Thomas Hearns - Should've (Could've) Been #1 GOAT.

A couple of other current Threads have got me thinking lately about this . Also , it shows how our views can change over a period of time .
Many years ago , Me and a Mate werde having a debate about the all time standings of the 4 kings. At the time, I ventured to put Duran above Hearns, and quite quickly got put in my place citing the way Hearns comatosed Duran. Fair point.
Gotta say, I'm slighly embarrassed by that view back then. Not because Duran wasn't an amazing fighter who rightfully is lauded as one of the all time greats himself, but more because as times gone on, at this moment in time, I probably have Hearns as my all time fave.
And I've said a few times on here recently, that IF he had Beaten Leonard , and IF he hadn't thrown the gameplan out the window against Hagler, he could've perhaps been all time #1.
I deliberately put the "IF's" in capitals , but not because they are BIG IF's. these things could've conceivably happened, they aren't outlandish.
I kinda would've liked this to be the case , because what's not to like?
1. Freakishly tall for his starting career weight , which enabled him to naturally move up the weights
2. Lovely technique allied to nastiness and aggressiveness
3. Text book venomous jab.
4. Heart and Strength.
5. Desire and love for Boxing. You don't box to the age he did if you didn't possess that.
6. Oodles of ability.
7. Probably Boxed like every single one of us would've wanted to if we were that blessed.
Yes , he had the odd glitch at this Elevated status, like maybe the Barkley loss, but then who doesn't ?
I might get some opposition to this , but happy to hear it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

A couple of other current Threads have got me thinking lately about this . Also , it shows how our views can change over a period of time .
Many years ago , Me and a Mate werde having a debate about the all time standings of the 4 kings. At the time, I ventured to put Duran above Hearns, and quite quickly got put in my place citing the way Hearns comatosed Duran. Fair point.
Gotta say, I'm slighly embarrassed by that view back then. Not because Duran wasn't an amazing fighter who rightfully is lauded as one of the all time greats himself, but more because as times gone on, at this moment in time, I probably have Hearns as my all time fave.
And I've said a few times on here recently, that IF he had Beaten Leonard , and IF he hadn't thrown the gameplan out the window against Hagler, he could've perhaps been all time #1.
I deliberately put the "IF's" in capitals , but not because they are BIG IF's. these things could've conceivably happened, they aren't outlandish.
I kinda would've liked this to be the case , because what's not to like?
1. Freakishly tall for his starting career weight , which enabled him to naturally move up the weights
2. Lovely technique allied to nastiness and aggressiveness
3. Text book venomous jab.
4. Heart and Strength.
5. Desire and love for Boxing. You don't box to the age he did if you didn't possess that.
6. Oodles of ability.
7. Probably Boxed like every single one of us would've wanted to if we were that blessed.
Yes , he had the odd glitch at this Elevated status, like maybe the Barkley loss, but then who doesn't ?
I might get some opposition to this , but happy to hear it.

---

I was a HUGE fan of Hearns, and didn't exactly like Duran during his early years. So needless to say I was more than a bit joyous when the Hitman starched Duran.

Having said that... if you got "put in your place" when putting Duran over Hearns in your ATG list... seems you weren't ready to defend your argument.

The fact is: a fighter who started his career at superbantam... standing all of 5'-7" with a reach of 66"... whose wheelhouse was anywhere between light (his peak) and welter... faced a 6'-1" fighter (with a 78" reach) at superwelter... a man whose build was arguably suited for lightheavy... AND... he got blown out of the ring.

An ATG in his own right, mind you... because Hearns belongs right up there with the best ever... but a total mismatch in size.

By the way... I keep correcting you people. There were five kings, not four. Wilfredo Benitez fought three of the other four. ;)

For me, Thomas Hearns was the most frightening boxer ever. I would have preferred to face Tyson, Foreman or Julian Jackson than the Hit Man. He looked like he wanted to decapitate your head from your shoulders with that right hand. His jab was razor sharp and would slice his opponents. The left hook to the head or body was unappreciated because of his other outstanding weapons. He was fast, tall and had tremendous power which he loved to use. His will to win and excitement he brought to boxing is legendary.

His physique and those eyes would make me want to run out of the ring. I am sure X will not mind me saying that he shared a gym (and ring) with him.

