Home News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia
The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 169

Thread: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

  1. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    665
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    Cotto's been rocked quite a few times.

    Hearns may actually have the better chin between the two.

  2. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Louth, Ireland
    Posts
    5,150
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    Cotto is a very good fighter but he is not a natural Welter and that's why IMO he does not threaten a peak Hearns at 147lbs. Like I said before, if it took Ray Leoanrd who was a big hard hitting alltime great welter 14 rds to break Tommy, then I see Tommy not only lasting V Cotto, Floyd, Hatton etc, but dispatching them all quite early. He's just too hard hitting against fighters who are not real Welters.

    Even when JC and Pea were winning welter titles it was not the cream of the crop because both are at best 10 stone fighters. They too would not compete with Hearns, Curry, Leonard, Starling and even Breland and Aaron Davis due to their lack of power at an unnatural weight.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    I'd like to first see Hearns

    losing to Cotto Level fighters before we start selecting them to Beat Hearns.

    Such a Weak body, and Yet it Took a Leonard, A Hagler and a heavy hitting Barkley at Middleweight with a mircalce shot to the chin to take him out. And Leonard and Hagler are akin to Cotto correct?

    And obviously Cuevas beating Espada, Weston, Gray, Shields, Backus and Ranzany isn't enough to lift you up above a Miguel Cotto is it? Oy. Tough crowd.

    Hearns had some problems with a much more experienced Weston on the way up to THAT is evidence that Hearns loses to Cotto?

    Ok, then Joe Louis getting ko'd by Max Schmeling on the way up for him, is why I take Wladamir Klit over the Bomber in his prime.

    Sound pretty silly, weak and full of holes?

    Yep. It sure does.

    Hawk

  4. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Louth, Ireland
    Posts
    5,150
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    And let's not forget that Barkley shot was a bomb to the face, not the body and it was infinitely harder than any shot Cotto could ever dream of.
    I really believe Hearns chin is underrated. Cotto may look good hurting 140lb fighters with body shots, but let's see him get even close to Tommy to try it and when he does or if he does, Hearns takes it, just like he took it from Ray for 14 rds

    One other thing is Cotto stands only 5 feet 7...this is at least 6 short of Hearns and that is just too much to give away to Tommy. Leonard was 5 feet 10 and this proved a big advantage to Hearns. Cotto would be lucky to go 3 rds with the 1981 Leonard at 147lbs as would Floyd, Hatton, Spinks, Judah etc.

  5. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    A shed in someones backyard in London, England
    Posts
    179
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    I dont see how anyone can compare Cotto to Hearns, or that matter Cuevas... those guys Benitez, Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Cuevas, Hagler... were all true greats who proved their worth against the best when the talent was high, titles were few (only two champs per division!! oh God! those were the days!!) and the champs actually fought eachother and the top contenders!... today we get a watered down version of it all... the talent isnt so high, theres more champs than contenders and most of the champs defend against selected opposition... I actually like Cotto and he has fought some good fighters but nothing to lift him into the catagory of the previously mentioned greats and indeed his showings against those he has fought lead me to believe that he would have had a hard time dealing with the likes of Hearns and Cuevas... not to mention the rest!!....

  6. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,783
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    ray leonard staggered tommy and then stalked him with tommy going backwards. he gassed out and got caught and that was it. it was no demarco v basilio breakdown. tommy hearns had a underrated chin. well I dont think so. he got hit he gets hurt and he dont shake off a shot that good. great offensive tools, but then so does vlad klitchko and no ones raves about his chances with good heavies. tommy fought a okay bunch of welters but no all time greats as the guys I mentioned. he fought ray leonard and lost for the reasons i name in a bout that was there for him to win. cotto beats him? why the hell not? i see it as a toss up and i think cottos body shots win the day. tommy beating griff and basilio and kid gavilan etc. i dont see that at all.

