Home News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia
The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board
+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 151 to 169 of 169

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

  1. #151
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,783
    vCash
    500

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

    Just to let you guys know I dont believe everything a guy tells me about fixed fights.
    I was partying with Lupe Sanchez, Cuevas manager, immediatedly after the fight and asked him why he let Cuevas fight with those leather soles in that slippery ring, when Steward knew the ring and had tommy wear rubber.
    sanchez laughed and said the fight was fixed anyway so who gives a damm. Cuevas just wanted to get out of there.
    I never believed a word he said...................

  2. #152
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,783
    vCash
    500

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

    Just to show I dont agree and believe every thing I hear as to fixed fights.
    I was partying with Lupe Sanchez, Cuevas manager, right after the fight here in Detroit. I asked why he let Cuevas in the ring with leather soles when the earlier fights of the evening showed the ring was slippery and Steward knowing it let Tommy in with rubber soles.
    Sanchez said seriously that the fight was fixed, neither he nor Cuevas gave a damm and Pipino just wanted to get out of there.
    I didnt believe a word he said....................

  3. #153
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,783
    vCash
    500

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

    Sorry about repeating the post. Tommy was about 6 feet as a welter and I think he seemed to grow some as he got older. But he was never 6 ft 2. No way. You know how they play with these height things. I am 5 ft 11 and change and standing next to Tommy we seemed the same size at the time without too much difference. Again tommy was a tall welter, but very very skinny. He could box rings around anyone with his skill and reach, but he never had the legs to dance for a whole fight with a stalking puncher. Just genetics............

  4. #154
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,133
    vCash
    500

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    Leoanrd never looked good in any of those fights but he won. That is more than anyone else can say!

  5. #155
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,783
    vCash
    500

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

    Sugar Ray Leonard was a terriffic fighter and very smart, but he didnt beat Roberto Duran in the first fight and in the second one he ran like a thief and did very little damage before Roberto quit. But he was a fine fine fighter. He could take it, he could bring it, and he had good stamina. Hed be a handful for anybody and it would take great welters to beat him.
    the Kronk fighters were all well schooled for offense and the detroit style breeds that. But they all for some reason lacked ruggness and stamina. You got to train very very hard in roadwork and other strength building labor to get that and that was not stressed. You got a good eye noticing stuff like that. Tommy's left hook was wide but he got away with it mostly because of his size.

  6. #156
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,133
    vCash
    500

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

    You call in run...Leonard was outboxing Duran and landing more shots, and making duran miss. He also countered very very effectively off the ropes in the 2nd fight and spun off the ropes, vs lay on the ropes and welcome duran in to have a war with his back on the ropes. In the first fight with Duran, duran won fair and square. However it was a great great fight....

    Where is that Hearns lackd Stamina, people say that but can not back it up. He was not tired in the 1st leonard fight, he simply got caught. That specific round 13, tommy came out fresh (he did trip over Rays legs) but bounced up and was landing crisp shots..etc...then Ray caught him, and it still took another round for Ray to finish him. I simply do not get why every victory Ray has people try to tarnish it. I guess Tommy was tired in round 6 of their fight as well, as he got hurt then or round 3 vs hagler? I do not believe simply because he got stopped that you can attribute that to stamina, it was more like Ray saw he hurt him round 6, changed is plan and kept trying to land that one shot, and in the 13the round it came. Who looked tired up to that point? I would say Ray , as Tommy was even up on his toes sticking and moving, spinning off the ropes.....

    Good over all post though Rocky...love debating with you. I just disagree that Leonard flat out ran in the 2nd fight, he boxed and was countering effectively. I am sure you dont doubt him for using that style since he tried going toe to toe in the first fight. I also disagreee about Tommy being tired.

    One thing your right about Tommy's left hook, however look at times when he shortened it up, and tightened up the left hook

  7. #157
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,783
    vCash
    500

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

    I still think Leonards vic over Duran the second time was garbage. I mean Roberto quit in a even fight. (Was it a fix? I always thought so and so do others I talked too who might know) Leonard moved, sure, but his counters were taps, his taunts were just that with no damage, I mean it wasnt Willie Pep with damage being done, or Ali moving and smashing that jab. It was nothing. No damage. AND DURAN WAS THE CHAMPION FOR THAT FIGHT. HOW THE HELL DO YOU WIN A TITLE THAT WAY? It doenst mean I dont like Leonard or disagree with your assessment of him. Its just he wasnt ever the fighter Duran was and it showed when they fought.
    Hearns? Well he ran out of gas it appeared to me in both fights you name. I think he had wind, but his legs just didnt hold up. Again I think it was just genetics. Both knockouts were of the ugly variety. Yes he got caught, but he got hit and didnt go down immediately. He staggered around and then went down ugly. Again, I think it was his legs more than his chin. Some guys are just like that.
    Tommys hook? Well he was a fine puncher with everything he threw. I would never deny that. He was built for that especially from the outside. Hes kind of Vlad Klitchko to me. Great offense (nobody denies Vlads gifts on offense do they? But lacking in some other qualities that costs him against certain opponents)
    ditto for me Pal. I like the debate also. you know your stuff. Its a pleasure and a honor.

