Just to make it clear there is no hate at all intended. Both are two of my favourite fighters.

Just wanting some arguments from you guys on why Leonard should be considered greater than Thomas Hearns.

Cheers.

probably because he beat hearns. And hagler.

Talent wize Hearns is right there but what seperates them is stepping up and winning the big fights. For Hearns his 2 biggest fights were against Ray Leonard in 1981 and Hagler in 1985 and he lost both fights. He also made a poor decision in strategy against Hagler fighting him toe to toe like that.

Leonard won his big fights and when he and Tommy fought the 1st time he sucked it up and finished Hearns off in the 14th round.

Ray has advantages when it comes to things like chin, stamina which is important in a tough long fight.

he beat both Hearns and Hagler, Hearns lost both times.

he beat both Hearns and Hagler, Hearns lost both times.

I take this point.

Having said that there is a bit more to it. Hearns clearly defeated Leonard in the rematch, it wasn't even close.

Also, Hearns fought and lost to a mean prime Marvin, whilst Hagler was nowhere near the same fighter when he lost the SD to Ray, in a fight many say Hagler actually won.

Many reasons.

1) Leonard accomplished more (prime for prime)

2) Leonard beat Hearns

3) Leonard was undoubtedly the more complete (and better IMO) fighter.

I take this point.

Having said that there is a bit more to it. Hearns clearly defeated Leonard in the rematch, it wasn't even close.

Also, Hearns fought and lost to a mean prime Marvin, whilst Hagler was nowhere near the same fighter when he lost the SD to Ray, in a fight many say Hagler actually won.

The rematch against SRL was when both fighters were far past there primes. Especially Leonard who had the 5 year layoff from 1982-1987. I thought Ray looked slow in the Hagler and Donny Lalonde fights compared to when he was at his peak which was 1979-1982 when he was active and fighting on a regular basis.

Also i dont think Hearns won the rematch with ease. Even though he had the 2 knockdowns Ray actually hurt Tommy more in rounds 5 and 12 more than when he knocked Ray down. Fortunate for Tommy Ray put on that extra bulk and couldn't put together his combinations like he used to.

As for Hearns fought a better Hagler. SRL was layed off 5 years so i think everything evens out. Plus Hearns fought a completely different style than Ray did.

The rematch against SRL was when both fighters were far past there primes. Especially Leonard who had the 5 year layoff from 1982-1987. I thought Ray looked slow in the Hagler and Donny Lalonde fights compared to when he was at his peak which was 1979-1982 when he was active and fighting on a regular basis.

Also i dont think Hearns won the rematch with ease. Even though he had the 2 knockdowns Ray actually hurt Tommy more in rounds 5 and 12 more than when he knocked Ray down. Fortunate for Tommy Ray put on that extra bulk and couldn't put together his combinations like he used to.

As for Hearns fought a better Hagler. SRL was layed off 5 years so i think everything evens out. Plus Hearns fought a completely different style than Ray did.


Exactly my point..... How can any one with any boxing IQ even ask the question about hearns or leoanrd. In their peak Ray stopped hearns..but if you look at the fight, many leave this out..Ray everytime the had a meaningful exchange, HURT Hearns..rounds 6.7 13.then 14. Ray beat hagler, who stopped Hearns. To say Hagler was no where near the fighter is a joke. Based on what. What fight did he lose en route to Leonard. What slippage was there. I am not saying Hagler was at his best. but many simply dont want to accept hagler got beat, for the first time in 10 years.

Hearns simply does not measure up to Leonard on a pound per pound basis.

Exactly my point..... How can any one with any boxing IQ even ask the question about hearns or leoanrd. In their peak Ray stopped hearns..but if you look at the fight, many leave this out..Ray everytime the had a meaningful exchange, HURT Hearns..rounds 6.7 13.then 14. Ray beat hagler, who stopped Hearns. To say Hagler was no where near the fighter is a joke. Based on what. What fight did he lose en route to Leonard. What slippage was there. I am not saying Hagler was at his best. but many simply dont want to accept hagler got beat, for the first time in 10 years.

