The Hitman

I always believe if Tommy Hearns had of used his boxing brain more and maybe had a stronger chin, he would easily be a top 10 atg.

If he had of fought smarter in the Leonard 1 fight and also the war with Hagler, I believe he would of got wins in both of them. Look what Hearns done to Duran, he absolutely destroyed him. Nobody could do that with Duran. Granted Duran was not in his natural weight class, but you only have to look at how competitve Duran was with Hagler at Middleweight to realise who great that Knockout was.

Also Hearns should have got the decision in the rematch with Leonard. It was a close fight but Tommy definitley won.

I truly believe if Tommy fought the right fight and didnt get involved in brawls he would be near unbeatable form Middleweight down. He was a fantastic athlete and a true freak when it came to speed and power.

Maybe I'm being biased because to be honest he is my favourite of the fab four. (Duran a close second)

Just think he get's a little overlooked compared to the others because of his losses to Leonard and Hagler.

Fantastic fighter to watch and for me on his night is easily one of the very best ever.

With a chin...and better brain...Would outbox anybody
with his natural gifts..

However what the Lord giveth....

I agree Truss, Hearns had all the physical tools. Khan kinda reminds me of a poor mans version of Hearns. Granted he doesn't have quite Hearns attributes of size and power. However he is very fast and is very rangy. He also has a suspect chin and probably not the highest boxing I.Q.

Do have a bit in common...

Hearns a cut above.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Do have a bit in common...

Hearns a cut above.

A hell of a cut above. Tommy "could" beat anyone on his night. Mayweather is a genuis but Hearns is a nightmare for him.

One of the big differences between Hearns and Khan,Tommy was able to take a man out at the highest level Khan doesn't seem to have the power to do that.

Nico the gman wrote:One of the big differences between Hearns and Khan,Tommy was able to take a man out at the highest level Khan doesn't seem to have the power to do that.

Yeah I agree fully. P4P, you would have a lot of trouble finding many bigger hitters than the Hitman.

Imagine his physique and tools with a chin of Margarito and the I.Q of Mayweather. Would be unbeatable at his weight!

Hearns fought a smart fight against Leonard - after Leonard hurt him in the first half he switched tactics and put in a masterful boxing display. Leonard was just a greater fighter.

He had little option but to engage Hagler as Marvelous tore into him from the opening bell. He tried to box in the 3rd but his legs were gone.

Hearns was special as he took risks and tried to knock everyone he faced out. Perhaps the most exciting fighter of all time.

hazharrison wrote:Hearns fought a smart fight against Leonard - after Leonard hurt him in the first half he switched tactics and put in a masterful boxing display. Leonard was just a greater fighter.

He had little option but to engage Hagler as Marvelous tore into him from the opening bell. He tried to box in the 3rd but his legs were gone.

Hearns was special as he took risks and tried to knock everyone he faced out. Perhaps the most exciting fighter of all time.

Leonard wasn't greater in the rematch though can't argue with him being better on the first fight.

Hearns is certainly up there with most exciting ever. You knew he could spark anyone plus he was also vulnerable to be knocked out as well.

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Hearns fought a smart fight against Leonard - after Leonard hurt him in the first half he switched tactics and put in a masterful boxing display. Leonard was just a greater fighter.

He had little option but to engage Hagler as Marvelous tore into him from the opening bell. He tried to box in the 3rd but his legs were gone.

Hearns was special as he took risks and tried to knock everyone he faced out. Perhaps the most exciting fighter of all time.

Leonard wasn't greater in the rematch though can't argue with him being better on the first fight.

Hearns is certainly up there with most exciting ever. You knew he could spark anyone plus he was also vulnerable to be knocked out as well.

Both men were faded by the time they met again. At their best, at their peak - Leonard was better. Hearns, though, would have beaten most welterweights in history.

Barkley 1 was stupid...Hearns was an entertainer like Khan...

Love Khan or hate him, he is rarely in dull fights. Only one i can think off the top of my head is McCloskey, due to Pauls negative tatics.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Barkley 1 was stupid...Hearns was an entertainer like Khan...

He just got caught while on the verge of a stoppage - nothing stupid about it. If he'd have laid off and tried to box and THEN been kayoed - he'd have been crucified.

Hearns was a knockout artist but he wasn't stupid or prone to playing against his strengths. The Khan comparison is odd.

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Barkley 1 was stupid...Hearns was an entertainer like Khan...

He just got caught while on the verge of a stoppage - nothing stupid about it. If he'd have laid off and tried to box and THEN been kayoed - he'd have been crucified.

