Home News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia
The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board
+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 169

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

  1. #91
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    95
    vCash
    500

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GorDoom
    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
    This is one of the most ridicules discussions I have ever seen since I joined CBZ last year. Thomas Hearns was a tremendous athlete and an excellent boxer with a beautiful jab and devastating knockout power. There is not a single welterweight that has fought over the past decade that Hearns would not have logically been heavily favored to defeat. GorDoom, I appreciate that you illuminated what should be a glaringly obvious truth.
    Last edited by lu047w; 11-03-2007 at 10:17 AM.

  2. #92
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    I apologize if I stepped on any toes

    Or hurt anyone's feelings with my "bullying" tactics.

    BTW, Rocky, based on this comment:

    "I KNEW IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN once Tommys opening assault failed to take out the world class Ray Leonard chin JUST AS HIS OPENING ASSAULT FAILED TO TAKE OUT Marvin Haglers world class chin and the same with Iran Barkley."

    I think everyone knew Hearns was going to get Ko'd by Barkley. The handwriting was certainly on the wall for that one.

    I am planning on playing the lottery this weekend. Mind giving me a hand with my numbers?

    Lu, right on. Couldn't agree more.

    Gor. I completely agree with your position on how Hearns Cotto goes and obviously I also think it's a no brainer.

    And my apologies if I'm not dropping the "I respect your opinion" along with "I disagree whole heartedly", line, towards this subject re Cotto somehow taking out Hearns. But agian, I doubt anyone would tapdance around trying to ensure my feelings weren't hurt, if I myself, came out with anything this perposterous.

    It certainly hasn't been the case with anyone disagreeing with me in the past, so I certainly wouldn't expect anything of it's like going forward.

    I'll let this one go. Not much more else to say here.

    Hawk

  3. #93
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,851
    vCash
    500

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

    Walsh
    Just listened to Larry on the clip...what an absolute asshole. No wonder nobody really liked the guy. He's a jealous bitter sad twat!!!!
    Everyone is quick to jump on Larry's ass for these comments. I am not condoning them, but there is more to it than just being bitter. Peter Marciano said a lot of terrible things about Holmes publicly and in the press. Said the thought of Holmes tieing/breaking his father's undefeated record was an embarrassment to boxing.

    So a guy like Larry, who was no pretender tough guy - he was a street kid with "don't fuck with me" stamped on his brain, is called an embarrassement to his sport... is he supposed to be happy about this?

    And many in the popular press had made it pretty clear tyhey were rooting against Holmes tieing that record. Most that did gave a bunch of bullshit excuses, but the main reason was clear: they didnt like an angry black guy beating the record of a classy white guy. And since Holmes had been defending himself from the attacks of the media for a decade, he was fed up with trying to be nice to them.

    He could have handled it differently, but he gave Peter Marciano what Peter Marciano had coming. His lack of "being politic" about it makes him look bad, but once you factor in everything that lead to it, blaming Holmes alone is pretty short sighted.

    Joe Louis was popular with the media because of the public face he put on. Behind closed doors the things he said about the media, his opponents, and the white world at large would have made anything Larry ever said look like sweet nothings. Joe just had the right people making sure he only showed one of his faces in public. Larry didn't have that kind of self control and always returned fire when fired upon. Hate him for it if you want, but placing all the blame at Holmes' feet is to take almost nothing about the situations into account.

  4. #94
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Louth, Ireland
    Posts
    5,150
    vCash
    500

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

    I don't think Rocky is one bit upset that we do not agree with him. But what's so hard about extending him a little bit of courtesy and respect when replying. Why the need to try and ridicule his POSTS or belittle his knowledge on the sport. I have no problem staTing that I think he is wrong to believe Cotto beats Hearns, but I won't belittle him whilst doing it. And I also believe that though I very much fancy Hearns, Cotto is a fine fighter and has qualities that could cause Tommy some problems. I just think he's a wee bit too small for Hearns. Rocky's posts have been very detailed, accurate and as far as I can see unbiased. He simply does not RATE Hearns as highly as me or others. But at least he has been always civil and courteous in putting forward his arguement. As brilliant as Tommy was, he was susceptible to a heavy punch, an opponent with great stamina, chin and workrate. Could Cotto be the MAN? I think NOT, but who knows for sure

  5. #95
    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 TKO11
    Walsh


    Everyone is quick to jump on Larry's ass for these comments. I am not condoning them, but there is more to it than just being bitter. Peter Marciano said a lot of terrible things about Holmes publicly and in the press. Said the thought of Holmes tieing/breaking his father's undefeated record was an embarrassment to boxing.

