Who do you rank higher all-time p4p: THOMAS HEARNS or JULIO CESAR CHAVEZ?

I give the edge to Hearns. Chavez was the more consistent fighter on the basis of fighting lesser opposition mainly, but Hearns IMO was the more formidable fighter in terms of his ability in the ring. I don't see Chavez faring any better against the level of opponent Hearns lost to, nor do I see him defeating a certain level of fighter than Hearns beat. With consistency taken into account, Chavez gets the edge, but with actual ability taken into account I give Hearns the clear edge. I don't see any edge Chavez would hold as far as accomplishments either when considering Hearns won titles in 6 weight classes.

 

I can see arguments being made for either one of them. If Hearn's had a offical win over Leonard instead of that draw he'd be the only choice here, in my opinion.

 

Hearns more skills but Chavez more endurance, stronger chin.

 

Tommy rates higher for ability, and had more success through the weights, but Chavez did a lot more at 140lbs than Hearns did at any weight. Two of Hearns' losses were to fighters of the highest order, but he still has 3 knockout losses in his prime, where as Chavez was never beaten in his until Whitaker and he was already past his absolute peak. I think their resumes are of similar value. Tommy has far more impressive top level wins, but after that his resume gets thin quick. Chavez' resume was no worse than his IMO.

I think you could argue the case for either fighter, it just depends on what your criteria for ranking fighters is and how strict it is. For me, I generally have Chavez a few spots higher.

 

I don't see a near prime Chavez losing twice (once by devastating KO) to an Iran Barkley level fighter.

Also, I think Chavez beats anyone Hearns beats if we are talking equivalent weights.

E.g. an 130 pound Cuevas, Chavez beats but via a longer route. An 126-130pound Benitez, Chavez would beat at 135. Chavez beats a past prime Duran assuming Duran was a natural featherweight and the fight was taking place at 135 or 140.

I also see Chavez doing better against an 140 pound version of Hagler than what Hearns did against Hagler. Chavez probably loses against an 130-35 pound version of Ray Leonard, and wouldn't put up the performance Hearns did, but it would still be a competitive bout imo.

 

Yeah, just beaten by Frankie Randell twice, more or less. :huh

A motivated prime Barkley is dangerous to anyone. He brought some of the best in the world to close decisions, Nunn and Duran included.

 

Is Frankie Randall an Iran Barkley level fighter?

 

In terms of ability Hearns is a long way ahead, in terms of wins he clearly has the better ones

Leonard (robbery) v Meldrick Taylor (arguable robbery)
Benitez v Hector Camacho
Duran v Ramirez
Virgil Hill v Roger Mayweather
Cuevas v Rosario
Andrias v Haugen
Roldan v Lockridge

Hearns has more prime losses but faced better competition, he also has the worse near prime loss (Barkley)

 

Would Chavez destroy a 130lb Cuevas, beat shrunk 140lb versions of Benitez and Duran, and a 154lb shrunk verisions of Virgil Hill and Andries?

Would Hearns beat 130-140lb versions of Chavez's comp? I think he would and possibly beats a 168lb verision of Pernel Whitaker (enlarged Pernel himself starting at 154 and being a small 168lber)

 

My motivation to post with any meaningful analysis is low at the moment. However, anyone around not a fan of Hearns? Just taking into account his style of pure boxing ability combined with his lethal power I can't see why he doesn't tick the appropriate boxes for everyone.

Perhaps fans of the brawling types, Marciano, Frazier, LaMotta, etc, might not be particularly keen on him.

 

To follow the analogy Benitez has to be naturally smaller than Chavez, and even if they are the same size, or even at 140, I'd probably still pick Chavez to win. Same deal with Duran, and Chavez beats a smaller, past prime Duran. As I said, Chavez beats an 130 pound Cuevas equivalent.

Chavez never even went to 154 so I can't say he beats 154 versions of Hill and Andreis. As an aside, I don't think Hearns beat Hill (scored it a draw), but to be competitive alone is quite an accomplishment, and does add to Hearns' greatness.

Hearns facing a same size Whitaker a little past his absolute best will be close, probably closer than Chavez got to Whitaker, but I'm tempted to pick Whitaker to find a way to win. Picture a more active version of Benitez against a Hearns a little bit less sharp than he was against Benitez, and you can see where i'm coming from.

Against the rest of Chavez's comp, Hearns probably beats them all, but I wouldn't discount an upset loss along the way. E.g. Chavez beat Roger Mayweather twice and Edwin Rosario once. I wouldn't be surprised if Hearns lost a fight there if he had those three fights, though i certainly wouldn't pick against him in any of them.

 

There's a difference between being on someones level as opposed to equally if not more "dangerous".

Just because Hearn's had a more exploitable singular weakness then any Chavez possessed and it was exposed by Barkley doesn't mean he's any less a fighter then Chavez.

 

Let me correct what I said here. Hearns was not near prime for Iran the second time round.