Hearns was a knockout artist but he wasn't stupid or prone to playing against his strengths. The Khan comparison is odd.

He has similar weakness to Khan and they are both in exciting fights. Wasn't saying they are completely alike

Roldan was stupid too

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Barkley 1 was stupid...Hearns was an entertainer like Khan...

He just got caught while on the verge of a stoppage - nothing stupid about it. If he'd have laid off and tried to box and THEN been kayoed - he'd have been crucified.

Hearns was a knockout artist but he wasn't stupid or prone to playing against his strengths. The Khan comparison is odd.

He has similar weakness to Khan and they are both in exciting fights. Wasn't saying they are completely alike

Hearns didn't hold a shot as well at middleweight (and above) as well as he did at 147. The Hagler defeat - crushing as it was - also appeared to leave a lasting effect. Prior to the Leonard loss, Hearns had never as much as wobbled - even in the gym. Hearns had a good chin in his prime.

Khan is chinny and has been buzzed throughout his career.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Roldan was stupid too

So being hurt with a punch is stupid? Maybe Hearns should have boxed like a wuss and avoided Leonard and Hagler? He'd probably have never lost but he wouldn't be the hero he is today either.

Being caught by a swinging brawler..

Should have boxed behind his jab.

Had a great jab

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:With a chin...and better brain...Would outbox anybody
with his natural gifts..

If only you could get back to Boston, if only you had a brain, if only you had a heart, If only you had the nerve...............


.....................................if only Tommy Hearn's had a chin.

Right..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Right..

I thought you liked movie quotes?

What movie is it ?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What movie is it ?

Follow the yellow brick road...............I changed Kansas for Boston.

My Wife was on it. She had water problems.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:My Wife was on it. She had water problems.

27 years, did you get a chance to sow your wild oats.

Never had any...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Never had any...

Impudent?

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Hearns fought a smart fight against Leonard - after Leonard hurt him in the first half he switched tactics and put in a masterful boxing display. Leonard was just a greater fighter.

He had little option but to engage Hagler as Marvelous tore into him from the opening bell. He tried to box in the 3rd but his legs were gone.

Hearns was special as he took risks and tried to knock everyone he faced out. Perhaps the most exciting fighter of all time.

Leonard wasn't greater in the rematch though can't argue with him being better on the first fight.

Hearns is certainly up there with most exciting ever. You knew he could spark anyone plus he was also vulnerable to be knocked out as well.

Both men were faded by the time they met again. At their best, at their peak - Leonard was better. Hearns, though, would have beaten most welterweights in history.

Do you think that Hearns was at his peak when he fought Leonard the first time? He was only 22 at the time.

Atila wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Hearns fought a smart fight against Leonard - after Leonard hurt him in the first half he switched tactics and put in a masterful boxing display. Leonard was just a greater fighter.

He had little option but to engage Hagler as Marvelous tore into him from the opening bell. He tried to box in the 3rd but his legs were gone.

Hearns was special as he took risks and tried to knock everyone he faced out. Perhaps the most exciting fighter of all time.

Leonard wasn't greater in the rematch though can't argue with him being better on the first fight.

Hearns is certainly up there with most exciting ever. You knew he could spark anyone plus he was also vulnerable to be knocked out as well.

Both men were faded by the time they met again. At their best, at their peak - Leonard was better. Hearns, though, would have beaten most welterweights in history.

Do you think that Hearns was at his peak when he fought Leonard the first time? He was only 22 at the time.

Yes.

Yep I think Hearns was at his peak, Leonard was just one of those great fighters who alway's found a way to win.

Personally I thought Hearns' absolute peak came at 154. He's the apex predator at that weight and it suited his frame much better. Dundee himself said they waited until Hearns grew a bit before taking the fight.

I don't think a 22 year old whose career was mainly walk overs was in his prime. Leonard had the benefit of Duran teaching what being great is all about. It was meant to be Hearns who was shot in the rematch, not Leonard, hence why Leonard actually took the fight. Hearns was coming off bad performances so it got made. Didn't exactly go to Sugar Ray's plan though.

I do love Hearns, he's one of my all time favs but it's a big If regarding the chin and brain. What if Mayweather had Tommy's size and power? What if Chuvalo had his skill, speed and power? A brain and a chin are big attributes to say if about.

His only loss I look at and know he could/should have won was Barkley I. He was hammerin him about and then basically let himself get KTFO'd. One of Manny's finest works, was Tommy.