    So a guy like Larry, who was no pretender tough guy - he was a street kid with "don't fuck with me" stamped on his brain, is called an embarrassement to his sport... is he supposed to be happy about this?

    And many in the popular press had made it pretty clear tyhey were rooting against Holmes tieing that record. Most that did gave a bunch of bullshit excuses, but the main reason was clear: they didnt like an angry black guy beating the record of a classy white guy. And since Holmes had been defending himself from the attacks of the media for a decade, he was fed up with trying to be nice to them.

    He could have handled it differently, but he gave Peter Marciano what Peter Marciano had coming. His lack of "being politic" about it makes him look bad, but once you factor in everything that lead to it, blaming Holmes alone is pretty short sighted.

    Joe Louis was popular with the media because of the public face he put on. Behind closed doors the things he said about the media, his opponents, and the white world at large would have made anything Larry ever said look like sweet nothings. Joe just had the right people making sure he only showed one of his faces in public. Larry didn't have that kind of self control and always returned fire when fired upon. Hate him for it if you want, but placing all the blame at Holmes' feet is to take almost nothing about the situations into account.
    He wasn't slagging Peter was he. He was slagging a dead hero. He lacks restraint and class, it's that simple. Why make such diparaging remarks about Rocky, who never met or spoke to Holmes I'm guessing. Rocky's family and the media apparently were annoying him, what's this got to do with a dead hero and by saying it after losing the heavyweight title to a LH (1ST time ever), he also showed extreme ignorance. Bottom line is that as great a fighter a sLarry was, he was not a likeable individual, at least IMO!!!

  6. #96
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    Walsh

    It's really not your position here to be telling me how to respond to other posters. That is why Steve is here and others.

    If you don't care for how I post, then by all means, don't converse with me. OK?

    Respect?

    If it is shown to Me. I WILL reciprocate.

    If it is NOT shown to me, do not expect me to preface anything with: "I respect your opinion, but.....". I am not going to LIE to anyone here simply becuase it Sounds nice.

    T, exactly. The video certainly does not show a cheery side of Holmes, but if no context is given, then it's tough to appreciate why he lashed out in such a manner.

    Hawk

  7. #97
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Louth, Ireland
    Posts
    5,150
    vCash
    500

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

    Did I mention you in my POST.....Could I be talking about someone else?
    Is that possible?

  8. #98
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,444
    vCash
    500

    Larry

    Quote Originally Posted by hawk5ins
    T, exactly. The video certainly does not show a cheery side of Holmes, but if no context is given, then it's tough to appreciate why he lashed out in such a manner.
    Doe anyone know the context of why Larry lashed out at Eddie Mustafa Muhammad in a 1981 interview in Ring Magazine?

    I remember Larry referring to Muhammad in print as a "faggot" and a "sissy".

  9. #99
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,444
    vCash
    500

    Larry

    Quote Originally Posted by hawk5ins
    T, exactly. The video certainly does not show a cheery side of Holmes, but if no context is given, then it's tough to appreciate why he lashed out in such a manner.
    Does anyone know the context of why Larry lashed out at Eddie Mustafa Muhammad in a 1981 interview in Ring Magazine?

    I remember Larry referring to Muhammad in print as a "faggot" and a "sissy".

  10. #100
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

    Re: Walsh

    Quote Originally Posted by hawk5ins
    It's really not your position here to be telling me how to respond to other posters. That is why Steve is here and others.

    If you don't care for how I post, then by all means, don't converse with me. OK?

    Respect?

    If it is shown to Me. I WILL reciprocate.

    If it is NOT shown to me, do not expect me to preface anything with: "I respect your opinion, but.....". I am not going to LIE to anyone here simply becuase it Sounds nice.

    T, exactly. The video certainly does not show a cheery side of Holmes, but if no context is given, then it's tough to appreciate why he lashed out in such a manner.

