The best amateur boxer, who had a very bad professional career

We are talking Mark Breland and Hearns ( pretty simple to grasp here),
no need to go on a fantasy rant

 

If you don’t want to discuss your position, just say so.

Mark Breland by no means should have fought EXACTLY like Thomas Hearns as you put it.

It’s an overly simplistic analysis — ‘they both tall, they both welterweights, they must be exactly the same’ — that might sound good (to you) on the surface but there’s no basis for it. Guys who are built the same don’t have to fight the same to be successful. They don’t have to fight the same because you say so.

 

Sure lets discuss it .. you type to me boxing is 90 % mental . is baseball 90 % mental? , is football 90 % mental? or are you just 90 % the dumb ****ing idiot you usually are ... ?? you want to talk about mentall toughness in sports ... you cant simply grasp that Breland is 6 2 with a 77 inch reach and he should use those adv ... now your problem is that you go in this BIG ****ING BULL**** about Hearns is Mentally tougher and boxing is 90 % mental .. because you are simply 90 % a dumb **** ...
AGAIN BREELAND didnt figure it out ... he was a huge let down

 

I wouldn't have remembered him if you hadn't mentioned him. I remember seeing him fight on ESPN against some of the usual fringe contenders and would've never guessed his stellar amateur pedigree and expectation of that level of success. Good call, Sir.

 

Every fighter who was tall and rangy and who could pop- even a little - was compared to Hearns and almost every trainer had visions of having a Hearns type fighter because at the time Hearns was elite.
Maurice Blocker- who is 6'1 had a nice jab and guess who they compared him to? Hearns.
Thankfully Blocker had pretty decent management and they didn't attempt to turn him into a Hearns clone but they tried at the beginning when he was stopping lesser fighters on the way up.
Aaron Davis is about 5'11 pretty tall for his weight. When he was coming up stopping alot of people guess who he was compared to? Hearns.

 

I remember him I think he fought Charles Murray if I'm not mistaken.

 

Why so hostile? Because I disagree with you? I seriously don’t understand why we cannot have a civil discussion about boxing.

Where did I mention mental toughness? I said Breland has a different mentality than Hearns, not that he’s a mental weakling.

Hearns has a gunslinger mentality. He’s willing to step to Marvin Hagler and say ‘let’s duke it out til somebody falls, I’m willing to die on my shield if necessary.’ Same as he did with Pipino Cuevas, another ferocious puncher. And with Iran Barkley, who’s a caveman.

Breland, who I actually have had the pleasure of getting to know personally a little bit over the years, is more cautious mentally. He is patient and will probe for weakness rather than throw caution to the wind. He is not a gunslinger.

Also, where did I say Breland shouldn’t use his height and reach? I didn’t. I said he didn’t have to fight “EXACTLY” like Hearns (your word) just because he had a similar build. I cited examples of other fighters with similar builds who fought differently from each other.

There are a lot of ways to use height and reach. Hearns could box or slug, but his mentality was to go bombs away much of the time. Sometimes, as with Barkley in the first fight, he didn’t use his height and reach and instead stepped into the breach where Iran could tag him. Breland could have used his height and reach as more of a stick-and-move boxer and fought differently than Hearns and been effective. In fact, he often did.

If you don’t understand that there’s a big mental component to boxing, I don’t know what to tell you. Many people who know far more than you or I about the sport have said this. They know what they’re talking about. Now if a guy is vastly superior to his opponent, the mental part MAY not come into play (or it may, if you believe Mike Tyson to be superior to Buster Douglas, but Buster was laser-focused during training and in the ring and Tyson’s hubris if you believe the narrative caused him to not properly prepare — that’s mental). But if two fighters are more evenly matched skill-wise and experience-wise (which is often the case at the championship level as those fighters have risen toward the top), then the mental game makes all the difference.

It takes a certain mentality to fight certain ways — Mike Tyson had a bully mentality and had beaten many of his opponents through intimidation before they set foot in the ring; a disciplined boxer who relies on footwork has to have a mentality of sticking to the plan and not getting lured into exchanges or closer range; we’ve all seen aggressive fighters who have the mentality to walk through hell, to take two to land one if necessary, to impose their will; etc.

Sounds like maybe you’re having a bad day or night, so I’ll leave it at that. But there’s no reason to act like you’re acting.

