ATG: Who Ranks Higher? Tommy Hearns or Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by asero, Jun 24, 2020.


ATG: Who Ranks Higher?

This poll will close on Nov 9, 2047 at 5:32 AM.
  1. Tommy "Hitman" Hearns

    48 vote(s)
    58.5%
  2. Floyd "Money" Mayweather Jr

    34 vote(s)
    41.5%
  1. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    66,081
    6,885
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    I'll say it again for a third time.

    What does affect it is Pac being past prime, but then again Floyd was also past prime.

    I don't give Floyd a pass for being injured against Castillo neither. Nor do I give Haye a pass for being injured against Wlad. Crying injury means zero to me.

    I'm pretty sure everyone is on PEDS so individual accusations mean nothing to me neither.
     
  2. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    66,081
    6,885
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    Haha not quite Sugar Ray Mancini, but definitely Ricky the Hitman Hatton.
     
  3. PernellSweetPea

    PernellSweetPea Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,564
    4,215
    Sportsbook:
    132
    Feb 26, 2009
    I don't think anyone can fault Hearns or any of the fab 4 from not fighting the best when they could. Mike McCallum? I remember it was talked about by Mike at times, but not much else in the 1980s. It was not a huge fight since Tommy had guys to fight and Mike was always in another division. He was a bit behind Hearns and Leonard and Duran and Hagler, and Benitez in timing. They had each other to fight. He wanted to crash the party by beating whom? Curry? Perhaps, but most people thought Donald was still reeling from his loss to Honeyghan, which is probably true the way that fight transpired a little. I read onetime that Mike told Hagler at one of the Hall of Fame dinners that how could he say he respected him when he didn't fight him to put food in his mouth. Something like that. This was after Hagler said he respected Mike when he was seated next to him. Mike said Hagler looked at him confused, and I can see why. Hagler retired before Mike fought Kalambay. It was not talked about. Mike always had a bit of a chip on his shoulder in regards to the fab 4. They had guys to fight. So beat all the guys you fight like Kalambay and Toney and guys like that, and you will have your legacy. And he does have a great legacy. He does not have the legacy of the fab 4, but things are not fair sometimes. They came up and fought each other. And he lost the first time to Kalambay.. and never beat Toney.

    And Floyd is undefeated but he never fought the big challenges when he could. No prime guy when he was prime. No big guess about who would win. He was always favored as far as I see it. How does that match any of the fab 4 who were known to fight each other?
     
  4. PernellSweetPea

    PernellSweetPea Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,564
    4,215
    Sportsbook:
    132
    Feb 26, 2009
    And Hearns and Duran fight should have been a unification. And I think when Hearns and Duran fought, Medal was the champ at IBF. And Tommy beat him in 1986. So in reality, he was unified if you go by the Hearns vs. Duran fight and both being champs since Duran never lost the WBA title in the ring. They can strip Duran for not fighting Mike but in reality does that really take away the fact he was champion of the WBA?

    The fact is Roberto and Tommy also wanted money. They could earn much more fighting each other than fighting Mike, and yet the money they earned in 1984 was not what Floyd or others would win later. , Tommy and Roberto fought the best and still didn't earn the ridiculous amounts Floyd did for fighting much much much less quality guys. How much did Floyd earn for Conor McGregor? Let me look that up.. 275 million for Floyd in the end and Conor 85 million.. Prior to the fight it was guaranteed 100 million Floyd and 30 million Conor. Ok, how much did Roberto Duran and Thomas Hearns get in 1984 when they fought? 1,850,000 each. 1.8 million each to legends compared to what Floyd got with Conor. Floyd sacrified fighting the best for money and knew how to do it. He was brilliant, but he will never be said to have fought the best when he could have. I do like the fact that Hearns and Duran got the same amount in that fight if that is true.
     
  5. PernellSweetPea

    PernellSweetPea Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,564
    4,215
    Sportsbook:
    132
    Feb 26, 2009
    I think Hearns being top 20 I will take even though some might put him in the top 25 or 30 more than top 20, but Floyd top 10 no way. We know where to rank Hearns more than we do Floyd because he fought everyone he could. Floyd is top 10 for what? That is such a lofty place. I don't see how someone who fought defensively inside and outside of the ring is ranked that high. He needed more in the ring. He is top 10 earner and handpicking at the right time, but fighter? I don't see it.
     
  6. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    66,081
    6,885
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    That's where you're wrong though, everyone can have holes picked in their resume, it's just people only pick the holes in the resumes of the fighters they dislike.

    McCallum and Hearns were the best two LMW fighters in the world and Hearns never fought him despite Mike consistently calling him out.

    Every one has fighters they didn't face, but people highlight it for certain men and not others.

    For me Hearns is an ATG. He was second best only to Leonard as a WW, I strongly believe in any division not ruled by a a Sugar Ray he's a dominant champion.

    He's probably the best ever LMW champion in history, but never faced what would perhaps have been his sternest test.