    Hawk
    Lie? Well, as for me, and the 'respect' preface, I don't feel I have been disrespected because someone has what is, to me, a whacky take on things. I can respect a wrong opinion.. I can respect that a hammerheaded opinion can come from an informed individual. I haven't attempted to ever sound nice on here... I couldn't care less.

    It seems stranger to me to continue to draw lines in cyber-sand. But that won't be a key component in serial posts of mine. Are you finding my preface that borthersome? Am I missing the entire point? Seems possible. Let's just be clear here: I am not trying to sound nice or dance around blasting someone. I was trying to show that I must be missing something and needed the postor, rocky, to show me where I can get a handle on his claims about Cotto. Period.

  11. #101
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    I retract everything.

    If I got Sharks now thinking that I'm singling him out, then My irritation here is being interpreted incorrectly by far too many here.

    My apologies....To EVERYONE.

    I'll shut up now.

    Hawk

  12. #102
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

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

    No problem... just trying to figure this whole thread out. A true cluster.

  13. #103
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,783
    vCash
    500

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

    Hey Hearns and Cotto, and there are good arguments on both sides. I am in the minority and I accept that and its all in fun. I hold nothing personal against anybody that doesnt agree. I can debate the matter.
    Hearns IMO was weak in chin and legs and maybe stamina at 147. He had long arms and could nail you and he had fine boxing skills. BUT HIS WEAKNESSES leave him open to be beat. Basilio had no height, but we all know his strengths and I feel he would have caught up to Hearns, who was a great FRONT RUNNER. Carmen on the other hand came to rumble hard for fifteen rounds and had the strength to do it.
    In Cottos case I think we are seeing a fine fighter nearing his peak. yes he has been staggered (so was dempsy, so was louis, so was ali, so was robinson, so was basilio, so was marciano etc....)but he shakes it off and wins the war of atritrion. That is a mark of greatness. Yes he hasnt done it with a great name today since there arnt many due to lack of national televised boxing that created great names in Hearns day. But he did a hell of job against Judah in front of 23,000 people and if he keeps going, youre going to have to recognize that this is one fine fighter. IMO he has every quality to exploit Tommy's weaknesses and take him out. Yes Tommy could nail him and take him out too but then Pipino could have nailed Tommy and taken him out also.
    Tommy a all time great at welter? I dont think so. He beat Cuevas and Sheilds and lost to Leonard. Well I think there is a few other welters with better records and could have beaten him.
    Also its nice to see that others can debate these entertaining things and retain their class and manners and manhood, and as Ronnie Lipton says "keep it strictly professional........."

  14. #104
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

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

    Rocky

    Ok. I still have no idea what Cotto has actually done to merit your picking him. You tell me if I have this correct: Even after reading your many posts over and over..all I come away with is that you offer that maybe Cotto might end up being great wait and see. Also, that since he has overcome troubles he could be great. You don't mention if a great fighter would have the troubles with the particular men he fought as he did... but rather generically that great fighters overcome troubles. Hassim Rahman and Maskaev then are potential greats.

    Tommy was not what you would call a great Welterweight. This is because he didn't overcome a ton of adversity and lost to his highest level foe, who you also have doubts about. So does any welter who goes to the body your pick to beat Tommy..because if they did it to some other guy it will work against Tommy?

    Now, Cotto has faced inferior opposition to Hearns. But he had problems. And he seems tough and has a body attack. Heanrs couldn't take it to the body. So Cotto could do body work on Tommy. If that happens, he would win. Judah is a better scalp than Shields or Cuevas or if he isn't, it is not Cotto's fault because Those two weren't so great and were made for Tommy. So Tommy, though he might be made to crush Cotto seemingly, would be your choice to lose to Miguel because Cotto took punishment from a molasses junior welt and then Zab and won. Insert Hearns, ignore what Tommy does well, and Cotto thus wins. In trouble Cotto moves on, so if in trouble against Tommy, he perserveres. See, I still haven't seen a bout where Cotto shows me he can beat Hearns. If you are going to reply that opinions are opinions, I get that.. rather I want to pick your brain so I can learn something here. I get you think Hearns is overrated. Check. Show me Cotto.

    I assume then that Tommy's lack of pedigree works against him against the truly great fighters... and thus he loses to the potential of Miguel Cotto, who has proven to have been poor enough to be in desperate straights against men you at some times would name as mediocre and others as maybe great but media deprived. Never minding Cotto himself has not proven to have even beaten anyone of Tommy's stature let alone be among the greats as you would define them.

