Still one of the best punchers of all time

[tedsares]

Hearns could pop! He could end the fight with one straight right at anytime. Pure excitement.

[DaxxKahn]

.

[DaxxKahn]

JEEZE what a puncher! His overhand right was F****** nasty! Sod having that pile down on your jaw....NASTY! Always remember that punch on Duran that was really rough. Quite sad tbh to see a great great fighter get sparked cold like that!

Actually one of the best KO's of all time IMO was his destruction of James Shuler wjo was a good up and coming fighter....He went out so hard I remember my uncle stood up and said "Holy S%$# he F"in Killed him:"


[youtube=425,350]http://youtube.com/watch?v=woWSl5PBVAs[/youtube]

awsome

[LegendBoxing65]

I know you guys say he took Hagler's bombs so why couldn't he take Hearns. Hearns hit alot harder than Marvin. Marvin was a hard puncher but he did not have the leverage of Hearns. He had power but not the leverage. Hearns just put all his leverage into his punches against Duran.. Roldan was asked later who punches harder Hagler or Hearns and he said immediately Hearns. Like no doubt at all. I don't think there is a doubt who punched harder.

[landmine950]

I know you guys say he took Hagler's bombs so why couldn't he take Hearns. Hearns hit alot harder than Marvin. Marvin was a hard puncher but he did not have the leverage of Hearns. He had power but not the leverage. Hearns just put all his leverage into his punches against Duran.. Roldan was asked later who punches harder Hagler or Hearns and he said immediately Hearns. Like no doubt at all. I don't think there is a doubt who punched harder.

Duran tried a sort of "Rope-a-Doper" on Hearns! motioned with his glove
"come on!" as he lay against the ropes!! that got him KTFO'd![youtube=425,350]GWei_1rSssE[/youtube]
Very exciting fight tho'! Duran was an excellent defensive and counterpunching boxer. But did it without running!

[LegendBoxing65]

Duran was a great fighter but he was never hit that clean or hard in his life. Hearns was just too fast and too big. The difference between a fighter of Hearns caliber and the other guys Duran has fought is a big difference in height and reach and speed. Hearns punched too straight for Duran. That fight was almost a mismatch. And Duran was a legend. Hearns has so many fights like that.. Problem with Hearns is if you look at his wins he is like the greatest fighter who ever lived, Then you look at his loses and they were the two biggest fights of his life in Hagler and Hearns. But his wins are better than most of the wins Leonard or Hagler had as far as conclusive. So he is an enigma of the best and the hardest fall. He just let it all hang out too much and he is such a great fighter who likes to go for broke. his mentality of fighting and brawling with that long spindly frame is his undoing. That going for broke is not a good thing for Tommy. Leonard, Hagler and Barkley all were cases where he was doing more than he should have. Why not sit there and jab all night and win a decision. He would jab and find out he could hit the other guy easily, so he would go for it and they would counter. Hearns didn't like to jab in situation where he could hit the guy with rights and lefts. He was his own worst opponent.

[DaxxKahn]

Duran was a great fighter but he was never hit that clean or hard in his life. Hearns was just too fast and too big. The difference between a fighter of Hearns caliber and the other guys Duran has fought is a big difference in height and reach and speed. Hearns punched too straight for Duran. That fight was almost a mismatch. And Duran was a legend. Hearns has so many fights like that.. Problem with Hearns is if you look at his wins he is like the greatest fighter who ever lived, Then you look at his loses and they were the two biggest fights of his life in Hagler and Hearns. But his wins are better than most of the wins Leonard or Hagler had as far as conclusive. So he is an enigma of the best and the hardest fall. He just let it all hang out too much and he is such a great fighter who likes to go for broke. his mentality of fighting and brawling with that long spindly frame is his undoing. That going for broke is not a good thing for Tommy. Leonard, Hagler and Barkley all were cases where he was doing more than he should have. Why not sit there and jab all night and win a decision. He would jab and find out he could hit the other guy easily, so he would go for it and they would counter. Hearns didn't like to jab in situation where he could hit the guy with rights and lefts. He was his own worst opponent.

CC good post very true

[BIG H]

CC,i kind of guessed it would be Hearns.Is he your favorite fighter of all time?I'm going to buy some of his fights,which would you recommend the most?

Yes I must admit I am a huge Tommy fan...His only flaw was a bad chin....if he had better jaw he would have been twice as good...

Also had weak legs, but I agree he 'could' have been better than Hagler Duran & Leonard without these 2 floors.

[ICB]

CC,i kind of guessed it would be Hearns.Is he your favorite fighter of all time?I'm going to buy some of his fights,which would you recommend the most?

Yes I must admit I am a huge Tommy fan...His only flaw was a bad chin....if he had better jaw he would have been twice as good...

Also had weak legs, but I agree he 'could' have been better than Hagler Duran & Leonard without these 2 floors.

do u know ive always wondered if his chin was bad or it was just his legs that couldnt stand power of real power punch his legs were weak and they couldnt stand up to big bombs im not so sure if his chin was bad or it was just his weak legs

[LegendBoxing65]

Good point. His chin did hold up to the initial punches of Hagler and Barkley and Leonard. And he took a good Duran right hand in his fight with Roberto in 1984. Problem with Hearns was more stamina. He took alot of Hagler's punches in 1985 and did not fall when other guys would have, yet then he is stopped. Just seems like his chin was not dependable, but it was not necessarily weak. With his body you get that big leverage punching and the long frame which does not absorb good punches sometimes. Look at Bob Foster. Foster could punch like heck and landed so well at Light heavy that his chin was not exposed, but at heavyweight they could take his punches better and then he was clocked. That long frame did not absorb. Hearns and Foster are the cream of the crop of that style of fighter who is stretched out. Other guys like that were Breland who is not in the Hearns and Foster class since Breland was just a little too weak. Milton McCrory was that king of fighter although Milton had a 73 inch reach.. So he was tall but not that good a reach,,..

[Violent Demise]

Always love watching Hearns. The one and only true Hitman

[Kev]

Did anybody see his son Ronald fight the other week? He actually looks pretty good himself, built in the same mode, 6 ft 3 and a middleweight!

Got a first round ko, looks pretty useful.

He's currently 11-0 with 7 ko's in the first round!

[LegendBoxing65]

I have heard of Ronald Hearns but the problem is that his father Thomas Hearns had 163 amatuer fights before he turned pro and was a Golden Gloves champ. Ronald had a handful of amatuer fights. Totally different story here. They will market him as the next Tommy Hearns, but he just does not have the skills his dad did and he is 27 0r 28 years old now. By the time Tommy was that age he had fought Cueves,Leonard,Benitez,Duran,Hagler,Shuler etc etc. But I hope Ronald can maybe win a title in his career. But I doubt he will be a multi titlest.