How Would Today's Welterweights Do Against Tommy Hearns

[walshb]

Good analysis Pink. Tommy was bouncing and firing shots, that's for sure and he was most definitely troubling Ray with these shots. So I will take the whole running on empty scenario back and replace it with Ray realising that Hearns had fired his best shots and Ray was still strong and could take it.
Leonard realised I believe that he was stronger, fitter and could take a whack better. Tommy could not push Ray back after rd 5. It was simply a matter of time and Ray knew he had the potential to take Tommy out

[wpink]

Yes I think he knew it, but time was getting awfully thin....I remember being at Kemper Arena, with my father and I had bet my entire allowance that Ray would win, with the man sitting next to me. My father told me your gonna pay it too if Ray loses. The closed circuit telecast showed Leonard eye either before the 12th or 13th round, I remember, and everyone in the arena starting making noises.....and it seemed the end of the road for Ray......I remember that vividly..I also remamber the build up to that fight, and how 'Tommy was simply this fighter that was like Tyson...This was before the internet age,,,,

No Tommy and Ray and fighters like that would literlly destroy todays welters...Can you imagine fighters today including mayweather, roy Jones, DLH, Mosley being in a fight like the Brawl in Montreal..for 15 rounds. When ever I look at that fight, or the Thriller in Manilla, or the Benn vs mcCllelan fight, and Holyfield how he use to war...Wow......where has boxing went.

Welters of today even other classes are too much focused on technique, skills, etc..That is great, but the heart the inner toughness that shows once you get hit, like Duran, Hearns, Leonard, Hagler, Robinson, Holyfield is what is missing. Cotto seems to have some of that, but his jaw IMO would not hold up to a Hearns onslaught.

[walshb]

I know every fight fan loves a good hard ding dong fight. But can you blame the fighters today if they want to take as little punishment as possible. I certainly do NOT. If they have the skills and elusiveness to make the fight easy, damn well use it. Like Mayweather for example. But the thing is that Mayweather wouldn't be as successfull 20-30 years ago, a least not at Welter. That's the main difference I believe. Now it seems a little too easy for small natural lightweights and 10 stoners to move and collect belts at 10.5 and 11 stone. They would not have had a chance 20-30 years ago.

Even the grea Pryor couldn't have competed at Welter or above in his time, but if he was fighting today, it's possible he'd be a multiple world champ.
DLH V Mayweather proved it. I can't imagine them being in against a Norris, Jackson, Hearns, Curry, Starling, Leonard, McCallum. They would be soundly beaten.

Because there are so many different titles at a weight, more can call themselves world champion It's wrong, but it's big business. I do believe however, that every so often a fighter does come along and prove his worth and prove that he could compete in any era at a given weight. Mayweather and Oscar are two examples, BUT NOT at Welter or above....

[ultimo]

He was 5-0 as a welterweight and Leonard was making his second defense. How does that translate into Duran steamrolling all the others? Duran was competitive but I don't know if he can bowl over someone like Basilio or napoles. it's very doubtful in my mind. For that matter, Honeyghan or Simon Brown. Id' say closer to 10% of the titlists is a safe bet.

Could Duran decision the vast majority? Probably.

[wpink]

Very easily...duran that fought in montreal, leonard that fought in montreal,,,IMO beats any other welter out there, except for hearns and Robinson...Leonard that emerges from montreal beats hearns...but not Robinson....Thus duran beats any other fighter out there at welter IMO except for Leonard, and hearns...and at welter hearns and Duran would be a better fight than at 154.

As for haveing the skills technique and using it..I agree if you can employ that skill and avoid punishment then to get the win, then OK do it. However two things...1 what are you going to do when you meet that duran or hearns that forces you to go beyond skill and dig deep...we see where Mosly and Jones did not have it....We see wehre meldrick taylor didnt have it, we see that Tommy didnt have it up to Leonard
s standard...That is what I am talking about...Not saying that a boxer should not use his skills, but the difference is what is deep in side.. 2ndly, the boxing the style that Leonard used vs hagler, Mayweather used vs Dlh...while leading to success, is also leading to the downfall of boxing and the emergence of ufc... I know I love Ray leoanrd, but many point to his Hagler fight as the start of fighters not really going after the jugler, but simply gunning to outpoint fighters..Moving up and really looking to steal a victory vs going after the champion and taking it. Fortunately we have other fights that Leonard did Benetiz, Duran, Hearns, kalule in which he did go after the fghter, but even though I think the Hagler victory was clear and a major accomplishment, the fight itself and the others that have fought like that leaves a lot to ask for. Roy jones fights...many were like this...

Thus Tommy heanrs you never had to worry he always brought it,,,to either ko or get ko'd, and that is why I dont think other welters would be able to deal with Tommy..because they would have to SEE him at welter and FEEL him, and Cotto, mayweather etc...I dont think they could stand up to what he had to offer.

