i am now convinced Thomas Hearns was the greatest ever!

I see you've gone full clownshoes mode on us. Hagler LITERALLY walked Hearns down. It had nothing to do with a broken hand or massages or any of that BS. He LITERALLY walked him down and there was nothing Tommy was going to do about that. He hit Hagler with some of his best shots and they IMO didn't even stun Hagler. Some say he was briefly stunned, but I don't even buy that. Whatever you what to call it, he wasn't getting Hagler out of there. Again, you're fogetting that SRL ALSO walked him down in those last 3-4 rounds to win the fight. He wasn't gifted a decision, Tommy didnt' slip on a bananna peel, he was walked down by SRL and seemingly could do nothing about it. Take off your Tommy Hearns Onezee so you head can get some oxygen, clearly, you're being deprived of it with some of these posts I'm seeing

 

No he didn't. He was born in May 1952. The claims he was born in 1954 are recent. He was listed as being 28 when he beat Minter in 1980. Check it out.

Even if you accept he was born in 54, he still retired aged nearly 33 having been a pro since he was 18 - hardly an 'extremely early retirement' as you call it. And he fought the likes of Bobby Watts, Ray Seales, Willie Monroe, Bennie Briscoe and Cyclone Hart in their own backyards between the ages of 20 and 23 (if you believe the 1954 birth date). That doesn't sound like a man who would go on to duck a fight against a man he had already knocked out in less than three rounds.

 

So it is full clownshoes mode then eh Frankie? I never said a broken hand didn't matter, what I said is, it wasn't going to change the outcome of THAT fight. If someone gets a broken hand the first punch they throw, then yes, we may never know what was going to happen as we never saw them land big shots. That isn't the case here is it Frankie? We SAW Hearns land HUGE shots and they didn't absolutely nothing to Hagler. Which again is the point. We saw him land and they did nothing, so what would it matter if he broke his hand or didn't, he wasn't getting Hagler out of there. You have the two biggest fights of his career, and he was WALKED DOWN both times and seemingly COULD DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. If he could do something, why didn't he? Why was he walked down by Hagler, SRL, Barkley and had no answer. That is the material evidence here, not your supposition that Hearns "would've" won had he not had this happen. Those are facts not in evidence clownshoes. What is in evidence, is that Hearns was easily walked down in the biggest fights of his life and KO'd. Deal with it.

 

Good on you Ezz!

 

he's the greatest at 154 - next to Norris

 

Hagler destroyed Hearns.

 

Barkley beat Hearns twice.

 

Gotta question if you've seen the Barkley fight if you think he knocked Tommy out with a left hook. Oh dear. Have another look. And come back and describe it again for us.

And Barkley's face wasn't 'hanging off'. That's how he looked. Iran was just really ugly!

 

Hearns is the least of the "Fab Four".
Clearly 4th place.
The placings of the top 3 are debatable.

 

It's probably his lack of durability, an obvious fragility, that lets Thomas Hearns down when compared with the true elite greats of the sport.
He just didn't have the requisite ruggedness that the absolute elite ATGs had, as someone already mentioned on this thread.