Thomas Hearns - When will he get his due!!

First topic message reminder :

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..

See, Hagler dominated middleweight, yet I would have Tommy above him due to the reasons you give.

If Tommy had dominated a division completely with a reasonable standard of fighter in it, hell even if he'd beaten Leonard once (and I know the second fight is controversial), I'd probably find it easier to place him in my top 30. As it stands, loses to Hagler and Leonard count against him for me.

His win against Duran, although immense, doesn't really carry a lot of weight for me due to the fact that Duran was a lightweight. Although before you pick up on it, I'll hold my hands up and say I'm extremely biased in favour of Duran so that plays a great deal of it.

Tommy was a great fighter, very exciting, devastating puncher and had all time great skill levels.

If only Tommy didn't have a glass jaw he would have been Top 5 or 6 ATG.

If he had a chin equal to his big rivals at the time I would make Tommy favourite in practically all of those fights.

With Tommy it was close but no cigar.


No disrespect to Trussy intended.

licence_007 wrote:See, Hagler dominated middleweight, yet I would have Tommy above him due to the reasons you give.

If Tommy had dominated a division completely with a reasonable standard of fighter in it, hell even if he'd beaten Leonard once (and I know the second fight is controversial), I'd probably find it easier to place him in my top 30. As it stands, loses to Hagler and Leonard count against him for me.

His win against Duran, although immense, doesn't really carry a lot of weight for me due to the fact that Duran was a lightweight. Although before you pick up on it, I'll hold my hands up and say I'm extremely biased in favour of Duran so that plays a great deal of it.

In the first Leonard fight he showed he could carry extra weight and fight like a demon. He shouldn't be given a free pass for not training hard enough or whatever his excuse was. He took Hagler to the wire and would go on to defeat Barkley two weight classes higher. Just a fight where one fighter was all wrong for the other.

Yeah I know John, I just think it's easier to give a lot of credit to a smaller man moving up and winning than it is for someone at a higher weight beating up a smaller guy so easily. Like I said though, it is an immense win, but for me, nowhere near the same level as a win against Leonard or Hagler would go.

I mean, just looking at the pair of them, you'd have to expect Hearns to defeat Duran. Although saying that, not being about at the time, what was the popular opinion leading up? I can't imagine Duran was being given much chance?

Hearns was all wrong for Duran at any weight class. He was too tall and hit too hard. Nobody did what Tommy did to a fighting fit Duran.

Duran's preparations for the fight were not ideal but Tommy would have busted him up no matter how good the training camp was.

Virgil Hill = legend!

That was a good win but Hill was never more than a long reigning paper champion.

No doubt he was a young man and starting to fill out, but if it was such a struggle for tommy to get to 147, how did he get to 145? He came in under 147 plenty of times. I don't buy it... Hearns didn't look weight drained in that fight until he got tagged.

And if hearns was past his best at super middle what was leonard?

I see there's a trend on here for people to say x beats y z times out of 10. All a bit randomly subjectively. We can only go on what we saw when they did fight. My best guess is a rematch gets the same result... 2 top fighters one took the others best shots and came back, one didn't. Where does the psychological advantage lie?

Nothing Leonard did post retina/coke layoff is relevant to me, he wasn't the same fighter (including the hagler fight as they were both past their best), so i don't put much stall by leonard hearns 2, in which tommy did deserve the nod. For much the same reason, like most, i don't pay much attention to Tommy or duran fighting on forever.

This is about judging them when they were close to their peaks. Duran had a near perfect record and was no spring chicken when he fought any of these guys and they were all bigger men. Before the first (of many) retirements, leonards cv is a who's who of the best fighters of the time, but his prime was short, hagler ruled imo a weak division, but he still ruled it impressively, and Tommy had some great wins and was great to watch but ultimately lost his defining fights... and few others.

A lot of people love Hearns for his style, but it clouds their opinion in my view. History has him right as the 4th of the big four, but its hardly a walk of shame... being considered in the top 40 or so fighters of all time at any weight.