[ultimo]

I'm not going to argue about who beats who because that is just foolish. but i don't think u can clump all of history's best welters together in the same 3 years; benitez, leonard, Cuevas, Duran, & hernz.

How much have u seen of napoles? My bet is close to nothing.

Basilio about once or twice and Ross & company or anything before 1930 even less so how do you even form an opinion on what u don't see?

Duran isn't the only guy who knew how to put the pressure on and certainly wasn't the strongest. The thing that made Duran stand out a little more is his ability to slip punches and some other tricks.

But maybe the others are just as capable and you just don't know about it. In fact, Duran had an old timer as one of his trainers who must have taught him the same things he taught others before him. See how little you know? You just don't realize it.

I think you're being unfair to say Meldrick did not have to dig deep against Chavez. His face was badly battered and who knows what other injuries he had at the time. I know he was swallowing a lot of blood and besides...he didn't lose it so much as the referee didn't let him continue.

its the refs fault! In fact that was the worst call ever made by a referee.

Are u saying leonard dug deeper than Meldrick for the reason that he didn't pull it out? Leonard's injuries hardly compare with Meldricks so he wasn't in danger of having the bout stopped.

and to fault Roy Jones for his superiority is just ludicrous!!! More power to him if he can win a fight easily. he can still say he beat Tarver while during his winning ways. Roy took a beating on the ropes early. he fended him off. he took more beating sporadically throughout and survived it and went on to win. Doesn't that count?

You only seem to notice when Leonard takes shots or has to struggle before getting the win but don't like to credit other fighters like Meldrick or Roy.

Why is that? You're not biased are u?

[wpink]

Ultimo,

You say Duran isnt the strongest, not the only,,,etc.. then you say what made him stand out is his ability to slip punches.. IN THE END THE RESULT IS DURAN WAS A GREAT FIGHTER ONE WHO MANY PLACE IN THE ALL TIME TOP TEN.

I get your point regarding Meldrick Taylor however, in this sport your measured by Wins, and even though he was robbed by the worst stoppage ever, he lost, and then he lost clearly the rematch. So yes he may have dug deep, but not deep enough to get the win.

Roy superiority over the level of fighters he faced is not saying much. Some of it is his fault, some not, as to be a all time great you have to beat other greats, and the best during your era. I don't agree that you simply appoint a fighter as an all time great if he beats those he faced during his era. I would call that the best fighter during his era, but all time means what you have done, beat, etc..is better in comparison that others in all era's. Can you honestly say that Roy level of competititon after 94, is on par with Robinson, Ali, DLH, Hearns, Leoanrd, Duran, Whitacker, even Mayweather now. Can you say fighting old McCallum, way past his prime Virgil Hill, the worst heavyweight champion ever in Ruiz,,,,having to have a trilogy with Tarver, two fights with Griffen...(Tarver and Griffen are fighters that greats beat on their way to a fight)....Yes Roy in his victory over Toney looked like the real deal but as far as quality competition goes, that is it....

Back to Hearns...I am biased in placing Hearns up there above these fighters, because he was the tota package at Welterwieght, and came to bang and if he fought these fighters now days....I do not see them having the inner toughness to deal with a Hearns at his peak. Maybe they would, but based on what I have seen, I do not think so.

[wpink]

Also I do not think you have to struggle to win to be great. I just think that if you have to dig deep to get the win that tells a alot. If your so much better than GREAT opposition, then you deserve to given credit for that greatness, but if your better than average competiton, then does that make you an all time great. I think many fans grew up on this generation of fights, and see Roy clowing a part time police officer, or bouncer, or a 40 year old mcCallum, or some of these champions that got the benefit of a very weak division....and seeing roy clown these fighters with his immense skills, instincts, speed etc...some fans take that to mean he is the greatest...Not so...I rank Mayweather above roy, along with DlH, and Mosley. These fighters have losses (not mayweather) but the faced much much much better competition than Roy dared get in the ring with.

Who after 94 did roy fight that is the level of a quartey, or whitacker, or Mosley, or now Mayweather, As for Mosley he faced forrest, winky, dlh, vargas, has Roy faced quality like that? What about mayweather, zab, Dlh at supr middle, Correles, Castillo.....Has Roy thought about fighting these type of fights...No maybe there were not that good of fighters out there, but he could have faced Nunn, DM easily as they both were calling for him...Benn, collin,s eubanks, could have been made as well. Was it all roys fault no...however once again the others on this list found ways to make great fights happen..roy didnt.

[ultimo]

What do you mean Meldrick didn't dig deep enough?? You just admitted he was robbed so it was out of his hands. you make him out like he's a second rater. Yes he lost a rematch but Meldrick didn't have much of a reputation at that point which is why I can't understand why you even brought it up.

