Was Tommy Hearns the greatest Boxer ever?????

Not talking about fighter here..I'm making the distinction!!

Just saying that on a pure Boxer basis could anybody in history match his all round attributes......footwork, height, reach, jab, power, body work and workrate etc!!!

Obviously as a fighter his chin lets him down!!

Was Hearns the greatest Boxer of alltime??.....For me everyone from Leonard, Gans, Cerdan, Fitz and Robbo can't outbox this guy as his arsenal is too good!!

For me they could beat the fighter but not the Boxer.....If you get my drift!!

I would say no as it was his size that accentuated his skillset, he was hugely skilled but would have to favour Leonard who didn't have such an advantage over everyone else.

Interesting question.

If we are going to say - minus the chin - then why not minus the height and reach - which gave him such an advantage as a boxer.

Certainly a fantastic boxer with a great skillset.

However - better than Sugar Robbo? Or Jack Johnson? Or Leonard?

Hearns' workrate was better than Johnson's - although their jabs/body work etc are all similar. Hearns has the reach advantage wrt a comparison with Robbo - however - I'm with Ghosty here - Leonard, whilst he may not have had the worlds biggest reach - he was incredibly quick. You haven't included speed in your attributes list - and speed kills.

So no - not for me - but Tommy is close.

Very good article, Truss. And while it's hard to pinpoint a clear number one, Hearns would be right up there.

If prime versions of Ray Leonard and Wilfred Benitez can't outbox him, then you're probably counting on one hand the combined number of Welterweights, Light-Middleweights and Middleweights from across the whole of boxing history who could.

Not sure it's fair to degrade him slightly on him having the size advantages, either. I've often thought that campaigning at 147 lb and 154 lb in his prime years actually cost Tommy a little, rather than playing to his advantage. Part of me thinks that he should really have been at Middleweight and upwards all along. Certainly, I think his legs perhaps betrayed him once or twice at the lower weights. I genuinely think that, had he been a Light-Heavyweight a few years before he was, he could have easily mixed it with the likes of Saad, Qawi and even Spinks.

Speaking of which, how good was his win over Hill? An underrated victory, for sure. Hill gets a hard time on here, but he was a very, very fine technical boxer and actually had the speed advantage over Hearns by the time 1991 came around - his jab was like greased lightning. What impressed me most about that is that Hearns actually used his ring smarts (which he's not usually noted for) to win. Hill was outspeeding him and beating him to the punch early on. And so gradually, Hearns let Hill come to him and began to use timing to turn the tide. Just a shame he didn't display that kind of tactical nous against Leonard first time out and Hagler!

A little lacking between the ears sometimes, and maybe not the best set of whiskers, but in terms of his physical arsenal Hearns was just about as close to pound for pound perfection as anyone has ever come, I think.

Interesting question Truss and its one I'm struggling to get my head around. For pure boxing skills I rate him very highly and would have him top 10 all time there and yet I have him the 4th best out of the Fab 4. It is all down to the chin that I see him slipping down but its because of his other natural attributes I.e height and reach that he is regarded as such an accomplished boxer. These led to him having a high boxing skill level as opposed to if he was of average size and dimensions. Hope that makes sense (but I wouldn't bet on it)

Personally for me the most skilled boxer I have ever seen has to be Leonard. Just a pity I wanted him to lose everytime I saw him fight.

But I dont think there is a more exciting boxer than Hearns. Yes his height was an asset. But he knew how to use it to his advantage like no other. Height can also be a disadvantage to some in that they have to punch down, but Tommy had everything. If he had a Hagler type chin, the only thing that would have seperated him as the clear number one was that he fought in an era where boxing was shown on colour TV.

As a pure boxer he is arguably the best.

I'm not sure I can name anyone who outboxes him over 12 rounds from welter to middleweight. Infact I don't think he was even beatable at jr middleweight, although I know McCallum's very popular on this board so I'm probably in a minority.

