i am now convinced Thomas Hearns was the greatest ever!

Hearns GOAT? No way!...He wasn't even best of the 80's. He was one of the best though. When chin got rocked those skinny legs trembled mightingly. If he had went undefeated against Leonard, Hagler, & Barkley well maybe a valid discussion. If he had Hagler's or even Duran's chin he may have been undefeated in his prime years. The Barkley K.O. still would have KTTFO. Yes 2 T's ( Knocked Tommy The F$&@ Out. That sweeping right hand by Barkley probably would have KO'ed anyone ...so no excuses on that one. I would say this...Hearns staredown one of the GOAT that I've witnessed.

 

R

Riddick Bowe stopped Real Deal as well.

 

I will admit.

Hearns is one of the most feared men that ever entered the ring. He had every skill, and had physical attributes that made him a monster.

I do consider him 2nd in the rankings of the Fab 4, Duran being the Number one.

Hearns beat leonard almost every round they fought. He won the second fight. The broken hand hurt him in the Hagler fight, and Hagler was at his best. His KOs to Barkley were terrible marks on him, but he was pulverizing Iran much of the fights. His wins at Light Heavy and cruiser were astonishing.

Was he the greatest ever, no. But he was a threat to them. I would favor him over most ATG champions.

 

I know this is an old thread. But I'm going to comment anyway.

I agree that Thomas Hearns never beats Marvin Hagler.

But what surprises me, now that I think about it, is Tommy Hearns would probably beat (or be favored to beat) everyone on Marvin Hagler's record. Minter. Antuofermo. Seales. "The Worm." All of them.

But I DON'T THINK Marvin beats everyone on Hearn's record.

Does Marvin (even Marvin in his absolute prime) beat a 175-pound Virgil Hill? Marvin never fought anyone remotely that big and fast.

Does Marvin beat the 195-pound Nate "Mr." Miller?

Does Marvin even beat a 175-pound Dennis Andries?

Hell, the Wilfred Benitez Hearns beat in 1982 may have given Hagler fits. Wildred was 153/154, and Hagler often fought at 157. There wasn't much size difference between them.

James Shuler was called "The next Sugar Ray Robinson" by Rollie Schwartz when Shuler made the 1980 U.S. Olympic team. He only lost to Hearns, then he died.

If the opponents were reversed the night Hagler fought Mugabi, Shuler may have given Hagler a harder fight than Mugabi did that night, and Hearns may have blasted out "The Beast" like Terry Norris did. Because Shuler (when he wasn't fighting Hearns) sure looked like a lot better fighter than Mugabi was.

For that matter, Hagler-Cuevas in 1980 (with Marvin coming off the Marcos Geraldo decision win and Cuevas coming off the Volbrecht fight) might've been a pretty fun fight to watch.

I'm sure Marvin would do fine against just about everyone Tommy fought. But some of those guys - particularly the larger ones - I'm not so sure.

And, looking at them, I think Tommy could very well beat "everyone" Hagler faced.

That kind of surprised me.

Sorry for rambling.

 

Awesome post.

It is also a valid reason to rank Hearns higher than Hagler with the Fab 4.

I have it

Duran
Hearns
Leonard
Hagler

With Leonard and Hagler being close and I have at times reversed that opinion.

 

Lot of free time on your hand ..

 

Don curry is the only man i can think of first up who could outbox hearns over 15 rds at 147.like barkley ,curry would get into hearns chest,and neutralise tommy.but thats where similarities end...curry would neatly outbox tommy from the inside,never allowing a gap to open

 

I agree that he was a wonderful fighter and in a theoretical H2H, Hearns is a very tough matchup for almost anyone. But while 'greatest ever' is to some degree a hypothetical title with subjectivity built in, proclaiming Hearns the greatest ever has no basis in achievement or fact and doesn't stand up to any level of scrutiny. Hypothetical H2Hs are secondary to actual career achievements and also to the very real H2Hs he had during his career.

The fact is that he did lose to Leonard and he did lose to Hagler. They weren't fluke defeats and as well as he fought in both matches, he will forever be defined by those losses. You can't lose the two biggest fights of your life and then call yourself the greatest ever. And to be fair to Hearns, he never has.

Call him your favourite fighter ever but don't call him the greatest ever - it does his actual accomplishments a disservice.

 

Lol

 

And easily... Hearns was very fragile for langford.

 

I liked more Foreman at 169,5. However at 169,6 he was overweight

 

Hearns chin wasn't bad .most people fail to realize that to survive Kronk and be successful you have to have a decent chin.

 

I think he is very underrated. His title win Cuevas at 147, Benitez 154 and Hill at 175 is unheard of. All HOF fighters, and the Duran fight.. Great fights and great wins. His losses against Hagler and Leonard hurt him, but if you look at his complete record his resume is just as great as anyones.

 

I don't believe it would be possible for Don to consistently cut down the distance on a Hearns at 147. He was murder. His speed, power, sharpness and speed moving in or out at that weight was otherworldly.

I don't think he could be outpointed at the weight. He'd have to be stopped.

 

Hearns - Great, great boxer.
The best of all-time? Probably not.

But, then again, one could argue that he probably deserves to be discussed in terms not too distant from the perennially entrenched top-20, as opposed to being found somewhere inside the top-40/50, where I often find him listed.

Head-to-Head, he was unique monster of a fighter. I really can't think of too many who could have beaten him at his best weights of 147 and, particularly, 154.

That he elected to win straps in three other, higher weight divisions, rather than take on all-comers at 154, splits opinion, as I see it. In addition, I am not too sure how far the Hearns' Middleweight showings go towards counting against him. Though, they do seem, at times, to be used as license to discount him from serious contention, amongst the higher placed in the ATG rankings.

Whether this is a fair treatment of Hearn's career or not, is part of the debate. I personally think that, while his problems at 160 were evident and will always create doubt in speculative head-to-head contests at the weight, he more than makes up for it, in terms of legacy, with solid wins at 175.