Virgil Hill is a great light heavyweight like it or not....

Holds the record for the most defences.....

now jog on..

You ever give Duran a shot at Tommy.. Milky!!

... as you regularly tell us Truss, styles make fights, so probably not.

To be honest i think he got caught cold, if he could have weathered the onslaught, he might have got into it when tommy slowed down. But it was some onslaught!

Doesn't impact on their overall ratings though truss, a big hitting tall junior middle with a huge reach, beat up the greatest lightweight ever. Well done Tommy... i'm sure his mother was very proud

Got caught cold...He didn't get caught till a minute and a half into the round...Couldn't get past his lance of a jab..

Duran is a ATG but no top 10 fighter gets humilated like that.

milkyboy wrote:

I see there's a trend on here for people to say x beats y z times out of 10. All a bit randomly subjectively. We can only go on what we saw when they did fight. My best guess is a rematch gets the same result... 2 top fighters one took the others best shots and came back, one didn't. Where does the psychological advantage lie?

Nothing Leonard did post retina/coke layoff is relevant to me, he wasn't the same fighter (including the hagler fight as they were both past their best), so i don't put much stall by leonard hearns 2, in which tommy did deserve the nod. For much the same reason, like most, i don't pay much attention to Tommy or duran fighting on forever.

Going of the basis of Leonard v Hearns 1, I dont see why its unreasonable to think Hearns wins more over the long run. He was outboxing him for most of the fight. I dont see Leonard ralying to knock him out more often than not - he didnt in the rematch for example. Boxing is full of examples where one fighter beats another in a once off but you suspect they wouldnt do it over a long run (Trinidad v De la Hoya or Nunn v Toney for example).

I dont think you can just ignore Leonard v Hearns 2 on the basis that Leonard was past his best. Maybe he was, but he had still managed to beat Hagler and Hearns himself was not exactly in top form himself having been knocked out by Barkley and limped through Kinchen where it looked like he was about to be knocked out again for a while.

I agree.....You could argue who was the better boxer between Leonard and Tommy but you can't argue with the fact that Leonard always struggles as what Robinson, Armstrong etc with his long reach and devastating jab..

All depends if Leonard lands the pay off.....as it took him thirteen rounds the first time..one could say over 12 Tommy probably has his number..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Virgil Hill is a great light heavyweight like it or not....

Holds the record for the most defences.....

now jog on..

You ever give Duran a shot at Tommy.. Milky!!

This is incorrect. Hill won a toal of 21 defences, 11 defences before Hearns and a further 10 defences after regaining the title before losing to Michalczewski who had 23 consecutive defences.

Go away there is a good boy..

Hill is a great 175 man.end of..

jog on..

Truss, no doubt tommy's jab as long as chooses to use it is a major problem for any fighter leonard included.

manos, it's not unreasonable, and its entirely possible but its just guesswork. For every guy that wins a rematch after being stopped in the first fight there are many more who capitulate. Hearns was on the back foot for the whole of the latter part of that fight it was no one punch turnaround, he was ahead but getting hunted down. To me boxing history dictates there are more examples in the chavez taylor style as pointers.

And i'm sorry, but i'm looking at a prime leonard, not a super middle that couldn;t move his feet doing an oldies road show for his loving public... or are we going to bring norris and camacho into this? We'll have to agree to disagree, its all conjecture after all.

I think Hearns was like.. Ali Milky in his love of the sport and mindset..

Think Hearns would be even more motivated to pay leonard back...He was the ultimate competitor....

didn't see any ghosts of Hagler... when he destroyed Shuler ...

Some guys crumble after a defeat but Tommy was always mentally strong.

fair point truss. It is a shame we didn't get the rematches with hagler or leonard (at a relevant time) to see whether that held true against the fighter that had recently beaten him.

He saved one of his worst performances for the barkley rematch, but otherwise he did tend to come back strong though.

The fact Hill was scared of him made Hearns look as if he had more left than he did...

