Who do you rate higher p4p? Ross or Hearns?

I still can't figure out if PP was just having a laugh about McClarnin and Cuevas...My head hurts.

Yeah...it's like they can't read the title of the thread where it says "p4p"...:-( I'm disappointed by the Classic crowd for this.

I think I probably do have them closer than most as well, although not in the same spots you have them. For some of the reasons PP listed, Hearns gets underrated, I think. Me, MAG and PP seem to be the only ones who bother mentioning the Hill win, for instance, which I find puzzling. I think that's a hell of an accomplishment that only gets obscured by the star quality aspect of his resume. When you've got Duran and Benitez on your resume, people forget about guys like Hill who were pretty damn good.

 

Hill was defintily one of his best wins. And yeah Hearns was a f*cking awesome fighter. Just not quite up there with the true elite unlike some guys he shared an era with - Duran, Leonard - or the guy we are talking about here, Ross - or Canzi or McLarnin.

The guys mentioned here I rank:
01. Armstrong (can be ranked as high as 1 and as low as 5)

08. Duran (can be ranked as high as 8 and as low as 18 )
12. Ross (can be ranked as high as 8 and as low as 18 )
14. Canzoneri (can be ranked as high as 8 and as low as 18 )
15. Leonard (can be ranked as high as 8 and as low as 18 )

19. McLarnin (can be ranked as high as 19 and as low as 23)

24. Kid Chocolate (can be ranked as high as 24 and as low as 29)

40. Hearns (can be ranked as high as 36 and as low as 40)

45. Hagler (can be ranked as high as 41 and as low as 45)

50. Ambers (can be ranked as high as 49 and as low as 50)

 

1. Serious as cancer, they are similar types of fighter with similar strengths/weaknesses, McClarnin's record has more depth but on film Cuevas looks better to me, many people rate Cuevas very highly H2H at the weight, I'm not 1 of them tbf. Both men beat better boxers by walking through them to land big punches (which is why I'm not really a fan of either). Ability level is still up there so as a WW win its comparable. No I don't really rate McClarnin, Ross I rate highly

2. Assessing ability and quality of the era is a part of the P4P equation, and if they fought at the same weights looking at head to head is part of that.

3. Agreed

 

Yea not quite up there with 2 guys he beat :nut

 

Indeed. If you assess his win over Duran, you´ll see why. And Leonard, well, Schmeling beat Louis. Does this put him in the same class?

 

This would make sense if Hearns didn't have the same resume depth, he did, plenty more depth than Leonard, so you're spouting BS yet again

 

Hearns does not have a resume as good as Leonard. He lost to Leonard, Hagler - no shame but still - and Barkley in his prime. Leonard only to Duran and he avenged that one. But yeah, keep insulting, always funny when posters do that. Shows the strength of their argument. :thumbsup

 

You seem to think a lot about me, don´t ya? :hey

 

Saying what you write is BS is not an insult it's factual. Leonard's resume is nowhere near as deep as Hearns. Leonard has the better win at 160 by far and 147, Hearns has the far superior wins at 154, 168, 175

Hearns was not prime against Barkley, which yet again show's your complete ignorance

 

yeah, whatever you say ... sorry but I can´t be bothered talking to a wall. Same thing every time. It´s kinda boring.

Just so much, there is some truth in what you wrote, it´s still not right.

 

I'm tempted to read this thread, but I know I'll regret it, so I won't.

 

My prior post was 100% truth and beyond debate :deal 'its boring' because you constantly get owned by the facts

 

If the thread is about P4P it's a tough call ... Ross was more solid across the board while Hearns was more explosive ... even at welter, Tommy's chin and stamina were questionable. He left the division too early to leave a huge mark at the weight but if you remember the Harold Weston, Randy Shield and of course Ray Leonard fights you know Hearn's had his doubters ... still, what Tommy did accomplish in his career was very impressive .. both deserve a huge amount of credit. I have not studied enough film of Ross to comment more than that ... I do know that the men he fought were a very talented, brutally tough group .. that era was something ...

 

I agree with you. Hearns had a much deeper resume than Leonard by far. These guys are ranking resume by who he beat in superfights rather than actually opponents and the level he fought at in every division, which Hearns easily beats Ray.

Tommy beat Cuevas for his first title, and fought Ray at welterweight as well as other guys like Bruce Curry. He fought Benitez for his second title at 154 and Roberto Duran, stopping Roberto in Caesars Palace. At middleweight he fought Hagler in a great war and later won the title beating Roldan and then you have all his fights at that weight vs. Shuler and others. He won the WBO title at 168 beating Kinchen, and at 175 he won his first title at light heavyweight against Dennis Andries, and then 4 years later beating the best light heavyweight of that era who was undefeated and had 10 title defenses Virgil Hill.
Ray does not have these guys on his resume. Ray has wins over Hearns,Duran,Benitez,Hagler which is what he is known for, but when he was retired for 5 years, Hearns kept fighting and fighting great fighters in his prime. His career is deeper and longer and in my mind more diverse. I give Ray credit. Great wins, but not as long a career as Hearns. Hearns had almost 70 fights, Ray only 40.