  8. #158
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,133
    vCash
    500

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

    Well rocky your definately entitled to your own opinion. I agree the 2nd duran fight was lack for the action the 1st fight had..However one thing your false on is that Duran leonard II was not even. Leonard was ahead on each scorecard and about to win the eighth. Many people try to slant things their way, in order to try to drive a point. Tell me if your winning the fight 5 rounds to 2 then it is pretty much a fight your winning right...Hmmm but after only 7 rounds you will only be up by 3 points....So the issue is the fight was sitll winnable by Duran, but he was clearly losing.

    Many slam Leonard for performance vs Duran or Hearns..Hmmmm Lets see. He fought Duran to a stand still in montreal and lost by a total of 4 points. Yes the 2nd fight was nowhere near the violent 1st fight if your looking for action, but Leonard boxed Durans head off. Duran was stalking, charging, swingign etc...and leonard countered repeatedly coming off the ropes, catch duran comin in...and was winning the BOXING MATCH! Leoanrd had clear ring generalship, landed the cleaner more effetive punches, and was frusterating duran. Was it dominating ..Hell no. but was he doing what he needed to do to win..Hell Yes, and we should not fault Leonard because Duran self exploded within, and quit. I also want to point out that Ray caught all this flack about allowing Duran to fight his fight the first fight, and it was a war and a great fight..now he fights a fight to neutralize Duran strategie and capitalize on his speed and he gets slammed...Wow what can he do?

    Same thing carried over to hearns...Ray boxed hearns at first and was losing..Same as Roy was doing vs Tarver in the 3rd fight, Mosley vs Forrest..etc.. However, ray new he would not win, boxing, staying on the end of hearns jab. Leonard came off his toes, and brought the fight to Hearns a slugger and hurt him badly in round 6 and 7.. Then ray kept on stalking but not throwing,, hearns started moving, avoiding contact..and wasnt it Hearns who was known as the slugger with 30 kos in 32 fights...Hmmm Hearns was moving beautifully in round 12, and was fresh and bxing and landing good shots in round 13 til he got caught.

    Amazing people can fault ray for that fight too, or say that Hearns was tiring. What did you see, tell us where in that fight did hearns start to breath heavy, or show signs of fatigue. Wasn't it leonard who was fatigued? Wow!

    I think there are simply people who frankly refuse to give Ray his just due, because he was not your proto type, beat up, unintelligent, ugly big lipped fighter. He beat a legend or two boxing, and a legend or two slugging...what more do you want?

    UFC is a great option for those that dont appreciate that sometimes a fighter does not have the skills to beat a fighter in a toe to toe situation, so he reverts to boxing which is what this is boxing. Sometimes a fighter can not out box a fighter so he will revert to slugging...Which is what this is...So the point is BOXING is about all of it, and who did it better than Leonard when he could switch styles vs the best to fighters to ever lace em up, and come out victorious. Maybe some were not the most physical...(Duran II, Hagler, ) Maybe some were more technical (Benetiz) maybe some he had to go after his opponent (Kalule, hearns), maybe some he gave up his style and went toe to toe wiht a top figher of all time in his type of fight ( Hearns, Duran I) maybe some he took a beating to force him to realize he didnt have it, but he took and didnt quit (Norris)...What more from a fighter can you ask.
    Last edited by wpink; 06-21-2007 at 05:28 PM.

  9. #159
    Roberto Aqui
    Guest

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

    Quote Originally Posted by wpink
    Well rocky your definately entitled to your own opinion..However one thing your false on is that Duran leonard II was not even. Leonard was ahead on each scorecard and about to win the eight. Many people try to slant things their way, in order to try to drive a point. Tell me if your winning the fight 5 rounds to 2 then it is pretty much a fight your winning right...Hmmm but after only 7 rounds you will only be up by 3 points....So the issue is the fight was sitll winnable by Duran, but he was clearly losing.
    It's human nature to make a strong case for your point of view, it's just that some folk don't realize how weak they sound when they are not in command of the facts.

    Leonard was ahead 68-66 on two cards, and 67-66 on the other. The fight was winnable for Duran, except that needing to take a huge crap, he wasn't too keen on soiling himself in public while chasing after Leonard. Just look what a fat pig Duran is today. He didn't get that way picking at salad!

  10. #160
    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 think Tommy did run out of steam in fight 1 as opposed to him being hurt,
    Sure, Ray hurt him, but Tommy's draining stamina made the hurt all the more.
    Had he been fitter, which sounds crazy since he went 13rds at a ferocious pace, he may have taken the shots better. A bit like Foreman in Zaire. Ali KO'd him, but so too did the heat and exhaustion. Tommy even looked despearte. His face showed all th signs of not HURT, but pure exhaustion.
    I will always remember this when watching him collapse into the ropes at the end of rd 13. His face said it all. He was done!!!!