As for Hernz, who knowz? If you make a point about Roy bowling over bums as a welter could the same not be said about Tommy? most of his comp was used up over the hill contenders and people i never heard of. Jose figueroa and jim richards, washed up pugs angel espada and clyde gray you're bound to look awesome or as you say 'The complete package'. but as it turned out, he wasn't.

why iz this? because he carried his guard too low and his chin couldn't compensate for the holes in his defnse. when you have a questionable chin like you need to keep your guard up high like they teach everyone in the gym.
the way clint eastwood teaches whats her name in million $ baby. Its fundamental defense, something terrible terry already had down when he kicked leonard's butt on his way to winning every round.

what's that? you say leonard was thru? or maybe he just hadn't dug deep enuff. Maybe wasn't the kind of winner you keep bringing up where no matter if your skills had diminished YOU KEEP KNOCKING ROY FOR yet still find a way to win.

he should have at least put up a fight.

[Roberto Aqui]

I think many fans grew up on this generation of fights, and see Roy clowing a part time police officer, or bouncer, or a 40 year old mcCallum, or some of these champions that got the benefit of a very weak division....and seeing roy clown these fighters with his immense skills, instincts, speed etc...some fans take that to mean he is the greatest...Not so...I rank Mayweather above roy, along with DlH, and Mosley. These fighters have losses (not mayweather) but the faced much much much better competition than Roy dared get in the ring with.

Why would you muddy up this thread with Roy and Floyd? Roy never fought as a welt, and Floyd has yet to face even the best welters.

Floyd is just a paper welt. His best comp has been a lightweight fight w/Castillo and it's debatable he won those fights. At best he looked mediocre in those fights, though he should be credited for making the immediate rematch.

Roy had a broken hand against Hopkins yet beat him with one hand and dominated Toney, 2 prime HOF fighters. There were too many good fighters in his division for him to fight all, and he did coast after moving up to LH, but his comp is immensely better than Mayweather.

Floyd won't ever be remembered as a welt of note. He'll be remembered as a talented superfeather who stepped up in weight and coasted in his prime unless he steps it up. Cotto, Hatton, Mosely, and Margarito all beckon. Of course, what is Floyd gonna do, defend his 154 title against Michelle Piccirillo?

Let us know. I hear Mr. and Ms. Christo want to wrap Floyd in pink!

[wpink]

ultimo,

I am not going to get into a long drawn out debate about this, you have your opinion and I have mine. We have already been down the Leonard Norris trail. As for Taylor, I agree and I agree'd before that Taylor was robbed, I personally wanted Taylor to win the rematch to solidify what SHOULD have happened in the 1st fight. However, ultimo one thing that we have to accept is the W's or the L's. If not then there is not any basis to debate on, as then we will use our opinion and own personal judgment on each fight, as if we do not now. However, Taylor lost and thus in reality and how history will judge him vs chavez is that chavez dug deeper and came out with a great last round ko and Taylor didnt. That is it plain and simple.

Hmmmm most of Hearn's comp,,well Cuevas, Leonard, Duran, Virgil hill ( a younger version than what roy fought and Tommy moved up 3 classes to fight him). That is good comp. Now I will agree with you, Hearns does not have a welterweight resume that places him up there with a Leonard or robinson. However, based on his performance vs Cuevas, Duran, Leonard, and Hagler, then Hill, then also looking at the sheer power he ko'd his 30 out of 32 welters then how he ko'd the unstoppable Duran....and great chin cuevas...IMO he would have destroyed Cotto, Judah, etc....even your boy Norris would have been utterly destoyed at super middle, based upon Norris paperweight chin.

Finally, I cant completely understand what you said about roy, however I knock roy for his lack of quality competition when there was better competition out there. Would roy have been favored yes, but we are not talking about fantasy fights, roy could have easily made fights with Nunn, DM happen at least. Then Eubanks, Collins, Benn all were other options we could have seen instead of the bums he faced. Skillwise roy was great, but the fighters he faced allowed him to ability to showcase certain skills vs fighting a middleweight or light heavy version of a Hearns or Duran...When you fight all time greats, many times you have to dig deep to beat them thus nullifying the flashy skills that apparantly you fall so eloquently in love with by supporting norris and Roy. Two fighters who had skills speed etc..but not the quality of a Leonard or Robinson, or Duran....maybe just maybe roy had the quality of a Hearns, but I do not think he had the heart. They both had questionable chins especially as the increased in weight...We saw so more with Hearns because he fought better fighters....Roy got hurt by Tarver, DeValle, Johonson....Wow. Given 2 of these fights were later in his career. It is still partially roy's fault that he didnt have better fights earlier in his career to solidy his greatness, only 2 top fights..2!

