Can Thomas Hearns win a decision over Mayweather Jr. & Whitaker?

castillo

 

Haha exactly.

 

Neither Whitaker or Floyd are sharp enough at welterweight to beat Hearns.

A better question would be if they could overcome a lightweight equivalent of Hearns (at lightweight).

I'd probably say no there as well, but I think Whitaker would go close by keeping a high workrate, body punching effectively and making Hearns tire with many fresh air swings.

 

The guy lost 1 decision his whole career, that includes a decision over Benitez and leading Leonard heading into 14 two of the greatest and slickest welters of all time, YES he can win a decision against both Floyd and Pea

 

It would be very hard for Floyd to land effectively or outpoint Tommy without taking chances and taking chances would be his demise. Floyd can try and fight a survivors fight but he can not win that way and the hit-man would smell the fear and go after Floyd.

The difference between Floyd and SRL is SRL had quick hands but with very serious power and an aggressive killer instinct

 

:goodGreat post.Well put,my New York cousin:good

 

I must be crazy...

 

Ok, let's try another approach at this.

Hearns fought above light heavyweight, so using the old days rules, he could have been in there with heavyweights. Would you automatically favor him over a heavyweight because Hearns ranks higher than that heavyweight on the all time, p4p rules.

To sweeten the pot, lets make it a dangerous heavyweight, but one that has been both KO'd and outboxed, both things Tommy can do. Like... Joe Frazier.

So, Hearns vs Frazier, who you got? If that doesn't work for you, pick someone from the top 10 H2H heavyweights, (because I think it's fair to say most people would consider Hearns one of the top 10 H2H challenges at welter) and substitute them in. Tyson, maybe. he certainly never beat anyone on the level of Hearns, and has been both out boxed and KO'd, so he should be easy prey for Hearns too.

What are your thoughts?

 

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods[/ame]

 

Don't use logic with this mong.

 

Hearns is a very big welterweight, mayweather isnt whitaker wasnt, hearns has the skillset and power to stop both men, at 147lbs hearns is a nightmare for any man

 

You understand how your analogy failed miserably don't you? Hearns never fought at HW or even one division below HW. He was never champion at HW... Now that is in STARK contrast to Whitaker who not only fought at the weight in question.. but was champion at said weight. I thought you were better than giving horrible analogies to try and prove your point. Fallacious attempts aren't going to win youa thing. Funny enough though, I'll give you a better example. Pea.. well past his prime beat a fighter in his prime and tried to use his size to be the bigger man. He was pretty tall and pretty long and fought more aggressively than Hearns usually ever fought. His name was DLH. That was a prime DLH who imo lost to a well past his prime Pea... Now you're going to tell me (horrible analogies on your part aside) that a prime pea has no chance.. You jest?

 

Sure he did. Hearns fought at cruiser a number of times, and even won some lightly regarded titles there. (NABF, IBO) As the cruiserwight division came into existence in 1979, then like I said, by using rules prior to those days Hearns would have been a heavyweight.

So for about 100 years, including in the era of Joe Frazier, one of the examples that I used, Hearns could have fought at heavyweight. In fact, going by the weights that Hearns had at cruiser, he would have weighed about the same that Bob Foster or Doug Jones did, both fighters who actually fought Joe.

Of course, if that's a step too far, then how about light heavyweight? Tommy won legit titles at light heavyweight, so would you automatically favor him over say, Evander Holyfield if Holyfield is lower on your pound for pound list? If no, then why doesn't Tommy get the same benefit of the doubt Whitaker seems to be getting?

Yep, and aside from one or two bouts at Jr. Middle, it was Whitaker's highest weight, just as cruiserweight (or, prior to 1979, heavyweight) was Hearns' highest weight class.

I also feel that my analogy was fairly direct: one of your reasons for supporting Whitaker was that it was because Whitaker rated higher on an all time, pound for pound basis. If we're going to ignore Tommy's advantages in height, reach, power, volume of punches, being at least equal in speed, the fact that welter was Pernell's highest weight and Tommy's lowest, and that Tommy handily defeated another defensive master in Benitez and consider solely the pound for pound standing, then surely it must work in reverse, right?

Alternatively, if we consider those factors in evaluating a match between Hearns and Holyfield or Hearns and Frazier, then we have to do so in Hearns vs Whitaker.

And while Whitaker has very sharp punching and underrated power, a knockout by Whitaker at welterweight was a very rare thing. So the argument has to be that he's going to come through Tommy's greater reach, a great volume of extremely powerful punches thrown at high speed, and get to Tommy to hurt or KO him. If not that, then he still has to keep from being overwhelmed by Tommy and get in enough offense to score a decision.

Ask Benitez how well that worked out for him.

First off, the decision is only arguable, at best. Having grown up a Chavez fan I despised DLH for years and went into every match hoping that DLH would get a beating. Yet when I saw that match it was close, probably leaning a bit towards Oscar in my opinion.

Secondly, saying that DLH fought more aggressively that Hearns is another statement that's questionable. Smetimes Hearns was in super seek and destory mode, sometimes he stepped back and let guys come to him. But honestly, even if he fought taking a step back in this bout, then he's taking away one of Pea's greatest strengths, (moving away defensively and countering) and forcing Pea to do something he wasn't as good at, taking the lead. I think that scenario only favors Hearns more.

No chance? No. Maybe 5%. Anything can happen in a boxing ring, after all. It doesn't mean that something is likely to happen.

 

Ummmm so now you're trying to say Hearns could've fought at HW... ya know.. when he was a nobody? Okay, interesting attempt there. The facts are these, when the HW division was set and its limits known.. Hearns wasn't fighting at near that weight and NEVER fought at that weight. You might as well have said if hearns was fighting in 1912 he could've fought Jack Johnson.. since ya know.. there weren't the weight limits of today... Making it close to when tommy was around doesn't take away from the travesty of the analogy. It was bad, we can move forward since you moved the goal posts on me and are now trying to compare him to Cruiserweights and LH's. Okay...

The first thing I would point out, again, Hearns even at that weight wasn't as impressive as a past his peak pea at Welter. So say nothing of, how welter was as far removed from Pea's original weight as Cruiser is from Hearns weight we are talking about here. Ya know a welterweight fight. Ya know, a division Pea did better at than hearns did at cruiser and what we are actually talking about.

I can disagree or agree with the decision against DLH.. the point is.. he was prime.. a monster at that weight... with power.. size.. strength.. length... All things you think carry the day for Tommy in this fight. Yet, a well past his best Pea... arguably won that fight against somebody Prime and having the same intangibles as you're saying give Hearns the clear victory. Yet, you can't seem to imagine a Prime Pea.. doing better than that? I can and I think that is where we differ.

You also think Tommy is as fast as Pea.. I don't and he's not. Lets see what variables Pea has over Tommy since you think that wins fights... Chin, Defense, Ring Generalship, footwork, counterpunching, body punching, slickness, I would also throw in jab.. but I do like Tommy's as well.. it just wasn't as good imo. So, I just named variables Pea is superior to Tommy in.. do you disagree with these?

The fact is, I feel it would be a very competitive fight and Tommy could win.. I reckon if they fought Ten timses I have pea winning 6 to 4.. So, yes I know why Tommy has a good chance to win and can see him winning. I just happen to think people are selling short Whitaker and what he would bring to the table.

 

I always felt he could coldcock both, especially Mayweather, within 2 rounds.Shame Thomas didn't fight his daddy back then.