Thomas Hearns rated 25th best fighter in the last 50 years (1996)

He should be ranked higher than that .
He should also have got the decision against Ray Leonard in their 2nd clash , he knocked him down twice in that
fight and had two 10-8 rnds but still the judges only came up with a draw .

 

His rank here seems accurate, I suppose. He came up short in his two biggest moments, but had a few other very high-profile wins too. I also give him points for being brave enough to take on the very hardest challenges he could find. He fought everybody, and unless you were exceptional you were going to lose to him.

 

Tyson was more exiting in the 80s

 

Tyson in his peak was the best fighter on the planet in this period of time. And was more exiting than hearns more complete fighter, his fights were one sided because he was better and more dominant than hearns

 

very different. Hearns fought better guys and engaged with the top guys better and more competitively. If Tyson ever had a Hagler vs. Hearns kind of fight or a Hearns vs. Leonard first fight then I don't know about it. Tyson did not have the level fighters Hearns had with Hagler,Duran,Leonard,Benitez and even Cuevas.. and Hill was a good challenge because he was younger and older-but Tyson wiped out the guys he had regardless if they were Tubbs and Tucker level and not Holyfield and Bowe. Hearns was lucky he had the greats to fight and Tyson? Well I don't know if he was unlucky, since when he did fight greats later on he lost to them. Spinks was a good win if not almost too easy. Had Tyson fought Hearns level he would have won his title against at least Witherspoon, who I think at his best was better than anyone Tyson fought his first year.. Fought and beaten a legit weight Holyfield and later beaten Bowe by knockout... Or even Lewis.. But he didn't. I like Tyson, but the facts do remain his fights were exciting wipe outs or the better guys took him late and stopped him. Hearns outboxed Benitez and knocked out Duran and Cuevas.

 

I cannot accept this. He was great against who he had and great defense to get inside and then work the body and come up to the head. But he really was not tested against the elite level when he was young, and he showed flaws like even Bonecrusher showed or even Tucker with the uppercut in round one. I think history wise Hearns has more great fights and more memorable mixed with fighters. Tyson has a reputation as wiping guys out oneside, but they were not as good as the guys Hearns fought. Which type do you like? I think Hearns should be rated higher than Tyson in the all time great list. Absolutely.

 

It wouldn't have been any sort of lack of speed that hindered Hearns at 175. He was still extremely fast at the weight. Charles would have whupped him there however.

Hearns wouldn't have been utterly without chance against Charles at 160 as Charles was green at this weight and during this period. His durability was also well below what it was to become after the war when he filled out and really came into his own as one of the greatest fighters to ever lace on a glove.

 

Charles had heaps of power at 160 and 175. Jesus H Keyyyyyyyrist.