[ultimo]

I've seen Cotto before. what makes you think tommy gets by so easy? A few digs by Cotto and you're going down. i don't care who's in front of him.
the man's just an animal so if it came down to it i wouldn't put money on this and I don't care how many people here pick tommy to win. a guy like cotto has to be given a good chance to do what iran barkley did.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If i didn't make it clear before i will the last part up:

according to you, when a mans winding down and lost some speed he's supposed to find some way to win (even if it means the ref has to helps out)
but still, you find a way to pull it out-at all costs. Ray leonard didn't do this against norris.

even though I KNOW ray retained most of speed, reflexes, legs, etc that he had in his prime because he used them to full effect in his previous fight.

Never mind that the fight was on even terms and that leonard faltered when he called out terry for a fight. I will use common sense and say leonard faltered because he couldn't handle that style and you'll say leonard blah blah etc. followed by some more bullshit.

The bottom line: fighters are supposed to compensate in other ways because all that matters is the W.

you said a man has to dig deep to nullify the flashy skills of a man like Norris but in the end ray leonard didn't find a way to do anything but lose and that puts him in the same basket of all the others that didn't win when the chips were down-and history's going to judge him harshly for it.

When leonard got hurt by terry, why didn't he show that heart you keep bragging about and storm back to teach the upstart his proper place??

This is what you keep bringing up and you use Roy Jones of all people even though he pulled it out against tarver.


Finally, are you not aware Meldrick had two ko losses between the two chavez fights?? it's common knowledge that Lou Duva did not want meldrick to take any more fights after losing to norris saying that following the norris fight he was ready to be taken and sure enough he lost his title as well. meldrick was done so who cares about chavez-taylor two at this stage. battle of the relics! it was chavez-camacho. it was leonard-hagler. leonard-hernz 2. uno mas.

later for you

[walshb]

I have no problem with a thread that slightly deviates, but this is getting a little silly. The whole Norris-Leoanrd-Jones debate has been discussed to death. Let's leave it and stick to Tommy V Today's welters and the welters that came after him in the 90's. No disrespect fellas, but there's more to the CBZ than Leonard-Norris-Jones.....

[ultimo]

I didn't want to throw it in his face but i thought the Norris-leonard case was the perfect example of showing how flawed his argument was. at last I have him trapped because it was something he can't refute.

[rocky111]

just like to explain some things
Yes Duran was a super talent and he moved up and beat Leonard (a fine fighter). Yet Willie Pep lost to Sammy Angott, Billy Conn to Joe Louis, Ray Robinson to Joe Maxim, Jose Napoles to Carlos Monzon. It happens some times that these great fighters move up and win, but most of the times the bigger guy should hold the smaller guy down.
Ray Leonard didnt. To me he was a fine fighter, and a almost great one, but not a great one. He would have had a very tuff time in another age. He showed me nothing in two fights with Duran that makes me think he is a great welterweight.
Tommy Hearns? Yes he koed Duran. But I dont accept that fight. Duran. I mean do you actually think he quit against Leonard (he was defending champ) out of fears of embarrassment? Out of injury? Ray Arcel never trained him again out of embarrassment of being involved in a fix. So given that Duran would do things like that, its not impossible to believe he was less than himself against hearns for the reasons I heard.
I followed Hearns early as a simon pure. He like all the Kronk fighters knew the Detroit style. jab and move and hook and straight right. Its a winning style. He didnt have crunching power, but he was well schooled and had fast hands, and could come out and nail you with his reach. He scored kos against guys he could but against Weston and Hayman he looked ordinary. We knew he couldnt take a shot and his chin was never reached as of yet by any bangers. I mean the guy was so skinny and weak legged at 147. We figured Cuevas with the big rep as a hitter would cream him. BUT upon seeing Cuevas train here in Detroit, I changed my mind. HE WAS TERRIBLE. It was like no one ever taught him to box. Every Kronk guy he sparred with used him like a kid. True on the bags it was obvious he was a harder hitter than Tommy, but Tommy knew what to do with a wide open guy like that and so would have Milt McCoury or Darrell Chambers etc. His was a Mexican brawlers style and it worked on the coast but not here in Detroit. I told my Mexican friends to bet Hearns. Hearns looked great.
Leonard was a different story. he had the goods and the chin and the stamina. Hearns comes out early and nails him, but Ray dont go. I had everyone betting Leonard and they were gonna kill me, but I knew if Ray dont go he would finally test a chin I knew wouldnt hold up. Then Ray nailed him in about the fifth or sixth. Then Tommy moved jabbed, while Ray flat footed ate the jab and stalked. But Tommy had weak legs. No way was he gonna go fifteen like that with a knockout guy stalking him. He slowed and Ray nailed him and thats it.
Conclusion. Tommy had heart, courage, fast hands, good power, leverage, and knew how to box. BUT he had a poor chin if you had the talent to find it (great fighters will) and he had weak legs (genitics).
You watch Cotto against zab Judah. Check out his mind purpose and his powerful shoulders and legs. See that he can take a shot, shake it off and come back on, see that he is committed to a body attack (the worst news tommy Hearns could think of at 147 in a opponent) and see that they guy has the mind of a fighter and the courage of a lion.
See him against tall, skinny tommy at 147. tommy dont take him out early (he might) and its curtains and a long night and a painful stoppage. NO WAY Tommy Hearns goes into a dog fight with this guy inclose. Tommy had not the body strength at 147 for this kind of war. Can he take him out early? He might, but I guess Cotto deals with his punch and takes him into deep waters. Tommy was a fine fighter, but he had some tragic flaws that came out when he boxed well rounded strong fighters.
Leonard v Hearns was a fine fight in which Ray Leonard showed his talent and his fighters genius. But Tommy was a accident waiting to happen after the fifth round or so...........

