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..

What happened in the end of those fights Truss, did they end up getting knocked out a round later or did they continue to prove their superiority before closing the show?

Continued to show their "SUPERIORITY"

Which means they outclassed their opponent early as well as late...

Hence you can outclass your opponent as Graham and Hearns did in the first two rounds....

unfortunately fluke shots sometimes turned round fights..

They outclassed them throughout the fight Truss and finished the job

Not sure why you keep calling a knock out punch a fluke, was it not what they were trying to do?

Hearns-Barkley =....... Hearns-Andries, Hearns-Medal, Hearns-Baez, Hearns-Hutchings where a guy was completely outclassed????

One and only difference is Barkley won the lottery..

20-16 in my book when the round started..

But he lost Truss which we can't ignore, a great fighter doesn't get caught like he did

Imperial Ghosty wrote:But he lost Truss which we can't ignore, a great fighter doesn't get caught like he did

So Hearns is not a great fighter?...Yet you happily laud Duran in top 10 after getting smashed by Hearns.

Listen everyone, we should all default Barkley's win and award it to Hearns because he was winning the fight and therefore history should competely forget about how he got lazy, lost concentration and let a guy spark him.

Truss, shall i write a letter to god on your behalf asking that he erase everyones memory of the third round and we'll all just be thinking that he won the first 2 easily and that means he won the fight.

Guess we should disgregard such wins as Chavez over Taylor, Harrison over Sprott, Thompson over Rothman etc etc as they were all behind by miles and had been handed their arses yet found a magic punch from somewhere.

That's boxing, there isn't a "fluke" as Hearns left himself open for it and as a result he LOST the fight. Deal with it, it's a black stain on his record and no matter how much bickering you do and how many pathetic excuses you make nothing will change that.

Hearns is a great fighter but his 3 KO losses stop him being able to reach the upper echelons

Duran in my opinion has more reason to lose to Hearns than Hearns has losing to Barkley who if we're honest isn't in his league

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Hearns is a great fighter but his 3 KO losses stop him being able to reach the upper echelons

Duran in my opinion has more reason to lose to Hearns than Hearns has losing to Barkley who if we're honest isn't in his league

Hearns was outboxing Barkley and Leonard...hurt Hagler in a barnstormer...never was blown away like Duran and never quit.

Was blown away by both Barkley and Hagler before we start rewriting history

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Was blown away by both Barkley and Hagler before we start rewriting history

Outboxed Barkley and hurt Hagler...Now what did Duran do against Hearns instead of getting smashed from start to finish?

Stop twisting it

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Hearns is a great fighter but his 3 KO losses stop him being able to reach the upper echelons

Duran in my opinion has more reason to lose to Hearns than Hearns has losing to Barkley who if we're honest isn't in his league

Agree there, i don't see how someone gets iced off Barkley then beat again in the rematch, iced off Hagler in a defining fight, and beat by Leonard also is any better than given credit for which imo is well behind Leonard, Hagler. He gets easily, easily enough credit and is a great but no more than people say imo.

The genius of PBF wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Was blown away by both Barkley and Hagler before we start rewriting history

Outboxed Barkley and hurt Hagler...Now what did Duran do against Hearns instead of getting smashed from start to finish?

Stop twisting it

Knocked out in the 3rd round both times, not sure why you insist on mentioning Duran who was knocked out by a fellow great instead of Iran Barkley who coincidentally went on to beat

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Was blown away by both Barkley and Hagler before we start rewriting history

Outboxed Barkley and hurt Hagler...Now what did Duran do against Hearns instead of getting smashed from start to finish?

Stop twisting it

Knocked out in the 3rd round both times, not sure why you insist on mentioning Duran who was knocked out by a fellow great instead of Iran Barkley who coincidentally went on to beat

twisting it again

Twisting what the fact that despite being great Hearns was knocked out in the 3rd round by Barkley and Hagler?
Or that Duran being knocked out by an all time great at 154lbs some 30 odd pounds above where he started isn't that big a deal?