    Ignoring my belief then that you are judging Tommy by one standard and discarding that standard to judge Cotto... I ask again, if Tommy is lacking by who he didn't beat or fight... 1) who has Cotto beaten. 2) are fighters Cotto fought and beat better than the guys Tommy fought and beat. 3) Cotto matches up well with Tommy based upon which opponent he fought and which fight.
    Last edited by Sharkey; 06-14-2007 at 02:50 PM.

  15. #105
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Louth, Ireland
    Posts
    5,150
    vCash
    500

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

    Let's forget Cotto for a bit and put in other so called Welters of recent years V Tommy...here is 3.....Oscar, Mosley and Pea.....I'm betting on Hearns beating all but who gives Tommy the most trouble? My hunch is Oscar because of his chin and heart....I think Hearns takes out Pea and Mosley early, but I can see Oscar at peak going the distance but losing

  16. #106
    Roberto Aqui
    Guest

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

    Quote Originally Posted by walshb
    I think Hearns takes out Pea and Mosley early, but I can see Oscar at peak going the distance but losing
    That'd be a nice trick since Pea and Mosely have scarcely ever been down much less out.

  17. #107
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Louth, Ireland
    Posts
    5,150
    vCash
    500

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

    Scarcely or never been down V lightweights and super lightweights and against Forrest and Vargas and Trinidad etc. Hearns is a totally different proposition. He hits like an animal, deadly fast and most importantly he was very accurate, so even as slick as Pea was, it's hard to imagine Tommy NOT landing one clean power shot in 5 rds or so, whether it be to the body or head. I am not doubting their chins, I just think their chins would not take Hearns power. It's no disgrace, seeing as both are smaller and are not big enough.

    As for Oscar, he too can be hurt. I just think his chin is a notch above and I see Tommy doing to Oscar what he did to Ray, except Oscar has NOT got Ray's firepower to turn the tide

  18. #108
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,133
    vCash
    500

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

    You know anything can happen in a fight, but based off of what they have done, vs who, seen firepower, seen weaknesses,,,etc... Hearns would have to be favored, most likely by KO.



    Too much has been made off of the Hagler, Barkley fights when determining Hearns chin at Welter. Only Ray was able to hurt much less stop Hearns at Welter, and Ray was a hard hitting top 2-5 Welter of all time, and this was a great great fight.

  19. #109
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,783
    vCash
    500

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

    Good points about Cotto. Im going out on a limb here. I see his greatness coming and his style of attack and stamina etc give him every chance to exploit the weaknesses of Tommy at 147. tommy a great welter? Well he beat Cuevas but he lost to Leonard who lost to Duran a lightweight moving up. Would emile Griffith lose to Joe Brown or Carlos Ortiz? Great welters full of strength dont lose to the best lightweights or shouldnt. The tuff welter divison of Robinson, Ducuson, Gavilan, or Griffith, Rodriguez, Paret, Moyer, etc wasnt there for either Hearns or Leonard. They fought Duran and Benitez who were both fine boxers but not of the strength of great welters. I feel had Tommy had to go through Luis Rodriguez and emile Griffith and a deeper divison he would have been exposed earlier. He could wack and he might nail anyone, but again he was not the complete great fighter and had weaknesses that could be exposed against top opposition. I would pick Cotto from what I have seen. one on one. At 147. Hes too strong for Tommy over the course of a long fight. Tommy might nail him, but if he dont...........Give Cotto a few more big fights and you guys will be convinced.

  20. #110
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

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

    Forget it.

  21. #111
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,133
    vCash
    500

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

    rocky11,

    Did you see the brawl in montreal? The Duran that fought that night would have literally destroyed 99% of welterweights that ever walked. I am questioning if you really thought that statement through or just ran with the Mayweather sound bit he threw at leoanrd in a press conference, when he stated he could beat leonard if he let Duran move up and do so?

    There have been many great fighers that have moved up and beaten other great fighters. Leonard himself moved up and beat Hagler, and your questioning Leonard at 147..Hmmmm. Holyfield moved up and beat Tyson. Even though Holyfield had been fighting at Heavy for some time.