Hearns simply does not measure up to Leonard on a pound per pound basis.

Hagler was slipping, it was clear as day. He even made comments to Ray that he was losing the mental focus. The Hagler fight was close also. I had Ray winning it by a point I think but plenty of reputable experts have argued the opposite. Bottom line, Ray fights the Hagler that Hearns fought and he gets beat.

I was not saying that Hearns should be above Leonard on a p4p basis either, I have Leonard above him. I just wanted to hear people's views.

I'm no expert, but from what I have seen, Leonard was a terrifically special boxer. Everyone knows about his speed and skill, but he also was powerful, strong and very tough, deceptively so given his relatively slight frame. Look at the way in his first fight with Duran he stood and fought with him, completely neglecting the slick boxing he was capable of, and nearly succeeded in beating him that way, then in the second fight humiliated Duran with pure boxing. I think he was a smart, mean bastard too, he had to KO Hearns to be sure of winning their first fight, and did so in quite some style.

Hearns was good too, but i don't think he was close to being as technically accomplished as Leonard and certainly wasn't as tough. His weapons were lightning quickness and true KO power, and he could both box and brawl but he wasn't in Leonard's class at either IMO. He also had slightly suspect stamina, especially later in his career and a suspect chin.

All that aside, you could just look at their records. Leonard beat Hearns prime for prime, beat Hagler and beat Duran easily after his initial defeat. Hearns by contrast got stopped by both Leonard and Hagler, and to be fair the Duran he beat and Leonard he beat but got a draw with were both past their best and at weights that were maybe a little too big for them in comparison to Hearns who carried the higher weights excellently.

Leonard was the better boxer technically.

Leonard beat Hearns when both of them were at or near their primes.

I say that it is close but because of their records in big fights I have to lean towards Leonard.

Hearns' problems was his stamina and his chin wasn't the best, saying that in their first fiight when Leonard stopped Hearns he came from behind and Hearns was ahead.

Hearns is the only boxer to actually outbox Ray and had the fight been over 12 rounds Hearns would have won, but it was over 15 and Leonard stepped up in the championship rounds. I can still hear Angelo Dundee now, "Your blowing son, your blowing it"

I think Ray still beat a very good Hagler, maybe Hagler wasn't at his best but he was still great and the reason he beat Hagler was he ****ed Haglers mind over. Hagler did things in that fight he had never done before and this cost Hagler victory.

I gave it to Ray and can still remember watching this live. In all my time in boxing I have never witnessed a fight generate so much excitement and to me is the biggest fight of all time.

I live in England and considering there was no English fighters involved and there was no internet or satelite tv back then, everyone talked about who was going to win. All the kids at school, boys,girls and teachers and most never knew anything about boxing or cared but everyone wanted to know who was going to win.

Hearns was at his best during his brief stint at Junior Middleweight, at welterweight he was fast but not physically strong enough especially over 15 rounds against a formiddable foe like Leonard. Middleweight and above was a bit too much for him with his chin not being the best, it also slowed his speed and because of the much heavier punches it was far more difficult to fight his pace over 12 rounds. There was no money or names at junior middle with the exception of the Duran fight and that was Hearns at his best and one of the best ko's in the history of the game.

So Ray gets my nod as the greater fighter but Hearns was still great himself and should not be remembered for just his 2 big losses. He was a warrior who never ducked anyone and unfortunately for him the biggest fights out there for him were at weights at which he wasn't at his best. Some fighters can take all their attributes with them as they move up the weight divisions and although Hearns won numerous titles at different weights he would have been better suited at jumping no higher than the junior middleweight division.

I take this point.

Having said that there is a bit more to it. Hearns clearly defeated Leonard in the rematch, it wasn't even close.

Also, Hearns fought and lost to a mean prime Marvin, whilst Hagler was nowhere near the same fighter when he lost the SD to Ray, in a fight many say Hagler actually won.

I am one of that many.

