My boy knows nothing about boxing and I'm trying to explain to him who Tommy Hearns is and how great he was. Where do you guys put in on your all time list...what should i tell my boy?
Y dont u just show him the Leonard/hearns fight? Even if he lost, that fight showed what a versatile fighter he was..
Also, show him the Duran and Hagler fights. They're short fights and he'll quickly realise the greatness of The Hitman.
Tell him this: "Sugay Ray, they say He's the fastest in the land But Ole Tommy Hearns He got hammers in his hands":yep Seriously, there's a ton of good stuff on You Tube.
at JMW hes arguably the best ever at that weight,either him or Mcallum its a shame that we didnt get to see a fight between them at 154, at WW hes top 20.a trully great fighter and one of the biggest punchers ever.
From 147-154, I'd favor only the two Sugars over him definitively (though there are contenders). All time great power at both weights to go with amazing physical tools and technical skills. He's damn difficult to pick over as a pure boxing technician from 160 down as a matter of fact.
What is obvious watching any highlight reel or bio segment on hearns is that he was one of the most destructive knockout punchers in the recent memory of the welterweight division. He threw punches from those long spindly arms that seemed as if they came from outer space and crashed down on his opponents. However, what gets lost is that the only reason the string-bean welterweight champion was able to fight at a world class level at junior-middle and middleweight was that he was deceptively awkward despite his relatively porous defense and sometimes looping, wide shots that opened him up--not exactly Carlos Maussa or anything, but I hope you get the point. Tommy recovered well when he got tapped and knew how to preserve himself under heavy fire. He was a terrific boxer that befuddled opponents and made them make mistakes by alternating between a crisp, quick, assertive jab and a deliberately lazy jab that set up the straight right or the right hook. To illustrate these points see his fights with Pipino Cuevas and Wilfred Benitez at 154 and his fights with Roldan and Doug Dewitt at 160. Most often Hearns success above 147 is credited to his remarkable toughness and determination, but I think it was his deceptively clever style that made the difference at 154 and 160. Above 160, I'll admit, the aging and threadbare Hearns fought as high as contender level, for a while, on the weight of pure brass balls and heart. I would rank him as a top 20 all-time welterweight and, maybe, top 50 all time junior middle. He was a pure fighter, a superior example of what happens when talent and athleticism meets training and rock hard toughness. The Hitman could have skated by behind a jab and quick feet, but he chose to lay it on the line and do something extraordinary. Paul Williams, with whom he is so often compared, should weep tears of shame and be humbled by any such comparison. Williams and Hearns have one thing in common, they were both tall welters, but aside from that, they occupy two different planets.