  7. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Louth, Ireland
    Posts
    5,150
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    OK, Tommy has a bad chin and weak body. But against Cotto, so WHAT!!!
    Against Robinson, Hagler, Leonard, Barkley, Toney, G-Man, Benn etc etc this may prove fatal. Against Cotto it will feel like he is being tickled. Cotto does not punch as a true welter and not hard enough to expose Tommy's weak chin and body, CASE closed!!

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    Losing to Sugar Ray Leonard

    Makes it so that he loses to Cotto?

    Isn't that kind of backwards? If Hearns lost to a Cotto level fighter, I could see why no one would think he fares well with Leonard.

    But the reverse?

    What sense does this make?

    Hawk

  9. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,783
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    I see no reason to back off what I said about Cotto taking Hearns at welter. Cotto is strong in his mind, takes a good shot, has the warrior attitude and is patient about breaking down a foe. Hearns has what it takes to nail him or box him, but I dont think he will. He'll go in and fight and in that type of bout I like Cotto.
    Id like to comment on the Hearns era at welter as opposed to the previous one. I didnt think much of Cuevas as a boxer. He had great power in his hood. Much more than Tommy Hearns. But he was not a good boxer nor did he take a good shot, shaking them off and coming back. He was there to beat.
    I felt the Napoles era was as good if not better than Hearns, Leonard, Benitez and Duran. Jose, Hedgeman Lewis, Earnie Lopez, Mando Muniz, Carlos Palimino etc were all very very good boxers. I agree that todays era is not as deep, but Cotto would be a good fighter in any era and it would take a very good fighter to beat him. Hes beatable, but not by anyone with limited stamina and chin.

  10. #40
    MANAGING EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    In an undisclosed bunker deep in the weird, wild, woods of the Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    11,450
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    Let's get real here. I very rarely disagree with Rock but I have to this time.

    No welter today is in the same league as Hearns was.With his size, hand speed & power he would decapitate any welter today. & yes, that includes Floyd who I consider a great fighter. But he would just be outsized, outgunned & Tommy's hands at welter were as fast as Floyd's.

    GorDoom

  11. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    In my PERSONAL Opinion

    This is more than misguided rationalization.

    This wreaks of a stubborn underlying bias that has thrown all logic out the window.

    Nothing else makes sense here to me.

    Hawk

  12. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    1,527
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    I have been thinking and I think that if there were no Leonard, Hearns would have looked a lot like Robinson. Destroying everything in his path, with an amazing record. That is, up until Hagler, maybe Duran. No shame in losing to those guys.

    MAYBE... if Hearns would have stayed focused in '81 durning the bout instead of smiling there would have been no need for this point about there being no Leonard. He would have just beaten Leonard flat out.

    Hearns had imo the fastest hands p4p of all-time mixed with remarkable power. If he had footmovement and ability to counter on the move he would hve been Robinson.

    Hearns was a monster and no one today and a very select few from yesterday could have stood in there with a fighter as special as Tommy Gunz.

    Long Live Tommy Hearns.

  13. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,407
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    Hearns did not fight long enough at welter to gain his due. Even at 22 he gave a prime Leonard the fight of his life. With more experience he might have won that fight.

    Hearns was in his prime at 154 and at that weight he was devastating. I really see him beating all these guys except Robinson of course but Basilio could have been real tought with his chin, strength and stamina.

  14. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    I disagree.

    Hearns was never faster or a more powerful hitter than when he was at Welterweight. And he was never healthier either.

    His KO % at 154 was .500. Now much of that may have had to do with his wrist being broken multiple times, but it was what it was. I think Hearns was a Great Jr. Middle. I think he was better at 147.

    His most healthy, productive and most impressive portion of his career, was wehn Hearns was a Welterweight.

    The proof are in the results.

    Could Hearns have stayed at 147 following the loss to Leonard? He had no issues making 147. Ever. Had Leonard said he would give Tommy a rematch, you would not have seen Hearns move up to 160. ANd then down to 154.