There is no shame in getting knocked out by Hagler or Hearns but Iran Barkley is a whole different thing

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Twisting what the fact that despite being great Hearns was knocked out in the 3rd round by Barkley and Hagler?
Or that Duran being knocked out by an all time great at 154lbs some 30 odd pounds above where he started isn't that big a deal?

There is no shame in getting knocked out by Hagler or Hearns but Iran Barkley is a whole different thing

Like I said Hearns waxs outboxing Barkley with ease but Duran was smashed from start to finish yet your trying to discredit that win saying Duran was too small...Excuses, excuses

The genius of PBF wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Twisting what the fact that despite being great Hearns was knocked out in the 3rd round by Barkley and Hagler?
Or that Duran being knocked out by an all time great at 154lbs some 30 odd pounds above where he started isn't that big a deal?

There is no shame in getting knocked out by Hagler or Hearns but Iran Barkley is a whole different thing

Like I said Hearns waxs outboxing Barkley with ease but Duran was smashed from start to finish yet your trying to discredit that win saying Duran was too small...Excuses, excuses

You've got no excuses then and will happily admit that Barkely sparked him fair and simple then.

Goodie gumdrops

Lunch anyone? Yes please. Trotting on.

Hearns was outboxing Barkley for 2 rounds before he was knocked out in the 3rd round, that isn't twisting things it's merely stating what happened
Duran was too small to be effective against Hearns, he was giving away massive height, reach, strength and speed advantages, he got knocked out which is a good win for Hearns but it's not as devastating as you like to make out

coxy0001 wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Twisting what the fact that despite being great Hearns was knocked out in the 3rd round by Barkley and Hagler?
Or that Duran being knocked out by an all time great at 154lbs some 30 odd pounds above where he started isn't that big a deal?

There is no shame in getting knocked out by Hagler or Hearns but Iran Barkley is a whole different thing

Like I said Hearns waxs outboxing Barkley with ease but Duran was smashed from start to finish yet your trying to discredit that win saying Duran was too small...Excuses, excuses

You've got no excuses then and will happily admit that Barkely sparked him fair and simple then.

Goodie gumdrops

Lunch anyone? Yes please. Trotting on.

Nope big difference between outclassing someone and getting caught then being humilated like Duran was...I have to break it down in baby chunks for you coxy.

Knowing you probably looked at boxrec instead off watching the fight.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Hearns was outboxing Barkley for 2 rounds before he was knocked out in the 3rd round, that isn't twisting things it's merely stating what happened
Duran was too small to be effective against Hearns, he was giving away massive height, reach, strength and speed advantages, he got knocked out which is a good win for Hearns but it's not as devastating as you like to make out

Size was no excuse got blown away simple as GREAT WIN.

Size is an excuse otherwise everyone would be fighting at heavyweight

The genius of PBF wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Twisting what the fact that despite being great Hearns was knocked out in the 3rd round by Barkley and Hagler?
Or that Duran being knocked out by an all time great at 154lbs some 30 odd pounds above where he started isn't that big a deal?

There is no shame in getting knocked out by Hagler or Hearns but Iran Barkley is a whole different thing

Like I said Hearns waxs outboxing Barkley with ease but Duran was smashed from start to finish yet your trying to discredit that win saying Duran was too small...Excuses, excuses

You've got no excuses then and will happily admit that Barkely sparked him fair and simple then.

Goodie gumdrops

Lunch anyone? Yes please. Trotting on.

Nope big difference between outclassing someone and getting caught then being humilated like Duran was...I have to break it down in baby chunks for you coxy.

Knowing you probably looked at boxrec instead off watching the fight.

When have i mentioned Duran?

I'm using cold hold facts here sunshine, outboxing someone counts for everything then does it? Wait a minute, the win column does and wait a minute - Unless i'm missing something history and the fight itself showed Barkley knocking him into next week.

