Modern day WW's vs The past

Hearns is so hard to gauge at 147 he had a lot of kayos but his competition and opponents aren't great....he lost to SRL but blew out Pipino Cuevas who was made to order I think physically strong guys with good chins like Porter,Maidana and Thurman would give him the most trouble though Hearns would be the favorite at this weight Hearns didn't have much of an inside game, his stamina wasn't tested much, and he didn't get hit much I think since he was at his best weight and skills prime yet, he could lose to fighters better than Pipino but not quite as good as SRL who showed if you can smother him and get away from the jab and right that he could be mauled and battered people tend to forget that you don't have to be a great fighter to beat a great fighter Iran Barkley, Kirkland Laing against Duran, Arguably Bruce Curry in fight one with Benitez styles make fights and I can see Hearns being outmuscled I don't see Hearns losing to anybody on that list outside of Leonard. He also went 13 rounds to stop Randy Shields. His stamina was never an issue. Leonard would beat any of them.

Wtf... You're trippin bro... No stronger division right now than welter. Mayweather, Bradley, Pac, Guerrero, Thurman, Maidana, Porter, Khan, Brook, Sadam Ali, Chaves... Tell me a single division which is better. With names. And don't say just 3-4 names tell a weight class where the top 10-11 is as strong in welter. Lmao.. Moms need to to stop trippin' Welter has a lot of talent "right now" but it's in the form of smaller talented guys moving up... I highly doubt in a true deep division with actual welters we would see guys like Bradley, pauli, broner moving up and grabbing belts... Forrest, tito, Ike, Oscar, shane era today's guys aren't snagging belts.. Early 90s was weak at welter and you saw it get ran by lightweight pernell 80s welters were insane with leonard, hearns, benitez, curry, starling, etc.. You didn't see guys like Mancini or JL Ramirez, Rosario bumping up and grabbing titles... One needs to have watched boxing longer than the floyd/manny era to realize this..l Welter has always been a glamour division, and historically when devoid of major true welters, it gets invaded by talented smaller guys.. Of course great fighters like duran, floyd, shane, etc would probably always find some sort of success no matter the era

Hearn would KO everybody within 6? Maybe everyone apart from Floyd. Floyd would beat Hearns. Having actually watched both their careers Floyd beats him in every department apart from Height & Power. Hearn's only chance vs Floyd is a LUCKY punch there's not one person on this board that can rationally and logically tell me other wise. Benitez had all he could handle with Hearns and was an absolute defensive master with more power and size then a natural lightweight or Jr welterweight like Floyd. Floyd gets pole axed, It would only take one shot to leave Floyd open for a crushing ko. If a atg marcos Maidana, zab super judah, and a ancient decrepit mosley can work Floyd over and have their moments then we all know would happen with Hearns. Guys like Duran, Leonard, Hearns, Benitez, Hagler were dynamic fighters like Pac and Floyd. They set traps and adjust to their opponent. Floyd and Manny are lucky they get the Canelos, Rios's, and Mosleys of today.

That's right, Hearns was clearly a much better, more skilled operator in 1992 than he was in 1981. :dunce: You're just throwing your toys out of the pram now and making every single contrarian statement possible, all because nobody agrees with you that a bunch of mediocre midgets would have anything for Hearns. Hearns lost to Iran Barkley the first time in 1988 and was 29 years old and only had to losses....learn your history before trying to make an ass out of someone

Which of today's WW's you think could make the 80's ranking and at what place. Currant Ring magazine top 10 1980 ring magazine top 10 Champion-Floyd Champion-Sugar Ray Leonard 1.Kell Brook 1.Thomas Hearns 2.Pac 2.Wilfred Benitez 3.Amir Khan 3.Pipino Cuevas 4.Bradley 4.Roberto Duran 5.Keith Thurman 5.Randy Shields 6.Porter 6.Pete Ranzany 7.Maidana 7.Adolfo Viruet 8.Guerrero 8.Joergen Hansen 9.Deigo Chaves 9.Luis Primera 10.Sadam Ali 10.Clint Jackson Floyd, Kell Brook, and Keith Thurman likely make this list (have no idea how good any of the fighters 5-10 were) due to sheer ability/size, with Floyd likely nipping at the heels of Thomas Hearns.

Personally I don't think it takes an atg to beat hearns at 147...he was brutal and talented but very young and wasn't a complete fighter yet...didn't take an atg to best him near his prime in Iran Barkley 2x when he was more skilled Styles make fights....the right mix of strength toughness an inside game could get to young hearns n smother his power Prime Leonard vs prime Floyd n PAC at ww is no cakewalk for srl The myth modern guys are gonna roll over and die at the site of fighters of the past is funny Duran and benitez were great but erratic at times at ww Cuevas would take multiple losses to today's guys...look at his record n his opposition That's right, Hearns was clearly a much better, more skilled operator in 1992 than he was in 1981. :dunce: You're just throwing your toys out of the pram now and making every single contrarian statement possible, all because nobody agrees with you that a bunch of mediocre midgets would have anything for Hearns.

Welter is a very weak division now, hence why it is overrun by smaller guys like floyd,manny, marquez, Bradley.. Donald curry would be killing dudes if he was around now.... Oscar, tito, Ike, shane, vernon,,,m that's a true welter division.... Wtf... You're trippin bro... No stronger division right now than welter. Mayweather, Bradley, Pac, Guerrero, Thurman, Maidana, Porter, Khan, Brook, Sadam Ali, Chaves... Tell me a single division which is better. With names. And don't say just 3-4 names tell a weight class where the top 10-11 is as strong in welter.

