Thomas Hearns - History has no right to be so unkind !!!

I think Tommy Hearns with a chin is the greatest fighter that ever lived...Brilliant quick jab (outboxed Leonard twice with it)..Deadliest straight right hand I've ever seen...Great heart.. Great Footwork and out of all the fab 4 the nicest and most fan friendly..

But Hearns despite Cuevas..Benitez..Shuler...Duran and probably the greatest win Virgil Hill who was a record breaker at 175 gets sullied by two defeats.

Leonard 1..Yes a desperate Leonard overcame him and yes Hearns did avenge it later on when Leonard was older and gets no credit for it  ...But Ali had to wait for Foreman to eviscorate Frazier for revenge..Would Ali have won a rematch before Frazier v Foreman ??.

Does anyone hold Jones Jr against Hopkins ??..

Hearns was mastering Leonard in his fight, the two above weren't mastering their opponents and Leonard will go down higher as an opponent than Jones and Frazier.

2. Hagler....Hearns was a welter and many welters lost to 160 champions (Napoles) and they didn't have the excuse of fighting the wrong fight...We also know Hearns knocked out the number 1 WBA and WBC contender 11 months later only for Hagler to say Hearns didn't deserve a rematch but Leonard who hadn't fought for 4 years deserved a match...The untested Mugabi whose best result was James Green was his previous defence..

Hagler drew with Vito (9-6 yes but he opened the door for it) fought mainly stiffs at 160 for 7 years...Sneaked past a blown up lightweight in 83...None of his wins bar Hearns himself are as good as Cuevas...Benitez...Hill and Duran (154)..Yet Hagler tends to be included in top 20 lists...some top 10..Hearns ranked much lower... Hearns also beat an older Leonard that had fought in four years...

Not crapping on Marv (wonderful fighter and champ)...Love Marv and think he deserves top 20...Just comparing the two...He also lost twice before he became Champion..Let's be honest had Hagler lost to Spinks at 175 it wouldn't have affected his ranking and that is pretty much the same rise as welter to middle..Plus the fact Spinks often came in at 171..

Shame Hearns is regarded lower than Marv.. He really shouldn't be..

An interesting question Truss and not sure there's a correct answer per se, more a case of what you prefer. Hagler's dominance at Middleweight or Hearns weight hopping albeit with mixed results, i've always tended to rate Hagler a fair bit higher and that boils down to Iran Barkley particularly that Middleweight fight. The Virgil Hill win is out of the top drawer, he also doesn't get the credit he deserves for emancipating Andries.

Hearns' has a fairly impressive win column, definitely better than Marv's title reign but those Philly fights shouldn't be discounted, that he came out of that head and shoulders above the rest is quite telling. I've always been torn on the multi weight thing, when the champion above is Spinks and you're not struggling to make weight I can understand why you wouldn't bother as Monzon didn't with Foster but on the flipside lesser fights did attempt it.

Tommy Hearns was by far my favourite of the "Fab 4". More than a match for most he faced and a handful for everyone opposite him.

A Hearns with a chin is a fearsome proposition Truss. I think that he should indeed be rated higher than he is. I wonder if part of the supposed snobbery against him was because he carried on longer than most and "sullied his good name" as a result?

I am not an expert on this era being that most of this took place a couple of years before I got into boxing, but watching his greatest fights shows what a fabulous and powerful puncher he was. His destruction of Duran was up there with the very best.

"Emancipating Andries" ...That's a description and a half.. To be honest when I saw that I couldn't believe someone so basic could be a Champion...Though Provo and Maussa came later..

I think clearing out a division does help with rankings like you say but then we have Pedrosa at 126 who didn't fight the top feathers or clean out his division..Ranked way too high.

Bouncy's point about going on too long is a valid one...Holy and Jones Jr I think have lost a little of their gloss..

Weird though that JC didn't clear out any of his divisions (Taylor wasn't conclusive at 140 and Vinny Paz was more of a fight than Ramirez at 135..Whittaker was WBC number 1 contender also) but despite batterings off the likes of Kosta later he remains unaffected..

Interesting stuff.. Thanks for the replies.

