Tommy Hearns, The Thread

If FMJ had his pick of the ref he could squeeze out a narrow SD/UD.

Outside of that I agree with every word.

 

****ing awesome thread btw.

So many thought out and well explained responses, it's proper insightful.

 

Hearns may be the best 154 lb. ever, but I think in a one off fight, MIke wold beat him. Again, it would likely come down to Mike being the smarter fighter, and after sustained body work, I think he'd catch up to Tommy eventually. Maybe not, and Hearns could outbox himi to a wide UD if he wanted, just don't think it would play out that way

 

Outside of Robinson I'd give Gavilan and LMR a pretty good shot.

But it would be a close call.

I know the Keed hasn't got the punch that Robinson, Leonard or even Rodriguez has but he was incredibly strong for the weight and his chin was legendary. He was really a true all around fighter, he could do everything. He would have to snatch it in those last 3 or 4 rounds, either storming back for a stoppage or getting a KD or two that would see him nick a decision.

I could envision LMR's unorthodox style and body punching becoming exhausting for Hearns and he gets steamrolled late. Though I would side with Hitman more often than not.

Hearns may not have had the career these guys had at welter but he is a beast in these kind of one off matchups.

 

I don't know how Hearns would have done against the other all time greats. My guess is he wins some, loses some.

No question in my mind that he belongs in the discussion though. Hearns was well known for his power, and his power was substantial. He went right through Cuevas and Duran. No one ever did that to Duran.

But what impressed me just as much were the skills Hearns showed against Benitez. I remember that fight very well. Hearns led after six, hurting Benitez a few times and dropping hiim once. Then Benitez's legendary boxing skills kicked in. Hearns then became the "boxer" himself, moving beautifully, and confusing Benitez. Benitez was a great counter puncher and was used to having guys come at him. But he was befuddled by Hearns moving away from him. Great change in strategy by Hearns.

Hearns had other notable victories that don't often get mentioned. As a welterweight contender, he moved up to middleweight for one fight against top 10 contender Mike Colbert. Hearns knocked Colbert down so many times, I lost count. One sided 10 round decision over one of the best fighters two divisions up. Also look at Hearns' great first round KO against unbeaten middle contender James Shuler. Shuler died in an accident shortly after, and people have forgotten how good he was and could have been.

I make no excuses for Hearns against Hagler and Leonard. He was simply beaten on both occasions. That's why I say that some other greats would have done what Hagler and Leonard did. But I think Hearns would have his share of victories against all time greats as well.

Thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts about one the great fighters from my younger days.

 

I think Tommy at 154 before Hagler would outbox Mike without too much trouble. If he stayed on the outside and just boxed he would win a UD.. Later - after Hagler, I see it a tougher fight for Tommy. Surprisingly I think at 175 he beats Mike by UD again. Tommy's weakness was always himself and the need to score knockouts and make the fights exciting. Had he jabbed and waited for counters he could have beaten anyone. I don't know what you call that. Mental impatience? I don't know. It made some of his fights against the greats he fought gambles.

 

Nobody else (faith in Nápoles)?

 

Well, Napoles was definitely greater than Hearns at welterweight but I just find it hard to think Napoles would overcome the physical disadvantages he'd face against Hearns.

If he could hurt him, he could finish him but I wouldn't confidently pick him over Hearns. And I love Napoles.

 

Yeah, no doubt 5½" in height and half a foot in reach is a big ask to surmount (not to mention that Hearns was a whole lot of man stuffed into a welter skin, more of a larger-end natural 154/160lber - and Mantequilla himself wasn't all that big-framed a WW to begin with), but - we're talking a top 5 welter of all time (IMO) ...on CV, and not much lower h2h. At worst maybe about tenth.

If this were made at light middle I'd concede a swift and brutal dispatching by the GOAT of the red-and-gold trademark 1-2 (eat your heart out, Wladimir) but for me, that late sixties version of Mantequilla was just too damn good at 147 not to imagine he could've found (and carefully tightrope-walked) that path.

 

Against the welterweight Hearns? No.

 

Do you give him more than a 50% chance of doing it?

 

This content is protected

I really want to double-down on my stance and say yes, but if holding myself to intellectual honesty's rigors, I have to admit that's probably just because José is my sentimental favorite in this one, and him springing this upset (as it would surely be perceived if they fought in the same time period and met in their primes) would probably rank as the most satisfying win I'd ever seen.

Can't say fifty with any confidence, no.

...maybe thirty? (assuming we're talking '69 vintage)

 

That's the reason why I didn't check the box next to Jose (as much as I wanted to).

 

Napoles was amazing, but he was short and small for a welter as has been mentioned, and tended to fight within the context of that stature, very much within himself, never extending, never reaching, never committing himself too much. Usually that could be read as a plus but here it limits him. Leonard beat him when he did because he had the capacity and style ( albeit late in the fight) to effect those long, dynamic, leaping, explosive punches it was going to take to get Hearns out of there. In short, he had to overextend himself and fight outside the usual space envelope to do it. As great as Napoles obviously was I don't see him doing that.

 

Hearns was a lethal puncher at 147, maybe the most lethal puncher in that division's history. But he was a more complete fighter at 154 - he'd filled out a bit by then. He could still devastate with his power (Duran) but could also use his great boxing skills (Benitez). He had also gained experience from his loss to Leonard. I honestly don't pick any Jnr middleweight, including McCallum, to beat him - he was that good.

It's obvious when watching him that you're watching a rare talent, a guy with all the tools. What made him greater in my eyes though is that he took risks. He wanted to be exciting and win spectacularly and he had a marvellous killer instinct so that even when he was using his boxing skills, he was nasty - that ramrod jab, the vicious left hook to the body and as soon as the opportunity presented itself, that straight right.

He also dared to be great - sure, it cost him a couple of losses (and major ones at that) but he won respect even in defeat. There have been plenty since who haven't risked putting it all on the line and as a result, we know less about them and have doubts about their relative greatness. There's no such ambiguity with Tommy - he risked it all and we love him more now because of it. What a fighter he was!