Thomas Hearns - When will he get his due!!

If we are honest he's remembered for his defeats when there is so much else to applaud.....

The nicest guy out of the Fab 4 he won 6 titles at different weights (If you include the WBU cruiser)....and beat legends such as Cuevas, Benitez, Hill and Duran...and Leonard (if we are honest)

Win over Hill was defining and amazing...never saw that coming.

History forgets he was in the fight of the decade againast Marvin and wasn't granted a rematch...

Beat James Shuler who was mandatory WBA/WBC and UNBEATEN but then avoided by a guy who said "Hearns doesn't deserve a rematch"....dear oh dear.

Was owning Leonard when he got caught and had to wait till Sugar thought he was half dead to get a rematch which he won....(Shafted)

Argument is he never ruled a division but his opponents were better than Hagler who did..

Fought everyone and everyone...never ducked a fight!!

Always been a huge admirer and I think history has dealt Tommy a huge blow..

Should get more credit..

He has my dues, Truss. A truly fantastically skilled fighter, with frightening power, one of the finest jabs ever seen, freakish size for his weight - he pretty much had everything apart from a granite chin.

To outbox Sugar Ray Leonard twice tells you all you need to know...

Top 10 ATG Tommy Hearns...how Duran gets rated higher is a disgrace.

Had everything a boxer could ever dream off he outboxed Leonard for goodness sake.

I always thought he did get his dues?

An outstanding fighter in any era, considering he shone in a golden era speaks volumes.

how can he get his dues when he's basically well down the ATG list and remembered for his two biggest defeats??

The ATG list is a complicated thing to look at as some have permanent positions that will never be moved meaning some will have higher positions than perhaps they deserve.

Being ranked within the Top ATG is an outstanding compliment for anyone.

There's always arguments of why one person should be ranked above another etc but simply being ranked top 50 and in Hearns case I believe top 40 that should be enough dues paid.

I disagree......If Hearns like delaHoya had stayed at welterweight, jr midd he could've ruled a lifetime!!!

Beat more ATG's than Duran who he destroyed.......remember Duran lost to Benitez...

Only reason Duran is much higher is because he ruled a sad-sack division for seven years like Calzaghe did..

Duran is great but 30 places between them...no way.

Valero's Conscience wrote:The ATG list is a complicated thing to look at as some have permanent positions that will never be moved meaning some will have higher positions than perhaps they deserve.

Being ranked within the Top ATG is an outstanding compliment for anyone.

There's always arguments of why one person should be ranked above another etc but simply being ranked top 50 and in Hearns case I believe top 40 that should be enough dues paid.

He is top 10

Not really an outstanding compliment when you see some of the faces in it that are higher!!!

Rolled like a drunk by Hagler and Barkley. Squeaked by Kinchen after being out on his feet and should have been disqualified.

What are the big wins ?

An out of shape fat Duran 3 divisions above his best weight ?
A majority decision of Benitez on the slide that had already been bested by Leonard years previously.
Cuevas ? Hill ? Andries ? Roldan ? Shuler !! ?

I like Hearns. He's my favourite fighter, but he get more than enough dues.

For a minute I thought you were going to be sensible..

silly me..

Hearns was an exceptional fighter and at his best would be almost unbeatable at Welterweight but he's remembered for the Leonard, Hagler and Barkley fights because they highlight his weaknesses and show the level he was at. He was held back by his chin more than any other fighter.

Top 40 of all time for me

Barkley??? He killed the guy..There is a case for it being 20-16 after two rounds people forget that...

People forget he was battering Barkley..

A la Graham-Jackson these things happen..

But then he got knocked out Truss, last time I checked the scorecards didn't matter for a 3rd round KO

These things do happen but they happened 3 times to Hearns which makes it a bigger deal

No but you get things like Hearns was rolled like a drunk etc.....

He won't be remembered for Barkley because that was a fluke...like Griffin-Jones...brown-Norris..Honey-Curry

Sure he beat him later at 175 but it was a deteriorated Tommy.

Knocking out your opponent is the aim of the game so went it happens can't really be described as a fluke, Barkley threw that punch intending to knock Hearns out and he did

So deteriorated that he'd just scored one of the best wins of his career in outpointing Virgil Hill

We can debate whether a desperate punch thrown without looking at the opponent..(Busy bending down to protect his ribs)...

Hearns was at his peak against Hill was he...

