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. PernellSweetPea

    PernellSweetPea Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,564
    4,215
    Sportsbook:
    132
    Feb 26, 2009
    I never thought the Barkley fight hurt him much as far as ATG status. I thought the win against Hill helped him more than the Barkley losses hurt him. Hearns always had the flaw with a guy like Barkley in a way. There was a guy he fought for his first title defense named Luis Primera who came at him a little like Barkley, and Tommy started to go to the body and stopped him with body punches. That would have happened had Tommy not become careless.
     
  2. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    66,081
    6,885
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    Look at the time and effort you put into explaining why Hearns and McCallum didn't fight.

    Would you put the same time and effort into explaining why Floyd and Pac didn't fight until 2015?
     
  3. Grinder

    Grinder Dude, don't call me Dude Full Member

    4,247
    778
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 24, 2005
    Wait a second, Canelo got blatant gift decisions against Lara and Trout.

    Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
     
    Loudon likes this.
  4. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,118
    3,272
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 9, 2010
    No. What I put forward was uncomplicated enough that it could use your own example to demonstrate it. I don't dispute bias as being a factor.

    What I am saying (as I alluded to, more than 10 pages ago) that a poster can look at both resumes and use reason and the weight of evidence, in order to make a stronger case for one fighter or the other. One side of an argument is often stronger than another, regardless of bias.


    In terms of debating the relative strength of two ledgers (or debating on any topic, for that matter), "quality of argument", "bias" and "hypocrisy" are entwined. Separating them is part of the process.

    If we start with the idea that bias is a measurable, overarching and predominant constant, while dismissing the possibility of reason and the weight of evidence even being factors worth considering, then debate is pointless. A few debates are and, though there are many discussions, which exemplify entrenched opinions, based on favorites, I disagree with your perspective, on the whole.

    But, anyhow, I'm sure there's nothing else I can add to this debate so, happy for you to have the last word, if necessary.
     
  5. THE BLADE 2

    THE BLADE 2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,044
    2,184
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 14, 2009
    I am not too familiar on the Mc Callum situation but it seems to me that he just was not a big draw at the time. And Steward knew Mike from Kronk. Maybe, it is a situation where the reward did not warrant the risk. To me,Tommy always seemed like a fearless fighter, willing to take on all challenges.

    On the ranking we slightly disagree. To me, at best Floyd and Hearns rank between Top20-Top30.
     
    lufcrazy likes this.
  6. NoNeck

    NoNeck Pugilist Specialist Full Member

    12,816
    6,044
    Sportsbook:
    1,605
    Apr 3, 2012
    The irony.
     
  7. Grinder

    Grinder Dude, don't call me Dude Full Member

    4,247
    778
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 24, 2005
    You've really illustrated the argument with that list of figters:

    * gift
    @ catch weight
    + very old
    ! paper champ at time of fight for that weight (alphabet title era)

    Hernandez
    Corrales
    Castillo *
    Gatti !
    Judah !
    Baldomir !
    De La Hoya +!*
    Hatton @!
    Marquez @!
    Mosley +!
    Ortiz *!
    Pacquaio +
    Madiana !*
    Cotto !
    Canelo @
     
  8. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    66,081
    6,885
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    The reason why what you put forward was under simplified is because you are trying to apply rules of logic.

    These are very rarely logical debates.

    You will often find the same posters contradicting themselves in line with their own personal bias. They will go to lengths to explain why Mayweather's resume does not stand up to scrutiny but then don't apply the same aggression to other fighters.

    That leaves two scenarios

    1) any objective analysis of Floyd's resume will reveal it to be inferior to that of generally recognised greats.

    2) Floyd is a divisive character so people like to attack his resume and tear it apart but give other fighters a pass for the same thing.

    I wholeheartedly believe it's the latter. This is why people on this thread are happy to slate Floyd for not facing Pacquiao in his prime, but will defend Hearns for not facing McCallum in his prime or will defend Jones for not facing Michalczewski in his prime.
     
  9. Grinder

    Grinder Dude, don't call me Dude Full Member

    4,247
    778
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 24, 2005
    Duran was better than everyone on Floyd's list, including Floyd.
     
  10. Cojimar 1946

    Cojimar 1946 Active Member Full Member

    1,038
    452
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 23, 2014
    That version of Duran was losing to Laing and Robbie Sims

    Duran was great at 135 but I don't see how he can be called great above welterweight, too many losses.
     
    NoNeck likes this.
  11. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    66,081
    6,885
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    Thank you for proving my point. This is the exact same kind of thing people don't bother to do with older fighters.

    In fact it's something you haven't bothered to do with Hearns in this very thread.

    Do the same with the top 15 victories if Tommy Hearns and let me know your results.
     
  12. Grinder

    Grinder Dude, don't call me Dude Full Member

    4,247
    778
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 24, 2005
    You've used false dilemma (it must be either a or b) and then poisoning the well to discount anyone's argument against Floyd.

    Using Conor McGregor and women Floyd has defeated in supporting the strength of his resume would be a more valid argument.
     
  13. PernellSweetPea

    PernellSweetPea Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,564
    4,215
    Sportsbook:
    132
    Feb 26, 2009
    I explained how the fab 4 and Benitez were naturals to fight, and they fought. Floyd and Manny were naturals to fight and it was talked about and it didn't happen for 5 years. And once Floyd wanted the fight, he made it happen after a basketball game. So easy in 2015. The fab 4 made their fights happen easily. I don't think they were afraid of losses. Floyd was. I don't blame him, but in boxing if you don't fight the best when they are the best your credibility is less. He is undefeated he has that. He doesn't have the legacy those other guys do. Fighting the best gives guys a legacy. Had Floyd beaten Manny in 2010 before the Marquez knockout, that win would have almost solidified his legacy.. He had the choice. Floyd's resume and career having a bit of asterick is his fault.
     
    ETM and surfinghb1 like this.
  14. Grinder

    Grinder Dude, don't call me Dude Full Member

    4,247
    778
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 24, 2005
    When you say he was 36 over and over, you starting to argue with the authority of Donald Trump.

    Canelo always boiled down to 154. If you knew anything about boxing or you were being honest, you'd realise that the last 2 pounds are exponentially the hardest to lose whilst also the most debilitating. How many times did Canelo fight lower than 154 as a pro?
     
  15. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    66,081
    6,885
    Sportsbook:
    8
    Sep 15, 2009
    It isn't a false dilemma. There's either an objective reason to criticise the resume or a subjective reason to criticise the resume. I haven't put any false information out there neither. If you read through the thread you will see the same poster criticise Floyd's failure to fight Pac, but defend Hearns failure to fight McCallum and Jones failure to fight Michalczewski.

    I don't have to defend Floyd what he did in his career, he did. That's on him. The only issue I have is people picking holes in one fighters resume and not the other.