i am now convinced Thomas Hearns was the greatest ever!

The win over Roldan is his best, I think.

 

The thing Hagler is not given credit for is his rise to the top. He was a road warrior. And he had to go through a ton of Philly fighters when at that time, who alse is doing that? Or since? But that sure did toughen up Hagler and made him a better fighter. It's never easy going into the other guy's backyard--and he did it in Seattle and not just philly.

Anyone really think Hearns can wear those shoes at middle and come out of that kind of competition?

 

Before he did the things you mention above he had nine wins in title fights at WW and LMW, which included annihilating Cuevas and Duran and dominating Benitez. Adding titles at MW and LHW to that gives him a higher rating p4p in my estimation.

You said in an earlier thread that a grossly overweight Toney was the same size as Rahman because he weighed as much, but now all of a sudden height and reach comes into the picture. What's it going to be?

No, but with a title reign including wins over Benitez, Duran and Hearns plus wins over title holders Kalule and LaLonde (yes, the two title thing was a farce and LaLonde wasn't much of a fighter but he was younger and bigger) it makes him higher p4p.

Actually, the things he did before Hagler would probably be enough for me.

 

Some good points but you are still unable to judge Leonard objectively.

By the first Leonard fight Tommy held half of the world title for one year and made a few defenses. He turned pro the same year as Leonard. He was not "green." I guess you got tilred of the "weight drained" excuse, so emphasized his being "green" this time. At least you came up with a different excuse.

Also, Hearns could use his massive height and reach advantages to catch Fletcher coming in. If Fletcher could consistently get inside, he could do damage, but I think he'd have trouble getting in there. Tommy's legs were better in '82 than in '88 when Barkley did the job. And Fletcher is not strong enough to get inside as easily as Hagler did against Hearns.

 

I don't consider Hearns's WBA title at welterweight to be on a par with Hagler's undisputed title at middleweight.
Leonard-Duran-Leonard was the championship lineage at the time. Hearns was an outstanding #1 contender for the championship, and his title was a paper one.
Likewise, Hearns's 'championship' at 154 just doesn't have the historical and actual prestige of the middleweight championship of the world. It was certainly a less prestigious division in the early 1980s.

What's your point then ? Let's imagine an overweight Hagler versus Michael Spinks, each weighing 175, and with Hagler winning. Does that help ? It didn't happen. If it happened we could assess it, but it didn't.

Yes, I said Toney should be judged as a 230 pounder heavyweight if he fights at 230 pounds.
I say Hagler should be judged as a light-heavyweight if his fights at 175. (But he did not.)
I say Leonard should be judged as a middleweight if his fights at 158.

It's debatable, like I said.

I don't doubt that.

 

Bottom line is that he beat better fighters in Cuevas and Benitez than Hagler did. Arguably his win over Duran is also better than anything Hagler did, seeing how overwhelmingly one-sided it was.

Nah, you said that Hagler hypothetically going up against Spinks would be a bigger challenge than Leonard going up against Hagler due to difference in height and reach.

This is what you said about me comparing Leonard challenging Hagler to Hagler hypothetically challenging Spinks:

"Not a good analogy. It conjues up a distorted picture. Spinks was much bigger than Hagler, for a start. At least 5 inches taller, perhaps more. Spinks held height and reach advantage over most, perhaps all, of the challengers he encountered in the 175 division, whereas Hagler was often shorter than his middleweight rivals.
The difference is size between Leonard and Hagler was not noticeable. In fact, Leonard was probably taller."

 

But the thing is that I don't think it is very debatable, so I don't really understand that answer.

 

I disagree. Cuevas and Benitez, you're overrating them.

Hagler destroyed Hearns in 3 rounds, so where does that figure among their best wins ?
Seeing as you rate Hearns so highly, and as a weight jumper across 147 - 175, where does a crushing 3 round win over him at 160 sit ?

No, I didn't actually.
I said you were conjuring up a distorted picture.
So, try imaging Hagler winning a close disputed decision over Spinks as Leonard did with Hagler. It just doesn't work for me, that's what I'm saying.
Styles make fights.

Exactly.

Height and reach and style are factors when it comes to nicking a close disputed decision, or losing one.
This I believe.
That doesn't mean i think any fighter should have "p4p" credit for having less height or reach.
Perhaps you should tell me what you believe instead of trying to expose contradictions in my posts ?
I'm not quite sure what you believe.

Going back to Hearns, it seems you rate him for his ability to jump around the divisions, proved himself world class at 147, 154, 160, 175 .... so what's the excuse for him losing to Hagler ?
If Hagler is "p4p" clearly less than SRL based on one close disputed decision, how can Hearns be above Hagler seeing as he lost to him in what should have been his absolute middle-ground division ?

But the thing is I DO think it's debatable, hence why I'm debating it with you.
I'm willing to put SRL and Hagler on a par, and can see why SRL could go ahead, but it is close. Both are close to Duran too. The gap between them and Hearns is wider.

 

Nobody did to them what Hearns did before they had seriously faded. Barkley did what Hagler did to Hearns. Roldan nearly did.