I am one of that many.

Yeah look I have watched it a fair few times and I think it is close and could have gone to either guy.

But I firmly believe that Hagler was nowhere near his prime when he fought Ray. I have a lot of Marvin's fights on DVD and I think he would have killed Ray in his prime. Early stoppage IMO. For instance, Sugar Ray would have stood no chance against the Marvin that Tommy fought. He was just a total wrecking ball.

he beat both Hearns and Hagler, Hearns lost both times.

but in reality he only beat Hearns once & lost 2 Hagler...

I say that it is close but because of their records in big fights I have to lean towards Leonard.

Hearns' problems was his stamina and his chin wasn't the best, saying that in their first fiight when Leonard stopped Hearns he came from behind and Hearns was ahead.

Hearns is the only boxer to actually outbox Ray and had the fight been over 12 rounds Hearns would have won, but it was over 15 and Leonard stepped up in the championship rounds. I can still hear Angelo Dundee now, "Your blowing son, your blowing it"

I think Ray still beat a very good Hagler, maybe Hagler wasn't at his best but he was still great and the reason he beat Hagler was he ****ed Haglers mind over. Hagler did things in that fight he had never done before and this cost Hagler victory.

I gave it to Ray and can still remember watching this live. In all my time in boxing I have never witnessed a fight generate so much excitement and to me is the biggest fight of all time.

I live in England and considering there was no English fighters involved and there was no internet or satelite tv back then, everyone talked about who was going to win. All the kids at school, boys,girls and teachers and most never knew anything about boxing or cared but everyone wanted to know who was going to win.

Hearns was at his best during his brief stint at Junior Middleweight, at welterweight he was fast but not physically strong enough especially over 15 rounds against a formiddable foe like Leonard. Middleweight and above was a bit too much for him with his chin not being the best, it also slowed his speed and because of the much heavier punches it was far more difficult to fight his pace over 12 rounds. There was no money or names at junior middle with the exception of the Duran fight and that was Hearns at his best and one of the best ko's in the history of the game.

So Ray gets my nod as the greater fighter but Hearns was still great himself and should not be remembered for just his 2 big losses. He was a warrior who never ducked anyone and unfortunately for him the biggest fights out there for him were at weights at which he wasn't at his best. Some fighters can take all their attributes with them as they move up the weight divisions and although Hearns won numerous titles at different weights he would have been better suited at jumping no higher than the junior middleweight division.


This, is a stellar post.

Sums up my feelings.

All the kids at school, boys,girls and teachers and most never knew anything about boxing or cared but everyone wanted to know who was going to win.
Yea, you're very correct and was one of those kids somewhere in remote asia ;). Back then I have to wait for tomorrows paper for the result and a couple of weeks to watch the video of the fight. Heck I wasn't even worried how good Hagler was but am sure was confident of Leonards win :D. I dunno but I was like thinking that Sugar Ray was as popular as odlh now for a casual fans imo.

:boxing:

Talent wize Hearns is right there but what seperates them is stepping up and winning the big fights. For Hearns his 2 biggest fights were against Ray Leonard in 1981 and Hagler in 1985 and he lost both fights. He also made a poor decision in strategy against Hagler fighting him toe to toe like that.

Leonard won his big fights and when he and Tommy fought the 1st time he sucked it up and finished Hearns off in the 14th round.

Ray has advantages when it comes to things like chin, stamina which is important in a tough long fight.
What he said.

Leonard was the better boxer technically.

Leonard beat Hearns when both of them were at or near their primes.

The only advantages that Leonard had over Hearns was inside fighting, stamina and chin. Hearns is clearly superior in every over category, and what shows us this was the fact that he was giving Leonard a boxing clinic for more than half of the fight before his stamina issues caught up with him. Hearns was the better boxer, was at least as fast, hit a lot harder, was more accurate and had better outside game.