You can't twist that, no matter what you try and say. It's a black mark on Hearns record, end of. Again, we should therefore discount Chavez knocking Taylor out after receiving a boxing lesson, or Thompson stopping Rothman, or Froch knocking out Taylor when behind as well. Lets also award Graham a win against Jackson after outboxing him as well.

Ladies and gents we should discredit all those wins simply because they were being outboxed. We should disregard the end result.

I guess we should also translate that to other sports as well. I mean heck, lets award Van de Velde the 1999 Open by default as he was leading by 3 after 71 holes, or maybe award Hamilton the 2007 F1 title as he had an almost unassailable lead with 2 races to go.

Thanks for coming, and don't bother win Duran as that's not my arguement. I'm dealing with cold hard facts here and that's something you appear to struggle with. Getting knocked out by an inferior boxer is a black mark on someones record, what happens before that is pretty much immaterial unless there's controversy, which there wasn't.

I know there's lots of words there, please take your time to read.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Size is an excuse otherwise everyone would be fighting at heavyweight

So how did Duran go the distance with Hagler then?

Hagler doesn't punch as hard as Hearns nor does he have a 78" reach but Duran still lost the fight. Let me guess that in itself shows Hagler to be a better boxer than Duran?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Hagler doesn't punch as hard as Hearns nor does he have a 78" reach but Duran still lost the fight. Let me guess that in itself shows Hagler to be a better boxer than Duran?

Nope Hagler should be rated below all of the fab 4...Hearns won because he is the superior boxer...too much skill and power only 7 pounds over Durans career defining win over Leonard.

Did I hear someone write he was blown away by Barkley...

Dear oh dear.....

Some one needs to watch the fight.

He had the size to go with his skill set which is what won him the fight, Durans win over Leonard is his crowning glory but even then he was some way out of his comfort zone

A measure of the man that above his natural weight and being a 72 fight veteran he was able to pull it out the bag to beat someone as good as Leonard who we should remember is every bit as skillful as Hearns

I think Hearns does get his dues. I would probably start him as favourite against any fighter in history at welteweight in head to head terms.

But his overall ranking is proportional to his record as far as I am concerned.

Could never look past Robinson to beat him at Welterweight and with Leonard we know what happened in that one too

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Could never look past Robinson to beat him at Welterweight and with Leonard we know what happened in that one too

I think the opposite with the Leonard fight. If they fought ten times I think Hearns would win more. He lost that particular fight, but in general I dont think he would over a wider sample.

I think its near impossible to outbox Hearns at welter so he has to be knocked out most of the time and I dont see anyone doing that to him consistently.

It might be dead marginal with guys like Robinson but gun to head if I had to back I would go with Heans, albeit without much confidence.

Robinson I think outboxes everyone at Welterweight even Hearns who I believe would knock him out 8 times out of 10. Always got the impression that any fight with Leonard at their best which their fight was would turn out the same way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0uhAZeEA54

Watch the fight coxy and ghosty

Don't need reminding of the fact that Barkley when behind after just 2 and a half rounds knocks Hearns out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DvPFKii9-A

Watch this as well and note the difference.

Let me guess Duran getting knocked out in the second round?

Not much difference as the result was pretty much the same

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Let me guess Duran getting knocked out in the second round?

Not much difference as the result was pretty much the same

Except Hearns was boxing Barkley's head off BIG difference...I have to teach you everything.

Not a big difference because he still lost, you don't get extra points for winning the first 2 rounds of a fight before getting sparked

I always think Leonard gets too much credit for the first Hearns fight. It was an incredible comeback but lets look at the details. Actually one pretty simple detail. Hearns was a massive welter who'd weighed in over the welter limit 8 times before the Leonard fight and weighed in over the light middle limit in his very next fight. Against Leonard he was 2 pounds under 147 and his ribs were showing.

