Thomas Hearns' welterweight resume is limited for an ATG

[Sir Babatunde]

Sonny he didn't fade in the end he got rocked while winning the fight! It happens even to the best at times. You give no credit because he lost....I do!
When you fight the best available competitors you can loose and the greatest have lost. Only fans have such screwball emotions when it comes to loosing.

In the eighties I was traveling the world working at boxing shows as a chief corner or a second as cutman.
I saw Hearns and Leonard grow up in the sport and the generation before them also. Cotto is a good little boxer but at 147 he has nothing for any of those men I mentioned. He is a lightwelter and he would struggle there against the 140lb greats. Sergio Martinez would do nothing against the great welters, he would be stopped most often. He has NO power!

If you can't punch hard throughout a fight you will be in trouble becoming a great fighter! Leonard had it in him and it took battling Hearns for it to come out. I give Leonard a lot of credit coming from behind but I give Tommy credit for his willingness and his challenge that brought Leonard back to win.

Fans are so funny when they talk about losses its as if your less of a man!!!
Ridiculous!
Ray.

Can you please stop trying to put words in my mouth it's friggin annoying. Lets clarify a few things:

1) I never said i give him no credit, i said he deserves credit for taking the big unification fight which he didn't need to do but what i'm not going to do is include it on my list as a notable win when he lost the fight, how hard is that to understand?

2) Everyone is a fan, including you. Just because you are a classic veteran boxing fan don't try to act like you are superior to other fans because you are immune to 'screwball emotions'. I'm sure you have been emotional over losses before, it's pretty much impossible not to have some personal favourite fighters. In fact, i'd even say YOU are showing emotion just as much as i am by deflecting away from the topic to defend Hearns.

3) I don't know why you are comparing Cotto to Hearns and Leonard, you clearly either didn't understand the topic or as i previously mentioned are trying to deflect from my topic on purpose.

I said Margarito's win over prime undefeated Cotto is better than any win Hearns had at welterweight, including Cuevas. 'Good little fighter' lol that is dismissive and typical for a anti-modern era boxing fan. Cotto is a LEGEND and the fact he is still performing at this level being 6 years past his best further proves that. He was drained at light welter, clearly more suited to welter or 154.

4) I never spoke about his losses as if it made him less of a man. Again, trying to put words in my mouth.

Most of what you wrote was completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[Mr.Fantastic]

hearns' WW resume ****s all over margaritos.

OP just doesnt have any knowledge of hearns' era and gives margarito credit for guys like cintron and clottey while overlooking much better fighters on hearns' resume out of ignorance.

guys like bruce curry, angel espada, clyde gray and eddie gazo are all as good or better than cintron and clottey. thats not even mentioning cuevas who considering the controversy surrounding the cotto fight is the best WW win on either guys resume.

title holders (back when there were just two belts) and top contenders in their day largely forgotten over time, just like cintron and clottey will be one day.

lets also keep in mind margarito basically spent his whole career at 147, only having two meaningful fights at 154 and losing both. hearns was like 23-24 when he moved up to 154.

No it doesn't. But it's not really fair though cause one spent a lot of years in it while the other did not.

The fight at 154 with Santos was a robbery, if you'd see the fight, you would know.

No they weren't.

Margarito>>>>Hearns at WW based on resume. Overall Hearns >>>x a ****load >Margarito.

[Ham Porter]

Cotto is a legend? Based on what? Vacant titles against unranked contenders and title-winning efforts against cripples?

I did say Judah and Morales were good wins, along with Matthysse and Khan which you CONVINIENTLY LEFT OUT, anyway that's off topic.

I left them out because they weren't decrepit old fossils and are actually worth listing. Judah and Morales were shot to **** and not credible wins for anyone.


And when you're attempting to discredit one of Hearns key wins as being way over the hill, it's entirely worth bringing up - particularly when the fighters you're bigging up were much further removed from their prime than Duran was.

I have seen the fight, just because it wasn't blood and cuts all over the ring with 4 knockdowns it don't mean it didn't take a lot out of Duran or that it wasn't a war, it was a techincal but vicious fight. And like i said he was already damaged from nearly 80 fights hence he was clearly past his best for Hearns.

It wasn't a war and it was nothing remotely close to being vicious. It was a slow paced chess match in which neither took any real damage over fifteen rounds.

I want to see your list from 1975-89 compared to 2000-2014, it'll be awkward when your trying so hard to think of names and then realise mid-list there isn't much of a difference. Please don't abandon the list, you offered it bro. Maybe it was a bluff but i'm calling your bluff. Put ya money where ya mouth is.

Fourteen years encompasses more than one era in boxing, and I wouldn't include the first couple of years of the 2000's among the heap of **** of this modern era.


Here's the sort of names prevalent at the elite level in the early to mid 80's when Hearns was at his peak: Leonard, Hearns, Benitez, Duran, Hagler, Spinks, Sanchez, Gomez, Qawi, Holmes, Arguello, Pryor, Curry, McCallum, Pedroza, Chandler, Nelson, Camacho, Saad.