Kinchen showed how faded he was..

second time around Barkley beat a shot Tommy.

agreed, like tommy 'beat' a shot leonard in their rematch

Tommy was more shot than Leonard....making it a bonafide victory against the unbeaten... Hagler, Lalonde slapping Leonard.

my dad is more shot than your dad

Your dad isn't JR Ewing by any chance ??

he was a welter who'd know be a super heavy, so about as shot as jr

No doubt he'd perform better than David Haye though...

His toes okay???

he wouldn't know... hasn't seen them in years

Do like the fact you still bang on about Hill making the most defences at Light Heavyweight when it's not actually the case nor is he a particularly great fighter, lost every time he stepped up

Truss, how come you're so willing to cut Hearns some slack for a loss past his peak and/or way above his comfortable weight, yet you don't afford Duran the same leeway? He was 'rolled like a drunk' as you put it by the same Hagler who Duran had gone 15 rounds with, yet that doesn't earn Duran any credit in your eyes. How it this?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Go away there is a good boy..

Hill is a great 175 man.end of..

jog on..

What great fighter did Hill beat at Light Heavy?....oh yeah that's right - Crawford Ashley!

Jog on.

What great fighter did Louis beat..

Or Dempsey?????

Longevity counts...little boy...

Hill vs. Foster a pickem I take it.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What great fighter did Louis beat..

Or Dempsey?????

Longevity counts...little boy...

Longevity counts but you have a dig at Louis..?

Louis is my number 2 heavy....

Be sensible or f8*K off.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Louis is my number 2 heavy....

Be sensible or f8*K off.

Is that directed towards me?

Truss if you don't like people having a difference of opinion at least be sensible about it rather than acting like a child

Why else would louis be my number 2 If I didn't rate longevity...

Hitting and running is for the muppets above you Balti..

expected better from you..

Louis lost to his best opponents...Marciano and Charles....lost to Schmelling too..

Never said he wasn't great..

Don't patronise me Ghosty.....Everybody on here has basically a different opinion...I don't like people that make stupid remarks and hit and run...

Like you've done in the past.. so shut it..

You could say that Ali lost to his best opponent in Holmes but the relevance of that fight is minimal

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Don't patronise me Ghosty.....Everybody on here has basically a different opinion...I don't like people that make stupid remarks and hit and run...

Like you've done in the past.. so shut it..

Maybe if you replied in a more civil manner that might help

Truss

Without wanting to ruffle already bed-hair-esque feathers, have you had a bad day or something?

Has the father in law cut your pocket money?



*Disclaimer: I am only playing

Sorry Truss, but you let yourself down there. Perhaps I'd missed something reading this thread as I was, on the bus, but whatever the case, your response was unbecoming.

Perhaps if you'd take time to consider your responses instead of leaping in with both feet, then those feet would spend less time in your mouth.

I was remarking on your apparent contradiction in praising longevity yet casting a slight against Louis.

Unbecoming...That's very good.

Balti/Ghosty......Got a bunch of dummies slamming silly remarks and smileys above you... I don't need respected guys like you joining in...

Like debate...not hit and run..and I don't like being taken out of context....or being patronised.

I'll take it back..

As for Coxy run along..

Get back on track and ignore the idiots then Truss

Truss, I was negotiating public transport... Didn't have time to wrote an essay. You seem like you need to take a deep breath today. Relax...it's Friday.

Maybe you're right..

Not easy with a Woman who's close to dropping..and a pain in the a**e sprat..

As for Coxy run along..

Grow a sense of humour Truss. And as for hit and run comments, i wrote a boxing reply to your thread earlier and you had zero decency to reply with anything other than some pathetic put down.

Seriously mate, lighten up - or in your words:

f**k off

Anyway, have a good weekend one and all. Even you Truss, as long as you cheer up for once!

Smile chubby, it's Friday!

Oooh.......

You can give it but you can't take it.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Oooh.......

You can give it but you can't take it.....

I'm sure you meet a lot like that down the Blue Oyster...

As if you don't know already..