Jones stopped Hill in 4. Why youd bring him up Ive no idea. Maske beat Hill in the rematch although I never rated either Maske or Tiozzo too highly anyway. Tate was a better middle than lightheavy as was Czyz. Stewart was stopped multiple times. Hill's opposition was weak.
Yes. Why would you remember that? Anyway all of your arguments are the exact same as he made. I feel as if we are doing the same dance as we did years ago.
You are spot on. You know your guy as I do .. The thing that people do not understand about Hearns is he was just a bad a** . It wasn't about him having the best jab in the business and power... He just wanted to fight .. He was the throw back fighter that belonged in the good ol' days. If you wanted to go toe to toe with him, fine with him, bring it on was Hearns' MO, win or lose, he didn't care he wanted to fight and knock your block off .. This is why he accomplished what he did as he moved up because he just wanted to fight …. Sure he had his flaws, but that comes with the territory with him being the first guy to get the straps in so many weight divisions .. he is so different and far above how Ray approached the sport .. and it is not even close
Tate was still decent and he was a big guy with a nice right hand. And Hill beat a guy who I thought was a tough fighter Crawford Ashley. Actually Andries beat him also. Tall and good right hand.
Well mag1965 was/is me. Someone else asked me that also, but I didn't answer. Somehow something happened when they blocked that name years ago on eastside boxing as this was called before, and with that name I had many more posts than I do here something like 35,000. So I just started to use this name. I wish I could still use that name but they didn't let me.. I don't even remember the password to that one anymore. I still have the mag1965 name on Checkhook boxing forum, which is a smaller forum and not too many people and I have the same Hearns picture I had on eastside. I remember some guy who would get really made at me named Duranimal.
Thanks, well I think Hearns wanted to fight everyone and had a similar approach to go for it and knock the guys out. Ray in a way saw the whole history of boxing and understood what an image meant and stole fights and decades like the fighter of the 1980s by fighting at the end of the decade like he fought at the end of rounds. He thought everything out. Hearns did not, but I always like Tommy more because Tommy was no nonsense and in a way more like Marvin. Ray thinks more about how his actions will create a certain result. Hearns is more reckless and later has regrets and wants rematches, when he should have thought more when he was in the actual fight, but Tommy win or lose will be remembered just as much as Ray Leonard because of the fights. He had confidence that is for sure. I remember when they were all younger, Ray acted like he was Marvin's friend, but as time had gone on I see how Tommy and Marvin are more similar to each other and probably like each other more then Ray and Marvin like each other. And a funny thing. I read onetime that Hagler got into boxing because someone stole his coat.. And when they had a documentary on Hearns he told a friend when he was younger he wanted to box because he was tired of people stealing his coat. Both guys had similar situations. I think Tommy and Marvin were similar and were both no nonsense guys who didn't really bs anyone. Ray was more a bser. Roberto is not a bser, but he is unpredictable. Back in 1981 I rooted for Leonard to beat Hearns. Then after seeing how both guys handled their careers. Leonard retiring and unretiring and Tommy fighting on and on.. I got to respect Hearns more and more. He didn't play games.
Dwight had legendary timing. It enabled him to outjab much taller fighters that had longer reaches. Hill never had the power to gain Dwight's respect. He would have been beaten up.
We all know that. Personally, I have dealt with that on many occasions. But that does not change the fact that you make excuses for Tommy and Lenny.
None of these people were anything to write home about at 175. Didn't Tommy, the fellow that was beaten by Barkley at 175, knock Andries out? Hill's 175 resume is mediocre.
Was that you who asked? I forget who asked, but I told someone it wasn't or I ignored it. It didn't think it was important. I figured people would figure it out since I have not changed my opinions in 25 years or more.
I don't make excuses like the leg massage, which I thought came out of nowhere and was no one fault but the corner of Hearns if it was true. And Duran's about not training is not an excuse and should not be. I don't think he has a legit excuse for his losses even the older part or smaller part.