If Hearns fought at 175 in the 1940s, what are his odds at being champion

I think he'd have an excellent chance (if not be the favorite) vs. Lesnevich & Mills. In fact, I think Mills matches up fairly comparably to how the pre-Kronk Andries did.

He may have a shot w/ Maxim too, although Maxim could potentially smother him in close & impose his underrated body attack on him.

Of course, this is all assuming other factors, like Hearns' race & the war, don't shut him out of getting a shot in the 1st place.

 

We got a " 2 fer 1" for today it seems. Maxim was a huge durable Lhthvy and went 15 rounds often , Hearns aint going 15 with Maxim. No doubt in my mind Tommy was the better boxer , But he aint KO ing Maxim either. Tommy gasses late

 

It depends on who he was matched with. The problem with Tommy is always going to be the same: Offensively he could be a machine. He could punch, and he could box from the outside and make it very difficult, (especially for shorter fighters), to get inside.
The problem is he always had a chin and stamina problem, and that has to be factored into any mythical matchup you put him in.
If he were in with someone like Gus Lesnevich, he'd have a chance... but many of the others I don't think so.

 

That would be a GREAT matchup--a fascinating blend of styles! I think Charles could beat Hearns at 175! As jabber74 pointed out Hearns always had issues with his chin and stamina. Charles's tremendous boxing skill would neutralize the Hit Man's power and I think he could wear him down for a UD or very late stoppage.

 

For me in the light heavyweight Charles would have knocked out Hearns. Ezzard in the 175 pounds was very strong, so much so that he defeated Archie Moore three times and if he didn't win the world title it was only because Lesnevich didn't want to face him, but then he did it in the heavyweights and Charles obliterated him. The Cincinnati Cobra was a complete boxer, technique, good power, defense, accuracy and excellent counterpuncher, too strong for Hearns.

In my opinion Tommy could have beaten Lesnevich, who was world champion for years in the 40s, but Hearns would have ended up knocked out against Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles, two of the three best light heavyweights of all time.

 

Yes and he’d probably come out of the era as the best guy (providing he gets the fights against the champions), I genuinley had to search to see who the champions were in the 40s other than Lesnevich. The world champions were Anton Christoforidis? That’s genuinley the first I’ve heard of him, Freddie Mills, there was also 4 years out from LHW boxing due to the war before Mills became champion, then Maxim became champion very early in 1950.
Obviously Jimmy Bivins and Charles were around and were better than all of those, amd they didn’t get the opportunity, so Hearns may also not have, but what I’m saying is that I favour him over all of the 1940s champions, he outboxes Lesnevich, snipers Christoforidis and Mills and also outboxes Maxim in similar fashion to how he beat Hill.
Conn was also champion in very late 1939, whom I’d pick to most likely beat Hearns by taking it to him, which wasn’t what he was best at, but he could do it as Leonard also did it at 147lbs.

 

Charles would decapitate Hearns. Not hurt; not drop, not KO but literally seperate skull from shoulders.

Maxim on the other hand could lose to a jabbing masterclass.

 

Charles got knocked down 11 times in 2 fights when he came close to contention for the duration title, then took almost 2 years off. Lesnevich didn't defend his title for 4 and a half years due to WWII. Then he had to "unify" with Mills who was Commonwealth champ. Even if Hearns is unbeatable at 175(hes clearly not) circumstance alone can deny him the belt here very easily as its unavailable from the end of 1941 until the start of 1947. Could he get Billy Fox's shot then? Fox was 36-0 when he fought Gus and ranked number 1 in Ring.

Moore was not as good in the 40s because of his ulcers, surgery and recover.

 

I think he'd have a puncher's chance. He could certainly hurt Charles if he landed, but I'll bet on Ezzard to stop him.

 

Yep agree.

 

Charles v Hearns - imo it's Ezz every time.
I love Tommy but he's not beating Charles at this weight.

 

Possible but unlikely. Not only is this arguably the best 175 era so much here is based on circumstance and when he reaches the top. Hes capable of beating some of these champions but is very unlikely to get those fights as theres not many of them.

The oppurtunities for a lineal belt are mostly in 1941 which would require Hearns starting in the 30s. Afterwards he would be unable to get that belt until early 1947.

Hearns can get the duration title through 1944 but to get even that he needs to go through either Bivins or Marshall who I don't think he beats at that time. Bivins might be undefeated at 175 depending what Christophorbis I counts as?

The easiest belt to get would be the Commonwealth belt against Mills but even if you think thats an easy win for Hearns its only contested once in the whole decade. This would probably ensure him shot at Lesnevich probably but he'd have to still wait years for. It would probably require him moving to Britain which is not a place Americans would really want to be in 1940/1942 for non boxing reasons.

So theres really very few shots available. And to get any of these he'd have to be very consistant to stand out. Billy Fox for example had to go 36-0 for the 1947 title shot. Even today thats a lot. Whatever people think Hearns can't go undefeated against Fosters competition are probably going to feel the same way about some super long run at LHW in the 1940s. Because a non title run in this era is probably going to be more difficult than Fosters unless he really cherry picks. Charles had 15 LHW wins in a row and some HW wins over LHW greats and many consider him the GOAT because of that. Thats going way too far but thats how much this era is respected.

Counting Andries and Leonard who I normally don't Hearns is 4-3-1 over LHW contenders at all weights with 1 stoppage. In these 8 fights he lost 32 rounds. Hearns also fought 2 of Toneys WBU LHW title opponents and not only did he stop neither they won another 8 rounds and 1 knocked him down. Thats 40 rounds in 10 fights 4 rounds a fight. This whole group was smaller than him too. How can you expect Hearns to replicate consistancy like Bivins, Charles or later Moore when thats his record against Virgil Hill, Barkleyx2, Leonardx2, Sutherland, Kinchen, Andries, Earl Butler and Delgado?

Hearns can win some of these individual matchups but I do not think he'd get the chance.

 

Charles after being defeated by Bivins and Marshall then defeated them both 2 times (and both Marshall and Bivins ended up KO against Charles) and when The Cincinnati Cobra defeated Moore for the 2nd time Lesnevich was offered $ 75,000 to fight him, but he didn't accept. Then Lesnevich lost the title to Mills in '48 (in the meantime Charles had beaten Archie Moore for the 3rd time, this time by KO....)

Moore despite health problems in the '40s defeated Johnson, Bivins and Marshall. In my opinion The Old Mangust would have defeated Hearns, Tommy would not have been able to keep Moore at distance who would have forced him into an infighting and then knocked him out.

On the fact that events could have prevented Hearns from fighting for the title is possible, but it is also possible that the opposite could have happened. Lesnevich after defending the title by winning by tko against Fox defended the belt against... Fox again a year later! so you can also think that Hearns could have earned a title shot and faced Lesnevich.

But aside from these dynamics I was simply saying that in my opinion Hearns would not have been able to beat Charles and Moore while he would have had more chances against Lesnevich. Then in the '40s in the light heavyweights there were also Bivins, Maxim, Johnson, Marshall, ultimately the category was really tough at that time and even if Hearns was a great champion he would have had to face tough challenges.