Would you pick any Lightweights to beat Tommy Hearns?

I don't like commenting on Duran anymore because it causes more discussion. I think what gets to me are the excuses, it is not about Duran as a fighter. Excuses are not the best thing. They take away from the winner, and a win over Duran is big. I didn't even like the excuses Kovalev had. He signed the fight. Yet that fight was made quickly.

If a guy loses he loses. Duran sure won enough, so he was bound to lose. Tommy lost to Hagler. I never bought the weak legs excuse. I don't get it. Why would someone massage his legs in that fight and weaken them but not massage them for Benitez? Or Duran a year before. Somehow he was massaged before Hagler and it worked into his excuse.

As for Hearns vs. Duran. Duran was a great fighter, but you guys really think Hearns knocked him out with one punch? That was not a one punch knockout. The last punch landed and Tommy got it off because Duran was dazed. Duran wouldn't have fallen for that jab to the body if he were not dazed. The punches started landing in round one after a counter left hand which then backed up Duran and led to Tommy landing his other punches.

 

You put this into words well. Hearns dismantled Duran

 

About the thread. It would be hard to beat Hearns at welterweight or anyone below. They would need the speed to offset his speed and to ellude his punches, then they would need to counter him when he was landing or come on when he got tired later. He was his worst enemy in that case because he was usually hit when he was trying to land.. Sometimes he did well with defensive guys because he would just settle for working the jab and winning decision. Sometimes when he landed he would go for the knockout and leave himself open. Floyd is an interesting fight because if Tommy fought him to outbox him he wins easily. But he might start to land and leave himself open. I think he would beat Floyd, but maybe Floyd is the guy. I think Tommy had the style to beat him, but speed is always the thing which can win fights. Floyd had it. I don't know if Floyd would have fought him.. He always handpicked guys at the right time.

 

Ya he had a 2 year lay off and was up around 153 for that fight I believe, so he was carrying around that extra weight. .. I too think Packey has a shot. Fast a foot and moved like a ghost in the ring .. I think he can get inside and was Cagey enough to put up one hell of a fight .. Grew up in the Stockyards fighting, so brawling was just another walk in the park for him.

 

The disinterested, past prime and partied out opponent who showed up for Hearns was nothing of the lightweight terror of the 1970's.

 

Love this part. So true. It's like when people say Pipino was china chinned. Jeez, Hearns hit him with 2000 flush rt hand and lefts to finally put him down. No welterweight in all the yrs since Aug. 1980 takes half of what Pipino took and kept before he was demolished. No way. Great analysis P.

 

He had 33 year old Duran's #. Different age, different division. Hearns was at his strongest @154. He had experience as well.
We all know Duran was a different kind of fighter in his 20s. Hearns would probably get stopped. The deeper the fight goes more his legs turn to spaghetti.

 

Exactly.
Hearns could beat him but he probably wouldn't. The Duran who beat Brooks, Palomino and Ray Leonard would be a different fight.
Its insane to say he wouldn't have a realistic shot. That's the internet thought. Tommy Hearns beats everybody on paper.

 

How old was Hearns?

 

I don't think so. To beat Hearns you cannot get hit by him, and Duran would always get hit. He had a good bobbing and weaving coming in and he was a master at getting range and getting his punches in, when in range... Leonard jab was not that successful against him but Hearns always would be. Hearns had a 78 1/2 inch reach. Hearns was not in Duran's range, which is Duran at his best. I don't see Duran being that lightweight who could beat Hearns. He wasn't. He was stopped in a 2 round wipe out to use accurate phrasing. That is not really an example to show he had a chance against Hearns ever. Excuses aside. Hearns jabbed him and countered him when he stepped inside and hit him cleanly. Hearns was not the guy for Duran to beat. His punches were too straight and his speed and reach too much.

Either you avoided his punches for the most part or you came at him and took his clean shots and threw back like Hagler. Hagler was a solid middleweight who gambled and he was still cut up and rocked. What if Tommy did not break his hand. Hagler was stick a natural middleweight, but he might have been rocked again and again and slowed down his movement. I think Hearns always hurts Duran and stops him. Maybe not in round 2 at welterweight, but I always said round 4 at welterweight, and later at 168 had they fought at 168 I think it goes 6 or 7 with Hearns winning by TKO. Duran did not bend under the punches he stood straight up and he absorbed good punches, but to say oh he would win if this or that. Even against Ray he took Ray's punches. Well he did not beat Benitez when Wilfred demonstrated speed and when Ray used his boxing skills and speed he did not beat him.

Duran is not the lightweight who would beat Hearns. And it was demonstrated in a big way in June of 1984.

 

So now the excuses? Well ok. Hearns was 25. So Hearns being great and fast had nothing to do with it? I don't remember anyone ever putting Duran on his face the way Hearns did. Ever. And he knocked down Duran 2 times in round one prior to this. although the second knockdown was sort of a off balance since Duran came off the ground a little. Even in the year 2001 when he last fought. It had a lot to do with Hearns.

How old was Duran when he fought Benitez? 30. What is the excuse there? And remember this, when Hearns beat Hill. Virgil Hill was 26... How old was Hearns? Yes he was 32. The same age Duran was when he fought Hearns, and yet Hearns beat Virgil Hill at 175 pounds and Virgil was undefeated with 10 title defenses.

Some credit has to be given to Hearns for beating Duran. In the 17 years and 35 fights Duran was a professional after Hearns beat him, how many guys beat him like Hearns did.? None not close. Joppy stopped him by TKO 14 years later for the title. 14 years! This is why the excuses are not valid

He lost because of Hearns not because of Duran. Shuler lost because of Hearns. Hill lost because of Hearns. Cuevas lost because of Hearns. Benitez also and the list goes on. Give fighters their just do. If that were another fighter who stopped him and he was stopped after that you could say this, but Thomas Hearns? The man was great and he was known for knocking guys out and he knocked out Duran. And I don't think Duran would have beaten him at any weight. He will still be hit, and he didn't take the punches of a 6-1 1/2 78 inch reach guy too well.

 

It was a good weight for him, but at that point he had gone the distance in his last 3 fights. Benitez 15 rounds, Sutherland 10 and Luigi Minchillo 12. I don't think Duran with his style ever could beat Hearns. That is not in the cards. He could beat Ray and I won't get into my theory on that and Ray did not stop him. But I remember before the Duran fight someone said "you predict you will stop him in 2 rounds. Leonard couldn't" And Hearns laughed and said " I punch much harder than Ray and you will see this" Emanuel had a plan as he said. Hearns was going to fight tall and throw a lot of punches. It was a gameplan against Duran.

 

As well as guys in Duran's range were open to his punches, the same was said about Hearns. Most guys in his range got hit. Which is why the guys who beat him were all cut up or swollen somehow. They had to take punches to beat him. All of them.

 

The Ike Williams and Benny Leonard shout outs seem like reasonable possibilities to me but the only guy fighting at lightweight that I give a better-than-average chance of beating a welterweight Hearns is early career SRR. That's pretty much it.

 

Heavens no.