Had they rematched at 154 I don't honestly think Leonard would've lasted to the 14th.

If you look at the next fight after Hagler, Hearns was clearly a more solid middleweight and had grown into the division. The commentary say he has back muscles like a light heavyweight as he's lifted up after sparking Shuler in 1 round. Hagler had clearly slipped after the Hearns fight, labouring to beat Mugabi. A stronger, better Hearns against a slipping Hagler after a truly epic first fight, I don't see how you can say he didn't deserve the rematch.

As for Barkley he got caught, it's not as bad a defeat as Duran's was because if the Barkley and Hearns of that day fought ten times there's no way Barkley wins more than two in my eyes, never mind ten. Would anyone, on the other hand ever bet on Duran beating Hearns even 1/10? Facts are facts though, it's still a defeat. Nothing Hearns did after that showed anything but heart, if you haven't seen Hearns v Delgado watch it. Hearns is clearly shot but his heart alone keeps him in it for a 12 round slugging fight.

P4P I have him third highest out of the four kings.

Good post..

I think you could justify a Hearns v Hagler rematch on grounds financial and entertainment grounds almost certainly. Who wouldnt want to see it?

But the reality is if Hearns chose to go war with Hagler as he did in the first fight then there would only be one winner.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I always think Leonard gets too much credit for the first Hearns fight. It was an incredible comeback but lets look at the details. Actually one pretty simple detail. Hearns was a massive welter who'd weighed in over the welter limit 8 times before the Leonard fight and weighed in over the light middle limit in his very next fight. Against Leonard he was 2 pounds under 147 and his ribs were showing.

Had they rematched at 154 I don't honestly think Leonard would've lasted to the 14th.

If you look at the next fight after Hagler, Hearns was clearly a more solid middleweight and had grown into the division. The commentary say he has back muscles like a light heavyweight as he's lifted up after sparking Shuler in 1 round. Hagler had clearly slipped after the Hearns fight, labouring to beat Mugabi. A stronger, better Hearns against a slipping Hagler after a truly epic first fight, I don't see how you can say he didn't deserve the rematch.

As for Barkley he got caught, it's not as bad a defeat as Duran's was because if the Barkley and Hearns of that day fought ten times there's no way Barkley wins more than two in my eyes, never mind ten. Would anyone, on the other hand ever bet on Duran beating Hearns even 1/10? Facts are facts though, it's still a defeat. Nothing Hearns did after that showed anything but heart, if you haven't seen Hearns v Delgado watch it. Hearns is clearly shot but his heart alone keeps him in it for a 12 round slugging fight.

P4P I have him third highest out of the four kings.

Duke... think you're being a little selective.... loads of fighter come over their normal limit in none-title fights... leonard had as well and not just in preparation for the kalule fight. Hearns had been fighting regularly at 147.

if tommy couldn;t ko a fat leonard at super middle, i can;t see that you can be so sure he'd take him out at light middle. I'd agree however that srl's best weight was welter and tommy maybe peaked at light middle so it's not beyond the realms of possibility. Leonard Hearns 1, to me just proved that Leonard had that little extra that tommy didn't. That little extra being part chin and part ring savvy.

Hearns took liberties with barkley, he was getting caught in the 2nd and didn't learn his lesson... no doubt he was crippling him with body shots in the third, and the punch was out of the blue, but whichever way you look at it, he was 0 and 2 against barkley.

I'd have loved to see a rematch with hagler, but if i'm honest i can't see a different result. If hearns boxed, i think hagler would get to him eventually.

Barkley beat Hearns fair and square ... TWICE !!

He came out for the third in a totally different posture. Chased Hearns down, made him go ragged. Hearns landed a lot on him in that round - especially to the body, but was no longer able to pick Barkley off - because of Barkley's strategy and Barkley got the KO he planned.

Not one iota of luck in it and Barkley proved it by beating him in the rematch.

He had his number.

So Barkley got lucky first time around.

