Question About Tommy Hearns

great fighter wish there was more videos on youtube that i could watch of him, like his aggressive style, for his size you'd think he would just jab and move but he didnt half like to stick it to the other guy, hagler hearns what a fight. how different the fight might have been if he didnt break his hand

 

I just dont think he was near the boxer at middle he was at welterweight...He could still punch very hard and this allowed him to dictate the terms most of the time.

I think he lacked a bit of the mobility and fluidity that he had at 147-154.

Ive seen people argue Tommy over Roy and I can totally understand that..I just feel Roy was the bigger, faster man and was all around a bit better at the weight.
I dont think we are talking about a prime Hearns when we talk about Tommy at middleweight..many will argue thats the best we have seen of Roy however.

Roy had fight changing power and the kind of speed you see once in an era at that weight..Stylistically he could trouble and beat many, many greats at 160 who were more dedicated middleweights with the better resumes.

 

Actually no more than 6' 3/4", closer to 6' 1/2". I know this because I've been eye-to-eye with him.

 

Hearns almost have all the tools to be great, but bad for him he was in the era of Leonard, Hagler and the other guys..But good for boxing because he fought in a rich era.

 

Hearns was spectacular in his best wins, willing to fight anyone and very likeable. This also leads some people to overrate him. He is an ATG with an amazing career, but anyone who thinks he beats Roy Jones needs to cut down on the weed.

Hearns' best wins came at 147 - 154. Jones easily destroys Duran, Benitez, Cueves and anyone Hearns beat below 160.

Jones' best wins are probably Toney, Hopkins, Hill, Ruiz. Hearns could perhaps win against Toney and Hopkins, but he might also very well lose. Not nearly as clear as Jones beating Hearns' victims at 147 - 154. Hopkins and Toney clearly beat Duran, Cueves and Benitez.

Their common opponent is Virgil Hill. Hearns won a close decision in a fight that was going back and forth. Roy Jones scored one of the most spectacular body shot knockouts against Hill I have ever seen.

Roy Jones beat a natural HW who, while boring as hell, was a legitimate top ten HW for years. It seems very unlikely that Hearns would last 12 rounds against Ruiz. Ruiz would beat Hagler 10 out of 10 and Hagler roughed up Hearns with his physical attributes

Hearns was beaten in his prime by SRL, Hagler, when he lost to Barkley, he was a little past his prime, but not much. Jones in his prime never loses to any of these three. Jones lost when he was clearly past his prime to Tarver, Johnson, Calzaghe, these three certainly have a better chance at beating Hearns that SRL, Hagler, Barkley's chance at beating Rpy Jones.

Hearns was great. Jones, in terms of H2H, was historic, the most gifted athlete in boxing ever. In his prime, he beats Hearns hands down.

 

I agree RJJ never lost in his prime (I don't count DQ), but the reason may be simply that he didn't fight as good opposition as Hearns. Actually, if you forgot about SRL and Hagler their record would look very similar (briliant wins over anyone and then sudden loss by KO to not so great opponent).

I am not sure either about RJJ "never losing" to Hagler. RJJ seem to had some problems with southpaws, and Hagler was surely better than any of those he faced.

 

We are not comparing resumes but H2H here, since the question is not who has the better resume (Hearns does) but who would prevail in a match up. Hopkins and Toney are far better wins H2H than Hearns' best wins. While Duran was a bigger name than Hopkins and Toney, he was also a former lightweight in the twilight of his carer, while Hopkins and Toney were natural at 160 - 168 and went on to do great things after losing to Jones.

Hagler would be one of the few fighters who would be competitive against Jones similar to Hopkins, but he could not beat him. Hagler was agood boxer with exceptional physical attributes to wear down his opponents. If Jones could not be roughed up by a natural 200pounder, Hagler would be unable to do it. Hagler was confused by SRL's speed, Jones had the same type of speed in a bigger, more powerful body. In his prime, Jones never had real problems with any style, he barely lost a round.

 

Uh Hearns wouldn't beat Jones or Hopkins at 160. He may be able to beat Jones at 154 but not at 160 and above.

 

you know winning all these (titles) at different # should be put in perspectie.You know for one we should look at quality of opposition!!!!Also look at old time greats. I figuered out using todays method Henry Armstrong would have held 26 different TITLES!!!!:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

Hearns would probably lose to Jones at middleweight. Hopkins as well because Hopkins can take a punch and would bully Hearns around. Oscar gets knocked out unless he runs. Mosley would have a chance if he gets inside, but I think not. If Tito's chin held up he could catch Herans and drop him for good, but if Hernas boxed he would catch Tito and that would be lights out as well.

 

Think Paul Williams height, mayweathers speed, Kostya Tsyzu right hand, Winky's jab, Mosleys skill and Zab Judah's chin

Come to think of it, he was like a WW version of Wlad except with alot more agression and because he's lighter, alot more mobile.

And yea I know Im underrating his chin, it wasnt that bad but definitely suspect.

 

Well with next day weigh in and when he matured enough as a fighter to be able to win a belt, I reckon he would start from 122 all through to 147. Which is still only 6 titles, he could probably grab one from 154 so possibly 7 titles.

 

Something I always wondered about. He could sit back and outbox everyone, and when he started landing at will he would step in and actually put himself in the path of big punches. I would sometimes see punches come inches from his chin when he didn't have to take the chance. He could have been undefeated that is true, but something in his heart made him go for the knockout. Would he be remembered better if he had beaten all the guys he fought, or the way he will be remembered now where he took chances and lost a few times by knockout in exciting fights? Not sure.

 

your comments are all guessing and opinions with no facts to back it up. Hearns outboxed Hill easier than Jones did, until Jones landed the body shot. Jones never fought great fighters the level Hearns beat. Hearns was in great fights and will always be remembered. Jones was great but his wins are very simple wins by decision, with some knockouts over modest opponents who he simply outsped and knocked cold with speed. He just outclassed many guys who were second rate. Other fighters will come along who duplicate Jones career of a safety first fighter who is fast and who win decisions over decent opposition but not great. Hearns had the highest highs and the lowest lows but came to fight and knocked guys cold and took chances. How will they duplicate the career of Hearns? You can't. Hearns was a more unique legend and more memorable. Hearns career is a fighters career who came out to fight.