Never believed that Tommy was chinny, as such. OK, he wasn't Marv or Chuvalo in the whiskers department, but he wasn't Frank Bruno, either. He faced quite a few hitters who weren't able to knock him onto his wallet.

Think you're all spot on about the brain, though. I think Tommy might have been the thickest of all the great fighters, possibly because he was the most extravagantly talented of all of them and mostly didn't have too think too hard about strategy, tactics or anything very cerebral in the ring. The only time that I started to think differently was during his fight against Benitez, which was a master-class, but otherwise, he tended to appear confused on the very rare occasions that life didn't unfold according to a pre-ordained script.

I don't actually believe that Leonard was more talented than Hearns. I do think that he was vastly smarter; in the final analysis, between the ears is where most elite sporting battles are won.

He had a dislocated hand vs Benitez I think. Another of his impressive 154 showings

https://youtu.be/aGKJfst9kL8

Highlights of the fights between the fabulous four, minus the 'no mas' incident for some reason.

I'd have loved to have seen these at the time

I think he was a shambles up top, sports such as the olympics, where you can compete against the clock/distance would have suited Hearns down to the ground, unfortunately he was a boxer, incredibly talented, but he was seriously dim, which as a characteristic should be not be overlooked.

Remember the fight between Hearns and Benitez when Hearns had Benitez on the ropes and Benitez showed why he earned the name radar,Hearns must have thrown 20 punches and landed about 3,great defence from Benitez.

Aye, certainly nobody else ever made Hearns miss (even to the body) the way Benitez did, Nico. Interesting that Benitez, having realised it was just impossible for him to put rounds in the bank against Tommy from range even if he was making him miss often enough, actually had more success when he switched it up at the mid-way stage and fought as the aggressor, taking it to Hearns a bit more. Takes some serious 'nads to try and pressure Tommy like that and go towards that power. Shows how good a switched-on Benitez was, I guess.

The word talented gets thrown around a lot, but it can mean different things to different people. Often for people its a combination of physical attributes, reflexes, hand eye coordination, ability to learn technique quickly.

Was Leonard or hearns the more talented boxer? I'd say Leonard marginally had a better allround skillset, arguably more naturally athletic and better balanced, more fluid and coordinated in his movements, slightly faster hands.

But he couldn't out box hearns, as despite the above Tommy's physical attributes, predominantly the height and reach, nullified all of that. The shoulders and long levers gave him tremendous power. And he had that jab... Natural talent or good schooling to take advantage of physical attributes? Guess it depends how you define these things.

I would err to Leonard being the more naturally talented athlete, but hearns having the better physical attributes as a fighter.... With of course, the two obvious exceptions... Brain and chin.

As an aside, Despite tommy not being the sharpest tool in the box, he didn't do much wrong between the ears in either Leonard fight.

Where has this idea that Hearns was thick come from? It's a strange one. If we're talking general intelligence then I'm sure there are any number of great fighters who'd struggle with the 11 Plus.

As for ring IQ, I don't see it?

A high ring IQ can be undermined by low emotional intelligence, just saying.

hazharrison wrote:Where has this idea that Hearns was thick come from? It's a strange one. If we're talking general intelligence then I'm sure there are any number of great fighters who'd struggle with the 11 Plus.

As for ring IQ, I don't see it?

I agree with you Haz, Hearns didn't lose that many for someone who was supposedly thick.

Tommy never sounded like he was packing a full picnic basket, but I agree, it's hardly like your list of all time great fighters would be queuing up for Mensa membership.

In football they used to say gazza had a good football brain... And sometimes 'intelligence' can be a disadvantage in sport... Too much thinking. Whichever, I guess in boxing we're more interested in ring iq. Can't speak for others but I was comparing tommy to srl. You would say that Leonard was generally a smarter fighter, but it didn't necessarily look that way against tommy, and you could argue, srl fought with his ego not his head against duran in Montreal.

88Chris05 wrote:Aye, certainly nobody else ever made Hearns miss (even to the body) the way Benitez did, Nico. Interesting that Benitez, having realised it was just impossible for him to put rounds in the bank against Tommy from range even if he was making him miss often enough, actually had more success when he switched it up at the mid-way stage and fought as the aggressor, taking it to Hearns a bit more. Takes some serious 'nads to try and pressure Tommy like that and go towards that power. Shows how good a switched-on Benitez was, I guess.

I've always seen that as the only way to beat Hearns. Pressure and be the aggressor, I don't think it's possible to beat Hearns on the backfoot. To knock Hearns out, you had to be willing to get knocked out by Hearns. Also what a staredown!

hazharrison wrote:Where has this idea that Hearns was thick come from? It's a strange one. If we're talking general intelligence then I'm sure there are any number of great fighters who'd struggle with the 11 Plus.

