Quote Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Thomas Hearns was two different fighters during his career. Early on he was an over-sized welter with a pulverizing right hand and a long left jab. He got beat because his stamina was suspect, he could not withstand body punches and his chin wasn't the best.
Then he hurt his right hand and became, again, the boxer he had been during his amateur days. During this period he developed that wicked left hook to the body, much like Roger Mayweather did when he hurt his right hand. It made him a more complete fighter. But no fighter enough to fight with Hagler. Again, his weak chin and bad legs did him in. I should point out that he lost his legs against DeWitt and Olijiade (check my spelling there, please). He looked great against Hill because Hill wouldn't press him.
Hearns was pretty damn good. But an all time great...Not at 160. Not at 175. And, for sure, not at 147. There were so many good fighters that people forget, like Emile Griffith and Luis Rivera that would have eaten his lunch. Look them up and learn about them.
Tommy Hearns would beat Griffith like a gay slave and knock Rivera into next week. Imagine Hearns-Benvenuti . Or Or Hearns-Paret . If you consider them greater due to accomplishment, I'd disagree there as well but it least it's reasonable. But to act like they were a level above in terms of ability is laughable. If anything it's the other way around. He was a more dominant fighter with better wins (and less bad losses) then either of those guys.

Seriously, Hearns-Grffith is one of the worst stylistic mismatches I can think of.