Tommy Hearns was sadly underrated...

[Mintcar923]

Funny, it seemed as though back in the day many fans/critics would put Tommy's rivals Sugar Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, and Marvin Hagler above him. Fact is, you could also make the case that Tommy at the very least belongs up there with them or you could even make the case that he was superior. When I was a kid back in the '80's I had always believed Ray to be the greatest of the "Fab Four.." But now, as a grown up I think otherwise.

Fact of the matter is Tommy had amazing boxing skills, great two-fisted power, and a wonderful "Champion" kind of personality. In the first part of his career he appeared to be unbeatable. He either boxed circles around them or knocked 'em dead. The first Leonard-Hearns was an awesome all-time classic which Sugar Ray had won. The fight was dramatic and one of the greatest bouts in welterweight history. It could have gone either way but it was in the cards for Leonard that night. The second fight was perhaps the last great fight of the '80's and was a very similar fight. The only difference was Tommy Hearns won decisively and had avenged his loss in most peoples eyes. However, the judges robbed him and the fight was called a draw. This controversey called for an immediate rematch of which Ray wanted no part of. Why, because he knew who the superior boxer was! Also, I think it played on Hagler's mind on making a comeback being he got the upper-hand on the fighter who had out-boxed him.

Granted, Hearns wasn't perfect as he lost a couple fights he should have won. He employed the wrong strategy in the Hagler fight. I'm sure he could have implemented the one Ray used in April '87 and won, but I think he wanted to give the fans a great fight that night and it costed him. He also fell victim to a lucky punch in the first Barkely fight of which anyone could've.

More facts... Tommy Hearns bombed out Roberto Duran which NO-ONE ever did back in the '80's. He even climbed up to Light Heavyweight and defeated a prime undefeated Virgil Hill. But they give Ray more props for doing the same thing with the inferior Donny LaLonde!! Go figure!!!

One more last Ray Leonard comparison. Do you really believe Tommy Hearns would have lost as badly to Terry Norris and HECTOR CAMACHO at the end of his career?? I think not. I doubt he'd have even lost at all. I don't want to come off as knocking Sugar Ray or the others... But, in my mind Tommy Hearns was the total package in his era.

[Young Money]

Underrated? The guy is like legend status

[Bruce Almighty]

Motor City Cobra was no joke! Im reading a book called Hitman about the life of Tommy Hearns and hope to make it to his Hall of Fame induction. Definately one of my favorite boxers of all time, and yes i think he was better than SRL

[Scott9945]

I don't believe Tommy Hearns has ever been underrated. He was one of boxing's elite and was always regarded that way.

[talip bin osman]

well, mr. hearns is a hall of famer (ATG at that) and famous... he is respected and admired by most boxing afficionados that i know...

i haven't met anyone ( at least those who know what they are talking about ) who underrated / underrates him...

[Sugarj]

Funny, it seemed as though back in the day many fans/critics would put Tommy's rivals Sugar Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, and Marvin Hagler above him. Fact is, you could also make the case that Tommy at the very least belongs up there with them or you could even make the case that he was superior. When I was a kid back in the '80's I had always believed Ray to be the greatest of the "Fab Four.." But now, as a grown up I think otherwise.

Fact of the matter is Tommy had amazing boxing skills, great two-fisted power, and a wonderful "Champion" kind of personality. In the first part of his career he appeared to be unbeatable. He either boxed circles around them or knocked 'em dead. The first Leonard-Hearns was an awesome all-time classic which Sugar Ray had won. The fight was dramatic and one of the greatest bouts in welterweight history. It could have gone either way but it was in the cards for Leonard that night. The second fight was perhaps the last great fight of the '80's and was a very similar fight. The only difference was Tommy Hearns won decisively and had avenged his loss in most peoples eyes. However, the judges robbed him and the fight was called a draw. This controversey called for an immediate rematch of which Ray wanted no part of. Why, because he knew who the superior boxer was! Also, I think it played on Hagler's mind on making a comeback being he got the upper-hand on the fighter who had out-boxed him.

Granted, Hearns wasn't perfect as he lost a couple fights he should have won. He employed the wrong strategy in the Hagler fight. I'm sure he could have implemented the one Ray used in April '87 and won, but I think he wanted to give the fans a great fight that night and it costed him. He also fell victim to a lucky punch in the first Barkely fight of which anyone could've.

