Who was the better BOXER

Tommy Hearns or Ray Leonard.

Seems to me that Leonard gets the plaudits for being a more versitile fighter and Tommy is always branded as a fighter with a special right hand.

but he was more then that. He outboxed Leonard in the 1st fight leaving Leonard with no choice but to take the fight to Hearns in order to win.

Although the fight was short, Hearns totally boxed Duran's ears off before finishing him.

He schooled Benitez as pure a fighter as anyone.

And as for Haglar well he knew better then to get all sweet science with Tommy as that would have been a long hard night for Marvin.

Tommy could not tear it up with the best of them but I never saw the man get outboxed.

So will you, my fellow 606ers, join with me in re writing a major wrong and declaring, from this day on, that Tommy Hearns was the besy boxer of the lot?

Had this debate a few times and I think it just comes down to perspectives. To me Leonard is a more rounded boxer than hearns, but hearns combination of height and reach with that great jab and handspeed, meant that he was able to outbox him.

Does that make hearns a 'better boxer', or just a guy with better physical attributes. Better physical attributes in this context referring to better for outboxing someone.

Personally I think its difficult to separate boxing skills from physical talent, for example its common for folk to wax lyrical about the boxing skills of guys with fast hands.

All semantics at the end of the day.

Boxing is more just jabbing and moving, but when people use the expression out boxed , that's usually what they mean. So whilst Hearns was able to out jab and move way from Leonard for periods of their fight, Leonard ultimately played the better long game, wore him out , shut him down and knocked him out. Better boxing brain, better able to follow a game plan, more tactically astute, better combination puncher. Better boxer. At the end of the day, most fights boils down to who lands more punches, and better punches than the other guy. Truss loves to wheel out his " no one ever out boxed Hearns" line, but the record shows that Barkely won more rounds than Tommy in over their two fights., out fighting and out boxing are ultimately the same thing- it's about winning rounds in a boxing match

Two great posts above from milky and horizontal showing how much grey area there can be in this kind of question. Interesting point of milky's about trying to differentiate between physical gifts and skills. When you think of a Ray Leonard, a Roy Jones, an Ali etc, you can't help but list their blazing speed as one of the biggest parts of their skill set.....But then again guys like Ray Mancini and Acelinho Freitas had plenty of hand speed, but you wouldn't really call them particularly skillful fighters or technicians.

Also like horizontal's argument that the term 'outboxed' has kind of lazily slipped in to a very simplified version. Khan is another guy who has never been outboxed according to popular opinion - so does inside fighting like the kind Peterson used to beat him (albeit I thought Khan was unlucky to lose the decision) not count as outboxing? Food for thought.

With regards to Leonard and Hearns, I struggle to decide either way about who had more 'boxing' talent. Hearns won more rounds, but Leonard did more damage. Hearns had success in those fights because of purely physical gifts / ability, whereas Leonard achieved it with a mix of physical talent and ring IQ / bravery / toughness. You can probable make it fit however you want.

Hearns with a chin and better boxing brain is the greatest boxer of all time..

Most gifted fighter I've ever seen....Tall, long reach, Best jab in boxing, devastating power and lightning fast..

Question for me is a no brainer...

Hearns wins 10/15 segments with any other fighter in history...Problem is his two main problems are big ones..

Won five titles at different weights and still underachieved...

Good post Truss, Hearns had the talent to be one of the very best p4p all time. He beat Leonard in rematch imo. He destroyed Duran like no other. He hurt Hagler though was on the end of a vicious beating.

Tommy had the tools to beat any fighter, the problem was he would get caught and he didn't have the greatest chin ever. If he had a jaw like Hagler, he would of been next to unbeatable imo.

Agree with you both, but those flaws were part of what made him so enjoyable to watch, and ok without them he moves way up the P4p rankings, but beyond anoraks like us lot , who cares-Amongst causual and diehard fans and his popularity is second to none, the probably the most exciting fighter ever, and I wouldn't have wanted it any other way.

Tommy Hearns possibly one of the most exciting fighters ever? My dad had massive respect for all of the fab 4 but he always said he got more excited watching Hearns than the rest.

Aren't the things that allowed Leonard to be more versatile partly down to physical gifts too? Chin and balance for example.

Say they had re-matched directly after, who would you tip for the win? Is it a bit like Froch v Taylor? Would you bank on Froch beating Taylor again a second time had they re-matched directly after? For me Leonard won because he found something else in his arsenal that Tommy didn't quite have. That something falls under my umbrella of being the "better boxer" but it could be mental toughness, better stamina, a focused desperation etc. and not necessarily sublime boxing skill. There was so little between them it's hard to call but yes, I think Leonard won because he was the better boxer.

I think Leonard wins again if they rematched immediately. Truss has a good rematch stat, and whilst you can point to their actual rematch, it was practically two different fighters well beyond their best weight classes.

Certainly tommy could have won an immediate rematch, but Leonard won the first because he had that competitive instinct to up his game when he had to... And in a rematch he'd have the psychological advantage of being the one that got the job done. Not a given, but if you had to bet your life on a winner, you'd bet Leonard again.

They did rematch when Hearns was half dead...and Leonard lost...

Don't know what happens in 82...Probably a stinker...

Probably Lonard..

At 147 I'd back Leonard. At 154 is back Hearns. Didn't Dundee admit they waited for Hearns to outgrow the division before making the fight? Reckon a more filled out, more powerful Tommy who was more comfortable going late takes it. Making a fight of it may be the best way to take Hearns, but each time you do you risk braving the right hand, and nobody could do that with impunity.

Leonard was a smarty pants, reckon if he were confident in beating Hearns in an immediate he wouldn't have waited so many years for Tommy to look shot.

