Who do you favour to beat a Prime Hearns @ Welterweight

I posted the footage to be analyzed from a standpoint of watching the fighters and their skills. The fact that a matchup is even doesn't have to make both fighters look relatively mediocre(in comparison to the Hearns footage). Curry/Starling and Whitaker/McGirt were much higher skilled bouts at WW IMO, and they were pretty much even. I'm watching the skills shown in the footage, not the closeness of the bout.

 

The same can be said of Hearns at 160. However, nobody would argue that he was more effective there.

All in all I agree that Hearns was probably better in the ways you've mentioned at 154, but I believe his weaknesses were always the same, no matter the weight.

 

When? Leonard landed on Hearns and hurt him at two points in the bout because he was able to pressure and take everything Hearns had in return. Oscar is no Ray Leonard. A small puncher's chance is all I'd give him.

 

I don't see either Ross or McLarnin looking "mediocre" in that film. Not at all. It was a tactical bout, but there are all kinds of skills on display. Much like Hagler-Duran actually.

Devestating KOs are not necessarily -in fact are usually not- demonstrations of high skill. What they are is a demonstration of punching power, speed, and timing.

 

Nor did I say anything about 160. It all came together for him at 154, and the weaknesses he had at WW -despite his record of KOs- were less so than they were at 154.

 

It wasn't simply the KO that impressed me about Hearns in that footage, it was his completely flawless performance up until then and the amazing abilities he showed. I've seen better tactical matchups than the Ross/McLarnin bout as well, as I mentioned.

 

I own that fight and it's a beauty. Cuevas was shocked and awed. And Hearns confirmed his power again 4 years later on Duran ... and then again on Schuler... and many times throughout his career.

Dangerous dude, but with vulnerabilities that could be exploited by greats with the right tools...

 

anyone who attempts to claim hearns was weight drained at 147lb is very misinformed because there is a ring magazine interview that has posted here several times of hearns admitting he naturally weighed around 147 and had no trouble making weight. I believe tommy himself over you.

 

Arguably Tommy's best performance was against Shuler, at 160. You can't argue that Hearns looked tremendous that night, against limited opposition by all-time-great standards admittedly.

 

He looked fantastic... but like Cuevas, it wasn't a great measure of how effective he was because it was over so fast. He carried that shot to the MWs, that's for sure.

I tend to believe that Hearns was at his best at JMW -the wins over Benitez and Duran are the best of his career. And his opposition weren't quite as large and durable as MWs, and he was about 25 years old -when the athletic powers of a boxer are peaking. Experience wise, well it was considerable already.

At MW though, he seemed almost as effective. The Hagler loss notwithstanding.

 

My list of welters beating a prime Hearns is pretty short...Hearns could not only punch lights out...He was a great pure boxer utilizing that height and reach. He is a hellish prospect for any welterweight who ever lived.

SRR - Ray may well be behind Hearns on the cards, but SRR would catch him at the mid point of the fight. But Ray may get knocked down in the process.

Charley Burley- If Burley is not active enough, it is possible Thomas would outpoint Burley...Hearns' jab gives Burley problems as it would anybody.

Ray Leonard- He did once...

Kid Gavilan- Maybe Gavilan belongs on the lower teir...In the 'tough to calls'. My reasoning for putting him in the favored position, is his chin and in his style. With that chin, he is one of the few who could go simply straight at Hearns with that furious punching...It would be a great fight for sure

These are tough ones to call IMHO.

* Jose Napoles- At his best, could possibly get inside on Hearns with those incredible reflexes...and if he gets inside he would do damage. getting there would be the hard part. Napoles is regarded as a better puncher than Leonard by Armando Muniz.
* Luis Rodriguez- an amazing weterweight who was very slick and mobile. May just have the ingredients to beat Hearns just as Leonard did. Tough and very underated fighter. This guy is one of the great welters. Often overlooked.
*Emile Griffith- Fantastic record. He fought everyone in a long career. Would cause Hearns problems with physical inside fighting. One of the fights that stand out to me is his performance against the great Monzon in the rematch fight. He adjusted the distance he fought Monzon at, after being TKOed in the first fight...and pushed a close affair while well past his best in the second.

 

I'd favour only Robinson and Leonard. Close calls, but I think Hearns wins: Griffith, Napoles, Walcott and Gavilan. Ross would be very game, but loses a decision. I wouldn't give De La Hoya much of a chance at all personally, how exactly would he do it?

 

I'm surprised Trinidad hasn't popped up yet as at least a possibility. He wouldn't be winning a decision of course, but he had gameplan altering power at the weight.

Him and Basilio would be my two intriguing matchups vs Hearns for now. I can't say I'd necessarily favor either, but I'd like to see how those would've gone down.