Is Thomas Hearns a top 10 ATG in any division ?

:-(

i,ve seen lots of hearns fights in the 80,s and 90,s ...that guy was something special.

 

Goat at lmw.
Top 25 at smw.
Unranked at lhw.

Welterweight is a tough one. He's certainly top 25. But he was never the best welterweight in the world during his era. His wins there are very good but not enough for top 10 in my eyes.

He was only ever the real champion at lmw. His win over hill is awesome. Truly awesome. Say what you like about hill being a paper champ, which he was, but he was the best lhw in the world for nigh on ten years. Fantastic victory.

Considering in hearns success at lmw I think a case can be made for him as a great welter, we do it with fitz and greb at middleweight.

I wouldn't argue too strongly if someone called hearns a top ten welterweight. He's certainly top 25, I haven't made a list but off top of my head he's behind (no order)

Robinson
Leonard
Armstrong
Ross
Napoles
Griffith
Walker
Hoya
Whittaker

A strong case can be made for him ranking at 10 but an even stronger case can be made for him not to be.

To answer the thread, certainly lmw and perhaps welterweight.

 

Many people yourself included do include over the weight fights in their rankings. What's hilarious is that if that's you're actual list then you've been exposed of ignoring Walker and Ross's poor welterweight reigns and focusing on his weight hopping because he's 1 of your favourites.

You also probably rate Armstrong top10 at FW (didn't do much there), Duran top5 at LW (not justified by his LW reign) and for some reason you also have Walker top10 at MW despite him getting a probable gift in his title win and having a relatively weak MW title run, oh yes because he's 1 of your favourites

So which of the fighters can HEarns say to have a better a WW run if we actually look at their complete form and don't disregard losses as you and a few others on here tend to:

Walker - went 1-1 against a shot Britton and 1-1 with B Class Latzo. He doesn't have wins superior to Cuevas. Losses count aswell as wins and his losses put him down a level. Tendler was a decent LW but undersized, Bartfield possibly shot and was an a massive losing run

Rodriguez - again focus at the actual weight, he lost series (at least on paper) to Griffith and Cokes and a close win over Cokes aside from that his WW at the weight resume is weak. So going by your own criteria he can't rank high at WW because he didn't achieve enough? His legacy is 3rd best WW of his era on paper (even if I think he's better than those 2 overall)

Armstrong - didn't fight some of the best WWs (Burley/Williams/Kid) - he beat Ross (great win) and Garcia (very good win) but many of his defenses were LWs and FWs, lost to Zivic his best challenger who while very good isn't amazing, this is the Zivic who Burley clearly beat. He also lost to plenty of others while not being far past his best. He just wasn't that good at WW, probably because he was a LW but LOSSES COUNT

McClarin - flawed puncher with a very patchy resume, too many losses despite some very good wins (a shot Leonard does not count), Corbet and Ross are very good wins, although Canzi was too far past his best weight and prime but still managed to go 1-1 with him, Petrolle was also a LW and still went 1-2 against him. So many of his best wins are over LWs and FWs and he's lost to 3 LWs/FWs that isn't the mark of a great WW. How many LWs in history beat Hearns? Because 3 beat McClarin at his very best

Ross - Won the series 2-1 against McClarin and has the Garcia wins, nothing to amazing aside from that and completely dominated by a 132lb Armstrong and a 28yo can't be claiming to be significantly past prime

 

I don't think it matters, really. He spread out his great wins/performances between divisions instead of staying in the same class for a prolonged period. He was a tall, stringy welterweight when he started, of course he had to scale the weights. Resume is more important than achievements in any one specific division, Hearns beat top fighters and looked damn good doing it. That's what counts for guys who didn't linger for a long time in any one division.

 

He absolutely was. One of my all time favorites. But all time rankings need to be based on resume, accomplishment and for divisional rankings longevity, imo. Besides 154, there are just to many other great fighters to sneak Hearns in the top 10.

Now if you base this on a fantasy h2h analysis than Hearns has a good shot at 147, but its still just a guessing game fantasy instead of factual evidence. Do you see what Im getting at?

 

:think

 

I think hearns does get a bit too much slack because of his losses to barkley.

He was a very good welterweight, a great lmw and has a great victory 20 pounds above his natural weight. Definitely top 35 atg, maybe even top 30 if I think about it in more detail.

I can't put him in my top 25 but after that it's anyone's game.

 

Poor reigns? Well, at least they had reigns.

Beating guys like Baby Arizmendy, Midget Wolgast and Pete Sarron isn´t much? Well, if you say so. Yeah, I´ve got Arsmtrong Top10 at fw, barely but he´s in. Duran is Top5 at lw and yeah it is justified. Arguably three guys have a stronger reign - Leonard, Gans, Ortiz - but with his dominance and 10+ defences he´s a very good shot for Top despite not having quite the names others - like Williams for example have. Walker isn´t even in my Top15 at mw, see the recent mw thread, sorry to dissapoint you.