I agree the psychological effects of winning the first encounter would only enhance Leonards chances and reduce Hearns farther. Waiting until Hearns was "half dead" might have benefitted Hearns more than Leonard in the end.

Don't think Hearns was bright enough to let the first fight bother him...

Hearns just seemed to love fighting and had great belief...

Think perversely Hearns would be just as confident second time around..

John Bloody Wayne wrote:At 147 I'd back Leonard. At 154 is back Hearns. Didn't Dundee admit they waited for Hearns to outgrow the division before making the fight? Reckon a more filled out, more powerful Tommy who was more comfortable going late takes it. Making a fight of it may be the best way to take Hearns, but each time you do you risk braving the right hand, and nobody could do that with impunity.

Leonard was a smarty pants, reckon if he were confident in beating Hearns in an immediate he wouldn't have waited so many years for Tommy to look shot.

... Didn't take long for the Leonard knocking to come along johnboy! The duran rematch, the weight drained hearns, the half dead hagler, the drugged up benitez, kalule had a bit of a cold.

Hearns Leonard 1 took place about a year after hearns beat cuevas for his version of the belt. Not sure how much quicker they could have got a unification on.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Don't think Hearns was bright enough to let the first fight bother him...

Hearns just seemed to love fighting and had great belief...

Think perversely Hearns would be just as confident second time around..

Might be true from hearns side... He was always on Leonard's case for another go apparently. From Leonard's perspective, he knew it would be a hard night, but he also knew he could close the show.

Besides, unless there's obviously bucket loads of cash in it, that can't be got elsewhere... It's generally the loser chasing a rematch.

Did an article last year about how Hearns-Leonard II (had it been in 1982/83 rather than 1989, and at 154 where Tommy was headed) and felt that, under those conditions, Hearns would have had enough to take the decision. It's not that I buy in to the idea that the majority hold that Leonard lost a fair bit of his magic at 154, albeit I'd concede he was a better Welter, but it's more that the weight would have favoured Hearns just that little bit more, which might have allowed him to hold on that time. Small margins between them and a change of weight, though it seems trivial being only 7 lb and all, might just have been enough.

JBW, I've never heard Dundee confirm the weight thing, but who knows? Leonard hismelf says in his book that when he saw Tommy on the scales for their first fight he "looked like an African famine victim" and that it was a sight that filled him with extra confidence. But Hearns boxed brilliantly until Leonard switched to brawler and just out-manned him in the championship rounds. I'd be more inclined to say that the weight didn't really play a big part in the outcome, but it's one that can be debated, I guess.

Also worth thinking about the twelve / fifteen rounder thing. Obviously, first time out Hearns was in front after twelve. In the rematch, which was over the new, shorter course, he again won more rounds than Leonard but was also once again really struggling as the fight progressed and looking in trouble in that last round before the bell. Suggests that had Leonard had another three rounds in the return, he might have ended up snatching the vitory away from Tommy between rounds 13 and 15 in the exact same manner as he had done eight years beforehand.

Leonard knew the distance and got decked and battered in the 11th...

If all fights stayed 15....Hagler would have reigned long after 87 ....

Pretty irrelevant..

milkyboy wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:At 147 I'd back Leonard. At 154 is back Hearns. Didn't Dundee admit they waited for Hearns to outgrow the division before making the fight? Reckon a more filled out, more powerful Tommy who was more comfortable going late takes it. Making a fight of it may be the best way to take Hearns, but each time you do you risk braving the right hand, and nobody could do that with impunity.

Leonard was a smarty pants, reckon if he were confident in beating Hearns in an immediate he wouldn't have waited so many years for Tommy to look shot.

... Didn't take long for the Leonard knocking to come along johnboy! The duran rematch, the weight drained hearns, the half dead hagler, the drugged up benitez, kalule had a bit of a cold.

Hearns Leonard 1 took place about a year after hearns beat cuevas for his version of the belt. Not sure how much quicker they could have got a unification on.

According to The Four Kings book a fight was almost lined up while they were both prospects but Dundee wouldn't let it happen, as although at the time popular concensus would have favoured olympic hero Leonard, Dundee thought Sugar wasn't ready for someone so dangerous. Granted the money would have been far less at the time too, I'd presume.

Hearns learned from the first fight and afterwards could sometimes clinch like Wlad when he needed to. Leonard was also the first true elite Hearns faced, whereas Leonard had his graduation against Duran, the fights that turned him into a man.

Leonard's victory was close, Hearns wouldn't need that much more to have scraped over the line, and he'd have a fair bit more at a healthy weight and with greater experience.

Leonard to win a SD on cards of 146-139 131-144 and 150-120 having been jabbed silly for 15 rounds

Yep, Milky and Chris are here.

If it was for 12 rounds and the weigh-in was held the day before the fight like they do now, I'd really fancy Hearns to win.

I seem to remember Dundee yelling into Leonard's ear during their first fight "You're blowing it son, you're blowing it".

Yes, Leonard came on to win the fight deservedly, but it wasn't exactly going to plan.

Milky, years ago I read a book by Reg Gutteridge and he was a fan of Leonard's. Even he suggested that Hearns might have been tight at 147lbs. Just pointing out that you don't have to be knocking Leonard to think Hearns might not have been at his absolute best at 147lbs.

Wouldn't disagree that tommy looked at his best in terms of the balance between power and movement at light middle... Brief stay that it was. Leonard looked slower above welter for me.. Even in his prime against kalule, where he didn't have it easy.

You can say hearns moving up afterwards suggests he was tight at the weight... not surprising given his size and age. You could also argue that the loss forced his hand or brought the inevitable forward

Whichever, certainly a return at light middle would tip the scales more in Tommy's favour as would 12 rounds.