[rocky111]

just like to explain some things
Yes Duran was a super talent and he moved up and beat Leonard (a fine fighter). Yet Willie Pep lost to Sammy Angott, Billy Conn to Joe Louis, Ray Robinson to Joe Maxim, Jose Napoles to Carlos Monzon. It happens some times that these great fighters move up and win, but most of the times the bigger guy should hold the smaller guy down.
Ray Leonard didnt. To me he was a fine fighter, and a almost great one, but not a great one. He would have had a very tuff time in another age. He showed me nothing in two fights with Duran that makes me think he is a great welterweight.
Tommy Hearns? Yes he koed Duran. But I dont accept that fight. Duran. I mean do you actually think he quit against Leonard (he was defending champ) out of fears of embarrassment? Out of injury? Ray Arcel never trained him again out of embarrassment of being involved in a fix. So given that Duran would do things like that, its not impossible to believe he was less than himself against hearns for the reasons I heard.
I followed Hearns early as a simon pure. He like all the Kronk fighters knew the Detroit style. jab and move and hook and straight right. Its a winning style. He didnt have crunching power, but he was well schooled and had fast hands, and could come out and nail you with his reach. He scored kos against guys he could but against Weston and Hayman he looked ordinary. We knew he couldnt take a shot and his chin was never reached as of yet by any bangers. I mean the guy was so skinny and weak legged at 147. We figured Cuevas with the big rep as a hitter would cream him. BUT upon seeing Cuevas train here in Detroit, I changed my mind. HE WAS TERRIBLE. It was like no one ever taught him to box. Every Kronk guy he sparred with used him like a kid. True on the bags it was obvious he was a harder hitter than Tommy, but Tommy knew what to do with a wide open guy like that and so would have Milt McCoury or Darrell Chambers etc. His was a Mexican brawlers style and it worked on the coast but not here in Detroit. I told my Mexican friends to bet Hearns. Hearns looked great.
Leonard was a different story. he had the goods and the chin and the stamina. Hearns comes out early and nails him, but Ray dont go. I had everyone betting Leonard and they were gonna kill me, but I knew if Ray dont go he would finally test a chin I knew wouldnt hold up. Then Ray nailed him in about the fifth or sixth. Then Tommy moved jabbed, while Ray flat footed ate the jab and stalked. But Tommy had weak legs. No way was he gonna go fifteen like that with a knockout guy stalking him. He slowed and Ray nailed him and thats it.
Conclusion. Tommy had heart, courage, fast hands, good power, leverage, and knew how to box. BUT he had a poor chin if you had the talent to find it (great fighters will) and he had weak legs (genitics).
You watch Cotto against zab Judah. Check out his mind purpose and his powerful shoulders and legs. See that he can take a shot, shake it off and come back on, see that he is committed to a body attack (the worst news tommy Hearns could think of at 147 in a opponent) and see that they guy has the mind of a fighter and the courage of a lion.
See him against tall, skinny tommy at 147. tommy dont take him out early (he might) and its curtains and a long night and a painful stoppage. NO WAY Tommy Hearns goes into a dog fight with this guy inclose. Tommy had not the body strength at 147 for this kind of war. Can he take him out early? He might, but I guess Cotto deals with his punch and takes him into deep waters. Tommy was a fine fighter, but he had some tragic flaws that came out when he boxed well rounded strong fighters.
Leonard v Hearns was a fine fight in which Ray Leonard showed his talent and his fighters genius. But Tommy was a accident waiting to happen after the fifth round or so...........

[walshb]

Rocky, I agree with your analysis of Tommy to a degree. I think he had it all, but lacked the chin and recuperative skills of the Robbie's and Leonard's.
But you then compare him to Cotto. Cotto is not a true welter and no matter what shots he has taken from Judah, this does not come CLOSE to the power he'll have to deal with in Tommy. And just because Cotto weighs in at 147, doesn't mean he is a true welter. Cotto has agreat chin, he has the chin needed to hang with the best 9.5-10 stone fighters. He DOES not have the chin to deal with the great Welters in Ray Robinson, Leonard and Hearns and Curry etc etc. It's no disgrace, it's just nature.

