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

[Primo Carnera]

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.

[TIC]

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

[Master]

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.

[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.

[TitoFan]

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.

[Master]

I am sure Leonard was favourite against Hearns?

[mikeeod]

I am sure Leonard was favourite against Hearns?

Tommy was undefeated and looked like a killer/monster (he was a killer/monster) where Ray had suffered the upset against Duran. He had avenged the loss but it was close into the 8th and no one had ever seen Hearns do anything but blow opponents out- so from my recollection I remember it being close but Tommy being the betting favorite (slightly). I may be remembering incorrectly but I recall it being a true 50/50 split that leaned slightly towards Hearns when the bets started coming in.

[TitoFan]

I am sure Leonard was favourite against Hearns?

Tommy was undefeated and looked like a killer/monster (he was a killer/monster) where Ray had suffered the upset against Duran. He had avenged the loss but it was close into the 8th and no one had ever seen Hearns do anything but blow opponents out- so from my recollection I remember it being close but Tommy being the betting favorite (slightly). I may be remembering incorrectly but I recall it being a true 50/50 split that leaned slightly towards Hearns when the bets started coming in.

I don't recall either... but for the reasons you mention... it seems logical that Hearns would have been favored. I know going in that I thought SRL was gonna get knocked out. What followed was an epic fight, with the ebbs and flows I also look for when ranking the greatest fights of all time.

[Master]

[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.

Agree with your point on context when weighting big names on a resume- highest marks awarded for beating great fighters while they are in their prime. Roy Jones doesn't get full credit for a green BHOP, BHOP doesn't get full credit for a past his best Roy, Calzaghe doesn't get full credit for beating either BHOP or Roy...etc. Similarly, BHOP gets full credit for jumping to 175 and shutting out Tarver but does not get full credit for stopping the much smaller Oscar.

As for Tommy vs Ray- each proved their greatness in that fight and may have been the only two who could have ever put on that type of fight with each other at that weight (maybe Ray Robinson could have stood in for one of them and produced a similarly great fight). I don't see Oscar, Shane, Tito, Basilio, Armstrong, Spence, Crawford, Manny, or Floyd lasting 14 rounds with either of those two on that night- in my mind they were the two greatest welters ever meeting in their prime and putting on the greatest fight that weight class has ever had. That being said- you have to go with Ray since he pulled it out and got the stoppage after coming from behind. Those guys were a different breed.