Here's the sort of names prevalent at the elite level over the last five or six years: Pacquiao, Mayweather, Marquez, Mosley, W. Klitschko, Hopkins, Cotto, Mares, Ward, Martinez, Broner, Alvarez, Bradley, Donaire, Rigondeaux, Dawson, Gamboa, Golovkin, Gonzalez.


Before spotting the difference between their two, what do the the six bolded names have in common?

[Sir Babatunde]

Cotto is a legend? Based on what? Vacant titles against unranked contenders and title-winning efforts against cripples?

Yes the same cripples that 90% of people said would destroy him before the fight.... but that's none of my business.

And when you're attempting to discredit one of Hearns key wins as being way over the hill, it's entirely worth bringing up - particularly when the fighters you're bigging up were much further removed from their prime than Duran was.

Fair point, mainly with Morales who was a couple classes above his best like Duran but with Judah he was at his optimal weight class at least. still, the Duran fight wasn't at welterweight so it wouldn't be relevant to my point about his welterweight resume.

It wasn't a war and it was nothing remotely close to being vicious. It was a slow paced chess match in which neither took any real damage over fifteen rounds.

Ok we will have to agree to disagree on that one. Although Duran did admit he gassed out post fight, pretty strange for a 'slow paced' fight.

Fourteen years encompasses more than one era in boxing, and I wouldn't include the first couple of years of the 2000's among the heap of **** of this modern era.


Here's the sort of names prevalent at the elite level in the early to mid 80's when Hearns was at his peak: Leonard, Hearns, Benitez, Duran, Hagler, Spinks, Sanchez, Gomez, Qawi, Holmes, Arguello, Pryor, Curry, McCallum, Pedroza, Chandler, Nelson, Camacho, Saad.


Here's the sort of names prevalent at the elite level over the last five or six years: Pacquiao, Mayweather, Marquez, Mosley, W. Klitschko, Hopkins, Cotto, Mares, Ward, Martinez, Broner, Alvarez, Bradley, Donaire, Rigondeaux, Dawson, Gamboa, Golovkin, Gonzalez.


Before spotting the difference between their two, what do the the six bolded names have in common?

Finally the eagerly awaited list honestly i don't see a notable difference in the talent of both lists as i suspected but it is opinion based and would vary from person to person. At least you stuck by your word.

Enlighten me, what do they have in common?

[Ham Porter]

Yes the same cripples that 90% of people said would destroy him before the fight.... but that's none of my business.

There was no way of knowing what sort of state Martinez would have been in until he actually got in the ring on the night, and he resembled nothing but a cripple on the night. And it's not like there hadn't been alarming signs of decline in his previous fight.

Fair point, mainly with Morales who was a couple classes above his best like Duran but with Judah he was at his optimal weight class at least. still, the Duran fight wasn't at welterweight so it wouldn't be relevant to my point about his welterweight resume.

He may have been, but it doesn't change the fact that he was a good seven years or so past his prime and had lost and taken some beatings in the process in the years leading up to Garcia cherry picking him for a cheap win.

Ok we will have to agree to disagree on that one. Although Duran did admit he gassed out post fight, pretty strange for a 'slow paced' fight.

Not really, it's still a full distance that requires a great deal of conditioning to endure. Hagler had enough in the tank to outhustle Duran in the last quarter and Duran didn't.

Finally the eagerly awaited list honestly i don't see a notable difference in the talent of both lists as i suspected but it is opinion based and would vary from person to person. At least you stuck by your word.

If you want to make a poll asking others which group of fighters they believe to be of an overall greater quality, go ahead.


The bolded names are fighters all from a completely different era, but who have still managed to remain and be recognised at an elite level despite being years removed from their physical primes. PED use is one explanation; a significant decline in overall talent level is another.

[NoConcoms]

Spend 9 minutes out of your life and rewatch the fight. I know Hearns was a killer but Duran was not the same fighter that night. To be honest he looked like a complete joke.

Yeah, well it's pretty common knowledge that he had trouble making weight. He ballooned up in weight between fights, and it caught up with him. What else can you say? He wasn't shot. Because if he were shot, I seriously doubt he would have beaten Iran Barkley later on in his career. He just drained too much weight. It happens.

[Sir Babatunde]

There was no way of knowing what sort of state Martinez would have been in until he actually got in the ring on the night, and he resembled nothing but a cripple on the night. And it's not like there hadn't been alarming signs of decline in his previous fight.

Which one is it? the fact remains that 90% of people thought Martinez would destroy him despite the alarming signs you talk of. I don't know if you predicted Martinez to win but whatever.

Not really, it's still a full distance that requires a great deal of conditioning to endure. Hagler had enough in the tank to outhustle Duran in the last quarter and Duran didn't.

Ok so Duran didn't have the great conditioning required to compete 4 classes above his optimal weight class is what your saying right? i hate when people put words in my mouth and i don't want to do it to you but i think that's what your saying, correct me if i'm wrong.

If that's the case that further proves my point about him being over the hill for Hearns, a fight that took place after this but honestly it doesn't matter for this thread since that was at 154. Lets clarify this, you are right i did discredit this win but if i was talking about his resume at 154 i still would have mentioned it as a notable win, but pointed out the fact Duran was past it. However, this is about 147. Now onto the main event.......

