View Full Version : Hearns' best weight?


Benncollinsaad
10-14-2009, 08:38 AM
I am wondering what really was his best weight. Because, although he did dominate the most at 154, he also had a few great matches at 168. Shame he left that division, he coulda ruled it for a long time. LH did look like a more right division for him, because he was getting bigger, but it took away some of his speed and reflexes obviously.

masta
10-14-2009, 08:48 AM
154 was his best weight, in my opinion. He beat two great fighters in Roberto Duran and Wilfred Benitez and was never beaten when he was at that weight.

#1Assassin
10-14-2009, 04:18 PM
like most lean fighters his second weight was his best, where he had gotten the time to naturally grow into his frame without packing on too many pounds. so 154 no doubt. he had more stamina and punch resistance there, while maintaining best possible speed and power not to mention natural size advantage.

anubis
10-14-2009, 06:16 PM
154, then 147 imo. He had the power, boxing abilility and size to fight above those two, just not the chin.

mickey malone
10-15-2009, 03:21 AM
154 all day long... Wish he'd stayed there for longer.. Look what he did to Duran!

blacklodge
10-15-2009, 03:39 AM
All things in balance, his best weight was at 154. He carried his power up, but it did decrease as his speed lessened. 168 was bad news. Even at 160 he was getting tagged by guys who weren't qualified to carry his lunch. Juan Roldan, James "The Heat" Kinchen (or was that at 168?). If Hearns has stayed at 154, names like Mike McCallum and Julian Jackson might be out of our vocabulary.

Silencers
10-15-2009, 09:14 AM
Definitely 154, he had extra strength that he didn't at 147 and had the power of a 175 pounder there.