Tommy Hearns not many can beat him at 147

I rate Barbados Joe Walcott extremely highly on my P4P lists, most of you know that and have expressed it. I believe he currently stands at 9th in my futile attempt at an ATG list. On an era by era basis, there may never have been a more impressive physical marvel. A midget for a Welterweight knocking out the best Heavyweights. Ponder that.

However, you guys have heard most of my stuff on different era head to head matchups, especially fighters we really have no film of. I rate them for their resumes and contemporary reports mainly. I also believe boxing to have only truly modernized from a technical standpoint around the 1940's, with quite a few pioneers paving the way beforehand.

Be that as it may, I wouldn't really rate a fighter of that era in head to head ability because of the primitive state of the sport in that time. The art of boxing just hadn't evolved technically to what it would become, not nearly. This is why I rate on an era by era basis, comparing fighters of different eras depending on their accomplishments and their dominance of the era while taking into account the strength of the era. You also have to take into account the progression of boxing throughout the eras. It's why Barbados Joe rates extremely highly for me. And you have to admit, his accomplishments are the definition of P4P.

Be that as it may, Hearns KO1.

edit: About the progression of eras comment, as I said, I believe boxing to have modernized around the 1940's and therefore only compare fighters I've seen on film in head to head matchups from that point forward. And head to head/overall ability comparisons in that part are a very strong part of my rankings, moreso now than it used to be, likely.

 

Sounds good in theory

Strategy, tactics, experience all notwithstanding, I simply don't think Gavilan is a better boxer than Hearns. I suppose for me it's that simple. I simply don't see Gavilan a better boxer than Leonard either. I think there's more chance of Gavilan knocking Hearns out than there is of him outboxing him. 'Spose this is the agree to disagree part.

I agree that a fighter never stops learning. And the more experienced you are the more likely it is to help you. Simply I feel Hearns has advantages here that override Kid's wealth of experience together with his other talents.

Exaggeratig as you are, you are still either overrating Robinson or underrating Leonard. Robinson faced no one as good as Ray his whole career bar a depleted Armstorng, which hardly counts.

I think a bout like Hearns-Leonard I is a performance where you can say Ray Leonard showed a lot of character, showed a lot of belief and a lot of heart. I think all those things were innate to Leonard. He didn't have to learn them.

I don't see how the Hearns bout taught him about controlling the tempo - other than perhaps making him focus upon it, since he definitely didn't control it in the Hearns fight.

He learnt that hard work could be undone by someone getting ko'ed like Tommy was, and that maybe made him more precautious against Hagler. But I doubt he would have went there under any circumstances not being weary of Hagler's power.

Full credit to him for trying. Not taking anything away from him at all - other than the prayer he had of winning that fight.

 

The two most efective 147 lb punchers of all time might just be:

Tommy Hearns 6' 1''

and

Joe Walcott 5' 1''

Jack Johnson said that Walcott was one of the hardest punchers he ever shared a ring with. At this point he had fought McVea, Jeffries, Willard.

Walcott tended to do horible things to guys who tried to fight him on the outside.

The guys who beat him generaly did it at mid range.

 

I believe Sam Langford also said that he was one of the hardest hitters he ever faced.

The guy was a marvel, and as much as I love Tommy Hearns, I don't ever think Hearns would beat him.

It'd be more like Walcott KO2.

 

I don't think we ever saw the best of Hearns at 147...he moved on up to 154 real soon.

In the old days, you settled in at a weight ...like Monzon & Hagler did and defended your title for awhile.

Too bad Hearns & SRL didn't have a trilogy at 147/154.

 

My Hat's off to Mcgrain and Sweet, and all the others also.

Great exchange of ideas, thoughts and arguments, as to why and how for either side of the debate. And the education I always get.

Why I love this forum.

Thanks to all

 

You don't find greatness running away from opportunities tho SS. Hearns wanted to be the best ever and gave himself the fights to get there, had he won them all.

I totally disagree fighting Hagler was anything but stupid. Again i think hindsight has come to the fore. A few points..

Hagler was a slim 7-5 fave and Hearns had just as many backers among the experts.

In recent fights Hagler struggled somewhat vs Duran whilst Hearns totally crucified him. I know just because fighter A beats fighter B better than fighter C it's not the be all and end all, but it certainly shows us getting the pair together wouldn't be altogether stupid for fighter A. Hearns had not that long prior put in a career performance against a great that was on a good streak again.

The great trainer and great scribe Eddie Futch and Ed Schuyler were just two of many who chose Hearns.

There are still some very respected people who think Hearns may have prevailed if he boxed. I know you are in the totally opposite camp but such quality opinions point away from the fight being stupid.

I believe a fight with Michael Spinks would have been "stupid" as such. Now THAT is stupid i think lol. Tommy was talking about it for ages.

Agree with your opinion of Hearns vs Gavilan and enjoying the debate with Macca.

 

Hearns actually adapted when Leonard shifted gears on him, much earlier in the fight. This fight was fought on multiple platforms. Later on Leonard keep waiting for his moment and when he got it again Hearns was both too tired and inexperienced to ride it out for a second time.

Duran had just gone 15 with Marvin Hagler. Nobody except Tommy himself was picking a stoppage, let alone an anniliation.

It was clear at the time Hagler had a great chin, but this very fight was the one that put Hagler's chin into the stratosphere. Lets not forget Hearns almost got lucky with a cut. Almost can be debated but it did threaten to be a factor. Tho it was thought to be very difficult even at the time there were some thinking Hearns could stop Hagler. The legend that is Hagler's chin was signed sealed and delivered in this bout.

 

The Hearns and Mugabi fights (Both in his last 3 career fights) did great things for a chin already considered superb. When you see people commenting on Hagler's great chin you see them talking/raving about the Hearns and Mugabi bouts. Post Hearns bout. As i said a couple of weeks ago, Hamshpo used to take out the chin award and be rated the best at 160 above Hagler, believe it or not.