i am now convinced Thomas Hearns was the greatest ever!

Agreed I think his skills and abilities were top tier but he wasn't committed to the game he was always look for opportunity with a past peak name IMO this is why he left the middleweights he didn't like the effort it was going to take to beat Hamsho and if he couldn't beat Hamsho no way could be beat Hagler.....he was never a big middleweight but he saw the weak 175b fighters and jumped he would have been a top fighter with commitment

 

Ray did not do what Hearns did. That Lalonde thing of 2 titles in one night was an insult on boxing

 

I think its possible Hearns could stop him on cuts..Came close..But Tommy was too spent and Hagler was an animal that night..

 

Big Hearns Fan..a devout follower after Leonard 1.Even though he usually dominated,and when he really did,he resembled an image of the greatest fighter ever.But there are times where he didn't look very hungry.The rematch with Barkley he just looked like he was just putting his time in.We know the WHAT IFS? In the Big fights..I think a Hagler Hearns rematch would have been interesting being the first had so many unusual occurances..being both fighters fought outside their usual methods.Haglers cut..Hearns broken right hand.and leg situation.etc.

 

He could have been the best ever, but he was his own worst enemy.. He went for knockouts when he didn't have to and didn't want to fight gameplans in favor of slugging. I loved Tommy and I think he has one of the better resumes in boxing history, but his two greatest fights he was at fault. With his reach and speed he could have made it better. His wins I think put him top 20 ATG.. But he could have been higher. It was his fault. He made for some interesting and great fights, but had he had more patience he could have been greater.

 

Er no. I am a huge Hearns fan and he didn't have the durability and stamina to reach number 1. Your Hearns opinions are as bad as your Duran ones.

 

Virgil Hill came into the fight nursing a recently (I believe 2 weeks) broken nose.

 

If you look at his wins, he had better wins than Duran. Honestly, regardless of lightweight reign or excuses for Duran. His title winning fights were exceptional. Had he been Roy Jones Jr. cautious who knows how far he could go.

 

He also had an excuse he had a hurt hand. More excuses. He wanted Hearns for years and thought he could hurt Hearns the way he did Kinchen with a counter left. Hearns was better than Kinchen. Obviously. Virgil was a good fighter.

 

I don't think his durability was the problem. I think his tendency to brawl and try to go for a knockout was his greatest weakness. He didn't pace himself or he left himself open during exchanges. He took more punishment than a lot of guys could and would. I blame his mindset on his losses. And I don't excuse the losses either. Some of them were just plain dumb. If only he sat back and jabbed and counterpunched and held.

 

Nahhhhh. If he was cautious he may have lost a fight or two he won. Leonard beat him in both modes first fight. Barkley was closing the distance at various intervals even when getting whipped etc etc

 

His durability was a major issue at 160-168 lbs.

Interestingly, it did seem better at 175 lbs.

Of course, Virgil Hill fought the wrong fight and never tried to aggressively close the distance.

Per highlighted part, if a guy can't stand and brawl he's not durable.

Mustafa Hamsho, Matthew Saad Muhammad, etc. didn't have to fight cautiously because they knew they could take the best the opponent had to offer. They could get in close and brawl.

Hearns could not do so because he was tall, skinny and had an average to below average chin.

Hearns could fight aggressively from a distance because he had huge, height, reach and punching power.

But once a big or decent puncher closed the distance....not pretty.

Mustafa Hamsho and John Mugabi took Hagler's best for many rounds before wilting...well, Hamsho didn't actually wilt. He just bled too much.

Thomas Hearns was kod by ONE PUNCH by Marvin Hagler and Iran Barkley.

And when Ray Leonard got inside his reach, Hearns was battered and on shaky legs until it was finally stopped.

Enough said.

 

At 175, that was after the first Barkley fight.. well the 175 after Hill and he stopped fighting as reckless and using his jab and going 12 rounds. He changed a little. Hill had no choice. Hearns was winning the battle of the jab,which is Hill's fight.. So once Hearns won that battle if Hill reached or did anything Hearns would counter. Hill was the one who was not used to losing the jab battle. Had he been able to outjab Hearns, then he could have controlled the fight. I think Hearns let punchers close the distance. He didn't have to as much. I was at a fight of his in January of 1997 when I lived in California at the Forum in Inglewood. He fought Ed Dalton called the fighting grocer. Hearns let the guy come in and swing wildly so he could make it interesting and get in a brawl. Hearns choose it. A guy with a supposed weak chin let the guy fight with him. And no Hearns was not knocked out by one punch by Hagler, by Barkley yes. But many people are knocked out by one punch. Some could say Ray was also. Ray got inside but he paid the price. The brawling was Hearns choice more than people think. He liked it. Which to me was odd because he was susceptible to being hit. He was rather fearless in someways.

 

All he had to do with Barkley is be cautious and keep working the body and jabbing to the head and he would have had a TKO win in 1988 in round 4.. I don't even think it goes to 5.. Again is was that recklessness which hurt him. He choose it more than guys made it happen. Which was the most frustrating.

 

Sorry but the best fighter of all time doesn't have a fragile chin, stamina and lose twice to Iran Barkley plus get steamrolled by Hagler.