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

I feel Hearns will be favored over every Foster opponent but doesn't go undefeated and trips up once or twice.

 

While that's easy to say, who does he trip up against?

How many underdogs did Hearns' actually "trip up" against in his career?

One in Barkley? That's not many guys

Tiger lost or drew more than 20 freaking times. Compared to Hearns, a lot of guys beat Tiger who shouldn't have.

And Bob Foster didn't exactly fight a prime Dick Tiger. He was nearing the end of a long career.

If you think someone would beat him, there is a specific list of names to choose from.

Be bold. Pick a name. Or two, since you said maybe Hearns' loses more than once.

 

Thats the thing I don't think we'd see it coming thus I'm saying I'd pick Hearns to win every fight and would be wrong once or twice. At end of the day Hearns had 1 attempted title defense at 175 lost and we're wondering if he could replicate the reign of someone with like 15. He could but its hard not to see him getting tripped up sooner or later.

Hearns beating Virgil Hill then losing to Barkley paints the picture of someone who could beat anyone at 175 but is also vulnerable and would lose to lesser fighters.

I think Tiger only lost once at 175 in small sample size similar to Hearns. Clearly in his whole career Tiger was much less consistant.

In terms of picking a name Rondon maybe? Mike Quarry? Bob Foster himself would be a very tough matchup if we add him to the list cause hes not the champ now. No one here should be favored over Hearns. And even though Hearns is 0-2 against Barkley if they fought a 3rd time in their primes I'd pick Hearns.

 

Natural MW Eddie Booker
Natural WW/MW Holman Williams x 2
Leonard Morrow
Henry Hall x 2
Lloyd Gibson
Clinton Bacon

Assuming he hadn't fought them, how do you think we'd predict Archie Moore would do versus the above in LHW contests? Moore is a consensus top 2 ATG LHW and none of the above belong anywhere near a top 50 all time LHW list, so he'd clean up, right? I mean, pick a name there you'd favour at LHW over Moore if they hadn't fought. Anyone?

Moore lost to all of them in fights contested at LHW, in amongst accumulating one of the deepest and finest win resumes in LHW history.

There's a reason that no one in all of boxing history has ever gone more than 15 lineal LHW title fights unbeaten and it's simple Mathematics. Almost no one in history is so good to be favoured more than 95/5% against another ranked contender. If you're favoured 95/5% in each title fight then on the balance of probability, you'll lose before you get to 15 fights.

Yes, Foster's title defences were weaker than other eras, but that's more than offset, imo, by the fact that as great as he was P4P, Hearns was nowhere near a great LHW, not even close.

 

I took Greg's advice and clumsily calculated that if Hearns fought 63 separate men who were underdogs in his career, and lost to one of them (Barkley) ... if he were to fight 14 underdogs coming up, the percent chance of him losing to two of the 14 underdogs was only 1.8 percent.

Basically, a 98.2 percent chance he would NOT lose to two of those underdogs.

If he fought 63 separate men who were underdogs in his career, and lost to one of them (Barkley) ... if he were to fight 14 underdogs coming up, the percent chance of him losing to one of the 14 underdogs ...was 17.9 percent.

So, he'd have an 82 percent chance of running the table against all of them at the jump.

If Hearns actually beat the first 13 (and now had 76 wins over separate underdogs) and was staring at his 14th and final defense against the underdog Ahumada ... the percent chance of Hearns losing his final defense to Ahumada would be 1.32 percent.

Or Hearns would have a 98.6 percent chance of winning that 14th title fight.

That's pretty good. He's probably more likely to run the table than Foster actually was.

 

That isn't true, he was coming off a string of wins over a very good champion in Torres x2 & a fine performance vs. leading contender Roger Rouse.

After losing to Foster, he still had enough left to soundly beat reigning MW champ Benvenuti.

 

How about a friendly bet? You name the forfeit. Winner picks the losers profile picture. Loser donates money to charity. Loser doesn't access the site for X-period of time. You name it.