Slicksouth paw...you have got to be joking. Leonard is a much better boxer than hearns was. Just like Roy is a better boxer than Tarve was, and Mosly is vs Forrest, and finally Mayweather is than the 36 year old DLH. The reason Hearns beats leonard in head to head boxing, simply is he has reach on Leonard and Height, and Ray has to appreciate his power. IF YOU BOX...I am not saying you didnt. HOWEVER..IF YOU BOX. You know that a pure boxer like a leonard, Roy most times (sometimes he will defy all basics) mayweather, they have to change their strategy vs a man with the physical advantages that hearns had. Have you ever heard of of the quote you box a fighter, you fight a boxer, if you have the skills and this man has certain advantages on you.

If leoanrd boxed Hearns 100 times he would use the same style and at their peak he would probably stop him 80 times....It was not heat and Tommy legs that beat him. Leoanrd had Tommy damm near ready to go in rounds 6 and 7. It was leoanrd that simply stopped punching. Tommy did some great boxing after that, but a well rested leonard could have put much more pressure on Tommy in rounds 8 when Tommy had no legs and with 1 minute left he was hit was light righ hand and his legs buckled then too.

Tommy simpy was a freak of nature at Welter.. 6'1 78 inch reach,and power. You do not box him, you chop him down body then to the head. Any trainer will tell you this. Why do you think Mayweather is not fighint Williams...He will not be able to outbox Williams with a 80 inch reachk, but do we assume Wlliams is a better boxer than Mayweather, or Tarver than Roy.

Hearns was no where near as fast..That is plain a joke. Tommy had a fast jab..His right was simply powerful, No combinations...Where is his fast combination punching. Where is the foot speed. Forrest summed it up brlliantly after he beat Mosly the first time. Reach and height neutralized speed if you have a jab. Tommy had a great jab, however he was not as fast as leoanrd. Wow.

It is obvious you dont like Ray, but you got to come stronger than that.

J Razor. in Reality...Leonard is 1-0 vs Hagler and 1-1 vs Hearns. Regardless of your opinion, or mine as i think Hearns won also. However we cant go on opinions regarding ones record now can we, or there would be no need for recorded records, as I would have Chavez losing to Whtacker, Jimmy young beating Ali, hagler beating antefermo, quartey beating dlh, and thus you would think differently and hmmmm we would have no basis..So your opinion is respected...however in reality...Leoanrd is 1-0 vs Hagler and 1-1 vs Hearns..Get over it.!


Danc 1984.....Hmmmm have you ever asked yourself why ther fighters such as Antefermo, geraldo, Duran etc..where not knocked out when they fought hagler earlier on...Hmmmmmm Maybe, just maybe it has to do with Styles, and certain things that great fighters who never where even knocked down before they retired..such as defense and chin, along with mobility that we do know causes Hagler issues.

Hagler IMO was very close to peak in 87, just many fight fans dont know boxing. They see a fight in 1980 and see him destroy a fighter, then in 1987 he goes the distance and appears slower, the assume hmmm this fighter is slipping. Maybe just maybe the opponent neutralized a lot their offensive arsenal by movng a certain way, like away from their straight left down the pipe. Maybe he and Dundee saw way back in 83 ( are you suggesting he had slipped by then too) that when Duran made hagler step and then he either tied him up, or gave a little movement because Hagler steps then punches, Maybe just Maybe this minimized hagler punch output, and hmmm because ray was mobile and fast enought to be moving away from most punches not sitting there for hagler counters to land flush or with full impact...maybe just maybe hagler instead of KOing ray, would have to outpoint him, and them maybe just maybe because he gave away the 1st 4 rounds, he dug himself into a hole that he could not get out of.

Just offering some possible thoughts..you know.

I encourage you fight fans...to really look at the fight. Look at the styles...Look at the fighter of choice lets Say Hmmm Dlh why he goes right after one fighter, but another he uses movment. Or lets say why did Sonny Liston have the entire world scared of him and destory fightters,,but when he fought a loudmouth fighter he could barely get a punch on him...Study the fights..look at certain things like movement, footwork, who is taking a backwards step, does the fighter go straight back (like cotto did) or does the fighter spin out or move back at an angle to prevent himself from getting hit.