    He would have stayed at 147 until either he got his rematch or Ray retired becuase of his eye. The ONLY reason he moved out of 147 was BECAUSE Ray said no to an immediate rematch or would not commit to a return in a year or so.

    Leonard was playing businessman. Hearns wanted revenge. Can't really blame either. And I don;t blame Tommy for making a move to challenge Hagler, even though in 1982 is was too much of a leap for him. Much more so than it was in 1985.

    Tommy may have been a freak with his height and reach. But he was a natural Welterweight. And he was making weight easily on same day weigh ins as well. He wasn't balooning up after weighins.

    Let's remember, he finished his amateur career as a Lightweight/jr. Welterweight.

    Would a few more years at 147 have cemented his legacy even further? Yes it would have. But then agian. Being second banana to Sugar Ray Leonard when Leonard was at his peak, isn't too shabby a banana.

    Hawk

  15. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    52
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    Styles make fights, and Hearns ko's Cotto every time they fight. Cotto is a good fighter, but Hearns physical advantages pose insurmountable problems for Cotto. Pipino Cuevas was one dimensional, but he crushed some pretty good fighters- I don't know if Cotto would have beaten Gray, Espada, Weston, Ranzany ,etc.

  16. #46
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,407
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    Hawkins , where do you get your facts from? Hearn's never had trouble making 147? Maybe you forgot he's almost 6'2". At 22 he had to dry out to make it. In fact it backfired against him v.s. Leonard. How long do you think he could have stayed at that weight?

    I disagree about his prime. His biggest wins by far and his most dominant performances were at 154. Benitez, Duran, Hutchings ... he looked amazing. He was also a more mature fighter at that point.

  17. #47
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,851
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    Evan, Hearns and everyone in his camp has always said that Tommy never had any issue hitting 147. He came in light for Leonard not because he dried out, but because he'd trained like a fiend and that was where his fighting weight settled. Manny has suggested Hearns was vulnerable late because he was OVERtrained (which I think is BS). Hearns himself has often said that anyone who suggests he ever had trouble making 147 is dead wrong.

    Because he was so tall and muscular in the upper body everyone assumes he must have been bleeding his weight to hit 147. But everyone involved with the Hearns camp says that was not so. My guess is it was because he was carrying 30 less pounds in his stick legs than any other 6'2er on Earth.

  18. #48
    MANAGING EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    In an undisclosed bunker deep in the weird, wild, woods of the Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    11,450
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    Btw: Guys, Tommy weighed 145 for the Leonard weigh in. Doesn't sound like a guy killing himself to make weight. I do agree with idea that he was probably a little over trained for the match.

    He should have come in at 147 & with the few pounds he might have gained before fight time might have been a little stronger but who knows if it would have made a difference?

    One other salient point to remember about Tommy: While at welter he was considered a KO machine & people forget that Tommy was one HELLUVA boxer when he wanted to be, Proved that after he got badly hurt by Ray's body shot in I believe the 5th or 6th round.

    Most don't think of him that way but Tommy (except for his sometimes shaky chin) was the complete package at welter. An outstanding, tall, fast, boxer, with one punch power in both hands.

    Does that sound like ANY welter today???

    I think not.

    GorDoom

  19. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,133
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    Hearns today at 147 literally destroys most if not all of the fighters today. Mayweather would get literally beaten to a pulp versus Hearns. Cotto, would have a good chance offensively versus Hearns, but the moment he tasted Hearns power, it is over. I say 2 rounds. Mosley takes too many shots, and remember how he fared vs a poor mans Tommy (Forrest). Hmmm who else, Margerita and Williams...Yawnnnn.

