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

I haven't said anything about 12 losses.

I've assigned probabilites of Hearns beating each of Foster's 15 title opponents, concluded he'd have a 1% chance of going unbeaten and invited others to do the same.

Thus far, 1 poster has done so, who playing devil's advocate assigned probabilites more favourable to Hearns than I suspect he truly believes and still arrived at the conclusion Hearns losing was more likely than going unbeaten.

 

Well, then you probably think that an 85% chance of winning against each of the four guys I listed was far too low an estimation.

But if Greg is right above, and Hearns was favored for Leonard I and Grant, then that makes, what, two fights in his career for which he was the underdog? So that's 65 fights that he was favored to win. And he lost four of them--Leonard, Barkley, Barkley, Grant.

That's 4/65, or approximately one loss every sixteen fights. And we're talking about his chances of winning fifteen straight.

 

It's the favorite against 63 separate individuals. (Not fights, fighters).

So you have Leonard, (I don't recall Hearns being the favorite against him), Barkley (just one Barkley) and a twisted foot against Grant, which are the "upsets." (And Grant was totally freak accident.)

Even using your math, he can win 15 fights in a row without losing, because he certainly did in his career.

Hell, he won 32 in a row before he fought Leonard and he was favored in all of them, I believe.

These "probabilities" don't seem to be an accurate reflection of Hearns' career.

 

Your argument is toast.

Hearns beats all those guys. He's an all-time great against a bunch of average joes and an old Dick Tiger.

 

An article from the morning of the fight explaining that whilst SRL started out as the betting favourite, by the time of the fight Hearns was a 7-5 on favourite. I.e. you had to stake $7 to win $5 - https://www.nytimes.com/1981/09/16/sports/opinions-and-bets-abound.html

 

In order to do the challenge , Hearns would need to settle in at 175 only from 87 on . He loved that weight. Give him 5 years there, and not only does he run the table , he might beat Foster as well

 

Whether Leonard was a favorite or not, that doesn't equal 12 upset losses.

These probabilities may work in general, but they don't for all-time greats against underdogs.

Sorry Greg.

 

Counting individuals doesn't make much sense. By that standard, what is Leonard? Leonard was favored once and the underdog once. He's not two different people. The Barkley fights were two separate instances of Hearns losing a fight when he was favored.

I would never, ever, ever say that Hearns couldn't possibly go on a fifteen-fight winning streak. Of course he could. Even fighting above his best weight, against men deemed fit to challenge for the light-heavyweight title. But there's a world of difference between something being a viable possibility and something being a lock.

 

I've no idea why you are citing 12 losses to me and whist I can see you struggle with even the most rudimentary, conceptual grasp of how probability works, you most certainly do not need to apologise to me for that, it's no skin off of my nose.

 

Hearns was the favorite against 63 different guys. He was upset by one of them (Barkley).

If Greg wants to include a last-minute betting change against Leonard, and a freak twisted Ankle at the end of a 30-year career to try to help his stats, whatever, make it 65.

Fact is, using all these probability numbers, Hearns should've lost to a lot of underdogs.

And it simply never happened.

If you have to be such a massive favorite in every fight, just to win 15 in a row, how goddamn huge of a favorite in each fight was Hearns when he won 32 in row?

Which Hearns did?

Forget it. The probability numbers don't work with Hearns, anyway.

 

Here's a list of fighters who won 15 x consecutive lineal world title fights in a row in the same weight division:

Joe Louis - 25, in the same division he won his first world title in
Ricardo Lopez - 21, in the same division he won his first world title in
Henry Armstrong - 20, 2 (of the original 8) weight divisions above the one he first won a world title in
Wilfredo Gomez - 18, in the same division he won his first world title in
Pongsklek Wonjongkam - 17, in the same division he won his first world title in
Joe Gans - 15, in the same division he won his first world title in
Miguel Canto - 15, in the same division he won his first world title in
Carlos Monzon - 15, in the same division he won his first world title in
Dariusz Michalczeswki - 15, in the same division he won his first world title in

That's it, 9 guys in all of boxing history. One did in two of the original 8 weight divisions higher than he first won the title, the other 8 did it in the same division in which they first won a world title.

So, we're asking not if Hearns could, but whether he should be favoured to do what only Henry Armstrong in all of boxing history managed to do and what ATGs such as Greb, SRL, Pep, Wilde & Hearns himself couldn't manage, even in the first division they won a world title in.

 

But this logic is flawed TBH. How many fighters does it say after their name " the same division " ? all but one. Hearns was constantly up and down in weight for 18 years. Could Hearns do what Foster did fighting all over the place in weight, of course not. But if he campaigned soley at 175 from 87 on, he most certaintly could, so context needs to be applied. No one was all over in weight more than Hearns was

 

Hearns didn't win 15 consecutive world title fights, lineal or otherwise, regardless of weight division, even including the weight divisions he was far more formidable at than LHW.

 

No, we're asking if Hearns should be favored over that collection of stumblebums and an old Dick Tiger.

That's what this thread is about. That's the topic. Not Henry Armstrong.

Yes, Hearns should be favored over that odd collection of misfits and an old Dick Tiger.

Obviously.

Hearns clearly won 15 fights in a row in his career. He clearly won more than 15 fights in a division before.

You are DESPERATELY trying to make this a comparison between Hearns and Foster, or now Hearns and Armstrong. and basically asking if Hearns was better than they were ...

But that IS NOT the discussion.

The discussion is could Hearns beat all those guys Foster faced at 175.

Yes, of course, he could. They weren't that good compared to many challengers other light heavyweight champs faced.

You want people to look at ANYTHING but the actual fighters Hearns would be facing, because he'd beat all of them.

 

thats besides the point imo. How many world title fights did Foster win across different weight divisions?? You are comparing apples to oranges. Because Foster certainly didnt win 5