I think if you study the fight(s) plural, not just one...but several, you will become much more educated on here and not say such crazy stuff like Hearns was faster than Leonard. Wow!

The only advantages that Leonard had over Hearns was inside fighting, stamina and chin. Hearns is clearly superior in every over category, and what shows us this was the fact that he was giving Leonard a boxing clinic for more than half of the fight before his stamina issues caught up with him. Hearns was the better boxer, was at least as fast, hit a lot harder, was more accurate and had better outside game.

I agree with this. Having watched a lot of both of their fights based purely on boxing ability I would favour Hearns. Tommy's disadvantages in terms of chin and stamina outweighed that though.

I agree with this. Having watched a lot of both of their fights based purely on boxing ability I would favour Hearns. Tommy's disadvantages in terms of chin and stamina outweighed that though.

Name one fight that Tommy through fast combinations in. I think your confusing Reach and the attributes that come with reach like neutralizing anthers speed becasue the short fighter cant get to you, and has much further to get back out once they throw their punch,,I think your confusing Reach and its attributes, with speed. Tommy had a fast jab...and no his right was not slow, but no where near the hand and foot speed that Ray had....Go look at Ray vs Duran, or the comginations he threw vs price, chavarini, geraldo..or go look at her olympics....Tell me what fight you saw Tommy showcase hand and foot speed like that...

You cant.

Tommy was a good boxer, but chin, stamina, avoiding punches, etc... all are bot of the equation.. Leonard won hs big fights except for the 1st duran fight, ...If tommy was soo good why did he continously come up short.

To wpink1:

Hagler was an entirely different beast after he beat Minter for the championship, I don't really place much stock in his fights prior to this one.

Hagler certainly fought a very dumb fight against Ray, no doubt, however if you think that was Hagler at his peak I can only conclude that you have only seen 1 or 2 of Marvin's fights.

And on your comment about records, sure it is the official record that counts, but when you are talking legacies it is ok to consider situational circumstances. For the purposes of legacy Whitaker DID beat Chavez, just like Tommy clearly beat Ray in their second fight.

Slicksouth paw...you have got to be joking. Leonard is a much better boxer than hearns was. Just like Roy is a better boxer than Tarve was, and Mosly is vs Forrest, and finally Mayweather is than the 36 year old DLH. The reason Hearns beats leonard in head to head boxing, simply is he has reach on Leonard and Height, and Ray has to appreciate his power. IF YOU BOX...I am not saying you didnt. HOWEVER..IF YOU BOX. You know that a pure boxer like a leonard, Roy most times (sometimes he will defy all basics) mayweather, they have to change their strategy vs a man with the physical advantages that hearns had. Have you ever heard of of the quote you box a fighter, you fight a boxer, if you have the skills and this man has certain advantages on you.

If leoanrd boxed Hearns 100 times he would use the same style and at their peak he would probably stop him 80 times....It was not heat and Tommy legs that beat him. Leoanrd had Tommy damm near ready to go in rounds 6 and 7. It was leoanrd that simply stopped punching. Tommy did some great boxing after that, but a well rested leonard could have put much more pressure on Tommy in rounds 8 when Tommy had no legs and with 1 minute left he was hit was light righ hand and his legs buckled then too.

Tommy simpy was a freak of nature at Welter.. 6'1 78 inch reach,and power. You do not box him, you chop him down body then to the head. Any trainer will tell you this. Why do you think Mayweather is not fighint Williams...He will not be able to outbox Williams with a 80 inch reachk, but do we assume Wlliams is a better boxer than Mayweather, or Tarver than Roy.

Hearns was no where near as fast..That is plain a joke. Tommy had a fast jab..His right was simply powerful, No combinations...Where is his fast combination punching. Where is the foot speed. Forrest summed it up brlliantly after he beat Mosly the first time. Reach and height neutralized speed if you have a jab. Tommy had a great jab, however he was not as fast as leoanrd. Wow.

