How do you rate Thomas Hearns resume

Look at his losses, too.

SRL
Marvin Hagler
Iran Barkley (2x)
Uriah Grant (retired due to ankle injury).

 

Hey Steveo.

2 of those losses came at the tail end of his career, of which one was very close and the other a freak injury. We can certainly ignore the Grant loss at least when assessing Tommy's career. Moreover, he was dominating Barkley in the first fight until he got careless.

I can sum up Tommy's career in two statements:

1) He made SRL and MMH all-time greats by losing to them. In a sense he defined their careers.
2) He knocked out one of the greatest fighters in history, with one of the greatest chins/defences in history and he did it in style, face first and arguably for the full 10 count.

 

Even, saying Tommy "lost" some of those fights is a bit vague.

He more or less ended Leonard's career, destroying one of his eyes.

He absolutely destroyed Barkley's face in a few scant minutes before being caught.

He lost, sure... But I don't think anyone ever beat Hearns and didn't look like they were beaten with a hammer afterwards.

 

it could have been better. a lot of tomato cans early on then dissapoints with defenses vs. clubfighters. i guess there wasnt much there back in those days but at 154 there still isnt much to look at.

he passed up james green, davey moore, and john Mugabi. the public would have like to see those instead of the oft beaten Murray Sutherland, Minchillo & Marcos Geraldo.

he took on Duran and more importantly Hagler so that kind of makes up for it.

Middelweight experience is also lacking. gets beat by a low level middleweight and then takes safe fights with Olijade, Dewitt.

I think he was somewhat protected and took bigger chances when it meant huge paydays then lost so you could say he was kind of a bust. a great bust but still a bust.

 

Eh, don't forget that he ruined Cuevas, who was, when he was hot, one of the scarier monsters in boxing history.

Cuevas had a hell of a run there.

 

Not as good as someone like De La Hoya's. But he was a more skilled fighter.

 

All I can say is Tommy appeared to give it his all every time he fought and if he got beat, it was by the better man that nite.

Leonard didn't fight Mugabi nor McCallum either. I think Mugabi might have bounced SRL around the ring like a basketball.....so Ray might have made
a good decision of avoidance too.

 

I think the man was arguably pound for pound one of the best that ever lived. Of course, having two unavenged losses to Iran Barkley hurts his legacy a bit, but he did more than enough to make up for it. Christ, I've lost track of how many division's he's won titles in. In fact, I think he won more belts than just about anybody. He also arguably beat Leonard in the rematch, and did to Duran what no one else could even dream of doing. He is definately one of the very best in my opinion.

 

I wasn't knocking the guy.

First fight I saw was him (and his last too).

I'm saying that losses are just as important. Personally, I see Tommy's losses as an important part of his history in the sense that he lost to some damn good fighters.

 

yeah but you can say de la hoya beat a bunch of little guys and old guys.

 

Hearns also has a much better win/loss ratio.

 

Another thing, the vast majority of de la hoya's resume was from 1994-1997. He really hasnt done **** in the last 10 years, outside of his wins over vargas and quartey.

Between 1994-1997, alot of his wins were against old guys and featherweights fighting him at lightweight. Oscar is a not even a lightwieght, 5 years into his career he became a full grown welterweight. While a guy like whitaker on the other hand was a lightweight for 7 full years.

 

Yeah, but none of the fab four fought McCallum, so I fail to see the problem with Tommy not stepping up to it.