I've got a lot of respect for someone like Andries, made the absolute most of his ability and never gave up, even in the Hearns fight he refused to stay on the canvas. There's something admirable about that.

There's not a lot of sense in some ratings that's for sure; clearing out one of the traditional 'eight' classes does carry a lot more weight than clearing out the junior divisions. Dominating 154 and 168 just instantly seems less impressive than Welter and Middle, when you look at most top twenty lists you'll be hard pushed to find anyone on there who that doesn't apply to. Chavez and Arguello I imagine are the two highest rated junior division champions, they're both more likely top thirty rather than top twenty.

Hearns was a very good Welterweight and Middleweight but he's a great Light Middleweight, even then there's the Mccallum issue, I personally think he loses that one. Mike was just too tough, too fit and his body work would have worn Tommy down; kill the body and the head will follow.

Nonsense the super middleweight division is no longer seen as a ‘junior’ division. Produced some of the best action of the last ten years, produced some of the sport’s most recognisable names, Calzaghe, Ward, Froch etc. Maybe still true of light middleweight a little bit but SM now surely a blue-ribbon division

Hearns above Hagler? Not impossible, but given how conclusive Hagler's win over him was when they met I guess it's hard for a lot of fans to fathom. Maybe similar (not exact) to the Frazier-Foreman conundrum. Outside of their fights Frazier's record probably looks a bit better than Foreman's, but that suddenly seems trifling when you see how their fight unfolded. "Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!" as Cosell so memorably exclaimed. As a result Foreman is almost always higher than Frazier in Heavyweight lists.

But I agree it's difficult to rate Hearns accurately in any case. Champion in five weights, but never undisputed or the consensus top man in any of them. Has some awesome wins on his record, but at the same time lost the two fights which would have most defined him. That's not to say that his tremendous victories against Cuevas, Benitez, Duran, Hill etc. aren't defining in and of themselves - just not as glorious as wins over a peak Leonard or Hagler would have been.

I know you're a big believer in the fight game - much like life itself - being all about timing, Truss, and if that's the case then Hearns can count himself a little unlucky that his peak coincided with two bona fide legends, probably both top three all-time in their best respective divisions, in Leonard and Hagler. To that end you could argue that it's harsh to hold never being top dog in any division against him, especially when it's abundantly clear that there have been several undisputed, lineal or whatever champions at 147, 154 and 160 who Hearns would have obliterated.

But it says a lot that Leonard has said repeatedly that, while it was never as heated or bitterly personal as with Duran or as lucrative as with Hagler, he considers Hearns to have been his greatest / biggest rival, and his win over him in their first fight as his proudest moment. There are probably only two, maybe three Welters in history who could have beaten a 1981 version of Hearns. Unfortunately for him Ray Leonard was one of them, but Tommy was an absolute force of nature there.

Incredible to think that he was still only 21 when he annihilated Cuevas - already an absolute killer at that stage. Cuevas hit with a power and blunt force trauma which has rarely (if ever) been matched at Welterweight, and he was a nasty piece of work. Look at the devastating effort in every shot, the body attack, the way he was like an unleashed animal against Espada or Tsujimoto, where he jumped all over the latter the very split second after the referee ordered them to commence after a knockdown.

Compare that to how he looked against Hearns - timid, reluctant to open up and actually gun-shy. Nobody made Cuevas look like that. But Hearns was an absolute monster at that point. I don't want to sound like a miserable old fart, or too clichéd - but can you imagine what a 21 year old Hearns would do to Crawford, Spence, Thurman et al.?

88Chris05 wrote:Hearns above Hagler? Not impossible, but given how conclusive Hagler's win over him was when they met I guess it's hard for a lot of fans to fathom. Maybe similar (not exact) to the Frazier-Foreman conundrum. Outside of their fights Frazier's record probably looks a bit better than Foreman's, but that suddenly seems trifling when you see how their fight unfolded. "Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!" as Cosell so memorably exclaimed. As a result Foreman is almost always higher than Frazier in Heavyweight lists.

But I agree it's difficult to rate Hearns accurately in any case. Champion in five weights, but never undisputed or the consensus top man in any of them. Has some awesome wins on his record, but at the same time lost the two fights which would have most defined him. That's not to say that his tremendous victories against Cuevas, Benitez, Duran, Hill etc. aren't defining in and of themselves - just not as glorious as wins over a peak Leonard or Hagler would have been.

