Quote Originally Posted by greynotsoold View Post
Hearns was pretty good. Lost twice to Iran Barkley, and I guess he just had his number. But there's a couple other glitches in his career that make me wonder about him being 'great.'
He fought Doug DeWitt, nobody's definition of a great, or particularly good, fighter. He had skills and some mental lapses that held him back, and a very solid chin for most of his career. Hearns hit DeWitt with something like 22 straight punches at the end of the 2nd round of their fight and didn't hurt him: but Doug had a good chin and Hearns was having hand problems then. In the 7th round DeWitt landed several body punches and took it all out of Hearns.
Hearns fought Olijade and out boxed him, knocked him down. In the course of trying to finish him, Hearns got hit with a left hook that took his legs straight away. He had nothing and sleep walked the rest of the way against a guy that had less and didn't know what he had in front of him.
In my mind, his inability to take a punch and recover is what keeps Hearns from being a truly top-flight fighter. Granted, he could concievably overwhelm a guy like he did Duran (a better fighter), but, if that didn't work, he was waiting to be had. Thjis was true throughout his entire career, at every weight. McCallum would've beaten him, Toney, and a bunch of others.
Hearns had his faults. No denying that. You make some decent points. You consider him to be a good fighter. But his resume says otherwise. No matter what happened in the Olijade and DeWitt fights he still won them. And they were clearcut wins. Add Pipino Cuevas, Roberto Duran, Bruce Curry, Wilfred Benitez, Ray Leonard (that was no draw), Virgil Hill, Angel Espada and it ain't hard to see why he's pretty much consider great by most