More facts... Tommy Hearns bombed out Roberto Duran which NO-ONE ever did back in the '80's. He even climbed up to Light Heavyweight and defeated a prime undefeated Virgil Hill. But they give Ray more props for doing the same thing with the inferior Donny LaLonde!! Go figure!!!

One more last Ray Leonard comparison. Do you really believe Tommy Hearns would have lost as badly to Terry Norris and HECTOR CAMACHO at the end of his career?? I think not. I doubt he'd have even lost at all. I don't want to come off as knocking Sugar Ray or the others... But, in my mind Tommy Hearns was the total package in his era.

I agree with alot of what you say............but you ruin an excellent post with an implausibly weak final paragraph.

Leonard finished the 80s as a super middleweight, took two years off and returns ring rusty two weight divisions lower at light middleweight. If theres one thing that history tells us about dropping significant weight loss when post prime its that you can suffer humiliating losses (Roy Jones/Ricky Hatton/Oscar De La Hoya/Muhammed Ali).

Terry Norris was a beast at the time (easily one of the better pound for pound guys around then, when his head was on the job!.....which it was for Leonard).

Just imagine if the Hearns that fought Leonard in 1989 had to drop two weight divisions to light middleweight (a weight he hadn't made in over 5 years!) with the last two years completely inactive. I'd wager that Hearns wouldn't last the distance with Norris!

And then after taking another 6!!!!!! years out of the ring when completely shot you blame him for losing to Hector Camacho. God only knows how good Tommy would have looked in 1997 boiled down to middleweight for the first time since 1988 with 6 years out of the ring!!!!

[lightsout_finit]

I would not call Tommy Hearns underrated..........

[TBear]

Hearns was amazing! But I guess sometimes new fans might underrate him.

[Mintcar923]

I agree with alot of what you say............but you ruin an excellent post with an implausibly weak final paragraph.

Leonard finished the 80s as a super middleweight, took two years off and returns ring rusty two weight divisions lower at light middleweight. If theres one thing that history tells us about dropping significant weight loss when post prime its that you can suffer humiliating losses (Roy Jones/Ricky Hatton/Oscar De La Hoya/Muhammed Ali).

Terry Norris was a beast at the time (easily one of the better pound for pound guys around then, when his head was on the job!.....which it was for Leonard).

Just imagine if the Hearns that fought Leonard in 1989 had to drop two weight divisions to light middleweight (a weight he hadn't made in over 5 years!) with the last two years completely inactive. I'd wager that Hearns wouldn't last the distance with Norris!

And then after taking another 6!!!!!! years out of the ring when completely shot you blame him for losing to Hector Camacho. God only knows how good Tommy would have looked in 1997 boiled down to middleweight for the first time since 1988 with 6 years out of the ring!!!!

Perhaps I may have been a bit misunderstood. I suppose I should have been a little more elaborate in my post about Tommy being underrated. What I really meant was that many alleged experts seem as though they rate him somewhere at the bottom of the Fab-Four of the '80's. Some may suggest placing him at 3 or 4.

Although, it is a matter of opinion and many would agree it would be possible for any of them to score a win over the other on any given night.. SRL was a damn great fighter in his prime as were the others. I just say Tommy was the most talented and had the best style IMO. The man was so diverse. I understand what you are saying about Ray's inactivity and I agree it did play a part on him losing the way he did. But, he had no-one to blame but himself. Tommy was just more dedicated thus wanting to stay more active. And unlike some, he never had the reputation for ducking anyone who called him out. I don't say it's not possible he'd have lost to the excellent Terry Norris. We can only assume what would happen. But, I just can't see him losing to a Camacho even if he had 10 years of inactivity!

[Poet682006]

Perhaps I may have been a bit misunderstood. I suppose I should have been a little more elaborate in my post about Tommy being underrated. What I really meant was that many alleged experts seem as though they rate him somewhere at the bottom of the Fab-Four of the '80's. Some may suggest placing him at 3 or 4.

Perhaps that's because he got KTFO by the two who are usually at the top of the list?