Tommy Hearns??

Doubt it.Spinks would've gotten to him.

 

I don't think he'd have overtake SRR, but otherwise yes.

 

Hearns beat Hill at light heavy, remember? He ended his career as a mediocre cruiserweight as is.

 

True, but that was Virgil Hill, not Michael Spinks.Two different animals.

 

fair enough.

 

This thread is taking a ridiculous tangent, but I meant he could've jumped up and been a top 20 heavyweight if (1) his chin were better and (2) he really wanted to/roided around the time of the Hill fight. He wouldn't beat Spinks.

 

Possibly, but at 6'1", he still would possibly be at a disadvantage.

 

If you want the reason Hearns is not an all time great watch the first Barkley fight on you tube. Hearns was dominating the Blade, just killing him to the body. Barkley's face was an ugly (even for him) mask of blood. Then Barkely unleashes one right hand and Hearns is gone. If that doesn't convince you, watch Hagler stretch him. Even Kinchen almost Kod him but Mills Lane let Hearns hold on to him like he was his woman - Lane could have rightfully disqualified Hearns for excessive holding.

 

Think you've got that wrong pal, I'm sure Angelo Dundee said those words in the book Four Kings??

 

He was great, no one who beat him was quick to give a rematch, including Hagler.
Hearns was a punch or two from busting Hagler open enough to have fight stopped when Hagler nailed him in their fight. Him not moving up to 154 before fighting Leonard hurt him too. The first Hearns vs Leonard fight he was too dried out.

 

Wass - you may well be right. I probably thought it was Steward as Hearns was Manny's boy...if it was Dundee saying it about Hearns, that's an even bigger compliment...

 

I think he took punches to the chin better than he took punches to the body, maybe because he was almost always fighting below what would have been comfortable for him.
But at higher weights, he wouldn't have been taller and stronger than everybody. And without the physical advantages- and the rep they brought him- how good would he have been? His number of spectacular blow-out wins dropped drastically- though they did occur-as he moved up.

 

Hearns was the best of the fab 5 not 4 in my book ,his body of work was the best he was the most fun to watch and the most talented...Hagler actually got lucky he caught him when he 1st moved up to middleweight and Steele let him get away with low blow after low blow, kinda like how Tito did Vargas, a year later shuler Hearns who was much bigger and stronger stops Hagler and gives him a beating

 

It wasn't Hearns' first go-round at 160. Remember the Geraldo, Sutherland, and Singletary fights?

To dismiss Hagler's victory as coming because of low blows and to suggest that Shuler had a chance against even a dilapidated Hagler is kind of reaching, don't you think?