    For those who don't know. Tommy before Ray was 32-0 with 30 Ko's. He was known as a amateur as a master boxer, and couple that with the physical abilities and the power he developed as a professional..he was a offensive destruction force that not many welterweights ever could deal with. We say that he had a weak chin. Hmmm. Well he was never backed up, until he faced Leonard who was IMO the 2nd best Welter ever, a hard hitting Welter with decent size. A welter who may not be a devastating KO artist as Hearns was, but a Welter that was able to ko a champion at Jr Middle, and even at Super Middle/Light heavy? Thus I would not be so sure to slam Tommy's chin at Welter, as his overall record at welter was 32-1 with his only loss to Leonard. Not to shabby. He then lost went toe to toe with Hagler and got stopped and then by a perfect shot by Barkely.

    True Tommy lost in his biggest fighters to KO so he would not go down in history as having the best chin ever, but at welterweight the man was beast, and I have him beating (easily) any welters out there today. Can you imagine Mayweather trying to fight Hearns, or Cotto getting rocked by a Tommy right hand or left hook, or Mosley getting hammered by a left upper cut by Tommy like he did versus Forrest.... No my friends, Tommy would slaughter this group of very good welterweights.

  20. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Louth, Ireland
    Posts
    5,150
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    Quote Originally Posted by HE Grant
    Hawkins , where do you get your facts from? Hearn's never had trouble making 147? Maybe you forgot he's almost 6'2". At 22 he had to dry out to make it. In fact it backfired against him v.s. Leonard. How long do you think he could have stayed at that weight?

    I disagree about his prime. His biggest wins by far and his most dominant performances were at 154. Benitez, Duran, Hutchings ... he looked amazing. He was also a more mature fighter at that point.
    I always thought this too that Hearns may have had trouble due to his size making weight. I'm sure it wasn't easy for him but the guys seem to know it wasn't killing him. I guess he just had that weight drained ripped ripped look about him. I also believe he was a more comfortable fighter at 11 stone. He just seemed more powerful and realxed at the higher weight

  21. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    Where do I get my facts from?

    Hearns himself.

    Ring Magazine January 1982:

    Ring: You Weighed 145 for the fight. Surprisingly light, wasn't it?

    Hearns: People think just becuase I'm tall and have a big upper body that I should be heavier and that I have a problem making 147 pounds. Let me set the record straight right now. I don't have any problem making 147 pounds. none at all. I think I proved that by coming in at 145.

    Ring: Rumor has it that you had to sweat it out in your hotel bathroom with the hot water turned on to make the room steamy the day of the fight. Any truth to that rumor?

    Hearns: None at all. I did not turn on the hot water in my bathroom and make it into a steam room. I did not go into a sauna either. That 145 pounds I weighed the day of the fight was my natural weight.


    Can I make it any clearer than this?

    Later in the interview:

    RIng: Might you have overtrained or dehydrated from making weight?

    Hearns: I couldn't have been dehydrated. I told you I made the weight naturally. I didn't have to starve myself. I ate like I always eat before a fight. As for over training, that couldn;t have been possible. When a fighter overtrains, he gets tired and is not strong during a bout. I never got tired. and felt very strong.


    Hearns also point out in the article that Leonard hurt him with shots to the head. Which if you WATCH Leonard Hearns I, you will SEE with your own eyes, that that was what led to Tommy's down fall in the bout. He was strong as hell in the 12th round and into the 13th as well....BEFORE he was HURT by Leonard.

    Hearns Admits Ray hurt him.

    I suppose if you refuse to believe Hearns now, you'd never listen to me.

    If you have some sort of reliable source stating that Hearns routinely had trouble making 147, by all means, trot it out. (No Rocky, your Mob informants that you can't Identify don't count.). Otherwise, I think Tommy has the last word on this.

    As far as 154, he Looked AWESOME agianst Duran. But no other bout did he approach that night at that level. Hutchings went down early twice. Then hung around until the 3rd and lost by TKO. Minchillo never went anywhere. Medal, hung around longer than he should have. Benitez was an excellent win for Hearns. BUT, he did not look better than he did agianst Leonard. AND Hearns broke his hand in that bout. Tommy was infact damaged for MANY 154 pound fights.