Cuevas was a better WW and Benitez a better LMW than Hearns was a MW.

You clearly stated that going up and beating an opponent with the same height and reach isn't the same p4p achievement as going up and beating someone with advantages in height and reach. It's there in black and white.

I rate Hearns as a great good fighter at WW and SMW who also did some good work at higher divisions. This I've stated several times. He was a good not great MW and LHW. The foundation for his legacy is what he did below 160, but what he did above 154, even with the losses, is clearly better than not doing anything at all at those weights.

 

Barkley's win over Hearns was not quite the same as Hagler's over Hearns.
But if you genuinely think it was, I fail to see how that helps the argument for Hearns being greater than Hagler.
The idea that Roldan "nearly did" to Hearns what Hagler did is an incredible statement, and one that proves how far you're willing to go to undermine Hagler's win over Hearns.
But still, it ultimately condemns Hearns as unfit to carry the middleweight honours, the one that Hagler carried undisputedly for 7 years.

You acknowledge this by saying Benitez was a better "SMW" (which I assume means 154, not 168) than Hearns was at 160 .... and yet Benitez's resume at 154 is thin.

Again, if Hearns was so admirably world class across 147 to 175 (and I believe he was), and possibly unbeatable at 154 (as is implied or claimed) .... how come his worth is reduced so much at 160 ? A mere 6 pounds he's gone from his pinnacle and prime ATG champion to a more-or-less ordinary contender ? How can that be, seeing as he was so well suited t moving through that division ?
Could it having anything to do with the fact that middleweight was a far tougher division talent-wise ?

No. I didn't make such a statement.
I didn't get far into your imaginary "Hagler beating Spinks" scenario and it's value as a "p4p achievement". And in fact you didn't ask about it as a "p4p achievement", you wanted to know if it would make Hagler "p4p greater" than Spinks. There's a difference.

My whole point is that one single fight isn't always enough to measure one fighter's greatness against the other's. You take their whole careers as well as any head-to-head encounter.

The reason I mention Spinks being far longer than Hagler is to conjure up the correct image, and it comes down to : STYLES MAKE FIGHTS. I can't imagine Hagler doing to Spinks what SRL did with Hagler.
SRL "won" against Hagler by retreating, pot-shottin, stalling, nicking rounds.
Hagler really can't beat Spinks, in my mind.
He'd batter the hell out of a 175 Hearns though, for what that's worth.

"If a 175 pound Hagler was to beat a 175 Spinks would it make Hagler greater than Spinks ?" is a pointless question since I think Hagler in 1985 was already greater than Spinks.

In the golden age days of the 8 divisions, what he did below 160 wouldn't actually equate to a championship.
It was known at the time he was proven not good enoughh to beat Leonard at 147, and not good enough to beat Hagler at 160. So, you could say he was squeezed into the 154 division which was inhabited wiith others of a similar ilk, and some very mediocre fighters .... and a couple of better ones who Hearns didn't even fight.

 

The division where a former lighweight made a splash, where a former WW was the only one who could wrest the title from Hagler? No, I don't think so.

For Hearsn the six extra pounds evidently made a difference, since the MWs could get to him in a way the couldn't in the lower divisions. That's what there's to it.

God, you are really contorting yourself. The quote is there for all to see, I won't waste more time on it.

That is a reasonably fair take. You can of course also say that if Hagler had run into someone of Leonard's quality when fighting for the championship he'd probably be in the same position.

There are several ways to view this and for me there's not a definite argument for either Hagler or Hearns. Between Leonard and Hagler it is more definite, though.

 

no, i'm giving him his proper due. Leonard couldnt handle speed combined with mobilty

The Norris bout proved it

Ray lacked Hagler's tenacity and power. Look at how crappy he looked in the Bonds fight and took 11 rds just for a guy that cant fight back?

That's evidence #one

once Tommy applied hit and move tactics, he turned Sugar from sweet to sour, indeed, straining to reach mediocri. He just cant hit a moving target.

in the words of Angelo Dundee "you're blowing it!" or the words of Clancy "he just can't let his hands go!",, "what's keeping him?"

and of course, we watched in frustration as he failed round after round to catch the upstart Norris, who unlike Hearns, didnt tire or slow down

Hagler, we,ll we see in the latest video how he catches a bird in flight and ends the show. ditto for the Hearns fight once the blood started flowing - KO 3

Marvin has not only Philly fighters but international AND national talent. Forget bozos like Lalonde, Kalule; that's just some leonard fanatic trying out of desperation to gather points of credibility for his man

 

i still cant figure out why Roldan had his hands down by his sides and LET Tommy hit him. that fight still looks fishy to me

 

Yes I do agree that the hitman was the best fighter ever at 147 and 154 besides Robinson. He put on a clinic against ray leonard(although getting stopped), he knocked out Duran, he outboxed benitez, he knocked out currys brother, shuler, and many others.

 

Also, I think Thomas would have problems with Mustafa Hamsho, and a head-screwed-on-right Dwight Davidson.