10 years after Cuevas and 28 pounds higher???

Interesting theory..

If Tommy had a brain and a slightly stronger set of whiskers, he WOULD be top ten all time. Sadly, we can't re-write history, so he isn't. In terms of pure talent, he'd be right up there, in my opinion. A top 40 or 50 merchant, but bearing in mind that I make someone like Hagler a top 30 man or thereabouts, no higher.

Didn't, of course, fight absolutely everyone, anyway. Blatantly avoided McCallum (or Steward, who knew the score, did it for him), to whom he'd have lost, I reckon...

A bit of balance wouldn't go a miss with regards to fighters being past their best and outside their natural weight class do you not think

Hearns was on the wane but doesn't say much for Hill that he was outpointed with such ease does it, I rate wins over Duran, Benitez and Cuevas but for me Virgil doesn't belong in the same company

Hill was intimidated....but remains the guy at light-heavyweight with the most defences....

He deserves respect for that....An alltime lightheavy great..

Think being ranked somewhere in the 30-40 range is about right, which to be fair is getting his dues as the names ahead of him are serious marquee ATG legends.

You mention his wins against Cuevas, Hill, Duran and Benitez but there's always going to be the counter-weight when ranking him in that he got sparked by Hagler, Leonard and Barkely which therfore puts an asterisk by his record - not much of one but still an asterisk. Therein lies your reason why he's not higher in all fairness, but most will still have him in their 30-40 range which in my opinion is giving the guy his dues based on the 3 big holes in his record.

Morning, coxy.

Have replied to your PM, mate.

Darius M has more defences at Light Heavyweight nowadays

Hill may have had a lot of defences but an all time great doesn't lose all his big fights, each and every time he stepped up he lost

Robinson lost to Lamotta.......who was ordinary.

Louis lost to schmelling who was ordinary....

It happens but he avenged Leonard..... and Hagler was the fight of the decade...and he avoided a rematch.

Barkley was a fluke..

Sorry but he was a marquee name.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hill was intimidated....but remains the guy at light-heavyweight with the most defences....

He deserves respect for that....An alltime lightheavy great..

So you mention JC for ruling a rudey poo division yet acknowledge Hill as an "all time LHW great".... Stop contradicting yourself Truss!

Who does he have on his record that gives you the right to make such a comment?! He doesn't even rate inside the top 20 for christ sake man!

Straws and clutching come to mind gents

Calzaghe is an alltime great too...

Where is the contradiction.....

hard one to evaluate hearns in atg lists. Great fighter no doubt, but on his fights with the fab 4 at their peaks his only win was against a guy over whom he had huge physical advantages (great performance as it was).

He was outboxing srl, not because he was a better boxer necessarily, but because of his physicality, and it wasn't a freak turnaround, leonard went on the front foot because he was losing and hunted him down. That's why one of them is rated higher historically. No doubt he won the rematch, but that was hardly either at their best.

I loved watching hearns fight but ultimately he could go through the weights better than most because he had the frame to hang the weight on. When you're judging the best of the best historically, his chin will always count against him.

Great great fighter though, and if there was a guy in the fab 4 who's fights you never wanted to miss, it was him. The most exciting flawed fighter of his generation and i think history has him about right.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Calzaghe is an alltime great too...

Where is the contradiction.....

"Only reason Duran is much higher is because he ruled a sad-sack division for seven years like Calzaghe did."

One minute JC's ruling a sad-sack division and next you give props for Hill doing the same... that's my interpretation anyway

coxy0001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Calzaghe is an alltime great too...

Where is the contradiction.....

"Only reason Duran is much higher is because he ruled a sad-sack division for seven years like Calzaghe did."

One minute JC's ruling a sad-sack division and next you give props for Hill doing the same... that's my interpretation anyway

Still cant see the contradiction...your clutching at straws again coxy.

No no... Imperial was trashing Hill......who ruled a sad sack division...

Calzaghe and Duran are acknowledged greats!!!!!

I'm saying if Duran and Calzaghe are so highly rated then Hill is a good win....

I'll dumb it down for you next time..

Robinson lost to Lamotta once out of 6 times, bit of a difference wouldn't you say

I like Hearns but based on losing to Leonard, Hagler and Barkley all by KO he can't be rated any higher than about 35

jUst pointing out that great fighters lose to garbage now and then..

Certainly Hearns was owning Barkley more than Robbo-Lamotta....

