Tommy Hearns not many can beat him at 147

Sorry mate, meant of present fighters. Hagler's chin, tho very respected, sailed under the radar for years. He needed a great challenger with feared power to show it for what it was worth, and that was Hearns. Ironically Hamsho's chin made much of it's repution in the first Hagler fight and if not for this IMO would not have been holding him out

 

Jeez, that's headache material! Let me think about it and answer tonight. This would actually be a GREAT thread.

I'll try find the Hamsho chin award summary tnoight too like i promised a fellow Aussie a week or two back. Just so people can get a feel for that time.

 

Like I said, take nothing away from him for taking the fight. He left no question marks as to how great he was, and that's the mark of a guy that got everything out of himself. I don't blame him at all for taking the Hagler fight, in fact, had I followed the sport at the time I would have been critical of him if he DIDN'T take the fight.

Just saying though, I don't think he had a chance of winning it. Both had power but Hagler had a rock chin whilst Hearns had a vunerable chin. The equation was that simple. Hearns looked great blasting Duran out of there, but Roberto was not in the shape he was against Hagler when he fought Hearns (not that it would have mattered much, but he certainly wouldn't have looked as dominant against the Duran Hagler fought), and Duran survived the Hagler fight because of his shifty defensive ability - something Hearns never had.

Not sure what to say of those that think Hearns wins it if he boxes. Simply disagree I suppose.

 

Rarely does a better boxer get outboxed by a boxer who is not as good a boxer. It's usually because of things like grinding out a points win, like Lamotta did there. I don't think Gavilan is going to be grinding out a victory from Hearns, he will have to more or less outbox him, a tall order for mine, very tall.

I think Leonard is a little better, but not by much. Power is probably their distinguishing feature for me when all is said and done. I don't think Leonard even beat Hagler, so it's not like I rate him higher than Gavilan because of quality wins at heigher weights.

I get ya.

 

Cheers, enjoy birdy :good

 

It's more than likely the exact reason rather than a mere possibility. What's impossible, IMO, is that a fighter from a completely different era and ruleset, brought up with an entirely different and less advanced style, would be able to hang with a far more technically advanced fighter under said fighter's era and ruleset. Especially one with such overwhelming physical advantages.

Obviously, overcoming tremendous advantages was one of Walcott's prime strengths, due to his own physical gifts, but while he was capable of pulling them off against fighters of his own era, I don't see him being able to do the same with a fully modernized fighter holding the same advantages.

I've explained the bit about Hearns. As for the fighters Walcott fought on film, which of them appears modernized to you, or on the level of a Tommy Hearns from a technical and overall standpoint?

 

I have to say I'm surprised Sweet Pea has taken this stance; it's something I say but I usually get shot down.

I feel people picking Sam Langford over Prime Tyson or George Foreman doesn't make sense to me.

Although I think a mans toughness must be brought into question, fighting bigger guys and often at regular intervals.

But thanks for the input guys, I was looking to find out a bit more about Walcott and I have :good

 

I'd make Napoles and possibly Gavilan 50/50 and think Burley would beat him.

 

I agree with Minotauro, Charlie Burley wasn't the most avoided fighter in history for no reason.

He would give Hearns a boxing lesson, maybe knock him down a few times.

 

I think Burley might beat Hearns as well. From what I've seen of Burley he was very much a 'modern fighter'. Plus, you look at his resume, and see who apparently ducked him and you get an idea of how good he was.

Not a certainty though, there isn't enough available. Wasn't Burley a formidable MW as well? Which was his 'Prime' weight?

 

I agree that 154 was his prime weight potentially. From the available division's to him, 147 was the best for him imo, ironic that he ended up being a greater middleweight (on acievements and resume) if maybe not quite as brilliant h2h than what he was at 147. Just my take.