Charley Burley Or Thomas Hearns?

[#1Assassin]

Burley. Too many good/great wins and no devastating knockout losses.

Comparisons are unfair to Hearns...

Hearns's biggest name win was against an older smaller Duran.
Burley's was against the naturally bigger, 28 years old Archie Moore.

Burley lost every fight in a series to Ezzard Charles.
Hearns lost every fight in a series to Iran Barkley.

u make it sound like he lost 8 times to barkley.. he lost twice, the second time he was way over the hill, and the first barkley just got lucky.

ppl who started watching boxing a week ago think duran was hearns' biggest win. hearns beat cuevas, benitez, leonard, hill aswell just no name a few.

u can think burley was the better fighter, but theres nobody u can compare hearns to and say comparisons are unfair cuz hearsn is the lesser fighter. hearns was a great, great fighter. any attempts to diminish him just takes away from your own credibility.

[#1Assassin]

You mean, like he knocked out Iran Barkley?

your an idiot..

[Southpaw16BF]

u make it sound like he lost 8 times to barkley.. he lost twice, the second time he was way over the hill, and the first barkley just got lucky.
ppl who started watching boxing a week ago think duran was hearns' biggest win. hearns beat cuevas, benitez, leonard, hill aswell just no name a few.

u can think burley was the better fighter, but theres nobody u can compare hearns to and say comparisons are unfair cuz hearsn is the lesser fighter. hearns was a great, great fighter. any attempts to diminish him just takes away from your own credibility.

There no such thing as a lucky punch you idiot. Barkley ment to throw the punch and it landed, end of.....

[Poet682006]

Burley`s claim to fame is that Eddie Futch said he was the best fighter he had ever seen.. well Naseem Hamed is the best ive ever seen does that make him better than Thomas Hearns

You aren't Eddie Futch: Futch has credibility.

Poet

[Poet682006]

u make it sound like he lost 8 times to barkley.. he lost twice, the second time he was way over the hill, and the first barkley just got lucky.

ppl who started watching boxing a week ago think duran was hearns' biggest win. hearns beat cuevas, benitez, leonard, hill aswell just no name a few.

u can think burley was the better fighter, but theres nobody u can compare hearns to and say comparisons are unfair cuz hearsn is the lesser fighter. hearns was a great, great fighter. any attempts to diminish him just takes away from your own credibility.

Don't you that maybe this

All time favourites: Tommy Hearns, Mike McCallum, Julian Jackson, Gerald McClellan

is coloring your perceptions?

Poet

[JAB5239]

Who do you feel was the greater fighter and give reason for your pick.

Burley. Hearns is one of my favorites, but Charley fought and beat more great fighters and was never stopped in almost 100 fights. Head to head I think he would knock Tommy out.

[wmute]

there is film footage available of both fighters, IMO Hearns would KO Burley within 4rds

Yes, I have seen plenty of footage of Hearns, and of course only some of Burley. What exactly makes you think that Hearns would stop him in 4 rounds?

Especially considering that Burley was not stopped by Charles or Moore (and others), who were among the best ever at 175, what exactly you see in that footage you see that Futch did not notice?

[Joey Giardello]

Burley. Too many good/great wins and no devastating knockout losses.

Comparisons are unfair to Hearns...

Hearns's biggest name win was against an older smaller Duran.
Burley's was against the naturally bigger, 28 years old Archie Moore.

Burley lost every fight in a series to Ezzard Charles.
Hearns lost every fight in a series to Iran Barkley.

Duran was not that old! he went on to win the middleweight title after hearns beat him, and the 28 year old moore was not as good as the 36 year old moore who never lost his lightheavyweight title moore was like fine wine he got better with age

[wmute]

u make it sound like he lost 8 times to barkley.. he lost twice, the second time he was way over the hill, and the first barkley just got lucky.

ppl who started watching boxing a week ago think duran was hearns' biggest win. hearns beat cuevas, benitez, leonard, hill aswell just no name a few.

u can think burley was the better fighter, but theres nobody u can compare hearns to and say comparisons are unfair cuz hearsn is the lesser fighter. hearns was a great, great fighter. any attempts to diminish him just takes away from your own credibility.

The bold is excuses. Hearns lost to Barkley twice and was stopped once, Burley lost to Charles twice but always made it to the distance. Do the math

Which one do you think is Hearns' best win? Now compare it with beating Moore...

I said the comparison is unfair, because it is. If you know who, when and how they fought, it is extremely hard to pick Tommy, even if he is a helluva fighter himself.

[Joey Giardello]

The bold is excuses. Hearns lost to Barkley twice and was stopped once, Burley lost to Charles twice but always made it to the distance. Do the math

Which one do you think is Hearns' best win? Now compare it with beating Moore...

I said the comparison is unfair, because it is. If you know who, when and how they fought, it is extremely hard to pick Tommy, even if he is a helluva fighter himself.

Duran was not that old! he went on to win the middleweight title after hearns beat him and was a great win for tommy! knocking out roberto duran is better than beating a archie moore who is yet to hit his peak, the 28 year old archie moore was not as good as the 36 year old moore who never lost his lightheavyweight title moore was like fine wine he got better with age