Who was better: Hearns or Leonard?

[Mr Boxing9]

Hearns beat Benitez as well, at Benitez's best weight imo
He also beat Duran, and never lost to him
imo his win over Virgil Hill>the Ayub Kalule win
He beat Leonard right after Leonard 'beat' Hagler...he should get about as much credit as Leonard's win over Hagler

Hearns was way ahead of Leonard before the late fight KO, and imo his other 10+ wins over top ranked contenders just about evens it out for me.

Leaonrd defeated Benitez when Benitez was UNDEFEATED, that is more impressive for me.

When they fought LEONARD BEAT HIM FAIR AND SQUARE

Leonard ended the 7 year reign of Hagler, something which Hearns cound't do.

Leonard in his prime or near his prime would of never lost to Iran Barkely twice.

Kalue in his prime was just as good as Hill, and when Hill fought Hearns he froze and admitts he did.

[Steak]

How can you say that they were both in there primes when Leonard beat him.

I actually think that if Hearns and Leonard had fought at 154, Hearns would have beaten him. Hearns was overall his best at 154lbs. power, speed, even better in the durability and stamina department.

lets face it...If Hearns and Leonard had fought in a 12 round fight, Hearns would have walked away with a convincing 9-3 round decision win. Which doesnt matter that much, but it should be taken into account a little.

[bojangles1987]

It is really close, as much as I don't want to say it Leonard had the better career. For me it comes down to two fights, Leonard beating Hearns and Hagler beating Hearns. They are even until you get to that point for me, and Hearns losing those two fights puts him behind Leonard, even if Hearns may have been a better fighter.

[Mr Boxing9]

I actually think that if Hearns and Leonard had fought at 154, Hearns would have beaten him. Hearns was overall his best at 154lbs. power, speed, even better in the durability and stamina department.

lets face it...If Hearns and Leonard had fought in a 12 round fight, Hearns would have walked away with a convincing 9-3 round decision win. Which doesnt matter that much, but it should be taken into account a little.

''But, If, Could, Would, etc etc. At the end of the day when they fought Leonard stopped him. Fact, so don't try and discredit Leonard's win.

[Guest]

I say Leonard because of three words Iran Blade Barkley.

I also pretend Leonard never fought Terry Norris.

[Stoppage]

Some fighters are just made for other fighters. This was the case with Duran-Leonard and Duran-Hearns. Duran is the type of fighter who will take your shots and fight with you.

He was successful against Leonard the first time because Leonard tried to play Duran's game of stand-in fighting. That wasn't a good idea since Duran had a great chin and could take Leonard's shots easily. Leonard did defeat him in two other rematches, though. That was because he decided to use his quick feet and fast punches to his advantage.

Hearns was all wrong for Duran. Not only did he have a great size advantage but he was pound-for-pound one of the best punchers, at the time. Duran got knocked out and it was bound to happen.

Leonard beat Hagler after coming off a long layoff while Hearns lost to him while both were active. And Leonard beat Benitez more convincingly than Hearns did.

Both were great fighters who would dominate the division today but I got Leonard over Hearns.

[Wiley Hyena]

I actually think that if Hearns and Leonard had fought at 154, Hearns would have beaten him. Hearns was overall his best at 154lbs. power, speed, even better in the durability and stamina department.

lets face it...If Hearns and Leonard had fought in a 12 round fight, Hearns would have walked away with a convincing 9-3 round decision win. Which doesnt matter that much, but it should be taken into account a little.

I can understand the debate, but the answer is quite clear to me. Hearns disposed of Duran in convincing fashion. That was a world class win. Leonard's experiences with Duran were totally different. Taking Duran as a benchmark.......Hearns wins the debate. Haggler is not a benchmark because he beat Leonard. That outcome was a robbery in my opinion. IN FACT, Haggler was the best of the three. But that is not the question of the thread.

[Porter's Dad]

Essentially, what separates them is the winner of their first fight. I don't really have a problem with that, even though I'm a much bigger fan of Hearns. If only Tommy could have survived those last 2 rounds

[Steak]

Leaonrd defeated Benitez when Benitez was UNDEFEATED, that is more impressive for me.

When they fought LEONARD BEAT HIM FAIR AND SQUARE

Leonard ended the 7 year reign of Hagler, something which Hearns cound't do.

Leonard in his prime or near his prime would of never lost to Iran Barkely twice.

Kalue in his prime was just as good as Hill, and when Hill fought Hearns he froze and admitts he did.

If you say so. I think Benitez was better at 154lbs myself, undefeated or not. not to mention that Benitez shouldnt have been undefeated going into the Leonard fight, because he got a gift over Bruce Curry. so the 'undefeated' thing doesnt hold much weight to me.

Leonard's win over Hearns was fantastic, youll get no argument from me. but Hearns VERY clearly should have beaten Leonard the second time around.
If Leonard>Hagler at that point(if you had him winning that fight)
then Hearns' win over Leonard should be about as good as Leonards win over Hagler.

Hill was the best fighter at 175lbs...Kalule was the best fighter at 154lbs. generally, you would give more credit for the win over the heavier man. I mean, even to this day Roy Jones' win over Hill has to be his best win at 175lbs. that says a lot about Hearns.

the Barkley losses I have no argument against. Those losses alone may be the reason why Leonard>Hearns, sadly.

[Steak]

''But, If, Could, Would, etc etc. At the end of the day when they fought Leonard stopped him. Fact, so don't try and discredit Leonard's win.

well, my point was that imo Hearns wasnt at his prime at 147lbs, but at 154lbs.

Leonard still gets an enormous amount of credit for the win though, no doubt.