[wpink]

Thanks WalshB, you see in post before yours I tried to tell Ultimo that I am not going down the Norris vs Leonard trail again.

All I will say about fighters in General regarding speed and reflexes, is that I have not seen one fighter retain his speed and reflexes after age 34 to the point he had prior. Not Ali, Not Leonard, Not Jones, Not Taylor, I did not get to see many of Robinson's fights but from what I heard Robinson at Welter was devastating and at Middle he was too but he was unbeateable as evidenced by his record at welter. And before I forget Norris too, but as we all know he was finished by age 30....So the speed issue to me is a pretty easy one to figure, just look at fighters that we believe to be our speed demons in the ring and see how they did after age 33-34....Ali was a legend because he fell on different skills, and still beat Foremens, fraziers, shavers etc. Robinson too. Leonard beat Hagler, after retirmenet....But Leonard is no Ali or Robinson as they had multiple great victories.....

Hearns chin to me at Welter weight seems to be slammed to harshly as he only was ever hurt once by anyone at that weight and that was Leonard who again was a hard hitting welter and a top 5 at that. Hell he faced the hard hitting cuevas, its not his fault that he obliterated cuevas earlier enough. One thing about tommy he tested everyone chin he ever faced, and I dont think Cotto and Judah and Mayweather could stand up to the test. Could tommy vs Cotta have stayed in there for 14 rounds,, I dont know as to me Cotto's style and power would have been the best threat vs Tommy, better than Mayweather who would not be able to pose any threat to Tommy at Welter, better than Judah who had speed but we see how he does vs top notch opposition, better than dlh would not be able to get to tommmy....I see Cotto if he could stand up to the power of Tommy having the best chance. but I do not think he would be able to.....

Rocky goood points..very good points...Tommy had fast hands, great reach, great jab..all time power and came to bang...That package beats almost every welter that ever lived. Almost

While we are at it...lets enjoy what these welters now are bringing us.. 'We have cotto, margerita, hatton, Judah, Mayweather, Mosley, Williams and otthers...we have a very good group of fighters...I am interested in who emerges...My money is on Cotto...Then Mosley, then Mayweather...but time will tell.

[rocky111]

Hmm. Good points. But I disagree with Tommys having crunching power. He had long reach and could nail you with fairly good power and speed. Cuevas had the "crunching" power. Hearns could get there, but he didnt have big strength or power. Good puncher, but not crunching like a Carmen Basilio at 147. Cotto to me is now a full welter. hes not a great one and I dont rate him with Robbie or Gavalin or Carmen or even Ray Leonard. But anybody at 147 who can take it and bang the body and head has a chance with physically limited Tommy Hearns. Tommy Hearns as a welter wouldnt have beaten the great welters IMO. Just too weak in the legs and jaw. Its all opinion but I still like Cotto in this one. Tommy layed everything on Clyde Gray (a old washed up Gray) and it went ten when they stopped it. Cotto lasts ten and its over for Tommy. Good discussion and Im enjoying talking with knowledgeable fight fans like yourself.

[10-8]

Rocky I disagree with almost everything you have said about Hearns on this thread although I will raise one point which should be of some interest.

Years ago I met Clyde Grey at a boxing function and had an excellent converstion with him. I asked Clyde who hit harder Cuevas or Hearns.

Surprisingly or not Grey said Cuevas hit harder although he was quick to add that he met Hearns early in Tommy's career when he wasn't fully developed as a fighter, while Cuevas was already an established champion.

[walshb]

While we are at it...lets enjoy what these welters now are bringing us.. 'We have cotto, margerita, hatton, Judah, Mayweather, Mosley, Williams and otthers...we have a very good group of fighters...I am interested in who emerges...My money is on Cotto...Then Mosley, then Mayweather...but time will tell.

This is what irritates me a little about the boxing world Pink. Where are the natural welters. Where are the 5 feet 10 inch guys who started their careers at Welter, like Robbie and Leonard and Hearns and Curry and Honeygan and Starling, who hit like welters and took shots off other hard hitting welters. All those you mentioned are pretty good fighters, but all not real welters. At least not like they used to be.

Rocky I agree that in any welter duel V Robbie and Naploes and Griffith, Tommy's recuperative skills, more so than chin will maybe let him down.
But let's not forget, these men would also be facing a guy with height and reach advantages unheard of, with quite a powerful punch and beautiful skills.

It's not like they will simply walk thru Hearns. To beat him, you are gonna' take a whupping along the way. I don't care who you are. I suppose you could say that if you were a fan of Hearns, you would constantly be wary of the fact that at any time he could be taken out with a good heavy shot. To bet on him would be so dramatic.

One second he's pounding away and the next he's all over the place on jelly legs from a hard counter punch. But he has also shown us his fighting spirit. In both bouts with Ray, there were times he was under huge pressure and he fought valiantly. The 12th rd of their second meeting is an exapmle. Ray almost punched himself out.

