Who wins: Tommy Hearns Vs Henry armstrong at 147?

I rank Henry Armstrong as the second greatest boxer who ever lived, right behind Sugar Ray Robinson. I do not rank Armstrong so highly because I believe he would dominate at welterweight across the ages. I rank him so highly because he was a natural lightweight who was able to compete successfully in multiple division and because his period of brilliance, though short lived, was, with the exception of Robinson's, unparalleled. And while I place Armstrong one of the greatest welterweights of all time, there are several natural welterweights I place ahead of him. Hearns is one of them.

For me to believe Armstrong would be successful against Hearns, I have to believe that Duran, whom I consider the third greatest boxer in history, a phenomenon who was even more successful at higher weights than Armstrong, would have been successful against Hearns at welterweight. I cannot believe this. In 1984, I witnessed an event that made it apparent to me that a small aggressive extremely talented boxer meets almost certain defeat when opposing a tall rangy extremely talented boxer. Hearns was too much for Duran and he would be too much for Armstrong.

I would pick Armstrong over Leonard, Palomino, and Benitez, and would find picking a winner between Armstrong and Griffith, Gavilan, or Napoles difficult. I think Duran's successes against Leonard and Palomino, his crushing defeat at the hands of Hearns, and even his lackluster performance against Benitez give us insight over how well Armstrong would do against some of these fighters. Armstrong and Duran were similar in size. Duran was the more polished boxer. Armstrong was the more tireless. Both were relentless. Armstrong was more likely to have his head in a fight than Duran, which is to say Armstrong was consistently inspired. It's my interpretation of these comparisons that either of these men enjoy the same likelihood of beating Hearns, which is to say victory is highly unlikely.

If but for Hearns' blunder of overtraining for the Leonard fight (and I blame his trainers for this, as well), he would be widely considered one of the best that division has ever produced. As a consequence of that event, Hearns is underrated as a welterweight. I think Robinson could take a peak and healthy Hearns. But it's hard for me to see what other welterweights could. Gavilan? Griffith? Leonard? Leonard was damned smart to avoid Hearns after their fight. Hearns proved he was the better boxer, and his power left Leonard's face in a terrible state. Even a shot Hearns proved to be the better in their belated rematch.

I must confess that I am surprised by the number of commentors who picked Armstrong to knock out Hearns. I really believed when this thread was started it would be almost universally opined that Hearns would be the victor. In fact, I avoided commenting on this thread at first because I though it would be unnecessarily. But after seeing all the responses, I had to throw my views into the ring.

I love Henry Armstrong. But he would be in a world of **** against Thomas Hearns.

 

Peopl might call me crazy, but I don't see this being another beatdown ala Duran. I honestly think Armstrongs relentless pressure will trouble Tommy and I can see him winning. Hearns will have his share of moments, but this is no one-sided contest.

 

Wether he wins or not, and he might very well, i just want to say that Hearns is very likely th most overrated of all here at 147. Cracks me up when people pick him over Robinson.

 

No, but he's FAR smaller and is stylistically made for Hearns, who he'd have no chance closing the distance on without being blasted at every turn. And a natural Lightweight isn't standing up to Hearns's firepower, especially when he's there to be hit all night long (not that it'd be too long anyway), I think that much is pretty obvious. Therefore, Hearns KO1 or 2.

 

Armstrong by KO late on. hearns may have had the edge early on but would have gone eventually

 

I can't quite see how Henry Armstrong is "stylistically made for" Thomas Hearns at all.

Henry Armstrong had a very elusive, herky-jerky style, and was very rough and tough. Lots of skill, attacking from various angles, and moving quickly from one range to another.
Looks like the type of style that would upset the more orthodox style of Hearns.

 

Duran was a beast with an iron chin and look what Hearns did to him!

Hearns is too big, and wins. Maybe by brutal KO.

 

The thing about Hearns is that he could beat anybody you rank above him and potentially lose to those you rank him above.

 

A guy considered one of the best all-time coming forward, in a deep crouch, bobbing and weaving would be really hard for a guy 8" taller to hit. When Armstrong gets close- and he will, because getting close is his game- Hearns was never much fighting inside. His 'inside game' was holding on.
It is possible that Hearns could catch him with a right hand coming but he probably wouldn't and Armstrong would work him over. Tommy would fold by the 8th.

 

The right hand would ruin Armstrong.

 

Armstrong is an ATG, but here he finds his personal kryptonite.

Hearns advantage in height and reach is just too much for Armstrong to deal with.

Sure, Armstrong can try to get inside and take the fight to Tommy. But Tommy is not going to just stay iddle waiting. Tommy is going to dance around Armstrong, keeping the distance while waiting for the right time to land some right hand missiles on Henry.

Thus, in my opinion Armstrong soon or later goes down the same way that Pipino and Duran did.

For me the only possible way for Armstrong to win is if he is able to pull a "Marvin Hagler" and lures a reckless Tommy into brawling territory. If that happens, then all bets are off and Armstrongs has a fighting chance.

 

I think head to head, Hearns arguably starts favourite against any Welterweight in history, barring perhaps the two Sugar Rays. Even though Leonard beat him, the general body of action for 13 rounds in their first fight, as well as the rematch in which Tommy deserved the nod, perhaps indicates that Leonard beating Hearns was the exception and not the rule.

I think Armstrong is just too small and too open defensively. The lad was really little more than a natural Lightweight at best, having to bloat his way up to Welter to fight Ross and regularly coming in at 140 or less for his early title defences in that weight class. Running in at Tommy and trying to make it a rough inside brawl is going to lead to total carnage, I think. Hearns would have a field day with that jab and whipping right hand behind it.

The only way Armstrong could possibly have a chance is if Hearns is having a bit of an off-night and below par performance, I reckon. One thing we do know about Tommy is that you set a high pace and somehow make it to the late stages, he'll tire. Few could throw the leather as alarmingly quickly and aggressively as Hank, so if he can somehow make it a long fight he may well be able to grind Hearns down and stop him, probably while a long way behind on the cards.

But that, to me, is a long shot. I'll take Hearns by KO, mid rounds.

 

Thomas Hearns seems to be a little overrated at welterweight.

 

Good post with which I agree.

 

What was elusive about Armstrong? He was cut to bits in some fights, had to swallow his own blood in one. He was there to hit and before he would be in range Hearns would be jabbing his eyes closed and looking to drop that right hand in.Hearns also had a whipping left hook to the body that would slow Henry up. Armstrong is outsized, out reached, and outpowered here, he gets stopped ala Duran.