Can Hearn's Be Ranked Over Leonard?

What is it with you and these ugly clowns these days McGrain?

 

Looks like he's gave on trying with quality boxing avatars, so he's resorted to clowns now.

 

I rank Hearns more highly. Hearns was a better boxer, bigger puncher, has the deeper resume, and convincingly defeated Leonard in the rematch, dropping him twice (it was Hearns' fault that he overtrained for the first fight, but had he not tired I think it's pretty clear he would have won the fight). Hearns never ducked fighters, choosing to go out on his shield by fighting them in their primes rather than play it safe. He destroyed Duran when Leonard was bullied by Duran. He outpointed Benitez when Benitez was on top of his game (Benitez regarded Leonard too lightly). He outpointed Virgil Hill.

I could say a lot more, but I will just say that Hearns loved boxing in a way Leonard didn't and he was the more exciting fighter. I know that doesn't say anything about him being better, but I wanted to say it anyway. Props to Hearns.

In terms of the four, I see Duran and Hagler as the more legendary fighters. While Duran was humiliated a couple of times, his accomplishments more than make up for it. Hagler was never humilated in the ring. The same can't be said for Hearns and Leonard.

 

Maybe a huge Hearns fan or SRL hater or both would have Tommy over Leonard but I would have Ray over Tommy, its not reasonable to put Tommy higher IMO.

 

What if Hagler had got the SRL decision?? Hagler usurps Leonard's place in the list then do you think?

 

Totally agree..Far from the domination that people want to make out..It may have been heading that way but it ended so abruptly you can only go on what had happened up until then..Which was a lot of Leonard movement and taunting but not a lot of shots landing for either.

Tommy just destroyed Roberto in there and really its still such an amazing win considering the chin that Duran displayed throughout his career, and throughout the higher weights.

But looking a the context of those fights..Ray defeated a better version of Duran IMO..Younger, closer to his prime, on a long streak of meaningful wins. Duran was better at welter than he was at 154.
Now the well documented out of ring issues Roberto took into that rematch are something to think about ..but they shouldnt count against Ray..He came in fully fit, he didnt stack on 50 pounds between those two fights.

 

I thought this thread was initiated by RedRooster. Leonard catches some **** on Eastside.

Hearns higher? GTFO.

 

I completely agree. Benitez looked as slick and on his game as ever against Hearns, he simply lost the majority of the rounds because of his inability to mount any kind of an offense against Hearns's height, reach, quickness, and offensive ability. Nearly every round was close or competitive to my recollection, though.

Leonard outclassed him on the other hand. I will say that I think Hearns faced the better version.

 

I just didnt see it that way from memory.

I just thought their different styles made Benitez fight differently...The Hearns fight was constantly competitive as clean blows seemed at a premium..The Leonard fight was an outclassing overall but with dominate periods for Leonard at the start and end..with the midrounds Wilfred forcing Ray to adjust somewhat and they were mostly pretty close.

With the distance Hearns was happy to give him I thought Wilfred could look better defensively against a reportedly lame Tommy.
But Ray hurt him early and forced him to really have a go till he faded.

The way saw it is that the way Hearns fought him and the kind of fighter Tommy is..Benitez the pure defensive master was more likely to shine in that fight but without him troubling Tommy greatly with his offense.
With the way Ray was fighting him and the kind of fighter Ray is..he was going to make him looked shitter because he didnt allow for that defensive fighter to come out..he forced a more offensive strategy out of Wilfred, which probably isnt his natural style and therefore he didnt appear the better version.

Maybe Im wrong though..the consensus seems to be swinging the other way.

Im really only splitting hairs there anyway..I rate Leonards win a little better thats all and it adds to the justification of having him over Hearns alltime IMO but only in a fairly minor way.

 

Hearns, though an all time great, cannot be ranked over leonard because of his 3 knockout losses, especially the one to barkely. The fighter that he knocked out clean,(duran) beat barkley.

I know that anything can happen in boxing but hearns really had no business losing to barkley, especially like that. I couldn't see that happening to leonard or hagler.

It also doesn't help his case that he was ko'd by hagler just seconds before ref was going to stop the fight because of haglers cut. He's one of my favorites but he a 2nd tier great.

 

No, Leonard's WW supremacy and Hagler win is something Hearns can't match in any weight class. Even at 154 where he gets props as the top 154lber, he didn't face McCallum and his top wins are against a bloated aged LW who had problems with the weight and former 140lber. Not to mention Duran was considered shot before beating Moore who was a green 12-0

Then there is there comparative Hagler performances, 1 wins what was a close but just decision, the other is bombed out in 3rounds.

Then you have the fact that Hearns had 3 KO losses at the age of 30, a loss against a none great near his prime in Barkley. Leonard didn't lose to sub-greats until 34 against Norris and Norris is still better than Barkley

Head 2 Head they are 1-1, I don't buy the Hearns excuses for the first loss, Leonard was just better down the stretch, better stamina/experience and Hearns wasn't effective or strong enough at mid-range or good enough defensively. Hearns won the rematch though but was quite possibly nearer to his prime

Hearns has done more over more weights, clearly far better as LHW but HEarns is allot naturally bigger than Leonard so he should do anyway. Ofcourse he never dominated at LHW either

Hearns has the greater depth of his resume but then again didn't face the very best LMW/MW/LHW outside of the Fab5 anyway, no McCallum, Nunn, Kalambay, Graham, Benn, etc

 

This all depends on the Hagler win IMO.

Hearns was 1-0 with a devastating one-sided beating of Duran. Leonard was 2-1, but the third fight is far too late to be that meaningful in our calculations. Duran straight-up beat him in the first fight, too. I think Leonard is hurt a bit by Duran's quitjob, but I just can't convince myself that he was more effective vs. Duran than Hearns was. Hearns edge.

Hearns beat a better version of Benitez IMO. The Leonard stoppage was BS. These wins are about equal in my eyes.

Obviously Leonard beat Hearns the first time, but in pretty much everybody (but the judges') eyes he lost the rematch. Edge to Leonard, but not by THAT much.

Leonard beat Hagler... or so the scorecards say. IMO it was an extremely close fight (about as close as a "win" can get) and there's definitely an argument for a Hagler win. Hearns was stopped... but by a MUCH, MUCH better version of Hagler. If you count Hagler-Leonard as a close loss for Leonard, then the edge here is not as big as it once seemed.

Hill was a much, much better win than Lalonde for all of the obvious reasons.

Hearns was a legitimate 5-weight world champion. Edge to Hearns.

It's close, overall. I think that Hearns' body of work is more impressive outside of the Fab Four (+Benitez), but Leonard has the edge among the best.

Tough to pick.

 

Also, say what you want about Norris being "better" than Barkley, but let's also consider the styles here.

Norris had a GLASS chin. Barkley did not.

Barkley may have been crude, but he may have also been the perfect foil for the frail Hearns.

Who wants to bet on what a Norris-Hearns fight would've looked like ~1990?

 

I like Hearns, but I'm not ranking him higher than SRL.