At 147 who should be favored over Tommy Hearns?

You lied about your fave fighter, his last fight at lightweight was as 26yo, yo usaid it was 28, it wasnt, was it a purposeful deceit or you just don't know anything about him? Answer the Q Durantard, its ok if you don't know **** about your fave fighter, but in reality you're prob just a nuthugging deceitful ****

My posts get more replies than anyones here. And I know more about boxing skill than anyone on the classic,most put rose tinted glasses and look for reasons why sub par fightes are somehow great, I call it how it is, hence everyone cries of my critique for their fave fighters. It is clear from some of the unskilled types you nuthug (duran isnt amongst those, hes a great fighter, just has ****ish fans like yourself, having group wankfests over him).

Oh don't think you're above the general forum posters, you nuthug/hate in just the same manner, actually your excuses for Duran are probably more elaborate than Klithugger excuses for Durans Brewster loss

As for the My2Sense comment, his comment demonstrated the most basic lack of boxing knowledge, I have no time for such ignorance - answer the basic question yourself - is it easier to land a lead jab or a lead right hand? Don't cheerlead, anwser the question

Don't worry I won't stop enlightening the classic forum and owning you time and again

(I'll check back in 24hours - which is probably the length of time it'll take for you to think up a responce)

 

Personaly I want him on this forum.

Despite his flaws, he follows the rules of engagment, and gives you a good clean scrap when you want it.

When he tries to downplay the resume of Harry Greb, he looks a bit like a man trying to hold back an elephant by pushing it.

 

...Don't you belong on a ledge somewhere?

I don't know whether to laugh at you or recommend professional help.

 

Hm, there is some truth in it but like you said Hearns was more durable. And Hearns was inexperienced at WW and outside of Leonard never met someone of Burley's calibre (at welter). And Hearns had the tendency to fight when it would be better to box. I think these things would work against him in fights against the greats and Burley would be very able to take advantage of that.

 

You do realize this is because nearly everybody disagrees with you?

 

Ezzard was more durable than Tommy. And he was still in high school when he handled Burley the first time. Burley was a big step up for Ezzard, who was only 20-2-1 ...but it didn't matter.

That is enough to hint at Hearns in the same vein as Ezzard, being a stylistic problem for Burley. As a MW, Ezzard was a towering and frightening boxer-puncher with bombs on both hands -not unlike Hearns.

PS/I am in the minority in believing that Hearns was more vulnerable as a 22 year old WW than he was three years later at JMW, but that observation may be Burley's key to victory. Hearns' exposed ribs and skeletal frame may not have been enough to see him through 15 rounds against a brave and banging Burley... even if he gives Charley holy hell for the first 5-6 rounds. Burley was never stopped.

 

You're probably second only to Redrooster. Least there's something to aim for :good

 

Yes you do, you post ignorant **** all the time; like when you claimed Charley Burley had fought more rated fighters than Jimmy Bivins or when you denied pre-fight comments Genaro Hernandez had made as just two of countless examples.

For who? That depends on how good the fighter is with a jab or how comfortable he is using it. The video clip you yourself posted clearly shows Mayweather is more accurate and comfortable throwing lead rights than standing off and using his jab.

Why is taking 24 hours suddenly a problem for you? You've taken about two weeks to respond to this post here and still haven't done it, even though it clearly exposes you as a lying, ignorant ratbag who just makes **** up:

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6160890&postcount=55
:deal

 

Powerpuncher's masterpiece is still the "winstone had no snap in his jab" line.

 

One of my PowerPuncher favorites was when he said Mayweather would give Hearns a lot of trouble because Benitez held him to a MD.

When informed that the MD was misleading and the fight was in fact not particularly close, it was found out he had only seen the highlights and read about the fight.

Something to that effect...sorry if thats not word for word correct PowerPuncher. You are one of my favorite posters around here, if only for your pure comedic value.

 

There's been some absolute rippers, probably worthy of a thread in itself, but just this past week he's come up with some doozies:

Mickey Walker pretty much brings the same package as Pipino Cuevas without the power.

People hate Floyd Mayweather because he's black.

 

Wow.

 

What? They fought a different style. But where is the difference in punching technique? Sorry, I don't see it. And no I don't think the style of the 80s fighters was better than that of the 30s. The 30s and 80s weren't that different actually. If you were speaking of the 10s or early 20s I would agree but by the 30s the boxers already had adopted a modern style suited to the rules which still applied in the 80s.
They did not think strategically? Do you even know what you are talking there? Schmeling was as strategically as they come. You are saying guys like Joe Louis or Barney Ross didn't plant their feet right? Sorry but that's laughable.

Oscar was better than Cuevas. He had better technique, faster hands, better combinations. Overall a better package. You should stop hero worship the 80s fighters. The 80s weren't much better overall then the 90s when it comes to the lower weightclasses.