Thomas Hearns replaces Bob Foster’s LHW title run, where does he come unstuck?

I understand. But Hearns beat a lot of guys who were better than Barkley, too. That's just one of those matchups where Barkley's all-or-nothing, free-swinging style (and size) managed to turn the tables. Some guys just match up better than others.

Anyway, good discussion.

 

I've no problem with Hearns being made favourite vs Tiger, even if I'd male Dick a marginal favourite.

Going through Foster's 15 title fights unbeaten, though, I consider that unlikely. Even if you made Hearns a 60/40 favourite over Tiger, you'd need to make him a 99/1 favourite over each of the other 14 for his chances to be roughly 50/50.

 

They weren't exactly a murderer's row, though.

Frankie DePaula
Andy Kendall
Roger Rouse
Mark Tessman
Hal Carroll
Ray Anderson
Tommy Hicks
Brian Kelly
Vicente Rondon
Mike Quarry
Chris Finnegan
Pierre Fourie
Jorge Ahumada

Those were basically the types of guys Hearns regularly fought on network TV between big fights, anyway.

I know putting together a long reign is difficult, regardless. But Hearns is the favorite against all those guys head to head.

 

Assign a % chance of Hearns winning each individual fight, over a 6-year period (I.e. not Hearns at his best each fight) and I'll let you know what you deem the probability of him winning all 15 is.

 

Tiger wasn't much of LHW and was already shot to bits by the time Foster got around to him. Tiger was regularly outboxed by much lesser (and smaller) men than Hearns. I really don't see how people see this as a hard fight to predict, Hearns would comfortably outbox the decrepit version of Tiger that Foster blasted out.

 

A 100 percent chance. 1985 to 1991. Who's beating him? Brian Kelly? Mike Quarry? Roger Rouse? Tommy Hicks?

 

Right.

 

100% chance of winning 15 x boxing matches, including against an ATG in Tiger? Ok, I guess I should have taken the hint you'd rather we conclude our exchange when you finished a post "good discussion ".

 

Who's beating Hearns? Name them. Be bold.

 

78th pro fight and 16th year as a pro for old Mr. Tiger.

 

I've already told you I'd favour Tiger, we literally exchanged multiple posts on it within the last hour or so, but that's not my point.

Your "100%" answer to my request to assign a probability of him winning each of the individual 15 fights clearly wasn't a genuine response and so has terminated our exchange. I'll leave the final word to you.

 

It was a genuine response. I think he beats all of them. 100 percent. I honestly see none of them winning. I have said that from the start.

You asked me to give you a six-year timeframe when Hearns would beat those guys ... and you would let me know the probability of him winning all 15. And I answered.

If you don't want to assign a probability for him beating them all, that's fine with me.

Sounds like you think he beats them all but Tiger. Because you won't name anyone else who beats him.

So, we disagree on 1 out of 15. Good discussion.

 

Hearns is an ATG. P4P he's better than Foster and anyone Foster beat. His victory over Virgil Hill is a criminally underrated achievement for a former WW titlest.

The rudimentary mistake most people make in questions like this is that the actual question is whether Hearns would complete Foster's title run, unbeaten over a 6-year period, but in reality the question some are answering is "would you make Hearns favourite over each of Foster's title opponents in one off fights". Those 2 x questions are wildly different in terms of the statistical likliehood of the outcomes.

For example, if, on average, you made Hearns a prohibitive 95/5% favourite over each of Foster's title opponents, on the balance of probability you think it's less likely he goes unbeaten than not.

 

I don't think he's a strong favourite over any version of Tiger. But even outside of that, I don't see him beating all of them back to back. Hearns wasn't the type to stay at one weight for a start; and against bigger guys with Hearns' chin, I just don't like his chances.

Sure, Foster's era sucked but so did Hearns' own and he didn't do anything like that in his own. Without checking, I don't think he wasn't even at LHW as long as Foster's title run.

 

Light heavy in Foster's era included a lot of people who would've been super middles in Hearns' era. Tiger weighed in the 160s for his light heavy title fights. Fouire weighed in the 160s in his challenges to Foster. Most of Foster's challengers were 170-173. In addition to not being a murderers row, they weren't very big, overall.

Hearns was beating future super middle champs like Murray Sutherland as far back as the early 80s.

I just don't see how any of Foster's challengers pose much of a threat.