Who is the greater figther: RJJ or Thomas Hearns

YOU HAVE EVERY RING MAGAZINE WOW AMAZING YOUR AWESOME!!!
I JUST WATCHED BENITEZ VS HEARNS NO WHERE IN THE FIGHT DO I SEE AN ARGUMENT THAT HEARNS LOST NO SHOT CANT FIND THE FIGHT WITH HILL BUT HE AINT LOSE THAT EITHER I NO THIS BECAUSE HE GOT THE WIN DOESNT REALLY MATTER WHAT HAPPEND CAUSE IF HE GOT THE W HE WON CLEARLY ENOUGH FOR ME ND AGAIN JONES GOT KNOCKED OUT BY GLEN JOHNSON HE HAD 9 LOSSES WHEN JONES LOST TO HIM NOW HE GOT WHAT 12 OR 13 POINT IS HEARNS OUTSHINES JONES COMPLETLY

 

**** in hell , tommy didnt duck ANYONE, how the hell is he loosing this vote ?

Rjj ducked dived and fought road sweepers, (but most of them were american so that makes it ok?).

jesus, roy was a great fighter, but does not have the competition level that Tommy does, despite tommys loss's.

 

There are people here so brainwashed by the Roy Jones hype machine there is no hope for them. Hearns fought everyone did not duck anyone took big time risks etc. Hs resume shits all over Roy's and it is not even close.

 

Tommy fought the best opposition so I'm going with him. Talentwise very tricky to call.

 

Two points which spring to mind right away:

- Are you ****ing kidding me?! You have Joe Calzaghe in your avatar, you defend him all over the place, and you are criticizing Roy Jones for ducking and fighting roadsweepers?!?!?!!?!? You have to be joking surely to Christ.

- When are you going to stop playing the tired and pathetic nationality card at every turn? It really does you no credit. I am from the UK and I'm embarrassed when people keep harping on about how oppressed we are by these nasty US fans. Just state your point and leave that garbage out of it for **** sake.

And regarding the actual thread, I posted this earlier:

It's so easy just to automatically say the fighter from the 1980s had the better resume.

Hearns did have the better resume in this case, but it is not as clear-cut as you think.

Hearns top 5 wins were Duran, Benitez, Cuevas, Virgil Hill, and...

Andries? DeWitt? Someone else? You see, Hearns's resume does not contain that many great wins.


Jones Jr's top 5 wins were Toney, Hopkins, Griffin II, Ruiz, and Tarver.

But there was also a great KO win over Virgil Hill.


As I said, in this comparison Hearns's resume IS better, but not by too much. Hearns never beat the best fighters on his resume (Hagler and Leonard), and got stopped by Iran Barkley when he was 29.

Jones Jr fought in an era where there were not so many great names to fight, but he still managed some very good wins, and one truly great win v Toney, which was better than anything on Hearns's resume other than Duran and maybe Benitez.

 

big fan of both but its hearns

 

I believe Hearns has the better resume and the only fighter he should have fought is McCallum while Roy failed to fight a long list of fighters.

 

Does ability not come into your thinking before who either guy didn't fight?

 

I think Hearns has the better resume even if he has some losses. He fought the better competition.

While Jones did face great competition early on at 160-168 I think that after a while at 175 he really seemed content to face whomever the belt organizations threw at him. He could have done more to make bigger fights. Hearns jumped weight classes to fight big names, Roy could have moved around a bit instead of fighting second rate 175lbers.

 

Just to clear this up, Joe is in my avatar due to hatton being in it. i dont defend joe "all over the place", i think he is a good boxer, but i am certainly not a HUGE fan.

in fact i said on ESB that Lacy the hype (that i bought right in to) was going to beat joe due to being "weight drained", how ****ing stupid did i feel the next day.

as for the rest mate, opinions are like assholes, we both have one

I am aware resume's are not always the be all and end all, but in Tommys case he had to deal with SO MUCH class in the divisions he roamed that you cant discount it, losses or not.

Roy had a Era really where he had no equals, that isnt just down to how good he was that was down to who he fought and when he fought them, he never for Gerrald Mc, Nigel Benn, Eubank or Collins. At light heavy he never went near DM.

i am not debating if he would have won these or not, all i am saying is the fights didnt happen and due to that we will never know how good he was, all he is remembered for now in MY opinion was having great skillz being fun to watch and not having anyone to rubb up against and also, gettting KTFO by tarver who frankly shouldnt be fit to lace his boots.

As for the ray lenord fight for hearns, he won that i dont care what any judge says history calls me a lier but my tape says different, and so does ray lenord. (not the KO obviously).

The duran win alone is better than anything roy did, including his win over a stupidly drained toney.

/Theo.

PS: besides, tommy was my boy growing up, i cant ever think stright about this subject

 

The only thing I'm reading from every person voting for Hearns is that his resume is better, so he was better. And yet no-one is saying WHY.

As I have said earlier on this thread, I do think that Hearns's resume is slightly better myself, but I don't see it as being so so much better that it must be the deciding factor.

No-one has addressed these points:

Hearns top 5 wins were Duran, Benitez, Cuevas, Virgil Hill, and...

Andries? DeWitt? Someone else? You see, Hearns's resume does not contain that many great wins.

Jones Jr's top 5 wins were Toney, Hopkins, Griffin II, Ruiz, and Tarver.

But there was also a great KO win over Virgil Hill.


Hearns never beat the best fighters on his resume (Hagler and Leonard), and got stopped by Iran Barkley when he was 29.


I think Hearns's resume was better, but I think at his peak Jones Jr was a better fighter all-round, and that when you look at both factors, RJJ has to come out on top. They would both be pretty close in an all-time top 100 though, this is a great comparison for a poll IMO.

 

Well, I donßt take speculation like h2h into account or who looked better in film. It´s all about accomplishments, resume, longevity and things like that.

 

Nope Toney wasn´t a greater win than Benitez or Duran. Toney was a shell in there, he was so ****in' weight-drained.

Jones missed so many fighters from smw to hw, I don´t they he ducked them but Jones was supposed to be a top10 atg and he ****ed it up by chasing money instead of glory. If he would have wanted he would have made many of those fights happen but he didn´t and imo that knocks him down a bit.

 

Not with me. I don´t take ability into account. I mean Judah has great abilities should he be ranked before somebody like Fullmer who hadn´t as many because of that?

 

I still disagree, but this is a good post mate.

Couple of points: If you are going to denigrate Jones Jr's win over Toney for Toney being weight-drained (despite Toney's last fight before Jones was a KO win over Prince Charles Williams 4 months earlier where he wasn't said to be weight-drained), then Hearns's win over Roberto Duran must be denigrated also.

Duran was a natural lightweight who first won the world lightweight title in 1972. He fought Hearns at light-middleweight in 1984 the day before his 34th birthday, and coming off a defeat to Hagler.

You see, any win can be belittled if you try hard enough. Toney was p4p#2 in Nov 1994. He was the IBF supermiddleweight champion and was unbeaten in 46 fights. Two men got into the ring that night, Jones was electrifying, Jones won. Simple as that.

It was not RJJ's fault he never got to fight Gerald McClennan, and I don't think the fact he never fought Benn or Eubank really count against him, as if you look at the performances of all three in the mid 1990s when they would have fought, it would have been a demolition job for RJJ.

Wins over Collins and Michaelczewski would have improved his resume yes, but Jones was clearly a superior fighter to both. It's not like he never fought Hopkins or Toney. Jones never fought Collins or Michaelczewski, but Hearns never fought Pryor or McCallum.


As I said though, good post amigo. We respectfully disagree on this one.