The bolded names are fighters all from a completely different era, but who have still managed to remain and be recognised at an elite level despite being years removed from their physical primes. PED use is one explanation; a significant decline in overall talent level is another.

It's clear you have a 'glass half empty' mentality with regards to the modern era. By assuming that those six bolded fighters are either on PEDS or in a weak era it appears to put a negative light on things, failing to mention that it may explained by the fact that athletes evolve over time and can compete at a higher level for longer.

Also, I disagree that Wladimir is years removed from his physical prime but i do agree with the other 5.

Since you mentioned that lets flip it around:

Here's the sort of names prevalent at the elite level in the early to mid 80's when Hearns was at his peak: Leonard, Hearns, Benitez, Duran, Hagler, Spinks, Sanchez, Gomez, Qawi, Holmes, Arguello, Pryor, Curry, McCallum, Pedroza, Chandler, Nelson, Camacho, Saad.

These 3 fighters were also able to compete at the elite level despite being years removed from their prime. That leaves 3 vs 5, if 2 more fighters being able to compete at the elite level past their physical prime suggests they are either on PEDS or it's a weak era then fine, i don't share that sentiment. I would have thought it would be more drastic like 2 to 15 or something.

[Ham Porter]

Which one is it? the fact remains that 90% of people thought Martinez would destroy him despite the alarming signs you talk of. I don't know if you predicted Martinez to win but whatever.

Both. You can't pretend that Martinez hasn't been seriously hindered by knee injuries over the last two years, and you can't ignore his awful showing in a questionable decision win over a mediocre fighter like Martin Murray.

Ok so Duran didn't have the great conditioning required to compete 4 classes above his optimal weight class is what your saying right? i hate when people put words in my mouth and i don't want to do it to you but i think that's what your saying, correct me if i'm wrong.

Nobody's arguing that Duran wasn' past his prime and a beatable fighter at 154. He still had a hell of a lot more in the tank than Morales, who's initial retirement was welcomed by everyone at the time and Zab 'Super Shot' Judah.

It's clear you have a 'glass half empty' mentality with regards to the modern era. By assuming that those six bolded fighters are either on PEDS or in a weak era it appears to put a negative light on things, failing to mention that it may explained by the fact that athletes evolve over time and can compete at a higher level for longer.

The PED comment was just a throwaway, though you're incredibly naive if you believe a fair few (if not all) of the fighters mentioned aren't on PED's (especially when it's as glaringly obvious and blatant in Marquez's case.)

These 3 fighters were also able to compete at the elite level despite being years removed from their prime. That leaves 3 vs 5, if 2 more fighters being able to compete at the elite level past their physical prime suggests they are either on PEDS or it's a weak era then fine, i don't share that sentiment. I would have thought it would be more drastic like 2 to 15 or something.

You're comparing two guys (Duran doesn't belong in this conversation) in their early 30's to guys a decade older. Mike McCallum was the only fighter from around that age bracket that was regularly and successfully competing at an elite level in his mid 30's, and even an anomaly like him was completely spent by the time the likes of Marquez and Hopkins were picking up career-defining wins/performances

[Ray Corso]

Cotto is a legend in your mind? Well that clears up a few points.
If Cotto and Sergio are top ten fighters all time you must only know of 7 or 8 fighters all who fought in the last 8 years!
I'm not trying to put anything in your mouth sonny, stop whining and relax.
Your welcomed to think anyway you want to but when people offer their opinions don't get defensive!!!
Cotto is not a top thirty welter and Sergio to me has two or three good wins
and as a middleweight ran for two years from GGG! Rightfully so!

Take a chill pill and kick back sonny!
Ray.

[Sir Babatunde]

Both. You can't pretend that Martinez hasn't been seriously hindered by knee injuries over the last two years, and you can't ignore his awful showing in a questionable decision win over a mediocre fighter like Martin Murray.

Yeah but you said there was no way of knowing how he would perform on the night against Cotto or something like that but if he showed alarming signs of decline in previous fights there would be a way of knowing, especially when his knee surgeries were one of the main talking points of the promotion. It's easy to say he was crippled in hindsight as a way of dismissing the win even though most people had Martinez winning.

The PED comment was just a throwaway, though you're incredibly naive if you believe a fair few (if not all) of the fighters mentioned aren't on PED's (especially when it's as glaringly obvious and blatant in Marquez's case.)

I don't see how it's glaringly obvious in Marquez's case could you explain that? we all know it's glaringly obvious Aaron Pryor on your 80's list was a well known cheater with that special drink.

You're comparing two guys (Duran doesn't belong in this conversation) in their early 30's to guys a decade older. Mike McCallum was the only fighter from around that age bracket that was regularly and successfully competing at an elite level in his mid 30's, and even an anomaly like him was completely spent by the time the likes of Marquez and Hopkins were picking up career-defining wins/performances

Oh so now it's about age? Hearns and Leonard were clearly past their physical primes regardless if they were early 30's. And Duran does belong in this conversation, he was over the hill but still elite into his late thirties.