It is obvious you dont like Ray, but you got to come stronger than that.


Vernon Forrest was obviously a better boxer than Mosley, same with Tarver against Jones simply because they OUT boxed them and they are tighter with their technique. Forrest has always had Mosley's number, even when they met in the amateurs. These fighters had the tools and ability to negate their opponents game and take advantage of those flaws because they are the better boxer. A fighter like Forrest and Hearns will always have advantages over the speed fighter because they have the ability to exploit their lack of technique. For Example, Mosley had little success with boxing Forrest even on the outside because his game is speed. Do you believe that 1 inch in height advantage for Forrest would really make that much difference? Ray Leonard was special and he showed why he was great, he took advantage of the only shot that he had of winning( on the inside) and took advantage of it. Many fighters cannot weather such a power storm the way he did, and to show that the technique of Hearns and the fact that he was a better boxer showed because Leonard was behind on points when he did it. Hope that made sense.

Also, i am a fan of Ray Leonard, but not a huge one. I have nothing against him at all. He fought all the best fighters of his era and beat them all. I just personally like Hagler more so of course i can't be a BIG fan of Ray...lol. Hagler actually came to my Uncle's hotel back in 90( after he had been retired) and they discussed the controversial decision. My uncle told me that he was very upset when he firsr brought it up and gave him a mean expression, but then laughed afterwards and told him that he clearly won the fight and that Ray even told him that after the fight was over. He also told him that Ray Leonard was too scared to give him a rematch.

Name one fight that Tommy through fast combinations in. I think your confusing Reach and the attributes that come with reach like neutralizing anthers speed becasue the short fighter cant get to you, and has much further to get back out once they throw their punch,,I think your confusing Reach and its attributes, with speed. Tommy had a fast jab...and no his right was not slow, but no where near the hand and foot speed that Ray had....Go look at Ray vs Duran, or the comginations he threw vs price, chavarini, geraldo..or go look at her olympics....Tell me what fight you saw Tommy showcase hand and foot speed like that...

You cant.

I didn't say that Tommy had every possible advantage over Ray, just that considering boxing skills in a vacuum I would take Hearns.

Vernon Forrest was obviously a better boxer than Mosley, same with Tarver against Jones simply because they OUT boxed them and they are tighter with their technique. Forrest has always had Mosley's number, even when they met in the amateurs. These fighters had the tools and ability to negate their opponents game and take advantage of those flaws because they are the better boxer. A fighter like Forrest and Hearns will always have advantages over the speed fighter because they have the ability to exploit their lack of technique. For Example, Mosley had little success with boxing Forrest even on the outside because his game is speed. Do you believe that 1 inch in height advantage for Forrest would really make that much difference? Ray Leonard was special and he showed why he was great, he took advantage of the only shot that he had of winning( on the inside) and took advantage of it. Many fighters cannot weather such a power storm the way he did, and to show that the technique of Hearns and the fact that he was a better boxer showed because he was behind on points when he did it. Hope that made sense.

Also, i am a fan of Ray Leonard, but not a huge one. I have nothing against him at all. He fought all the best fighters of his era and beat them all. I just personally like Hagler more so of course i can't be a BIG fan of Ray...lol. Hagler actually came to my Uncle's hotel back in 90( after he had been retired) and they discussed the controversial decision. My uncle told me that he was very upset when he firsr brought it up and gave him a mean expression, but then laughed afterwards and told him that he clearly won the fight and that Ray even told him that after the fight was over. He also told him that Ray Leonard was too scared to give him a rematch.

Slick...Good post, but it is not technique always when your facing someone that has reach and height, and you have to respect certain things that they physically bring to the table.

Forrest was a pretty good boxer, but you said it all his reach with proper technique neutralized the faster fighter in mosley. Tarver was no where near the boxer Roy was. NOWHERE NEAR. Prime Roy literally kills Tarver. Literally Kills Tarver. Tarver didnt beat Roy the first time they fought when they boxed in the center of the ring. Remeber. He didnt even punch. He only scored when Roy was versus the ropes. The 2nd fght was a ko..and that can happen to anyone at any time..Its not like he was outboxing Roy. The 3rd time, Roy simply became a hoe....In summary Tarver does own Roy...But, He is clearly no where near the boxer Roy was.....