    I also beg you to consider that Duran was only 28 when he moved up, was in top condition, was a brutally strong lightweight, and showed his value and strength at lightweight by his ko percentage then moving up and beating palimino prior to Leonard. Then just to finish up, even after leonard, Duran Ko'd davey Moore to gain the middleweight championship of the world. Plain and simple Duran was simply that good. He is a top fighter of all time, to question Hearns and leonard based off Duran exploits at Welterweight, is speaking without thinking.

    Finally, if you look at the Duran Leonard fight, you see one experienced champion who won the fight prior to the fight by making the other (Leonard) come into the fight wanting to go toe-to-toe which was exactly Durans plans, and his style. Styles makes fights and can often dictate the winner of a fight. You see what happend at welter the next time they fought, then carry this on you see how Leonard beat Benitez another all time great, by ko, Kalule by ko, and lalond by ko...Leonard also beat Hagler another top pound per pound all time great at middleweight. How can you knock Leonard at welter, who at welter has done what he has done?

    Then remember this discussion is about hearns..If you come to grips the greatness of Leonard, then you realize he was the "ONLY" person to beat Hearns EVER at welter, the only person to ever back him up much less drop him or hurt him..I am questioning if Tommy at Welter did suffer from a weak chin. At welter he was a perfect fighting machine that was unbeatable until he faced Leonard who had a heart, chin, speed, etc that is rarely found..rarely found. Leonard heart is what cost him his first fight with Duran but also what made that fight great, and what made him great. You can't discound Leonard for that. So what he got a L, but he also made himself great by that, and thus made tommy great, because the tommy leoanrd fight was a classic, and NO Cotto could not have withstood what Tommy had to offer. Not in my opinion. You see him get rocked repeatedly, just carry that out to Tommy heanrs...Wow. Have you saw how Tommy finishes a fighter once he gets them hurt, and remember we are talking about 147.

    Nuff said!

  22. #112
    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 wpink
    rocky11,

    Did you see the brawl in montreal? The Duran that fought that night would have literally destroyed 99% of welterweights that ever walked. I am questioning if you really thought that statement through or just ran with the Mayweather sound bit he threw at leoanrd in a press conference, when he stated he could beat leonard if he let Duran move up and do so?

    There have been many great fighers that have moved up and beaten other great fighters. Leonard himself moved up and beat Hagler, and your questioning Leonard at 147..Hmmmm. Holyfield moved up and beat Tyson. Even though Holyfield had been fighting at Heavy for some time.

    I also beg you to consider that Duran was only 28 when he moved up, was in top condition, was a brutally strong lightweight, and showed his value and strength at lightweight by his ko percentage then moving up and beating palimino prior to Leonard. Then just to finish up, even after leonard, Duran Ko'd davey Moore to gain the middleweight championship of the world. Plain and simple Duran was simply that good. He is a top fighter of all time, to question Hearns and leonard based off Duran exploits at Welterweight, is speaking without thinking.

    Finally, if you look at the Duran Leonard fight, you see one experienced champion who won the fight prior to the fight by making the other (Leonard) come into the fight wanting to go toe-to-toe which was exactly Durans plans, and his style. Styles makes fights and can often dictate the winner of a fight. You see what happend at welter the next time they fought, then carry this on you see how Leonard beat Benitez another all time great, by ko, Kalule by ko, and lalond by ko...Leonard also beat Hagler another top pound per pound all time great at middleweight. How can you knock Leonard at welter, who at welter has done what he has done?

    Then remember this discussion is about hearns..If you come to grips the greatness of Leonard, then you realize he was the "ONLY" person to beat Hearns EVER at welter, the only person to ever back him up much less drop him or hurt him..I am questioning if Tommy at Welter did suffer from a weak chin. At welter he was a perfect fighting machine that was unbeatable until he faced Leonard who had a heart, chin, speed, etc that is rarely found..rarely found. Leonard heart is what cost him his first fight with Duran but also what made that fight great, and what made him great. You can't discound Leonard for that. So what he got a L, but he also made himself great by that, and thus made tommy great, because the tommy leoanrd fight was a classic, and NO Cotto could not have withstood what Tommy had to offer. Not in my opinion. You see him get rocked repeatedly, just carry that out to Tommy heanrs...Wow. Have you saw how Tommy finishes a fighter once he gets them hurt, and remember we are talking about 147.

