeah top 10 P4P ATG

 

most guys of that era did not stay in a division a long time. With Hearns you have to put all the divisions together like you have to with Ray and Wilfred Benitez.. Tommy wanted to fight everyone and too much came up all the time. You know the timeline to his career. He was actually going to move up to middleweight and fight Hagler in May of 1982 and pass 154, and decided to fight Benitez for his title. Then defended that title 4 times. 154 was his most dominant division, although had he stayed at welterweight that would have been his best division and not 154. 154 was the next best division because he got experience at 154 and everything came together at 154 experience and maturity. Guys who move divisions are hard to rate. Michael Spinks was great at 175, but would not be thought of nearly as good if you didn't add in there the Holmes wins or the Cooney and Tangstad fight. The Tyson fight is seen as a bit of Tyson's legacy but not much of a knock on Spinks.

 

I think that pp does actually raise a valid point even tho he raised some daft one's also: a lot of fighters get credited as greats in a weight because of their jumping i.e. Fitz and greb at middleweight, however they fought the fights still within that limit (a recent example is pac beating margo; affects his welterweight legacy much more than his lmw legacy) however hearns actually moved through the weights rather than just fighting heavier guys. One problem with this tho is that guys like fitz and greb get double credit for most wins because they beat greats in other divisions whilst weighing at a lower division so these victories count twice in a way, and i'm not sure that's fair. I'd say by any criteria (resume, legacy, h2h) hearns is a clear choice for goat at lmw.

However should these victories also count for his welterweight ranking also? I think consistency needs to be applied. If fitz and greb are to be viewed as a great middleweights then the same criteria should apply to hearns as a welterweight. Upon reflection it seems much fairer to just rank based on accomplishments at a weight class the fighter is weighing at: surely it is unfair that armstrong's amazing run at ww counts towards his lw ranking because that's what he weighed...

I'm just conjecturing here and haven't really made my mind up one way or the other.

 

More than that I'd say. The manner of Hearns' victories at 154 over Benitez and Duran are extremely impressive, but other than that there are few big names. Mike has wins over Kalule, Jackson, McRory and Curry as well as more title fights won in the division.

Can Hearns' less than ten wins in this division really give such an advantage over all others? Especially since he only beat one fighter at 154 that was great at the time and weight where Tommy fought him.

 

:****

Tommy Hearns beating Benitez and Duran destroys McCallums competition at 154 pounds!!!!!! What are you guys smoking????:smoke:cannabis

 

Let's welcome yet another great mind to the forum.

 

absolutely at welterweight

 

But what happens if Basilio happens to get past Tommy's jab ? wouldn't it be the usual Kronk fighter's fate ?
It is possible that Tommy would have stopped Basilio but it is possible that Basilio would have stopped Tommy.
Maybe Hearns was one of the best of his kind , but then you had Walker Smith Jr. who really was far better. You will get your answer when I post my top 30 welterweights and see who will be the 15-20 above Hearns.
I also don't think that Paul Williams was stopped often enough to be regarded as inferior to Hearns. Williams won't reach the weights Hearns got to for the same reasons Hearns didn't get to the weights Tua got to . Hearns was simply a starved bigger man.

 

Again my man, you pass judgment on what if's instead of what was. There is no way to seriously rank a fighter like that.

 

What was ? did they ever fight ?

 

"

This content is protected

But what happens if Basilio happens to get past Tommy's jab ? wouldn't it be the usual Kronk fighter's fate ?
It is possible that Tommy would have stopped Basilio but it is possible that Basilio would have stopped Tommy."

This is a what if scenario, there is no other way to look at it.

 

I replied to his scenario about Tommy stopping Basilio , didn't even claim it was impossible , just mentioned the alternative