I know you're a big believer in the fight game - much like life itself - being all about timing, Truss, and if that's the case then Hearns can count himself a little unlucky that his peak coincided with two bona fide legends, probably both top three all-time in their best respective divisions, in Leonard and Hagler. To that end you could argue that it's harsh to hold never being top dog in any division against him, especially when it's abundantly clear that there have been several undisputed, lineal or whatever champions at 147, 154 and 160 who Hearns would have obliterated.

But it says a lot that Leonard has said repeatedly that, while it was never as heated or bitterly personal as with Duran or as lucrative as with Hagler, he considers Hearns to have been his greatest / biggest rival, and his win over him in their first fight as his proudest moment. There are probably only two, maybe three Welters in history who could have beaten a 1981 version of Hearns. Unfortunately for him Ray Leonard was one of them, but Tommy was an absolute force of nature there.

Incredible to think that he was still only 21 when he annihilated Cuevas - already an absolute killer at that stage. Cuevas hit with a power and blunt force trauma which has rarely (if ever) been matched at Welterweight, and he was a nasty piece of work. Look at the devastating effort in every shot, the body attack, the way he was like an unleashed animal against Espada or Tsujimoto, where he jumped all over the latter the very split second after the referee ordered them to commence after a knockdown.

Compare that to how he looked against Hearns - timid, reluctant to open up and actually gun-shy. Nobody made Cuevas look like that. But Hearns was an absolute monster at that point. I don't want to sound like a miserable old fart, or too clichéd - but can you imagine what a 21 year old Hearns would do to Crawford, Spence, Thurman et al.?

Make a rare incursion to the boxing board to make a point about Hearns being close to unbeatable against all but one or two welterweights in history and discover Chris got there first and said it a lot better than I could have done.  

Bugger.

Leonard and Robinson are the two obvious choices. I'd argue that taking into account their fight at 154lbs that Benitez could beat Hearns at Welterweight, the weight suits him slightly better, ridiculous to think that that fight effectively ended his career at 24. Gavilan and Griffith I think would make it close, neither of them are getting stopped but probably lack the power to stop Hearns, 145-140 kind of range.

I think Hearns beats both Robinson and Leonard at 147 especially over 12 rounds these days...But maybe not at 160..

They both struggle to get inside Hearns jab.. It wasn't the weight that made Robinson struggle at 160 with Turpin it was the style...He sure as hell never fought a freak like Hearns..

You can have the greatest Footwork in the World but a lightning jab and devastating right coming from a massive reach advantage..is a helluva equaliser.

Leonard got his ears boxed off by Hearns and he sure has hell made sure he never fought him again like he avoided Michael Nunn in his comeback..Not until he looked done.

Leonard was a better welter than Hearns in the way Simon Brown was better than Terry Norris until the second fight.

If Leonard was better why with his eye shut and his corner screaming did he need the desperate rally ??

Yes Leonard has the win...But there was no rematch and the way he beat Tommy gets lost in time...Frazier was better than Ali with no 2nd and 3rd fight...

You are being too harsh on Tommy.....

Leonard v Hearns = Tate v Weaver at welter.

I would like to chip in without very much insight admittedly but to say that I very much agree with the central premise here.
Hearns perhaps is too much of a square peg  to be neatly assessed and filed in the ranks of great fighters.
His height and reach advantages were as we always hear,freakish. However, you can't do much about possessing good old 'emu legs' as our bad tempered thespian Tom Hardy demonstrates,no matter how much he bulks up.
It's been discussed previously I am sure whether his problem was a poor chin. I maintain that it wasn't- his stature dictated that he was not built for coping with a truly vicious onslaught from the best hitters. A bit unfair to say he was poor- chinned. He took a lot of punishment from Marvin - he didn't simply fold.

As it's been said, above, it's really his tragedy that he was pitted against such guys who each had skillsets that were truly extraordinary. And how close did he come to beating Leonard on the first occasion? Theres certainly an argument that of there were twelve rounders and not fifteen, history would look rather different.