    All credit to Ray as he still had to come out and finish the job and he too was nearing complete exhaustion!!!

    Leonard-Duran 2 was a dull affair but Ray was always in command of a fighter who just did not care at all. Duran couldn't have been arsed that night

  11. #161
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pacific Palisades, Ca
    Posts
    345
    vCash
    500

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

    it was only when he slowed that Ray was finally able to catch him. but that arcing right hand he caught Tommy along the ropes in the 13th probably wouldn't have had that much an impact in the earlier rounds-proof that he just wilted from the pace and wasn't carrying enough weight.

    Anyone can tell Tommy looked much thinner than the usual fighter so his endurance and strength must be labled suspect-he was mostly skin and bones and I expected him to wilt much earlier than he did from the pace alone.

    At 154 the result would have been totally different.

    Duran also wasn't in the best shape for the rematch-deplorable actually from the accounts i read. should have postponed the match until he could get in proper condition.

  12. #162
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,783
    vCash
    500

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

    I never faulted RaY leonard for the first Hearns bout. Hes a fine fighter and beat him in a way a fine fighter does by taking advantage of Hearns weaknesses.
    Leonard v Duran? Well MY eyes and my opinion is this. The first fight Ray got lots of credit for lasting.....He wasnt even close in that fight to my eyes and got points for not going down and trying to fight. But Duran dominated that fight no sweat.
    The second fight? Well Ray Arcel and Freddie Brown never got in Durans corner again..........Arcel once got hammered by a thug for threatening the "boys". Never again. he just quit. Duran did what he did, but NEVER did I see Ray Leonard dominate with crisp punches or even solid punches. He was moving and slapping and pinching and whatever. But he hardly landed anything solid. The best blows were a few body shots landed by Duran. I had the fight dead even.............It kind of pissed me off to see Leonard running around and jumping up and down and all, acting like he scored a stoppage or knockout or anything like that. He didnt. I always respected Tommy Hearns for coming out of the corner to wing it and try to fight with heart and soul. But Ray's performance in the second Duran fight was even worse than the way Willie Pastrano stole the belt from Harold Johnson. You just dont take titles that way from great fighting champions. I may be old fashioned but you have it. I rate Ray Leonard a fine fighter with all the qualities. But he was not better than Roberto Duran.

  13. #163
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Louth, Ireland
    Posts
    5,150
    vCash
    500

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

    Rocky, I too think that a fighter has to take the title from the champion, but Duran quit. What was Ray to do, you can't slate Ray for how he won the belt back. Duran was the loser that night, for what ever reason only he knows.

    I also think fight 1 was a lot closer than you made it and Ray actually finished the stronger. I also believe that had they both fought 100 times, Ray wins the majority. That was Roberto's greatest ring effort. Leonard had more in the tank and was a better fighter IMO at welter than Roberto.
    Leonard to me is simply a superior fighter overall...., regardless of weight

  14. #164
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

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

    Walsh:

    Regardless of weight if they weighed anywhere from 147 on up? Or Leonard was a better welterweight than Duran a lightweight?

  15. #165
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

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

    And as for having to take the belt.... I think winning the fight is enough. I don't really get the meaning of having to take the title as it may be interpreted by some, it seems, to have to win by some margin more than would be required in other bouts. You win a fight by a point, you win. I would in fact demand more from the champion than the challenger, if anything.

  16. #166
    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 Sharkey
    Walsh:

    Regardless of weight if they weighed anywhere from 147 on up? Or Leonard was a better welterweight than Duran a lightweight?
    Both were great fighters. I just think Ray had the overall better attributes than Roberto. As whatever really, 135, 147 etc etc. Ray was IMO a better fighting specimen than Duran

  17. #167
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    52
    vCash
    500

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

    It's all conjecture, but no way was Duran going to beat Leonard in the second fight-he quit- that says it all. The scores werte close but Leonard was controlling the fight- like the 1st fight- the scores were close but Duran was controlling the fight. We can always use the scorecards to support our arguments- but that doesn't necessarily reflect reality. If Duran won the 15th round against Hagler he would have won the title!

  18. #168
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    bump

    Hawk

  19. #169
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    65
    vCash
    500

    Re: bump

    I agree with Rocky on this one.

    I have watched Leonard-Duran II numerous times and it is one of the most bizarre fights I have seen. Leonard ran and ran and ran. I have seen fighters get disqualified throwing more punches than Leonard did in that fight. Afterwards this great myth blew up that Leonard boxed his ears off and forced him to quit. Rubbish, he hardly landed a punch worthy of the name.

    As for Duran, he was a disgrace. He clearly wasn't there either mentally or physically.

    And I say this as someone who thinks SRL was the best all-round boxer of the past 50 years (and whose favourite boxer was Duran).

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456

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