Who do you favour to beat a Prime Hearns @ Welterweight

So the fact that Kid was twice KO'd early on by nobodies doesn't deter you in the same way that Griffith was KO'd at MW by a huge puncher?

Lack of footage is the problem for me.

 

I don't think Gavilan or any WW had the ability to outbox Hearns.

 

What, no Ray Leonard rooster ? :admin

 

When was Gavilan ever stopped? I haven't gone over his record in a while but I don't think he was ever stopped by anybody, even early in his career.

 

He wasn't. He was dropped though, by Ike Williams.

 

Probably not outbox per se, but outwork Tommy and be able to time Hearns, make him miss a good amount of shots, outmaneuver him perhaps.

 

The Kid's being stopped twice early on doesn't bother me. He was stopped a handful of times in 244 fights -that tells me that the guy had class. I would bet the house that had Hearns fought at the same rate and as much, he'd have been stopped far more than he was.

Experience matters here and the best WW Hearns is not, IMO, developed enough to take on monsters like Burley, Cocoa Kid, or Booker of Murderer's Row who fought in a far more dangerous era against more dangerous men.

Does the fact that Hearns was out of the WW division by the time he was 23 years old bother you?

 

It would bother me if he hadn't proven himself at the top of his game skill-wise against the likes of Cuevas. I've not seen a more impressive performance than that one from Hearns at any weight.

However, I don't think you're off base. It really depends on the gameplan of these fighters and their resilience. Given their experience, toughness, and success, it's not impossible to imagine them pulling off a Ray Leonard type performance, but I can't come to that conclusion without any film evidence to back it personally.

Griffith I thought was about as well-rounded a fighter as they came, he was just inconsistent at times, as were a lot of old-timers and the likes of Cocoa Kid. I think, given how he performed against the likes of Dick Tiger and other quality opposition, that the Carter loss was more or less a fluke. Then again it may have been a styles thing.

 

Griffith was stopped by a huge punching middle weight ,and tkod by Monzon when he was 33,Emille had a fine chin.The problem with Griffith is that at 5 7 1/2 he would be conceding a lot of height to the 6 1 Hearns and would be outreached by 6 inches add the fact that Griffith wasnt a huge puncher ,he has to outpoint Tommy ,no small feat.Gavilan also had a great chin never stopped.and at 5 101/2 he is nearer to Hearns height,but his reach was only71 so he is giving away 7 inches.Gavilan and Griffith have to out work Tommy to win .The Kid took the punches of SRR without dropping so he may weather Hearns shots,likewise Griffith beat huge punchers like Fernandez and Dagge and very solid ones like Tiger and Briscoe,the trouble is Hearns isnt just a puncher ,he was a fine boxer too.Realistically only the two Rays beat Tommy

 

I disagree -especially regarding Gavilan.

Gavilan was among the best at killing your rythym and throwing off your timing, he'd jump in and throw beserk combinations, spraying awkward shots from awkward angles, then slide out, coast, steal rounds, loop shots up and over and of course, under. He had incredible endurance and long arms. He combined great skill with great athletic talent, and a granite chin. Those are some serious tools to outbox damn near anyone ever. And remember, Hearns hadn't quite developed into the machine he was when he outboxed Benitez at JMW.

And at 5'11, he's looking in Hearns' eyes -unlike most of Hearns' WW victims.

 

I didn't favor Griffith over him, I was just querying as to why he'd favor fighters with no footage when he writes off Griffith's chances.

And I don't think the Sugars are the only ones with a realistic chance. People know my thoughts on Napoles/Hearns. I consider it about 50/50. A guy like Basilio would be interesting as well.

 

The Cuevas win was very impressive... but Cuevas is not in guys like Booker's league. Cuevas was a shoot-em-up one-dimensional fighter. The Kid, the Cocoa Kid, and Booker were craftsmen.

Absent film, I can't be certain, but the question was "who would be favored" -so I'll stand by my choices based on their era, records, testimony of contemporaries, etc.

As for Griffith, well, I think that you are showing your open-mindedness. I can't see him surviving Hearns -height, lack of firepower, and the Carter factor convince me that he can't.

 

Hearns still has the height, reach, jab, and power advantage. Gavilan was more unorthodox sure, but he wasn't the outboxer Hearns was. From close to mid-range I got the impression that Gavilan was at his best, given his ability to whip out his bolo style punches from different angles, and ability to fight well on ther inside or in the clinch. He could brawl very well, etc. On the outside he was a fine fighter, good jab, good movement, good ability to close the distance fast, but I just don't see him out-boxing Hearns from the outside. It's not as if he has nothing to worry about power-wise just bevause of his great chin either.

And again, the Hearns that destroyed Cuevas at 147 was arguably the best I've ever seen.

 

I really believe that Hearns would slice Carmen up all night from outside. Carmen's tough all right, but he's even shorter than Duran!

 

I don't understand why people rate Hearns as highly as some of them do. Someone previously posted that they have Hearns at #3 all-time at welterweight. H2H Tommy is very, very likely a top 5 in the division's history, but his resume is just not enough to be in the top 5, and he's probably not in my top 10 at 147lbs. The division's just to deep.

The Cuevas win was spectacular, although Cuevas himself isn't a top 20 at welter all time. The only meaningfull guys on his resume at the weight are Cuevas and Randy Sheilds, who went 12 rounds, and Bruce Curry. Some other solid wins over guys like Eddie Gazo, but that's it.

Just to add an addition to the thread, I'd give Luis Rodriguez a solid chance of beating him.