    Nuff said!
    Couldn't have said it better. Leoanrd is top 3 alltime welter and it did take him a tremendous effort to TKO Hearns, however Ray did nothing for the first 5 rds. Now maybe that's because Tommy was just too fresh, fast and difficult but other great welters like Robbie and Griffith may have got to Tommy earlier. Definitely I think a peak Robbie beats Hearns before 9 rds because Robbie was more aggressive and 'braver'. He didn't wait around.

  23. #113
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,133
    vCash
    500

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

    Walshb,

    I think that your correct for the most part. All things "considered" Tommy was the bigger "hitter" going into the fight. I believe everyone thought so, and even I being in the 8th grade was scaed shitless of what would happen once Tommy landed his sunday punch.

    Well if you remember Dundee said before that fight that Leonard was actually the bigger puncher and that he would back up Tommy. Hmmmmm, nobody believed that. Nobody!!

    If you look at the fight Leonard actually had some success in the 3rd round too! It became apparant in 'ROUND 6' that Leonard not tommy when exchange punches toe to toe would gain the upper hand. Not because of being tired, this was round 6..then 7. Naw it was because of the toughness that Leonard learned he had vs Duran, and maybe Hearns had not had that chance to develop that toughness yet, because of his destructive ko efforts in his previous 30 of 32 fights. I truly believe that had not Leonard had that fight with Duran, he would not have beaten Hearns. It was not skill that beat hearns, skill allowed him to remain inside the ring with Hearns. Skill is what allowed Mosley to remain inside the ring with Forrest, Skill is what allowed Roy Jones to remain in the ring with Tarver the 3rd fght. Heart, inner toughness, along with a chin, allowed Leonard to come from behind and stop Hearns. He knew Hearns had a ko punch, he could have kept away from harm as Mosley and Jones did, however he wanted to win, and went right after Hearns who IMO was more dangerous than Forrest or Tarver.

    So in summation of Hearns at welter you got a point about Leonard game plan to be to sap Tommy. However I do not believe Tommy was sapped at round 6, I also saw situations in round 3 and 4 when leonard started realizing he had to engage, however the punch that hurt Tommy landed in round 6, then again in round 7 then again in round 13 then finally round 14.

  24. #114
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Louth, Ireland
    Posts
    5,150
    vCash
    500

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

    Totally agree. Ray beat Tommy in the trenches so to speak. Hearns really busted Ray up thru the fight, outscored him and was definitely outboxing him. For any fighter to dominate Ray like Tommy did for so much of that fight is something extraordinary. That's how amazing Hearns was as a boxer.
    I have always stated that to beat Hearns you almost have to KO him. He's a masterful boxer with great physical attributes, speed ,accuracy and power.
    I honestly believe that if Hearns had a great chin, or better still, great recuperative powers, he had the potential to be pretty much unbeatable due to his ring skills and all I've mentioned above.

    Dundee I remember saying after the fight about Ray being the harder puncher and I'm inclined to agree, at least in that fight anyway. Ray also stated that Hearns never really hurt him, wobbled and rocked me he said but not HURT....I think he lied. Tommy really finished Ray's career in that fight. Ray was never the same again and no wonder he wasn't eager for a rematch. I don't blame him.

  25. #115
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,133
    vCash
    500

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

    I dont see the same thing. Tommy outboxed ray and was clearly using his reach advantage. Tommy had some good rounds too, but I would not say dominating. As after he got hurt Tommy clearly did not want any parts of a meaningful exchange until round 12, then with in 1 round you saw Tommy got hurt again.

    As for a better chin, you have to work with what you got, and that night I think Ray Leonard would have beaten any welterweight that ever lived except for Robinson. Tommy and Ray were both so well conditioned, fine tuned, and prime for that fight. You want to see speed, power, skills, combination ability, both fighters at their peak, intelligence...look at that fight.

    Tommy could control you by his jab, then when you where in rang, or when you tried to get underneath the jab, he could land the murderous straight right, or the left hook/uppercut. He was once again at welterweight a perfect fighting machine that came to war. If anyone saw the ko's he did of Cuevas and Duran, then you know the power he had.

