Is Thomas Hearns a top 10 ATG in any division ?

So the old time non title bouts in other words.

I'm still not hundred percent sure I mean it's a mark of a great middleweight if you can beat a great lightheavyweight without him having to come down to you, then again it's also technically a lightheavyweight fight. I think it depends on your definition of middleweight; division or fighter. If looking for the greatest fighter in a division you look at fights in that division. If looking for the greatest fighter to weigh under 160 you look at all the fights were atleast one was under 160.

Interesting.

Back to fitz again it's a shame because a lot of his best work is likely forgotten, he was mw champ for what? 5 years? How many of them fights have survived the test of time I wonder.

 

It´s the mark of a great p4p fighter, not of a great mw. In my opinion.

Certainly not all of them. I bet he had many more fights, he himslef said somewhat like 300 if I remember right. And about how many do we know? His resume is still amazing and makes him a lock for the Top10 or even the Top5.

 

I think I can make an excellent case that Tommy Hearns is an ATG fighter.

I hope that is not in dispute...

The problem is where to put him - and it is a HUGE problem.
His greatness is spread over 61 fights from Welterweight to Cruiserweight. He has good (and some GREAT) wins but also losses from Welter up to Cruiser also.

It is hard to get into the top 10 in any division without spending the majority of your career there IF you count longevity and resume heavily.

In fantasy H2H fights Tommy matches up well (at his best) with a large number of great and ATG fighters in several divisions.

You could try an argument for Welter but the division is so very deep and the history so long and rich that what you think of SRL decides Tommy's placement. They higher you rank SRL the easier it is to give Tommy credit (instead of blame) for the losing effort.

I think LightMiddle is his best class for a justification for a high ranking - I see good wins and no losses but unfortunately he didn't spend a lot of time there. Even his signature win wilts a little when you stop to think. I'm afraid it is over a former LW champ 3-4 years and 3-4 weightclasses beyond his best...

Other knock on Tommy is he never avenged a loss, (officially - you should see my Hearns-Leonard II scorecard but that isn't in the recordbook)

But on the other hand he never ducked anyone either.
Props for his courage!

Above that weight you have "Dragons"
Hagler, Barkley and Grant...

The biggest problem is that he never cleaned out a single division - unified and ruled for any length of time. Historically he will place behind those who did - in division after division after division...

 

If you're going to put Leonard in the top 10 welters you have to put Hearns there, as he convincingly outboxed Leonard, and busted him up pretty good, too, until the homestretch. It doesn't seem likely to me at all that Hearns would have lost to Duran the way Leonard did. My view is that Leonard-Hearns I was more about Hearns' conditioning than about who was better. Hearns beat Benetiz. Hearns destroyed Duran. Yes, at 154, but does anybody believe that 147 would have been different? I don't. Hearns was a special fighter. He accomplished a lot going up in weight. Losing to Hagler is no shame. Hearns was shaking going forward from that fight. Still, he managed to outbox Hill.

 

In terms of head to head: 147, 154 and 160.
In terms of resume: 154.