    A DAMAGED Hearns was not better than a HEALTHY Hearns. You can't "what if" this. Hearns being 100% healthy at 154, was FAR more INfrequent than Hearns being 100% at 147. ANd Hearns had 32 bouts at 147 and only 6 at 154.

    Remember, I'm comparing Hearns to Hearns here. Not anyone else.

    Hawk
    Last edited by hawk5ins; 06-12-2007 at 08:27 AM.

  22. #52
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    beat me to it Hawk.

  23. #53
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,444
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharkey
    beat me to it Hawk.
    Ditto.

    I was ready to start digging through the boxes for the issue that contained that interview.

    The interview has always stuck in my head over the years because I got the definite sense that the interviewer was trying to give Tommy an excuse, an 'out' if you will for the loss to Leonard and Tommy didn't budge. I also remember Tommy giving Ray full props for punching power (rated him numerically 10 out of 10? Refresh my memory it's been 25 years).

    Gracious in victory and gracious in defeat.

    Also, did Tommy not break his right hand in the first round against Hagler? I don't remember him ever using that as an excuse which most fighters would have jumped on since the right was his best weapon. It's at the point now that I'm not sure he actually did break it since it is rarely if ever mentioned.
    Last edited by 10-8; 06-12-2007 at 08:37 AM.

  24. #54
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Louth, Ireland
    Posts
    5,150
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    Great interview snippet. I was just going to comment on the fact that Tommy went 13-14 rds at a very fast pace, he threw more shots, landed more shots and moved a lot more than Ray. So I guess this tells us that he was very fit and strong during the fight. Ray was just stronger that's all, harder hitting and took a beating that little bit better. At the end of the day, there was pretty much nothing between both fighters. The only other thing I would say is that even though Hearns says this in the interview, I cannot imagine him admitting to having trouble making the weight or in any way trying to make excuses. So though we have to take his word and I do to a certain extent, I still think that even if he was killing himself, he wouldn't want an opponent or the media to know this, at least definitely not before the fight. After the fight, it would come across a sour grapes if he made out he was having trouble. Is this possible?

  25. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    Walsh

    To 10-8's point here, the interviewer WAS giving Hearns an opportunity to make up an exscuse to DEFUSE the loss and Hearns did not do so.

    If he stated he had issues making weight and was weak for the bout, then everyone could then conclude that "had Hearns been at full strength, he wins the bout."

    Hearns did not do this and gave FULL credit to Leonard's power as being the deciding factor.

    What makes you look better? Saying you were LEGITIMATELY hurt or saying the REASON you were hurt was becuase you were drained from making weight?

    Hearns did NOT weasle or make exscuses. He answered honestly.

    Hawk

  26. #56
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Louth, Ireland
    Posts
    5,150
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    Hawk, you don't need to convince me. I agree that Ray's power was the deciding factor and Ray's all round strength. I was basically just putting it out there, as all great sports heroes rarely make excuses for a loss and rarely admit that maybe they had certain problems coming up to a sporting engagement. Yes the interviewer was giving him an opportunity to make and excuse and Tommy did not use it for two possible reasons IMO, one is that there was no excuse, at least not a weight issue, and two that he was NOT going to give an excuse for fear it may make him look like a sore loser.

    From my knowledge of Hearns and Ray which is NOT as much as yours I'm sure, I did think that Hearns struggled with 147 due to his height and the fact that he looked so gaunt in the face especially. You in a previous thread said that there was no real evidence to suggest this. So I have to take it that 'looks can be deceiving'....I also remember hearing that he came into the weigh in a couple lbs too light and people were trying to use this as a reason as to why he lost, because he was drained. I don't believe that. He lost for a number of reasons, but there will always be a small reason IMO, that he may have struggled with his weight, more than he will ever admit

    Last, I don't believe he could have stayed at 147 much longer. He was fast growing out of this weight....

    You say Hearns didn't weasle or make excuses and that he answered honestly. Maybe he did, but you or I or anyone else cannot know this. Only Tommy really knows.

