Was T. Hearns a puncher at cruiserweight?

Hearns was a great boxer and jab and speed, so even when his power went down at 175 amd 190 he beat guys like Virgil Hill. who was undefeated and had 10 title defenses Tommy has a underrated resume, and Duran might be a little overrated as far as wins. Just on who Duran beat.

 

Hearns actually fought quite well against Virgil Hill who was a well respected light heavyweight. Watching the fight it was clear that Hearns was the harder puncher as he frequently hurt Hill. He just wasn’t able to put him away. Not bad for a former welterweight.

 

I never denied anything of that... The debate here is if hearns was a puncher at cruiser and the answer is clearly not

 

The fight with Murray Southerland, a former light heavy who moved down to middleweight, showed how his punching power was less effective against bigger opponent, and he had to rely more on speed and technique:

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/07/11/sports/hearns-takes-decision.html

 

Did Murray tangle with Saad at LtHvy?

 

He sure did, gave a scrappy performance and accounting of himself before he folded as well.

He also took on the Korean bulldozer Chong Pal Park on at 168, Park being one of the original 168 pound champions.

Sutherland fought every big name of his time in multiple weight classes, often time yo yo'ing about dramatically in weight to do so. Bizarre fighter when you start to look into him, honestly.

 

He rocked Sutherland in the first round and again later.

 

Yes he did, and he hurt him, but he wasn’t able to put him away. Those shots easily KOd smaller fighters like Duran and Cuevas, but Sullivan was larger, so he was able to take those shots and keep going.

 

Duran was hit and dropped numerous times, it didn't happen out of the blue. Same with Cuevas.

There is plenty of proof he still hit damn hard up higher. He certainly hit a good deal harder than Hagler at 160. The one punch of Schuler, leaving Roldan prone etc.

He has proof of hitting hard all the way to 175 plus.

 

well you sure seemed to have confused him with a "european level" andries so perhaps you should do your homework on him again before making further posts.

 

Andries was a man who didnt know the meaning of the word "quit". and not just over 40 minutes... after losing, he would mount a full scale years long campaign to simply win a title again, even close to middle age. And he succeeded. Thats real life inspiration, not a 100 minute celluloid lie or being stubborn over a half hour fight.

You'd read about him in the paper coming back in his late 30s to take on world class opps and you'd think... hes going to end up in wheelchair like this....but he'd prove you wrong. And again. And again. It was surreal reading over the years, like he was freking robot getting rebuilt.

 

I agree a quality fighter, often forgotten in boxing talk I think. I haven’t watched any of his bouts for years, you’ve made me wanna do a career binge on YouTube.

 

Yeah but like most guys Hearns fought, they lost to Hearns. And hurting them even if it did not knock them out, set the tone for the fights. Hearns still hurt Andries and knocked him down in a way no one else every did.

 

The Harding/Andries series should be spoken of in the same breadth as the Carbajal/Gonzalez & Marquez/Vasquez fights. Truly great fights, all three of them, with two men almost supernaturally possessed in regards to willpower, toughness and endurance.

 

If you are insinuating that this curriculum is a great thing i laugh in front of your face.

http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/331