Why do people rate Manny Pacquaio over Tommy Hearns on their ATG list???

Pacquiao is the GOAT.

Hearn had size to go along with his power and skills

Pacquiao was undersized and had to rely on his heart.

 

And his speed and power

 

Hearns KO1.

 

Who the **** rates Morrison above Hearns?

 

Ten years later, Pacquiao is still going strong. That's why. If he wasn't greater than Hearns in 2010 he is now.

 

Pacquiao is higher.

In terms of signature wins, Hearns has him beat: Durán, Benítez & Hill > Cotto, Morales & Márquez. Overall is a different story. Pacquiao has a decade more work to go of. Hearns': Durán, Benítez, Hill, Cuavas, Curry, Muangsurin, Kinchen, Shuler, Singletary, Roldan and Andries isn't anywhere near as good as Pacquiao's Márquez 2*, Barrera 2*, Morales 2*, Sasakul, Hussein, Ledwaba, Larios, Solis, Diaz, Del a Hoya, Hatton, Cotto, Clottey, Margarito, Mosley, Bradley 2*, Algieri, Vargas, Broner and Thurman.

Since résumé's already a whitewash, what about weight fluctuations? There's like 6 people ever with an argument over Manny for this, Tommy ain't one. What's more impressive? A fly coming up 35lbs to be the man at WW, or a WW moving up 28lbs to become the man at LHW? Given it's a bigger gap, and weight becomes less absolute the higher you go, Pacquiao is higher.

Pacquiao has been consistently at world level since 1999 so 20 years, Tommy was for 12 years, from 1980 to 92.

Anyway you slice it, except H2H at 147, Pacquiao is higher, which is sad coz I love Tommy and think he's very underrated.

 

I feel Benitez was effected by the cut, he became more aggressive after that and started getting caught.

 

I've always thought that if Hearns hadn't had that hand injury he would've KOed Benítez for that.

 

Decent question, I can say this-- both rank as one of those greats of their era, top 5... with a glaring flaw. Or 2.
While every great had a weakness, it was exactly that, not an out in the open flaw.
Hearns big losses was due to getting starched. 61-5 is a stud record. One can expect to lose if he is taking on the best, which isn't my concern, rather 4 of those losses he got starched.'

While Pac has been KO'd 3x, no biggie....a minor qualm is he has shown that he has always been compromised by the countering style when used effectively. He can't beat that kind of fighter when primed or out of prime like Floyd.
He has 2 glaring flaws as a fighters which are
1. He fights for catchweight titles for me that is taboo. catch a guy at a weight when it is just a fight, not to prove one is a champion of a certain weight.
2. How can any fighter no matter how exciting get excused for 20 years of never unifying a division? A 5x lineal champ who never held 2 major belts simultaneously IMO is a fighter who didn't clean it out. I can't define greatness without the words "clean out the division" or "undisputed"

To me, he was a belt holder in 8 divisions. Now a gladiator when he did, nonetheless single belt per weight class.
I will not raise the integrity of a belt for him then crap all over the belt as an ABC soup title for others.

It's a tough argument, so I don't dispute one being ranked above the other. Rather I dispute either being top 10 in the history of the sport.

 

Check the the

 

Why are making yourself an idiot

 

As far as the Duran win goes, I grade it on a curve. Duran was 20 pounds above his best weight, giving up 6 inches of height, 12 inches of reach, and 7 years of age. Nobody has ever even existed who has those kinds of advantages over Tommy Hearns. Tyson Fury only has a 7 inch reach advantage over Tommy Hearns.

When it comes to evaluating a fighter's victories, I don't just look at the names. I look at the circumstances and context of the fight. Ending the fight with a knockout deserves an A+ versus a decision which is a B a draw which deserves a C a decision loss which is a D or a knockout loss which is an F. So I give Hearns an A+ for his performance but maybe only a C for his opponent. It's not that Duran wasn't still a great fighter at light middleweight and 33 years of age, but the individual match up between them was bad with everything tilted in Hearns favor. If he hadn't of knocked Duran out something would have been wrong. It's like how Whitaker had no business mixing it up with Felix Trinidad, and he wasn't giving as much reach away as Duran to Hearns. What did Felix stand to gain by the match? If he wins, Whitaker is a giant killer, but if Trinidad wins who cares. He's only doing the predictable, what he's supposed to.

With Pac, once he gets to bantamweight/featherweight he's fighting guys roughly his own size. It's a fair fight. What impresses me, is when guys move up and give away reach and height while still winning. He's about two or three divisions too small at welterweight. Hearns never fought anybody his own size until he was a light heavyweight. I tend to grade down fighters who fight with advantages and grade up fighters who are undersized. When I see a little guy like Rigondeaux taking it to a bigger guy like Amagasa, that's what I like to see. That earns my respect. That's the whole concept of boxing and pound for pound in my eyes. How many advantages can you give up and still overcome your opponent? Guys like Hearns or Arguello are never facing the same level of adversity which Pacquiao and Armstrong had to contend with. Tommy Hearns never really proved himself until he fought Virgil Hill and Arguello finally met his Rubicon in Alfredo Escalera. That's when they had to dig deep and show that they could box, that they weren't just coasting on being naturally taller and longer than everyone else.

 

Great post!

 

Longevity.

He is the modern day Duran.

Let me put it into context to get some type of perspective.

When Pacquiao turned pro, I was in Year 4 at school (Grade 4 to Americans). Today, I am 34 years old, married with 3 children. My hair is also thinning and my joints creak. He turned professional in the 1990s and is still going into the 2020's. That's 4 decades of activity and sheer competitiveness in a sport that relies totally on physical ability.

Why did I make the comparison to Duran?

Well, when Roberto Duran turned professional, in 1968, Mike Tyson was TWO years OLD.

When Duran finally retired, in 2002, Mike Tyson was a completely shot fighter and had lived a thousand different lives.

Duran remained competitive at a boxer for 30 years. Most guys peak within a decade, get shot, retire and go home broke and their bodies are broken......

Pacman is still an apex predator.

 

Thomas Hearns is ranked higher @ 147 ATG & 154 ATG

When it comes to P4P ATG its acceptable to put Pacman ahead of Thomas Hearns, Pacman 2019 beat Undefeated Keith Thurman...Pacman 2020 is still actively seeking big fights, so his ATG ranking can only improve