Personally I don't think it takes an atg to beat hearns at 147...he was brutal and talented but very young and wasn't a complete fighter yet...didn't take an atg to best him near his prime in Iran Barkley 2x when he was more skilled Styles make fights....the right mix of strength toughness an inside game could get to young hearns n smother his power Prime Leonard vs prime Floyd n PAC at ww is no cakewalk for srl The myth modern guys are gonna roll over and die at the site of fighters of the past is funny Duran and benitez were great but erratic at times at ww Cuevas would take multiple losses to today's guys...look at his record n his opposition

Duran-Bradley would be a hella good fight. Lol Hearns vs. Brook.. Hearns cracks the China in under 3. Hearns was carrying some pretty shiny china himself. But what stands out for me is the sheer size differential between modern day WWs and WWs of the 70s and 80s and even earlier. In fact, even well into the 90s there were some big, strong WWs such as Oscar and Tito. Nowadays, the division seems to be made up of guys moving up from FW/LW/LWW or draining themselves to make 147 with better nutrition that allows them to lose weight more effectively.

Is someone actually disputing Hearns wouldn't have laid waste to the WW division of today? I haven't read through the thread yet. Hearns is a bit of an iffy statement as he went up to cruiser even, he had a long lanky frame. I am not sure how the modern era boxers would handle Hearns but I do know that Leonard and Hagler did and I don't view them as better than the best of today. So it IS questionable.

Welter is a very weak division now, hence why it is overrun by smaller guys like floyd,manny, marquez, Bradley.. Donald curry would be killing dudes if he was around now.... Oscar, tito, Ike, shane, vernon,,,m that's a true welter division.... That was a beaut division too. But the current one contains probably the best defensive and the best offensive boxers respectively, lb for lb of all time, with a supporting cast of elite fighting machines rivalling any other eras. To call it weak because it's 2 shining examples came up from lower divisions as is possible now days, it's pretty silly.

Donald curry crushes present day welters... All of them

Is someone actually disputing Hearns wouldn't have laid waste to the WW division of today? I haven't read through the thread yet.

Again, Hearns would honestly KO everyone at WW today inside 6. Including this version of Floyd and Manny. The guy moved like a dancer, jab like a telegraph pole and a right hand from hell. Totally agree.... Tommy hearns was a monster welter and was only defeated by a prime ATG leonard in a brutal fight which hearns dominated for long stretches.. He easily ko's thurman, Porter, Bradley, etc... Donald curry would beat everyone as well..

Donald curry would be killing fools

Welter is a very weak division now, hence why it is overrun by smaller guys like floyd,manny, marquez, Bradley.. Donald curry would be killing dudes if he was around now.... Oscar, tito, Ike, shane, vernon,,,m that's a true welter division....

All of todays WW's would do well in the 80's equally or even better. The 80's was a strong era for the weight but still not as strong as today. It was the beginning of the professional era where sports science first was seriously applied to boxing. But today's mega athletes are so good it's a bit rich to demote them. I think Floyd and Pac for example would beat Leonard and Duran. I think that Canelo Alvarez would beat Hagler at MW! ^ Most guys would gasp at that above statement but the actual performances of the 2 guys doesn't lead me to a different conclusion. Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!! NO!

Hearn beats everybody on that list twice.

All of todays WW's would do well in the 80's equally or even better. The 80's was a strong era for the weight but still not as strong as today. It was the beginning of the professional era where sports science first was seriously applied to boxing. But today's mega athletes are so good it's a bit rich to demote them. I think Floyd and Pac for example would beat Leonard and Duran. I think that Canelo Alvarez would beat Hagler at MW! ^ Most guys would gasp at that above statement but the actual performances of the 2 guys doesn't lead me to a different conclusion.

Bro alphabet soups been around before you were born...there's been the ring belt since the 20s, the IBC, the NBA and nysac champs who were recognized as world champions since the early 1900s Wbc and wbc are alphabet soup and hearns won belts from the wbc, wbo and wba over various divisions where he was not lineal You pose like you followed boxing a long time but you don't That's right, less than there is now. The NBA & NYSAC almost always recognised the top fighters of each weight class, at worst the the other champion was the second best guy was a champion - that's how it was for most of the 20th century, even when the NBA became the WBA & the WBC replaced the NYSAC as far as influence. The point is, you're the sort of dunce the places great emphasis on winning titles. The contenders Hearns beat at 147 (Randy Shields, Harold Weston, Clyde Gray) never won titles because the opportunities to win them back then aren't as vast or readily available now as they were back then. His comp at 147 isn't as good as it was at higher weights nor was hearns in his prime yet ...youre in fantasy land His inside game, defense, conditioning and ability to clinch at the right time was not there at 147 He was very good but not as good as he was at 154 or higher His prime was at 147 & 154. Nobody tested him at 154 because there wasn't a Ray Leonard to do so in the division. And :lol1: @ him being a better fighter beyond those weights. Iran Barkley is no better a fighter than the top guys at ww Iran Barkley was a physically massive middleweight with the toughness and firepower to match. If you're using his win over Hearns to highlight why a bunch of significantly smaller manlets could also do the same, you're doing a f*cking awful job of arguing it.