    One thing we say about his jaw, againi at welterweight it was not exposed because not many could get the chance. The best defense is a offense, and Hearns had tons of that.

  26. #116
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pacific Palisades, Ca
    Posts
    345
    vCash
    500

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

    I don't see it that way either Pink. Ray was not what I'd call abused in that fight. You can't say he took the kind of punishment that ruins careers. he took a few jabs that kept him from getting in but not much more. And yes I would agree that Ray was the bigger hitter that night even though Tommy carreied the reputation. I think Tommy bowled over mostly tomato cans as a welter

    I am a Duran fan like yourself Pink but it's not realisitc to say he would have destroyed 99% of the welterweights when Duran is moving up from 135. Where do you get your ideas from?

  27. #117
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Louth, Ireland
    Posts
    5,150
    vCash
    500

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

    Dominating?...OK he was definitely winning and outboxing and outscoring. He was clearly ahead going into rd 13. Ray's eye was close on shut. This tells me he was doing damage as well as winning. Ray was the aggressor from 6 onwards, but quite ineffective really. He was stalking but not hurting Tommy consistently enough and was taking shots as he was stalking. Dundee knew this and that's why he said the famous words "you're blowing it son, you're blowing it". It is definite proof that to beat Hearns, you gotta' KO him. And Ray just managed it. The other thing I will say is that I think Ray knew deep down that Tommy was running on empty after 8 rds or so and knowing it was 15 rds, he took his time. Had it been a 10 or 12 rounder, Leonard would still IMO have got the job done. It's what separates the good from the great.
    The ability to turn it on when called for

  28. #118
    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 no matter what, Ray was NOT the same after the Hearns fight. He took a beating and a lot of punishment. His eye was proof of that. I took a lot out of Ray, and he suffered more IMO than Tommy....

  29. #119
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pacific Palisades, Ca
    Posts
    345
    vCash
    500

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

    Quote Originally Posted by walshb
    And no matter what, Ray was NOT the same after the Hearns fight. He took a beating and a lot of punishment. His eye was proof of that. I took a lot out of Ray, and he suffered more IMO than Tommy....
    What beating? he was outmanuvered and sometimes out punched but I wouldn't call it a beating. Ray took a worse pounding in the first Duran fight and I don't think anyone here is going to dissagree.


    I see it as Ray taking a steady pecking from Hernz'ez left jab. If anything, it was Tommy who got the worst of it. Di you see that body attack?

    But you know what? it wasn't enuff to damage Hernz as a fighter either and actually improved after the fight.

  30. #120
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,133
    vCash
    500

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

    Even if Duran was moving up, he was simply a beast at 135 and showed that he could be bang with the best of them at 147 by beating a very good Palimino,then Leonard, and Davey moore at middleweight. I think Duran has earned the right to be considered "better than" most welterweights, simply by beating Leoanrd in his prime, and the 72-1 record he brought into that fight with 56 ko's.

    Walsh Hearns did not cause the injury to Leonards eye, contrary to popular belief. He sustained a injury from s sparring partners elbow in his preperation for the Hearns fight. Hearns did cause further damage to it.

    If you see the Bruce Finch fight, Leonard was just fine in that fight which was after the hearns fight. So I do not agree that Leoanrd lost anything in the Hearns fight, he simply had retinal damage that Hearns did reaggrivate and thuse Leonard was not able to fight much after that. However, if I am hearing you correctly, you saying that Leonard left a lot in the ring that night with Hearns, like Ali did in the Thriller in Manilla, and I just do not see that.

    Walsh your correct in your assessment of except for Tommy running of fumes..He was the one who had the legs after that. He was boxing jabbing, actually showing very good boxing skills by moving and avoiding leonard cutting off the ring, and countering at times. The myth that Tommy was on fumes is factless. The beginning of the 13th round Leonard tripped tommy and the announcer some how summized that Tommy's legs were shot. If you look at it, Leonard legs tripped tommy into the ropes...Also, leonard was doing exactly as you pointed out nothing from round 9-12...tommy has th energy...so where is this Tommy was running on fumes after the 8th.. if so..we all need that type of fumes to use as he was in a high level fight, and winning it by boxing,,,you dont do that if your on fumes.....

    But Walsh I agree with most of what you say, it simply is a matter of opinions..and we all have our own opninions.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 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