Best pure boxer of the last 40 years

I smell double stanards, yet again.

 

Near two weeks and counting waiting on your 5 best Camacho wins

 

You're talking about something you haven't got :yikes

But at least you've admitted by your actions, after all the talk you're still a bit to fess em up

:hi:

 

Did you ever think that Leonard looked A+ because he was against an F- opponent?

Robbi brings up a good point though, Camacho was on his toes the whole fight against De La Hoya, his legs were fine and as you have said before, he legs are the first thing to go. That was prime Camacho in there.

One last thing, you continuously criticize Leonard for losing to Norris. Yet build up Norris as though he is the greatest. If so, whats the horrendous shame in Leonard losing to someone of Norris' caliber?

 

What was the question to Robbi I'll see if I can answer it.

 

Best pure boxer of the last 40 years?
Tommy the hit man hearns.
Not only did he utilise a textbook rapier like jab but a classical right cross,lateral movement,head movement,long left hook to the body and a beautiful side on position for maximum utilisation of his height and reach.
When he chose to box,he outboxed benitez and hill,two great pure boxers themselves,when he choose to box he was always the greater boxer than his foe.
The jewel in tommys crown? Twice outboxing the incomparable ray leonard for huge spells in both of their fights,especially the peak leonard of the 81 encounter.
I would even go so far as to say tommy is on a par ,pure boxer wise,with anyone in history.....

 

Pretty reasonable position there. In a fight at a distance no one outboxed Hearns. It's pretty hard for any fighter to get past the advantages he has in height and reach. Combine that with the speed and power and it becomes almost impossible. It took arguably the greatest chin in history to take it to him and even then he was stunned. Leonard also accomplished the feat although against a tired Hearns, but nonetheless it was still impressive.

 

I know its a cliche now,but if tommy had the chin or survival skills of say ray leonard then he would be a prime candidate for no 1 p4p of all times. I think with a little bigger frame as well,he could have won a proper title at cruier,and maybe heavy.Manny steward made an interesting analysis after the duran fight,he stated that hearns at his best could do things that hagler and leonard couldnt,like knocking over a world class fighter early on with no risk of being tagged. Prime examples are cuevas,roldan,duran,geraldo and schuler. Manny also stated he thought he was the best pure boxer since the late sixties. (and ali,i assume.)

 

I believe against the right opponent a cruiserweight title would be possible for Hearns, for example against Virgil Hill again he might have been capable of winning that one. At heavyweight he just couldn't cut it, in any era IMO. Sure he was more skilled than alot of them but theres just a huge difference in size, power and strength. Hearns wasn't particularly strong at welterweight, even with a bit of a bigger frame he wouldn't be able to pick up a title.
The thing about Hearns having a better chin, its rare to see a fighter with the body shape he has having an excellent chin. Long spindly legs just can't stand up to a punch. Carlos Monzon and Sugar Ray Robinson are two anomalies to that logic but there's very few out there like that. A fighter couldn't enjoy Hearns' physical advantages over opponents plus have a better chin.
But yes as Steward stated, Hearns could be arguably the best pure boxer since the 60's. Outboxing Virgil hill 30 pounds above his best weight, against a really good (Arguably great) boxer, whilst being about 5 years past his peak is a remarkable feat and is really underrated.

 

Yes,maybe heavy is a stretch too far.
To be honest it wasnt chin as such,it was probably more his survival skills and the fact he sometimes got a bit reckless. He took good shots v hagler and leonard,and got reckless v barkley when on the verge of a stoppage. Funny also,he seemed to be more durable at lt heavy?! The hill fight,as you say,is a very underrated performance from a way past peak tommy...
Still,a truely great talent,warts included...

 

Its true, he did seem to get a bit more durable as he went up. I noticed how much bigger he got, including his legs. Probably accounted for that. To be honest though I truly think he was the perfect 154 pound fighter. He had the size advantage without seeiming shrunken down as he was at welterweight. That probably was his natural weight all along its just that he was able to make the welterweight limit. His power and speed against Duran was possibly the greatest I've ever seen. We are talking about Duran here, a fighter that never had that done to him again till he was nearing 50. The perfect fighting machine that night. He is the #1 fighter at 154 in my books and I'd say beats pretty much any fighter that fought there including Leonard in the rematch that never happened.
He was a truly great talent as you say, wins over Cuevas, Benitez, Duran, Roldan, Andries, Shuler and a 'draw' against Leonard is a pretty damn good record. Also he's pretty much a universally liked fighter, its hard to find someone who dislikes him. Imagine if Hearns was in the welterweight division these days. In fact its pretty hard to pick someone from today all the way up to light-heavyweight to beat him.