i am now convinced Thomas Hearns was the greatest ever!

Spot on.

 

Word.

 

Duran was made for Hearns. Hands of Stone couldn't beat Tommy in a hundred years,
especially since he didn't train properly by that time his career, and was WAY over his
prime weight.

Tommy was made for Hagler. Marvin would beat Hearns 100 times out of 100, unless
a cut stopped the fight. Or the fix was in.

Leonard beat Hearns in BOTH their primes.

Had Hearns beaten Leonard and Hagler, he would be up there very high in P4P all time lists.
But he didn't, and that's why he is certainly and properly considered a truly impressive boxer,
but TBE? Nope.

 

I love Tommy, but I honestly can't see him ever knocking Hagler out. He hit Marv with the kind of right hand that starched many an opponent, and at most it stunned Hagler for a second.
Hearns' broken hand or not, Marv was not to be denied on that night. Too relentless and tough for Hearns.

 

And give Barkley credit too. He beat Hearns convincingly twice. Even if the first fight had an element of good fortune (if you believe in lucky punches) about it, what about the second fight?

 

Ray got schooled until he turned it into a fight.

 

At Hearns' prime weight, he was one of the TBE's. Only loses to Ray Robinson and obviously lost to Ray Leonard. Otherwise I have him beating everyone else at welterweight and 154 for that matter.

 

The man in my avi would have something to say about that.

 

Problem is he got knocked out by Leonard, Hagler and Barkley.

 

This is a joke thread.

Excuses are thrown around for Hearn's losses.

So what if theoretically he could beat all the best 147 pounders. The fact is - he didn't. He got Kod by Leonard. Hagler destroyed him. Barkley left him helpless in the first fight.

I mean, all of us could make up excuses for our favorite fighters and inflate their status. But, most of us try to be at least somewhat objective.

I could say, gee Matthew Saad Muhammad would have destroyed Dwight Braxton if not for having to lose 6 pounds the day of the fight. This did in fact happen. But, I can see that with or without the weight problems, Dwight had the style to beat Saad.

I suggest the OP stop seeing Hearns through rose colored glasses, and see Hearns had great flaws that were exposed by Leonard and Hagler, who were just better than him.

 

I love Tommy but every word here is true. Tommy lost to SRL and Hagler fair and square. Durability and stamina would be key attributes required of anyone being hailed as the best ever and while I don't think Tommy is the glass jaw he is often portrayed as, he is no Jake LaMotta either.

Make a case that Tommy was the best to watch, most exciting or whatever and you've got a debate. Saying he is the best ever when two, arguably 3, fighters beat him in his prime and you're needing snookers before you even break off (metaphor for my fellow Brits there. It translates as 'You're f***ed!')

 

Hearns was uncommon in that he had not only height and power but speed and coordination of a much shorter man. He had great hand speed. Not sure we will ever see a fighter quite like Tommy Hearns again. He did have some weaknesses as all fighters do but Hearns weaknesses were glaring in that they cost him some of his biggest fights.

 

Hearns is unique for sure. His weaknesses did cost him a couple of his biggest fights, but his strengths also won him some of his biggest fights. Probably fair to say if you were going to beat prime Hearns you had to stop him, and historically not too many south of middleweight were going to achieve such a feat.