Let's face it Barkley was going to be retired at the end of the round...

After just three......

You guys seem to be disrespecting Tommy...a disturbing trend on here...

Robinson was also outweighed by around a stone when he lost to Jake. Furthermore, if Hearns deserves props for Hill, he deserves a good kicking for getting outboxed by someone as limited as Barkley just a few months later. We can't have it both ways.

Hill was intimidated by Tommy....

Hearns showed his best days were behing him against Kinchen.....

Seems like a thread asking for the great kronkite to get his due has turned into a Tommy slapping-fest..

He gets his due. You wrongly seem to believe he belongs in a top fifteen or so fighters of all time, or somewhere very close to it. The general balance of opinion, which I believe to be right is that you could put him somewhere between 35 and 50 and be right. That's still pretty good, but there are other fighters who are and were better than Tommy. Doesn't equal a lack of respect to say so.

tommy slapping? when did he fight calzaghe?

Could you explain how this has turned into a Tommy slapping fest Truss?
The fact many of us don't rate him as highly as you does not mean we are trashing the guy and Robinson beat LaMotta 5 times out of 6 whereas Hearns lost to Barkley 2 out of 2, losses mean more in the modern because fighters fight less and less regularly.

Tommy Hearns was a good chin away from being the Greatest of all time in my view. What a fighter! For Duran to be ranked so highly ahead of Hearns shows why I place no importance on so-called ATG lists. To many variables can argued either way for any of the fighters.

Truss, you can't discount Barkely knocking him into next week and then repeat the old "rolled like a drunk" line you love to use.

You make excuses and appear to be writing off one loss when it suits you and hounding Duran's big stoppage loss as reason he's rubbish (in your eyes).

Thompson was getting spanked around by Rothman yet found the magical punch, guess we should say Rothman won in your eyes and we should discount The Cats win over him.

Not top 15 but not as low as 40.....

Feels sorry for a guy who has achieved so much and is remembered for a two defeats..one he avenged and the other where the guy avoided him to fight two lesser fighters....

Mugabi and Leonard deserved shots but the guy he fought in the "Fight of the decade" and who smacked out the top contender in both the WBA/WBC didn't deserve a rematch....

Good logic that!!

He is remembered for those two fights....and it's sad...

Shame he wasn't 5ft 10 and 135 pounds and born ten years earlier...Then he could've ruled for ten years at lightweight...such is life!

Just the same as Graham-Jackson Coxy...

Complete fluke.

I'm going to therefore render the same and somewhat distorted thought process that Duran getting knocked into next week was a fluke because it suits my views on the guy.

Thanks Truss

coxy0001 wrote:I'm going to therefore render the same and somewhat distorted thought process that Duran getting knocked into next week was a fluke because it suits my views on the guy.

Thanks Truss

Duran was battered from start to finish hardly the same thing mystic coxy.

He's remembered for those losses much like your favourite Duran is remembered in your eyes for quitting against Leonard and getting knocked out by Hearns, you simply can't have things all your own way.

We can talk about why he didn't get a rematch with Hagler all you want but not many think he deserved one, he landed a few big punches early on but it became apparent very quickly that there was only ever going to be one winner of that fight.

Knocking your opponent out is never a fluke especially when that's what you intend to do

Shows that your thought process isn't to be admired..

Pathetic....

Guys don't hit me with Hearns-Barkley 1...because Barkley was outclassed as the more mature of you would agree.....Hearns got sloppy...Barkley got lucky.

It takes more than 2 rounds to outclass someone if they're still standing

Does it...

As proved by the fact Barkley was still capable of landing the knock out punch

Guess it took more that two rounds for Ali to outclass to Dunn, Leonard to outclass Green......Louis to outclass Baer.....

All in the same class before the third round...

Getting sloppy enough to get KO'd by a Sunday punch is not an attribute of an all-time top 20 fighter. Of course he would have won that fight otherwise, but that's rather the point, isn't it? Poor old Herol Graham, one of the best British fighters never to win a world title languishes down among the mid-30s on the UK all-time list, precisely because he couldn't close the deal.

Unfortunately for Tommy, although at a much more exalted level, he couldn't quite establish himself the best of his era at any weight. He was at his best either at welter or light-middle, but Leonard stopped him at one weight, and he never fought the other great 154 lb man of his day to establish who was the boss there. The record is therefore extremely good, but could and possibly should have been even better.