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

Courage and honesty? I'm debating right now with you on this topic.

You want to change the rules because you're floundering. If you need the whole forum to save you, invite them here.

We've already started.

Foster's laundry list of challengers wasn't a great group of KO artists or boxers.

None of them were better than Hearns. NOT ONE.

It's not Saad Muhammad's list of challengers ... it's Bob Foster's.

Your argument, since none of the guys Foster defended against are good enough to beat Hearns, is "maybe Hearns just has a bad night at some point" ... that's all you've got.

Hearns sweeps all these guys. He's a better boxer and a better puncher than all of them.

There's no argument any of them can straight up beat Tommy Hearns.

But, for some reason, people just don't want to admit it.

 

Yes, courage and honesty, or lack of.

I've written an extensive post, citing fight-by-fight probabilities of Hearns winning each of Foster's title fights, extrapolated that to determine that I'd give Hearns a 1% chance of going through all 15 of those title fights unbeaten and invited you to do the same. The closest you've come to taking me on by reciprocating, is to say Hearns has a 100% chance against both (no courage).

In doing so you insulted my intelligence and the intelligence of every poster that read that post. Whilst I could cite posts you made predicting Wilder vs Fury 2, that highlight your tendency for misplaced confidence in predicting fights, not even you truly believe a fighter is literally 100% certain of winning fights against ranked contenders (no honesty).

 

Tommy Hearns vs. Dick Tiger (win Hearns)
Tommy Hearns vs. Frankie DePaula (win Hearns)
Tommy Hearns vs. Andy Kendall (win Hearns)
Tommy Hearns vs. Roger Rouse (win Hearns)
Tommy Hearns vs. Mark Tessman (win Hearns
Tommy Hearns vs. Hal Carroll (win Hearns)
Tommy Hearns vs. Ray Anderson (win Hearns)
Tommy Hearns vs. Tommy Hicks (win Hearns)
Tommy Hearns vs. Brian Kelly (win Hearns)
Tommy Hearns vs. Vicente Rondon (win Hearns)
Tommy Hearns vs. Mike Quarry (win Hearns)
Tommy Hearns vs. Chris Finnegan (win Hearns)
Tommy Hearns vs. Pierre Fourie (win Hearns)
Tommy Hearns vs. Jorge Ahumada (win Hearns)

OF COURSE, Hearns wins.

Hearns lost one split decision in 29 years. None of those guys are outpointing him. And absolutely none of them are stopping him before he blasts out for trying.

 

You're literally afraid to reciprocate by assigning a genuine, honest probability of Hearns winning each fight, aren't you?

 

Which 15 SMW/LHW Hearns fights are you using to come to these conclusions?

 

And just to pick a few names who Hearns could lose to:

Tiger
DePaula
Rondon
Finnegan

And I'd even go as far as to say it's entirely possible Hearns loses a decision to
Ahumada. Ahumada almost won one against Foster himself, and Foster is a LOT harder to outbox than Hearns.

 

I said yesterday, 1985 to 1991. Dick Tiger fought in the 160s as light heavy champ.

 

Well, considering no one from Roberto Duran, to Wilfred Benitez, to Sugar Ray Leonard, to Virgil Hill could outpoint him, I'm going say Jorge Ahumada doesn't make it happen.

As far as the others knocking Hearns out, no. The number of guys with winning records they stopped could be fit on a few fingers.

 

I said 15 fights. Hearns didn't have 15 fights between 160 & 175. He didn't even have 10 and he didn't even win all of them.

I don't see what relevance Tigers weight has on this.

 

Yesterday, it was six years. Today, it changes.

And he didn't go undefeated because he wasn't fighting Frankie DePaula, Andy Kendall, Roger Rouse, Mark Tessman, Hal Carroll, Ray Anderson, Tommy Hicks, Brian Kelly, Vicente Rondon, Mike Quarry, Chris Finnegan, Pierre Fourie and Jorge Ahumada.

If he had, he would.

They certainly weren't Hagler, Leonard, Hill, Andries, Roldan, Shuler, etc.

 

Man, no-one outboxed Jimmy Wilde from Tancy Lee to Joe Symonds. Leys favour him against Roberto Durans entire title reign!

This is how you sound.

And why not? Serious question. Their winning records were a product of their era, and I think the oddly specific requirement of "stoppages against fighters with winning records" would drastically fall for Hearns too if he was a LHW in that era.

Do you seriously think Hearns at 175 had enough left to clean out an entire division, rule it for 6 years and come away with a better record than Foster did? If the answer is yes, then why on earth didn't he just do that in his own, weaker era?

 

How I sound?

I'm picking Thomas Hearns, two-time Light Heavyweight Champion, Hall of Famer, to beat some of the worst fighters to challenge for light heavyweight title.

Honestly, have guys lost your minds? You're picking Frankie DePaula to beat Thomas Hearns?

Again, you guys are hanging your hats on Iran Barkley an awful lot, and simply ignoring that Tommy Hearns is an all-time great who rarely, if ever lost, and one had one split decision go against in a nearly 30-year career.

Everyone on that list of Foster's challengers lost to garbage fighters, multiple times. I'm ignoring who they lost to and trying to focus just on how "good" everyone was.

And none of them were good enough.

Tommy Hearns would have to fall out of the ring and break his goddamn neck to have even a chance of losing to 90 percent of the guys on that list.

It's not like he had to beat Qawi twice or Marvin Johnson, or Eddie Gregory ... Hearns has to beat Tommy Hicks and Hal Caroll, for Christ's sake.

 

I didn't say 6 years today or yesterday. I said 15 fights; and even as far back as yesterday, Hearns didn't fight at 175 for six years

He didn't go undefeated because he failed to beat a guy (on two occasions, mind you) who was beaten by the whose who of the era, including a first round KO and a loss to a 38 year old lightweight. You just ignoring that the Barkley fight happened doesn't mean it didn't.

Yeah, it's you who thinks that Hearns goes undefeated. At no weight class did Hearns show himself to be the kind of guy who sticks around, beats everyone there and rules for a significant period of time. Not a one. You're literally saying he'd do better than Foster. Does he do better than Spinks? Moore? How about Charles up at heavyweight?

 

We're losing our minds and yet you're the one claiming a welterweight with a weak chin, no longevity at the weight, who doesn't even have 6 fights at 175 goes on to do better than one of the most dominant LHWs ever.

 

Is there a single 15 fight streak after beating Cuevas where Hearns showed up at his best for 15 fights straight?