[ultimo]

Rocky you make some good points. Tommy had some flaws that should have been taken care early but wasn't. first is he tends to slug it out a lot. I don't care who it is, he tends to open up at some point which is why leonard caught him in round six. the other is he doesn't protect his chin by bringing his guard up. i noticed he was pretty quick to slip under a right hand but as we saw in the barkley fight he couldn't duck all of them and was pretty much beat on account of one blow.

People tend to overlook taking punches on the gloves. i even heard tyson once criticise it saying it doesn't look good to the judges. that was before his first loss.

had tommy worked more on his weak points, defense, strength conditioning, tying up an opponent i have no doubt he would have walked away with a fairly easy win over leonard. instead he blew it and we had to wait for his next live opponent Norris. not as impressively physically as hernz but without swiss cheese defense.

[walshb]

Rocky you make some good points. Tommy had some flaws that should have been taken care early but wasn't. first is he tends to slug it out a lot. I don't care who it is, he tends to open up at some point which is why leonard caught him in round six. the other is he doesn't protect his chin by bringing his guard up. i noticed he was pretty quick to slip under a right hand but as we saw in the barkley fight he couldn't duck all of them and was pretty much beat on account of one blow.

People tend to overlook taking punches on the gloves. i even heard tyson once criticise it saying it doesn't look good to the judges. that was before his first loss.

had tommy worked more on his weak points, defense, strength conditioning, tying up an opponent i have no doubt he would have walked away with a fairly easy win over leonard. instead he blew it and we had to wait for his next live opponent Norris. not as impressively physically as hernz but without swiss cheese defense.

Ultimo, he was a boxer and at times boxers take shots. His defense was no better or worse than others. When you engage, expect to have your opponent return fire. Leonard caught him with a left hook in rd 6. It wasn't Tommy's poor defense, Ray just nailed him with a counter hook. Tommy didn't take it well though, but still fired back and even hurt Ray in the rd.
And after all it was Ray. Up to that Tommy was boxing perfectly and Leonard couldn't score. That had to change at some stage. It's all if's and but's. Tommy put up a brilliant display against Ray, but Ray's extra little bit got him the victory. That's all there was to it. Ray took a shot better and was that little bit stronger late as well as being a more mature fighter. He was 2 years older at 24. That may have been a factor

[silk degrees]

Rocky i respectfully disagree with some of your accessments, you stated Hearns did not look good against Hayman, we all know Hearns suffered a broken hand in that fight, you can see right at the bell he flinched his hand, knowing something severely happened to it. About those Kronk fighters, many of them were flash in the pans, they lost big fights as much as they won others. Hearns really gave them credibility, let's not fool ourselves there. As far as Leonard, he did what very few fighters were able to do, and that is take an opponents style, and beat him with it. He out-boxed Benitez which was supposed to be his strong point, he out-bullied Duran, the bully, made him quit, forget about that steak story. And he out slugged the slugger in Hearns. He took Hearn's best shots, and still managed to win despite having one eye almost the entire fight. Give Ray Leonard credit, he was a great fighter. It pisses me when we keep finding ways to make a case for Tyson being a great fighter, why not give Ray his props!!!

[ultimo]

I agree it was a great hit he took on the chin and caught him flush. i can just imagine the shock to his brain. But I dissagree that Tommy's defense was the equal of someone say like Hagler.

I have studied prime Hagler and can see Marvin relied on primarily on movement, particularly his entire body which takes up a great deal of energy. in addition, the head movement, slipping, weaving, blocking. I've seen Marvin make opponents miss by barely an inch or graze him or ride with the punch.

he made it look so easy even in fast paced fights but that's why Marvin was th top fighter of his time. Tommy did not have nearly the same level of defense. the man didn't even know how to tie up a guy when hurt. he left his left hand by his wiast and his right hand low and his chin exposed instead of tucked down where it belonged. that's why he got caught on his chin instead of higher up where it would have caused less damage. on top of that, tommy was trading. you didn't see hagler do that. he fired in two's a lot of the time as the opponent softened up before he opened up on them. that's using your head!

you can't just start banging away with everyone you meet. you'll get the shit beat out of you eventually. So it's not as simplistic as saying ray took a better shot than tommy (hard to tell, he had so few fights). but anyone can safely say he knew how to protect his chin better and was more sound on defense than Tommy.

[walshb]

I agree it was a great hit he took on the chin and caught him flush. i can just imagine the shock to his brain. But I dissagree that Tommy's defense was the equal of someone say like Hagler.

