Who faced the better version of Hearns

Careful it don't topple off that fence, underneath

 

Got you now. We are lucky we know how to 'take' each other. Me thinks if it was a couple of others things wouldn't be so friendly. Your like me, it takes a hell of a lot to get wound up and ferocious on a boxing forum. You're a good lad, one of ESB's finest technicians.

 

Yeah no worries mate, i almost had a wild one with Magoo ages back but we both saw sense really quick and edited and apologised sincerely and all the rest of it. Got on great prior and even better after.

My overall thing is that it's fine to nitpick others small points, as i do often myself, but i try to answer the thread as well at some point.

I wasn't trying to go one up on you or making it a contest with the Hearns fights at 160, just am a stickler for having the facts correct and am happy to learn Hearns struggled to make the weight vs Medal. Knowledge = power.

 

I never thought you were. Cheers for letting me know anyway. It's good for people to let you know 'where they are coming from'.

Speaking of that, I know where you're coming from, down under. :good

 

Precisely.

Hearns' was nursing that right hand since Benitez in '82, and was actually self-conscious about it. Hearns defined himself based on that right cross and if I remember right, he went with calling himself the Motor City Cobra until the Hitman was reborn after Duran.

 

It is hard to say who faced the better Hearns its really subjective. But I will say that both faced a equal version of Hearns. Against Leonard Hearns was weight drained from what I have read/know about the situation. However, against Hagler he broke his right hand and supposedly the massage he received weakened his legs. The best version of Hearns was at 154lbs but the welterweight and middleweight version was damn good too.

 

Imagine Hearns' career without his tenure at 147 and then another example where you discount his career at 160. Which would be rated higher? It's clearly the latter. Barkley was no 'fluke', it was always going to happen sooner or later if Tommy mixed it with quality bigger men. Hearns had a weak chin at middleweight. He was wobbled every time he took a clean shot.

 

Ray Leonard.

 

The first chapter of Hearns' career was probably more distinguished, in that he was undefeated, had clear physical advantages, and was feared. But this thread is about versions, not chapters.

As a WW, Hearns was still developing as a fighter. He had yet to be tried by fire, and when he was (SRL), his Achilles' chin was noted.... then he moved on up. He was a skinny kid with a hellish punch... but he didn't know how to clinch, his balance left much to be desired, and he was not tested. Against Leonard I, he came in at 145 and had a sunken face to match his sunken chest. His ribs were exposed and he had reeds for legs. That body wasn't designed for wars. Sure, he could have eaten up most WWs, but he never would have beaten Leonard at 147 -and probably would have had more problems with other ATGs at 147 than this forum acknowledges. He was operating with bare physical essentials -at the skeletal level.

You say that quality bigger men wobbled him every time they hit him. That isn't completely true. He ate monstrous shots from Hagler at short range in round 1. However, it's more true than not true. I am simply not sure that he wouldn't have been shook up by WWs post-Leonard too... had he stayed in that division. He was stronger at JMW and MW, and as he entered his prime years (mid-20s) I think that he would have been more, not less, susceptible to getting hurt with that skeletal structure.

 

I'm not so certain here. It would have had to happen in a short window due to Hearns potentially growing, but i think after a quick tuneup or two and loads of work in the gym per clinching etc (which they did) and i think Hearns stands a decent chance. He could have paced himself better behind his point scoring jab and been both ahead and fresher in a rematch. Ray would be the favourite but i don't think it's mission impossible.

 

If hearns boxed the entire fight against ray at welter he may have won on points. (like he did v benitez) Remember,he may have expended a lot of energy in the first six rounds stalking ray and going for the big punch...

 

That's a possible scenerio. I'll elaborate though, I don't see Leonard getting by Hearns between 82 and 88, when his frame filled out with muscle mass and he entered his physical prime. As a WW, Leonard would always come on strong at the end... and over 15 rounds, I'm not sure that a welterweight Hearns could take that -especially after he already didn't.

 

Hearns was fine against Leonard at Welter, in fact he never looked better imo.It was the punches crashing into his face that did the damage and it wouldn't have been any different as far as punch resistance goes at any other weight.

Hearns at middle did not control distance nearly as well, nor could he get away with his lack of defence\standing in range with hands by his stomach anywhere near as easily.

 

hagler
he was skinny against leonard and only 21 leonard was the first really good fighter besides a worn torn cuevas and against hagler he was 26 fully grown and in his prime having more expierence behind him
easy question

 

Steward believes and the film suggests, that Hearns never recovered from a left hook to the ribs in round 6 against Leonard. Leonard was beating on his body through round 7 mostly with those hooks and that was what forced Tommy to drop his hands.

Body punches like that to a body that lean are going to be twice as bad.

I don't agree with the distance comment. Watch the Dewitt fight. He's strong and bouncing in rounds 11 and 12 like they were 1 and 2. He was operating like a surgeon on Schuler for as long as it lasted and controlled everything in that fight. He controlled distance very well against Geraldo, McCracken and I'd assume Sutherland as well (didn't see that one).

He didn't control distance well against Hagler, Barkley or Roldan, -although the Roldan fight was an expression of Hearns' love of war. He made it harder than he had to by going toe to toe with a powerful juggernaut in Roldan -and still stopped him in 4. Barkley made him pay for that strategy like Roldan almost did. All three of these fights could have been very different had Hearns been able to tame his own aggression and use his physical advantages behind that jab. I see the Hagler and Barkley fights as strategic errors -not proof that he was physically less of a fighter at 160.