Who ranks higher as an ATG, hitman Hearns or Roy Jones jr?

Based on resume I would give it to Hearns, eventhough he lost to Halger that was a war and will go down in history as one of the best ever, so even a loss like that makes his resume look better.
Also he lost to leonard, which all the great fighters did in that era and was nothing to be ashamed of.
Also fought SRL later on and imo actually won the fight.
Also KO Roberto Duran.

Overall resume I would give it to hearns.

Also with dominance, hearns may have been dominant in many other era's in boxing, it just so happened to be he wasnt completely dominant in this one.

 

This.

It's Hearns.

 

Roy Jones

 

hagler was overrated, old fat duran took it close with hagler, rjj by close margin, but a fan of jones so wont argue against hearns, its close but Jones

 

Why? Care to explain. I have listed reasons and fights, will you do the same? It should be a good debate, they are pretty evenly-matched I think.

I don't agree that getting knocked out in three rounds does make your resume look better. It maybe isn't a major black mark against Hearns that he lost to Hagler seeing as it was at Hagler's prime weight, but IMO it does not make Tommy's resume look any better at all.

Duran's performance against Hagler enhanced his resume, Hearns's did not.

Jones never lost to anyone in his prime. What's better, getting stopped by an ATG or never getting stopped at all (until he was shot)? I don't think there is a right answer to that, so I don't think SRL-Hearns can be a decisive factor in deciding who was greater between Hearns and Jones.

It isn't listed as a win, it's up to you if you count it as such. Even if you do list it as a win, it's worth much, much less than it would have been in the early 80s of course.

A great win for sure, but Duran was a natural lightweight and Tommy knocked him out almost 20lbs north of that. If we mitigate Tommy's loss to Hagler because it occurred 13lbs north of Tommy's starting weight, we must mitigate Duran's loss to Hearns by the same logic.

Jones had his own stellar wins over Toney and Hopkins.

I think it's very close, but I prefer Jones's resume. You could definitely argue that Hearns's best wins (Duran/Benitez/Cuevas) were better than Jones's though (Toney/Hopkins/Tarver).

To me, this point is irrelevant and meaningless. You don't get points in greatness discussions for "shoulda woulda coulda mighta", you get points for reality.


Let me ask you - does the loss Hearns suffered to Barkley (TKO3 when Hearns was 30) and the trouble he got in against both Kinchen and Roldan come into your thinking at all when making this decision?

 

Roy

 

Hearns because there's no question about how good he was or what his flaws were in his prime. He fought all of his peers, Jones didn't. After Jones beat Hopkins and Toney, he never gave Hopkins a rematch in his prime and didn't fight Calzaghe, Been, Mclellan, or Eubank. Hearns fought everyone he could.

 

I think hearns beating leonard the second time is a little underrated sure they were both past prime but thats basically leonards fault for not giving tommy a rematch for all those years only to do so after picking up a lightheavyweight belt vs lalonde at smw and when he thought hearns was shot based on his fights vs barkley and kinchen, hearns won that fight because of the kd's and they robbed him, had it been a 15 rounder leonard would have probably stopped him like 8 years earlier allthough you could say had the fight in 81 been 12 hearns would have won.
They are 1-1 in my opinion eventhough leonards win in 81 is much better, it still should add a little to hearns resume, ray leonard is a great boxer but he gets of the hook easily nowadays for his calculated ways in the 80's, im sure if he had beaten hearns that night he would have gotten credit for it since hearns was succesfull in the 90's beating hill.

 

Mike McCallum, Aaron Pryor, Donald Curry, Michael Nunn, Sumbu Kalambay.

There's five guys that Hearns conceivably could've fought but didn't fight.

You can pick names out of every era and criticize a fighter for not fighting them.

The only fighter Jones can be criticized for not fighting with some legitimacy is Dariusz Michalczewski, who he'd have beaten with ease anyway. Calzaghe, Benn and Eubank were all holed up in the UK making easy money during their smw reigns, and Jones was scheduled to fight McClellan after the Benn fight, but tragedy meant that match could never happen.

Judge people on what they did, not what they could've done, might've done, but didn't do. Let's stick to the reality of what happened in the ring when evaluating greatness.

 

RJJ was much better and its not even close..

 

Roy Jones. Its close but Hearns losing to Leonard and Hagler hurts him. As does his loss to Barkeley.

 

only a person who is partial to Roy would say this. Hearns fought better guys in great eras and beat them in great fights. Hearns is greater in everyway than Jones, who ducked fighters and never showed the heart and courage of Thomas Hearns caliber. Not even close. Hearns was a real legend who fought them all and Jones ducked them. Ability is one thing and doing it is the other. Hearns really did fight the best in real superfights and wards!!! Jones did not!!! those two things are the ultimate facts.

 

if you are going to mention losses than Tarver and Johnson have to be put in there, since Hearns was on the downside when he lost to Barkley also. And the Leonard and Hagler fights were great fights which Jones never was in. Even without those two losses, Hearns has a better resume than Jones and a better career. The losses to those other legends just helps him rather than hurts him. Jones lacks the great career of Hearns just by not being in the type of iconic fights Hearns was in. I don't think it is close. Hearns was in 7 big fights in his career where the guys he fought were legends and great. Hearns name will always stay in our memory because of this and Jones will fade since he really does not have a great fight to be remembered for. Hearns has many fights to be remembered for. He is iconic!!

 

people wanted Jones to fight anyone credible and he didn't. Hearns fought credible his whole career. Those names mentioned were just bonuses to an already top career, but not fights anyone really was saying he has to fight. Curry was never a big talked about fight for Hearns and neither was Kalambay or Nunn. Pryor was too small and McCallum blew his chance to fight Hearns when he lost to Kalambay. People wanted Jones to fight the top guys Hearns fought in his career. I don't see how their careers are even comparable in a real sense. One fought superfights and the other had the potential.

 

Roy Jones was far more past it when he lost for the first time, then Hearns was when he lost for the 3rd time.


And no Leonard vs Hearns was not a great fight. It was actually pretty boring. And Hearns blew it.

No he doesnt. Popkins outlined it earlier. Btw, resume is who you beat, not who you fight. You dont get cherry points for getting knocked out in the 3rd round by Hagler.


Roy Jones is top 3 H2H Middleweight, Super Middleweight and Light Heavyweight. You could only say the same for Hearns at Light Middleweight.