The point you made that Leonard had only one shot, was Dead Correct. In fact Dundee said in sports illustrated the week before the 1st fight that Hearns would control leonard from the outside that is to be expected, but that Ray would spend he 1st coupld of rounds moving to avoid catching anything early and zap some of the strenght from Tommy...Hmmm this is exaclty what happened. It is not that Tommy is a better boxer than leoanrd, Leonard can do so many things that Tommy cant do, many...However Tommy vs 5'10 leonard has a physical mismatchin size and reach that simply placed him at the top of all time welterweights.

I ask you this..Tommy should have been probably early on jr middle then a middle for most of his career, if he was on the level of a boxer wth Ray leonard, how do you think he would do vs middleweights day in day out boxing. I dont think he would be as successful as a welterwieght Ray, he simply was a freak of nature at welter, just like Paul williams is at welter, yoy think Williams will do great at Middleweight.......

Slick...Good post, but it is not technique always when your facing someone that has reach and height, and you have to respect certain things that they physically bring to the table.

Forrest was a pretty good boxer, but you said it all his reach with proper technique neutralized the faster fighter in mosley. Tarver was no where near the boxer Roy was. NOWHERE NEAR. Prime Roy literally kills Tarver. Literally Kills Tarver. Tarver didnt beat Roy the first time they fought when they boxed in the center of the ring. Remeber. He didnt even punch. He only scored when Roy was versus the ropes. The 2nd fght was a ko..and that can happen to anyone at any time..Its not like he was outboxing Roy. The 3rd time, Roy simply became a hoe....In summary Tarver does own Roy...But, He is clearly no where near the boxer Roy was.....

The point you made that Leonard had only one shot, was Dead Correct. In fact Dundee said in sports illustrated the week before the 1st fight that Hearns would control leonard from the outside that is to be expected, but that Ray would spend he 1st coupld of rounds moving to avoid catching anything early and zap some of the strenght from Tommy...Hmmm this is exaclty what happened. It is not that Tommy is a better boxer than leoanrd, Leonard can do so many things that Tommy cant do, many...However Tommy vs 5'10 leonard has a physical mismatchin size and reach that simply placed him at the top of all time welterweights.

I ask you this..Tommy should have been probably early on jr middle then a middle for most of his career, if he was on the level of a boxer wth Ray leonard, how do you think he would do vs middleweights day in day out boxing. I dont think he would be as successful as a welterwieght Ray, he simply was a freak of nature at welter, just like Paul williams is at welter, yoy think Williams will do great at Middleweight.......

I believe that Hearns would very effective at out boxing at middleweight because even till this day, he has never been out boxed before even though traveling up to higher weight divisions. He went clear up to light heavyweight and easily out pointed quick silver Hill( who was a natural light heavyweight and even had cruiserweight success), who was a fantastic fighter with good skills and hand speed and was unbeaten. Not only that Hearns was also past his prime and had noticeably slowed down. Now lets add to the equation that Hill was a slick southpaw boxer. Where Hearns would run into problems and the reason why he always ran into problems was not being able to handle a physically strong fighter on the inside.

Paul Williams on the other hand, wouldn't be as successful. He is not on the level of Hearns in terms of skill or punching power. He mainly looks to out work his opponents and overwhelm them by throwing volume punches. He would run into problems with both a naturally bigger boxer or a physically strong fighter. A fighter should fight at the best weight that they feel comfortable at and where they would be most effective. Williams should stay at welter or he would give up his advantages.

Just to make it clear there is no hate at all intended. Both are two of my favourite fighters.

Just wanting some arguments from you guys on why Leonard should be considered greater than Thomas Hearns.

Cheers.

Uhmm, because he beat him.