We start 15 x individual public poll threads, neither you nor I can vote, and let each run for a week, bumping them each once a day. Hearns vs Tiger at 175lbs. Hearns vs Ahumada at 175lbs. Etc. We take the % of votes for Hearns in each fight, convert those percentages to decimals, multiply all those decimals by each other and we will end up with a number that will determine the collectives view on the statistical liklihood of Hearns making it through the 15 x fights unbeaten. If the number is above 0.50, you win the bet, if lower than 0.50, I win.

Talking of being 100%, certain, I'm virtually 100% certain you'll refuse the bet. I just don't know what excuse you'll give. You don't bet, perhaps. Maybe that you don't want to clog up the first page with threads just to settle our difference of opinion. Possibly a complete different reason. But you won't accept, because you're just about smart enough to realise you'll lose.

 

I have no idea why this bothers you so much. We basically disagree on one fight out of 15, and you said you thought that one fight was 50-50.

Get over it. Jesus Christ.

 

It doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's not the outcomes of the individual fights we disagree so massively on. Its the likliehood of Hearns going through Foster's 15 title opponents unbeaten. You claim that likliehood is 100% (you dont really believe that), i think its considerably lower than 50%.

The subject matter combines two of the rare subjects in this world that I'm knowledgeable on, boxing and formulating statistical approaches. It interests me, tedious as I can be.

I take it you don't accept my bet, to take a statistical, clinical, approach to determine the forums collective view as to where the balance of probability lies in whether Hearns would make it through Foster's 15 x world title opponents unbeaten? Smart move, if so.

 

The op created this thread for us to discuss the likelihood of Hearns' breaking Foster's record.

That's what we're doing. Right here. Right now. Why would we want to divide the same discussion into 15 separate threads spanning months? Honestly.

If you can't make your point in this thread, that's on you.

We're in the thread discussing exactly that.

Or we were, until you said you were ending the discussion with me. Now you want to drag it out for months.

Just make your point here and live with it.

 

Being bold,I would pick Jorge Ahumada and Dick Tiger to punch Hearns out until round 10,if Hearns actually survived after 10 he beats both completes the title run,but if those two managed to land a few good shots in Hearns,he'll fail the title run.


While as Tiger had 20+ losses at that point and was getting beat by dudes he's supposed to beat,remember that after Foster beat him,he beat a good boxer and spoiler in Nino Benvenuti.

 

it's difficult to have a discussion when people just say, "I think someone beats him."

There are only a select few names to choose from.

Thanks for being bold.

 

That's a no to my propsed bet, then.

Like I said, smart move.

I did say I was going to end our exchange and would let you have the final word. Which I did. You then quoted me in a further post citing a factually inaccurate (Hearns was betting favourite over SRL by the time of the fight and vs Grant, too) and utterly irrelevant, meaningless statistical approach to the subject matter (the vast majority of Hearns opponents weren't world champions or world title challengers - your premise that the probability of victory by all underdogs is equal doesn't pass the laughter test).

So, I reengaged you and what I proposed, would have clinically and definitively established the forums collective view on the question posed in the OP. You know as well as I do it would establish Hearns going unbeaten vs Foster's world title opponents is less likely than likely, but just aren't honest enough to admit it.

 

I always said Tommy was his own worst enemy. In all of his losses his decisions were the reason he lost more than skills. In the second Barkley fight maybe not, but by that time his legs were sort of gone so he had to lay on the ropes and absorb those punches. He was an all time great for sure. I think top 20, but he could have been greater had he just settled down and tried to win rather than knock guys out.. But maybe we would not have had the great fights with Leonard and Hagler and the knockouts of Cuevas and Duran had he been more of the Benitez/Hill boxer.

 

Tommy was not a lightheavyweight naturally. He had smaller bones yet a huge upper body. Unique build. With Breland who had the similar height and was a welterweight, Tommy was more a build to absorb punches in someways and that is why he was a little more durable than Breland and more of a go for it fighter. Mark was evenly built. Tommy had smaller legs but a bigger upperbody to handle more inside fighting. Tommy would have to be a boxer to do well at light heavyweight for long. Going for the knockout would have made him pay .