I have studied prime Hagler and can see Marvin relied on primarily on movement, particularly his entire body which takes up a great deal of energy. in addition, the head movement, slipping, weaving, blocking. I've seen Marvin make opponents miss by barely an inch or graze him or ride with the punch.

he made it look so easy even in fast paced fights but that's why Marvin was th top fighter of his time. Tommy did not have nearly the same level of defense. the man didn't even know how to tie up a guy when hurt. he left his left hand by his wiast and his right hand low and his chin exposed instead of tucked down where it belonged. that's why he got caught on his chin instead of higher up where it would have caused less damage. on top of that, tommy was trading. you didn't see hagler do that. he fired in two's a lot of the time as the opponent softened up before he opened up on them. that's using your head!

you can't just start banging away with everyone you meet. you'll get the shit beat out of you eventually. So it's not as simplistic as saying ray took a better shot than tommy (hard to tell, he had so few fights). but anyone can safely say he knew how to protect his chin better and was more sound on defense than Tommy.

So that's why Hearns was ahead in their fight??, because Ray took less shots?
I'm confused. Hearns landed more on Ray and suddenly Ray has the better defense. I think Ray had a good defense, excellent lateral footwork and his speed was also part of his defense. No two fighters are identical. Marvin was a different fighter to Tommy and Marvin took a lot of shots too. He just had a steel chin. If you want to be perfect about it then all fighters need to improve their defense, but then nobody would be landing shots. Hearns didn't take a punch as well as the others, this is not poor defense, it's more lack of recuperative strength

[Paulie W]

I cant believe this thread is still alive. I check in here every few days and here it is after several weeks still atop the list! Might as well throw my hat into the ring, although it's essentially the same hat as the vast majority of the posters here have already thrown in.

Anyone who tells me Tommy Hearns is not a great puncher seems to me flat out wrong. You can mess around with the semantics of punching power - Cuevas hit harder, Basilio was more 'crunching' - but the bottom line is that there have been few more 'destructive' punchers than Tommy at his best. He left good, very good and great fighters unable to continue.

I have virtually no doubt that he would have done the same to Cotto, Moseley, Collazo, Williams, Hatton, Margarito, Castillo. Sure, it's possible that he gets caught and stopped but this is to my mind a very limited possibility. The idea that he gets worn down by any of these characters and then stopped seems even less likely: when did that ever happen against anyone other than the very, very best? SRL and Hagler got to him but that is SRL and Hagler.

Tommy then would stop them all IMO - and don't say 'who ever stopped Moseley'. Go back and watch Forrest - 'Tommy very lite' - versus a prime Moseley for an idea of how that fight would pan out. And Tommy doesnt let SSM off the hook.

Mayweather has the skills and class to survive but no more than that, IMO: Floyd has never faced an offence like Tommy's and would spend a good deal of time on the retreat dropping further and further behind on points.

[Paulie W]

edit

[wpink]

Paulie

Could not have said it any better myself. Good Analysis of Tommy vs Mosley. Your dead on. Have we seen Mayweather in a fighter with a prime big hitter with speed and stamina to sustain a great pace for 12 rounds. I think not. Tommy would obliterate Mayweather. The moment Mayweather tried to open up...he would be destroyed, not even close. I could only see Castillo and or Cotto possibly going the distance, and Cotto having the best chance, but that chance would be limited as he would have to get past the jab, then past the right, then past the left upper cut...and hurt Tommy who only was hurt once at Welter by Leonard.

[rocky111]

good points by all and I can see everyone is using their heads here in intellegent discussion.
Great commentary by Clyde Gray as although Tommy was a dangerous puncher with his speed, reach and leverage, he did not have the raw power of Cuevas. I saw this very closely watching. It was not even close. But boxing doesnt always reward raw power.
To be far to Cuevas it was a slippery ring, he wore leather and Steward put Tommy in rubber. so Pipino just couldnt find his feet to plant and bang.
But then again Tommy took a better punch and matured as he got bigger. 147 he was just too skinny and weak in a long fight.
Hey I never rated Tommy low. He is a fighter with all the heart in the world. He had all the skills and he was always dangerous. But with his flaws I dont rank him as great. And truly he was never the best fighter in any real divison he was in.
Ray Leonard also had every quality. But Benitez (couldnt break a egg. I also saw this in his training watching closely), Hearns being a accident wating to happen, Hagler being over the hill and fighting a poor fight, and the Duran fights I dont have to comment on , but ray never looked great in either of them. I just dont put him on the top of other welter divisons Ive seen. He was almost great, but just not in the pantheon. He got a awful lot of publicity and he was very good. But I dont rank his era that great no matter what people say.
Its good now that people are starting to realize what I saw in Tommy Hearns at 147 and the issue is now could Cotto deal with Tommy even with Tommys limitations. I say he can and is strong enough to dominate and win and many disagree. Now thats a good arguement because Tommy could nail any one and get them out of there at most weights he fought at. But I think Cotto wont go like that. he boxes better than wide open Cuevas and hes very strong. Again I like Cotto in this one.