How Ray Leonard beat him god only knows, and I wonder how Sugar Ray Robinson would have fared against at welterweight. I could only see Robinson being able to beat that version of Hearns. Floyd, Tito, Oscar, Manny, Spence or Crawford would all lose.

Thomas Hearns was a better p4p fighter than Leonard even though he lost to him. Tommy really beat him in the rematch knocking Leonard down twice and was robbed in that fight. Hearns was better at light middleweight, super middleweight, and light heavyweight. He beat the undefeated Vigill Hill which elevates him on the p4p list.

If Hearns fought Benn, G Man, Jackson, Roy Jones, GGG, Canelo there would be dynamite in the ring.

Leonard is higher as an ATG. (Cue Primo ripping into me :))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

For me, Thomas Hearns was the most frightening boxer ever. I would have preferred to face Tyson, Foreman or Julian Jackson than the Hit Man. He looked like he wanted to decapitate your head from your shoulders with that right hand. His jab was razor sharp and would slice his opponents. The left hook to the head or body was unappreciated because of his other outstanding weapons. He was fast, tall and had tremendous power which he loved to use. His will to win and excitement he brought to boxing is legendary.

His physique and those eyes would make me want to run out of the ring. I am sure X will not mind me saying that he shared a gym (and ring) with him.

How Ray Leonard beat him god only knows, and I wonder how Sugar Ray Robinson would have fared against at welterweight. I could only see Robinson being able to beat that version of Hearns. Floyd, Tito, Oscar, Manny, Spence or Crawford would all lose.

Thomas Hearns was a better p4p fighter than Leonard even though he lost to him. Tommy really beat him in the rematch knocking Leonard down twice and was robbed in that fight. Hearns was better at light middleweight, super middleweight, and light heavyweight. He beat the undefeated Vigill Hill which elevates him on the p4p list.

If Hearns fought Benn, G Man, Jackson, Roy Jones, GGG, Canelo there would be dynamite in the ring.

Leonard is higher as an ATG. (Cue Primo ripping into me :))

---

no I'm not going to rip into you, I can see some logic in your thought there. But losses are losses unfortunately.
it highlights a difference in ATG and P4P thinking though. the other thing i would say, is that I am more confident that Hearns would've beaten Floyd in a Prime v Prime matchup than i am about SRL v Floyd . (I Know their primes are different weights , so that's something else that makes it difficult.)

Leonard beats Floyd all day long, it would be a good fight but see him better in all departments. It would be a similar fight to how he beat Benitez.

Hearns actively went on to take the biggest challenges. Some may have rated him higher if he avoided Leonard, waited for Hagler to retire, not taken on the champions at the higher weights to protect his zero like some fighters do.

Tommy should not be penalised to losing to greats or someone who had his number like Barkley. Ali had his Norton, Tyson his Holyfield, Shane his Forrest.

Canelo should not be penalised for his losses or Wlad for his early KO’s when he dominates the weight to beat all credible challengers when they are on the p4p list.

“It was crazy, someone sent me something about ‘The Best Welterweights’," Mayweather told Fight Hype. “They had Sugar Ray Leonard No1. Like I said before, he was the guy that paved the way for myself. But how can you have a guy ranked No1 when his first loss was to a lightweight, Roberto Duran?

“And then they also talked about me facing [Juan Manuel] Marquez, which was at catchweight of 144lbs. But this same guy, Marquez, knocked out their No3 ranked welterweight – because they had Pacquiao No3. He got knocked out by Juan Manuel Marquez. They were trying to say that basically he [Marquez] was too small for me. But he wasn't too small for Manny Pacquiao?"

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/boxi...c95461941d1ece

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Hearns actively went on to take the biggest challenges. Some may have rated him higher if he avoided Leonard, waited for Hagler to retire, not taken on the champions at the higher weights to protect his zero like some fighters do.

Tommy should not be penalised to losing to greats or someone who had his number like Barkley. Ali had his Norton, Tyson his Holyfield, Shane his Forrest.

Canelo should not be penalised for his losses or Wlad for his early KO’s when he dominates the weight to beat all credible challengers when they are on the p4p list.

