Greater fighter? Thomas Hearns or Larry Holmes?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by PernellSweetPea, Jun 25, 2014.


  1. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,579
    Nov 24, 2005
    Larry Holmes was greater.

    Thomas Hearns was more exciting.
     
  2. The Long Count

    The Long Count Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,428
    8,877
    Oct 8, 2013
    I lean towards Holmes. Although measuring heavies against other divisions is difficult. Smaller fighters can jump up and win titles in multiple divisions that heavies can not. I go with Holmes for the way he got off canvas to win fights. Both great, both hall of famers.
     
  3. PernellSweetPea

    PernellSweetPea Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,116
    5,732
    Feb 26, 2009
    Hearns had more longevity. Tommy Hearns won a title at 1980 at welterweight against HOF fighter Cuevas, And he won a title and beat HOF fighter Virgil Hill at 175 in 1991. 11 years apart. By the time Holmes was 11 years after his win against Norton, he had just lost to Mike Tyson in 4 rounds. Hearns beat better fighters and won titles 11 years apart. Larry did not. Larry beat stiffs post prime. He tried to make up for the Spinks and Tyson loss and still never won another title. Heavyweights can fight stiffs since you have a lot of terrible guys to handpick. And Foreman and Holmes and otherse beat the same guys.
     
  4. PernellSweetPea

    PernellSweetPea Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,116
    5,732
    Feb 26, 2009
    That is odd because Hearns fought these HOF fighters-better guys than Holmes ever fought. I like Hearns quality of opposition better. These guys are still relevant and great knockout punchers in some like Cuevas and even Hagler. Duran could still punchat 154.
    Cuevas 12 title defenses. Hearns won his title WBA welt
    Leonard-unification
    Benitez-WBC 154. Hearns won his title 15 round decision
    Duran. Duran was WBA champ. Hearns knocked him out
    Hagler. One of the best fights in history
    Virgil Hill-10 title defenses and undefeated at 175
     
  5. PernellSweetPea

    PernellSweetPea Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,116
    5,732
    Feb 26, 2009
    a matter of styles. There are ways to beat taller guys which would not work against shorter guys. Duran had a 67 inch reach. Cuevas was 12 title defenses. At the time no one said, Tommy was taller so that is not impressive. Put in any 6-1 against Cuevas then and Cuevas knocks him out with body punches. Give credit where it is due.
     
  6. Stevie G

    Stevie G Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,180
    8,683
    Jul 17, 2009

    Holmes takes this on overall dominance over a seven year period. Hearns beat better fighters and was at the top or thereabouts over a similar timespan.

    I give the edge to the Hitman
     
  7. PernellSweetPea

    PernellSweetPea Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,116
    5,732
    Feb 26, 2009
    What is interesting about Holmes and Hearns is that both of the had jabs and right hands, and if they were landing the jab, that was trouble for anyone. You could always tell if Hearns or Holmes would win if they were landing their jab. Hearns was a little more of an engaging fighter. He liked to mix it up more because he had more confidence in his power.
     
  8. redrooster

    redrooster Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,635
    332
    Jan 29, 2005
    please, those WBO title fights dont count

    I count 7 successful altogether, mostly against pushovers. but if it pleases you, Hearns > Holmes
     
  9. Shake

    Shake Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,633
    58
    May 4, 2007
    By this reasoning Wladimir Klitschko is greater than both.
     
  10. AlFrancis

    AlFrancis Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,812
    843
    Jul 25, 2008
    Panama Al Brown was 5 11 in everything I've ever read about him. I've just seen that he's 5 9 on boxrec, I presume that's where you got your info but I would dispute that.
     
  11. Titan1

    Titan1 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,700
    2,572
    Oct 18, 2004
    I'd go slightly with Holmes, but it's really close.
     
  12. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,452
    9,437
    Jul 15, 2008
    Holmes was a better fighter ... Tommy always had a questionable chin and stamina .. he could not hold when hurt as seen against Leonard and Hagler. Hearns was a super exciting guy and terrific in his own right but he had serious flaws when up against the best ..
     
  13. Bulldog24

    Bulldog24 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,344
    4,219
    Aug 2, 2013
    I voted Tommy. To come back from the nasty losses to Leonard and Hagler and win more titles showed great character. He opened up more than Larry, took more risks, put more into his shots and so on - that's great.
     
  14. VVMM

    VVMM Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,372
    344
    Nov 16, 2012
    On the first fight Holmes was 35 years old against Spinks.
    A 35 years old fighter isn't so old in the heavyweight division.
    This is a bad pathetic excuse.
    Holmes and his fans are pathetic with these neverending excuses.
     
  15. VVMM

    VVMM Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,372
    344
    Nov 16, 2012
    Otherwise Holmes was the greater i don't care the midget divisions.
    No sport value just business more fights,champions.