Who do you favour to beat a Prime Hearns @ Welterweight

I've reviewed it enough to know that Ross was a fine boxer technically, but not good enough(from what I've seen) to have beaten the more elite fighters from 135-140(and definitely not 147). Nothing really stuck out as special about him.

I thought his stance was more modernized than McLarnin's, or at least better set from a modern standpoint, but McLarnin showed a good jab and technical skills himself in terms of footwork, distancing, etc. I just dislike the set style of holding the hands so low, and I don't consider it comparable to what someone like Jones does.

 

The 2 Sugar Ray's. I'd give the Montreal Duran a chance but would favor Hearns. Somebody very durable, Griffith, Gavilan? Napoles was brilliant but how low he held his hands would be troublesome against Hearns. It's a very short list in my opinion.

 

His hands weren't really that low, they were about chest height, the better to slip and weave punches with head movement and leave his hands open on his way in.

 

Robinson, Napoles, Basilio, Demarco and probably others I havent seen

 

Someone who can take his jab away, or come on strong late to KO him, so:

Robinson

Burley - amazing skill, Moore said the best ever, massive puncher, more impressive at 160+ than Hearns, I pick Burley for a mid-late rounds KO

Leonard (he did it)

Napoles - that good and devastating combinations at mid-close range

Mayweather (wouldnt be favourate but may take Hearns jab away and counter it or potshot)

Whitaker - (again wouldnt be favourate but the southpaw stance, 1 of the best defensive boxers ever maybe could do it)

I don't think Galivan can pull it off

 

Oh and the 147lb Langford, I'm sure if the Langford who faced Johnson had drained down to 147 he would have been a beast too

 

Napoles didn't use his hands to guard his head. That's too low against Tommy. Monzon found him often enough with the jab and right hand. Tommy was considerably faster than Monzon. Sorry, I just don't see it. He's a beautiful fighter and one of my favorites too, but I don't see him beating Hearns.

 

That's reasonable, it's a tough fight to call.

Couple things though:

Napoles was not in his best years nor at his best weight against Monzon, and his own physical ability had declined by then.

The fight was quite competitive for the 4 rounds I thought, until Monzon did start timing and landing the right hand flush as you said, but that wasn't until the 5th and 6th rounds, where even then Napoles showed his unbelievable durability.

Early on he was using his head movement to bob and wave his way in very well, leading to him land those winging hooks, as he did so often early on. He'd be in position to punch more when he closed the distance, unlike Leonard, who was more or less stalking at mid-range, taking Hearns's shots and looking for a big opening.

 

Barbados Joe Walcott

If you cant beat Hearns at his own game beat him at another.

 

I respect that some knowledgable posters (including yourself) pick Napoles. I'll do some homework on Napoles and get back to you. I've seen a great deal of his stuff, just not recently, and more importantly, not with an eye on how he'd fare against Hearns. That's what makes this site fun and worthwhile.

 

in order of certainty:

1. Ray Robinson
2. Charley Burley
3. Kid Gavilan
4. Ray Leonard
5. Cocoa Kid
6. Fritzie Zivic
7. Eddie Booker
8. Mickey Walker
9. Jose Napoles
10. Roberto Duran

Fritzie is favored here because he knew every trick and the book and could compensate against the Hearns' guns with savvy and cunning... and cheating. Hearns wasn't fully developed as a WW in my opinion -physically or in terms of experience -which is why I see these 10 beating him. I'd be concerned about Mickey and Jose because of cuts and their height. Duran because of his height. But I'd favor them slightly nonetheless.

I'd favor Hearns over Walcott, Ross, McLarnin, Griffith, and yes Armstrong himself among many others. The height factor plays in too much for Walcott and for Armstrong, Ross and McLarnin could be overwhelmed, and Griffith may not have had the grit or the guns to deal with Hearns.

 

What gives you cause to favour Duran at 147 when Hearns nearly killed him at 154?

I know you're a fan but even the biggest Duran optimist is going to struggle to devise a way for Duran overcome the immense physical advantages that Hearns posesses.

Duran was a great and I'll gladly concede that he wasn't on top of his game when he and Tommy fought but Hearns is just wrong,wrong wrong for him,and would beat him ten times out of ten imo.

But I'm keen to see how you think Duran could pull it off.

 

Ray Robinson and Gavilan would be my two picks. But in all honesty, Hearns at welterweight on an *on* night has the chance to beat any welterweight in the history of boxing.

 

Ross would have beating Hearns, Ross was good at ducking, slipping, and that left jab.
People seem to forget that McLarin was a great fighter also with the wars with Canzi.
It would be close, But Ross would battle out a closes points victory. I dont see Hearns knocking out Ross either, Ross took on evey one in his day, and in 80 plus fights, was never stop, nor got a ten count over him.

 

Lets also rember Ross box McLarin's ears off in the 3rd fight, McLarin was not out jabbing Ross in that fight.