He probably is. But could he have made weight and been effective in the days of same day weigh ins?
I dont think so.
in terms of size alone Paul Williams definately is bigger but Thomas is more effective at the higher weights as of date. His power comes along wherever he goes too.
I'd say he's the biggest welterweight i've ever seen, but some posters disagree and see him as paper thin and delicate at 147..
What do you think?
I am almost finished reading his biography written by Brian Hughes. Malone, you should read it. I recommend it for all fans of both the sport and Hearns.
in terms of size alone Paul Williams definately is bigger but Thomas is more effective at the higher weights as of date. His power comes along wherever he goes too.
The only other fighters I can think of who remotely fit the bill at 147 would be Mark Breland, Maurice Blocker and Milton McCrory who were arguably on the delicate side and nowhere near as effective as Hearns.. As pointed out by Joey Giardello in the 1st post, Hearns had back and shoulders, not at all condusive to a beanpole.
I am almost finished reading his biography written by Brian Hughes. Malone, you should read it. I recommend it for all fans of both the sport and Hearns.
Comment