---

Ironically... if the red bolded part were a question as to "Who does this?".... the answer is bolded below that in blue. ;) ;)

Tommy was an ATG- no doubt about it, but I agree that you can’t fault Duran for fighting a MUCH bigger man at a higher weight. I can see a solid case for Duran over Tommy- despite the head to head loss/blow out. Duran moved up after cleaning out 135 and beat a guy regarded as the top 1 or 2 welters ever when he beat an undefeated Ray Leonard. That win surpasses Tommy’s biggest wins and Tommy never cleaned out any weight class.

Tommy’s physical gifts, his heart/toughness, and his boxing skills were impressive and land him in the top 3 or 4 welterweights ever- but for me his losses to Leonard and Hagler keep him out of the top 15 all time. I have Duran as a solid top 10 ATG, with his loss to Hearns being an aberration/bad style match up. It was great growing up and being able to watch these guys compete in their primes- hoping we get another era of talent and toughness like that soon…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Tommy was an ATG- no doubt about it, but I agree that you can’t fault Duran for fighting a MUCH bigger man at a higher weight. I can see a solid case for Duran over Tommy- despite the head to head loss/blow out. Duran moved up after cleaning out 135 and beat a guy regarded as the top 1 or 2 welters ever when he beat an undefeated Ray Leonard. That win surpasses Tommy’s biggest wins and Tommy never cleaned out any weight class.

Tommy’s physical gifts, his heart/toughness, and his boxing skills were impressive and land him in the top 3 or 4 welterweights ever- but for me his losses to Leonard and Hagler keep him out of the top 15 all time. I have Duran as a solid top 10 ATG, with his loss to Hearns being an aberration/bad style match up. It was great growing up and being able to watch these guys compete in their primes- hoping we get another era of talent and toughness like that soon…

---

You make me feel a lot better about my original assessment, thanks for that.
But if Hearns is punished to outside the top 15 for losses to Leonard and Hagler, what does the “no mas” do for Duran’s ranking?
In no way am I dismissing your view, or Duran’s standing but It’s intriguing.

aaron pryor should've (could've) beat them all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Tommy was an ATG- no doubt about it, but I agree that you can’t fault Duran for fighting a MUCH bigger man at a higher weight. I can see a solid case for Duran over Tommy- despite the head to head loss/blow out. Duran moved up after cleaning out 135 and beat a guy regarded as the top 1 or 2 welters ever when he beat an undefeated Ray Leonard. That win surpasses Tommy’s biggest wins and Tommy never cleaned out any weight class.

Tommy’s physical gifts, his heart/toughness, and his boxing skills were impressive and land him in the top 3 or 4 welterweights ever- but for me his losses to Leonard and Hagler keep him out of the top 15 all time. I have Duran as a solid top 10 ATG, with his loss to Hearns being an aberration/bad style match up. It was great growing up and being able to watch these guys compete in their primes- hoping we get another era of talent and toughness like that soon…

---

You make me feel a lot better about my original assessment, thanks for that.
But if Hearns is punished to outside the top 15 for losses to Leonard and Hagler, what does the “no mas” do for Duran’s ranking?
In no way am I dismissing your view, or Duran’s standing but It’s intriguing.

---

Duran had some bad losses which actually made his victories over Moore and Barkley even more amazing because you thought he was finished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Tommy was an ATG- no doubt about it, but I agree that you can’t fault Duran for fighting a MUCH bigger man at a higher weight. I can see a solid case for Duran over Tommy- despite the head to head loss/blow out. Duran moved up after cleaning out 135 and beat a guy regarded as the top 1 or 2 welters ever when he beat an undefeated Ray Leonard. That win surpasses Tommy’s biggest wins and Tommy never cleaned out any weight class.

Tommy’s physical gifts, his heart/toughness, and his boxing skills were impressive and land him in the top 3 or 4 welterweights ever- but for me his losses to Leonard and Hagler keep him out of the top 15 all time. I have Duran as a solid top 10 ATG, with his loss to Hearns being an aberration/bad style match up. It was great growing up and being able to watch these guys compete in their primes- hoping we get another era of talent and toughness like that soon…

---

You make me feel a lot better about my original assessment, thanks for that.
But if Hearns is punished to outside the top 15 for losses to Leonard and Hagler, what does the “no mas” do for Duran’s ranking?
In no way am I dismissing your view, or Duran’s standing but It’s intriguing.