    At MW his loss to Hagler is legendary, his loss the Barkley is troubling.

    From 1980 - 1992 he had been the top ranked fighter at LMW, MW, SMW and LHW and the only knock on his resume is Iran Barkley x2.

    The guy is a legend and a bona-fide, but just like anyone else (Floyd in this instance) he can have his resume and legacy picked apart.
     
    BCS8 likes this.
  7. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    66,081
    6,885
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    *except Mike McCallum 1984-1987
     
  8. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,118
    3,272
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 9, 2010
    There was perhaps a single window of realistic opportunity for that fight to come off, when McCallum was a virtual unknown. Hearns faced Duran and then Hagler instead.

    If anyone wants to complain about that, they're welcome to cry into the abyss.


    While this might be true, it's difficult for posters on this forum to avoid all the facts and opinions, isn't it? How could they, when there's always someone here to point out the resume weaknesses of the other side?

    This is when and where unique circumstances, of such cases get discussed and taken into consideration. Oftentimes there's a sensible reason. See above.


    So, what challenges did Mayweather face, as alternatives to the opponents, whom some people allege he missed or watched gathering ring-wear, over a period of years, before deciding to offer them a fight?


    As I've alluded to earlier, it's all a matter of a 'point of view' - a qualitative, as well as quantitative assessment. However, there are fairly clear points of distinction that can be made between ledgers, in respect of their completeness.

    Whether it's all about opinions or not, some assessments are just better than others.
     
  9. THE BLADE 2

    THE BLADE 2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,044
    2,185
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 14, 2009
    I am not too sure on Hearns ducking Mc Callum but I do agree with your more general point that it is easy to take apart anybody's resume. Also on the fact that Hearns defeats against Barkley are a black mark on his record. That is why he does not make the Top 30 ATG in my opinion.Unfortunately, Tommy could not avenge that Barkley defeat although he gave a great effort in that fight
     
  10. NoNeck

    NoNeck Pugilist Specialist Full Member

    12,816
    6,044
    Sportsbook:
    1,605
    Apr 3, 2012
    1. An IV is retroactively granted for dehydration and related conditions. Because the condition is acute and not chronic, the TUE is formally given after administration. Floyd’s camp knew that when the IV was given.
    2. Betamethasone aka Celestone is not a painkiller. It is a corticosteroid that inhibits inflammation. Manny took it to prevent inflammation in his shoulder rather than have surgery. The reason it is a PED is that it shortens recovery time significantly, allowing a fighter to train harder and more frequently.
     
  11. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    66,081
    6,885
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    Of course some assessments are better.

    But the reality is, better is often determined by who one is a fan of.
     
  12. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    66,081
    6,885
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    Ducking is actually a strong word tbh.

    But, imo, a champion should offer his top challenger a fight. If he doesn't, he's ducking him.

    Imo a challenger should accept the offer he's been given for a fight, if he doesn't then he's ducking him.

    Hearns as the champ should have faced McCallum. But I don't really hold it against him, I'm using it as an example for those who seem to believe Floyd is the only fighter to fail to make a big fight.

    As for Hearns. I actually have him number 20.

    Whilst Barkley is a black mark he was the only none great to defeat Hearns at his best so it could just be that he had his number. Even in the rematch, Hearns started strong but Barkley hurt him and momentum shifted in his favour.
     
  13. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,118
    3,272
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 9, 2010
    We could go around the houses with this all day.

    In my opinion, the use of an IV, which had not been declared in advance and required a retroactive TUE to be granted, in order to avoid repercussions; was administered at home and not under clinical supervision, is much more suspicious than the use of a fairly innocuous anti-inflammatory, which was administered in conjunction with other substances applied to 'kill pain', as well as promote healing - and was declared in advance.

    Split hairs and make comparisons all you like. Mayweather was having his backside kissed for ushering in 'Olympic Style Testing' (as if) and then found to be breaking the very rules he'd been responsible for putting in place. Mayweather's connection to USADA and the manner in which promoters became paid clients of a testing organization - effectively, side-stepping the State Athletic Commission - is the fly in the ointment.

    Throw in the fact that Mayweather was found to have broken the rules and it kind of confirms that the whole thing was a paid for masquerade.
     
    Loudon likes this.
  14. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,118
    3,272
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 9, 2010
    'Better' is determined by the facts and sound reasoning.
     
  15. NoNeck

    NoNeck Pugilist Specialist Full Member

    12,816
    6,044
    Sportsbook:
    1,605
    Apr 3, 2012
    Maybe I’m not being clear here.

    If you’re dehydrated and require an IV, it has to be treated immediately or you can go downhill fast/**** blood/fight will be cancelled, etc. The existence of a retroactive TUE is for that reason. It cannot wait until the next day.

    Mayweather and Pac both played the TUE game and I think it ultimately had little impact on the outcome of the fight, which was predictable.