Probably Spinks. I don't often do the p4p comparisons, but Spinks was a better LHW than Hearns was a 154 lb fighter (or WW). Hearns went through the weights and won titles in way more divisions, so that goes in his favor, but Spinks becoming the first LHW champ to move up and win the HW title (Fitz did it in different order) is quite something. And the first decision was fair. Hearns was more longevity and perhaps a deeper resume due to fighting more, but I think Spinks was the superior fighter.
I pick Thomas Hearns. More iconic. More greats on his resume and great fighters. Almost easily. Spinks compares to Hearns with his Holmes win, but that does not equal it. Hearns fought great guys at everyweight he was in almost. Welterweight Cuevas,Leonard, 154 Benitez,Duran, 160 Hagler, 168 Leonard, 175 Virgil Hill. Hearns resume is deeper and he has twice the fights Spinks did. Spinks beating Holmes looks pretty good, atlhough he also lost to Tyson in one.
Spinks for me, won title in 81 over highly regarded Mustafa Muhammed, unified in 1983 with huge win over then Braxton, won 2x over Holmes yes they were controversial but everybody at the time expected Holmes to crush the much smaller Spinks, then the big KO over Cooney in 1987, Spinks had a good habit of beating guys a lot bigger than him something that's hard for any pro to do.. Also is the FIRST light heavy in history to win the World Heavyweight Championship. The icing on the cake would be the 1976 Olympics where he won the Gold, yea it's the amatures, but back in those days it meant a lot more than it does now... The only down side was when he was blown out in the first round by Tyson, but so what, back then Tyson was beating everybody in his path, at least he knew when it was time to get out, and retire...
Spinks was Tyson's easiest win. Hearns won the light heavyweight title two times. Hearns knocked out the great Duran and Cuevas and outboxed boxers Benitez and Hill.
I don't see a problem being stopped by the decades biggest most powerful slugger, who is a much bigger stronger man than you are, Tyson also waxed Carl truth Williams in a round along with Henry Tillman, and Marvis Frazier, as opposed to being brutally KOd then losing a decision to Barkley, and being KOD in the biggest fights of your career against Hagler, and Leonard, then stopped at the end of your career by Grant... Spinks only had the lone loss, and beat HOF guy's Mustafa Muhammed, Braxton, Holmes 2x, and along the way beat Yaqi Lopez, Cooney, Murray Sutherland 2x, Marvin Johnson, Vonzell Johnson, And Eddie Davis, not HOF guy's but tough as nails solid fighters.. Also voted ring magazine greatest light heavyweight ever in 2002- and was linear heavyweight champion of the World 1985, probably the greatest title in all sports period...
I'll go with Hearns but both were great. At LHW Spinks beat Yaqui Lopez and Marvin Johnson by KO. He also beat Eddie Mustafo Muhammad W15 and Dwight Muhammad Qawi among others. At HW he won a very close decision vs. Holmes and a highly questionable decision over Holmes in their rematch. He also stopped Tangstad and Cooney before being stopped in 91 seconds by Mike Tyson. Hearns lost a few but he was great even in defeat (most of the time). He stopped Cuevas KO2, Benitez W15, Duran KO2, Andries KO10, Roldan KO4, Hill W12, and even as an old man beat Nate Miller W12. He was ahead on all 3 cards before being stopped by Leonard in the 14th round (most feel prematurely). He went to war with Hagler but was stopped in the 3rd round... the same thing happened vs. Barkley. Many feel that Hearns should have won the rematches vs. Leonard D12 (especially) and Barkley LSD12.
Michael Spinks. He was the Olympic Gold Medal winner at Middleweight, Undisputed Light Heavyweight Champion and Undisputed Heavyweight Champion. Thomas Hearns was the undisputed Super Welterweight champion. Other than that, he won a lot and lost a lot in big fights. He tried to win the undisputed welterweight title (unifying with Leonard) and got knocked out. He tried to win the undisputed middleweight title (against Hagler) and got knocked out.
Duran >~ Qawi > Spinks ~ Hagler > Hearns > Leonard ~ Benitez Holyfield shud b samwer klows 2 Duran & Qawi , anshur ebawt wich said of wu
thats about it? Hearns knocked out Cuevas who had 12 title defenses. beat Benitez for his second. Hill for another title 10 title defenses. Hearns beat more HOF guys. Spinks was great no doubt, but not a Tommy Hearns. Too bad Spinks didn't have a Leonard or Hearns or Hagler or Duran or Benitez at 175, and he didn't have that. Qawi was never as good as Michael and not elite.
If we are talking about Hearn's knockout losses, let's mention Spinks getting his head blown off in one round by Tyson and that was it from him. Spinks was 32 and The Ring champ, coming off wins over Holmes and Cooney. He captured his first pro championship at the age of 25, fully unified it 4 years later. His reign lasted 4 years at LHW and 3 years at HW. On the other hand, Hearns won 147 WBA belt at the age of 21, but got knocked out by Leonard while trying to unify the 147 championship, still it took him only 1 year to win another belt, and he took it from Benitez. In his 154 reign, he knocked out Duran (which I give Duran a lot of credit for, he was always the smaller guy) and took on the best middleweight in the world. Yeah, he got knocked out but that didn't make him quit, 2 years later he wins 175 WBC belt from Andries and in the meantime he beat 2 world champions. He then gets smoked by Barkley in 3, still doesn't quit and challenges Leonard again for 168 unification. It was purely his fault for that draw, hadn't he coasted the last round he would have won, he wasn't winning by a wide margin that's sure. A lot of close rounds - and if a round is close you give 10-10 and you won't screw either guy. And lastly he wins 175 belt again, this time from the pretty good Virgil Hill. Only true stain on Tommy's record is that first Barkley loss. They are both greats, but Hearns is comfortably ahead and the only edge Spinks holds over Hearns is gold medal.
