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

Actually, it's 17, same number as Dick Tiger, but in far fewer fights, and far more than anyone else Foster defended against. And, as was mentioned yesterday, Dick Tiger and Iran Barkley are nothing alike in terms of style, build, size, anything.

Barkley crudely knocked out 250-pound Gerrie Coetzee. Pierre Fourie couldn't even do that.

 

No, Hearns did not score a KD vs Hill, a fight which two of the judges scored to Tommy 7-5. It's not a great LHW win, but it is a great & criminally underrated P4P win. The number of former WW world champions I'd favour to beat that version of Hill would likely be somewhere between 0 and 2.

 

Fourie didn't beat Galindez. Who was the best guy Fourie beat that you'd make him 50-50 to beat freaking Thomas Hearns?

Hearns outboxed all-time great boxers. Better than anyone Fourie ever met. Fourie sure as hell isn't stopping Hearns.

 

Actually, upon checking, I'll split the difference with you, he beat 16 x fighters with winning recordings, including Norberto Sabater, who Iran stopped twice.

17 in 63 means he won 26.9% of his fights by stoppage against opponents with winning records.

According to your post, Chris Finnegan's 12 out of 37, means he won 32.4% of his fights by stoppage against opponents with winning records.

Now, I don't consider the metric particularly meaningful due to the utter lack of context, but it is your metric.

 

Fourie lost an SD vs Galindez over 15-rounds for the latter's title. He did better than either Hearns or Barkley would have done.

 

I posted a six-year period yesterday that was more than realistic. Dick Tiger fought in the 160s. He wasn't any bigger than the middleweights Hearns was fighting. Hearns beat future super middles and light heavyweights before he moved up officially to 175.

Again, the guys Foster was fighting weren't huge guys. Hearns was heavier than nearly all of them were when he first stepped up against Andries and demolished him. Several of Foster's challengers fought in the 160s, and most were 170-173. Absolutely none of them were monsters.

And Hearns went unbeaten in 32-straight before fighting Leonard. And aside from the trouble he always had with Barkley (which happens to even great fighters) he went another 20+-fight unbeaten streak after Hagler that was only hampered by his kryptonite Barkley.

There is a lot of hat-hanging on Barkley in this discussion. But no one seems to want to bring up all the guys Dick Tiger lost to. And they weren't all three-division champs like Barkley was.

 

You can't even name the best fighter Fourie actually beat because he beat no one that would make 50-50 against Hearns.

No one.

 

@Dubblechin, you refused my offer of a bet, and in retrospect, perhaps 15 x poll threads to settle the bet was a little excessive.

So, how about another bet, one that is heavily skewed to favour you?

You do the same as the above. Don't insult our intelligence by just assigning Hearns a 100% probability of winning each fight, there's no such thing as 100% certainty that someone will win a fight. Of the 15, I only get to challenge 3, i.e. just 20%, and even then I don't get to challenge by assigning my own prediction, but I'll select 3 to challenge to take to a public poll. We'll convert the % picking Hearns in those 3 x fights to a decimal, multiply those decimals each in turn with the probability of Hearns winning in the other 12. If we end up with a total of 0.50 or over you win, under 0.50 I win. You choose the foreit.

Again, you get to arbitrarily select 12 out of 15, whilst 3 go to a public vote and you get to select the forefit. This is immensely weighted in your favour.

 

I have the courage and honesty to put my money where my mouth is. Will you?

I already no the answer is no.

 

Fourie is among the Foster opponents with the best chance IMO but theres nothing to prove that because of his SOS. The absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence.

Look at Glen Johnson when he was undefeated had no evidence whatsoever he was an ATG fighter and look how that turned out. Sometimes those with padded records(and Johnsons was as bad as they come, Fouries is better btw) are the real deal.

 

Your bet to break this thread into 15 threads over four months and let other people argue for me?

Brilliant.

 

Actually, thanks. Upon checking, Fourie fought Willie Luddick twice. So, the number of his KO Wins over fighters with winning records drops to 5.

Vicente Rondon stopped Pedro Vanegas twice, so his KOs go down to 9 over fighters with winning records.

And Andy Kendall stopped the same guy (Billy Marsh) four times, so his drops to 8 fighters with winning records that he beat.

They're even worse than originally thought. I need to go back and correct that.

OF COURSE, Hearns beats them all.

Of course he does.

 

No, 3 x threads over 1-week, with the outcome determined 80% by your view, 20% by the collective forums view & 0% by my view.

 

"OF COURSE"..... Except you don't have the courage or honesty to engage in a simple bet that is determined 80% by your view, 20% by the collective forums view & 0% by mine, with you picking the forfeit. That speaks VOLUMES.

p.s. I'm quite enjoying this imitating your posting style by bolding CAPs text to emphasise points. It's making me nostalgic, I haven't done it with anything approaching this frequency since I was a teenager, and boy that was quite some time ago, sadly.

 

Pierre Fourie got a lot of chances to prove he was a great fighter. He didn't succeed.

Fourie knocked out five guys with winning records. He isn't stopping Hearns.

And if some of the best boxers of the 20th century couldn't outbox Hearns, I'm not wagering that this guy would. Hearns lost one split decision in his life to a guy whose style was absolutely nothing like Pierre Fourie's.

There's no angle here, IMO.