Tommy Hearns not many can beat him at 147

He also has met anyone who nearly hit as hard and accurate as Hearns, was near the boxer and as near as rangy as Hearns. A different class to what Tito feasted on WW

 

That's fine, the point i made was that on the evidence, calling him glass chinned is inaccurate.

I do believe my post was longer than what you quoted. Like i said, i won't have it that Hearns was a great defensive boxer.

 

trinidad is the man.

 

You have to take into consideration the way he lost to Leonard, arguably the second best WW of all time, though. He was winning that fight handily prior to the late stoppage. In a rematch he could've very conceivably won. He made Leonard look far more ordinary throughout most of that fight than any other Welter in history would've, period. It's possible the very top tier greats like Robinson, Burley, and possibly someone like Napoles could pull off similar things, but not many others.

 

Robinson is the only one that I would be reasonably confident of beating Hearns, Id badly worry about the other greats chances.

I think Hearns vs the Duran of montreal would be very interesting, Id love to see how that panned out.

 

Keep dreaming, no-one in history was a much better boxer than Leonard.

Hearns was finished, there was no protest whatsoever, the ref did the right thing, he was standing right next to them, we were not.

Leonard beat Hearns because he was grittier, just plain tougher & stronger willed.... that **** aint gonna just change overnight, nor will it change in a rematch, 3rd fight or 10th fight.

Leonard beats Hearns ass any time in their primes.

 

I don't thnk Hearns ever looked better than the Leonard fight, at that point he was on par at least with his 154 form imo, with better power.

I'm not as enamoured with the Duran performance as many others are, despite it being a great achievement.Duran would have had a much tougher time with Moore had he not thumbed him out of the fight imo.The hearns win likely wouldn't have the same aura to it if roberto had fought a clean fight that night imo.

 

Hearns did not really go down that much. Tito did. Hearns is the more skilled fighter and a harder puncher than Tito ever fought. If Yori Boy could put Tito down than Hearns could then I think Tito would be beaten also. When Tito fought better fighters he sort of froze up. Hearns is just better.

 

This is a good point, but a point that can be argued against and really cannot be cleared up, as it depends on the viewpoint you take. While the point you made is good, we could also say that greatness nearly always prevails, and while Hearns was winning the Leonard fight handily, it was ultimately academic and what McGrain is saying may stand- Hearns beats the lesser level of great welters (Cuevas etc), but doesn't the top tier (Leonard), even if he does give an outstanding account of himself in the bout.

Both viewpoints are just opinion, we can't say for sure as both are good arguments.

 

I don't think it's a matter of opinion that Hearns was boxing Leonard's ears off in the first match, that he left Leonard's face badly swollen, that his legs started leaving him late in the fight, or that Leonard couldn't figure him out. The question is whether you will believe your eyes or not. I even have trouble believing the sincerity of the argument in defense of the referee that the stoppage was appropriate, but I realize I can't know what was in the referee's mind at the time to I cut people slack on that one. It does demonstrate poor judgment on the referee's part.

Leonard is not the arguably the second best welterweight. First, he lost to the former lightweight champion. Think about it. Duran is better than Leonard at welterweight head-to-head. Leonard can only be the second best welterweight if Duran is the first best welterweight, and I don't know anybody who believes that. Second, Leonard regaining the title depended on Duran quitting, not on Leonard proving his superiority over Duran. That's not really Leonard's fault, but you just can't go around making up stuff you can't know. Third, Leonard's victory over Hearns depended on Hearns falling apart, not on Leonard proving his superiority over Hearns. Leonard's only dominant performance over a world class welterweight was against Benitez (Duran dominated Palomino, and Benitez barely edged Palomino). This makes for an awfully thin resume for a fighter to be considered arguably the second best welterweight ever even if we go with legacy and no head-to-head.

 

Do you really think it's practical to assume that because of the Leonard fight, more often than not Hearns would ultimately lose to most of the higher echelon Welters after giving a tremendous account of himself though? It doesn't seem so to me. He may lose a few of those bouts under similar circumstances, but I'd wager in a series he'd more than likely hold his own, if not outright win against pretty much any Welter outside of Robinson and maybe Leonard. Burley is probably the most interesting among the other candidates IMO.

 

Do you really just chalk that up to inexperience, or the fact that he was fighting Sugar Ray Leonard?