---

Great question! I rank fighters based on historical impact, wins, accomplishments, quality of opposition, and use losses to separate. I rank Duran higher because he completely cleaned out 135, and beat a prime Leonard, one of the top two welterweights of all time, a full weight class above his (Duran’s) best weight. Tommy never matched Duran’s win over Leonard, and he never cleaned out any of the weight classes he was in. Had he beat Hagler, who I have as a top 3 middleweight of all time, I would then have to use the losses to separate them because their accomplishments would be so close.

For no mas/the losses- that is what keeps Duran out of the top 7 or 8 for me, but I don’t hold it against Duran since he was above his best weight and fighting another ATG fighter. Additionally, I really don’t hold the Hagler loss against Tommy since it was against an ATG above Tommy’s best weight, just like I don’t hold the losses to Barkley against him since he was past his prime up in weight, and fighting a bad style match up. It is an interesting example of styles making fights when you compare Duran’s performances against Hagler, Leonard, and Barkley to Tommy’s and then watch Tommy blow Duran out like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Tommy was an ATG- no doubt about it, but I agree that you can’t fault Duran for fighting a MUCH bigger man at a higher weight. I can see a solid case for Duran over Tommy- despite the head to head loss/blow out. Duran moved up after cleaning out 135 and beat a guy regarded as the top 1 or 2 welters ever when he beat an undefeated Ray Leonard. That win surpasses Tommy’s biggest wins and Tommy never cleaned out any weight class.

Tommy’s physical gifts, his heart/toughness, and his boxing skills were impressive and land him in the top 3 or 4 welterweights ever- but for me his losses to Leonard and Hagler keep him out of the top 15 all time. I have Duran as a solid top 10 ATG, with his loss to Hearns being an aberration/bad style match up. It was great growing up and being able to watch these guys compete in their primes- hoping we get another era of talent and toughness like that soon…

---

You make me feel a lot better about my original assessment, thanks for that.
But if Hearns is punished to outside the top 15 for losses to Leonard and Hagler, what does the “no mas” do for Duran’s ranking?
In no way am I dismissing your view, or Duran’s standing but It’s intriguing.

---

Great question! I rank fighters based on historical impact, wins, accomplishments, quality of opposition, and use losses to separate. I rank Duran higher because he completely cleaned out 135, and beat a prime Leonard, one of the top two welterweights of all time, a full weight class above his (Duran’s) best weight. Tommy never matched Duran’s win over Leonard, and he never cleaned out any of the weight classes he was in. Had he beat Hagler, who I have as a top 3 middleweight of all time, I would then have to use the losses to separate them because their accomplishments would be so close.

For no mas/the losses- that is what keeps Duran out of the top 7 or 8 for me, but I don’t hold it against Duran since he was above his best weight and fighting another ATG fighter. Additionally, I really don’t hold the Hagler loss against Tommy since it was against an ATG above Tommy’s best weight, just like I don’t hold the losses to Barkley against him since he was past his prime up in weight, and fighting a bad style match up. It is an interesting example of styles making fights when you compare Duran’s performances against Hagler, Leonard, and Barkley to Tommy’s and then watch Tommy blow Duran out like that.

---

Great methodology for ranking! I do the same... but in addition I take into account other factors that sometimes do not show up in the W-L column. These other factors all have one thing in common: the willingness to fight other fighters at their peak, with no attempts to stack the deck before the fight. I don't need to list those factors because I've mentioned them enough. But the point is that these things do not show up on a fighter's W-L record, yet are supremely important (to me, anyway) to take into account when ranking fighters all time.

The thing about Leonard, Hearns, Duran, Hagler, Benitez... is that they faced each other at their best... at their peaks. There was little of the posturing or trying to get all the advantages that exists with some champions today.

Speaking more about Hearns, again... I was a HUGE fan. Always an electrifying threat that made you sit in your seat and not want to blink during his fights. He always threw punches meant to end fights.

But... when ranking him against someone like Leonard... I have to give the edge to SRL all day long. One could argue that Hearns burst onto the big time when he crushed Pipino Cuevas in two rounds in 1980. But hell... he looked like a skinny giant next to Cuevas and any other welter he faced at the time. Height and reach were the deciding factors for sure. In fact, when he faced off with Leonard in '81, I thought SRL was done for sure. That's why that fight has to be considered one of the best fights in history. It was a huge upset.

I am sure Leonard was favourite against Hearns?