 

Exactly .. its not really complicated here. confusing for some
The talent level between Breeland and Hearns was huge.. And in actuality Breland had a slower jab and didnt feint much .. Certainty compared to Hearns who had the lightening fast snap jab and feinted all the time .. Hearns absolutely takes Breland to school ( Mark and Manny openly talk about it ) how Hearns jab was in Marks face at will as he had him off balance, although Breland did have a good understanding of distance... BUT thats what boxing trainers do .. they develop their fighters . Brusa to Monzon , Manny to Hearns , etc ... Breeland was just over 6 2 , with a 77 inch reach ,, and a WW .... now he is going to always have the height and reach adv over his opponents .. so why not develop the best jab possible, fight behind it, measure distance and time , be in great shape , and sit back and pick your shots .. because like some idiots on here do not get that when Hearns fought this way , he was one of the best ,, BUT when he got reckless , charged in, exchanged with stronger boxers.. he got into trouble
Sure the argument can be made well Hearns was just mentally tougher than Breland ,, BUT thats not the discussion here ... given Breelands advantages ... and HE WAS A BEAN POLE .... he shouldn't be fighting like Mickey Walker, he had a 1/4 of his strength for gods sakes

 

I think we’re in agreement. Yes, some people did try to mold their tall fighter with a long reach into being a Hearns clone, and often it failed spectacularly.

Milton McCrory, like Hearns a Kronk guy, was built in the same mold, but he was much more of a boxer type who used his reach and footwork to outbox opponents. I gather Emmanuel Steward knew he didn’t have the same mentality (or the same power) as Hearns and thus taught him to fight differently.

Likewise, I remember seeing a bunch of Mike Tyson clones who were 6 feet or under who tried to fight like him (many of them wearing black trunks and coming into the ring with no robe and glaring menacingly at their opponents). Yet none of them turned out to be the ‘next Mike Tyson.’

 

Breland at one point was training over at Kronk for awhile and guess what Steward is known for?
Fighters tall for thier weight with big right hands.
Milton Mccroy. Darrell Chambers. Thomas Hearns.
Jimmy Paul.
All were tall for the weight they fought in and all had big right hands.
Mark was almost the exact build as Hearns was he not?
In the amateur ranks Mark had that snappy jab followed up by that right-hand - just like Hearns in the pros.
So why wouldn't tailor your style if you have a similar skill set AND almost exact build of a WORLD CHAMPION?
Marks biggest problem was that he already was basically a star when he turned pro.
Over 100 wins and only ONE loss and he medaled at the Olympics back when that was a huge deal.
Mark could fight and people forget that. Back in the days of Kronk if you couldn't hold your own they'd run you out of town. Mark more then held his own even dropping Mccroy in sparring.
The problem is Mark was criticized for EVERYTHING.
He didn't get a knockout people booed. He didn't stop someone that was intent to survive it was Marks fault to the public.
Mark was an extremely sensitive person and the criticism really bothered him.
One minute people are calling you the second coming of Sugar Ray and the very next they are calling you overrated.
Lets not forget in the first fight with Starling he broke Starlings nose and was busting Starling up pretty good- he would have won if it had gone the distance.

 

Your forgetting Mark was knocking everyone out in the amateur ranks.
So he most definitely was very similar to Hearns.
Who else is over 6'0 fighting at welter and knocking people out? Hearns so of course people are going to draw comparisons.
Mark sparred very well with Hearns and showed he could box and move.
While Tommy had the better jab Marks had a nice jab - ask Marlon Starling about it.

 

Oh totally agree. Funny thing is they tried like hell to make Milton the second coming of Hearns but like you said they tailored it back as his career progressed.
But at the start they tried to say he hit harder then Tommy when he didn't.

 

I'm agreeing with you with the Hearns thing .. thats my argument, basically agreeing with you .. other than, Breland's performance as a pro .. because ams and pros are just 2 different things as it turned out to be for Marks career

 

You know the funny thing? Milton fought MCcallum and gave Mike a good fight before Mike caught up with him and stopped him in the 10th.
Milton was not as talented as Hearns so in my opinion that fight with Mccroy should tell you how Hearns vs MCcallum would have gone down.

 

Tommy broke his hand sparring with him .. Tommy always broke or folded his hand or fingers for half of his career