  27. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    Honestly or dishonestly, there is no weasling. If Tommy was drained, but didn't tell anyone, how would that be weasling to make excuses...since he was hiding his excuse?

    He may not have been honest. Maybe he was drained. But not using that as an excuse is the opposite of weasling.

  28. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    In his last bout at 147

    Hearns weighed in at 145, I don't see that as evidence he was "fast growing" out of the weight class.

    He moved up to 160 to try and challenge Hagler only when Leonard made it clear there was no immediate or shortly down the road, rematch in the works.

    If one can point out WHERE Hearns struggled to make 147, I'll listen to that theory as evidence he WAS fast growing out of the division.

    Otherwise, I think if he has a return with Ray, he doesn't go anywhere until Ray retired due to his eye or he got a rematch.

    And as far as Athletes making exscuses for lossses? It happens ALL the time. In fact I think the exscuse making for losses FAR exceeds the honest approach.

    Was Steffi Graf ever 100% in a Loss? How about Roger Clemens? And it goes on and on. (Note: There IS no bigger fan of EITHER Graf or Clemens than me. But they ROUTINELY leaned on "exscuses" before and after outings. The only worse exscuse maker I have ever seen in Tennis had to be Martina. It was ALWAYS something other than her opponent.) Athletes are known to leak out an injury or anything else for a built in exscuse to fall back on if they lose. It happens ALL the time.

    Hearns comments after the Leonard bout are IMO a rare exception. And as 10-8 pointed out, he had the interviewer practically BEGGING him to use the exscuse.

    Hawk
    Last edited by hawk5ins; 06-12-2007 at 11:18 AM.

  29. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    Sharks

    To quote the Great Homer Simpson:

    "Lisa, weasling out of things is what seperates us from the animals........'cept the weasles."

    Hawk

  30. #60
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,783
    vCash
    500

    Re: How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

    Got to disagree. I got to admit to what my eyes saw. Tommy didnt have great great power per se. He was long and fast and down the middle and he could nail you by surprise. He also had the boxing tools to exploit this. Compare him to Pipino Cuevas on a heavy bag and its no contest. But this is boxing and theres lots of ways to win.
    He koed lots of guys at welter, but so did Tommy Morrison and Vlad Klitchko and Gerry Cooney at heavy. You ko guys you can ko and it makes for great highlights. Tommy was built up by the media properly.
    But he was weak physically, couldnt shake off a shot, had problems with rugged guys, and basically had a weak chin.
    Yes he boxed Ray Leonard pretty good having every physical advantage, but Ray was stalking him flat footed and we all knew Tommy would get nailed in the late rounds. Tommy looked like a boxing master cause Ray wasnt using speed, but stalking flat footed cause he knew he had fifteen rounds to do it, and being great HE DID.
    Ray Leonard. Great fighter, but he was beaten by the lightweight champ moving up. Willie Pep tried on Sammy Angott the lightweight champ and lost. Ray was a great fighter, but not in the class of many I could name. His ko of tommy hearns was just to me, a real good fighter exploiting the weakness of Hearns legs and chin like many good welters would have.
    Yes tommy outpointed Benitez who had no pop, and was on the way down, getting beaten alot after that bout. Good win, but again his chin was not on the line.
    Again I say, tommy was a good boxer with advantages, good power, BUT he had no chin, no legs, and was a bit weak in the middle. Good boxers who can reach him, good hitters, rugged guys of a sort can trouble him and beat him. I say Cotto would deal with him and pound his body and end his night easier than you might imagine. Basilio? Gavilan? Griffith? no contest. Ya gotta have a chin to be great. To me he rates as great on offense but not the complete great fighter. Hes no Ezzard Charles or Emile Griffith or Carlos Monzon as complete boxer punchers or no Marvin Hagler or Ray Leonard to name some modern guys who had it all. No way. Cotto ko's him.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia Links Home