As for ring IQ, I don't see it?

I think it started because some feel that Tommy didn't always use his boxing brain enough...he went looking for the spectacular KO when he should have boxed. However, Tommy had a good trainer, Emanual Steward, so if Tommy used the wrong tactics at times then surely Steward has to take some of the blame.

But for those who think Ray Leonard was so smart, they should remember that until he was rocked by a sparring partner in the build up to the Hagler fight, he too admits that he wanted to fight a different fight against Hagler, a more physical fight.

Fair point Atila, pretty stupid. Had he been a complete f**kwit he'd have started the fight southpaw.

Atila wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Where has this idea that Hearns was thick come from? It's a strange one. If we're talking general intelligence then I'm sure there are any number of great fighters who'd struggle with the 11 Plus.

As for ring IQ, I don't see it?

I think it started because some feel that Tommy didn't always use his boxing brain enough...he went looking for the spectacular KO when he should have boxed. However, Tommy had a good trainer, Emanual Steward, so if Tommy used the wrong tactics at times then surely Steward has to take some of the blame.

But for those who think Ray Leonard was so smart, they should remember that until he was rocked by a sparring partner in the build up to the Hagler fight, he too admits that he wanted to fight a different fight against Hagler, a more physical fight.

Isn't that backing up the opinion that Leonard was a smart fighter, he took into account what happened in sparring and altered his gameplan accordingly, would have been suicide under those circumstances to go in with the same intent as Hearns.

The Hagler fight while exciting is a big negative for Hearns, he decided to neglect his physical advantages and go toe to toe with a proven toughman like Hagler, ridiculous gameplan which is covered up by 'the war' aspect.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:    

Atila wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Where has this idea that Hearns was thick come from? It's a strange one. If we're talking general intelligence then I'm sure there are any number of great fighters who'd struggle with the 11 Plus.

As for ring IQ, I don't see it?

I think it started because some feel that Tommy didn't always use his boxing brain enough...he went looking for the spectacular KO when he should have boxed. However, Tommy had a good trainer, Emanual Steward, so if Tommy used the wrong tactics at times then surely Steward has to take some of the blame.

But for those who think Ray Leonard was so smart, they should remember that until he was rocked by a sparring partner in the build up to the Hagler fight, he too admits that he wanted to fight a different fight against Hagler, a more physical fight.

Isn't that backing up the opinion that Leonard was a smart fighter, he took into account what happened in sparring and altered his gameplan accordingly, would have been suicide under those circumstances to go in with the same intent as Hearns.

The Hagler fight while exciting is a big negative for Hearns, he decided to neglect his physical advantages and go toe to toe with a proven toughman like Hagler, ridiculous gameplan which is covered up by 'the war' aspect.

The point I was making that if Leonard was so smart, or as smart as everyone thinks, he would never have been thinking about going toe-to-toe with Hagler in the first place. That's all.

Sugar Ray Leonard wrote:The fight was getting close, and I’d gotten so strong that I was breaking these sparring partners down. I was feeling so strong; I was going to fight Hagler toe-to-toe. I was sharp. And then, five days before the fight I was sparring Quincy Taylor, and I fell asleep for just a second and he hit me with a shot.

So it seems that even though the toe-to toe tactic didn't work for Hearns, Leonard with all his vast ring smarts, intelligence and with the benefit of watching Hearns previously try this "ridiculous gameplan" against Hagler was going to try exactly the same thing himself?

You say that Leonard is smart because he adjusted his gameplan...fair enough. I say if he was as smart as people think he would never have been thinking of going toe-to-toe in the first place.

He's said since, he was hoping to cut him. If so, frankly an equally bizarre plan. Still not as bizarre as a lefty fighting righty though. Maybe they'd both taken too many punches in their careers by then.

milkyboy wrote:He's said since, he was hoping to cut him. If so, frankly an equally bizarre plan. Still not as bizarre as a lefty fighting righty though. Maybe they'd both taken too many punches in their careers by then.

Not as bizarre as taking six years off, and then coming back to fight someone who had fought 26 times since in those six years. What was so smart about that?

Nothing. That's ego and live of the limelight for. I've actually been highlighting areas of stupidity by Leonard. If you weren't so consumed by your hatred of the man, you might have noticed bud!

Besides if he hadn't come back against camacho, you'd have missed out on the chance to see him get battered.