Shot Britton? Mickey lost to him in his second year as a pro when he was quite inexperienced himself and Britton wasn´t shot then, past his best, yeah but not shot, he would go on fighting another 9 years and quite decent opposition. One year later he would avenge that loss. Walker beat his Leonard at welter, Hearns didn´t. Well, what else would he do he´d beat gatekeepers like Summers, Shade, Grifftihs, contenders like Latzo, Friedmann and Bartfield and moved up atg in Lew Tendler. Deeper resume than Hearns there. Of course he lost a few but he fought also much more often, 12 times in 1920, 16 times in 1921, 16 times in 1922, 13 times in 1923, 9 times in 1924, 7 times in 1925, when you are that busy of course you´ll drop a fight here and then.
He went 1-1 with his Leonard, Hearns went 0-1. He also, other than Hearns, won THE championship. So, he achieved more. Better resume, better longevity, bigger achievements. The only thing that can go for Hearns is that he was more dominant. Not enough.

Alone Rodriguez series with Griffith is better than what Hearns did at that weight, add in Thompson and Cokes (both on par with Bruce Curry) - yeah he went 1-2 but one fight he lost by SD in Cokes hometown. Oh, and of course he was the champ, Hearns wasn´t.

He set a record of 19 defences. A record that still stands today. What did Hearns do? Oh, wait, he coudln´t even win the championship in the first place. Yeah, Hearns should rank higher than him. Sure.

McLarnin holds a Top3 win at ww - the others are Armstron´g over Ross and Duran´s over Leeonard. A one round knock out over a guy who would go on to beat a Top10 lhw in Billy Conn. That´s huge. Yeah, he went 1-1 with Canzi and 1-2 with Ross. At the end of his career and he still managed to beat them. What about his win over Singer? On par with Hearns Bruce Curry win, at least. Sorry, this beats beating B. Curry and Cuevas and losing to Leonard. Oh, and of course he was the champ, Hearns wasn´t.

Yeah, sure nothing to amazing. The Garcia wins are on par with Hearns Cuevas win, factoring in that Ross was the smaller man while Hearns was the bigger. And he beat him three times. Beating a borderline Top10 ww in McLarnin 2 out of three is also better than the Cuevas win. Yeah, he goit beaten by Armstrong but there is no shame in losing to him. And of course he beat numerous contenders to deepen his resume, something Hearns didn´t. Oh, and of course he was the champ, Hearns wasn´t.


You seem to forget two things:
1. Those guys won the championship. They won when it counts the most. Hearns didn´t. Big thing.
2. Hearns was the bigger man in all of his welterweight fights. None of those were. In some cases - Ross and Armstrong - they were even smaller by quite a bit.

 

You're probably referring to P4P rankings here and most would agree that he didn't accomplish enough at 147, 160 or 175 to warrant a top 10 ranking...despite being a fairly clear choice at 154. H2H, however, he is the most dangerous man to ever fight within the 147 to 160 lb range. Try a few hypothetical matchups with some ATGs in that weight range and you'll see.:bbb

 

A cinch for top 5 in the 154 lb division. Top 20 in 147 lb.

 

Hearns matches all that criteria which you use to rank a fighter, beating Ray Leonard, Duran, Benitez, Roldan, Hill, Olajide, Andries, Cuevas is an incredible resume as is moving from 147 through to 190lbs winning world titles. being the first to win in 5 divisions... Yet here you are slating the guy off, another one of your HATE threads where you hate on a legendary fighter. you have HATED on Dempsey, Tunney, Johnson, Pep, Tyson, Robinson and now Hearns, why do you bother coming onto the forum?.. your a TROLL of the highest order yet have the foolishness to try to claim Tommy Morrison was up there with the All time Greats.

 

Thomas Hearns is not even top 20 at any division , nor is he top 20 P4P.
He might make top 10 @ 154 if you refuse to include the fighters who could have make the weight as easy as anything like Burley , Walker Smith , Langford , Young Peter Jackson , Carmen Basilio , etc , just because the division didn't exist in their time. I do consider them as a part of that division just because they made the weight and could have maintained it even for a longer period if they only had a reason (title) for it.

 

if you don't think Tommy is top 20 in any division then you do not like him. Most fighters only rank high in one division since no fighter has the time to fight long enough to get that high ranking, but Tommy ranks just as high in one and other divisions than anyone else does. Carmen Basilio? Tommy's jab wouldn't have busted him up and stopped him by TKO? I mean come on. You think fighters like Tommy Hearns were common? That is the whole point about Hearns, whenever a tall thin fighter comes up people want to brand him the next Thomas Hearns, and then he never materializes as such. Tommy was unique. Find another guy with his height, boxing skills,speed and overall ring generalship. Hard to do.

 

Yeah, Hearns was unique - his ring generalship wasn´t that good though. But he didn´t do enough work in any single division outside lmw to get him into the Top10. WW he may be Top20/25 and he may sneak in at smw in the Top15/20 due to the shallowness of the division but that´s it.

 

NOT!!! Hearns is ONLY an ATG between 147 to 154................ He was good at 160 to 175............... He IS no doubt a "Haller" in New York.... His rep is solid, but he never conquered 160 to 175 to the max---despite his crowns there.....
:bbb:deal

MR.BILL:hat