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

Um, who does he have to be his best against 15 times? Brian Kelly? Mark Tessman? Hal Caroll? Mike Quarry?

Does only Hearns "at his absolute best" stand a chance against Mark Tessman?

Hearns NOT at his best whipped Virgil Hill.

You guys have lost it.

 

Hearns not at his best got laid out at 160 by Barkley. Not at his best he almost got laid out by Kinchen and Roldan. And Leonard. And at his best he did get laid out by Leonard; a welterweight. He could get laid out again, by bigger people.

Serious question.

Does Hearns do better than Foster?

 

The beating Dubble has gotten in this thread the last few days:

This content is protected

 

Oh boy. What a quote. One for the records.

Hearns was KOed three times in 29 years. He lost one decision in 29 years. He knocked out guys from welterweight to cruiserweight.

It's not Tommy Hearns vs. Bob Foster.

It's not Tommy Hearns vs. Bob Foster 15 times in a row.

It's Tommy Hearns vs. Mark Tessman. Tommy Hearns vs. Brian Kelly. Tommy Hearns vs. Tommy Hicks. Tommy Hearns vs. Mike Quarry.

Hell, cruiserweight champ Nate Miller, who Hearns also beat, could've walked thru nearly all those guys Foster defended his 175-pound belt against.

They aren't a murderer's row ... I hate to break it to you.

 

Does Hearns do better than Foster?

 

I see Hearns beating all of them. I've said that from the start.

He doesn't get stuck.

Have I not been clear? I voted in the poll.

This isn't a who wins a fight between Bob Foster or Tommy Hearns?

It's can Hearns beat the same Tommy Hicks', Brian Kelly's, Mark Tessman's, Frankie DePaula's that Foster beat in title fights?

Yeah, he does.

OF COURSE HE DOES!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

So you think he does better than Foster?

 

In case everyone hasn't grasped this yet, and tbf I think most have, here's EXACTLY what has happened during the course of this thread.

Dubblechin (DB) has looked at Foster's 15 x title opponents & concluded that in his opinion the best version of LHW Hearns should be favoured over all of them in individual one-off fights. Now, I & others may disagree, but DB's view in this regard is defensible & reasonable.

I, and multiple other posters, tried to explain, politely at first, to DB that there is a WORLD of difference between favouring a prime version of Hearns against each of Foster's title opponents in 1-off fights and favouring him to go unbeaten against all 15 during a real world 6-year period. At first, DB genuinely didn't understand this distinction & so dug his heels in, as is his right.

In post #53 of this thread I assigned my view on a probability of Hearns winning each of these individual 15-fights, over a real 6-year time line, beginning with Hearns first fight @ LHW & extrapolated that my view is he'd have a 1% chance of going unbeaten. At the point of reading this post, the penny dropped & DB understood the distinction I made in the above paragraph.

HOWEVER, he didn't, & still doesn't, want to lose face. So he refused to replicate what I did in post #53 in good faith (saying Hearns is 100% certain to beat all 15 is CLEARLY not in good faith), because he knows he has two choices - 1) Be disingenuous & assign probabilities of Hearns winning that don't pass the laughter test & would be proven to be wildly different to the forums collective view on a subsequent poll thread, in order to achieve a >0.50 overall probability of Hearns going unbeaten; or 2) Be genuine & assign realistic probabilities, that when multiplied by each other result in a <0.50 probability of Hearns going unbeaten, thus contradicting his own previous claim.

 

What Boxing discourse does to a mfer.

 

What?

 

People have gone bat **** crazy around here. I swear.

 

@Dubblechin This is a really simple question. A yes or no will do.

Does Hearns do better than Foster?

 

"In case everyone hasn't grasped this yet" ...

I pick all-time great, two-time light heavyweight king, hall of famer Thomas Hearns to beat everyone Bob Foster fought in a light heavyweight title fight, which includes one hall of famer, and a whole bunch of guys who aren't even close.

Call me crazy. I see no reason why this has "blown the minds" of a couple people here.

 

If you're saying the post you've quoted is beyond your comprehension, I assure you it isn't beyond that of the majority of others that will read it.

 

Does Hearns do better than Foster? Cmon Dubble, it's a yes or no.