Who faced the better version of Hearns

Because he had a high KO percentage at WW doesn't mean that was his best division. When it comes to raw power and dispatching his opponents in clincial fashion, then yes. I think his boxing ability was better at 154lbs where he was extended the full distance in his first two fights at that weight. I think the LMW version of Hearns was reasonably patient against Benitez. IMO if he faced Bentiez at WW he would probably have not as been as patient and economical with his shots. Hearns was regarded as the puncher going into the Leonard fight, yet he boxed as well as he ever done at WW throughout most of the fight. I think he was a bit more well rounded at LMW.

Yes, he obviously did have more experience at 175, but he wasn't as effective overall. He had slowed down, his power wasn't the same, and he was in with bigger fighters. I think against Hill he boxed as well as he ever done. No way would a 21 year old Hearns' have boxed with that manner and disclipine. Again, back to power. His power at WW probably prevents him from sitting back like he did against Hill. Only when Hearns was hurt against Leonard did he switch tactics and go laterally on the backfoot.

 

Actually it was his third or fourth, depending how pedantically we look at it.

 

I think if Hearns got a sense of what he was up against, which he would've by feeling his opponent out, he would've been just as effective against a fighter of Benitez's caliber as he showed at 154 and above. It's not as if he was wild at the weight or anything, always very controlled, even in his attack.

 

I think you've totally misread his post. He says "above 154" and i think you took it as "at 154". Your reply certainly indicates this.

As for Hearns .500 KO % at 154 (i'd like to see the breakdown, actually), we need to rise above plain stats and boxrec figures and envelope the entire scenario.

Hearns had hand problems early at the weight, breaking his right hand on Benitez' head slightly after the mid rounds i think it was and stated after going the distance with the durable Minchillo that he now had 100% confidence back in the hand. He then nominated the 2nd round for Duran's demise and backed it right up. This is as chilling a KO as just about anything in history and entirely negates any .500 ratio pointing to a lack of power there. He then axed two good fighters, one who had never been stopped before and left the weight.

 

But what advantages does he have at the weight? He didn't seem to have the nimble legs he did at 147, and his chin was never really tested as he didn't fight nearly as long.

 

I know what you mean. Actually his first fight after the Leonard defeat was technically a middleweight fight when he came in at 155 for Singletary. Most people tend to think of that fight as a JMW bout. For McCracken and Sutherland he was very much a middleweight.

You got me on that one. Thinking to fast. I did get you earlier on you saying "We never heard any instances or even whispers of Hearns being weight challenged at 154"

 

Singletary was a fully fledged middleweight. Geraldo too came in at 159.5, regardless of Hearns 153 1/4 etc.

Robbi, for all your posts and debates in this thread i cannot for the life of me find where you have answered the actual thread question yourself. You seem to be hopping around on both sides and mainly worrying about one single point, that of experience. Obviously Hearns had gained experience and Vicks point was mainly that he didn't really use it. But enough of that one.

Who do you think in plain black and white faced the best version of Monsieur Hearns?

 

Ok, you've gone back and added this on after i quoted your post.

I did actually address it yesty but the site froze when i posted it.

Yes i don't doubt your account at all, it's understandable when we see Hearns had been campaigning at 160 for all but two years and had basically left the division behind.

At his best there tho the weight was totally natural and he would never have any problems making it. It was definately his niche IMO.

 

JT. Let me tell you a little story. Now listen to this carefully. I know fine well what the thread question asks. But I picked upon something within posts on the thread and decided to reply on that. All my posts have been dedicated to Thomas Hearns. It's not as if I have suddenly started to talk about Salvador Sanchez out of absolutley nothing within the thread. Im keeping on the subject of Hearns yet drifting away from the main question which started things. Fully aware of that my friend. What is it that exactly bothers you about it? I never thought you would go to trouble on dedicating a post regarding it. If you notice every thread, sometimes others slightly drift away from whats been discussed. Maybe someone shall pick upon a sentence within a post. It happens all the time in threads, yes, all the time.

And regarding Vicks' post, I'm picking him up like this.....He said the experience did Hearns no good against Hagler. Ok, agreed. But the "experience holds no weight" I interpret that as if he's saying that Hearns' wasn't more experienced for Hagler than Leonard. Which he clearly was IMO even though he got blown out earlier. My previous posts make sense on it. Going into the each fight, he was more experienced and seasoned for Hagler.

And to awnser your question. I might soon. Maybe tommorow, maybe next week if this thread is still going then. :good

 

Nope. I actually added that in before you quoted my post because I checked if you had replied after I had added that and you hadn't. Looks like we were doing two things at the same time. You were replying as I was adding.

 

You posted what you did THEN went back and edited. In that time i was answering your original post. I can hardly have quoted what hadn't been posted

By the time i'd replied your adjustment had been added. If we haven't refreshed or changed pages the edit tag doesn't show.

 

I've heard of stating the obvious, but Jeeeeezus!

It's really simple i thought, where do you sit in this discussion?

Trust me, i won't be around hanging on it

:good

 

Huh? I posted, then edited, came back, and you hadn't replied. Then I seen you had replied, but not to my modified post. You drunk? Because I mentioned all this in my last message. I must have been adding the bit in as you were still replying to the original post. Makes sense.

 

When i said i quoted, i didn't mean quoted and posted, i meant quoted as in quoted and was doing my reply - not posted.

Here weeeee go again, us two

 

I'm not sitting anywhere right now apart from a chair designed for desktop PC's. :good