Right - what happened second time around? I'm pretty sure I watched a legend get outboxed over the fight by a much more average fighter.

Truss - you said Robinson lost to LaMotta - he didn't lose 6 times did he! He beat Jake more 5/6.

I never really said Barkley did anything other than beat Tommy it just wasn't a one sided beat down like Hearns v Duran. and I'm not sure how that became relevant in the first place...

The second Barkley v Hearns fight, just look at Tommy's legs. He's barely moving them. They're shot. As for Barkley planning a KO in the third that's a load of rudey poo in my eyes, he was getting whipped and then BANG he won. Fair play I take nothing from him but to claim it was part of the plan to get punched repeatedly in the body and head by Thomas Hearns just...not even Barkley's dumb enough to do that on purpose! That being said he's hardly one of the ATG ring technicians.

What I said about the Leonard v Hearns weights, why would a massive welter come in 2 lbs under and never even attempt to come in at the weight again if he wasn't draining himself? The reason I think he could stop Leonard at 154 and not 168 is because he was a beast in his prime at 154 and clearly on the slide at 168, two very different Hitmen we're talking about. Although as with anything in boxing, I wouldn't ever be 100% sure.

Please don't give me that 'was owing Leonard' Love sacks. The scoring in the first fight was close, and whilst Hearns was nicking the rounds he won, Leonard was dominating those that he did. Had the fight gone to points and Hearns won, it would righty have been thought of as a robbery.
Still Hearns is a nailed on ATG for me, the only thing missing is he never dominated a division, but that's what you get for chasing mutliple belts rather than wanting to be a proper champion

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I never really said Barkley did anything other than beat Tommy it just wasn't a one sided beat down like Hearns v Duran. and I'm not sure how that became relevant in the first place...

The second Barkley v Hearns fight, just look at Tommy's legs. He's barely moving them. They're shot. As for Barkley planning a KO in the third that's a load of rudey poo in my eyes, he was getting whipped and then BANG he won. Fair play I take nothing from him but to claim it was part of the plan to get punched repeatedly in the body and head by Thomas Hearns just...not even Barkley's dumb enough to do that on purpose! That being said he's hardly one of the ATG ring technicians.

What I said about the Leonard v Hearns weights, why would a massive welter come in 2 lbs under and never even attempt to come in at the weight again if he wasn't draining himself? The reason I think he could stop Leonard at 154 and not 168 is because he was a beast in his prime at 154 and clearly on the slide at 168, two very different Hitmen we're talking about. Although as with anything in boxing, I wouldn't ever be 100% sure.

I dont think theres any doubt Hearns was draining down to welterweight but certainly his performances didnt indicate he was "weight drained" and I dont think he ever suggested that.

After Leonard wasnt inclined to give him a rematch what else was there for him to do at welter? Moving up made sense where he could capture a world title of his own rather than hang around in Leonards shadow at welter hoping for a remtach that might not come.

Overall I think if Hearns faces Leonard 10 times at welter he probably wins 6/7 of the encounters but I dont think making the weight was a big issue at that stage.

I agree and I think Leonard realised Hearns might have his number....

Don't think Marvin fancied tasting the right hand again either...

Good opinions..

I agree with you Truss, Hearns must be rated at least as highly as Leonard.In their return fight I couldn't see how the judges scored it a draw, he had Leonard down twice and as you say outboxed him throughout the fight. His demolition of Duran was pure class.

Personally I think Leonard ranks 3rd out of the 4 Kings behind Duran and Leonard. Terrific fighter, who I think gets the credit he deserves from people I know that know boxing at least.

I think his lack of divisional domination counts against him in P4P rankings yet he should be an easy pick for most people's top 40 ATGs.

Divisional domination should only be important if good fighters are in it..

Duran, Benitez, Cuevas, Hill and Leonard are just as good as anything Hagler beat while dominating.....

sure Hagler beat Hearns but he didn't want a return