As far as pure boxing goes I'd put Willie Pep and Ezzard Charles into the equation too. Pep for being a relatively weak puncher who simply used his defense to win all the rounds and Charles for being such an amazing all arounder. I don't see how Leonard can be called the superior boxer (taking the fighter side out of it) as he was outboxed by Hearns. He had to turn fighter to win as we all know.

One of, decent arguments can be made for Mayweather, Whitaker, Pep, Leonard, Locche. Geuss it depends what you look for in a boxer, Wladimir Klitchsko is a fantastic boxer due to how he uses his says and keeps a consistent jab going, though he probably lacks the finnese youd expect in a great boxer.

To be ultra critical I would say that the greatest boxer ever doesn't let himself get knocked out 3 times whether he has a good chin or not, his chin just highlighted the flaws in his game. He wasn't the hardest to hit, lacked ring intelligence and was to easy to take off his gameplan. Had a lot of skill but was reliant on being bigger than his opponent.

He wasn't bigger than Shuler, Andries or Hill to name three.

He was stopped with one round to go when totally finished and out on his feet against Leonard. He weighed in two pounds under the limit and you could see his ribs. He went 15 comfortably at 154.

Hagler, he got taken out of his gameplan. As you say, a bit more ring intelligence...

Barkley he was hammering before he basically let Iran knock him out.

Vernon Forrest and Paul Williams were similar in size and got hit far more. Size is nothing if you don't know how to use it and few if any used it better than Hearns.

I agree with what you're saying JBW but without the performances against smaller fighters in Cuevas, Leonard, Duran and Benitez I don't think he gets rated so highly. Shuler and Hill whilst not being rated as highly are for me better victories because they were against more similarly sized fighters.

My main issue though is that you have to change all the things that were evident when he lost in order to make him the greatest boxer of all time namely ring intelligence, chin and temperament.

It's true he did have weaknesses, but he weighed in to the same limit as those smaller fighters and didn't rehydrate in Chavez Jr fashion, so the actual size difference wasn't that great.

I've heard Emmanuel Steward say he wasn't a natural boxer, just a really hard worker who had some great physical gifts. I think without the temperament he wouldn't have been half as exciting, excitement being his calling card.

Sounds like i'm being critical which im not trying to be and when I say size difference I don't mean weight but his height and reach advantage at Welterweight was massive.

True, but all fighters have natural strengths and weaknesses. Most great welters were shorter, which they couldn't help, but most were tougher and more durable too which Hearns couldn't help.

Superb responses......Think as JBW or someone poined out Hearns was actually outboxing Leonard....

Though as a fighter Leonard was superior..

I find it so hard to judge Hearns as a boxer Truss because of his size, far easier to judge a more traditional Welterweight like Leonard for instance because size to him was less important.

Size to my Wife has always been important.....

You can judge him on his lance like jab...bodywork, speed and power surely....

However easier to judge him on his package....and for me had everything apart from as you say "Intelligence" and chin...

His size was paramount to how he fought though so it's a hard thing to escape from.

Every Boxer's size is paramount to how they fight.......as people tend to fight to there advantages or to try to counter act their disadvantages....

Hagler being a case in point...Kept it outside against Vito and inside against Tommy...

It gave him rather unatural advantages at welterweight, not a criticism but it was fairly important, fairly similar to Mayweather in the lower divisions.

You do have a point.....

Anyway I've had a stressful week and i'm tired so I'll bid you adieu..and cheers for the debate..

interesting debate... i'd side with the 'not the best boxer, but impossible to outbox' camp.

Sounds like a contradiction to me...

How can a guy that outboxes everyone have someone that boxes better than him????

He outboxed Leonard but I always thought he was the better boxer.

Hearns the better boxer but SRL the better fighter. Hearns out boxed him whereas SRL out fought him to score the win.

no contradiction truss, its back to the attributes points raised earlier. Leonard had a better range of boxing skills imo, but it was hard work getting past tommy's reach and jab