So at what weight division do you rate him as an all time great ? That's the question .. I'm curious if you even realize how full of holes your post is ..
Welterweight and Super Welterweight. Did someone hack your account? And what holes? He is a HALL OF FAMER. He got elected the first year he was eligbile. He's in. There is zero to debate. Christ. (LOL)
I'll ignore your animation as the gibberish it is. ... so your criteria for all time greatness is the hall of fame ? Jame J. Braddock is an all time great too then I guess .. Hearns is no all time great at welter if you actually care about track record and accomplishment .. do you rate Hearns with Ray Robinson, no. Ray Leonard, no. Charley Burley, Kid Gavilan, Jose Naploes, Griffith ? No. I believe he could have been if he stayed at the weight but not based on his very short stay and unsatisfactory performances against Weston, Shields and of course Leonard.. I very much like Hearns but smoky disagree ... he was gassed and hurt way too many times .. exceptionally dangerous, for sure. Courageous , absolutely but not top of the top.
Hearns said: "Despite all of the praise I got for beating Virgil Hill, I didn't think it was one of my greatest fights, even in just the light heavy division. "I always rated my performance against Dennis Andries as better. Virgil was a slick boxer, but I was all wrong for him. I just used my long jab and that was almost enough to beat him already.
Got to give respect to Tommy for winning a fight so far above his prime weight class and also so deep into his career, especially against a good fighter.
It was Hill's first mega bout. Sometimes we see a guy not handle the pressure well and I sure do not think Hill had his A game that night. I also think think in a rematch, Hill makes the proper adjustments and wins a decision himself.
What makes it even more of a feat is the weight cutting of the era made the match more a classic HW losing to a former WW.
Not in my opinion. Top 20 is too high. he did lose key fights to Hagler and Leonard. I would say Top 40
Hey .. I actually rewatched Hearns vs Benitez and can say that if you want to rate Hearns an all time great at 154 there is an argument for sure .. he wasn't there for long but he decisively defeated Benitez , himself a great fighter at 154 and destroyed Duran. He also looked bad ass against Hutchings and iced Geraldo .. eight fights, 2.5 years but dominated ..
Nor should he, or even close. I don't fancy the chances of SRR, Napoles, Griffith, SRL, Gavilan and co either. I'd even extend this to Hagler and Monzon.
It's like when he fought Benitez .. Stylewise if you likely didn't have the power to take Tommy out with a shot or two and it became a matter of boxing Tommy was hard to beat with his jab, reach, speed and overall game.
