Compare Ali and Hearns from a standpoint of defense

this

basically, Hearns' best defense is his offense, he is not great defensively in any conventional way.

Ali's defense, whereas it wasn't technically proficient, was great, Ali had an atg defense whether it was because of reflexes or whatever, it was effective as it gets, and his multi directional mobility made for a huge aspect of that great defense too

 

I don't remember many guys hitting Hearns clean until Hearns got older and would lie on the ropes. When he was younger he was hit but not clean.

 

For me that addage the a "great offence is a good defence" would apply to hearns. Most of hearns opponents were so terrified of his speed and power (especially at welter and jr. middle) that they didn't want to get anywhere within range of him. This, along with good reflexes made him a solid defensive fighter.

Ali was different from the standpoint that him apponents were not as much intimidated by his power as they were by his speed. His speed kept his opponents confused and his ability to anticipate and roll with punches kept them fustrated. He was clearly superior to tommy in his ability to slip, dodge and roll with punches

Also, ali often looked like a ballerina with boxing gloves when he would spin, twist and turn out of his opponents range. Hearns, while a good mover when he wanted to be, didn't possess this degree of ability.

 

you really saw Hearns defensive flaws come to the fore when he started fighting around 160 and had lost a step physically.

Standing right in front of fighters with his arms by his stomach and his chin in the air.

He did have good(not great) defensive footwork for the first half of his career though.Had some nice moments against Leonard with it for much of the fight.

 

As a poster above said much more eloquently in explaining it, I think it comes down to this:

Hearns' offense was his defense. Opponents had to consider the risk of getting in range to hit him.

Ali was mostly a reflex fighter. He made people miss by pure reflex and reaction.

 

Ali and Hearns are just too different to compare. Hearns almost had a stance wher he held his left lower when he was younger to tempt guys to throw punches so he could counter. Funny thing is after he was stopped by Barkley in 1988 he became more defensive and kept his left up higher and fought more on the inside. Too bad he became more defensive when his skills were going down. Had he become more defensive when he was a little younger it might have helped him. All in all both had great careers.

 

Nobody's disputing how great their careers were. Why bring that up? As far as I can see the thread is solely a discussion on the technical aspects of defense. Refer to my post, it's basically the thread answer in a nutshell

 

I read your comment. You said Hearns defense was his offense, which is simplistic but true basicially. But if you watch the Roldan fight when Roldan hurts Hearns, Tommy bobs and weaves and avoids the follow up punches and regroups and lands his right hand and starts to put together punches to the body There was more to Hearns than just offense or he would not have been able to withstand moments like that. Tommy just liked to be offensive rather than defensive, but his defense was there or he would not have had much of a career, and certainly he would not have lasted into round 14 with Leonard or survived with Kinchen. When he was hurt his offence helped keep guys off, but he did move his head and set up his punches.

 

Jake LaMotta would agree with you.

 

I ALWAYS have said for all my years posting here that he was at his most complete and composed and therefore technically proficient from a defensive stand point at 154 and that's why I rate him better at that weight as a fighter than at 147. The Roldan fight was at 160 and after his 154 title stint so therefore he was still improved at that point and was better defesnively than at 147.

But a few defensive highlights against the likes of Juan Domingo Roldan do not counter my original statement effectively. As you say, I said it simplistically but I am right.

 

you are right. I think it was simple in Tommy's mind also since he looked at boxing from a fan's perspective. I think he wanted to be offensive and exciting and to give fans a good fight. If he got hit on the way to a knockout win he didn't seem to care as long as the fans got what they paid for. Funny thing about Hearns is as you said, when he got older and went to 160 he started to have to use his defense more like with Dewitt and Roldan and Kinchen. Those 3 guys gave him more trouble than Cuevas,Benitez and Duran. Although those 3 fights were post Hagler, which diminished Hearns just as much as the moving up in weight.

 

At 147 a lot of the time yeah, he just wanted to rip opponents' heads off! And he had the arsenal to do it. He also had great movement and a fantastic jab. That offense definitely served as a great defense for him though man, especially that jab. If Tommy Hearns is smashing a jab into your face all you are doing is eating it, period.

 

I think any defensive improvements(it was still poor no matter if he had learned to clinch a bit)and post-first loss experience gained were balanced out by his greater physical advantages, ability to dominate distance and power at 147, plus the fact he had hand problems at the higher weights.

Ideally you would have a post-Leonard loss 147 Hearns as the peak one, but weight making put paid to that.

 

Yeah I agree. That's exactly what I was saying. At 154 the way I see it he was more composed etc etc. Whereas at 147 his best form of defense was his offense. I never commented on his ultimate effectiveness though. He was dam effective at 147 and as I said above, if he was smashing you, esepcially with his jab, all you were doing was eating it, and hence, not hitting him.

My comments on improvement were purely from a technical standpoint, which I outlined.